Deterrents

Protected for a reason.



After the recent experiences, I will wait that I have the time to read, re-read and read again the papal interview to the Corriere. It will not be today, and possibly not tomorrow. Saturday at the latest.

This time the interview was recorded; it possibly seeming strange that Francis is ready to record his spontaneous post-lunch ecumaniacal rubbish on the first smartphone around, but does not want his interviews with professional journalists to be recorded.

Some preliminary considerations of a general nature can be done now.

Legal sanctions are not there because our forefathers were stupid. They are there because our forefathers had values, and ordered their legal system in accordance to them.

Illegitimate children used to have no legal rights to a part of the inheritance, because it was considered obvious that the defence of family values demanded that the legitimate children be afforded a protection that could not be automatically extended to illegitimate ones. Of course they could still inherit a large portion of the estate. But they had no right to an automatic entitlement, and no right to the part of the estate to which the wife and legitimate children were automatically entitled.

The same principles applied, and in part still apply in countries like Italy, to other aspects of everyday life. Of course the concubine has no rights to the estate. She is the concubine, not the wife. There's a huge difference, and this difference cannot be downplayed without downplaying marriage.

I trust a boy of twelve understands this after a moment of reflection. I trust everyone understands that you can't protect certain values, any values, without giving whenever appropriate a different legal treatment to those situations that are outside of the protected ones.

To say “I support marriage” and to advocate that the concubine have the same rights than the wife is, very obviously, undermining marriage. To say “I support the family” and to give illegitimate children the same inheritance rights of the legitimate ones is, very obviously, undermining the family, and so on.

Some people think as if the past generations had been stupid. They weren't stupid. Not only they were smart, but they were also coherent with the values they professed.

You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't say the family must be protected, and undermine it for the sake of inclusiveness; or say you are in favour of marriage, and demand that the concubine get the same privileges and legal status of the wife.

Again, I do not know to what extent this applies to what Francis said, but I have an inkling it might be relevant. This just as a heads up and general reflection. More of it when I have read about the latest utterances of our Not-So-Holy Father.

Mundabor

 

 

Posted on March 6, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 23 Comments.

  1. Unless this story is based on a bad translation…
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_REL_VATICAN_POPES_CROSS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-03-06-07-18-38
    I know that nobody in their right mind would want Francis to teach catechism to their children, or anything else for that matter.

    What kind of a sick twisted mind does something like this….

  2. If I understand correctly, the Pope took off the casket a Cross. I don’k know in England or other part of Italy, but in Sardinia it is customary to put a Rosary between the hands of the dead (usually his or her Rosary), but taking away the Cross, because Jesus cannot go under Earth with the deads. It’s not thieving, Perhaphs it’s more supertistious than religious, however it’s not seen as a thief. Usually it’s a very close relative (say, the sister or brother or son) who does it, and then retains the Cross as a faithful remembrance of the dead.
    So, this time, I’m neither surprised nor scandalised by the Pope.

    • But this is not what he says, and he is quoted as mentioning the “thief we all have inside ourselves” (sic). So if he is from Sardinia – which I doubt – he does not want you to know it.

      M

  3. “Why yes, the Church teaches this, but we must put it in a context.”

    “Why yes, the Church teaches that, but we must apply mercy.”

    “Why yes, I am a son of the Church, but these times provide us with realities we may not understand.”

    How in the world did we ever avoid losing God’s grace before this wonderful man……this Pope Francis……showed up to right all our wrongs?

  4. Excellant point davec.

    I am having problems with this paragraph:

    “And immediately there came to mind the thief we all have inside ourselves and while I arranged the flowers I took the cross and with just a bit of force I removed it,” he said, showing with his hands how he pulled the cross off the rosary. “And in that moment I looked at him and I said `Give me half your mercy.'”

    I am still trying to figure out how Francis could have gotten half of the corpses mercy? And how a sin (an act of theft), would have obtained this mercy for Francis? This doesn’t make any sense… or does it?

    Anyone?

    • I think he thought of the priest, not the corpse… 😉
      But again, to steal from a corpse because the priest was “merciful” shows all the confusion of this mind. Most of us would refuse to even *think* of something like that.
      M

  5. Exactly, davec3410 , and don’t forget to add ‘ the pastoral challenges we have to face’. Same mindset as in your ‘ whys’ ,same origin…..

  6. I do thank the readers who agreed with my comment, but the credit goes elsewhere. If I think and speak effectively it is only because of what I am taught here daily. The credit goes to Mundabor…….. I’m just a grateful student.

  7. This little comment is distressing. Why would you choose to broadcast to the world (and he knows the world is listening) that he tore the crucifix off the rosary which was held in the hands of the deceased, who was lying in the coffin? This is a strange behavior; it makes me think of dementia, and as a nurse with some experience in that field, it is not far-fetched…But it certainly is creepy.

    • Oh no, it’s not dementia.
      It’s a twisted mind.
      In Bergoglio’s world, what he did is something deserving of a mention in public. He was extolling his reverence for the deceased priest, so it must be fine to say one has taken away a cross from a corpse.

      Unless he drinks, of course. Which would explain not the vulgarity and the heterodoxy, but why he is so liberal in talking of it, and making videos to “brother bishops”.

      M

    • It is creepy. People on message boards are defending his actions by saying what he did is the same as what people did to saints for relics. It is not equivalent in my opinion.

    • Of course it isn’t. He stole a cross from a corpse.

      When padre Pio was alive, people tried to get to object belonged to him (or reputedly belonged to him) because of the obvious odour of sanctity of the man; but any one who would steal crosses from his dead body, and meant to be buried with him, would be beyond contempt.

      Ask yourself, rather, whether a saint – rather than a washerwoman of the favela – would so something like that.

      The washerwoman is Pope. That’s what it is.

      M

  8. My mantra to others who are in favor of all the novelties of this age is that past generations, 3500 years of generations, across all cultures, were not STUPID, They knew that children need a mother and a father, or at least a shot at a mother and father and would not dream of putting a child in a household where sodomy takes place daily and have that sanctioned under civil, tribal law, whatever. The world has truly gone mad. It gets worse daily.

  9. I’m wondering if perhaps Francis does have early onset dementia. We are living the Emperor Has No Clothes!

    • I very much doubt that.

      He isn’t different from when he was Archbishop.

      That’s a long dementia.

      Would be good for his soul, though.

      If you ask me, innate vulgarity and perhaps some undue familiarity with the bottle (I keep thinking at the iPhone video; you may want to see it again) are far more probable.

      M

  10. He is getting older and is under more stress. I was not aware that he may have a longstanding undue popularity with the spirits. These could be mitigating factors and dementia is truly setting in. It would be a vast relief for Holy Mother Church if this is Francis’ mode of bodily demise and finally, the world recognized many of his utterances for what they are–incoherent.

    • if you look at the video, he looks a bit tipsy in that. Not saying he is alcoholic, but to get a make an improvised video without caring a straw whether what he says will make scandal seems like another post-grappa exercise. At least if one tries to find a charitable half-excuse for him.
      Dementia would be another, but dementia would be seen by doctors, and I can’t imagine it would not be leaked.
      What shall I say: let us hope for his soul he has dementia, but I won;t believe it out of my own hunch.
      M

  11. That should read “familiarity with the spirits” above.

  12. I often wonder what his sister thinks of his status as Pope. She knew him from childhood and must be intimately knowlegable of his foibles. I wonder if she thinks him holy and intelligent or crude and bombastic playing fast and loose for decades.

%d bloggers like this: