Daily Archives: August 24, 2010
It is no more surprising, but worth saying anyway, that the BBC has arrived to such a level of secularised stupidity that they manage not to tell the truth even when it is as big as an elephant staying in front of them.
Take this article about the unstoppable growth of Christianity in China. The BBC manages to stress all the wrong bits of information and to keep silent about all the right ones.
Already the title tends to give a positive impression of the Communist government in China, as if they were entrepreneurial, confident people open to innovation. The truth is that they couldn’t stop the advance of Christianity and they are now merely trying to domesticate it and limit the damage. Fat chance, by the way.
The article examines the government’s investment in the “official” churches but it doesn’t even mention that the “official catholic church” is not recognised by the Church and is, to all intents and purposes, not the Catholic Church in China. It also conveniently avoids to mention the little detail that irrespective of expenses, the official “catholic” church remains largely empty whilst the real, One Catholic Church thrives everywhere. The Church, together with all other illegal communities, is called by the BBC “unregistered” and “underground”, without even bothering to explain why one would go to an unregistered church when, look, there is a beautiful official one available! That the underground churches are the place of worship of the vast majority of the Chinese Christian (let alone Catholic) population is conveniently downplayed by saying that they remain a “significant part” of the Chinese landscape.
Also note that the article is eager to give the government’s figures (as fake as the communist ideology, no doubt, but at the BBC they don’t get this) about those allegedly worshipping by state authorised churches, but doesn’t say one word about the difficult-to-know, but certainly impressive estimated numbers of underground Christians in China. As we speak, China is one of the biggest Christian – and more specifically Catholic – countries on Earth, with the number of underground Christians variedly estimated at 50-70 million, a good part of them Catholics. Whatever the real number, it is clear that there is a huge Catholic reality happily developing in China, completely outside of government influence; a reality the Commies tried to embrace and absorb not because they are so dynamic, tolerant and open to innovation and investment in the future, but in sheer desperation at their utter inability to prevent its existence or even stop its growth.
Also note that the author doesn’t make any effort to try to speak with some member of an underground church. He doesn’t even say that he would have liked it, but he wasn’t allowed. He only speaks to government-vetted people telling them government-vetted bollocks and implying that the work of the church be in any way compatible with the communist ideology, as if the church were there just to make social work in a more effective way.
This is BBC journalism for you: ignorance and secular bias masked as information.
It doesn’t happen often that a Cardinal has the nerve to speak some clear words. When it happens, it feels good to report it here.
Cardinal Njue, the Archbishop of Nairobi, has criticised the newly approved Constitution of Kenya because the text opens the way for ordinary laws allowing abortion. The text reads
“Abortion is not permitted unless, in the opinion of a trained health professional, there is need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written law.”
From what one understands the first two conditions are general provisions of what kind of abortions would not be considered in contrast with the Constitution and the third opens a huge door to a generalised abortion “right”, provided an ordinary law allows it.
This article of the Kenyan Constitution is wrong in both ways. The idea of allowing abortion only in particular cases is theologically wrong, and practically disastrous. In countries like Italy and the United Kingdom abortion has been introduced exactly with such a character: an “exceptional” measure for “exceptional” situations. It couldn’t work, and it didn’t.
Once you have trespassed on God’s commandment and allowed a mother to kill her own child in “exceptional circumstances”, you have opened the door for a secular mentality which will claim the extension to such exceptional circumstances to less and less “exceptional” cases. It must be so, then God does not allow His commandments to be “broken in a reasonable way”, because there’s nothing like that. Murder is a matter of absolutes, not of circumstances.
When one breaks God’s commandment one is going against God and against reason already and only a very secular skewing of perspective can induce one to see it otherwise. If you allow abortion when the mother could become suicidal every mother wanting to kill her child will claim to be suicidal, and so on. Again, the development in the UK and in Italy clearly testifies of the utter failure of this “fake reasonable” approach claiming to be able to improve on God’s Law.
Kudos to the Cardinal, then. Let us hope that his clear words will translate into an effective work on the ground in the years to come and that every abortion law may be successfully averted.
Nice little video of Michael Voris talking about the “do not judge”-crowd.
The issue is particularly impressive for me because in my former lives in Italy (a Catholic Country) and in Germany (a largely Christian country) this “do not judge”-mentality was just…. not there. The one of the other would occasionally utter but it was not meant as an objective value, but as an emotional reaction; more the utterance of an adolescent than a statement; not taken seriously or literally, for sure.
When I moved to the UK, I started to hear strange expressions like “I am not judging!” (said from the person speaking after he had uttered, well, some criticism), to which the answer would have been “why did you open your mouth, then” or, more appropriately, “why shouldn’t you under the circumstances”. That those so speaking meant “judging” to be something negative in itself, something one is not allowed to do, hit home only after I heard this strange remark a handful of times and understood that this was not lack of proper linguistic precision from one or two isolated people, but had to be some “ethical mantra” of Anglo-Saxon societies. This mantra was strangely confused with Christianity when in reality it embodies the contrary of what Christianity is, firstly in that it does not allow to help others and secondly because it seems to give a license to do whatever one wants without fearing any criticism. Can you imagine a Christian of the XIII century even conceiving such thoughts……
To Michael Voris’ entertaining defence of the “judging” Christian I’d like to add a verse he does not mention: “For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again” (matt. 7:2). This verse, coming immediately after the abused Matt. 7:1 gives in my eyes the sense of what Jesus meant (and very well explained by Mr. Voris btw) in the same sentence as Matt. 7:1 and makes it even more surprising that Jesus’ message could be cut in half and deformed in such a brutal way.
Enjoy the video