After we posted last night a link to Deacon Sandy’s homily of last week in which he disgracefully insulted and put forth for ridicule Pope Benedict, Deacon Sandy tried to remove the video.
He wrote to me this morning and made the following claim about the picture:
“I ask you to understand that I did not in fact know that the image used was Pope Benedict. (I am still not sure it is – I am curious – how do you know it is?) I got the picture from an image library as a result of searching for “fine vestments”. I chose the image because it was cropped and did not reveal who was in the vestments shown.”
I am sorry, but this denial in my opinion it strains credulity to the point of breaking and way beyond. The context of the insult and the tittering and laughter of the crowd make it obvious that they all knew as well.
How do I know? Because the Pope and his shoes have been the subject of many articles and have been a favorite cause of derision by progressive Catholics toward Pope Benedict for years. Years.
This was again just highlighted when dozens and dozens of articles compared Pope Francis’ black shoes to Pope Benedict’s shoes for the purpose of saying that the Pope Emeritus was all about pomp.
In other words, progressives used that same picture in exactly the same way to deride the same man.
I find implausible that Deacon Sandy did not know this or that his intent was anything other than the same. Thus unable to believe Deacon Sandy, I find it even more troubling that he can seemingly prevaricate with such facility.
So rather than admit the obvious, Deacon Sandy would have s believe that he is a complete ignoramus. Who else wears a white cassock with red shoes Deacon?
But Deacon Sandy had one more comment for me. He wanted me to know that he is the victim in all this:
I have to share with you Patrick that the instances over the past several weeks have been very painful and hurtful. I wish you and others who read in CMR no ill will and respect the good intent of what you do. I do not ask that you or anyone else agree with me – what is troubling is the dark nature of the commentary, and the accusatory, divisive and judgmental tone.
What do you think?