Daily Archives: March 24, 2013
If you have looked at the Video of Pope Francis visiting the Pontiff Emeritus yesterday, you could probably not avoid noticing how frail Benedict looked. If one thinks that only at the beginning of February he was still fully in charge, one begins to have a very clear picture of why his decision to abdicate was a wise one.
I never bought the story of the “Cross from which the Pope is not supposed to step down”. If the duty of a Pope had traditionally been to be frail and ineffective, the Popes would have been traditionally chosen among the oldest and sickest, in the hope their frailty goes on for as long as possible; after which, the next sick old man would have been picked up.
We all know this was never the case, and when it happened that old men were chosen for the office it was because a ” transition Pope” (that is: one of whom the Cardinals thought he would not occupy the position for very long) was considered preferable to a long impasse or a very public quarrel.
Please also consider the most famous Popes were men full of energy. Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, Urban II, or Pius IX (to mention just a few) were Popes who would have never thought it would be better for them to be old, frail, and ultimately factually irrelevant. Popes were meant to reign, not to be put in a shop window (or a “Popemobile”) for all the world to see Catholicism is de facto without its guide.
Pope Pius XII was a Pope I continue to go back to, because it seems to me in most cases if you want to know how a Pope did it right you only have to look at what this great Pope did. Pope Pacelli was a man of such strong energy and iron will, that in one of the most difficult periods in the history of the Church he united in himself the functions of Pope and Secretary of State. Nothing less than full control was enough for him. This, my friends, is a Pope who sees his role rather differently than being looked at behind the bullet proof glass of a vehicle. In fact, Pope Pius XII thought of resigning when it became clear to him he could not reign properly anymore; and we are talking of a time where the Church had things so much under control – though challenges are always there – that the Western societies of the Fifties seem to belong to a different age than the present ones.
What does this tell us? It tells us that a Pope is supposed to function as a Pope, rather than as a televised ad for Catholicism. The “shop window Pope” is very well for the Curia, who can easily manipulate him; or for the local hierarchies, who can do as they please; but it's not good at all for the Church, who needs to be led by Peter, not by a bunch of Cardinals no one ever made Pope and avoiding, at least on this earth, every accountability.
It is not surprising that weak or ill Popes cause the Curia to become inefficient, or corrupt. What is surprising is that the same people who lament the Curia's inefficiency (or corruption) are perfectly fine with years and years of impotent Popes, unable to reign or, alas, even to think properly. They don't see that weak Popes, like weak Kings or Emperors, unavoidably lead to the supremacy of the shrewdest manipulators, to a total lack of accountability, and to an environment of savage intrigue, whereas strong Popes will, for good or for bad, steer the Barque where they want to, and be clearly seen as responsible for what they do.
If we are honest with ourselves, Benedict wouldn't have gone down in history with the nickname “the iron Pope” if he had been in best health every day of his Papacy. Still, the exercise of power always needs a certain amount of energy, of inner fire, of will to demand and command that builds on a certain amount of strength. This strenght is needed to cope with the adrenalines, the difficult decisions, the opposition, the punishments if must be, that the exercise of power invariably demands. Seeing Benedict in yesterday's video, it is abundantly clear this fire isn't there any longer.
An intelligent man, and a man who loves the Church, Benedict must have seen it. He had also seen from very near the quasi-Sede Vacante situation created in the last five, or more, years of his predecessor's reign. He has, I am certain, correctly assessed such a situation as damaging for the Church; and he has decided to draw the consequences from his own situation for the good of the Church, irrespective of the criticism he knew would be levelled at him.
Pope Benedict wasn't an Iron Pope, but he understood the need for the Church to be guided by a Pope, not by an unelected small group of shrewd manipulators. He was intelligent enough to see the issue, and unselfish enough to take a step he knew would be criticised. It pains me, it truly pains me to see a man able to take such a selfless decision, and being criticised for it.
If you ask me, this, what Pope Benedict showed us, was the true courage and the true humility; not the iron cross, the black shoes, and the absence of Mozzetta.
May the Almighty grant Benedict serene days of prayer on earth, and reward this gentle man for this beautiful act of courage.
We all know that pro-abortion radicals have no problem with male politicians speaking in support of abortion, or male lobbyists fighting for federal funding of Planned Parenthood, or male doctors performing abortions. But the minute a man speaks out for life, it’s “HEY! If you don’t have a uterus, ZIP IT!!!”
No, Madame Anger, I will not zip it. Unless you are trying to tell me my fly is down, in which case, thank you. I will zip it slowly and carefully.
Guys, I don’t know about you, but I for one am tired of being told that because I can never carry a child, I can’t stick up for one. It’s time to stop bowing to prejudice. It’s time to start being men.
In conclusion, to those who burn with rage when we men have the nerve to stand up for life, I offer this humble apology: please forgive us for being born male. What were we thinking?
This very funny lines come from the author of an article appeared on a pro-life site, and worthy of being read in its entirety. I think it stands out for the refreshing openness so far away from the usual political correctness surrounding these arguments.
Having a uterus does not give her owner any property right over any human being, least of all an unborn child.
Palm Sunday Reblog
My last post was in defence of Michael Voris complaining about those religious who seem to have forgotten (probably because they have) what Christianity is about.
If you want an excellent example of such behaviour, look no further than to the Numero Uno of English Catholicism, our well-known disgraziato Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols.
Nichols is already notorious for the zeal with which he undermines Catholic doctrine and Catholic principles. His clear support for so-called same-sex couples speaks volumes about the heretic Pope Benedict has made the mistake of putting at the top of the English Hierarchy (and the even bigger mistake of not removing when it became clear that the man doesn’t care a straw for Catholic orthodoxy), and his continued refusal to put an end to the scandalous homo masses in Soho should leave even the most naive supporter of Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols in no doubt as to…
View original post 644 more words
One of tragic problems of modern Christianity is that the religion of niceness pollutes their very thinking and speaking.
Once upon a time, he who murdered a person was a murdered. It’s really not complicated. There were no questions about “judging”, the need to show “sensitivity”, the desire not to hurt one’s “feelings”, and the lot.
It is high time that we go back to a simple logic by which political correctness cannot deform, or remake, reality anymore: a woman who chooses to abort is the murderer of her baby. Why? Because she murdered him.
This thinking seems to make inroads among pro-life activists in the Socialist Republic of California, who are becoming rather explicit in the matter.
A pro-life group in the San Fernando Valley is now producing a “provocative” documentary with a rather explicit intent, explicitly targeting an abortion clinic which might kill up to fifty babies a day. They won’t mince words. As they put it:
“It’s time the pro-life movement starts calling abortion what it is — murder. And it’s time the men and women who participate in the murder of unborn children are brought to the knowledge of their sin against God. They are murderers.”
No fake sensitivity here. Tell it as it is. False charity doesn’t help anyone.
Some more explanations:
“Our primary goal” […] “is to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to everyone associated with the abortion industry, from the women having abortions to the people working inside the clinics. We don’t want anyone to perish in their sin. But we must stop showing deference to the feelings of women who are murdering their children. Yes, we must speak the truth in love, but it must be the whole truth.”
At times, truth is harsh; and when it is, a lot of “sensitive” people will not hesitate in attacking those who speak the truth accusing them – mind, without any sensitivity – of not being “charitable”, and “hurting” the “feelings” of women who are simply murdering a baby, and bla, bla, and bla.
This must stop. It must be the whole truth.
The documentary is aptly called “Babies Are Murdered Here”. That’s a promising title, for sure.