Why Is Pope Francis Admired By Unrepentant Deviants?

From Elton John's warped perspective, his adulation of Pope Francis is entirely logical.  A few days ago, I saw on LifeSiteNews that Elton John, entertainer and flagrant gay activist, heaped praise upon the Holy Father for the latter's ill-advised "who am I to judge" quip.  Recall that in 2006, John called for the banning of religion because many faiths don't coddle the sin of sodomy.  Now he says of the Pope, "(he) wants everybody to be included in the love of God."  With all due respect to John, the fact is that he hasn't the foggiest idea of what constitutes "the love of God", owing to his unabashed disobedience to God's just commands.

Unfortunately there are some sadly-deluded Catholics who believe that such adulation from unrepentant deviants is the greatest thing since life's bread.  Mark Shea of the patheos network is one of them.  Because the patheos bloggers are compensated based on the number of hits they receive, I will not link to his piece; I suppose those interested can google it if they wish.  He thinks that because of Pope Francis, John and others "are revisiting what the gospel has to say".  Not so.  They believe that the Pope will help them revise what the gospel has to say.

Later he chides faithful Catholics by stating "Such people don't want the gospel.  They want a little system of order that keeps them safe from the radical demands of love that Christ lays upon us.  They want to keep people out of the Church.."  Note the silly attempt to divorce the Gospel from - wait for it! - the Gospel.  I don't know what he thinks this "little system of order" is.  I think it's a derisive term for trivial things such as the Ten Commandments, the Magisterium, etc - trivialities that were established by God Himself.  Here's a big lesson to learn: if "radical demands" deviate from what Shea calls "a little system of order", these demands have diddly-squat to do with the authentic love of Christ.

Elton John is waxing lyrical over Pope Francis because he believes the latter will attempt to make the mortal sin of homosexual conduct to be acceptable in the Church.  Sadly, I can understand, particularly after the SinNod, how John might have arrived at his conclusion.

Shea seems to think that because a growing number of people, hitherto cold to the Church, are warming up to the Pope, this is a good thing.  Not so - not if these people remain in mortal sin and who now think the Pope will help them dull their consciences.  Perhaps he needs to be reminded that when Jesus walked the face of the earth, He was not popular with all people. After all, one does not find oneself crucified because they won a popularity contest.

To assist in the removal of rose-colored glasses regarding this papacy, I recommend - and will link to - an article written by Pat Buchanan entitled "The Price Of Papal Popularity".  He asks the question, "should the church accommodate itself to a culture as decadent as ours?"  Elton John et al would breathlessly pant in the affirmative.  But of course we are to be the sign of contradiction, speaking truth to immoral power and hedonism that both rules and corrodes our society.

He also said that  "Pope Francis is hugely popular. But his worldly popularity has not come without cost to the church he leads and the truths he is sworn to uphold." Buchanan is correct, and John's statements bear testimony to the veracity of Buchanan's observation.  We have paid a price for the Pope's popularity, as so many - Elton John included - now think their sin is coddled.  So many of us have feared that souls would be scandalized and given bad example by the Pope's questionable doings.  One such poor soul has made that perfectly clear.  Isn't it time the Sheas of this world woke up?

Fighting For True Marriage - March On April 25th

A week or two ago I announced a talk given yesterday at Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Bethesda and sponsored by CanaVox.  I attended and I'm happy to report that it was very well attended.  They were going to have it in a class room but realized they had to have it in the Church itself (they did repose the Blessed Sacrament properly).  It was recorded; when the video is available I'll post it.

In the Lourdes bulletin announcing this event, mention was made of Dolce and Gabanna.  They are well-known fashion designers who also happen to be a gay couple.  However, they had the clarity - and courage - to publicly acknowledge the necessity of true marriage.  They caught a lot of flack from the gay community for their stance.  Elton John has called for a boycott.  I'd like to point out that this is the same Elton John who enthused over Pope Francis, calling for his immediate canonization.  When that happened, many who wear rose-colored glasses waxed giddy about it, sighing that the pope was "reaching their hearts".  Now I hope that at least in this regard, the rose-colored glasses are flung from their faces.  I refer you now to the Lourdes bulletin as it describes the D&G-versus-John situation quite accurately; I think Ayatollah Elton is quite suitable.  (By the way, dear ADW chancery!  If this bulletin should "disappear", I'll just repost it with yet another blog post about any censorship.  So please don't bother!)

At the talk yesterday was announced the next March for Marriage on April 25th.  Please note that this is a Saturday; most of us who work should be able to make this one.  Here are the details as they appear on the NOM site.  Please be there.  We must speak up for true marriage and the children who suffer because they lack one of their parents.  Please spread the word through social media, email contacts, conversations, etc. So much is at stake.

Cardinal Wuerl Is Complaining About Us

That actually is a good thing.  He isn't playing the aloof stoic any longer.  If he's trying to poo-poo us, we must be having some beneficial effect.  He gave an interview to America magazine (that should say a lot right there) from which Joan Desmond of National Catholic Register draws.  I won't pick the whole thing apart, but will focus a bit one one very telling tidbit, a "Freudian slip", if you will.  Read the following.

"Pope Francis is calling for a church that, to my mind, is much more in contact with the Gospel, with the living out of the Gospel. Not just the articulation of the Gospel, the voicing of the Gospel, the proclaiming of the Gospel, but the personal living of it, and that seems to be what is the most attractive part of this pope, why so many people find him inviting, who so many people follow him, why so many people are coming back to the practice of the faith."

This "much more in contact with the Gospel" bit is, uh..intriguing!  "Much more" in comparison with what, pray tell?  "Much more" than:

• The Fathers and Doctors of the Church who helped crystalize and expound the teachings of Our Lord?
• Those missionaries who spread the Faith to pagans, often at the cost of martyrdom?
• Those parents of today who sacrifice to teach their children at home lest they lose their Faith in public and yes, diocesan schools?
• Those Christians who suffer for upholding the teachings of Jesus Christ in the face of opposition? Kim Davis, Linda Gibbons and (pay attention, Your Eminence!) Father Marcel Guarnizo are among that number.

My heavens!  How bereft we Catholics have been during these last 20 centuries of "contact with the Gospel"!  Now we have a pope whom many "find inviting"!  Yes indeedee!  Just ask Elton John!  As far as having lots of followers, that is no measure of anything.  Read John 6.  Many people followed Jesus - until He taught of the nature of the Eucharist.  Then they up and left.  Jesus kept proclaiming the truth of Who He is.  These truths of the Church are eternal and immutable, regardless of the number of "followers".   I will make no statement whatsoever regarding the pope's personal "living of the gospel", be it "yay" or "nay".  I wonder how the Cardinal dares to do so.

He also said that those who question the synodal process "just don't like this pope".  I suppose that would include his brother Cardinals Pell, Burke and now Arinze?  See here and here.

I do consider this braying by Cardinal Wuerl to be a good sign.  We bloggers must be doing something right to arouse their ire and to cause them to squint their eyes at the light of truth.  Let's keep it up.

Peter's Perks

Apparently that is what we can surmise, thanks to the Wall Street Journal and their piece "Vatican Uses Donations For The Poor To Plug Its Budget Deficit".  Only 10% of the funds collected in the annual "Peter's Pence" collection actually goes to "charities".  The great bulk is being used to cover the deficit in the Vatican's "administrative budget".  To be honest, I'm not too sure about the appropriate spending of that 10%.

Enterprise Dear to the Pontiff's Heart

The LifeSiteNews piece says that "the money is ostensibly used to support charitable enterprises dear to the pontiff's heart".  Given what has been going on, with all these "climate change" synods and meetings with Sachs, Moon and some of the other one-world leftists, we can look askance on just what is meant by "enterprises dear to the pontiff's heart".  But it gets worse.

Last week it was revealed that Peter Pence funds went to finance a biographical movie about Elton John, the openly gay performer who mocks marriage to boot.  The flick has an explicit gay sex scene in it.  Ladies and gentlemen, if you contributed to the Peter's Pence collection recently, you just helped to fund gay porn!  Isn't that just...special??

Fellow Catholics, we have the responsibility to be judicious about our charitable giving.  Gone are the days when we could just drop money in the collection basket and trust that it would be put to good use.  Most likely those days never really existed.  Please cease all those donations.  I'd suggest donating to a solid religious order, a local food bank, local pro-life pregnancy center, etc.