Joe Rogan and Charlie Kirk ask if Francis is really the pope
Even those outside the Church like Joe Rogan and Charlie Kirk can see there's a problem with Francis. We need to be able to give them robust answers.
Introduction
In January 2025, there have been two big signs of the importance of a clear answer for non-Catholics about the problems posed by Francis.
It is quite something that even non-Catholics can now see how implausible it is to say that Francis is the Roman Pontiff.
Some Catholics, on the other hand, believe that even discussing this issue is going too far, and that it could lead to “dangerous” conclusions, a “dead end,” and will scandalised non-Catholics and prevent them from entering the Church.
In fact, discussing this issue, for the sake of reaching the truth of the matter, is a moral imperative. That’s because it addresses questions that go to the heart of the Catholic faith and the very credibility of the Catholic Church herself.
If you think that the phenomenon of men like these saying such things can be answered by saying, “We don’t care what non-Catholics, celebrities or political shills think about Francis,” then you’re missing the point.
The point is this: leaving Rogan and Kirk themselves to one side, there are those outside the Church who are asking big questions like this in good faith; and we have a duty of justice and of charity to give them them proper answers which deal with the questions squarely, rather than trying to square away the problems.
Let’s dig into Joe Rogan and Charlie Kirk’s comments, and see what we should make of them.
Joe Rogan and Mel Gibson
The first example appeared during Mel Gibson’s appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience on 9 January 2025. Rogan, a hugely successful podcast host, is himself a lapsed Catholic and a public agnostic. Following this appearance, there was a lot of talk about what Gibson had to say, and the defence he made of Catholic truth on that show.
But there has been less comment on what Joe Rogan had to say in response.
This video is timestamped—check out 35.46 to 36.23:
“How can you be the pope if you say all religions are just as good?” It’s a good question, Joe.
Some persons think that they have answered that question and shown how such a man can be Pope, and that that’s that.
But those who think that Francis can indeed be the pope while saying such things must realise that not everybody agrees with their answers. They might have convinced themselves, but they haven’t finished the job: they have not proved their point and convinced everyone else.
To put it mildly, there are powerful objections against their answers, and those objections should not be ignored, but either answered properly, or accepted as the truth.
But Joe Rogan wasn’t the only prominent figure talking like this that week.
Charlie Kirk and Michael Knowles
On 3 Jan 2024, evangelical political commentator Charlie Kirk raised objections about the papacy to Michael Knowles, which Knowles was completely unequipped to answer.
Nonetheless, Knowles made a few embarrassing attempts:
A cringeworthy impression of an Italian person living in America
Suggesting that some are “too Anglo” to understand the “correct” attitude towards the papacy based on this impression
Advising that we should be like Knowles’ grandmother and “turn down the hearing aid on certain issues” when Francis says things we don’t like.
In response to all this, Kirk raised the possibility that Francis was not even the pope at all.
Charlie Kirk: I mean this non-sarcastically, but why should I care at all what 7:00 that guy from Argentina has to say?
Michael Knowles: Well, because you care what your pastor has to say –
Charlie Kirk: Yes, but 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 maybe that's a bad representation.
This video is timestamped—check out 6.54 to 7.16:
False arguments and what they entail
Men like Charlie Kirk need to be given robust answers—and simply saying “Don’t listen to him, turn your hearing aid down” isn’t enough.
Now, some people think robust answers revolve around the varying levels of authority engaged in each problematic statement, and whether or not they should be construed as infallible or not.
But answers like Knowles’ necessarily implies that simple people, who aren’t too interested in what they perceive to be arcane Church politics, cannot allow themselves simply to be taught by the Church established by Christ.
Instead, they must either engage themselves in a careful study of the theology of the magisterium (which might be totally beyond them) so as to know how to weigh each statement with which they are presented—or that they must trust someone else who has done such a study, and who does the weighing and sifting for them.
Suffice it to say, this is not how the magisterium of the Church works. The theologian Van Noort directly contradicts such an idea in explicit terms:
“The Church’s preaching is the proximate rule of faith because all the faithful as such, be they uneducated or learned, can safely and directly determine the material object of their belief on the basis of that preaching and indeed they must. For precisely as believers, i.e., as far as regulating their belief is concerned, they can never be obliged to do research in Scripture and Tradition. For by granting the Church the gift of infallibility, God has seen to it that its preaching will never waver from the data of Scripture and Tradition in even the slightest detail.”1 (emphasis added)
The need for watchfulness and readiness
When prominent men like Kirk and Rogan start making such comments, we need to recognise which way the wind is blowing, and ask ourselves: Will we be ready, if the ideas of a vacant see hit the big time?
We also need to be on guard against the possibility of deception. These figures are more or less the conservative side of the establishment, and it behoves us to treat even positive moves with some level of suspicion. When such men start expressing our ideas, it may be the beginning of something untoward. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes (I fear the Greeks even when bearing gifts).
But even aside from Kirk and Rogan themselves, more and more persons are going to be concluding that Francis is not the pope, and also directing their gaze back to Paul VI and the others. It is important to seize the moment, and explain the true lay of the land to those who are at, or are approaching, the fork in the road.
Francis being pope is more scandalous than him not being pope
In addition, when Catholic begin to struggle with reconciling the current crisis with what the Church teaches about herself, some lapse into despair and error, and then into some form of heresy, schism or even apostasy from the Church.
Some such cases could have been avoided with a simple, sober and modest explanation as to why these men have not been popes, and why that makes all the difference to the problems they are facing. We cannot leave all such persons at the mercy of those proposing faulty explanations of the situation.
Some Catholics do not appear to realise that it is more scandalous to those outside the Church if Francis is the pope, than if he isn’t. If some clever way is found to prove that the man who has overseen Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans (however it is squirrelled away), Pachamama, the declaration that “All religions are paths to arrive at God,” and the general destruction of the Catholic Church—in brief, if some clever way is found to prove that Francis is somehow still the pope—the “result” is much, much more scandalous to many outside the Church.
And some of those outside the Church will stay outside the Church as a result of this scandal, and their souls will be lost.
This is to say nothing of the scandal caused by Catholics engaging in “clever” and legalistic ways to square the circle in the first place.
Conclusion
As we can see from Rogan and Kirk, it would be much less scandalous if we could simply say “No, this isn’t the pope; none of this is from the Church.”
However, what we want is the truth, not convenient answers, or answers which will allow us to win more converts.
But we’re not going to reach the truth by shutting down questions and debates before they’ve come to maturity. Those frightened or threatened by such questions should busy themselves with something else, rather than try to squash them prematurely.
Such timorous parties should also realise that they are at risk of being left behind. The genie is out of the bottle, but those who bury their heads in the sand—either through avoiding the question altogether, or through ignoring the state of the question and repeating the same tired set of untheological objections without regard for the responses—seem unable to contribute anything of value to the discussion.
That is because we reach the truth of difficult questions like this by considering other people’s objections, and engaging with them—not simply by marinating in arguments which claim to prove what we already think. In addition, fewer and fewer Catholics are interested in a DIY synthesis of re-thought theology taken from so-called “Old Catholicism,” Gallicanism and the errors of Russia.
However, it is very encouraging to see the question of Francis’s legitimacy (and that of his predecessors) being discussed between fellow Catholics, in a prayerful, careful, and respectful way, and for the sake of truth. Depending on our level of good will, there are no losers in this debate. St John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church, said something really profound and relevant. Listen to this:
Let us not then everywhere seek victory, nor everywhere shun defeat. There is an occasion when victory brings hurt, but defeat profit. [...] For often to be defeated is better, and this is the best mode of victory. For whether one overreaches, or smites, or envies, he that is defeated, and enters not into the conflict, this is he who has the victory.2
When we are debating for the sake of truth, rather than conflict (as Chrysostom says), or ego or as members of a party or "team", we cannot lose any debate. If we are overcome by the truth and by true arguments, we don’t lose but WIN, and we gain a truth which we did not previously possess.
We can’t be afraid of the truth—the truth cannot hurt us. We should pray that we are not deceived by false arguments—but we should also pray that if we are wrong, the good Lord might grant us the victory of being defeated by his truth.
Because only the truth can help us reach the souls of men like Joe Rogan, Charlie Kirk, and all those others who are staying outside the Church or leaving her precisely because of the scandal of Francis.
So what are those robust answers? Start here:
.jpg){kind=link}
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume III, The Sources of Revelation, Divine Faith, Translated and Revised by John J. Castelot, S.S., S.T.D., S.S.L. & William R. Murphy, S.S., S.T.D., The Newman Press, Westminster, Maryland, 1961. p. 7.
Bergoglio is what men want him to be. V2 gurus were not honest enough to start their own religion, but vampires the Catholic Church while it's 'soldiers' went. ..uh, ok.