The Good And The Harmless

Let the bad times roll...

Let the bad times roll…

 

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.

Mundabor

 

 

 

Posted on June 5, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 14 Comments.

  1. The Church collapsed for 3 reasons:

    1) WWII
    2) American hegemony which emerged post-1945
    3) The failure of mainstream European intellectuals to understand the Anglo-Saxon paradigm

    This latter failure had been evident even in the 1920s during the Malines conversations when Cardinal Mercier demonstrated the same incompetence exhibited by his fellow low countrymen forty years later at Vatican II.

  2. radjalemagnifique

    I clicked by pure chance on a blog listed on your blogroll which I never had read before. And I fell on the following article (for the full text please click on “The American Papist”):

    SAY HELLO TO THE NEW BISHOPS: SPRINGFIELD’S PAPROCKI ABSOLUTELY OWNS HOSTILE CROWD ON MARRIAGE

    […] But now, that’s changing.
    As the next couple decades unfold, it will become increasingly clear that among the greatest legacies of John Paul and Benedict is the group of bishops they appointed, especially in the United States. And as the Church is besieged more and more by an increasingly hostile culture that seeks to demoralize and discourage those who would stand up for the truth, we’re going to start seeing more instances of bishops being specifically targeted for attack. Sheep without shepherds are the wolves’ easiest prey.
    This is why Bishop Paprocki’s brave stand in Phoenix is so important. It sends a message, not only to the faithful who have so eagerly awaited it, but to the enemies of the Church as well:
    The bishops are back.

    http://www.catholicvote.org/say-hello-to-the-new-bishops-springfields-paprocki-absolutely-owns-hostile-crowd-on-marriage/

    May be the author is too optimistic. In France there is a saying : One can see the glass half empty or half filled. I belong the the people who generally see the glass half filled…

    Radja le Magnifique

    • A couple of bishops have never been away.
      The others are largely fifth columns who have lost the faith.

      M

    • radjalemagnifique

      If ever they had it!

      But something is happening in France. Not from the bishops but from the street.

      Radja le Magnifique

    • Isn’t it telling that the people react, whilst the clergy sleeps?

      The sins of the (conciliar) Fathers are visiting the sons.

      M

  3. “In this supreme moment of need of the Church, the one who should speak will fall silent.”

    (Our Lady of Quito)

  4. John XXIII was the Pope who was supposed to announce the Third Secret of Fatima and Lucia said, in her last published interview in 1957, that if it was not announced then something terrible would happen. He didn’t and it did – Vatican II.

  5. vermontcrank1

    Dear Mundabor. The Roman, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, and the conservative Italian, Ernesto Cardinal Ruffini, both petitioned Pope John XIII, during the conclave that elected him, to call the Council.

    The great Roman, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani could see the future over the seemingly serene horizon and American power and influence in Europe was one of the many factors he was worried about and wanted the Council to address.

    So, calling the Council was not an error but what happened at the council was.

    • Pope Pius XII did not call the council, though, so perhaps Ottaviani was wrong there…

      It must also be said that if Pius XII had called a council, it would have been a completely different council. It’s not that councils are evil per se, it is that they are evil if they are made for evil reasons…

      I have no doubt Pope John did call the council to make the Church more “sexy”, he was merely far more conservative than those who highjacked the council. if you ask me, he was as wrong as they were, merely less extreme in his being wrong. And he was weak, and unable to lead.

      M

  6. vermontcrank1

    Dear Mundabor. I think I must not have been clear.

    Cardinals Ottaviani and Ruffini, during the conclave that elected him as Pope, asked Roncalli to call a Council to address what they had identified as looming problems.

    • I got that. But I still think it was a mistake. As for the Anglo-Saxon influence (which I now take was referred to the clergy, not society at large) I would say the Germans were and still are a bigger problem.

      In my eyes, the problems should have been addressed in a punctual way, issue for issue, discreetly and decisively. An ecumenical council could only engender an almost messianic expectation of “change”, particularly in a world that was changing so rapidly.

      M

  7. I have to say, your blog has made me think a lot, this post specifically. What the church needs is a bunch of men like Pius X: Traditional and unafraid. Until we get the weasels out (The Archbishop of Vienna comes to mind), we will never truly fix the church.

    • Alas, the Archbishop of Vienna is a papabile, and there are many like him. I do not think the a holy Father himself is much better. They represent the Church we might well get for the decades to come. As for me and mine, I will follow what has been transmitted to us.

      M

%d bloggers like this: