Pope Francis And The Champagne Socialists.

The Prosecco-Commies were slightly worried...

The Prosecco-Commies were slightly worried…

These (beautiful) words are taken from the Holy Father’s homily at yesterday’s Mass
Quando non si cammina, ci si ferma. Quando non si edifica sulle pietre cosa succede? Succede quello che succede ai bambini sulla spiaggia quando fanno dei palazzi di sabbia; tutto viene giù, è senza consistenza. Quando non si confessa Gesù Cristo, mi sovviene la frase di Léon Bloy: “Chi non prega il Signore, prega il diavolo”.
Quando non si confessa Gesù Cristo, si confessa la mondanità del diavolo, la mondanità del demonio.
My attempt at translation:
When one does not walk, one stops. When one does not build on stones, what happens? It happens what happens to the children at the strand, when they build sand palaces; everything tumbles down, it is without solidity. When one does not profess Jesus Christ, I am reminded of the phrase of Léon Bloy: “He who does not pray the Lord, prays the devil”.
When one does not profess the Lord, one professes the wordliness of the devil, the wordliness of Satan.
I would like to make some observations as follows:
1. If Pope Benedict had said “he who does not pray the Lord, prays the devil” he would have been hanged, drowned and quartered by the liberal press.  You would have heard the phrase repeated for weeks, and it would have been remembered in years. Actually, this phrase seems to me far more assertively Christian, and far more incendiary  towards infidels, than everything Pope Ratzinger ever said or would even dream to say. Nothing of the sort happened today.
2. This allows us a very important consideration: if you are aggressively “social”, the leftist press will have a problem in tackling you. They will have to praise Pope Francis’ “social justice” effort, but once they do so it will be difficult for them to criticise him with the acrimony they loved to reserve to Benedict ( a Pope who, thank God, never indulged in such “social” antics and cheap populism).
I can see the meeting at the BBC right now, and the puzzled faces. What do they do? The man certainly appears to be one of them, and to praise him helps their “cause”. But if they help him, they will lend credibility to his religious agenda, and given the natural degree of prestige of a Pope all over the planet it will not be so easy to them to say “he is so right on social issues, but he is such a Nazi like Ratzinger, too!”.
Let us think this further, and examine the implications for the (homosexual) pedophile priest scandal. Once the “friend of the poor” is installed, every continued talk of “inefficiency” and “scandals” will have to be seriously toned down,  then the “friend of the poor” will absolutely have to be better than his predecessor with the fine, expensive red moccasins and the ermine mozzetta. It is probably fair to say that to the extent this can be sold to the masses, Francis has, by decree of the Liberal press, already largely won his war against the corruption in the Curia. This will allow them to portray the good “Pope Chavez” as a vast improvement compared to the bad “Pope Bush”. But what then? The highly praised “Pope Chavez” might attack them with words they did not expect in their worst nightmare (how about “The BBC wages war on God?” Or is “he who does not pray the Lord, prays the devil” inclusive and ecumenical enough?), exactly when they have left their flank exposed by praising the man of exquisite “social conscience”.
Mind, it would be very stupid to say “how brilliant this man is, that he does half of the things wrong so that he might be able to avoid leftist criticism in the things he does right”. It is never allowed to do things wrong so that other may be done right. Nevertheless, a Pope who does half the things wrong and is praised for that by the leftist media will be to them more slippery than an eel when they try to catch him on religious issues.
This Pope has certainly many shortcomings (he is stuck in a post-liberation theology social activism, and his liturgical ideas will make you cringe), but he seem to have two qualities high esteemed by your truly: a ready tongue and total absence of shyness. If he uses both to vigorously defend Catholic teaching in matters of abortion, divorce, contraception, and sodomy I dare to hope he will obtain better result in five or seven years than Pope Benedict would have obtained in twenty or thirty years of well-intentioned, but ultimately ineffective elaborate meowing.
The “socialist Pope” steals the narrative from the left: the old meme of “Hitlerjugend/sex abuse/splendid lifestyle” does not work with one possibly more socialist than they are (I have never heard the BBC Director-General appeal to he Brit not to go on holiday and send the money to the favelas instead; even they have more sense than that, too..), living with more simplicity than they do, and speaking with far more authority than they will ever have…
We will see how this pans out, but unless Pope Francis tones down his ways, he might well reveal himself as one more socialist than most European socialists, but at least with some coherence to show, and more aggressively Catholic than all Popes since Pius XII, though without the sound doctrine and liturgy to back it up.
If I were a leftist journalist, I would already be scratching my head…

Posted on March 15, 2013, in Catholicism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. Hang on to your hat, M., it’s going to be a splendid, thrilling ride methinks. Also, I think you are falling in love with our new Papa…just sayin’

    • This is very, very droll… 😉

      I try to have a balanced view: not be blind in front of the bad news, but also see what is probably going to be better.

      We shall see.

      In time, people will even start to realise there is a reason why no Pope before – not even the Franciscans, who gave four Popes – chose the name “Francis”.


  2. Mundabor,
    I am glad you see some silver lining.


    “He came in second to Pope Benedict XVI in the last election and pulled out of the vote voluntarily, ***because he thought, ‘We shouldn’t be doing this, vote after vote.’ **** I said to him when I saw him afterward, ‘What a pity! I thought I would be able to say I know the pope as my friend.’ I said he’d probably get elected the next time, but he said, ‘No, I’m too old.'”

    Funny thing is, I was listening to an interview with the elder Cardinal Egan, and when the reporter asked about this very same past conclave vote that chose B16, he properly declined to comment on the proceedings.

    • I had read in 2005 Bergoglio retired when it was clear Ratzinger would make it to two third. But he had also lost already because in 2005, at some point 51% would have been enough.

      Which is perfectly legitimate, mind; only I would not want him to be seen as the noble contender who with his renunciation made Ratzinger’s victory possible in the first place.

      That even Scola was considered too right-wing (C&L and all that) tell you all you need to know about this conclave…

      It’s fair to say Pope Benedict screwed his appointments royally.


  3. Now it appears that ‘someone’ is putting it about (and can consider themselves excommunicated for doing so – if he/they have and if it is true) that Cardinal Wuerl was responsible for getting the US votes behind Francis and thus securing his victory. Apparently Wuerl has spent a great deal of unexplained time in Rome over the past few months and may be hoping for a significant job under the new Pope. If he HAS been blabbing to the Italian press, shouldn’t someone point out that he can’t have any job at all now that he is no longer a Catholic?

    • I don’t think Wuerl was ever so powerful, nor that he has excommunicated himself; from which, in any way, the Pontiff could free him.

      I am more inclined to think Dolan must have been enthusiastic, as he will probably be in the “right age” and with more visibility when the next Conclave comes…


%d bloggers like this: