The last controversy about Obama choosing to keep God out of his rendition of the Gettysburg Address is another very telling indicator of how the mind (or what takes that name) of this man works.
Who would, believing in the Holy Trinity, do everything possible and impossible to expunge God from every public statement? Nobody, is the easy answer. Lame excuses of wanting to “respect” those who do not believe in God are as stupid as wanting to follow the rules of Ramadan so that the colleague near you is not offended at seeing you having lunch, but then again one like that would obviously leave God in the Gettysburg address so that the Christians are not offended, too.
It is evident to everyone with a brain that for a Christian to want to expunge God from the public sphere is tantamount to be ashamed of his faith; which no Christian could ever, in conscience, be, so that of this man we could only say that he has lost his faith.
We will, therefore, have to conclude that such a man is an enemy of Christianity, bent on sabotaging it from the comfortable spot of his convenient Christian facade.
Obama, the son of an early example of liberal college slut, certainly did not get any religious education from his mother, or from his anyway absent father. He grew up in a Muslim environment, and attended schools – I am informed – reserved to Muslims, which means he either was considered such, or was such, or certainly did not have anything speaking for his being a Christian. When millions in the West were listening to the bells of the local church, he heard – and stated he is still very fond of – the call of the Muezzin. When he went back to the US – after being abandoned by his mother, too; such are liberal parents – he was raised by his grandparents, and particularly his grandmother, whose liberal ideas are well known and, by the way, clearly shown in the daughter they raised.
But did young Barry improve when he went back to the “country under God”, the United States? Not really.
His Christian facade was the one of a rabidly racist preacher, Jeremiah Wright, a man from whom even Obama at some point had to distance himself, and only after repeated controversy. Is this a good Christian credential? Not likely.
Does he attend church now that he has – finally – canned Wright? Very rarely; apparently a couple of times a year, on those TV occasions. Does he defend Christian values? Never. He would have his daughters abort if they were “punished with a baby” (my words, not his: punished. with. a. baby), and what he calls Christian values are without exceptions the flags of the atheists and liberal culture, from de facto socialism to de iure sodomy.
Not a Christian, then, for sure. Certainly not a Muslim. A clearly thoroughly secular man, very probably as atheist as Stalin, with a cultural predilection for the religion in which he grew up (Islam, of course), and just that ridiculously thin varnish of Christianity that is necessary to become President in the USA.
A whitened sepulchre like few others on this planet, Obama incarnates the hypocrisy of the liberal classes, feigning some lip tribute to Christianity in abstract whilst trying to eradicate it from the planet in concrete.
Stalin was, at least, more honest.
Oh well, perhaps soon-to-be Cardinal Mueller is managing to inject some (as in: some) sound Catholicism in the man's head.
Whilst Francis is still problematic, at least this time we had an improvement.
In today’s world, the Holy Father stated that the thought that all must be the same, that one must be “more normal” is brought forward by this adolescent progressivism. Referring to the readings account that those who did not follow the Law were condemned to death, the Holy Father stated that it is something done even in today’s modern world.“But do you this that today this is not done, human sacrifices?” he asked. “So many are done, so many! And there are laws that protect them.”However, despite the unfaithfulness in the world, Pope Francis said that God continues to be faithful and forgives those who are repentant.
“Adolescent progressivism” is a good description of what Francis has been doing basically without interruption since that disgraceful day in March. I dare to hope – because I am an incurable optimist – that this is Francis' way to say that there will be no more attempts – or at the least none so extreme – to appear “more normal”.
In a possible confirmation of the above, Francis takes out of his sleeve a rather powerful image: human sacrifices. The words themselves and the other reference, that such “human sacrifices” are protected by laws, seems to indicate that he is referring to abortion and euthanasia (remember: euthanasia is protected by law in some countries, like Switzerland and Belgium; whilst other countries like Britain do not show interest in prosecuting the relatives and enablers). The problem with this phrase is that Francis does not say so. Apparently he is fine with “who am I to judge” headlines, but “abortion is a human sacrifice protected by law, says Pope” is a headline he does not want to see. Very judgmental, you see.
Not being a sensation, this speech will not make the world headlines, whilst “abortion is a human sacrifice” would have done it without a doubt. A pity. On the other hand, Francis will remain popular among those who do not read Catholic outlets (basically, the planet).
Still, one notices an improvement. We are near to listening to the Bishop of Rome speaking like… a Pope here. Perhaps he has simply read a speech written by others rather than substituting it with his own … adolescent progressivism. Or perhaps today is “feed the pigeons day”. Perhaps, though, he is making an effort.
A third positive sign comes from the explicit mention of repentance as a prerequisite for forgiveness. Again, this is a welcome change from the sub-kindergarten deity up to now smuggled by Francis as the God of the Christians to atheists, infidels and apostates of all shades; and again, this is not enough, because the warning about God's justice is still remarkably absent and remains merely implicit.
Is something happening in Francis' papacy? Has he started to listen to the least bad among the people near him, and has he perhaps realised keeping the course of the first seven months will make of him an object of shame and derision for all centuries to come?
Perhaps. Let us hope so. Let us pray that it is so.
But let us not abandon ourselves to irrational optimism, either. Modernists love to deceive, and to mix the heretical statements with the orthodox ones. We will only be able to say that Francis has changed his tune and the style of his papacy when we see him consistently expressing himself in an orthodox way: renouncing to the adolescent progressivism, the shameless promotion of his own humility, and the clownesque attitude, and accepting to be hated by the world for his defence of Catholicism.
One is happy to register an improvement. But really, one “human sacrifice” statement does not a good Pope make.
This article (http://www.dallasvoice.com/kinder-gentler-catholic-church-10161128.html) (apology for the mess: can't get the link to work) is a good example of why evangelisation works, and appeasement doesn't.
The deluded souls who make a show of their ignorance – and arrogance – in the article are all starting from the wrong premise: if the Church and I disagree, the Church has to change her tune.
They clearly don't know the first thing about what the Church is and how she works. The premise that the Church has to “evolve” is fundamentally Neo-Protestant.
It may be that the one or other of those interviewed – largely perverts, of course: nowadays journalists ask perverts what they think about Church teaching, and not in jest – know that the Church is the custodian of a Truth that cannot change, and pretend not to know it; but it is more likely that many of them think that the Church could change, but does not want to.
Now, if the Western clergy hammered Sunday in and Sunday out in the head of their pewsitters that Truth can, like God, never be changed, in time the concept would spread outside of the pew, in the civil society made of people who vote. But they don't, so it doesn't.
Instead, we have an insisted stressing of how the Church is changing under Pope Diana. This fuels – and cannot but fuel – the expectation of more “change” among people who think such a change is an option in the first place.
You can read the results in the linked article. Expect more appeasement, though, instead of more truth.
What will be the consequence of this mentality? Lapsed Catholics, circus Catholicism, abortion, so-called “gay marriage”, and the rest.
Under Francis, the Church is preparing a massive campaign of appeasement. As the article clearly shows, appeasement never works.
Read here to see how your hard-earned Euros are employed to finance the abortion industry under the excuse of (let me check it again) “sexual and reproductive health”.
What started in 1957 to promote commerce and, with it, prosperity and peace in a profoundly Christian Europe has long become a monster bent on erasing every aspect of Christian morality from the life of European citizen.
Whatever you may think of the degree of democratic representation present in the European Union, it cannot be denied that a system of forced homogenisation is being aggressively pushed, meant to conform everyone to the heatenish immorality of which the EU organs are at the same time the democratically elected result and the engine driving the system towards more and more heathenism.
Spaniards and Italians are much different from the Danes and the Swedes. More important still, Christians are much different from heathens. Most important of all, Truth does not care a straw for the way a representative system works: if it promotes the wrong values, it's the wrong system. Democracy is not our God. God is.
The European Union must die. Let's hope the biggest madness of this immense system of political and moral engineering – the Euro – does the job for us in the next decade or two.
He reports a quotation from JP II. Pope Wojtyla was being interviewed by Vittorio Messori. Being one in the mould of Bergoglio, Messori asks the Pope, of all things, whether he was not “obsessive” about pro-life issues.
Now stop a moment and reflect on the forma mentis of those like Messori. To them, the unpleasant parts of Christianity are those to be glossed over as fast as one can; one who insists on such disharmony-creating ideas like fighting against abortion must, therefore, be forcibly suspected of being “obsessive”. Personally, I would be ashamed of even thinking, let alone asking, such a question to anyone, let alone a Pope. But I digress…
Pope JP II answered as follows:
The legalization of the termination of pregnancy is none other than the authorization given to an adult, with the approval of an established law, to take the lives of children yet unborn and thus incapable of defending themselves. It is difficult to imagine a more unjust situation, and it is very difficult to speak of obsession in a matter such as this, where we are dealing with a fundamental imperative of every good conscience — the defense of the right to life of an innocent and defenseless human being.”
By all the liturgical and ecu-maniacal shortcomings of Pope Wojtyla, I doubt Francis will ever express himself in such clear-cut way, even if he were to be Pope for the next 77 years. More worryingly, I doubt Francis thinks like Wojtyla did; because as I have just said, what the heart feels the mouth will tell.
Little review: what did Francis mouth tell? A generally smart commenter, signing as “the chicken”, has made the googling for us:
The usual nutcase auxiliary bishop has now advocated putting the defence of life and the fight against poverty on the same footing. This looks like a seamless garment, or rather like a shameless bishop. No doubt, he hopes Francis reads him. No doubt, he also hopes he is seen as “in touch with the times”, which is rather useful if you are aiming at your own diocese.
The absurdity of the reasoning is apparent to everyone who doesn't vote for Obama: abortion is murder, and feeding the hungry etc. are works of mercy.
Therefore, to put the two on the same footing is like saying that, in actual fact, it is a work of mercy not to murder one's own baby.
Such are our bishops.
This one is the last prelate to clearly and, I would say, officially react to the papal waffle of the last eight months.
Archbishop Chaput does not beat around the bush. His intent is clear: to avoid US Catholics feeling abandoned by the Church in a climate in which “youth unemployment” and “the loneliness of old people” are considered the most important problems of our time.
On the contrary, he rallies his troops and makes clear the rambling of an old Peronist Jesuit cannot change anything in the Catholic vision of the world, and will not change the priorities and the focus of those who care for Catholic values.
Smartly, the Archbishop reminds his readers not only of basic Catholic thinking, but of more than 20 years of pro-life activity (however lame, I should add) of the US clergy. Years of clear “V II” orientation, and that can therefore not be accused of being “restorationist”.
I might be wrong, but it seems to me an tragically interesting game is taking place here: the Pope ignores Catholicism, and the most orthodox among the clergy ignore the Pope.
Nor should anyone complain and say we traddies have a double moral, because we criticise the liberal clergy when they ignore Benedict and praise the conservatives when they ignore Francis. The litmus test of every papacy is its adherence to the Catholic truth this papacy must transmit intact to the next generation. The obedience to the Pope is linked – as Archbishop Chaput eloquently shows – to the higher loyalty due to Catholic Truth.
When the two get in conflict something's got to give. And it ain't Truth.
‘We either support women’s capacity to decide, or we don’t,’ she said. ‘You can’t be pro-choice except when you don’t like the choice, because that’s not pro-choice at all.’
These chilling, but rather logical words were pronounced today by the head of the UK's biggest extermination machine for unborn babies. I am sure, before you ask, that she follows her conscience. Come to that, I am pretty sure Satan did the same.
The woman's reasoning is chilling, but logical. Either abortion is murder, or it isn't. Either the mother should have the right to kill her baby, or she shouldn't.
If she has, the logical consequence is that, well, she and no one else has the choice. She must, then, perforce be able to abort the baby because the baby will be a girl, or red-haired, or something else she does not want.
Atrocious? Unthinkable? Murderous?
Not more and not less than any other abortion. Murder is murder.
The issue of the selective abortion of girls will become more and more relevant as the huge scale of such practice in India and China becomes more apparent in the years and decades to come.
In a country like England, with a substantial presence of Chinese and Indian immigrants – some of them Christians, most heathens – the practice of selective abortion might also create – or already be about to create – the same problem.
It will be interesting to see how the rabid feminists deal with this. They might choose the Nazi way of the above mentioned female, but then the criticism of the oppressive patriarchal society will sound even more stupid than usual.
Lifesitenews.com reports about an intervention from Cardinal Burke in an interview released earlier this month. From Life Site News’ article:
Asked about Pelosi, [Cardinal Burke] said,
“Certainly this is a case when Canon 915 must be applied.”
Canon 915 states that those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
“This is a person who obstinately, after repeated admonitions, persists in a grave sin — cooperating with the crime of procured abortion — and still professes to be a devout Catholic,” the cardinal said. “I fear for Congresswoman Pelosi if she does not come to understand how gravely in error she is. I invite her to reflect upon the example of St. Thomas More who acted rightly in a similar situation even at the cost of his life.”
I will be frank with you. I was appalled at the “disciplinarian” attitude of the good Cardinal. It is clear he has a (and I quote) “static and inward-directed view of things”. He is obviously wrong, because “the church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently”. It is clear the good Cardinal has to “find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”
On the contrary, as a minister of the Church, he “must be minister of mercy above all”.
Thank God, we have Francis taking care that the liberals do not heed what the Cardinal says. This restorationism will not lead us anywhere.
Good Lord. The man talks as if he had the Truth. And he is so judgmental!
My dear little one,
I write to you in a very difficult moment of your very young life, because even if you cannot read I think there are some things of which you should be informed.
In just a few minutes your young and tender life – a God-given gift, full of bliss and promise – will be abruptly, unnaturally, and cruelly put to an end. I am very sorry to tell you that if you have already developed small legs and arms , and are already almost looking like a little child, you will be torn to pieces whilst still living, and you will be extracted from your mother’s womb one piece at a time.
Your rests will be discarded. You will not be considered a person, so you will not be buried.
Talking of your mother, she has by now persuaded herself – in conscience – that you are a lump of cells, and refuses to see herself as your mother, or you as the baby God gave her. She thinks she has the “right to choose”; which, my dear little one, means she thinks she has the right to kill you, or to dispose of the lump of cell she pretends you are as if you were a huge tumor, or an overgrown cyst.
I will not lie to you. You will have to be strong. It will be very painful. God in His mercy and justice will, no doubt, provide you with ample recompense for the atrocious suffering and injustice of your murder. He will treat you with great love, and show you all His infinite justice and mercy. You will not feel unjustly treated, not by him at least. But yes, it will be very painful. Perhaps, little one, your little soul will feel at some level, in those terrible minutes, the atrocious pain of knowing that your own mother wants you dead, your own dear mother you thought so warm, welcoming, and loving.
Your mother hesitated a long time, you know. All her friends, and some of her relatives, told her to “do what she has to do”, and she was torn. She wasn’t able to see the blessing of your life, you see, nor was she encouraged to see things in that way; so she was undecided, waiting, not knowing what to do.
Last week, though, your mother read an interview about a man you do not know; a very famous one. This man was saying if she does not believe in God she is allowed to decide according to her conscience, and this will decide whether what she does is right or wrong. Your mother never believed in God, you see, and whatever little doubt she might have had that perhaps, perhaps there is this God – and if there is, she is doing something terrible – was instantly silenced when she read the interview; because the man is very important, my dearest little one, and it is very easy to let him say more than he wants to say. Particularly so, because this man is very anxious to please, so eager to say nothing that your mother would dislike; therefore, he never said to your mother in clear and unmistakable words that she has no right to murder you, full stop.
At that point, little one, your permanence on this earth was probably decided. Still, your mother hesitated.
A very few days ago, she read another interview. It was with the same important man. The man said words to the effect that he can’t “obsess” and talk “all the time” about your mother murdering you, because there are so many other important things to care about. He also had said – or your mother thought he said; which she did, like pretty much everyone else – people should not let your mother feel bad if she murders you, because she is following her conscience, you see. In addition, your mother thought, the man is right also in this: she is doing what she thinks right, so who is anyone to judge? The important man told that too, you must know.
No, little one. Your mother did not read the interviews in detail. She did not make any enquiry about the theological implications. She did not read many of the 12,000 words of the latest interview. She did what most people do: she read the titles, perused the articles, read the clear citations from the man, and felt relieved.
Case closed, then. She is not so bad after all. There are so many other things in life than a clump of cell who thinks he has the right to become her baby. She is very environmentally friendly, you know – she drives a Prius; you have been brought to your place of execution in a low-emission vehicle -, she does not eat meat because it’s cruel towards animals, she campaigns against smoke and drink, and she supports the struggle of the polar bear; she is concerned about social justice, is a great friend of hope and change, and sends money to Africa to help those poor children who might, otherwise, die; because the Western capitalistic society is so selfish and self-centred, instead of being as caring, concerned for the planet and socially aware as she is.
And that it was, my dear, that sealed the deal on your death. Even the Pope – this is how the man is called, though he seems not to like it – was not “judging” her, then. Even he “got it” then, at least at some level. There are so many other priorities in life, she thought. She can abort – erm, terminate her pregnancy – and continue her battle in defence of humanity. By that she means of the people who have been born. No, to her you are not part of humanity. To her, you are a punishment. Yes, she remembers these words clearly, “punished with a baby”. They are from another important man who doesn’t like you at all, because you can’t vote.
Your mother “meets the other”; she is caring, generous, concerned and socially aware. To her, Christian “homophobia” goes against elementary “human rights”, like slavery once. No, to her you are not human, so you have no human rights. But look: she never ever gossips, because it’s so “judgemental”. She follows her conscience, which says to her it’s not good for you to be born. Not at all. Nope.
So she took the decision, and made the call. When she had put down the phone, she recalled those words of the man again: “who am I to judge?”. Yes, who is anyone to judge? She is following her conscience, and her conscience tells her you have the duty to die, because no one asked you to be there in the first place; besides, even that man said there are other priorities in the end, you can’t reduce bad and good to one single issue and obsess over it. The times have changed. Abortion is here to stay, you see. Sad, he knows; but not worth obsessing about.
And so there you are, my little one, and you will die today. No, it was not the important man who killed you. Your mother will kill you. She will kill her own son, and give to a trained executioner the task of executing her death sentence. Make no mistake, her conscience will make no objection. Not today, not in ten years’ time; but in twenty or thirty, more probably; and then it will be hell on earth: a mother knowing that she has killed her own baby, and does not even believe in God, in Whose merciful arms she could take refuge.
No, it was not the important man who killed you. But what he could have done to try to help you he decided not to. You are too controversial, little one. Your existence goes too much against the grain of modern society. The important man just does not want to be “obsessed” with you, you see. He has other priorities. Poverty, or gossip.
You know, the day after that long interview your mother did not read he did speak in your defence, the important man. Yes, for the first time he clearly did. But he has done the damage already, and today no one believes this is really what he thinks, or rather really an important part of how he acts. He was told to say so, says everyone; he was told to say so because he has to, because he needs to save face, because all those around him implored him to say something, because damage control had become necessary. So, it was too little, and too late. Your mother has made her decision, and she is now sure that even the Pope thinks that your life isn’t the only issue, or whatever…
Therefore, little one, today is the day you die. You will never know the embrace of your earthly mother, never will you learn to smile at her, recognise her voice, feel her tender love. You are a punishment and a clump of cells; you are a “product of conception”, and you must be disposed of in an environmentally friendly way.
When you look at it with your little eyes open, you realise that it must be so.
Even the important man thinks you are, when all is said and done, just not that much of a priority.
“One in three women will have an abortion by the time they’re 45, and yet we’re treating this like it’s some extreme procedure, when it can be a lot safer than even having your wisdom teeth removed, and is almost just as common,” said Kari Ross, who is the spokeswoman for the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF).
I read this here.
Let me rephrase it.
“One in three European Jews will have a death by Holocaust by 1945, and yet we're treating the Final Solution like it's some extreme procedure, when it can be a lot safer than having your wisdom teeth removed, and is almost just as common”.
To them, an abortion is something harmless just because it happens millions of times.
I doubt even Dr Goebbels would show such lack of humanity.
The Nazis are among us.
Another stunning example of the shamelessness of the current Bishop of Rome is now everywhere on the Internet: Bishop Francis has made an appeal to his Brazilian bishops to do exactly what he refuses to do whenever it becomes in the least uncomfortable: protect (among others) the unborn.
Wait a moment: “Brazilian”? Isn't this the country where abortion legislation has been passed merely days ago? The country visited by him, and where the World Francis Day took place? The country he visited just in the days preceding a still possible presidential veto on the measure? The country where he met millions of people, including the above mentioned President, and never mentioned abortion?
How can anyone be in possession of such an amount of hypocrisy as to shout his silence during his visit and issue, after the fact, the pathetic fig leave of this message to the bishops?
If we only had a cowardly Bishop of Rome, it would be bad enough. But we have here one who wants to be a coward, and look good whilst he does so.
The true Jesuit.
It should be evident to many already – and it will be more, I am afraid, in the years to come – that Western democracies are becoming the biggest threat to Western freedom.
In a world more and more devoid of Christian values, and made more and more stupid by lack of proper education, freedom is dying a slow death.
In Anglo-Saxon countries, millions of young men and women think they are educated because they have a degree, though they cannot even write. Their cultural horizon stops at the X-Factor and Lady Gaga. They inform themselves from the crappy free “newspapers” they find at train stations. They are children making children – outside of marriage, now almost as a majority; but hey, “who am I to judge?” – who would not be able to assess any situation other than by following what the army of equally ignorant sheep around them does.
Add to this that, more than twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of Communism as a global threat, the West has remained without any significant external enemy, and even the wave of highly-organised Islamist terrorism has been, if we are realistic, almost completely destroyed and certainly reduced to a social irrelevance in less than a decade by virtue of smart intelligence work, and determined military action.
As a result, the already dumb sheep, unable to even spell but – other than the illiterate of centuries past – with an extremely high opinion of themselves, have never experienced a real threat to their societal structure, and have never had in front of their eyes the spectacle of a vast number of European countries deprived of elementary freedoms. They have, therefore, neither the intellectual not the practical instruments to understand the value of freedom.
To these people, other perceived “values” are more important than freedom. Not believing in God, they make gods of themselves and need to be utterly persuaded of the fundamental goodness of the little gods they think they are. Everything that threatens the perceived picture of their own goodness will have to be sacrificed in order for them to continue to feel good with themselves.
At this point, words like “hate crime” begin to emerge; the sheep, too stupid to understand that in a free society hate – even the real one – can never be a crime, will soon run to the help of the allegedly “hated”, firstly because they feel like as many little gods of niceness, and secondly because they desperately need to feel they are not the dumb idiots they in the end know they are. In an orgy of self-satisfaction, the measures against “hate” will become more and more harsh, and their application more stringent. “Hate” will become everything the majority of dumb sheep clearly sees as different from themselves. All this, cela va sans dire, in a perfectly democratic manner; then when the majority doesn't care for freedom, their democracy will make the work for them without the need for any blood to be spilled.
This society – the society the West is creating every day – will be eerily similar to Nazism, at least to the Nazism perceived by the usual German sheep in the Thirties: nice, harmless, friendly people loving their beer and pretzel, and seriously persuaded they are actually the best people on Earth whilst living in the middle of abortion, euthanasia, heathenism, and ferocious thoughts-control. It will be instructive to keep in mind that, though certainly in different circumstances, the Nazis went to power in a fully democratic way.
It is a legend that democracies protect freedoms. Democracies do not protect freedoms. People do. If a people's understanding of basic freedom deteriorates, their democracy will soon reflect the change.
If you think we are very far from a situation like this, I seriously invite you to think again. More likely than not, some of yours neighbours already wouldn't really object to you being put to jail for expressing “hate” if they think it is a serious threat to the image they have of themselves (say: by being a Christian, and saying it). The number of such people is clearly on the increase. They might not necessarily oppose your faith as long as it remains in your bedroom, but will consider it not tolerable – and worthy of detention – if it goes against the pagan god of their own goodness and, astonishingly, tolerance. They are stupid, and illiterate. They do not understand freedom, much less Christianity. They are in love with themselves, and will desperately cling to their love until the day they will have to die, and their friends will “celebrate” their “goodness”. This cult of one's own goodness requires the “intolerant” to be punished without any… tolerance.
Some people think the usual Nazi of the Thirties was a “hating” beast filled with hate for a world or perceived enemies. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nazi Germany was a perfectly ordered, peaceful, prosperous society enjoying their tranquility and defending themselves against the, erm, “haters”; haters clearly recognised as such by society and one's better, and therefore uncritically accepted as such whilst enjoying one's tea and scones (or rather, beer and pretzel).
Do not make the mistake of thinking your own neighbour is much different that the friendly lady or lad in Nazi Germany. Your own neighbour already accepted “hate” legislation and homosexual marriage, and would say to you “bullying” is so very bad, it must be severely punished, surely? They might soon start resembling their counterparts in, say, Magdeburg circa 1937. It will merely take more time.
The world was freed from the horrors of Nazism by kicking and bombing their ass to the tune of around, if memory serves, eight million dead when both soldiers and civilians are added (the number might be different, but you get my drift). But there is no seeing what earthly power can be a threat to the extremely wealthy, technologically advanced, and militarily powerful Western societies, now slowly sliding toward Nazism out of lack of faith in God, and a strong belief in their own goodness.
We must pray, and pray more. We must stop being appeasers now, if we want to have some chance of becoming the persecuted of tomorrow. Most of all, we must resist this horrible climate of political correctness, and stop being nice with the Nazis.
If you think yourself too fine to say “faggot”, you will one day have to be fine enough to have them instructing your children, making your laws, ruling your life, and oppressing your religion.
Still is not too late. But the number of Nazis next door is growing. Only a robust cultural offensive – also consisting in the rejection of political correctness – will stop the Nazi sheep.
The soon to be staged World Youth Day (an exercise of dubious morality in itself) will be another good example of the way Catholics the world over dumb themselves into the childish belief things are fine, because a lot of people gather together.
The V II Church has lost not only every desire for, but the notion itself of confrontation. When a message is propagated, it is a message “for something”, but never against someone. This would be considered Un-churchy, or perhaps simply not effeminate enough.
The crowds gathering in Brazil will hear the usual waffle: youth, the future, joy, peace, hope, joy, happiness, social justice, joy, “getting out of oneself”, celebration, joy and, most probably, more joy.
What will remain unsaid is the immense sterility of fuzzy feelings that do not translate in concrete action, nor will we hear a word about the toothlessness of churchmen unable to do anything else than “celebrate” and waffle about “joy” as if they were motivational speakers, or mental therapists. Nonsense about social justice and aiding and abetting of illegal immigration will, no doubt, play a very important role.
Brazil and Ireland, two Countries with strong Catholic roots, are about to introduce abortion legislation. As the Church is still powerful in these two Countries, already the fact such measures are discussed is ample demonstration of the tragic – wanted? – lack of effectiveness of their respective Church.
If in both these Countries the Church had kept a sound, healthy desire for confrontation with the world, such measures would not be even discussed, because to propose them would mean the political demise of everyone foolish enough to do so. If the Church had the old sound thinking (that a politician goes against the Church at his own peril), only fringe groups not interested in mainstream voters – and despised by them – would dare to defy her.
A Church able and willing to fight in a Catholic country is a Church that even dictators must reckon with, and no moderate politician worth his salt will openly defy. The defiance of a supposedly “Catholic” politician to Catholic rules already shows the Church in that country has been decaying for several years, preferring cowardly retreat to open confrontation.
Even in a Country with a sizeable Catholic minority, an assertive Church would inspire pure terror in every “moderate” politician: Britain with its 4.5 million Catholics and 1 million weekly churchgoers would spell death for every politician the bishops would decide to take in their sights until his political annihilation; and when the latter takes place it would be sufficient reason for everyone else to keep schtum. Imagine Cameron savagely attacked as a persecutor of Christian day in and day out from the more than thirty bishops in Britain: in less than two years he would be more embarrassing for the party than if he was a child rapist. To be seen as dead man walking means, for a politician, to be dead already. Everyone would do everything he can to avoid it. You make an example of one, you teach proper manners to countless others. Punirne uno per educarne cento.
Does any of this happen in Brazil, in Germany, in Austria, in Ireland? Does any politician put his career on the line, who dares to defy Catholic values? The answer to this very rhetorical question is the reason why Catholicism is on the defensive all over the West (including South America).
At the WYD, instead of proper confrontation brace yourself for more inane waffle, to which the Bishop of Rome will give his, as usual, inane contribution.
Peace here, social justice there, bla bla, joy, luv, bla bla, dialogue, bla, “spirit”, “celebration, bla, youth, bla, bla, & bla.
Weeks later, Brazil will have its abortion legislation in place.