"Argentina has been living a sinful existence because ...." Not individual Argentinians, distributively or collectively acting, rather the ABSTRACTION called a "state" is "sinful". (Did Jesus die in order to save Argentina, the state?) Note, "sin" is not an act of an individual, alone or with others, rather a form of "existence" , namely the type that does not provide "food or work". Mr. Brogoglio, Sir, Adolf Hitler, before the war, gained much popularity in Germany of the 1930s by undertaking (albeit with deficit spending) projects of providing "work", enabling the purchasing of "food", of the distribution of food. Some of this sin conquering work consisted in building the armaments Nazi Germany used to unleash WW II. (And the deficit spending pushed Hitler to begin a war early as inflation was threatening due to deficit spending.) But, the form of "existence" of Nazi Germany in no way (before the war) failed in the attempt to provide "work or food". Therefore, following the logic of Mr. Brogoglio, Nazi Germany did not have a "sinful existence" and, hence, all the Germans working for a country whose existence provided "work and food" were in no way sinners, i.e., specially after joinging the Party. Please, someone, refute my comparison. I see no logical failure in my application of the quotations taken from Brogoglio's "confessions", a citizen of a country in "sinful existence" having become sinless and now requiring no "cleaning" of Mr. Bergoglio (derivatively as in any citizenof Argentina) to Nazi Germany. By the way, Stalin did the same thing for Russian citizens (minus those deviants who did not want to become sinless like Brogoglio IS, a man without the stain of sin). Bergoglio is propounding a theory of sin that make the sacrifice of Jesus not only to be stupid, but in no way producing "work or food" for a country, leaving all in sin. In other words, Jesus' crucifixion was a cop out. Someone refute me! My logic is terrifying me.

I ask my readers to forgive the occasional spelling error. My age and health simply blind me to the "stain" of misspelling. Also, I find the "either/or" dilemma proposed at the end of my blah-blah to be disturbing because it seems to be logically sound. Bergoglio is offending me profoundly staining me with his apparent dissolution of what was once Catholicism to me. How can I doubt a pope, i.e., without holding the pope to be in error, seriously staining error. Logical dilemmas can be terrible.

What was the point of Christ's crucifixion? Seriously! What the heck good did Jesus do for the economically poor of his time by ticking off the Romans to the point that the executed him? What does it mean to say that sin is not a stain needing cleaning?I have always understood cleaning as confession of sins, mortal sins that stain my soul. Now I learn that "sin" needs no cleaning neither from the Japanese cleaner around the corner nor from a priest in a confessional. Is that interpretation correct? Please, some one of theological education, inform me. I can look up sin in text spanning hundreds of years of theologians and I cannot find Pp Bergoglio's definition.

Let me pose a question: A Nazi SS man, drilled for years to have a conscience demanding the elimination of Jews, follows his conscience until he concludes that it is poorly informed. So, the SS man begins to help helpless Jews and other victims. All the acts of murder, torture, destruction, hate, etc. --all these acts do not in any way stain his soul. The were just acts of a poorly formed conscience (which according to Francis is enough to get to heaven anyway). So, without the slightes repentance, none whatsoever for his mistaken conscience, the SS man begins to seek "food or work" for what is left of the Jews in Europe. The SS man has done NOTHING that needs cleansing, viz., confessing as the stain of mortal sin. He only needs to become a new type of SS (= Social Service) man and he is free of sin.

I beg from the depths of my being that some theological informed reader or priest or prelate inform me if my logic is faulty. If my view of sin as entailing "stain" is correct and if it is what I learned as the Catholic view of sin (of pre-Bergoglio days), then either Bergoglio or I, one of us, is not Catholic. If Jesus died to save us from our sins (not a full interpretation), what did Jesus die for since all we have to to is to become reformed "SS" Christians and, voilà, sin is gone. My interpretation is pusing me into a decision. HE goes or I.