Now that the dust has settled after the Vatican’s summit on the Amazon, one unlikely result has been the surfacing of the connection between Pope Francis’ most avid traditionalist opposers and a broader organized network that has the aim of disseminating a particular brand of national populism.

Tradition, Family and Property (TFP), a group that originated during Brazil’s dictatorial regime and is known for its far-right attacks on “progressive” politics and nationalist defense of traditions, has been found to be one of the strategic and intellectual centers of the opposition against Pope Francis and his reforms. Not only have those intellectually close to TFP been supplying lines to certain elements of the conservative media, but it has also come to light that the group is close to the very activists and media organizations that have outwardly opposed Francis’s pontificate over the last several years.

The breaking point came when Bernardo Küster, a Brazilian social media figure known for his vicinity to the national populist president Jair Bolsonaro and outward rejection of Francis, was found to be the source of allegations of a “communist” and “pro-abortion” infiltration within the Vatican’s Synod on the Amazon. Küster himself claims that his own form of Catholicism derives from TFP and believes the teachings of the group’s founder, the traditionalist and dictatorial sympathizer Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, to be a potential font of renewal within the Church.

However, the relationship between TFP and opposition to Pope Francis is deeper. The organized opposition to Francis that emerged after his 2013 election and is represented by figures like John-Henry Westen of LifeSiteNews and organizations like Voice of the Family, are closely interwoven with the global branches of TFP. These anti-Francis traditionalists often prop up conferences and parallel summits in an effort to openly criticize what they perceive as the politicization of the Church under Francis. And what has recently surfaced is how TFP, and its many global branches and intellectual figures, are either instrumental to the organization of these events or even the very ones that set them in motion.

On October 4, on the eve of the synod on the Amazon, known traditionalist critics of Francis such as Westen, the Italian restorationist intellectual Roberto de Mattei, and Church Militant founder and far-right activist Michael Voris, met in Rome to discuss the “designs against the Catholic faith” that are “rooted in the current pontificate.” Present at this conference as one of the keynote speakers was José Antonio Ureta, a figure that is currently considered TFP’s most active intellectual guru and critic of Francis. Similarly, TFP’s global network — and especially its US branch, its most numerous and wealthy foothold — actively supported and publicized the event on its platforms and disseminated the conference’s material throughout its many local student and activist groups.

More recently, it has also surfaced that last week’s event with Cardinals Raymond Burke and Gerhard Müller, two voices known for their opposition to Francis, was co-sponsored by the American branch of TFP. The event, officially organized by the Napa Institute, sought to provide a defense for the “assault on the priesthood” that had been witnessed during the Synod on the Amazon — which proposed to allow married men to become ordained priests (something which is already allowed in some Eastern Churches and for former Anglican ministers in the Latin Church).

But the interaction between TFP and these traditionalist critics is not merely organizational. In preparation for the 2015 Synod on the Family, a document was published that sought to warn against the risk Francis posed to the Church’s traditional view of the family. According to EWTN’s National Catholic Register Rome correspondent Edward Pentin in his book, The Rigging of a Synod (2015), the document was a joint effort of TFP and Voice of the Family.

In fact, Pentin himself, who has recently been reported to have met Küster on several occasions and peddled the Brazilian social media figure’s allegations about a “pro-abortion” infiltration, has published TFP material on his personal blog, including an article by TFP’s Juan Antonio Varas, known for his anti-Semitic views and sympathies for the Catholic Inquisition.

But of the traditionalists opposers to Francis, the one with the most sympathy for TFP is LifeSiteNews co-founder and editor in-chief and Voice of the Family activist John-Henry Westen. Aside from the many events in which he co-organized with TFP members or invited them to take part, Westen has also been a vocal defender of the US-based TFP Student Action group. In one particular instance, on October 11, Westen came out in support of a TFP Student Action protest that had actively provoked students at George Washington University on September 30. Westen, in an article published on LifeSiteNews, describes the students that responded to the TFP protesters as “an angry violent mob.”

TFP and its many global branches are considered an ultra-traditionalist political movement that has the avowed intent of promoting a far-right national populist program, as seen in Brazil’s president Bolsonaro. The highpoint of its influence was in Brazil during the dictatorship and is today considered a cult by many.

The group’s founder, the now-deceased Corrêa de Oliveira, was an active supporter of the dictatorial regime in Brazil and supported conservative bishops Antônio de Castro Mayer and Geraldo de Proença Sigaud during their attempts to undermine the proceedings of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s.

These two bishops, de Castro Mayer and de Proença Sigaud, co-organized the anti-Second Vatican Council group, Coetus Internationalis Patrum, along with its most known exponent, the ultra-traditionalist Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

TFP today, despite its links with elements of the conservative media, is still broadly considered by many “too extreme,” even among traditionalists. Some working in conservative pro-life and pro-family lobbying groups in Europe have said that any association with TFP is “politically lethal.”

Yet, despite the group’s political program and negative connotation within ecclesial and political circles, it remains a central player in the much-followed and much-supported attack on Francis and his call to reaffirm the Church’s preferential option for the poor and excluded.


Image: Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, Wikimedia Commons

Liked this post? Take a second to support Where Peter Is on Patreon!

Daniele Palmer is a freelance journalist. He studied history in London and is preparing a PhD on French Political Thought. He currently works from Rome as the Vatican correspondent for Where Peter Is.

National populist org behind traditionalist opposition to Pope Francis

50 Responses

  1. Brother Finbar OSB says:

    Thanks for this, I get their material but will now stop!

  2. L Daily says:

    Authoritarianism often marches into the world through the door of right wing Catholicism masquerading as tradtionalism. Truly traditional Catholicism is this movement’s opponent. Pope Francis understands fully the nature of this opposition and we need to as well. Thank you for this article.

  3. Mike Harrison says:

    An important article. Thanks for this.

  4. Marie says:

    Great article, thank you. On top of worrying about what this is doing to the Church, the realization that this populist political movement is so widespread is very disheartening. It says a lot about human frailty, gullibility and selfishness.

  5. Anne Lastman says:

    Hi Daniele, thank you for this article. You have written in a coherent manner everything I’ve been saying for the duration if the Francis pontificate.
    All the names you mention i knew about and i believe you’ve left out the UK connection, the Munich connection, and other nations’ connections. It has been an all out unrelenting attack against His Holiness pope Francis.
    Why? Don’t really know.
    My theory is that a those characters have waited for BXVI to recover before bringing him to the Chair of Peter. Again. Or perhaps even a favourite cardinal.
    My sadness is first that there is such horror in Catholic Church. And sadness that many good people have followed these wicked people.
    Perhsps one of Pope Francis’s downfall is the fact that he has a very good friend who is a Rabbi and this is a negative in their estimation of him.
    All the negativity and attacks have been so that the Holy Father could be encouraged to resign or if that fails to help to push him.

    • Chase says:

      These folks despise the theology of Benedict XVI as much as they do Francis (it’s not like there is a huge difference once you look more deeply), so I don’t see why they’d want him back. They hated John Paul II, Paul VI, and John XXIII, and many of them even say nasty things about Pius XII. The problem is that while they like outward traditional liturgical forms, what they hate is evangelism. They hate mercy, they hate love.

    • Michael Eberl says:

      ” Pope Francis’s downfall is the fact that he has a very good friend who is a Rabbi and this is a negative in their estimation of him.” Is this a serious statement? Breaking news today, Pope Francis is now alleged to have stated 4 years ago to his atheist journalist friend Scalfari, that Jesus not only was simply a man while on earth, BUT that his resurrection was only spiritual, and not physical. We will wait for a denial from the Vatican, but as usual we will not hear a peep from the Pope. Here lies the problem, not his friendship with a Rabbi.

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        The Vatican has already denied it, during the Synod. This news is old hat

        And the Pope has no obligation to address these kinds of things. He has a Press Office for a reason

      • Michael Eberl says:

        Pedro, This allegation regarding the physical resurrection of Jesus was not denied during the Synod, it was just reported today. The Pope ABSOLUTELY has the obligation to denounce such a heretical statement falsely attributed to him in a major Italian Newspaper.

      • Michael Eberl says:

        Pedro, please read my actual comment. The NEW allegation is that Pope Francis told Scalfari that the resurrection of Jesus was spiritual, NOT PHYSICAL. This according to a new book just released today written by Scalfari.

      • Marie says:

        Honestly Michael, do you really believe this or simply love the drama? It’s so ridiculous it’s laughable. I truly hope the Vatican will ignore this insanity or it will never end. And the ‘sources’ for the constant soap opera garbage continue to profit from it, living the good life travelling all over the place while asking for donations to “Save the Church”. Such a joke.

        Did you see the picture of Cardinal Burke’s birthday bash late year, vs that of Pope Francis? How about that for scandal?

      • Michael Eberl says:

        Marie, I don’t consider my faith a “drama”. You act as if some far right Cardinal or layperson made these allegations. They were made by a so called trusted friend of the Pope. So far it has been alleged by Scalfari, from apparently the same interview four years ago that the current Pope does not believe in hell, the divinity of Jesus on earth, or a physical resurrection. Do you find it interesting that many Jesuits believe the same heresies? I do recall the Pope stating “no one can be punished forever.” That the miracle of the loaves and fishes was not a miracle, but simply people sharing, that Jesus sinned as a child when he was lost and then found in the Temple. Many Jesuits no longer have ANY supernatural faith. The current head of the Jesuits has twice now denied the reality of Satan. Ridiculous? Yes, but very sad.

      • M. says:

        HAHAHA! Scalfari? You can’t be serious.

      • Marie says:

        Michael- You are caught up in the drama, you just don’t realize it. This is not an intellectual battle. It’s a struggle with faith, and one’s willingness to submit to papal authority. If you do, everything seems to fall into place. If you don’t, scandal, heresy and conspiracy are around every corner. One’s ability to objectively analyze things is lost. Think about what you are willing to accept as true, and who by default you therefore accept is a liar. All this, even though Christ gifted us with his promise to protect the Church through Peter.

    • Lazarus says:

      For years is seems to be the common goal of neutering the papacy. This just my conjecture, but I’ve had it for years. They need the pope to be deposed or ignorable whenever he teaches things they don’t like, like the scandal of the global economic system. They need a pope who will only teach whatever they want to year. Part of the scam is to create so much chaos Catholics think obedience to the pope is papolatry since he’s a heretic or apostate.

  6. Dan says:

    What was the nature of the TFP “active” provocation at GWU? From what I saw they were verbally abused and at one point spat at for handing out pro-life literature before being confronted by an evidently angry crowd of pro-abortionists. Was there some facet of TFP’s conduct here that I’m not aware of?

  7. Cian O’Brien says:

    Sorry, but You lost me at your first sentence,
    “Now that the dust has settled after the Vatican’s summit on the Amazon,…”
    Because it hasn’t… the ridiculous and bizarre events surrounding the Pachamama fiasco has kicked off a firestorm that will explain further opposition to this Papacy without the need for conspiracies. It is unfortunate indeed but what is to come is not far right opposition through marginal political organizations, but grassroots outcry against the continued unsettling actions of the current Pontificate. It is very sad, but totally explainable by the inexplicable actions of the current leadership of the Church. I pray for Holy Mother Church, the Holy Father and the perplexed and concerned faithful that are his flock.

  8. Christopher Lake says:


    I’m not perplexed and concerned about what you describe as “the inexplicable actions of the current leadership of the Church.” Moreover, said actions have already been addressed and examined over and over in numerous articles on this site, so they are certainly not “inexplicable” to all Catholics.

    Whether regarding the indigenous carvings at the Amazon Synod, or regarding, basically, any other matter, period, which has sources such as LifeSite News, Church Militant, Taylor Marshall, etc., so up in arms about Pope Francis– for myself, I am at peace with, and joyful to have, Francis as our Vicar of Christ– and millions upon millions of other Catholics, in the U.S. and around the world, seem to agree. Filipino Catholics, from what I have seen, tend to have great, exuberant love and support for Pope Francis, as do Nigerian Catholics. What are they seeing, and loving, so much, in him and his teachings, that some “perplexed and concerned” Western Catholics are missing?

    In one very prominent example, the Nigerian Bishops recently put out a statement explicitly affirming their loyalty to, and firm support of, Pope Francis and his leadership and teachings, and explicitly decrying his outspoken critics in the Church. To say the least, the Nigerian bishops are not exactly known for their doctrinal or practical lukewarmness, ambiguity, or heterodoxy. How can it be that such stalwart defenders of Catholic orthodoxy are defenders of a Pope whom you and some other Catholics seem to perceive as being confusing, in not inexplicable, in many ways?

    Certainly not all, but at least *some* of their defense of, and loyalty to, the Pope might be attributable to the fact that, while they are *obviously aware* that there is criticism of Pope Francis from some Catholics, the Nigerian bishops, I am fairly sure, don’t tend to spend a lot of time *getting their news about him* from Catholic websites which daily, hourly, relentlessly, criticize the Pope, often (usually) inaccurately. Thanks be to God, the Nigerian bishops know that it’s not good to feed one’s mind, heart, and soul with explicitly biased charges and/or rants against Pope Francis that are, fairly predictably, not based upon what he *actually, publicly teaches* as Pope.

    • Michael Eberl says:

      Christopher, I agree that the Nigerian Bishops are not informed on the daily activities and actions of Pope Francis. Truth be told, I suspect 80% of the weekly Mass attendees are not either. Ask Catholics their opinion of the Amazon Synod, and most have no idea the synod even took place. The big difference today when compared to the Vatican II council is the internet and the ability to receive news immediately. I suspect the outcome of the Spirit of Vatican II would be much different had we all access to important Vatican news as it was occurring back then.

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        Actually, since you have been just proven wrong about Scalfari, I suspect it is not the Nigerian bishops who are not informed. I suspect that you take most of your (mis)information from news sites and pundits hostile to the Holy Father. People who are informed from outside that ideological bubble will not share your concerns

      • Michael Eberl says:

        Pedro, is the Italian Newspaper La Repubblica a right wing newspaper? FYI – In a front-page article in Tuesday’s La Repubblica, Scalfari expands on his earlier quote from Pope Francis, where the Holy Father is interpreted as rejecting the divinity of Jesus while on earth, and dovetails that statement with Francis’ alleged denial of Christ’s bodily resurrection.

        According to Scalfari, Pope Francis said, “He [Jesus] was a man until he was put in the sepulchre by the women who restored his corpse. That night in the sepulchre the man disappeared and from that cave came out in the form of a spirit that met the women and the Apostles, still preserving the shadow of the person, and then definitively disappeared.”

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        Okay, so Scalfari made a new claim from his interview that as you stated, was from 4 years ago. He made the headlines during the Synod for reporting something from the same interview which was officially denied by the Vatican. He also made the headlines 2 years ago for reporting something from the same interview which was officially denied by the Vatican. And we are supposed to do what with this new piece of information, besides not giving to Scalfari the credibility that we already know he does not have? Are we supposed to make a big deal out of this because…?

      • Michael Eberl says:

        Pedro, as I have made clear, all I and many other faithful Catholics ask for is the Pope to personally clear up this confusion. Personally denounce these heretical statements as lies from his friend Scalfari. It needs to be done NOW.

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        No. The Vatican has already denied that Scalfari is a credible source. People are not stupid, they can connect the dots by themselves.

        And anyone who wants to know what Francis teaches and thinks about the divinity of Jesus or His Resurrection needs not go farther than the multitude of speeches, homilies, apostolic exhortations and encyclicals published by Francis and which are accessible on the Vatican website.

      • Michael Eberl says:

        People are not stupid. Any high placed person who was falsely accused of such damaging statements would not sit idly by and let his underlings deny such accusations, especially the Vicar of Christ, involving the denial of the divinity and resurrection of Jesus.

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        Right… so we’re supposed to dismiss the wealth of papal teachings and writings about the topic and believe that Francis actually said those things that the Vatican already denied he said, just because he hasn’t *personally* done it? That’s reasonable /sarcasm

      • Michael Eberl says:

        Why is it so hard to understand that faithful Catholics need the Pope to clear up this confusion? We have spent the past thirty minutes going back and forth on this issue. I am not alone in this confusion. Why are you so against the Pope personally clearing up this VERY IMPORTANT matter? Do you think I would wish this to be handled any differently if Pope Benedict or John Paul was accused of such unbelievable heresies?

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        I am not against the Pope clearing it up. If he wishes to do it he will have my support. What I am against is people assuming that the Pope is *owed* a clearing up whenever there is a controversy that they magnify out of proportion

        There is no confusion. At this point, an informed Catholic should look at Scalfari’s claims and just reply “Yawn, next”. The only reason why this is not so is because there are people who are clawing at anything to criticize him. They *need* the Pope to be a heretic to justify their narrative so they come up with the ridiculous notion that the Pope is fooling everyone and using Scalfari as a cover to relay his real views. Of course, anyone with a good grasp of Francis’ teachings and writings (in fact, anyone with a modicum of good sense) can understand that that is not plausible. Again, there is no confusion except for people wanting it to exist, and it’s not the Pope

      • Christopher Lake says:


        Do you honestly believe that you are more informed on the daily activities and actions of Pope Francis than the Nigerian bishops, who have *explicitly pledged loyalty* to him and to his teachings? Do you honestly believe that the only reason, or the main reason, that they have made this pledge of loyalty to him and his teachings is because these bishops are, somehow, *less informed about the Pope than you are*? I implore you to seriously consider the sheer, outlandish absurdity of such a claim, before you make it, *if* you are even *tempted* to make it.

        Pedro has already answered your concerns about this “new” claim about Pope Francis from Scalfari, whom Francis has *not even met or talked with* for a good while now, so I don’t have a great amount more to say on that subject. Scalfari is not credible, and has *repeatedly proven himself* to be not credible, in his ridiculous claims about what Pope Francis supposedly does, and does not, believe.

        Every single time that Pope Francis celebrates Masses, he explicitly, verbally affirms the physical death and the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior. Pope Francis has affirmed the physical resurrection of Christ, in Papal speeches and writings, so many times that it renders Scalfari’s claim truly laughable. If you are actually going to trust such a wild claim from such a non-credible source (i.e. Scalfari), ask yourself this question– how often do you think that Scalfari, a committed atheist of several decades, takes the time to attend Pope Francis’s Masses, where crazy claims about supposed Papal disbelief in Christ’s resurrection are *disproved on a daily basis*?

      • Cian O'Brien says:


        I will extend the grace to accept the denial of Scalfari’s most recent misquote of Pope Francis from the Vatican, but what is inexplicable is why the Pope has continued to sit down with Scalfari and provide interviews if he is so inaccurate about reporting their conversations and causing confusion and scandal. Scalfari is also someone who he apparently calls a friend. Why would a friend make such claims and lie about what his friend is saying? Either way, it is confusing to the faithful and at a minimum a sign of bad judgement on the side of Pope Francis when choosing friends. And Scalfari is not the only example.

        In Christ,

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        Cian: all of the Scalfari kerfuffle are based on recollections from interviews from years ago. Even Michael acknowledged that. Francis is not giving him more interviews, but he cannot erase from the past the interviews he already gave.

      • Cian O'Brien says:


        Fair enough, I had not heard any such statements from Pope Francis or the Vatican that he was denying any more interviews with Scalfari, if you could provide the reference that would provide some peace of mind on my part. This article from the Catholic Herald which does report the emphatic denial of the Scalfari’s statement, however still references him as a “personal friend”.

        Dated October, the friendship seems to be intact. I find it odd that he is and would make such claims against a friend he knows is the Vicar of Christ, he must know it will cause controversy, Who needs a friend like that? Again not doubting the Pope his belief of the hypostatic union as he has made public declarations of Jesus having both natures. But what a strange friend, would you not agree?

        In Christ,

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        Please check the link I gave to Michael, namely this part:

        “The Holy Father never said what Scalfari wrote,” Vatican communications head Paolo Ruffini said at an Oct. 10 press conference, adding that “both the quoted remarks and the free reconstruction and interpretation by Dr. Scalfari of the conversations, which go back to more than two years ago, cannot be considered a faithful account of what was said by the pope.”

      • Cian O'Brien says:


        This does not answer my questions, I grant the denials against Scalfari, and that the Pope likely believes in the dual nature of Christ on earth as I stated he has referenced such pubilicialy. My question was does it show good judgement not only to give interviews to a source known to twist ones words but also call him a friend? Also my ask for reference was, him still being a friend, has the Pope or the Vatican stated, as you claim, that he will give no further interviews or have such conversations in the future with Scalfari, to avoid scandal? You stated plainly, as if you had knowledge, that the Pope will not provide such access again. If you do not know it to be true you should retract the statement as it was made in ignorance. If you do know it to be true, please provide the reference, I can find no reference to this in the article you sited.

        In Christ,

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        All the problematic assertions come from interviews done years ago before the controversies. There have been no interviews ever since or Scalfari would’ve used new material or the Vatican spokesperson would’ve addressed more recent interviews. I am not going to retract anything, because at this point I think it’s a very certain assessment that Scalfari will not be granted further interviews. I’ll retract if proven wrong

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        I second Chase’s request. I would honestly like to know those scholarly sources you consulted, since they seem to contradict the scholarly sources I consulted on this topic

      • Cian O'Brien says:


        So it fair to say you would amend you statement from “Francis is not giving him more interviews.” To “I have good reason to believe that Pope Francis will not grant Scalfari more interviews.” Do I understand you correctly?

        In Christ,

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        I can grant that, yes

    • Cian O'Brien says:


      I commented on this article in particular as it sounds like something straight out of Taylor Marshals book… it is alluding to conspiracy to explain the current situation. I find many people on this site automatically assume one gets their information only from “rad trad” sites if they are not in full agreement in sweeping the odd behavior of the Pope under the rug. Per the religion of the native Amazonians I read up on scholarly publications published prior to the controversy and find it inexplicable the Holy Father would host such a ceremony and allow Pachamama idols in churches. The explanation that no idolatry was intended is completely inadequate. The immediate reaction of this site to accept the obvious sacrilegious display, demonstrates a sort of cultic braiwahed response accepting anything the Pope does. Many parents harm their children unintentionally, such as accidentally leaving them in cars to die in the heat while they go about their legitimate business. A real tragedy and they suffer much as they never intended to leave their children is such a state. Lack of ill intent does not absolve one from negligence of doing their job as a parent. The Holy Father is guilty of negligence at the very least. Similarly he only apologized to those who may have been offended by the throwing of the idols into the Tiber, no apology to his flock for helping to create the pain and confusion they endured and are continuing to suffer. He should have included some understanding to his spiritual children but instead condemned them. I find this totally inexplicable and unacceptable.

      In Christ,

      • Chase says:


        Would you care to share some of these scholarly publications? Because everything I’ve read indicates that Pachamama as a deity is worshipped in the Andes, not the Amazon. And I have been unable to find any statues of her that remotely look like the wood carving that was at the Vatican.

    • Michael Eberl says:

      Christopher, my comment refers to your own words “I am fairly sure, don’t tend to spend a lot of time *getting their news about him* from Catholic websites which daily, hourly, relentlessly, criticize the Pope, often (usually) inaccurately.” What about the so called accurate criticisms? This has nothing to do with what I know or believe to be true, but what actual accurate reporting makes it to the Nigerian Bishops and fellow Catholics. Most Catholics do not follow issues that occur in the Vatican. I personally have followed, very closely the actions of Pope Francis, which coincidentally started when he first was quoted as professing “Who am I to judge” and “We no longer need to be concerned over “small minded” rules.

  9. Faith says:

    Michael Eberl, once Pope Francis responds to one attack, there will be twenty more. Reminds me of the scripture in Matthew about the seven evil spirits replacing the one who has left. Also, I would not respond to someone accusing me of adultery. It would be foolish to do so, and invite more nonsense.

    • Ann Malley says:

      Faith, the Holy Father invites attack and confusion by failing to moderate his speech and clarify himself when he errs by speaking out of turn. You may not want to respond to someone accusing you–a private citizen–of adultery. But if you were the head of a marriage council and there was credible evidence that implied you were in an adulterous relationship and were caught on video making misleading statements, you would be OBLIGED by your office to clarify yourself.

      The Holy Father invites nonsense by courting Scalfari and others and refusing to clarify himself. That’s either “foolish” or a planned modus operandi to speak freely about what he believes while giving himself some perceived cover.

    • Yaya says:

      @ Pedro and Christopher,

      I truly appreciate your clarity when it comes to the truth and to the facts. I have no doubts when I am reassured by your commentary that I am on the right road in standing with Papa Francisco. Even before I ever found this treasure of a website, I have followed Papa from the beginning and have not been confounded by his words or his actions.

      May our Virgencita continue to protect him.

      Prayers for all who frequent your fine website!

      P.S. Thank you Daniele Palmer for this fine piece. Helps to keep me informed on who and what to avoid ever more clearly.

      • Anne Lastman says:

        Michael I am serious about my comment. Very serious. The mentioned group is known for its anti semitic beliefs its not a long stretch to believe what I said and Michael anti semite covers itself in many robes.
        Michael I have been TOLD personally by one mentioned by Daniele that FRancis “has got to go. He will destroy MY church” (his church?) this at a conference in Europe and this about 4/5 yrs ago and only recently someone on fb said the words (re founder of TFP) “he is my hero) and I went cold.
        Your comments about statements to Scalfari dont require an answer. The interview in question some 4-5 yrs ago. Rehashing for scandal sake.

  10. Chris dorf says:

    Nobody should have to take this premeditated assault on his character and misrepresentation of his words and his beliefs that Pope Francis has to. but Pope Francis being the good Christian who is following the example of Christ that he is, stays quiet and forgives his enemies who are assaulting him at every turn. it seems that the same Spirit infiltrating the qanon group another conspiracy groups that defame people starting at the highest places it’s also infected many within the Catholic community.

  11. Chris dorf says:

    … and then there is this:

    Francis pontificate ‘a place of spiritual combat,’ claims papal biographer

    The resistance to Pope Francis is largely made in the USA, a product of an alliance between religious culture warriors and right-wing Republican politicians, Austen Ivereigh*, best-selling papal biographer, said during a talk sponsored by Fordham University’s Center on Religion and Culture here Nov. 4.

  12. Pete Vickery says:

    To those who won’t take the contributors here at WPI at their word wrt Eugenio Scalafari here is an excellent piece done last month on the whole affair by Jimmy Akin:
    I think it is very thorough. Many of us have mentioned here before that 95 year-olds who reconstruct interviews from memory can sometimes honestly get things screwed up.

Share via
Copy link