What Charlie Thought of Francis and Leo

By 

It is common at the death of a great man for smaller minds to weaponize great minds for their own personal wheelhouse of ideas.  For example, in regards to the fallen Charlie Kirk, his friends on earth are currently engaged in bitter debates on if he was changing his once-favorable views towards the current state of Israel.  (We will not be delving into that today.)

People are also debating if Charlie Kirk was on his way to Catholicism before his assassination. Of course, Catholics are insisting he was. Evangelical Protestants are saying he was not.

In previous articles, I wrote that I believed there was a good chance he was a catechumen in his heart, even if not on paper.  While I can’t prove this, I still hold to that as a serious possibility.  Erika Kirk recently had an interview with the New York Times about his death.  The NYT described the interview with her: “Around her neck was the pendant of St. Michael that her husband was wearing when he was shot. The medics had ripped it from his body while attempting to stop the bleeding. A trace of blood remained in the crevice of the cross.”

Thus, he died wearing a medal of St. Michael.  That’s pretty Catholic to me.

But Charlie never formally entered the Catholic Church.  Why not?  I believe it’s because of the anti-Christian theology and politics he constantly saw emanating from the Vatican under the current regime and former regime.  Charlie was told by his Catholic friends that Francis and Leo were the “Vicars of Christ.”  But Charlie was smart enough to know that the term “Vicar of Christ” meant literally a spokesperson.  Simply put, Charlie Kirk could not believe that the very mouthpiece of Jesus Christ on earth was a Marxist.

And no, we’re not talking here about the bad morals of past frisky Popes of the Middle-Ages, but rather the faith being destroyed by current non-Christians in the Vatican.

Michael Knowles (a good Catholic) was on the Charlie Kirk Show discussing Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism before the latter was shot and killed.  Admittedly, Charlie indicated several hurdles to becoming Catholic including transubstantiation and certain doctrines on Mary.  But at time-stamp 4:42 in the video here, Charlie then adds:  “But the biggest one is the papacy.  I can’t get over the idea of this Marxist who calls himself the head of your Church being a representation of Christ Our Lord.  I mean that as someone who loves the Catholic impact on the world, that says it openly.  And by the fruit you will know it, and you have very Marxist fruit.”

A couple minutes later, Charlie reminds Michael that Francis promoted gay-blessings and climate-change.  Then, at time-stamp 7:03 Charlie shockingly says something prophetic:  “If my pastor starts saying crazy things I find a new pastor.  So if your pope starts saying crazy things, maybe he’s not the Pope.”  (Go listen to the video if you don’t believe it.)

How about Leo?  In May of 2025, following the last Conclave, Charlie Kirk was on a show with two good Catholics I know in real life:  Fr. Pavone and Mr. John Yep.  In yet another prophetic (and evidence-based) statement, Charlie Kirk then said: “OK. I mean, look. Not — everyone was doing it in 2020. Well, not us, but, Mr. Prevost, the new pope, was retweeting George Floyd propaganda. But that is what it is. Whatever.”

First of all, it’s interesting he called “the new Pope” by the title “Mr. Prevost.”  Secondly, Kirk was referring to real tweets I saw.  On that fateful day of May 2025, I too went through his now-deleted X account and I found the same thing Charlie Kirk did:  Leftist-ideology and open-borders policies from the North American cleric living in South America.

Earlier that day, Catholics online wanted to hear everything I had to say.  But later that afternoon, something like a spell (and I don’t use that word lightly) was placed on the Catholic world, and no one wanted to hear the evidence of my findings anymore.

Charlie Kirk saw the same evidence that our conservative Cardinals in the Catholic Church have seen over the last decade, but Charlie had the courage to say it.  The two differences remaining now are: 1) Charlie Kirk said it out-loud, namely, that these regimes in Rome aren’t even Christian, much less Catholic, and 2) The current conservative Cardinals had (and have) the power to do something, certainly more than a dead-man.

And yet he spoke prophetically, so they need to listen to him.

Just today, the day after the 300,000 person strong memorial service for Charlie Kirk in Arizona following his assassination, Cardinal Sarah said to Leo in Rome that Fiducia Supplicans “threatens the unity of the Church. It is a document to be forgotten.” It’s a good start, but “forgotten” is not possible with dogma already entered into the annals of official Vatican documents.  Either Francis was Pope or he was not.  If he was Pope, we priests must be obedient to his command for us to bless gay-couples.  “Forgetting” in the age of the internet is impossible.

Yes, I realize I run the risk of being one of those “smaller minds” that might be weaponizing the death of a great man for my own little wheelhouse.  But my “little wheelhouse” is the salvation of the whole world.  Indeed, the salvation of the world depends on the conservative Cardinals calling out the last two Conclaves, as I wrote here and here.  Charlie Kirk reveals what millions of Christians already suspected:  True Christian unity depends on the Catholic Church, and specifically with the Pope.

But again, Charlie Kirk stated the obvious: “If my pastor starts saying crazy things I find a new pastor.  So if your pope starts saying crazy things, maybe he’s not the Pope.”  And then months before his death, Charlie said: “Mr. Prevost, the new pope, was retweeting George Floyd propaganda.”  Again, go look at the above hyperlinks above if you doubt those two sentences.

The so-called “conservative Cardinals” who refrain from stopping the heretical madness in the Vatican probably do so for false-peace and false-unity, thinking their silence will “keep the family together.”  Or perhaps, like Chris Jackson recently wrote, they were just looking for the “best terms of surrender” on the Latin Mass after this many years of destructive modernism ruling the Vatican.

But Charlie Kirk might be only the tip of the iceberg in how many serious non-Catholic Christians (both evangelical and Orthodox) refrain from entering the Catholic Church because of the silence of a few conservative Prelates of the Roman Catholic Church.  It’s unimaginable how many souls the good-guys in Rome will have on their hands at the General Judgment for not removing the bad-guys who arrived there illegally.

Even Charlie Kirk recognized the latter couldn’t even be considered Christian.

28 thoughts on “What Charlie Thought of Francis and Leo”

  1. Charlie is probably not a saint. Talking about holy people incidentally while rambling about politics does not make you a holy martyr. I don’t trust his discernment because he doesn’t realize God does not agree with white supremacy, that God’s masterpiece is in fact a Middle Eastern woman and His Son is not ethnically European. Neither did Jesus agree with the Jewish supremacists of His day that treated Gentiles as savages–who no doubt assumed that God’s lack of fiery chastisement was a sign of tacit agreement. Some chosen people dude actually asked Him who is neighbor is, trying to justify himself for not treating unclean savages as his neighbor.

    Kirk needs prayers if he made it to purgatory. So does Trump and his cult, that they may repent for abusing religion for their political circus. The guy claimed God chose him, but promotes anti-gospel values.

      1. He can’t. Like Franky and Leo, Kirk was demonstrably more Catholic than them, and likely Mr. Thomas, put together.
        https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/charlie-kirk-saw-through-francis

        The fact that Kirk, a prot, called them out for being less than protestant, is what irks them.

        So what do the idiots have left? A meaningless cry-wolf word like “whyte supreme fries.” which like “anti-semitism” and “homophobe” doesn’t carry the verbal oomph it used to.

    4. Well doubting-Tom, I feel quite chuffed to declare that Charlie-boy’s odds of making it into heaven are far far FAR better than Franky’s, or even Leo’s at this moment in time!

      Are you familiar with the concept of Pascal’s wager, Tommy?

      Even God is known for showing favor to those not-of-the-faith rulers who at least “abuse” religion in the right direction!

      You think anyone lost their soul for upholding Christian morality strictly for votes?

      Was the pagan Constantine wrong for “abusing” Christian symbols to conquer and further his political ends for his empire?

  2. I have a Lutheran friend who was contemplating religious things a few years ago and I tried to convince him of the reasons why only the Catholic Church can be the one true Church. He seemed pretty receptive to the points I was making, but his final comment was “ya, but what about the Pope?” – not meaning the office of the Pope, but the Pope at the time (Francis) and the crazy things he was doing. You see, being curious, he was paying attention.
    I think what most of the “professional”Catholic commentators are completely dropping the ball on is the concept of scandal. I heard them talking about how Pope Leo’s interview was a kind of code, where what he said wasn’t exactly what he meant, or that he has to be extremely cautious and speak in a very nuanced manner. In fact, it could take a long time to pull back the reigns on the last few years.
    This is ridiculous and not Catholic. How many people die each day who won’t be converted? How many people are searching right now, but give up because it doesn’t make sense?
    These “professional” Catholics, who have the privilege of understanding the Faith for the most part, say that we need to just hold to the Faith and give the Pope time to come around. The problem though, is that most Catholics, and for sure, most non Catholics don’t have much of an understanding of the Faith at all and so when the Pope speaks and acts, they take him at his word. I want to hear how the Pope splainers justify the scandal caused to millions of souls as each day passes.

    1. All of this is entirely correct, and boy will you enjoy the next episode of the Barnhardt Podcast.

    2. I think there’s some truth to the code theory as was presented by Gavin Ashenden. If trads listen to it with an open mind, they’ll see that this is not the popesplaining we saw with Bergoglio and his popesplainers.

      1. So when the Pope says (paraphrasing): I think attitudes must change before we even think about changing what the Church teaches, he really meant to say: since the teachings of the Church cannot change, we must conform our attitudes to what the Church has always taught?
        It’s a good thing we have Gavin Ashenden around to tell us to set our decoder rings to “opposite meaning” so we know exactly what the Pope meant…

        1. I don’t believe that Pope Leo actually believes that doctrine can change or that homosex is not a sin. However, for whatever reason, he’s unable to state this plainly. So I agree with the Ashenden theory that Leo saying that doctrine is unlikely to change in the near future means, it’s not going to change under my watch.

          1. Kevin, this is not some mistranslation that some popesplainer needs to decode. It’s right there on video, in plain English. “Until attitudes change… we can’t even think about changing doctrine.” UNTIL ATTITUDES CHANGE.

      2. Popes have a duty to explain and define the faith and moral law clearly. Not speak in “code.” Jesus Christ HATED the behavior of men like this. Don’t be foolish and fall for that modernist schtick.

  3. Father Nix’s article is a great example of how none of us know anything, and deal with the uncertainty and dissonance by pretending we know.

    “Erika Kirk recently had an interview with the New York Times” – who are known to get interviews wrong.

    “Charlie never formally entered the Catholic Church.” – How would you know Charlie simply hadn’t announced it yet? But I also wouldn’t know either. Nobody knows either way, except his widow.

    “Michael Knowles (a good Catholic)” – Who recently said, Jews get into Heaven by following Christ without realizing it. Yup. Knowles’ theology is that bad. Knowles doesn’t even know to say “natural law” – as he completely ignores Purgatory.

    The whole article: Yet another exercise – and there have been many; I don’t mean to pick on the good Father – in “I expect Charlie wasn’t Catholic but I am confused by my feelings of admiration for him, therefore, I am going to give all the reasons why Charlie secretly was like me and what I would want.” Some people even pretend Charlie somehow wasn’t 100%, whole-hearted MAGA.

    1. Was Charlie 100% MAGA on Zionism? No. Was he 100% MAGA on life issues? Not even close. Ukraine? No.

      1. Mark – MAGA questions U.S. wars of intervention & always has. Trump in 2016 got his key victory margin from Ohio military families who lost children in those wars.

        MAGA in 2024 objected to Ukraine aid, loudly. MAGA largely questions Israel – though OK, not everybody – and largely supports life – ditto.

        So was Charlie 100% MAGA on those things? Indeed he was.

        Have a video of Charlie on election night 2024, in full MAGA regalia with Jack Posobiec. They’re 2 peas in a pod.

        https://x.com/i/status/1969414174498570542

        I’m just an observer and, as an observer Mark, seriously where did you get all this crap? That, just because you perceive Trump as too far in bed with Netanyahoo (who in fact preferred Biden & famously backstabbed Trump in 2020), therefore the ordinary MAGA type people – of whom Charlie was definitely a huge one, 1000% in – must therefore be pro-Israel crazed neocons? How did you, Mark, arrive there?

      2. P.S. Another election night 2024 – Charlie HOLDING BACK TEARS OF JOY when Trump won.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2CieSxA71g

        Seriously people, get real.

        Nobody’s perfect. MAGA is largely (but not perfectly) anti-war. MAGA is largely (but not perfectly) pro-life. Charlie was 1000% in that, absolutely yes.

        If that puts you in cognitive dissonance – Well then, maybe you picked up a few blind spots or misperceptions somewhere.

        You can admit that Charlie was non-Catholic, non-MAGA & you hate him & figure he must be in Hell for all the terrible evil that (you think) he supported.

        Or you can admit that your feelings of admiration for Charlie are well-placed; AND THEN, either some of your other perceptions might be mistaken and you’ll simply update them now, OR ELSE, Teh Joooz! have been playing ultra-Rube-Goldberg-complicated-50,007-layer 8-D chess again and let’s all go down that rabbit hole and stay stuck in that crazed rabbit hole forever.

        1. 5:30 “No one here has worked harder (for Trump’s win) than Charlie” – to which Charlie says, “I am just humbled by God’s grace”.

          In 2024 and only after Trump himself, CHARLIE DEFINED MAGA. I mean he was THE second-most important person for even saying what constitutes MAGA.

          I’ll give you “Jews crew” out there, this one key concession: If Ukraine or Israel – *BOTH* headed up by lying perverse dictators who happen to be Jewish – did want to knock out MAGA’s strong anti-war element, Ukraine-or-Israel would start by trying to assassinate Trump & JD Vance and, if & when they failed, Ukraine-or-Israel would logically move on to Charlie as the next person they could get to.

    2. Are people even reading the article?

      Because Charlie’s ultimate fate and who he “belonged” to is NOT the point of the article.

      The point is that the FACT Charlie didn’t formally become Catholic is because of the scandalous deeds of men like Franky and Leo who obviously aren’t Catholic, yet many Catholics willfully blindly insisted they are and that “There’s noooootttthhiiinngg we can dooooooo…!!!”

      If Charlie didn’t make it to Heaven, his damnation will be very partially their responsibility. You are your brother’s keeper.

  4. So is Father Nix a small mind? He uses Kirk to advance his own personal wheelhouse of ideas. Indeed, instead of merely engaging in internet debates, he’s writing articles.

    Also Kirk was not a great mind. He was a good kid who had integrity and wasn’t afraid of the truth. But calling him a great mind is a bit much.

    Imma still going to question Israel connections just as fellow small mind Father Nix can use Kirk to sharpen his criticism of the current throne occupant.

    Asking questions and discovering truth isnt a defect. And clearly not all people possess self awareness .

  7. I agree however, with these words from the comments section from the above link but would add that discerning truth from fiction IS important in these days of the foretold diabolical disorientation.

    “Some thoughts on the murder of Charlie Kirk.

    I really don’t think it matters whether Charlie Kirk is dead or not. The clear messages sent out by his “killing” are:

    – if we speak out we make ourselves a target

    – if topic is Israel or something else we shouldn’t discuss, the risk to our wellbeing will grow considerably

    – if the powerful decide to take action against us the state won’t offer any protection

    – we are helpless in the face of their power

    Whether Charlie Kirk died or not doesn’t matter. A real hit or a staged hit, the messaging is exactly the same”.

    1. Tracy – “Whether Charlie Kirk died or not doesn’t matter” – Oh yes it does matter. In many respects.

      For one: The state of his soul.

      For another: Kind of, slightly, perhaps, the state of your soul. At this point, you may as well be puking straight on his widow and kids, if you’re really saying he didn’t die.

    2. Tracy, don’t worry so much about your critic. Any person who defends evil has no business judging you. He’ll be the last person to understand that

  8. Tracy, Charlie Kirk IS DEAD. DEFINITELY shot in his left carotid artery which exploded and he bled out. He isn’t hiding out anywhere, he didn’t have a movie blood pack attached to his neck, he wasn’t faking falling onto the ground, no one shuttled him out of sight to a mountain hideout, he won’t be appearing 10 years from now after living under a fake name in witness protection…um…any other conspiracy theories you believe to be true? Against reality?

Comments are closed.