![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/04\/AngryMan23.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1 Peter 2:17<\/strong>\u00a0(RSV) Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the [pagan, anti-Christian, persecuting] emperor.<\/p>\n Ecclesiastes 10:20<\/strong>\u00a0Even in your thought, do not curse the king, . . .<\/p>\n Titus 3:1-2<\/strong>\u00a0Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for any honest work, [2] to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all men.<\/p>\n Acts 23:1-5<\/strong>\u00a0And Paul, looking intently at the council, said, \u201cBrethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience up to this day.\u201d [2] And the high priest Anani\u2019as commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. [3] Then Paul said to him, \u201cGod shall strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?\u201d [4] Those who stood by said, \u201cWould you revile God\u2019s high priest?\u201d [5] And Paul said, \u201cI did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, `You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.\u2019\u201d [cf. Ex 22:28]<\/p>\n Romans 13:1-4, 6<\/strong>\u00a0Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. [2] Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, [4] for he is God\u2019s servant for your good. . . . [6] . . . the authorities are ministers of God . . .<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n 1) The time has come to cease the pope-bashing for misguided reasons, in public. If you don\u2019t understand this pope, then start reading articles so that you do<\/em><\/strong>: at least read a different side than the suspicion and bashing and moaning and groaning. \u00a0No one need be confused. But people would rather disparage the pope than read the stuff that might actually help<\/em> them understand him. I\u2019ve made it easy:<\/p>\n Replies to Critiques of Pope Francis (Dave Armstrong)<\/a>\u00a0[170 of my own articles]<\/p>\n Pope Francis Defended: Resources for Confused or Troubled Folks<\/a>\u00a0[articles from others]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 2) And the stupidest thing is that they vehemently deny<\/em> that they are bashing, the entire time they are doing it. Tired of this, I asked once, \u201cif this<\/em> isn\u2019t bashing, what is<\/em>? Calling him the antichrist or a jerk or a dope?\u201d They\u2019re already calling him a liberal and a host of other false accusations.<\/p>\n 3) I\u2019ve long noticed that those who want to bash him have no interest whatsoever in reading any other side. It\u2019s Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome.<\/p>\n 4) We truly \u201care what we eat.\u201d If someone makes a conscious decision to only read negative material about Pope Francis, then what do we expect? They come out like clones of all the other myriads of clueless bashers.<\/p>\n 5) People of this mindset want rumor and innuendo and gossip and second-hand trash. They wanna jump on the fashionable, trendy bandwagon and mimic the liberal media and liberal and radical reactionary Catholics.<\/p>\n 6) My position has never<\/strong><\/em> been that popes cannot be criticized at all<\/em>, or even in extreme cases, rebuked (or that they could never be heretics). Rather, it is that they should be accorded the proper respect of their office and criticized rarely, by the right people, in the right spirit, preferably in private Catholic venues, and for the right (and super-important) reasons.\u00a0Virtually none of those characteristics hold for most of the people moaning about the pope day and night these days.<\/p>\n 7) I\u2019ve lived to see an age where an orthodox Catholic apologist defending the pope (for the right reasons) is some sort of novelty or alien from another galaxy.\u00a0Truth is stranger than fiction!<\/p>\n 8) I seek to\u00a0do all I can to promote a normal Catholic, reverential atmosphere on this page, and historic, traditional, orthodox, observant, pious Catholicism shows extreme respect and deference to the pope. We see so little respect for the pope. It\u2019s because people aren\u2019t acting like Catholics or following the biblical and historical and saintly models.<\/p>\n 9) There are a host of Scriptures about what we should say and think about; the tongue, gossiping, slander, worthless discussions. Perhaps I assume too readily that [most] Catholics are familiar with these. By their actions they either aren\u2019t<\/em> or they are and just don\u2019t care<\/em> (which is far worse).<\/p>\n 10) Pope Francis has been massively misrepresented. He speaks spontaneously, and tries harder to speak in \u201ccommon\u201d (as opposed to \u201cheavy theological\u201d) language, and so context is more important. St. Paul did the same. He said, \u201cI have become all things to all men.\u201d<\/p>\n 11) There is only a problem when people falsely assume that he is somehow a liberal and an anti-traditionalist, and then seize upon a word or phrase that they think \u201cproves\u201d this.\u00a0It happens again and again so that now it has become a false \u201cnarrative\u201d and a huge victory of the devil, who has created all this needless uproar, based on silliness and out-of-context nonsense.<\/p>\n 12) Catholics allow themselves to be pawns and dupes of the devil insofar as they join in the calumnies and suspicions that have no serious basis in fact or evidence.\u00a0Divide and conquer!<\/p>\n 13) It happened with Pope St. John Paul II. He was excoriated by the radical reactionaries for the \u201cKoran-kissing\u201d incident and the Assisi conferences and other stuff.\u00a0Not so much Pope Benedict, because he was always the darling of the theological right (due to his emphasis on liturgy). [since the time of these words, the reactionaries have savagely turned on Benedict, too, because 1) he resigned and 2) hasn\u2019t denounced his successor]\u00a0So this is really just a return to the status quo of suspicion of liberalism and anti-traditionalism, that St. John Paul the Great received. I know, because I defended him many times over against traditionalists and reactionaries alike. Because this trend was interrupted by Benedict, it seems like a new thing. It\u2019s not.<\/p>\n 14) I\u2019m out here as an apologist (full-time). We apologists are given the task of explaining and defending, and I defend the pope because I have yet to see anything that makes me suspicious of his orthodoxy or traditionalism. Every time<\/em> I have looked into a supposed \u201cheterodox\u201d statement or action [170 times, as of this posting], it amounted to nothing.<\/p>\n 15) \u201cWho am I to judge?\u201d was a perfectly acceptable comment in context. It was taken massively out of context, which is almost always the problem with all these tempests in a teapot.<\/p>\n 16) How ironic if the liberals are now figuring out that the pope is not for \u201cgay marriage\u201d (I recently linked to an article about that) while orthodox Catholics fall for this nonsense that the pope is compromising on the issue.\u00a0That would be typical of the silliness we have witnessed again and again in the last two years.<\/p>\n 17) It\u2019s \u201cinterpreters\u201d that are the problem. Many people are unable to read his words in context and prefer to read spin and propaganda about a few words taken out of context, with background ungrounded suspicion.<\/p>\n 18) It\u2019s an ongoing false narrative. People don\u2019t care about facts, but only about trumped-up perceptions, and they are suspicious and cynical for inadequate reasons.\u00a0I and many others have explained each \u201cincident\u201d satisfactorily, I think. It\u2019s a bum rap.<\/p>\n 19) My hero is St. John Henry Cardinal Newman. I\u2019m going through 32 large volumes of his letters. Believe me, he was massively misunderstood on many grounds and many occasions. To this day he is outrageously regarded as a \u201cliberal\u201d by many, when in fact, he vigorously opposed that mindset both as an Anglican and Catholic, and chose to talk about that very topic when he became a Cardinal in 1879. But the myth and the lie persists because it is based on innuendo and rumor rather than solid facts.\u00a0Is that because Cardinal Newman had some huge problem, or because he was brilliant and was, well, misunderstood<\/em><\/strong>?\u00a0Jesus was misunderstood and lied about (accused of being possessed). So was St. Paul. They both had trumped-up trials and were put to death because of it.\u00a0There was no real basis for any of those three instances. Nor do I believe there is any in this pope\u2019s case. But the \u201cnarrative\u201d is firmly in place now and it\u2019ll get worse and worse.<\/p>\n 20) I give the devil a great deal of credit for his ingenious strategy on this one. It\u2019s very subtle and clever. He has to be laughing himself silly at how gullible Catholics are, and how easy to exploit for his ends.\u00a0He gets us fighting against each other, making a mockery of unity and Catholic ecclesiology alike.\u00a0I don\u2019t form opinions based on the latest gossipy trends and fashions. I actually examine things.<\/p>\n 21) If you read \u201cnews\u201d through a liberal \/ dissident filter, then you will have an inaccurate picture. Read someone like Jimmy Akin, who, if he has a bias, is biased towards orthodoxy and observant Catholicism.<\/p>\n 22) And now we\u2019ll get the brainless drivel about how anyone who defends the pope is an \u201cultramontanist\u201d who thinks he is infallible in his choice of socks in the morning and his opinions on soccer, etc.\u00a0I\u2019ve heard it all; dealt with it innumerable times. The same stupid stuff keeps being said anyway.<\/p>\n 23) I think this rotgut comes from two sources:\u00a01) Americanism (traditional antipathy to kings \u2014 transferred over to popes \u2014 and extreme rugged individualism overcoming Catholic piety).\u00a02) Liberal \/ modernist and radical Catholic reactionary modes of thinking.\u00a0Those who do this (insofar as they do it) are influenced (in these<\/em> instances) more by these errors than by historic Catholicism.<\/p>\n 24) I\u2019ve been accused of claiming that no one can ever<\/em><\/strong> disagree with the pope for 18 years online, and it has been untrue all that time, and manifestly shown again and again to be untrue.\u00a0No matter. It doesn\u2019t go with the talking points of the bashers, so they keep saying it (about me) regardless of the facts of the matter.\u00a095% of what is expressed online is bilge and imprudential, sinful bashing, not mere legitimate criticism.<\/p>\n 25) Of course, there are no pope-bashers whatsoever in the world (by their self-report), just as there are no bigots and no one in the prisons who is guilty, etc.<\/p>\n 26) The pope and \u201cthe papacy\u201d are two different things (person vs. office). What is massively going on now is pope<\/em>-bashing (Francis-bashing), not papacy-bashing.<\/p>\n 27) We knew he would be different, as the first Jesuit pope) and other reasons (such as being Argentinian). And I knew that because he was different there would be a group who never would grasp what he is about. I predicted it from Day One.<\/p>\n 28) I can understand someone being confused. There are many reasons for it. They might listen to the liberal media, or the radical reactionaries, or liberal Catholics who think the pope is one of them, or the increasing bandwagon chorus (among orthodox Catholics) of the pope\u2019s detractors (what I have called \u201cthe [false] narrative\u201d). They don\u2019t study or don\u2019t have time to.\u00a0I do<\/em><\/strong> have a lot of time to devote to this, and I use it for a positive, edifying purpose. That\u2019s why I offer my two collection of links [near the top of this article]. If people spent one-tenth of their time reading defenses of the pope instead of bashing, they could<\/em> actually learn something<\/em> and cease and desist.<\/p>\n 29) It\u2019s simply scandalous to engage in pope-bashing, for what should be obvious reasons. Then people disagree that it is<\/em><\/strong> bashing.\u00a0If I\u2019m wrong and it is not<\/em><\/strong> pope-bashing, surely God won\u2019t condemn me for being (mistakenly) concerned about the papacy and honor and respect accorded to the pope.\u00a0But if these people are wrong and they are indeed<\/em> pope-bashing (if my classification of it is correct), this is serious sin. Calumny is mortal sin.<\/p>\n 30) I care about the diabolical conspiracy of Satan to stir up unnecessary internal divisions in the Catholic Church, so that we have less and less effect on the lost and the hurting and those desperately seeking something transcendent and hopeful and true.\u00a0We\u2019re already being roundly mocked by anti-Catholic Protestants because of this sort of nonsense.<\/p>\n 31) It occurs to me how ironic it is that I and others were blasted for criticizing a priest for being disrespectful towards the pope, while the point of the thread was blasting and bashing (and occasionally a legitimate criticizing of) Pope Francis (and said priest noting over and over that this was perfectly permissible, done in the right way).\u00a0Thus, the far greater action towards the pope is winked at, while the far lesser and permissible action towards a priest is frowned upon.\u00a0This is how screwed-up Catholic priorities can be.\u00a0\u00a0It seems that folks think it is fine and dandy to criticize the pope all day long, but it\u2019s Chicken Little if we respectfully criticize a priest? What kind of alternate universe is that?<\/p>\n 32)\u00a0Yes, it is subjective to a large extent because there are fine lines here and reasonable good folks can disagree. What I think is disrespectful and bashing many do not.\u00a0Whether I am being too strict and legalistic or the ones whom I think are bashing\u00a0are sinning against charity and slandering and spreading gossip and being imprudent, etc., each person will have to judge.\u00a0I call \u2019em as I see \u2019em.<\/p>\n 33)\u00a0Can pope-bashers agree with me that if they don\u2019t like (or are confused by) some things Pope Francis does or says, and I give them information that helps explain<\/em> those and remove<\/em> difficulties, that this is good<\/em><\/strong>, right? They have nothing to lose by reading more of my writings and links along those lines. I spend multiple hours dealing with this as part of my job. I\u2019m here to help<\/em> folks.\u00a0I offer the pope-bashers real and substantive aids and resources to understand the man. They can choose to read them (agree or disagree) or not.\u00a0But most will not<\/em>.\u00a0You can take the horse to the water, but you can\u2019t make it drink . . .<\/p>\n 34) I recommended that the bashers ignore Pope Francis if he troubles them and they are tempted to bash on a daily or weekly basis. He won\u2019t be around forever; then those who are so troubled by him can feel better after he is out of the picture.<\/p>\n 35) If anyone has followed me as an apologist, and dislikes Pope Francis, it seems that they would have at least some slight curiosity to read what I have to say about this pope, and then maybe<\/em> they would feel better about him, and I would have been allowed to do my job, including helping them a bit out of their confusion and frustration. It\u2019s what apologists do.<\/p>\n 36)\u00a0Similar was said about Pope St. John Paul II. First we heard that he wrote in absurdly difficult language (philosophical phenomenologist lingo). Then as he got older it was implied over and over that he was a loose cannon, saying and doing questionable things. I saw it again and again, because I was there defending him, just as I defend this present pope.\u00a0He was endlessly bashed by the traditionalists and the reactionaries over the Assisi ecumenical conferences, which were invariably distorted in their essence. He was bashed endlessly for kissing the Koran and people thought that he was compromised on the question of Islam and no salvation outside the Church. He was called a modernist and a liberal (just as I have been, dozens of times; I was again today by some nitwit in one of my threads).\u00a0This has all happened already with him.\u00a0He\u2019s a saint. So is Pope John XXIII: who is widely (absurdly!) regarded as a liberal by the liberals.<\/p>\n 37) People make all kinds of assumptions and generalizations about the pope, so why am I not allowed to do the same about the folks who do that? I don\u2019t bow to extreme double standards.\u00a0All these strong (usually unjust and erroneous) criticisms are made of the pope, but let anyone dare<\/em> say strong words against that<\/em>; give the other side<\/em>, and all hell breaks loose.<\/p>\n 38) [to a Facebook friend who became angry at me over this; whom I blocked and then unblocked]\u00a0\u00a0You<\/em> are the one who freely said that you don\u2019t come to my site anymore. I guess that means that being critical of the pope is far and away your highest priority, so that you don\u2019t care all that much about the thousand other apologetics matters that I deal with (or else you wouldn\u2019t feel compelled to avoid this page).<\/p>\n 39)\u00a0\u201cDave Armstrong defense of not wanting the pope to be critiqued or criticized\u201d.\u00a0This has never been my position, as I reiterate endlessly [see #6 and #24 above). Folks need to get my position right if they wanna discuss or critique it. That\u2019s the #1 priority of any critique: know the position that you are critiquing.<\/p>\n 40)\u00a0My defenses of the pope are available for anyone to critique, but the ones who are most critical of the Holy Father rarely want to engage in actual discussion about him.\u00a0So what can I do? My opinions are laid out for all to see and based on reason and what I think are the obtainable facts, as I always seek to base them upon.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Related Reading<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Folks Willing to Understand Pope Francis, Can; Unwilling Won\u2019t<\/a>\u00a0[1-18-14]<\/p>\n The Ridiculous \u201cAnti-Francis\u201d Mentality: My Theory in Brief<\/a>\u00a0[12-7-15]<\/p>\n Ratzinger: Avoid Criticizing Church in \u201cMass Media\u201d<\/a>\u00a0 [6-26-16]<\/p>\n On Rebuking Popes & Catholic Obedience to Popes\u00a0<\/a>(+\u00a0Facebook discussion<\/a>) [12-27-17]<\/p>\n \u201cNothing New\u201d: Reactionary Attacks on Pope St. John Paul II<\/a>\u00a0[4-9-05; with tie-in endnote added on 3-2-18]<\/p>\n Negative Reactionary Views of Popes Since 1958<\/a>\u00a0[3-18-18]<\/p>\n Honoring Popes \/ Scriptural Honor of Even Wicked Rulers<\/a>\u00a0[11-30-17; some additions on 3-26-18]<\/p>\n Pope-Criticism: Vigorous Exchanges w Karl Keating<\/a>\u00a0[3-27-18]<\/p>\n Do I Think Popes Can Never be Criticized for Any Reason? Nope. (I Respectfully Criticize the Prudence of Pope Francis\u2019 Repeated Interviews with an Atheist Who Lies About Him [Eugenio Scalfari])<\/a>\u00a0[3-31-18]<\/p>\n Honoring Popes (Even Alleged \u201cBad\u201d Ones) as Persons<\/a>\u00a0[4-11-18]<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n (originally 2-22-15 on Facebook)<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0Tumisu<\/a>\u00a0(5-15-19)<\/span> [Pixabay<\/a> \/Pixabay License<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 1 Peter 2:17\u00a0(RSV) Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the [pagan, anti-Christian, persecuting] emperor. Ecclesiastes 10:20\u00a0Even in your thought, do not curse the king, . . . Titus 3:1-2\u00a0Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for any honest work, [2] to speak evil of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":47000,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[138],"tags":[8934,5323,8937,156,159,8931,158],"class_list":["post-46997","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-papacy-infallibility","tag-criticism-of-pope-francis","tag-papal-bashing","tag-papal-nitpicking","tag-pope-francis","tag-pope-francis-dissidents","tag-pope-francis-reactionaries","tag-pope-francis-and-the-media"],"yoast_head":"\n\n*<\/div>\nAre Pope-Critics Evil? Reply to Karl Keating<\/a>\u00a0[4-13-18]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nPapal Critics Concede: No Proof of Canonical Papal Heresy<\/a>\u00a0[5-10-19]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nHysterical Reactionaries Opposed Pope Francis from Day One (The \u201cinside story\u201d \u2014 from Hilary White \u2014 of what happened among a cadre of well-known fanatical reactionaries on the very night Pope Francis was elected)<\/a>\u00a0[12-3-19]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nDialogue w Timothy Flanders #2: State of Emergency?<\/a>\u00a0[2-25-20]<\/div>\n