Cui Prodest? Beware Of Comments
One of the most stupid – or hypocritical – defences of the Unholy Father put forward from the complicit crowd of tambourine players is that both Jesus and Francis are criticised for spending time with sinners. The implication here is, clearly, that the critics of the Unholy Father are classical Pharisees.
Probably some of those who make such an argument are too slow to understand that in Jesus the company with sinners was one with the call to repentance. Jesus was solicitous about their salvation, he was certainly not “inclusive” of their sins. The contrast with Francis is striking: a man who is Pope and refuse to correct any sinner, but continuously rebukes those guilty of what to him must be one of the worst sins of all: Catholicism.
Some people, I was saying, are too slow to get these simple facts. But I bet Francis' humble black shoes that most of those who go around in fora and blog spreading this dung perfectly well know what it is.
The reason why they do it is, in my eyes, to be sought in the immortal question: cui prodest?
Who would undermine Church teaching among the people, if not those who have something to gain from it? Who, if not the adulterers, the fornicators, the perverts, and those who want to protect their agenda because of, say, family ties and a fully perverted sense of “love”?
I bet most people who read the too pious by half comments of such crowd do not question their Catholic credentials. An innocent Catholic will tend to believe that those who write on Catholic fora or blogs are themselves Catholics in good faith, and without any hidden agenda.
Big, big mistake.
My year-long experience on the comment box of homo smoke showed me many times that those people who commented in a way contrary to Catholic teaching had an hidden agenda and various “qualities” about which they told their readers absolutely nothing. Their hidden agenda was then subtly promoted under the cloak of piety that was supposed to be Catholic. Only repeated challenges from your truly let emerge the real picture, and the picture wasn't pretty: Anglicans, homosexual Anglicans, Atheists, homosexual Atheists, and adulterers. They ended up “outing” themselves (and not after insisted questioning; it must be very hard to deny for long what they think is “what they are”).
Therefore, the too pious by half commenter about, say, Francis going among sinners “like Jesus” can easily be an Anglican, an Atheist, an homosexual, or a divorced adulterer;,but he will not tell you so.
When someone starts by saying “I am a practicing Catholic, but…(follows attack to the Church, often very passive-aggressive)” you must immediately conclude that he is either lying to your face, or sitting in the pews to kill the time. When he writes words like “the gay people”, or “hate”, or “homophobia” you can be fairly certain he is either a fag herself, or a dyke himself, or a person with a heavy emotional investment in such perversion (say: because brother or son is such).
It is very easy to give oneself a varnish of “good heart” on the Internet. In fact, nothing more is necessary than some piece of passive-aggressive bollocks as the one mentioned at the beginning of this post. These people count on the natural innocence of pious Catholics, who will tend to take their comments at face value without questioning their motives.
We must train ourselves to pose ourselves the cui prodest? question everytime we read an “off” comment, because more likely than not, the comment has been written exactly with the intent of subtly deceiving the readers, under the cloak of piety.
Beware of comments on the Internet.