Inequality, Evil, And Worldly Thinking


Never one to let a potential headline go to waste, the Destroyer has tweeted a new world philosophy. We are now informed that the cause of “social evil” evil is… inequality.

The implications of this applause-seeking, inane thinking are huge; and they are, as is to be slowly expected from the character, nothing to do with Christianity.

Christianity teaches us that evil – and, with an inevitable consequence, any kind of social evil, like poverty or social hatred – is the result of the imperfection of this world, which in turn is the result of the Fall. The rebellion to God's law of our first Ancestors – a rebellion we all carry within ourselves, and which is at the very root of man's sinfulness – has caused the world to be afflicted by war, famine, pestilence, poverty, perverts, communists, V II priests, and Jorge Bergoglios. The Christian message has always been clear.

Inequality has, in all this, never played any role. On the contrary, it is evident to the dumbest tambourine player around that inequality is in the very fabric of Creation, as people are born with hugely different gifts and qualities and graces, which are all extremely multiform in their appearance, but also extremely inequal in their quality and quantity.

A girl is born beautiful but poor; another beautiful but rich too; a third both poor and ugly; a fourth gentle and smart. A boy is born strong, another weak; a third brave, a fourth stupid; some are deformed, some are handsome, some witty and some dull, & Co.

It goes on. Some are born in Catholic families, some in Proddie, some in heathenish, some in atheist ones. How is this “equal”? (at least if Catholicism, or at least Christianity, is of any importance to you?).

Some, God loves more; some, God loves less. Some are predestined to be saved and will profit from God's efficacious grace; some will only get sufficient grace and, being rebellious, will end up in hell. Does this sound like “equality” to you?

It goes on still. Were Christians, then, sleeping the past two thousand years, when huge inequality in wealth – and I mean here wealth born in, not acquired – and talents were considered as a god-given state of affairs? Why has Jesus not demanded that, say, Zacchaeus be not wealthier than his average follower, or even countryman? Or did he not do so, because he did not have the privilege of a smartphone, with which to access Francis' astonishingly senseless statements and new-age-cum-communism philosophy?

All this seems obvious enough. Obvious, I mean, if you believe in the Fall, in sin, in judgment, in evil, in the devil, and in all that stuff.

But you see, the problem with the Destroyer is that he seems not to believe in any of those; or at least he seems to be so intellectually lazy, or else so brutally dumb, that he does not even understand that he is denying pretty much all of them.

If you don't believe in the Fall, then you will look for your answers outside of human nature: in social end economic systems, changing which “social evil” will be magically overcome. If you don't believe in sin, people will not be really responsible or culpable for anything; rather, they will merely react to an unfavourable environment. If you don't believe in judgment – which you must do, if you don't believe in sin – there will be no personal reproach linked to human behaviour: if everyone is saved, the problem must lie outside of this huge mass of saints. If you don't believe in evil, you will never think that the devil actually tempts, and men actually yield to it, and will have to answer for their actions.

Blaming inequality for “social evil” is at the same time a universal justification, an abolition of sin, and a denial of Christian thinking. But it sounds good, and it will go down very well among the leftist smoke sellers of this world, of whom Francis is now the undisputed leader. It condones the theft of the thief, the prostitution of the tranny, the envy of the envious. They all derive fron inequality, you see.

Once again, Francis reveals how worldly his thinking is. There is in his (simple) mind no space for supernatural factors in the human journey, much less for individual responsibility. Francis' examination of the world's problems begins and ends with the way the world is structured; so much so, that he sees in the structure – not in the Fall – the cause of all its problems. He would, if asked, probably answer that he believes we can “make poverty history”. Purest, unadulterated secular thinking.

Now, let us be clear about a fundamental concept: if a Pope or a Saint of the past had warned, say, about poverty as a fuel for corruption and sinfulness, this would have been not only acceptable, but obvious. The world is imperfect, and the devil will use whatever tool he can find. But in the Popes, or the saints, of the past the fundamental Christian truths of sin and individual responsibility for it would have been extremely evident even if, perhaps, implicit.

Not so, not so for this disgraceful, scandalous man, who employs every second at his disposal to eradicate from his sheep the very idea that they could – unless they are, perhaps, mafia bosses – actually send themselves to hell.

This thinking is so evident in Francis, so obviously and insistently repeated, that the simple tweet perfectly matches the messages, and allows no other interpretation than the one Francis is shoving down the faithful's throat all the time. It is no less than astonishing that Francis looks like he has been making dots all the time since that evening on the balcony, but still only very few connect the dots and looks at the picture that emerges by doing it; perhaps, in part because the picture is a frightful sight, and in part because Francis also makes dots around the real picture, so that those who are not alert will not see what he has been doing all the time.

And so the game of destruction goes on. Like all false prophets, Francis claims solutions he cannot have, because he cannot change the way God has decreed that the world would look after the Fall. His simple slogan of social structures at the root of “social evil” is pure communist tosh. He is a wordly man, a revolutionary man, and possibly a man dumb and confused enough that he believes in the rubbish he goes around saying, writing, and tweeting.

This man would be astonishingly bad even as a so-called Archbishop of Canterbury. His forma mentis is, when you look at it without the pink “but he is the Pope”-glasses, so Christianity-free, so soaked in secular thinking, that I doubt every half-believing Anglican – not many left of them, admittedly – would swallow half of the drivel with which the man has been regaling us for now thirteen months.

We are being punished so spectacularly, so obviously, so much under the sun that it is not clear to me how can there still be a honest soul around that does not get this: God is chastising us with the same means with which we have offended Him, giving us an overdose of that unspeakable stupidity the V II generation thought so good for us, so convenient, and to be had for free.

Big mistake.

Mundabor

 

Posted on April 30, 2014, in Traditional Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink. 16 Comments.

  1. Thanks.

  2. Mundabor, I have been following your blog for a few months now, and have generally appreciated your thoughtful insights and comments, even if I may wince at some of the characterizations of the Supreme Pontiff. I’ve never commented before now.

    That said, I must truly commend you on this post. A veritable treatsie blending Catholic timeless truth with social economic commentary. This one really shines, and deserves a permanent place in some compendium of classical Catholic essays. Deo Gratias!

    Keep up the good work. God bless.

  3. You and I and others like us know this is a chastisement because we see the offense to Truth, and are wounded by it. However, the world is still (however marginally) living on the fumes of Christendom, the memory of which is becoming more remote with each year that passes from the pre-Vatican II Church. The changes of that council destroyed the last vestiges of Christendom; that is, the Catholic Church.

    These next generations will experience the full manifestation of this chastisement, of a world awash in unbelief, heresy, and heathenism. As all the Grandmas and Grandpas and children still formed with the old teachings – even if they rejected them – fade away, basic Christian formation will all but disappear, replaced by mindless platitudes and outright evil. The remaining true Christians will face an end similar to Sargent Howie in the 1970’s movie, “The Wicker Man”: praying and calling out to Christ as this world gleefully incinerates them.

    • This is also my fear.
      There is still a varnish of Christianity around, but the generation in the primary school now has largely heard sound Christianity only from some grandmother, if they were lucky.

      This generation can’t say what being a Catholic means. The next one will not know what being a Christian is. The Popes will be best known as judges for TV singing competitions.

      A minority will remain truly Christian, the majority will believe in peace ‘n love, and think the Pope is the cool guy who dances the Macarena on prime time.

      Unless the Holy Ghost intervenes before.

      M

  4. An astonishingly inaccurate pronouncement from someone who seems to lack any solid education in basic Catholic theology. Did he ever have any? Where was it imparted? I’m really starting to wonder. Inequality isn’t the “root” of any evil; original sin is – – but let’s not mention that as it’s so embarrassingly antiquated a notion. On the bright side, he does seem to believe in the Devil at least.

    • Very simply, in Francis’ vision of the world original sin is there only when he reads something written by others.
      Left to himself, all the dirt comes out quite naturally.
      M

  5. It is incredible how have you get to know how Bergoglio is. He was my bishop for 14 years and barely I knew him, A couple of years ago, Charitas of Argentina in one of his two annual collections took the motto ” zero poverty”. Adapting the Giuliani´s “zero tollerance”.
    I asked many catholics, don´t you find anything strange with “zero poverty”? And no no one found nothing wrong with that. As the Church it is not teacher enymore, nobody sees the world with christian eyes.

  6. thanks for this posting. Please, I would like to know if those women and non-Catholics that Francis washed their legs became Catholics and deeply concerted after the dramatic washing of feet? Just curious to know.

    • A legitimate curiosity, for sure.

      But thinking of it: is it so important? If they follow their conscience, they should… hold on to their Coran…

      M

  7. Correction: converted not concerted, typographical error

  8. I had an identical reaction when I came across the Pope’s “tweet”. The Pope, like many of the hierarchy, are more interested in Leftist ideology and power than the supernatural. We know nothing of Jorge Bergoglio’s formation, only tidbits served up by the spiritually sick media and the power elites. One of these tidbits (according to these sources) Bergoglio resisted the hard Left liberation theology of some in the Argentinian Jesuit order, and was reduced to a high school chemistry teacher in a boondock. I suspect he was pushing an alternative Leftist line within the order i.e. a Menshevik instead of a Bolshie. Another tidbit: he often mentions and thinks on the presence of the Devil in our world. We’ve seen this in some of his papal homilies. I suspect this a holdover from his cultural Catholicism absorbed from his family in Argentina. He usesit to great effect to sell the Pollyannas on his orthodoxy.

    • The devil he mentions only seems to be a threat for mafiosi. All others will be just fine.
      I have to find a mention of the devil in Bergoglio that clearly states the devil wants you (yes: you) in hell.
      Reading him, it seems the devil is a kind of buffoon going around and trying to lead people to salvation, but without any hope of success, because we always smile and follow our conscience.
      M

  9. I seem to be posting this link everywhere, but I think it clearly refutes what the current pontiff is saying, and so, if you will permit, I give you all this link to the motu proprio of an undisputed saint, Pius X:

    http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/articles/motu-proprio-fin-dalla-prima-nostra.html

%d bloggers like this: