Francis Asked Football Manager Not To Make Sign Of The Cross

Roberto Mancini, Italian football manager

Francis convinced the former football player and current manager of Italy’s national team Roberto Mancini, 57, not to make the Sign of the Cross on the football field, Mancini told Italian television TG5 (December 20, Italian video sequence below).

Mancini told TG5 that he is a lifelong Catholic and that he was lucky to grow up next to a parish, “My life was school, house, and parish.” He also visited Medjugorje a couple of times.

To the question whether it happens that he prays on the pitch, Mancini quickly replied, “No, on the pitch not.”

“Many make the sign of the cross,” a slightly surprised reporter interjects, and Mancini explains,

“I used to do that too, you know, hoping nothing happened during the game, then we went to the pope. Pope Francis said, ‘Why are you making the sign of the cross, don’t you have other thoughts in this moment?’ So since that time I don’t do it anymore. I don’t want the pope to get angry.”

Watch the video on Gloria TV

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Francis Asked Football Manager Not To Make Sign Of The Cross

  1. Crow says:

    A Pope who does not like an athlete affirming his Catholic belief in a way that may give some validity to those watching (especially impressionable kids). Well, you have to wonder…Israel Folau (super star footballer here in Australia) was under fire because he commented on homosexuality and, as a football star, his views can influence impressionable kids. So, what exactly is this Pope’s job? To lead the Church of Christ? Or perhaps to turn people away from the Church of Christ?


  2. fitziv says:

    Don’t worry he is not the pope

    Liked by 1 person

  3. JabbaPapa says:

    I’ve written elsewhere, concerning his ghastly “christmas” adress :

    This is a creed of postmodernism, and it looks like a formal declaration of war upon the orthodoxy and the Catholicity of the Faith.

    Seen in this light, change takes on a very different aspect: from something marginal, incidental or merely external, it would become something more human and more Christian. Change would still take place, but beginning with man as its centre: an anthropological conversion.

    This is nothing other than the Modernist and atheist/secularist so-called “humanism” that is a total and complete betrayal of the genuine and original Catholic Humanism of such men as Erasmus of Rotterdam, Popes Pius II, Sixtus IV, Leo X, Saint Thomas More, which, if it puts man at the centre, understands that at the centre of man there is The Man, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Image of God ; so that it placed man not on this ludicrous pedestal at the centre of and above all, but rather understood that the Revelation has been given to us by God to the measure of our understanding, and so all things while centred on Christ and God’s Revelation should be interpreted at this simple level of the individual person.

    This Catholic Humanism then posits a healthy understanding that the Revelation and the Christ are One, residing at the centre and heart of our anthropology, so that to become more individually human, in rejection of worldly ideologies, is therefore to seek to become more Christ-like in both worship and wisdom.

    What this Roman Pontiff proposes is an absolute and utter betrayal of the very nature of Christianity itself as understood by those men !!

    Humanity calls and challenges us; in a word, it summons us to go forth and not fear change.

    If such “change” might include the removal of a now more seemingly open heretic from the See of Peter, I might be all for it …

    Linked to this difficult historical process there is always the temptation to fall back on the past (also by employing new formulations), because it is more reassuring, familiar, and, to be sure, less conflictual. This too is part of the process and risk of setting in motion significant changes. Here, there is a need to be wary of the temptation to rigidity. A rigidity born of the fear of change, which ends up erecting fences and obstacles on the terrain of the common good, turning it into a minefield of incomprehension and hatred. Let us always remember that behind every form of rigidity lies some kind of imbalance. Rigidity and imbalance feed one another in a vicious circle. And today this temptation to rigidity has become very real.

    These attempts to destroy the very core of what it is to be a human person created in hope for salvation by Almighty God cannot possibly succeed, but the damage that is being done to the Faithful and the Faith by the proclamation of such nonsense from the highest step of the ecclesial authority is incalculable in extent.

    Take note that this “the common good” is pure Marxist terminology, redolent of the “Common Purpose” lobby group, the UN, and of straightforward Freemasonry. It seeks to crush the individual in the name of some collective and indeed collectivist ideology of so-called “progress”.

    Also take note that this is a flat out rejection of any Hermeneutic of Continuity as taught by Pope Benedict XVI, but instead it is an all-out embrace and promotion of multiple hermeneutics of rupture.

    It is also quite clear that such words cannot have been written nor proclaimed by anyone with any genuinely spiritual Christian Faith.

    No, it is a text proclaiming a deep ideological division between an “us” and a “them” — it is foully schismatic in purpose and in nature, which therefore constitutes a willful and deliberate declaration of a heresy as that is the very core definition of what Heresy is.

    So he’s finally done it, and for real — not by “accident” or by “mistake”, but deliberately and with forethought, repetitively and despite all brotherly correction of his Errors that has been put forward to him.


  4. johnhenrycn says:

    JP: Such a passionate, heartfelt, anguished cri de coeur that was – much better than I could say.
    It gives me reason to be assured that my developing inclination to continue praying for Bergoglio, but not for his intentions, is justified and not a sin.


  5. Fascinating! The current occupant of the Throne of Peter, doesn’t want a Catholic Coach to make the Sign of The Cross.
    Is Papa Bergolglio even Catholic?
    Pray for his Conversion to the One, True Church.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. mmvc says:

    Thank you for your excellent critique of the papal address, Jabba. It should be a stand alone post here too. Would you agree to that?


  7. Crow says:

    I support mmcv, JabbaPappa – you summed it up beautifully. And aroamingcatholicny asked the question, ‘is he even a Catholic?’ I am convinced he is not. Somehow, the interdict on blessing oneself before a sporting game says more to be about his complete lack of Catholic belief and faith than anything else. I cannot imagine a Catholic ever saying that.
    Alexander Tschueggel’s group, the St Boniface Institute, is conducting a conference in May 2020 in Vienna, to examine the connections between the Vatican and the UN. To me, the combined effect of the St Gallen coupe over the papal election, and the actions of Pope Francis point to an institution of him as Pope by the George Soros international power-brokers. And, JabbaPappa, you are on the money with pointing to the UN and Freemasonry.


  8. kathleen says:

    I truly believe that each of the comments on this post here are some of the most accurately astute and also the most important we have ever received. Why? Because they sum up the disastrous situation in our beloved Mother Church under this Masonic/Marxist ursurper called Jorge Bergoglio.

    No, he is not even Catholic – his own words and actions betray him – and his plans to chip away and destroy the Catholic Faith are simply diabolical.
    And yet half the world claims he is the pope!

    He cannot be. A pope can be a bad and sinful man, but never a persistent heretic.

    Something must be done to remove him.


  9. Terri M. Lynn says:

    Maybe the Pope did not mean it the way the pitcher took it. Maybe Pope Francis was wondering where the pitcher’s holiness came from – so much that he loves his faith the pitcher loses himself in the moment and trusts in God. Maybe that is what Pope Francis meant.


  10. Brother Burrito says:

    Making the sign of the Cross is primarily a personal devotion, not a public one, unless one is a senior Christian cleric. A Catholic lay man making it in front of mass media is a kind of boasting about their ‘religiousity/devotion/holiness’, as if almost defying the lesser believers or unbelievers surrounding them. This is the same as some random Muslim fervently preaching jihad, or an everyday Hindu venting forth passionately about their religion in public, without any of them giving consideration for the bigger picture.

    Where religion is concerned, none of us are superstars. Every religious commentator on the internet should remember this and think on it.

    Merry Christmas.

    PS: I really connected with Terri M.Lynn’s comment: It started with and then contained a total of three ‘MAYBE’s.

    MAY is the month of Mary, and BE is what GOD does!!!

    Happy New Year!


  11. mmvc says:

    I’m sure that I’m not alone in finding it very moving and encouraging when I see someone, be they an astronaut or sportsman, profess his or her faith by invoking the protection of the Holy Trinity. The Sign of the Cross is a most powerful prayer. Only God can judge, but I very much doubt that in this day and age of atheism and apostasy these public acts of faith are in any way motivated by ‘boastfulness’.


  12. johnhenrycn says:

    During the November 11th Remembrance Day services at our town’s cenotaph, Catholics in attendance make the Signum Crucis at the appropriate time during the prayers of the clerical officiant (always an Anglican) and whilst doing so publically in the presence of quite a few non-Catholics, most of us do so self-consciously rather than boastfully. Furthermore, it’s my understanding that when Catholics make the Sign with devotion in any setting, a partial indulgence is granted, in which case, it can never be wrong to do so, assuming they have that requisite devotional intention.

    Peace On Earth


  13. johnhenrycn says:

    Brother Burro: I don’t suggest treating the Sign of the Cross as if it’s a lucky rabbit’s foot or like crossing one’s fingers is good, and indeed, I would be ashamed to do so – although I did once touch my hand against the stones of Our Lady of the Assumption Church in Windsor, Ontario, the oldest Catholic parish in Canada west of Montreal, after buying a lottery ticket. That foolishness side, Our Lord does not condemn religious habits. I recall the Essence of Prayer written some years but not that long ago by Sr Ruth Burrows OSD. I’ve not read it recently (I will recite the relevant passage verbatim if put to the test) but I was comforted when she said that God does not ignore prayers said mechanically if they are said with belief. Is it not so that many of your prayers are said as matters of daily custom without deep thought ? I have a routine at night time, when I’m having trouble falling asleep, to recite memorized prayers. Does the fact that my falling asleep prayers are routine make them artificial and worthless? Hail Mary, full of grace…etc… ?


  14. JabbaPapa says:

    mmvc : Thank you for your excellent critique of the papal address, Jabba. It should be a stand alone post here too. Would you agree to that?

    Sorry for not coming back sooner — yes, I nearly blogged it myself, but here would be better.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s