Posted on 02/26/2025 10:25:30 AM PST by Hieronymus
Pope Francis has shown "slight" improvement over the past 24 hours, but remains in critical condition, the Vatican announced Wednesday.
Francis, 88, has been hospitalized in Rome for nearly two weeks as his prognosis remains undisclosed. He returned to his first work activities earlier this week, and Wednesday's update says he also carried out some of his duties.
"The clinical conditions of the Holy Father in the last 24 hours have shown a further, slight improvement. The mild renal failure found in recent days has returned. The chest CT scan, performed last night, showed a normal evolution of the pulmonary phlogistic picture. Today's blood chemistry and blood tests confirmed yesterday's improvement," the Vatican said in a statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
A new spring may be coming.
FWIW
I’m a longtime critic of Bergoglio and think he’s been a disastrously bad pope, but I gotta give the man credit... he’s a fighter... one tough, stubborn SOB. He’s not going down easy.
Is there any such thing as mild renal failure?
Is there any such thing as mild renal failure?
><
I don’t know. But they’re only prolonging the inevitable.
In the 90's, he was harassed by Jesuits, for being "too conservative."
He was actually asked to leave Jesuit residences in 1992, for being too conservative, and being against liberation theology. He was made an auxiliary bishop in Argentina at that point, no longer subject to his Jesuit superiors, and he was completely estranged from the Jesuits from then until the time he became pope.
Why, when he became pope, was he did he completely change his beliefs when he became pope?
If anything, I would think the Jesuits were very nervous when he became pope. He really could have had a big grudge against them, and used his office as pope to settle that grudge.
Sounds like he is teetering between a very weak condition and a life threatening condition. How did he get a viral, bacterial, and fungal lung infection? I would guess he is always sickly, and his attendants thought it was normal to be weak. ..if he survived....anything wrong with retiring?
The far-left “media” has Kamala on standby as a replacement.
He was very conservative for a Latin American Jesuit—and I believe still is for that matter.
But that is like being a conservative Democrat.
Things could always be worse. You do not want to see what a liberal Latin American Jesuit looks like.
IIRC a number of them served in cabinet in Daniel Ortega’s first government. Oddly enough, when doing very cursory research, I found the (first part) of this article that states that he had turned hard against them.
I don’t believe so-—but I imagine that there are Freepers who can way in with actual knowledge—but no one has on any on the Francis threads so far as I know.
I hoped posting this article would draw out some educated comments.
Better to say renal insufficiency than “mild renal failure.” Kidney disease is characterized in four stages, depending on blood values - usually the eGFR. One could go for years with mild renal insufficiency - stage 1 or 2 - it just means your kidneys aren’t filtering as well as they should.
Then problem with mild renal insufficiency presenting as a new symptom, is that his body has been so challenged by disease processes that the kidneys can’t keep up.
One of the early symptoms of the cascade that becoms multiple organ failure.
Insightful comment.
He could do a better job of picking his fights, but Jesuit training does dispose people to pick some battles and ignore others.
I don't thin there was anything that suggested what he would actually do as pope.
And for what it's worth, he has said he supported Cardinal Ratzinger at the 2005 conclave. Supposedly some were trying to use him as a candidate who wasn't acceptable to conservatives, but not quite as bad as Ratzinger.
Something weird happened.
The Holy Father?
If he is/was close to God, the Lord would/will call him home.
Otherwise, the Old D will keep him around messing things up.
I don't want to see what U.S. Jesuits are like. Most of them are very bad.
I've met a few that weren't that bad, but it's the exception to the rule.
Fr. Benedict Groeschel told me a Jesuit novice would come to visit him, and eventually the Jesuits used that against him, to kick him out.
I think those backing him read him correctly.
He was not “conservative” compared to B16, but a good person to prep as he appeared “conservative” compared to some of the others.
While there are Jesuits of absolutely every stripe, the Latin Americans skew further “left” than most, which says a good deal.
As well, there is a good reason why there never had been, and never again will be, a Jesuit Pope. The governance and psychology of the order make them a very poor fit for the office. I suspect that history will find that he has been about as effective as Jimmy Carter.
A standard Catholic term for the Pope, perhaps sometimes used with generous sarcasm.
I’m sure it turned out better that way for all concerned.
I know a reasonably decent “young” Jesuit (40’s) who has been ordained about 10 years. He claims, with some justification, to not be a unicorn.
95% of the order gives the other 5% a bad name.
Time to suppress them again.
If that were the case, then one would expect one of Hitler, Clinton, or LBJ to be immortal.
A Bishop once told me that people die for a reason. All in God’s good time.
While a friend of mine has latched onto the theory that Francis is The Wandering Jew, that seems unlikely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.