Liberals hating on Pope Francis, who just refuses to get with their agenda!

Liberals will eventually turn on Pope Francis.  There are even some indications at The Fishwrap that this is starting.

Francis’ style doesn’t seem conservative at all, but he is NOT going to change doctrine. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it were he who issues the document that shoots down the ordination of women to the diaconate, something along the lines of Ordinatio diaconalis.

I just perused this at Salon:

This piece is great. It is a sustained spittle-flecked nutty from top to bottom. Make popecorn [HAH! Such a great typo, I'll leave it!] and enter into a fantasy landscape.

Pope Francis’ new clothes: Why his progressive image is white smoke and mirrors
Don’t buy his populist rhetoric. The new pope is every bit the sexist homophobe as his predecessors

[...]

While the pope transmits a populist vibe—particularly about the economy— he is an old-school conservative who, despite his great PR, maintains nearly all of the socialpolicies of his predecessors and keeps up a hardline Vatican “cabinet.” He has done virtually nothing to change the policies of the church to match his more compassionate rhetoric. People excuse the pope, claiming that he doesn’t have much power to make changes, but this simply isn’t true. Further, it is ludicrous to suggest that a man who denies comprehensive reproductive health care (including all forms of birth control including condoms and abortion) and comprehensive family planning is a man who cares about the poor of this world. The bigotry of homophobia and sexism cloaked in religion are still bigotry and sexism. By giving to the church, American Catholics aren’t supporting “progress,” they are supporting oppression and in this way are complicit in the bigotry, sexism, and oppression of the church.

[...]

The new sexist, nun-hating, poverty-perpetuating, pedophile-protecting homophobe is the same as the old sexist, nun-hating, poverty-perpetuating, pedophile-protecting homophobe, but gosh how the media loves him

[...]

Remember that for secularist liberals, abortion is a sacrament. They want lots of abortion. For catholic liberals, such as the writers and readers of Fishwrap, who eventually and unavoidably verge into being secularists, the ordination of women is the unholy grail.  But even were they to get that (and they won’t), they wouldn’t be satisfied.

Pope Francis is going to say “No” to what liberals want.  Doctrine will not change. They will turn on him.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Biased Media Coverage, Blatteroons, Liberals, Pope Francis, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice, Throwing a Nutty and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Liberals hating on Pope Francis, who just refuses to get with their agenda!

  1. Magash says:

    Yes indeed Father, Francis is not very traditional, but he is orthodox. The use of the term “liberals” here is one reason I try to avoid the terms “conservative” and “liberal” when it comes to dogmatic church teachings. Politically you and I are conservative. I know quite a few people who are politically liberal, and who are in quite a bind, because it has become almost impossible to be a liberal in the United States without also being a heretic. How many pro-life Democrats have any influence at all in that party?
    Meanwhile I prefer to call a heretic a heretic, which is what the Fishwrap is full of. Although I guess apostate would be almost applicable. If they stuck to political issues perhaps the “liberal” moniker would be accurately descriptive. As it is I think heretic is much more accurate.

  2. Legisperitus says:

    :( I don’t know where to get popecorn. The Farm Romanum?

  3. benedetta says:

    Is the author of this story the guy who tried to get the ‘black mass’ off the ground at Harvard?

  4. APX says:

    Who are they to judge?

  5. benedetta says:

    Seriously though this article reveals the association that big abortion has with homosexualist lobby. I just don’t comprehend what the interest would be, or what the civic affiliation is, with, as Frjim4321 states, on the one hand, equal protection under law, and, more deaths of children via inflicting pain, torture, and slaughter of infants in their mothers’ wombs. I just do not see any reasoned or rational connection between these two desired ends, yet, politically, they seem to go together, always. Coincidentally, in my native place, just days after Planned Parenthood marched in the local gay pride parade with a huge banner and many numbers of supporters, legislation was introduced once again after repeated failure of passage proposing that something horrific: that viable, sentient, pain-feeling infants in the third trimester, any day up to and including during labor, could be legally shot with a gun fired into the infant’s heart, through not only an abortionist m.d. but by a nurse or some other person, commercially. It was curious, I felt, observing this push to enact this extremist legislation in my native state this past week and also see the manifest presence at the gay pride parade of planned parenthood. I just do not comprehend what sacrificing more innocents to slaughter has to do with equal protection for lgbt? If anything I should think that lgbt in this country would be quite mindful of the need to permit children to be born and to live regardless of how others may perceive them. If nothing else to refrain from practices which involve torture and inflicting pain on another human being.

  6. Marissa says:

    Benedetta: I just do not see any reasoned or rational connection between these two desired ends, yet, politically, they seem to go together, always.

    Because, contraception is so gay, to put it flippantly. More clearly, rendering the sexual act fruitless and disordered via contraception, leads to other types of fruitless and disordered sexual acts.

  7. Unwilling says:

    Wow! The Pope better watch out. His closest friends and allies are turning. As this article says: “Even the National Catholic Reporter calls out the hypocrisy of the Vatican.”

  8. Rachel K says:

    What is “Salon”? A magazine for hairdressers?!

  9. benedetta says:

    Marissa, alright, but, look at it this way, what possible interest do lgbt persons have in assuring that children, the vast, vast majority of whom are conceived by the usual, natural means, cease to exist and be deemed unwanted and just thrown away? What interest does lgbt have in convincing heterosexuals that the offspring of their sexual unions may be given over without a second thought from conscience, now to the tune of a genocide in nyc? Especially when none of us would permit another person to harm a puppy or a cat in the way in which the preborn are currently subjected to pain and torture? Especially when each person is unique and who are we to condemn someone, especially an innocent child?

  10. The Sicilian Woman says:

    You just know the writer was on the floor, flailing and crying like a child, before this was written. Afterwards, too.

  11. incredulous says:

    I wasn’t aware that Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Nancy Peloisi collaborate on anti Catholic screeds to be published in pro government/left wing rags… I wonder what they have planned for Mother Jones?!

  12. StephenGolay says:

    There will come the time when the Fishwrappers will see their contradiction in spitting their spittle (in one spited fleck) about the “pedophile-protecting homophobe” they say they hate so much.

    I leave it to them stumble on their lack of logic – or muddle-mouthed grammar. These sad folks who are – even now – armoring up to do battle against age-of-consent laws. When have they ever been hot-under-the-collar against their own giving 13-year-olds a second quick glance. They never have. And they will become more bold in their glaring and staring now that our culture applauds their evangelizing the gospel of “gay identity” for 13-year-olds?

    Their spittle about a “pedophile-protecting” Church is their disgust that the Church – in spite of her many sins and failings – refuses to approve their sick disordered deconstructive reconstruction of the moral language: changing pedophile & pedophilia to “Child-Attracted Adult” & “Adult-Attracted Child”. Which, by the way, was the goal, this year, the APA as they were updating their Diagnostic Manual. Fortunately, their scheme was bright-lighted and they pulled back – for now.

    The contradiction – this absolute hatred of a “pedophile-protecting” Church when they are so missionary-minded about assuring every 13 and 10 year-old their “right to be gay” – is so blaring it’s a wonder it’s not more commented on. It stinks the smell of discarded wrapped fish.

  13. Johnno says:

    Salon is a liberal outlet dedicated to protecting liberal things from the liberal-religious doctrine of Evolution to the sacraments of abortion, euthanasia, anything-goes-sex, and crypto-child-sex. The latter of which they project their desires onto that of the Catholic Church. Observe their other nutties over protecting their blessed origin myths:
    https://answersingenesis.org/creation-vs-evolution/secularists-cant-handle-aigs-cosmos-reviews/

    The reason why the LGBT-ites are so pro-active on promoting contraceptives and abortion is because it philosophically lines up with their position that the procreative-act of sex is irrelevant, and freeing ourselves from children makes us able to pursue more selfish endeavors, and that if we can kill them, then it follows that there’s no reason we can’t have sex with them at any age, so don’t feel bad, it’s all just flesh after all, reality is just your unique flower of perception and all that…

  14. pmullane says:

    Benedetta:

    “I just don’t comprehend what the interest would be, or what the civic affiliation is, with, as Frjim4321 states, on the one hand, equal protection under law, and, more deaths of children via inflicting pain, torture, and slaughter of infants in their mothers’ wombs. I just do not see any reasoned or rational connection between these two desired ends, yet, politically, they seem to go together, always.”

    The common thread has red skin, a black pencil moustache, big horns and likes a lot of fire. If you give yourself to him in one way, then he will use you in another. God Bless Pope Francis for speaking forthrightly about the reality of the demonic.

  15. JonPatrick says:

    So if you are not in favor of wider availability of contraception and abortion you don’t care about the poor. Interesting. If one goes back to the beliefs of one Margaret Sanger founder of the organization that is now known as Planned Parenthood, it seems that the solution to poverty was simply to reduce the number of those “undesirable” ethnic and racial groups who tended to have a lower standard of living, plus also those with disabilities. One can still see today how the PP centers are concentrated in lower income neighborhoods, that this philosophy still holds in practice, although of course they don’t articulate it. Wonder who really cares about the poor here.

  16. frival says:

    Oh dear, I do hope there was someone nearby to call 911 when this dear author had her aneurysm. Perhaps enough spittle was spewed to allow the keyboard to be short-circuited and used as a defibrillator to restart her heart. What passes as journalism these days…

  17. acricketchirps says:

    Let me give benedetta’s puzzle a try.
    1) It is crucial for the homosexualist that sodomy be celebrated as equal to sexual intercourse by all.
    2) It is essential, therefore that the sole purpose of the genitals is pleasure.
    3) Contraception breaks and abortion utterly destroys the procreative aspect of sex. In a contraceptive, abortive society everyone has the kind of “sex” i.e. intercourse or sodomy they like with no consequences. Pregnancy is just something that happens to some people through no fault of their own; luckily it’s an easy fix.
    4) Thus each the proabort and the “gay” activist has an investment in the other’s world view. It’s normative.
    Does this make sense?

  18. BLB Oregon says:

    It is in the nature of our fallen state that even when we begin to turn ourselves to the love of God, we will still tend to love a limited number of virtues and yet to be blindly enamored of a certain number of vices. Only the correct formation of our consciences by the Church and continual humble self-examination and openness to grace makes anything else possible.

    For as long as the Holy Spirit guards the Church from error, then, what Pope is ever going to be loved by those ignorant of the faith or obstinately resistant to correction?

  19. benedetta says:

    acricketchirps, So these rights are in fact not based on constitution or Due Process under law as Frjim4321 assert. The foundation for these rights dwells in a fantasized sexual utopia in which children are deemed the oppressor.

  20. acricketchirps says:

    benedetta:
    ha ha ha. Good one. “Due process”, heh!

    On the fantasy: I think you are correct; on the assignment of children to the oppressor class, to some for whom the sexual revolutions basis was explicitly marxist, perhaps. Most, I think, of the adherents of the religion of the crotch are simply hedonists willing on faith to swallow the great lie that children simply aren’t people at all until I say they are.

    I think, but I don’t know anything.

  21. benedetta says:

    When moneyed interests team up to influence legislation in this country, average citizens ought to be able to know what policy results those groups share in their vision as goals for all. I just think it astounding, and absurd really, that given that we are now many decades into the “right of privacy” and the “penumbra” that the homosexualist political agenda would wish to determine, reduce, and render the sterile of others’ sex. It is one thing to ask for civil rights under an equal protection framework and quite another to impose a burden on others who are not members of that protected class, having disenfranchised that group from being able to determine whether the results of that advocacy (genocide, inflicting pain, torture, and eliminating an innocent preborn human being) are things they wish to live with or pass on to their children. In this overall political movement, gay rights seriously parts ways with civil rights movements which do not make elimination of roughly half of the population a condition on the way to achieving the equality.

  22. KateD says:

    I couldn’t get past the train wreck of a phrase ‘sexist homophobe’. So I went to Merriam-Webster for clarification. The root word homo-, at Merriam Webster, is ‘man’. No mention of the greek root meaning ‘same’ and it links to ‘more at homage’….ugh! With that definition, how is one to understand the relationship of words such as homozygous and heterozygous? It seems as if the redefinition of words is in progress. And if homo is defined as ‘man’ what would homosexual mean? And then where does that leave heterosexual? Well……..The definition of ‘heter-’ according to Merriam-Webster, is ‘other than usual’! Wow! That’s just a hop, skip, and a jump to ‘abnormal’ and the compete reversal of reality.