Wrong Even When He Is Right.

no-excuses

 

 

Rorate Caeli has an intervention of Pope Francis concerning drugs, in which he condemns with words of seldom read clarity (and , if you ask me, clearly not written by him) the proposals of their legalisation either as recreational drugs or as “help” to get out of drug addiction. 

The Pope’s stance is, in itself, to be praised. Which doesn’t happen often, so when it happens it is a double pleasure to discover that, every now and then, the Pope is at least on the right side.

I have already written my stance about the matter of legalising drugs in a longish two-post reflection (part one and part two). I will not add anything to what I have written concerning the problem in general. 

What I would like to observe, though, is the following:

1) Why has Pope Francis never found words of even vaguely comparable clarity concerning the various form of so-called civil partnership, so–called marriage, adoption by perverts, and the the like?

He writes, concerning drugs:

“Drug addiction is an evil, and with evil there can be no yielding or compromise.”

If he is a catholic, Francis will know that sodomy is evil, because the gravity of a certain behaviour must be seen according to the way God is offended, not according to the “harm” done to others or oneself.

How can it be that Francis, who finds such clear words about, say, marijuana, does not find them concerning sodomy? If he can say:

“Here I would reaffirm what I have stated on another occasion: No to every type of drug use. It is as simple as that. No to any kind of drug use”

what prevents him, the Pope, from saying: “Here I would reaffirm what I have stated on another occasion: No to every type of sexual perversion. It is as simple as that. No to any kind of sexual perversion”?

Or you could rephrase the question in a different way: is the Pope Catholic?

2) The Unholy Father continues on his train of thought, and shows once again how un-Catholic his mind is. I quote:

“But to say this “no”, one has to say “yes” to life, “yes” to love, “yes” to others, “yes” to education, “yes” to greater job opportunities. If we say “yes” to all these things, there will be no room for illicit drugs, for alcohol abuse, for other forms of addiction.”

This is the typical liberal and marxist thinking according to which not the individual, but “society” at large is the cause of drug consumption, and these problems have a purely societal origin and, as a consequence, a purely societal remedy. Also, like all those of his ilk he clearly states the precedence: unless a society does not say “yes” to better education and greater job opportunities, this society is simply not in a position to say “no” to drugs. 

Poppycock, and poppycock. The reasons for drug addiction lie first and foremost in the individual responsibility (and stupidity, and self-absorption, and rebellion) of those who choose to take drugs. It is their decision  and their responsibility, but their decision is the result of yielding to evil. The problem is not a societal one, it is a religious one. It’s not “society”, it’s the individual, and at the same time it’s not “society”, it’s the Original Sin.

Good and evil fight each other every day and every moment in every individual, and only an atheist or a marxist sees in “society”, rather than in humanity’s fallen nature and the work of the devil, the cause of grave societal problems like drug use.

To Francis, the problem isn’t the idiot who takes drugs, or the devil who tempts them to do so, or the fallen nature who cause their desire to do the wrong thing. To him, the problem is to be found in issues like lack of education and lack of social opportunities.

It’s the same liberal whining all over again; but it comes from a Pope, which is disquieting.

Once again: this Pope is so Christianity-free that he cannot manage to do the right thing even when he defends the right position. His outlook is entirely secular. His answers lie completely on this side of heaven.  He apportions the blame for grave individual failures to “society”, and allows the perpetuation of the whining that has been such a comfortable excuse for pretty much everything in the last decades. 

Scratch the Pope, and you will find the liberal Protomarxist.

Always.

Mundabor

 

Posted on June 21, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 7 Comments.

  1. “But to say this “no”, one has to say “yes” to life, “yes” to love, “yes” to others, “yes” to education, “yes” to greater job opportunities. If we say “yes” to all these things, there will be no room for illicit drugs, for alcohol abuse, for other forms of addiction.”

    Just for grins and giggles, let’s play along.

    Who is it that says “no” to life by pushing abortion and contraception?

    Who is it that says “no” to love by equating it with sex and destroying the greatest form of human love, the family, with homo marriage, on demand porn access, etc?

    Who is it that says “no” to education with moribund teacher’s unions who care nothing for children and are all for themselves?

    Who says is it that says “no” to job opportunities by passing every economy-destroying law imaginable?

    The same people who are saying “yes” to drugs, Holy Father. Perfectly titled post; Even When He’s Right, He’s Wrong.

    Pray for the Pope.

  2. Exactly. A rotten society will indeed drastically increase the likelihood of a given individual choosing evil, but this does not mean some abstraction (“society”) is to blame for the evil. Societal pressure towards any evil is just the aggregate result of millions of individual evil actions. The responsibility always comes back to individual decisions, because there is no such thing as corporate moral agency. Every morally relevant decision is an individual decision. Every action is an individual action, carried out by an individual who could have decided and acted differently if he had wanted to. Those who have acted in such a way as to create a society that encourages evil will have to account to God for their individual actions, as will those who have decided to give in to evil in such a society. I have my personal theory on whose punishment will be harsher, but both are responsible for their respective actions.

    The ethic of personal responsibility is at the very heart of morality. No morality, not even a pagan one, is possible if individual persons are not morally responsible for their actions. If a pastor, even the Pope or an Angel from Heaven, teaches any differenty, we are bound to contradict his lies and conclude that he is a moral nihilist, that is, someone who does not believe in any morality at all, not even a pagan morality.

    Humble Brother Jorge denies not just Catholicism, not just Christianity, but even the classical wisdom of the pagans. He does not believe in moral values at all. As all truth is Catholic Truth, this seems to make the Pope less Catholic than Aristotle.

  3. ““Here I would reaffirm what I have stated on another occasion: No to every type of drug use. It is as simple as that. No to any kind of drug use””

    ## Logically, that must mean “no” to all sorts of drugs that people need for their health, like anti-convulsants, blood-thinners, etc. Mogadon,Thyroxin & Nitrazepam are drugs – and taking drugs one has been prescribed or not taking them can be the difference between life and death. To go by what he says, these too are forbidden – which he cannot possibly have intended. This shows how important precision is, and that sweeping statements like that quoted are not good for the health of Catholic Theology, or for the reception of Papal teaching.

  4. If you have to say yes to better jobs and education to say no to drugs, why is it that people or societies that are poor, and not very well educated can say no to drug addiction?

%d bloggers like this: