The Case For and Against Pope Francis: Two Opposing Persepectives

By Alexander Azadgan

Here’s the first perspective: Against

We are quick to forget that Pope Francis was not a hero. He is not a saint. He is not a symbol of faith. He is another globalist foot soldier, a political actor in robes who has covered for predators, sold out the faithful, and turned the Vatican into a woke mouthpiece for the radical left.

Let’s not forget:

• He defended bishops accused of covering up child rape.
• He refused to answer allegations that he helped shield Cardinal McCarrick, a serial predator.
• He allowed donations meant for the poor to be gambled away in shady real estate deals.
• He signed a secret deal with Communist China, betraying millions of underground Catholics in favor of CCP control.
• He publicly praised globalism, attacked capitalism, and has done more to promote socialism than to protect Christian / Catholic values.
• He cracked down on traditional Catholics while welcoming Pachamama idols into the Vatican.
• And through it all, the Vatican remains entangled in financial corruption, sexual abuse cover-ups, and elitist agendas.

This man has not cleansed the Church. He has helped it rot further from within.

Pedophilia, globalism, and woke ideology do not belong in any of our Christian churches!

Pope Francis is not a beacon of faith. He is a scourge on religion and freedom, wrapped in a white robe and cheered by the same elites who push drag shows in schools and Marxist indoctrination in our institutions.

This first perspective believes enough is enough. It assertd that we need God, not globalism. We need truth, not twisted doctrine.

As Mel Gibson, the amazing director of the movie “Braveheart” (1995)  “Passion of the Christ” (2004) and its sequel “Resurrection of the Christ” (2025) who happens to be a devout Catholic a  articularly stated: “The papacy of Francis brought confusion where there should have been clarity, compromise where there should have been courage. He embraced a modern world that mocks Christ, and in doing so, many souls were led astray.”

Here’s the second perspective: For

When Francis died, he had barely $100 in personal assets. He had no bank accounts, properties, or investments in his name.

Although he could have earned 340,000 euros a year, he never accepted a salary from the Vatican, as he took a vow of poverty and lived on the bare minimum. Francis renounced the luxuries of the papal palace and chose to live in the simple Casa Santa Marta. His expenses were of course covered, but his lifestyle was austere and consistent with what he preached.

His memorial service will be held at the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, not in the Vatican like his predecessors. His coffin will be a simple wooden one.

Was he perfect? No! Am I idealizing him? Far from it! I’m even hesitant writing this article as I believe the Roman Catholic Church has much blood on its hands: the blood of martyrs at that! Also, there’s nothing natural about priests not being allowed to get married which has culminated in nothing but vile homosexual behavior and pedophilia that have grappled this 2,000 year old institution.

But credit must be given when credit is due. I vehemently disagreed with Francis on the LGBTQ inclusion and he was  wrong when it came to the Covid vaccine which he ignorantly promoted. Plus, in the 1960s and 70s, he didn’t stand up for the innocent people that were being murdered by the right-wing death squads in Argentina. He never stood up to the juntas in that country – something he deeply regretted later.

But at least, he wasn’t into material possessions like the rest of his glittery church. At least, he was humble and consistent. At least, he was big on service and altruism which is the core of true Christianity.

And one more thing: Francis spoke bravely against Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people, literally right to the end: his Resurrection Sunday speech.

Lastly, here are some strange anomalies that took place in Vatican to add spiritual mystique. Call it an ascension from the profane to the sacred:

When Pope Francis opened the “Five Sacred Doors” earlier this year, something weird happened.

To most, it was just tradition, i.e. part of declaring 2025, “A Year of Jubilee”. But those watching closely saw fear in Pope Francis’s eyes, a hesitation in his steps, and swore they heard a child laughing behind the door!

These doors usually symbolize mercy and renewal. But all five being opened at once? Unheard of! And one of them, some say, was never meant to be opened: the tomb of Lucifer!

After that moment, everything unraveled. The pope was hit with double pneumonia. Rumors of a coma spread. Inside the Vatican, people said he screamed at night, terrified, claiming demons were coming for him.

And now, as Resurrection Sunday ended here in the U.S., Pope Francis is gone. Coincidence or has something begun when those doors opened?

The Roman Catholic Church now faces a moment like no other. According to ancient prophecy, the next pope, Peter the Roman, could be the last!

I’m predicting that the next pope will be Cardinal Pietro Parolin (Vatican’s Secretary of State since 2013) thereby fulfilling the end times prophecy which states:

“In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will reign Peter the Roman.”

Cardinal Pietro Parolin is only 70 years old and has worked in the diplomatic service of the Holy See for 30 years.

The papal conclave is set for May 7th, when the cardinals will meet for morning Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica with the purpose of praying for the wisdom needed to choose the next pope. Conclaves are usually held 15 to 20 days after the pope’s death.

The College of Cardinals has a total of 252 members, but only 135 are eligible to vote in a conclave. Those eligible to vote are known as cardinal electors, and they must be under 80 years old on the day of the Pope’s death.

DISCLAIMER: I maintain my 1^st Amendment right to be able to express my own personal views on different issues, especially controversial ones. I do not, never have, never will promote anyone’s “propaganda”.  I’m an equal opportunity critic and a 100% financially and ideologically independent and patriotic American scholar whose core academic responsibility and moral obligation is to speak the truth and raise awareness. I’m guided by John 8:32 which states, “Truth shall set you free.” As such, the content of all my social media posts, tv interviews, lectures, podcasts, webinars, published articles, etc. (which are all at my personal capacity) are presented SOLELY as my own  opinions. Therefore, my points of view should not be misinterpreted, mischaracterized, and/ or misconstrued as a statement of promoting (on behalf of) ANY person(s), ANY political cause, ANY organization, ANY government, and/ or ANY country. Any assertions to the contrary are categorically false and are a misrepresentation of facts and would be considered libelous and slanderous, i.e. a defamation of my personal character and public persona. I’m simply exercising my 1^st Amendment right as a proud American citizen, which is freedom of speech and freedom of thought.