Someone called Elton John has recently said how much he admires Pope Francis. How very commendable. What I found intriguing was that he couldn't leave it there; he couldn't resist the temptation to go on to attack the last Roman Pontiff ... curiously concentrating on his clothes: about which the speaker observed that even he himself would not wear such things in Las Vegas. (I wonder why the interviewer didn't ask him exactly where he, the aforementioned Elton, would wear a mitre and a pallium. Why do most interviewers decline to ask a certain sort of interviewee certain sorts of questions?) UPDATE: according to an undergraduate newspaper here, the Singer referred to Benedict XVI as an a*s*h*l*. It could be argued, could it not, that this was a very complimentary term? I mean, in the semantic ideolect of the speaker?
Why do people still carry on about Pope Benedict, and why with such visceral hatred?
I may have got this wrong, because in such matters one can only be anecdotal. But I think a particular constituency, just one among a number of others, is that of homosexual extremists. Why do they detest him? Apparently he is the symbol of 'homophobia'. Ratzinger's views on homosexuality were, surely, no more 'definite' than those of S John Paul II. But it was Ratzinger who seemed to attract their venom. They loathed him because they apparently saw him as the enemy of their orientation; and at the same time they tried to convince themselves that he was himself one of themselves, so that, by a paradox of weird inversion, they could hate him all the more.
Why? Here's my hypothesis. A number of homosexuals seem to need comfort and reassurance and can only get it by convincing themselves and anybody who will listen to them that pretty well everybody else is also homosexual. Particularly anyone who doesn't go along with their own narrative and world view. So: either you are openly homosexual; or, if you aren't, that simply proves how hypocritical you are to conceal your condition! Either way, GOTCHA!!
During the last pontificate, a lot of fool journalists fell for the daft claim that Pope Benedict's choice of garments proved him to be 'gay'. Anybody who was not historically illiterate could see through that. Both his liturgical and his non-liturgical choices (Roman chasubles; red slippers) were clearly archaisms designed to make the point that he was the successor not only of the post-Conciliar popes but also of those who occupied the Chair of S Peter before Vatican II. But the Elton Johns of this world may not have primed themselves carefully on the Hermeneutic of Continuity.
And, time and time again, we have had to listen (how sophisticated and witty some of these people like to think they are!) to their loud pronunciations of his secretary's name as "GAY ...... org", and to other pieces of laboured and immature innuendo so similar to the ways in which playground bullies harry their victims.
There is something very nasty here.