Daily Archives: October 29, 2013
Let me say first that whoever expected Cardinal Pell to say: “Yes! Francis is a flaming Modernist!” needs an urgent reality check. Not only is the man a Cardinal, but in virtue of his being the quota-member for Australia of the Gang of Eight he is in a particularly exposed position. Therefore, asking him about the heresies of the Bishop of Rome is not going to yield any particularly original result.
Still, Cardinal Pell's argument is notable for his… complete lack of sensible argumentation. Bishop Fellay has explained in detail in a long sermon what is wrong with Francis. He has quoted him verbatim. He has analysed Francis' thinking – and actually only some of his many antics – in detail. Not even the most biased commenter could say Fellay's indictment was an emotional outburst. On the contrary: the fact that it came after months of controversies in which the SSPX had avoided open criticism of Francis' clearly heretical statements lends even more weight to the Bishop's entirely justified criticism and righteous anger.
What has, then, Cardinal Pell to oppose to this? If he has tried in the past to bend over backwards and explain to us why water is not wet I have missed his interventions. Still, his latest words are notable in that they are absolutely devoid of any sensible content or decent argumentation. To say that “Francis is a son of the Church” is, as an argument, rubbish, and by the way Luther was an Agostinian.
No, Cardinal Pell's statement has simply no basis: no basis in fact, and not even the attempt to provide one. The Church of V II demands that every … rubbish her prelates spit be believed merely because they say so. This is, to every well instructed Catholic, rubbish.
Let the Cardinal – now that he has thrown the stone – reply publicly and in detail, point for point, to Bishop Fellay. Let him prove with reasoned arguments why Bishop's Fellay accusations of Modernism levelled at the Bishop of Rome would be rubbish.
If he does it and does it well, we will agree with him and applaud his superior wisdom.
If he doesn't, we will know who is talking rubbish.
Ah, the brave new world of liberal thinking: completely God-free, and with as much Satan as you can eat.
Read here about a new “sexual orientation”: the “minor-attracted”.
Makes sense, doesn't it?
If sodomy is only a matter of orientation, one does not see why this “orientation” should be condemned when it is directed towards children, dogs, or one's own relatives. Either a society decides that certain grave sins are forbidden for the simple reason that they go against natural law and God's precepts, or hell is the limit.
Yet, some people – many people, in fact – are now so ignorant and stupid that they espouse the mantra of “if there is no violence, people should be free to do what they want”.
Say hello to a world where homosexuals – and some heterosexual, presumably – have sex with their own adopted children, obviously within the framework of “love” the liberal society knows so well. As for the case of euthanasia, and so slimy itself, the work of “persuasion” of these monsters will at some point make abomination seem normal, and there will be no lack of subtle and less subtle ways to pervert little innocents. One can hope the phenomenon will – horrible as it is – be at least limited to the sons of the liberals themselves, but I fear much for the orphans. And then of course the perverts will try to pervert your children already at school. Isn't this exactly what they are trying to do with sodomy already?
This stupid society does not understand that one cannot be satanic by half. If one is ok with sodomy, it will only be a matter of time until he – or his children, or grandchildren at the latest – are fine with every other sort of abomination under the sun. Then the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the children, as it is supposed to be.
Naturally, give it a couple of decades and every expression of opinion against such abominations will be accused of being intolerant, bigoted, hypocritical, & Co. “Phaedophobe!”, will the same people yell at you who now call you “homophobe”, among the applause of liberal journalists and self-appointed “intellectuals”.
As we have just seen, it works.
Cardinal Maradiaga is one of the members of the “Gang of Eight” and, if he is representative of the average quality of the members, it is fair to say nothing good will ever come from this strange new organ, the latest tribute to “collegiality”.
Maradiaga is a populist of the worst sort, which seems to be pretty much a speciality of South American Cardinals. The media report his exploits in the linked article and elsewhere.
There is in Maradiaga – and in those like him – an all too obvious tendency to put earth before heaven, and instrumentalise the Church to make it match with his upside down vision.
A Cardinal that thinks that “economic inequalities among world citizens” (“world citizen”: what an idiotic and oxymoronic expression, by the way) are a problem in itself is a Cardinal who has a huge problem, because he is only a socialist in a red robe, one to whom Christianity has become – an ideology.
The poor will always be with us. Some people will – unless you follow the socialist ideology, or manage to create a Communist dictatorship – always be vastly richer than others. The complex fabric of this earth is made in such a way that poverty can spiritually help the poor, and riches can not only alleviate the need of the poor, but promote the spiritual advancement not only of the rich, but of the poor themselves. Never has Christianity had a problem with the fact that some are born rich, or very rich, and many other poor, or very poor. Inheritance tax is not a Christian concept, it is a socialist one. Jesus never even advocated income tax; he advocated works of mercy, and compassion for those in need. The modern concept of “wealth redistribution” is just not in the Gospel. If anything, the existence of economic inequality is a very good way to teach us to put our hopes in the next world rather than in this one, and to invest our time in preparing for what is really important – our eternal destiny – rather than what is far less relevant in the great scheme of things – differences in material prosperity -.
Jesus taught us to perform works of mercy. He never criticised Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea for the fact that they were rich. Note that both are canonised saint, and clearly Zacchaeus remained, for all his restitutions, a very rich man. If Cardinal Maradiaga thinks that in Jesus’ times social inequalities were any littler than today he hasn’t been paying attention at school, and should stay nearer to the Gospels rather than abusing them for his socialist slogans.
Socialism has no part in Christianity. None whatsoever. Rich and poor will always be with us, and the difference in material possession between the very rich and the very poor will always be staggering. They will also have their own challenges, so that we can’t say how we would have fared spiritually if we had been born, or had later become, rich.
Still: one is born the son of the Duke of Westminster, another is born the son of an unemployed alcoholic. Do not question the wisdom of all this, unless you want to blaspheme.
The rich must help the poor. But make no mistake, they will still be rich. Whenever one comes to the conclusion – as the Cardinal clearly does: he is South American after all – that inequality is a problem, and equality therefore the aim, he has abandoned Christianity and transformed it into an earth-centred ideology – note this word: ideology – that has completely lost sight not only of the real aim of Christianity, but also of the fundamental wisdom and providential order of this world.
Has the Cardinal no eyes to see? Does he not see inequality going through the very fabric of Creation? If we observe reality with open eyes we see utter inequality not only in wealth and material possession, but also in intelligence, strength, health, ability or talent, beauty, wit, spirituality, & Co.
We are all equals in our human dignity, but boy, we are so astonishingly different in everything else! If it is unjust that one be born rich and one poor, why should it be just that one is born intelligent and strong, and another weak and stupid? Should we disfigure the beautiful girls in order to decrease “inequality” with the ugly ones, or amputate the strong man to make him more like the cripple? We don’t do it, nor do we demand that such “inequalities” be fought against. We thank God for the unmerited graces He gave us in His mercy, and have compassion for those not graced in the same way (though certainly graced in others we might not be able to see). We help alleviate poverty we see around us (a very relative concept in the West, anyway) and thank God for the financial security he may have given us, or petition Him to give it to us if we lack it. In every aspect of life, inequalities and brutal differences in the human condition help us to march toward Salvation, if we only see them properly.
In the end, life is not fair, nor it is supposed to be. The Church of “Che” distracts the faithful from the real issue – salvation – and directs them towards earthly ones: as if the world had been made the wrong way, and the omnipresent inequalities themselves were not Providence at work. The Church of “Che” does not see Providence: she sees the injustice, because to her the inequality itself is injustice. Pure earthly thinking, and a very populist one at that: aiming at the easy applause, and the popularity that comes from pandering to people’s envy; which latter is a cardinal sin, by the way.
This world is utterly and completely dominated by inequalities of all sorts. The answer to all these apparent “injustices” is not stupid populism, but Jesus Christ.
If you long for fairness and justice, don’t look at Cardinal Maradiaga.
Look towards heaven instead.