This seems to be an inverse of the old maxim "You know you're good when the devil hates you."

This piece, written with a self-impressed idiocy worthy of Maureen Dowd, originally appeared in the Huffington Post, so you'll understand if I refrain from providing a link to that filthy fag rag. But it's worth reading if only to see how an enemy of Christ views the man who currently occupies the Throne of St. Peter. In addition to her more obvious bona fides as an enemy of Christ (Protestant, feminist, fαɢɢօtry promoter), we may also add (according to her bio page on her "church's" website http://www.judson.org/donnaschaper_1) that she proudly proclaims the fact that she was "one of the first women trained by (Marxist Luciferian Jєω) Saul Alinsky."

Read and be sickened (emphases and annotations mine):

Is the Pope Protestant?

Posted: 06/01/2015 6:10 pm

Pope Frances (Sic. What with Bruce Jenner being in the news, I guess gender confusion is the order of the day.) has successfully gotten my Protestant attention. He may not heal the rift we made together during the Protestant Reformation of yore but it surely looks small from the perspective of today. Christians agree on much more than not, like how Jesus predominantly and preeminently loved the poor and the marginalized. The rest of our differences, like ordination of women or natural law (!) or hierarchical organization or the now understated infallibility doctrine, all pale in comparison to the witness of a man who washes feet and doesn't waste words. He is giving Jesus a good name. (BLASPHEMY) That's what matters.

In my community, we rarely expect much from the Pope. All of a sudden, we repeat just about every word he says and pray for his health and that his enemies (Who? Trads?) not find him. The attention he gets when he speaks about the environment, as one example, is qualitatively different than previous popes received. The ping of authenticity in his presentation (?) join his now famous words about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, "Who am I to Judge?" and cause us to listen to his words as though he meant them. His fundamental and realized preferential option for the poor has validated all else that he says. In ways reminiscent of the slogan about "walking the talk", we find ourselves strangely warmed at his multiple speeches on multiple matters. We read them. We repeat them. We notice. We get excited about the possibility of his addressing congress or coming to the U.S. (Which he'd probably have to do in order to address congress, you addlepated harridan.)

I am on my fifth sermon quoting him and observing his direction. Many of my congregants call themselves "recovering Catholics," and they LOVE hearing positive pope from the Protestant pulpit. Or so alliterated one in an email to me the last time I exclaimed about how the Pope was teaching us all - not just Catholics - what it means to see how environmental trouble will disproportionately affect the poor.

The larger green movement is paying attention too. The Pope has found a way to become truly ecuмenical and to speak to constituencies that are not normally alert to religion. The larger green movement has always had an air of elitism to it. We think green and think about special foods or farmer's markets or community gardens. The pope has not disparaged any of this - and certainly doesn't call the environmental movement elitist. He has that air of the all, the inclusive tone of the everyone (Everyone have their yoga mats handy?). He may be for the 99% but he is also not against the 1%. He joins Jesus in refusing to have an enemy (Didn't this idiot just say Francis DID have enemies not two paragraphs ago? Regardless, if ever there was anyone NOT afraid to have enemies, it was Our Blessed Lord) or an edge (???). He makes borders and boundaries look small.

David Brooks in the New York Times called him someone who names himself after a nature-loving pauper. Brooks may have nailed it: he loves both the environment and the poor, simultaneously, and has the power and wit to hold them both together in one thought. The environmental movement has long needed this kind of strategic coherence (Or rather, the NWO has needed it to need it.)

For me personally, I have often despaired at the need we have for leadership that is large enough to encompass and small enough to remain democratic. In the Pope, I hope for the right size of leadership, sufficiently authoritative without being authoritarian, sufficiently open to refrain from polarizing. (Take another look at the Son of God, Mrs. Schaper-Goldstein [Oy Vey] - a more anti-democratic, authoritarian, and polarizing Figure you will never find.)

On all these counts - on the religious, the political and the leadership (two adjectives and a noun?)- I am paying attention to the Pope. If you had told me I'd be so attentive even three years ago, I would have been doubtful, as in full of doubt. (Proof that the Ratzingerian Dialectic was as unsatisfying to the other side as it was to us.) Instead I have become hopeful, as in full of hope. (I already know what "doubtful" and "hopeful" mean, thanks.) The difference is personally and politically delightful (It takes a particularly depraved creature to experience "political delight" - as in one trained by Saul Alinsky).

(Originally Published in National Catholic Reporter Eco-Blog) (Of course it was. Of course.)