Daily Archives: February 13, 2012
And so after the various religious ones, the first lay Catholic organisation (EWTN) filed a lawsuit to stop the so-called “contraception mandate” (a misnomer, if you ask me: firstly the real issue is clearly the one of religious freedom; secondly “contraception” is extended to abortifacients; that is, to outright abortion). I have more than a vague impression that this is not going to go away very soon, and will make the B.O. administration increasingly more sorry of having undervalued the extent of the problem, and the might of the opponent.
The fact is, Catholicism in the USA is a sleeping giant, and it was rather naive from the B.O.organisation to think the giant would not awaken at all. It is as if those people really thought the likes of Pelosi are representative of the Catholic faithful, let alone bishops. Alas, now it’s too late, and if you ask me in a couple of months at the latest it will become clear the alternative is between a most humiliating backpedaling and a devastating, lacerating battle pitching against each other those who would have voted for B.O. anyway, and those who will not do it anymore. However I look at it, I can’t see this as a smart move.
Of course many will think Catholics do not really care, and those who vehemently oppose the B.O. administration on this wouldn’t have voted for him anyway; but I think they are wrong. With the only exception (to my knowledge) of G. W. Bush, the Democratic party always bagged the majority of the Catholic vote; but will this be the case if the bishop continue to thunder against the government for months to come, with tones and a determination I cannot remember seeing from them before? Methinks, this is going to hurt. Badly.
We have seen the first fruits of the progressive embarrassment of the B.O. administration with the pathetic attempt to “compromise” of the last days. I couldn’t see much of a “compromise” myself, but what I could clearly see is the government sees the need for one, though they’ll try to make the retreat as little and as little humiliating humiliating as possible.
I’d love to be a fly on an Oval Office wall. I think what I’d see is some embarrassed faces and a still unexpressed, but omnipresent thought: why have we started this.
There is no denying if Bishop Jenky of Peoria, Illinois occupied the place of, say, Archbishop Niederauer of San Francisco a couple of things would go differently in the old U S of A.
As things stand, Bishop Jenky cannot excommunicate that walking joke of a soi-disant Catholic answering to the name of Nancy Pelosi; nor can he do the same with Sebelius, though the latter is – if memory serves – excluded from communion anyway.
What Bishop Jenky did do, though, is to clearly warn the two aged witches their behaviour is putting their salvation at risk, the day will come when they have to give account, and it won’t be funny. Considering none of the two ladies is in her first bloom, the warning assumes an even more significant meaning.
With the occasion I must admit I learned only today Sebelius is in the business of “human services”, as the grandiloquent official name of her genocidal state apparatus is now called. Before you can say “late term abortion”, the old girl will consider herself the new Mother Teresa.
Still, I’d prefer Niederauer would wake up and do the right thing, and the pastoral admonition already released against Sebelius would be stepped up to next stage of confrontation without any excessive fear about tax status, and the like. If the Church proves she is serious about such matters, she has nothing to fear both from a financial point of view and from a political one.
B.O. already starts to be afraid of open confrontation as it is; let him wake up one fine morning discovering two of his favourite “Catholics” are excommunicated and see how he shivers. “Change”, I’d call that…
The battle against abortion is not going to go away and is, in fact, going to become increasingly harsher in the US (not in Europe, of course, where we are oh so “nuanced”). I think Obama makes a big mistake if he thinks Catholics will refuse to follow their shepherd in at least such a number as to wound him gravely, perhaps mortally. But this requires, of course, the will to wound the culture of death mortally, which is not (yet) there.
Reblog of the day
I can only assume, then, the Wicked Witch of the West successively took control of pretty much everything in the affairs of the Church; probably whilst the Conciliar Fathers were having their tea and cake, or their afternoon nap.
Now don’t take me wrong: I can only cheer the good Cardinal for breaking a lance for the Tridentine Mass, a sport certainly not well spread among his colleagues. What I find always more than strange is this continuous desire – one would almost say, the felt obligation – to put Vatican II as the basis of everything good and sensible and consider everything that went awry afterwards as being to do with utterly external circumstances…
View original post 291 more words
The blogosphere has been ablaze for some time with the (by the grace of God, ferocious) controversy now opposing the Obama administration (who wants to force Catholic employers to select health insurances who pay for “services”, like the killing of babies, the Church refuses to abet; a poisonous fruit of the “Obamacare” legislation) and the American bishops (who point out that this goes against the most fundamental freedom of religion, something the Obama administration knows absolutely nothing about).This time, it seems the fight will be long and hard, and I can’t see how the nazi-liberal can win it in the long run.
Father Blake then wonders why in the US such controversies should be so ferocious, when in Europe no one ever moved a finger. Interesting question, to which I’d like to give some attempt at answers, none of them very pleasant.
1) In Europe, from around the end of the Second World War (actually, before that in countries like Germany and Italy) the idea of having the entire population automatically covered by health incurance began to take foot. Whilst the systems were different (one state behemot in the UK, and a vast number of small structures in Italy and Germany; Italy then switched to the behemoth) the idea was not really controversial as it was purely about health. Also, in those years abortion was universally banned. Health insurance meant “healing the sick”, period.
But as always (and I have written about this very recently) when you leave something to the care of the Government, the latter will soon take care to ruin things. Besides these organisations becoming monsters of waste of public money, they were abused for every sort of overt and covert hijacking of health funds for things which had nothing to do with “healing the sick”; from paying swimming lessons to contraception to, unavoidably, abortion; and as the system was from the start thought of as “compulsory” and “universal”, once abortion was approved it was considered only natural the “universality” of the system would apply to it, too.
Therefore, a system started as “healing of the sick” became “killing of the unborn”. This is what happens when you allow the government to do things for you.
2) The question now arises: why the Church didn’t say anything? Because they were cowards, is the answer. Even in Italy, there was a decidedly toothless fight against abortion and divorce. In the wake of Vatican II, “change” was considered more or less “inevitable” ( always the pet excuse of those who don’t want to fight). The main responsible of what has happened was obviously the Vatican, with the then reigning Pope a world champion when it was about feeling sorry, whining around and complaining he was disobeyed but rather non-existent when it was about doing revolutionary things like demanding obedience, or putting up a fight. In the Seventies, fights were passe’ and Paul VI’s idea of opposition rarely went beyond a very subdued meowing about what the Church thoughts should, ideally, happen. A bit like the weak uncle sitting at table, expressing his opinion in a very low voice and firmly expecting – and secretly hoping – that he won’t be taken seriously, otherwise the discussion will have to become heated.
3) The third element is, of course, the complicity of the local church hierarchy. When the local hierarchy declares war, a war punctually erupts, as we see now in the United States. Nothing of the sort happened in most European countries, with the local bishops happy to go with the flow. More popular, you know, and we don’t want to do anything as “people won’t change their mind anyway” (another brilliant excuse for the coward; I though the bishops were there to convert, not to decide people won’t be converted. My bad, I am sure).
Therefore, we are now in a situation where even euthanasia is not a taboo anymore; where disgraceful Archbishops openly refuse to disapprove of so-called “civil partnerships”; where not even Mass obligation is transmitted to the faithful; where the priest has become the pathetic figure of an obsolete old man who tries not to be a nuisance and knows a lot of jokes, but is not seen by anyone as a moral guide, generally because he isn’t.
This, I think, is why we are where we are. Europe is old and tired, and being old still has too many old sixty-eighters around. It has contracted out the very concept of freedom to a very nazi-“liberal” wannabe elite who is stealthily stripping the population of the most elementary freedoms with the entire apparatus of “hate crime” and “sensitivity” legislation. It has slowly forgotten not only the basis of freedom, but the basis of Christianity, with those most affected (the pot-smoking, sixty-eighter generation) now in power.
The smarter part of the US population sees all this, and reacts accordingly. I do not doubt the likes of Nichols can’t even understand why they are so angry.
If one doesn’t get Christianity, or freedom, I am not surprised.