The Pope is Catholic. Catholic Haters Hate That About Him.

The Pope is Catholic. Catholic Haters Hate That About Him. June 25, 2014

Following Jesus without deviating will get you smeared every time.

I think it’s a rule of some sort, written by Satan a couple of thousand years ago.

It even happened to Jesus Himself when He walked this earth.

So … if somebody calls you names for following Him, say thank you. It’s always nice when someone notices your fidelity to Christ and pays it the ultimate compliment.

Pope Francis, who has been following right down the line on this Jesus thing, has drawn the usual verbal lightning down his own head by doing it. Just this morning, I read an article calling him, once again, a Communist for speaking out on behalf of the poor.

I believe this particular article accused him of “following Lenin” in response to the Holy Father’s linkage of economics and war. Because, you know, war has nothing to do with economics. By this logic President Dwight Eisenhower followed Lenin, too.

Puleez.

“Following Lenin????”

I wonder if the author of that post is following Lenin’s advice. I’m referring here to the Lenin who wrote “A lie, told often enough, becomes the truth.” I also wonder if the author is acquainted with the bloodthirsty things that Mr Lenin did.

Pope Francis, “following Lenin????”

That one goes beyond pigs flying in tight formation and heads on out past hens apeckin’ on a hot griddle to jump the hate-blog shark. It doesn’t even rise to the level of defamation and slander. It’s just … hateful wing nutism that turns out to be accidental comedy.

At the other end of the wing nut comedian scale, we have a writer over at Salon who wastes a lot of band-width on her angst at learning that Pope Francis is Catholic. You know: pro life, pro traditional marriage and family; that kind of Catholic.

This author goes, alongside her right-wing-nut buddies, right past common sense and lands splat in a big barrel of mud. Instead of saying that the Vicar of Christ is in cahoots with Lenin, she informs us — with rageful venom that almost leaps through the screen and scorches the reader — that the pope is … ummmm … you know … a bigot, sexist, oppressor who supports pedophilia.

Nice shot, that last. And one that’s beginning to weary. I’ve been and will continue to be as outspoken as anybody about the failure of bishops to protect children from predatory priests. But there are pedophile protectors in just about every nook and cranny of this world of ours. We actually help victimize kids more by using this issue as a club to beat the Church with and ignoring everyone else.

In fact, I’m beginning to come to the conclusion that at least some of this outrage is just Catholic hating. The reason? I’ll give you two: Woody Allen and Roman Polanski. You need another reason? Go read Coreyography. Try the defense in trendy circles of egg harvesters who prey on young girls barely out of their teens. Or, consider the easy way the media pushed the baby-bodies-in-the-septic tank hoax. I could go on, but the examples rapidly get so ugly that I don’t want to talk about them.

Following Jesus will get you smeared. That’s a fact and it always has been a fact.

Pope Francis is getting his share of politically-motivated, wing-nut smear jobs. In fact, he’s been on the receiving end of a regular dose of it ever since we first heard “Habemus Papam.”

What these folks want, of course, is for the pope to re-write the Gospels to fit their politics. They want the Holy Father to affirm them in their sins and stop making trouble with this Gospel of Christ stuff. They’ve managed to buy and bully a lot of other religious leaders into doing exactly that.

One side gives us a Caspar Milquetoast Jesus who high-fives porn, prostitution, abortion, euthanasia and the destruction of the family. The other side gives us a sociopath Django Jesus who just loves torture, corporatism and endless war. They’re both liars, you know. Just like the one who sent them. Their way is the wide way that leads to death.

When the Holy Father goes off their political reservation and flat-out says that sin is sin, even when it contradicts the “moral” teachings of right-and-left-wing-nut politicos, he’s in for it. His punishment is to be labeled a Communist-Lenin-following-bigot-sexist-oppressor-who-supports-pedophilia.

My advice to Public Catholic readers is don’t give it a thought. If you know someone stupid enough to buy this load of guano, you might mention to them that believing this stuff is kind of like a reverse intelligence test. If you believe it, you flunk the test. Other than that, just stay the course, stand for Christ and trust Him to get you and all the rest of us through these days in which we live.

We have eternal life and the joy of walking with Jesus. We can partake of the Real Presence any time we go to mass. We are free of the yokes of anguish, despair and bitterness. All we have to do is take them off, lay them down and live life abundantly.

Trust God, do your part, say a prayer for the nuts who are being nutty in such ugly and, yes, laughable ways. Then, go live your life for Jesus.

And, oh yes, when someone calls you a name for following Christ, do what Jesus told you to do: Rejoice and be glad, for great is your reward in heaven.

"I didn't state that very well, sorry. Nothing wrong with the link, I just couldn't ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"You don't remember Lyndon Johnson doing any such thing because he didn't do any such ..."

Dr Christine Ford in Hiding Because ..."
"I haven't had the opportunity to read the FBI investigation. I'm not in the habit ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"Was there something wrong with the link?"

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."

Browse Our Archives

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

29 responses to “The Pope is Catholic. Catholic Haters Hate That About Him.”

  1. Congresswoman , awesome piece! Any chance of moving to California some day to unseat that nutjob, anti Catholic Nanci Pelosi?! Oh, what am I thinking ? Her constituents, being the tolerant and loving types, would have you run out of town, only after having you drawn and quartered.

  2. I’m not Catholic, as everyone knows, but I find Pope Francis the example of what a Pope is supposed to be—and IMO he is bringing a different approach to the job than a couple of his predecessors. Public figures are targets —and there are always going to be folks who feel a need to constantly be critical!

    • Thanks so much for your very charitable observations. Not everyone perceives the targets on the front and back of the papal cassock.

      I believe you are quite right that Pope Francis is a great example to us all, but so were Pope St John Paul II & Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, both of whom also attracted many critics and detractors. These two popes were brilliant academics & linguists who wrote & spoke with a precision & depth that not everyone could appreciate. By contrast, while Pope Francis’ style is more accessible, it also is more prone to misinterpretation, often deliberately, in my estimation.

      Pope Benedict, who is a very gentle and humble pastor (read his Jesus of Nazareth trilogy, for example) was viciously maligned by those too willing to believe in his caricature than the man himself. A Jesuit, Pope Francis is no intellectual lightweight even if he is less erudite in his manner.

      Of course the current honeymoon must inevitably end when the press discovers to their horror that Pope Francis is Catholic. Until then, many will mistake his simplicity for simple-mindedness. He’s dumb alright – dumb as a fox!

      • I do agree that Pope Francis’ style is more accessible, which appeals to me, thus my comment above. Pope Benedict didn’t seem to be as spontaneous as that of Pope Francis, and that could be due to his personality. IMO Pope St. John Paul ll was a bit more outgoing. But of the 3 of them, I tend to be drawn to what I see in Pope Francis with his different personality. Yes, the honeymoon will not last and folks will realize that Pope Francis is indeed Catholic. 🙂 I hope he leads the Church for a very long time.

  3. I am a Catholic so I am not a Catholic Hater. There are however many Catholics that Francis seems to HATE himself oh like the FFI and the way they are being treated nuns and Friars alike. He actually put words in St Ignatius Loyola’s own mouth. If A Pope says White is Black we would have to accept that? I don’t hate Francis but after seeing all the purging of Conservatives like Burke going on there has to be an agenda. Remember how happy Mahoney and other dissidents were one week after his election? Oh its just a change in style only. Tell that to Father Wylie being shipped back to South America. It is open season on all Traditional Catholics period.

    • Katalina, I don’t know anything about this. I’m guessing that FFI and Father Wylie have something to do with what you call traditionalists. I’m not even sure what a traditionalist is.

      However, this blog is not the place for dissing the Holy Father. I’m allowing this comment because you are new here. But I delete attacks on the pope. Period.

      Having said that, you are welcome here, Katalina. Please feel free to discuss things here, within that parameter.

      • Backgrounder, Rebecca, a traditionalist is one who typically favors the spirituality and devotions in common usage before the Second Vatican Council, e.g. the Latin Mass.

        From what I have been told, the FFI issue is due to factors unique to Franciscans and how Franciscans, according to their peculiar Rule, are supposed to conduct Masses. I semi-regularly attend the Latin Mass in a parish staffed by Norbertines, and they have been allowed full freedom of action.

        Fr. Wylie was dismissed because he seemed to launch an attack on the Pauline Mass, which is kinda overstepping a boundary, no?

        As for Burke, maybe the Holy Father just doesn’t particularly lile him personally?

        It’s hardly open season on traditionalists, based on the examples provided. At worst we could accuse the Holy Father with anmoyed indifference.

  4. It is unfortunate to see the Economist – especially Erasmus, previously known forvhis nuance on things religious – be so tone deaf in its editorial on the Holy Father. While I know they are not in accord with Catholic teaching on a lot of issues, they have typically disagreed with grace, not calling the Holy Father a radical on the order of Lenin. It is atypical of their newspaper, which tends to a journalistic standard higher than most American, or indeed, British papers, and I hope this is an aberration.

    • This commentary wasn’t shoot-from-the-hip Limbaugh-esq. The author wussed around about it and linked Pope Francis with Lenin in paragraphs of misdirection. He even issued a left-footed compliment about the pope’s style (as opposed to his substance.) You could call that nuance, if you were so inclined. I don’t.

      Frankly, I found the compliment, juxtaposed as it was with the Lenin comparison, downright insulting; sort of stick to your incense and baby kissing, mr pope, and let the corporatist grown-ups deal with the real world.

      One reason I put these two articles together — aside from their obvious symmetry and almost perfect expression of the opposing wing-nut outlooks — was that both of them attempted to address style vs substance regarding the pope, and both of them attacked the substance. The left-wing-nut was nastier about it, but they were two halves of the same whole.

  5. Rebecca,

    Another great piece.

    And I think I am beginning to see a theme emerging for your post-legislative endeavors. You are (correctly) skewering both the right and the left wing-nuts that are driving the dysfunction (and, perhaps, destruction) of our nation. You are pointing out that faith and reason (yes, God wants us to think too) are the path to pursue the common good. And that common good includes concern about those Jesus calls the “least brothers of mine.” Now you have started to point the way to making some of this actually happen in the political realm, beginning at the precinct level. If this is even close to your vision, it would be my distinct privilege to travel on this journey along with you.

    Totally separate point…. The Henri Nouwen Society will be conducting an online summer book discussion of Fr. Nouwen’s book “Can You Drink this Cup” beginning this Sunday. The regular facilitator is unavailable this summer and the Nouwen Society has asked me to fill in. “Can You Drink this Cup” is a question that seems pretty relevant to many of your recent posts. For more information: http://wp.henrinouwen.org/rgroup_blog/

    • Thank you Ray. You understand where I’m going.

      Good luck with your moderation. I can’t imagine anyone better for the job.

    • I understand the political correctness of finding fault with both political ideologies but if truth be told liberals/modernists did much damage to the Church after Vatican II through the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II and they are still causing much damage to the Church very much more than conservatives.

  6. Jesus spoke about redistribution of wealth, but mentioned nothing about homosexuality, nothing about abortion, and relying on Matthew 19 to support banning gay marriage is a very weak argument.

    • Mark and Matthew have essentially the same quote:

      In the beginning, God made them male and female. For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and join with his wife and they two shall be one flesh. What therefore God as put together let not man put asunder.

      This is Christ the Lord speaking, and it is extremely specific. Jesus was quoting Genesis when He said this, which gives it even more clarity. St Paul added to it in his Epistles.

      If you chose to think that the Lord didn’t mean what He clearly said, or you want to create fantasy interpretations that support your politics/personal preferences, go for it. You can take it up with Him in person when you stand before Him.

      But for now you are just playing mind games with yourself. Marriage is between one man and one woman. This has been the constant teaching of the Church for 2,000 years. Nothing can change that and nothing will.

      • Jesus was not talking about homosexuality, nor was he being asked about it. The discussion was about divorce.

        Christians regulary flout some much more specific things that Jesus said (for example, against praying in public).

        As for Paul, he was wrong about several things, which we all admit now.

        • So … you don’t accept what Jesus said? Fine.

          That’s you.

          Christian marriage is between a man and a woman, who leave their father and mother and become one. Jesus defined marriage as clearly and precisely as I’ve ever heard it defined.

          He didn’t give a laundry list of what and who marriage is NOT between. To make the jump that he must have meant that marriage is also between everyone and everything he did not mention is absolutely bogus.

          Jesus came out against theft in a general way when he talked to Matthew. However, he never said that you couldn’t rob a train, so Jesse James wasn’t stealing. He never said you couldn’t stuff ballot boxes, so stealing elections must not be a sin. He never said cheating on a test was wrong, so that must be ok, too.

          I could go on and on. And on. But the point is made. You cannot build a theology — or prove a point — from a negative. Bad logic. Bogus theology.

          • It’s just a very thin reed upon which to build a teaching on what seems, when you look at the sayings of Jesus, a peripheral issue at best.

        • The definition was a definition of marriage. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and join with his wife = one man, one woman.

    • Jesus didn’t specifically condemn bestiality either. Are you also going to try and make a case for that?

      What the lack of mention really means is that he was preaching to the Jews who knew sodomy was a serious sin against God and it wasn’t an entrenched part of their society that needed teaching. St. Paul specifically condemns it because he was preaching to the Grecco-Roman world for whom it was an accepted practice. Although even the Greeks and Romans never pretended that 2 people of the same sex could marry.

      As for abortion (and euthanasia) it was specifically forbidden in the OT law and even in the Hippocratic Oath which predated Jesus by hundreds of years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.