Daily Archives: June 5, 2013
One of the many mistakes of modern thinking is the inability to assess goodness in its proper light. This in turn causes a tragic inability to understand who the really good people are.
It is traditional Christian teaching that God’s goodness is, so to speak, the sum total of both His Mercy and His Justice. On the human and practical level, this always implied the obvious concept that one can’t be good if he isn’t also able to enforce good behaviour, or to defend what is good with more than words. The idea that the Crusades be “not good” would have never entered the mind of people able to properly assess goodness.
Not so today. You will notice everywhere – and most tragically, in the thinking of many Catholics – that for very many “good” means “harmless”. If one is ready to punish, he can’t be really “good”. Goodness has become spineless thinking and behaviour, the non-violent, Gandhi-crap that has been polluting Western society for too long.
Popes are, unfortunately, a tragic example of this new thinking. Popes like Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII were good in that they were not only good men, but able enforcers. In contrast, the last Popes have all been bad enforcers, and their “goodness” has now become synonymous with the inability to act as a Pope should. Modern Popes are Gandhis in a white tunic: perfectly harmless, photogenic, and utterly innocuous for the Church hierarchy.
The first example of this was John XXIII, whose nickname il Papa buono (the good-hearted Pope) is due to his utter inability to do much else than being pious.
The Vatican Council he naively started was out of control only weeks into it, and there were no consequences. Theologians censured or silenced until a very few years before took over proceedings well before his death, and again there was no reaction. The very idea of the Council was thrown over board very rapidly, and one would almost think it I possible the Pope who called the Council is the one who presided over its highjacking.
How can such an irrelevance be good? It can only if one is drink with the kook-aid of the new times, of peace and dialogue as supreme values, with Gandhi instead of Christ as the guiding light.
Pope John XXIII certainly was a saintly man, with a very good heart. But he was the first of he ones to confuse “good” and “harmless”.
We pay the consequences still today.
The Lords, on whom Christian hopes rested, have yesterday turned down the proposal to kill the law about so-called “same sex marriage” with a majority of two to one.
The good news is that this was only a preliminary vote, a sort of “sudden death” proposal that would have killed the measure without even examining it in detail. There will be further votes, and continued lobby work.
The very bad news is that I personally do not think anything will change in the future. Let me explain why.
The excuse used by cowardly peers to justify their vote in favour of the exam of the law is that they need to look at things in detail before making a decision. This makes as much sense as to say that one needs to look in detail at a law legalising incest with one's own child before deciding whether it's, erm, an advisable piece of legislation. In my eyes, it is very naive to think that a Peer who did not have the guts to vote against abomination in principle will vote against it on technical reasons. Christian groups are not the only one who will apply pressure, and Number 10 was reported to have worked massively on this in the last week.
Add to this that the Lords is not the chamber it used to be. Once the largely hereditary preserve of wealthy – and therefore naturally conservative and financially independent – families, it has now become the emergency exit for politicians whose career within the party has been spent and are, as the saying goes, “kicked upstairs”. Lord Mohammed of East London Ghetto, or Lord Proll of Working Class Constituency, are nowadays more likely representative of the breed. These people are in the Lords not because of their cost allowance, but because of the well paid perks they can get or hope to get from the network of firms wanting to ingratiate the government. They may be elected for life, but they are not independent in any way in which wealth would make them independent.
To tell you how bad it is I only need to mention that even Mr Welby, the Mickey Mouse Archbishop of Mouseton, erm, Canterbury, has seen it as fitting to leave his own archbishops (around a couple dozen of them in the Lords, if memory serves) free to vote according to “conscience”. Go figure.
As to our own idiot, his silence has been deafening for many months now, and from the beginning of this mess he has limited himself to the strictly necessary, preferring to avoid appearing on the radar screen most of the time.
This is the situation we are in, and you can make your own guess about the probability of success.
I have reblogged some days ago my old blog post about Our Lady of Quito. It is reassuring to know that the Blessed Virgin – in whose apparition I believe – had warned about a massive attack on marriage. Everything is, so to speak, under strict observation from above and whilst we knew that already, it is beautiful to be told from the Blessed Virgin, too. We must go through this as well as we can, drawing strength from prayer and, in more serene days, thanking the Lord we live in times allowing us to fight the good fight against the perverts as our fathers and grandfathers did against Communism.
On a not unrelated note, yesterday was also the day our Cardinal Ravasi hobnobbed with other idiots amidst prosecco, finger sandwiches and perverts, trying to be one of them like a spot-plagued adolescent desperate to mix with the “cool people” at school. I have also not read the latest rumblings, erm, homily of the Pope, but I do not doubt it was not about the greatest issue of our time, more likely about the need to pay attention not to spill the milk in the morning (eh? no?) or to wait when we meet all in heaven (yes, yesss! Even the atheists!! Come on in everyone!) as we “do good” so well.