Daily Archives: March 2, 2014
“The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes, but is tolerant in practice because she loves. Enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe, but they are intolerant in practice because they do not love.”
This was written by the great Garrigou-Lagrange, who had the privilege of dying before the “great Drunkenness” took its course.
It is consoling to see that the “Inclusiveness Nazism”, or if you prefer the “Dictatorship of Relativism”, wasn’t born in the XXI century but is in the very fabric of secular thinking.
Our religious values are under attack. Not for the first time, not for the last.
We would be far more effective in the fight if we stopped behaving like sissies already, and decided to shoot from all cannons still at our disposal instead.
Pope or no Pope, Western countries are highly sophisticated democracies, very sensitive to where the wind blows.
A shift of the prevailing winds would be registered by them very fast, and would see the weathervane changing direction with great promptness. The Church is still so powerful, in all modern Western democracies – even the Netherlands, or Belgium – that if they declared war to the anti-Christian mentality and legislation most politicians would deem it suicide to openly contrast them. These people have been kowtowing to a tiny minority of perverts for decades. The thunders of the Church would have them answering to calls of “stay!” like well-trained dogs.
If the Church officials in the West were to defy them, they would chicken out big time. But this does not mean Church officials are necessary. We, the people, can do a lot on our own. Slower, for sure, and with far less power. But we can nevertheless.
Pope or no Pope, let us go back to being intolerant in principle.
I have enough of reading Catholic bloggers never tired of telling us how stressful and hurtful the situation of those divorced and remarried is. They never think of the stressed of those who chose to pray the price of obedience. They never think that the first priority is the protection of God’s laws, not the sugary understanding of everything and everyone. Do you give drugs to an addict out of “compassion”? What is worse: to allow him to kill his body with drugs, or to allow him to kill his soul with sacrilege?
We believe. Therefore, let’s be intolerant in principle.
From one of Francis’ continuous stream of public homilies (one hopes La Stampa’s translator is better than the one of the Official Vatican News service).
“A Christian is a person who “thinks like a Christian, feels like a Christian and acts like a Christian. And this is coherency in the life of a Christian. Someone can be said to have faith, “but if one of these things is missing, he is not a Christian, there’s something wrong, there’s a certain incoherence.”
Eugenio Scalfari is a person who thinks like an Atheist, feels like an Atheist and acts like an Atheist. Well, I must admit there’s a certain coherence in that. This must be why Francis did not feel the need to say one word of disapprobation to him.
The moral? For Francis, woe to you if you are a weak Christian. It is far better to be a coherent Atheist.
“And when there is no Christian coherency, and you live with this incoherence, you’re giving scandal. And the Christians that are not coherent are giving scandal.”
And where there is no Christian coherency, and a Pope lives with this incoherence, calling Proddies “brother bishops”, hobnobbing with Atheists to whom he promises salvation if they follow their conscience whilst berating Traditionalists and orthodox Catholics every forty-five minutes, he is giving scandal.
If you find yourself in front of – imagine! – in front of an atheist and he tells you he doesn’t believe in God, you can read him a whole library, where it says that God exists and even proving that God exists, and he will not have faith. But if in the presence of this atheist you bear coherent witness of Christian life, something will begin to work in his heart. It will be your witness that that he will bring this restlessness on which the Holy Spirit works. It’s a grace that we all, the whole Church must ask for: ‘Lord, [grant] that we might be coherent.’”
If you tell this Atheist he can be saved if he follows his conscience, he will simply not care a straw for the way you live. Particularly if this involves things like no fornication, no abortion, no divorce, and no contraception.
Soon it will be one year since one of the worst Popes in history has been elected by Cardinals who should have asked in prayer the Holy Ghost for guidance, and preferred to listen to the world instead.
Soon it will be, also, one year of constant admonitions that the secular Press will soon turn against Francis. Because they don’t understand him yet, you see.
I am still waiting.
In these twelve months, Francis got an entire collection of covers in secular magazines, countless articles of praise and the endorsement of champions of Catholic orthodoxy like Hans Kueng and Barack Obama. Even the UN praises him for not doing that for which they horribly berate and slander the Church.
In the meantime, even the most retarded have understood that Francis is the Pope; and that therefore there will be no women priests, official endorsement of abortion, participation of the Pope to “gay pride” parades, or sponsorship of condom producers.
Still, the man is as popular as ever. He actually becomes more popular as even the likes of Rolling Stone grasp the lasting damage he is producing.
Therefore, I think the secular press will very probably never turn against the man.
It makes sense. When you understand that the head of the enemy fraction is your most effective weapon, you don’t start shooting at him just because he isn’t the head of your fraction. Rather, you allow him to go on with his work of destruction and enjoy the fruits of his work.
This will be a long wait.
As Francis’ antics continue unabated, the ranks of those who cry scandal grows. This puts those under pressure from whom it can be legitimately expected that they say something about it. I am not talking of blogging priests here – I have received messages of encouragement from several priests, all saying in various ways “we cannot criticise the Pope the way you do” -, for which obvious allowances must be made; rather I refer to those media outlets run by laymen, and without a hierarchical relationship with the Pope.
Most notable among those outlets is, of course, Michael Voris’ effort. Voris has, at least up to now, embraced a policy of almost total silence concerning the elephant in the room; or rather, the bull in the China shop.
When you visit Voris’ site, you still find very interesting contributions about the careless ways some of the employee handle the china, the way the windows are kept dirty and shabby, the chaos on the shelves and the lack of proper presentation of the china itself. What you do not find, is a word about the bull which, at the same time, is destroying the china with mucho gusto, and is being praised to the sky by those who wish to see the shop razed to the ground.
Now: Voris has all the right to ignore the bull, and I believe he is sincere in his thinking that to criticise said animal might do more damage than by allowing it to keep breaking china whilst complaining about the careless employees. I do take exception, though, when this arrives to the point of criticising those who criticise the Pope; because this means simply not to understand that those who criticise the Bishop of Rome do so out of love for Christ and His Church, and see in the criticism as much of a duty as Voris sees in his silence.
For some days now a statement has been circulating, that is unduly critical of all those good Catholics who think it their duty to protect the faithful from the devastations of the Humble Bull. Someone posted it on my comment box. I did not like it one bit, and found it not Voris-like. I think it should be removed.
The thinking does not make sense. The Pope is not some kind of Demi-God. He is the successor of Peter, but every Bishop is the successor of the Apostles. If, therefore, criticism of the successor of Peter can confuse the faithful, then criticism of the successors of the Apostles should also be avoided.
Furthermore, the idea that when a Pope gives scandal the best thing to do would be to be silent in front of the scandal is utterly outlandish. It is, in fact, scandalous. A bad Pope alone gives more scandal than thirty bad Cardinals together. If scandal must be fought against, than the Pope’s scandal first. If it is better to shut up, than it is better to always shut up.
Thirdly, the strange mixture of half-admission and half-denial will not work in the long term. To say “we have seen that there is a problem, we merely refuse to deal with it” will in time anger both those who see the problem, and those who don’t. Catholicism has a way of its own of putting one in front of a choice: one can’t approve of Christ and not disapprove of Francis. Not, at least, if he isn’t a priest, whose incardination in a hierarchical system gives him, so to speak, an added public duty that can probably be legitimately exercised as long as Francis’ antics do not reach the level of formal heresy.
I do not know exactly who runs the show at Church Militant TV, and whether Voris has the last say on what goes there, and what not. But certainly, whoever takes the decisions there is responsible for what is presented as the sender’s opinion, and by being the most public voice of CMTV Voris must also accept to be identified with such statements. Again, the thing to do would be to remove the mini-manifesto at once.
I have lost interest in Church Militant TV, and for a while now have not posted or commented on any of their videos. I am sure the quality is customarily high, and I am also sure of the honesty of most of the people involved; but it goes against my grain to watch a programme dealing with some problems in some parts of the vast Empire, whilst Rome itself is burning.
Rome will not be destroyed; but Rome is burning all right. We need for more and more followed public voices to take a clear stance and say that this has to stop. As the number of the critics grows, the public opinion will be made increasingly more aware about the issues on the ground. Countless are now confused, unable to understand this madness, desperately trying to find a logic in this absurd situation, or simply disappointed in what they see as merely another political party on a popularity drive. It is time to do what we can to put pressure on the Humble Bull, and let him understand that we don’t care for his more or less blood-chilling motivations, whatever they may be. We will never be sold on this rubbish.
We side with Catholicism as God commanded.
And it came to pass “Rolling Stone”, last time I looked not a beacon of political conservatism, put Francis on their cover.
Did they do it because they have become nearer to Catholicism? Nope. They did because Francis is rather similar to them, so they can’t avoid liking him.
The article explaining the choice has no qualms in telling us Francis has pleased the majority of Catholics, with which the pleasure of the majority officially becomes Rolling Stone’s metre of a Pope doing a good job. Congratulations. You are smart. Please throw away the joint.
The usual grounds are also mentioned: the “who am I to judge” stunt before all, the “stance” concerning homosexuality in particular, but also the populist drive with the “simplicity” of life; and again, that Francis keeps a simple background in order for him to shine the more in the foreground escapes the brilliant minds of…
View original post 416 more words