This is taken from a transcript of a meeting he recently had discussing some issues of the world. "Coprophilia" is a very strong word. You will be surprised at its meaning if you look it up.


Coprophilia and the media

“The communications media have a very great responsibility. Nowadays they have in their hands the possibility and the capacity to form opinion: they can form a good or a bad opinion. The means of communication are the builders of a society. In and of themselves, they are made to build, to interchange, to fraternise, to make us think, to educate. In themselves they are positive. It is obvious that, given that we are all sinners, also the media can – we who use the media, I am using a means of communication here – become harmful. And the communications media have their temptations. They can be tempted by calumny, and therefore used to slander, to sully people, especially in the world of politics. They can be used as a means of defamation: every person has the right to a good reputation, but perhaps in their previous life, or ten years ago, they had a problem with justice, or a problem in their family life, and bringing this to light is serious and harmful; it can annul a person. In slander we tell a lie about a person; in defamation, we leak a document, as we say in Argentina, “Se hace un carpetazo” – and we uncover something that is true, but already in the past, and which has already been paid for with a jail sentence, with a fine, or whatever.
     There is no right to this. This is a sin and it is harmful. A thing that can do great damage to the information media is disinformation: that is, faced with any situation, saying only a part of the truth, and not the rest. This is disinformation. Because you, to the listener or the observer, give only half the truth, and therefore it is not possible to make a serious judgement. Disinformation is probably the greatest damage that the media can do, as opinion is guided in one direction, neglecting the other part of the truth. And then, I believe that the media should be very clear, very transparent, and not fall prey – without offence, please – to the sickness of coprophilia, which is always wanting to communicate scandal, to communicate ugly things, even though they may be true. And since people have a tendency towards the sickness of coprophagia, it can do great harm. Thus, I would say that there are these four temptations. But they are builders of opinion and can construct, and do immense good, immense.”

Link to the article

Edited ~ medicmandan

How is his description of the media wrong in this case?

I'm not the biggest fan of this Pope, but I think he hit this one on the head.

Because he phrases it to sound like he is against cancel culture, but it is not.  He is against misinformation from the likes of us.  This is just setting up for the embrace of hunter biden and the  the heart wrenching truth that is told in his new book.  Boundless grace yo.

ETA It sounds like he is mirroring the truth you see, but the left always accuses others of doing what they are doing, so he is actually mirroring the anti-truth, with flowy language, just gaslighting good people, and supporting the corrupt shits in power.

It's not the description; it is the pope's application.

Scalfari being the most obvious, where he paints Francis as saying heretical things, and the response from the Vatican is to say nothing, followed by non-denial denials, and then a subsequent interview.  

The rest of that 4+ year old piece is gibberish and economic illiteracy.

I agree that his application has been poor, but the sentiment is correct. Now, it would be nice if the entire Church took a stronger stance against the media, Biden, and other false Catholics.

The link is bad, so only commenting on the quoted excerpt.  What he says and what does are not always the same.  I take no joy in saying that; I've just been betrayed too many times.  I agree with what he wrote, but I don't think he means what that excerpt says at face value.  Every now and then he throws us a bone, but mostly persists in a globalist direction.  I think sauerkraut captured it pretty well.

I don't think he actually believes what he wrote.  He's using that as an excuse to criticize those with whom he disagrees and his language is not befitting of his office.

I had to quote him and pull out the link:  https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2016/12/07/news/europe-is-in-need-of-leaders-who-go-ahead-1.34752338

He does not have a way with words that's for sure.

Still, I agree with the sentiment. I know you don't like him, or even consider him the true Pope, and I know many here share that sentiment.

I myself am not very fond of him and would like to see a more conservative man in the office of the Holy See, but I am not quite at the point where I believe he is an anti-Pope or an apostate.

I will be glad when a new Pope enters the office, but until then, so long as he doesn't speak blasphemy while speaking in ex cathedra, I won't defame the office.

If he ever does, I would be the first to fight against it. I am more troubled by the copious liberal bishops and priests that are revealing themselves.

And just to be clear....I am only agreeing with his comments on the media and NOT on the errors of the Traditionalists in the US.

I whole-heartedly support the rise of the traditional movement in the US.

I just want that to be clear; I am only referring to his comments on the media.

You forgot to add
Globalist Pope


While I am Catholic.

He has done nothing about the
Pedophiles with in
and the  "Lavender Mafia"

also sounds like he's setting up a defense for a new round of pedophilia accusations.  I say that as a Catholic with hope for the future of the church.  I see the Pope as part of the "old church" culture that defends pedophiles, not the young Catholics that will eventually build a stronger, more reverent Church from the rubble left by the current occupiers of the Vatican.

Please link to a post where I said that or retract that statement.

This is the impression I have got from reading your posts. I believe I have seen where you don't always address him as Pope Francis but sometimes rather by his name or simply "Bergoglio".

If you have not, then I retract my statement. Even referring to him as Pope Bergoglio is a slight on  the office.

Again, if not, then I retract my statement and apologize.

Post a link to a post where I called the pope "Bergoglio" or one where I said that Francis wasn't Pope.

Again, if you have not, then I retract my statement and offer sincere apologies, as I stated in the previous post.