Daily Archives: November 10, 2012
One of the effects of the recent electoral events might well be a polarisation among the American priests, with the cowards becoming more cowardly and the brave more belligerent.
One example may be seen here, with what appears to be a rather young priest not only announcing he routinely embraces the sword, but naturally assuming many others will do the same, too. I can only assume the good Father shows a rather strong conviction of changing times because of the environment he sees around him: his best parishioners, his colleagues, other people he comes in contact with.
In the end, polarisation is in the nature of the present political game, and the impending years of conflict and legal (or social) litigation concerning HHS et alia will unavoidably see the majority of the accommodating, cowardly clergy happily talking about social justice and other innocuous issues, and a minority of rather more masculine guys embracing the battle and, well, relishing it.
Father John Hollowell (the priest in question) also made me smile when he wrote the following words (emphasis mine):
I remember thinking “I should be really sad that people are attacking me” but I remember in those moments being overcome with the urge to chuckle at how little it actually DID affect me. You, as a faithful Catholic, have likely had similar experiences…and that is God working in you and preparing you for what is to come as well.
I have actually had similar experiences since I was born, but I thought this is just because… I don’t care two straws for the opinion of people I don’t like and/or don’t esteem. I do not know whether God is working in me, but he certainly is not making it difficult for me to engage in the kind of rather rough discussions this kind of issues unavoidably engenders.
I also had to smile a second time because in my experience priests are generally very well trained – even the orthodox ones – at saying the rough things without heating the discussion too much; but it would appear this isn’t enough to spare even a priest from having people “yelling at him”. Ah, not an easy job by any means…
Kudos to father Hollowell, and best wishes for his upcoming battles.
At least he knows his reward is assured, which the other side certainly can’t say.
This is so good, for the first time I reblog an external blog post.
There are numerous reasons as to why Obama got re-elected. I have no intention of analyzing any of them, save one.
The Catholyc Vote.
This is gonna get rant-y, just so you know.
According to CNN exit-polling, the Catholic bloc voted 50-48 in favor of Obama. Some say that this is an improvement over 2008, which it was, but it’s not good enough. Given all that has been said over the past two years, and the Fortnight for Freedom, and the problematic HHS mandate, those numbers ought to have been flipped and then some, in my opinion.
If you look at the “How Often Do You Attend Weekly Services?” graphic, the “Occasionally” group (40% of the electorate) broke 55-43 for Obama. Granted, this number also includes non-Catholics, but I’m going to hazard an educated guess that this number represents Catholics at the very least, and it wouldn’t surprise me…
View original post 922 more words
You may have noticed that I very seldom post about some speech of the Pope. The reason for this is that I rarely (nay: almost never) find them of any relevance whatsoever in dealing with the concrete, everyday problems of the life of Catholics.
I do not mean here that a Pope should thunder every Monday against Obama and every Tuesday against Cameron, though that would be good, too (A Pope is a head of State, but a Pope first; strong Popes of the past never had a problem in confronting Kings and Emperors). I also do not mean to say that a Pope should not talk about peace, love, and other Christian subjects.
What I mean is that by reading the Pope’s messages you wonder whether the news from Planet Earth manage to enter the offices of the Vatican.
There is almost no day without some new attack on the Christian society, perpetrated by heads of governments, parliaments, judiciary, down to universities, Cardinals, Bishops, and even parish priests. One would expect the Pope to become very stern and very vocal in the defence of Catholicism, and to take the lead in the battle.
Instead, the typical fare coming from the Vatican is the kind of generic waffle which either doesn’t criticise anyone or, if it does, does it in a way that no one needs to feel criticised.
The United Kingdom’s PM might be thinking of launching a same-sex initiative in parliament against the majority of his own party, obviously relying on the Labour votes to make a favour to his girlfriend Clegg and, it is increasingly suspected, keep getting sex at home. Popes of the past would have made his life very difficult.
The US elections showed the Church has almost no grip on the “catholic” electorate, and even her US leader thinks it smart to rub oneself against the president, just in case he should win. I remember reading that in England the entire country was excluded from communion in the XVI century at some stage of the conflict with Henry VIII. Let us say this again: A Pope took away communion from an entire country. In the US, we are probably going to hear another lecture about the importance of “encountering another”.
The HHS mandate threatens the freedom of not only Catholics, but every American. In the past, when the freedom of Catholics was threatened Popes started organising wars, and certainly weren’t shy in saying who was a friend and who was an enemy.
These are just few examples taken out of three seconds of reflection; every one of you can add countless other issues, big and small.
Now let us move on to the Catholic News Agency, and let us see what weapons the Pontiff is using against the deterioration of everything Christian all over the West. As per today I find the following:
“Pope reflects on finding faith in a secular world”: the talk is about “experience of God”, “encountering another”, and such like.
“Pope Calls faith, reason essential to human freedom”: 70 scientists are lectured about “a new vision of the unity of the sciences.” Expressions like “participated being” rear their ugly head.
“Pope reflects on the power of love”. Love is this, love is that. All fine of course, but there’s nothing against Obama, or Cameron.
It’s all like this. If it’s not love is charity, if it’s not charity is understanding, if it’s not understanding is dialogue. All very edifying, no doubt (apart form the “dialogue”), but when it comes to what can make a difference, that is: taking a hard stance on the modern world’s controversies and the battlefields that are shaping the world of the future generations, the Pontiff is utterly and absolutely nowhere to be seen, and rather makes the same impression as the photo above.
In past times, far lesser attacks to Christianity than what is currently going on in countries like the US, Canada and the United Kingdom would have caused prominent excommunications and a promise of cold or – perhaps – warm war.
Nowadays, Joe Biden has just been reelected Vice President, and all we will probably hear is some common place who does not say he is wrong, let aloe punish him. You are unlikely to ever hear from the Pontiff anything even remotely similar to this , and the man who has the gut to talk so beautifully and openly is not some agit-prop, but a Bishop of the Church; one of those who seem to be appointed by the Pope only by mistake, or fortunate coincidence.
The Vatican is fast asleep. What happens outside seems not to concern them and if it does, it is as if Pope and Cardinals thought they are the last one called to vocal and concrete opposition, as opposed to generic waffle.
Sleep, Vatican, sleep.
One day you’ll wake up to jail and persecution, and it will be your fault.