Daily Archives: September 13, 2013
St. Augustine refuses the book of vices. Francis would ask whether they are committed in conscience.
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mk 16: 15-16.
Given that – and this is fundamental – God’s mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience. In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil. The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.
Pope Francis, Letter to Eugenio Scalfari.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
The phrases above frame the content of this blog post: Francis has, once again, denied Jesus’ message concerning atheists. This time, he is even more brazenly heretic than in the past (I have reported), but it is clear in Francis’ world Jesus’ brutal message – the message Christianity has propagated these 2000 years; the message that makes evangelisation so necessary – has no place.
Being a Jesuit, though, Francis is subtler than that. He first repeats the Christian message and then adds a new religion for the sake of the atheists, and of his own popularity.
Let us see in detail the working of a Jesuit mind from the text of the letter, published in its entirety in an excellent English translation on Rorate Caeli.
The question here is “the Church’s attitude towards those who do not share faith in Jesus”, and more specifically “if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith.”
Christianity has a clear answer for that, and it is in the – again – unmistakably brutal words of Jesus mentioned above. If you refute Jesus, Jesus will refute you.
There is nothing here about conscience. Jesus is not a matter of conscience. Christianity is not a matter of conscience. Salvation is not a matter of conscience. Truth is not a matter of conscience. Salvation depends on being accepted by Jesus as worthy of salvation, which cannot be separated from a more or less imperfect, ignorant, even very lazy – and at times yet implicit – desire to be saved by that Jesus from whom only one’s salvation depends.
Consequently, Francis’ answer to Scalfari should have been very short and very easy, along the lines of: ” Dear Dr Scalfari, the Gospel is very clear about what will happen to you if you die in the refusal of Christ. What you believe, or not believe, “right” or “wrong” is simply neither here nor there. Similarly, your “conscience” is neither here nor there, because you aren’t God, Jesus is. Think of this now, and pray the Blessed Virgin much that she may help you to pass the hurdle the day you die; because as you think and write now, I would not bet my pint that you would”.
An answer along these lines would have been very orthodox and very charitable. It would have gone around the world in a matter of hours. It would have been a most powerful testimony of the hour awaiting all of of us, when the Rex tremendae majestatis, and not a journalist, will decide what is right and what is wrong.
Still, an answer along these lines would have destroyed the liberal reputation of Francis. His popularity among atheists, perverts, and assorted anticlerical activists would have been in tatters. He could not allow that.
Therefore, as a true Jesuit, he mixes the waters. He explains some of the Catholic truths – so it cannot be said he is not being orthodox – but then, practically in the same breath, completely ignores them and invents, out of some masonic fantasies of his, a second religion, applicable to atheists and very convenient to him.
Read again his words above. The first part is fine: God’s forgiveness is stronger than every sin, if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart. Francis has made his homework, so to speak, and has appeased the Catholics. Now that he has done the running with the hare, he can do the hunting with the hounds. Mysteriously, from the basic Christian concept that perfect contrition leads to the remission of sins a new religion is born, through the use of the perfectly illogical words “given that God’s mercy has no limits”, with which everything he has just said about the necessity of contrition is completely forgotten. The new religion has as its fundamental tenet that “the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience”.
Whatever this is, this isn’t Christianity. This is, very simply, a new religion; a religion in complete and utter opposition to the words of Jesus mentioned above, and by which the words “let him be accursed” are more than appropriate. I cannot imagine a past epoch of serious Christianity when such an astonishing phrase from a priest or a bishop would not have attracted the entire Inquisition on Francis, and death at the stake would not have appeared a very concrete possibility. Blessed times, sadly gone.
Read Francis’ words again. And again. This is a Kindergarten-cum-Freemasonry wannabe religion, by which every atheist relates to God according to his own conscience and is saved through this means; because hey, he does not believe, does he now?
There is here, of course, a huge non sequitur, as Francis jumps with utter lack of logic or reason from the necessity of repentance to the sufficiency of “obeying one’s conscience”. Not only the two aren’t related, but they are in mutual exclusion. If obeying my conscience is sufficient, there is no need whatever for contrition. If contrition is necessary, my thinking what is right “in conscience” will never equate to contrition.
Pope Bishop of Rome be such a nincompoop as not to get these simple things? Yes, of course he can! John XXII believed for many years that there is no beatific vision before the Last Judgment! They are heretical Popes, is all. Popes can be heretical and in fact have been heretical. They will simply not proclaim any dogma contrary to Christian teaching. If they should try (the operative word here is “try”, as opposed to “succeed”) then ipso facto the sea would be vacant, because opposition to Christian dogma is not something you can put to a vote, or that would need so and so many cardinals or bishops to be effective.
Back to our disgraceful bishop. How does Francis, then, avoid being exposed as openly heretical besides relying on the usual blindness of his not very well-instructed “this is the Pope so the Holy Spirit must be wanting heresy” crowd?
By being a Jesuit.
If you read the letter in its entirety, you will see that Francis has a two-railway system, by which the believers follow rules of Christian behaviour because it is oh so extremely joyous to live a life which prohibits a lot of rather savoury things, and those who do not believe can blaspheme, fornicate, contracept, abort, yeah, stage a Holocaust or a genocide provided this is what their conscience tells them.
In Francis’ new religion, Lenin and Pol Pot are clearly in possession of all the credentials to be saved, because there can be no real doubt about their complete atheism and their following their conscience. For others – like Hitler, who was said to be a believer, though obviously in his own way – it is more complicated, because apparently he did believe in some Nazi God. Still, if he followed his conscience, how can Francis deny to him, too, the “get out of jail card”, if it is true of the conscience that “listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil,” and “the goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision”?
What the hell is that? This is hell at work, that’s what it is.
But how does Francis come to these astonishingly heretical conclusions? It would appear, from not only this letter but other – and already reported – interventions of him, that to him hell isn’t really a realistic option.
If you read the letter in its entirety, you will find some traces of clear orthodoxy – for example the repeated affirmation that there is only one Truth, and this Truth is in no way subjective, and is Jesus Himself -. But this is an orthodoxy without a leg, or a body without a head, because to this orthodoxy Francis does not attach any real consequence (as in: he that believeth not shall be damned), but creates a second, in my eyes clearly masonic religion, with which according to Francis Jesus would help those who, as He said Himself, would otherwise be damned.
If you remember my blog post titled “Rehab”, you will recall that Francis is on record with saying:
“Do you need to convince the other to become Catholic? No, no, no! Go out and meet him, he is your brother. This is enough. Go out and help him and Jesus will do the rest”.
This letter sings the same song: we are so joyously Catholics, but we do not need to really convert others, because it is not necessary. How can it be, if following one’s conscience can be enough? We are all brothers, and God’s mercy will reach all of us.
In this very letter, we find other hints of this new religion. Take this paragraph (emphases mine):
And it is then – as the Roman centurion exclaims, in the Gospel according to Mark – that Jesus is paradoxically revealed as the Son of God. Son of a God that is love and that wants, with all of himself that man, every man, discovers himself and also lives like his real son. For Christian faith this is certified by the fact that Jesus rose from the dead: not to be triumphant over those who refused him, but to certify that the love of God is stronger than death, the forgiveness of God is stronger than any sin and that it is worthwhile to give one’s life, to the end, to witness this great gift.
It is worthwhile to give one’s life to “witness a great gift”, but this gift cannot be very great if Salvation can be attained without it. Still, for Francis the ones die joyously to give witness, and the others go to heaven by killing them – or aborting, murdering, or committing holocausts or genocides – in accordance with their own conscience. Extra Ecclesiam Omnia Salus.
This is a Christianity presented as nothing more than an optional, whilst Freemasonry – I keep coming back to this, because this letter has disquieting analogies to Freemasonry, where everyone picks and chooses his own relationship with his “supreme being” and tailors it exactly to his needs, without having to give account to anyone; hey, in the end… “who am I to judge?” – is the parachute for those who, in conscience (Hitler again!), refuse the option of Christ.
Note the other statement: Jesus did not rise from the dead in order to be triumphant over those who refused him, but to certify that the love of God is stronger than death, the forgiveness of God is stronger than any sin. There is nothing here about this forgiveness being conditioned. If contrition doesn’t work, conscience will have to intervene. As an atheist, one does not have to convert, simply to use his conscience. Chocolate (Christ) or vanilla (conscience). Pick your flavour. God saves you anyway, because “God’s mercy has no limits”.
This letter, which I think will remain in infamy in the history of the Church, would give many more arguments of discussion, as from it emerged a deeply, deeply confused man with the theology of an eight year old unable to come to term with the harsh reality of damnation and desirous to save everyone in some way whatever. However, I have already surpassed the 2000 words, and I think I have abused of your patience for long enough.
Still, when the eight year old tries to “save humanity” you can forgive him for playing God, because he does not understand the consequences and the reach of his error. Though I am sure my grandmother would have slapped him anyway.
When a Pope (even if he does not call himself that way) confuses Catholics in such a way, and confirms countless immortal souls in their atheist complacency, I dare to say it is an entirely different matter.
Pray for the Pope.
And if you can, pray for a new one.
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mk 16: 15-16
More to follow when I have calmed down.
And it came to pass we were once again informed, from a very high place, that the discussion about priest celibacy is a legitimate one. Which is, obviously, absolutely true, though priest celibacy has had a very special place in the Church for a very long time.
Let's discuss, then.
Think of the post of Father Ray Blake that caused the recent controversy, and the kind of situations he described then and in the following days. Drug addicted in your kitchen at two in the morning, vomiting around, desperate people of all kind; many of them, as always, thinking they are entitled to whatever they need at the moment.
This is Brighton in 2013, and is not without an element of danger. You would not let a desperate drug addicted at 2 am in your home – actually, not at any hour -; particularly not, if you had wife and children. If you had wife and children, your wife would be the first – and rightly so! – to tell you to avoid dangerous people in your children's home, or to put yourself in dangerous situations.
Many places on earth are more dangerous than Brighton in 2013; and many of those are evangelisation territory; many more that aren't could soon become, if priests for the job are to be found.
Crude as it may be to say so, the priest is celibate not only because he can be free to be entirely focused on his mission, but because his celibacy makes him more expendable. Wife and children make things more complicated, introduce a double loyalty – you can't avoid, if you are a father and husband, to be concerned about your children and wife: nature has appointed a father as the provider and protector of his wife and children – and makes difficult choices more difficult.
Then there is the economic factor, with a priest then required to have the money to maintain a family, and possibly a numerous one. The same difficulties would present themselves is said priest were to be moved, with much higher costs. And who would ask a priest with wife and children to move to, say, Iraq or Syria? Would the family be split, then? Or would they all be required to move to the danger zone?
Two priests are required to obey the Government and disobey Christ or go to jail, or to obey the government and betray their priesthood or be executed. For whom is it easier to stay with Christ?
For whom is it easier to deal with the junkie at 2 am? For whom is it easier to be transferred the other side of the planet at short notice? For whom is it easier to be despised, threatened, perhaps beaten with a stick, perhaps killed?
For whom is it easier not to be blackmailed with what would happened to his wife and children: the one who has them, or the one who hasn't?
I know what some think. Priesthood is not really like that. Priesthood is a job for a nice chap with an assured income for life, telling people to rejoice in their inevitable salvation and celebrate their own goodness.
This may apply to Anglicans wannabe vicars. It certainly does not apply to Catholic priests.
The priest is not his own. He belongs to Christ first, second, third and last. He is and must be – crude as it is to say that – expendable; and in order to be more easily expendable, it is best that he is always aware of the One to Whom he has already given his life; without distractions, and without other loyalties and obligations. Priesthood is a vocation, not a profession. It is a choice of self-sacrifice, not of quiet family living.
Certainly, the Church can – and did; and does; let's think of the Ordinariates – in particular occasions allow a married man to become a priest. But these are exceptions, and sub-optimal solutions, chosen after weighing very special circumstances in very special cases. Extreme circumstances make bad laws, and the tiny minority of married priests must not lead us into believing if it is allowed, then it must be the right things to do. It is allowed, but it's not the best thing to do. It may be the practical solution in some particular circumstances, but it is the less efficient one.
Priest celibacy served the Church so well for so long, it is astonishing the debate should take place in the first place. But you see, we live in V II times; that is, in times of confused Catholicism. Times that cause a crisis of vocations in the first place, and then suggest to further weaken the priesthood as a remedy to this crisis; a remedy which would cause a further crisis of vocations, as opposed to the application for a job.
Look at the Anglicans. They can marry. Half of their so-called ordinations are of women, and many of the men are – for their own admission – homosexual. It doesn't look like the ability to marry plays a big role among those who would be the only ones eligible for the (real) priesthood: heterosexual males.
No, the general ability to have married priest would cause great damage, rather than help, the Church. It would deprive her of the ability to have an army of soldiers who choose the priesthood as a very radical choice in their life, and the hinge of their entire existence and, if it must be, end of it. If you question the quality of vocations today, think what it would become if such a huge accommodation to the world was made.
And in fact, the entire concept of the “advantage” of married priesthood is contradictory. The idea that you have more vocations if you make the priesthood better adapted to the world outside is exactly the contrary of what priesthood should be. It is like saying “in order to have more priests, you must make them more similar to the world they are supposed to reform”; but the priest must not be of this world. His celibacy alone is a huge testimony of this.
The priest is celibate because God gave him the very special grace of a vocation to a celibate priesthood. To ignore this is to belittle, if not outright insult, the choice of celibacy made by the priest. a priest does not choose to become such notwithstanding the celibacy it imposed on him. A priest chooses celibacy as an integral part of his priesthood.
Priest celibacy worked so well for so long, and whilst the quality of the individual vocation varies greatly in the individual cases, on the whole it is clear it was this celibate priesthood that allowed the Church (and particularly the Roman Rite, with his strong accent on celibacy) to expand all over the planet.
Priestly celibacy is darn good. Instead of trying to sabotage the work of the Holy Ghost in inspiring vocations , we should promote a vision of the Church that promotes Them. Not a church of public servants concerned for their families, but a church of heroes ready to sacrifice everything, and showing this in front of the whole words by sacrificing, for the start, what would be the biggest obstacle to their “expendability”: a wife, and children.
Let us pray for our priests. Let us pray for more vocations. Let us appreciate them when they admit the junkie in their kitchen at 2 am, uncaring for their own safety; let us present them as an example of true manhood, and true faith, to our children. Let us recover the priest as a saver of souls, rather than a platitude spitting social worker. Let us recover proper liturgy and proper instruction; let us reconquer the sanctuary for male altar boys.
Then, you will see, vocations will not be a problem.