Daily Archives: August 5, 2014
—- THIS IS NOT A JOKE ———————- THIS IS NOT A JOKE ———-
The man so well-known for his doctrinal surefootedness and attention for orthodoxy will, apparently, regale the world with the first live interview of a Pontiff.
What can go wrong?
I will spare you my usual considerations, that you have read many times, about the embarrassing attention seeking of this man, that has now gone past pathetic. One truly wonders where this search for novelties will end. One pities the old men of the past, who insisted in thinking thrice before opening their mouth. To Francis, having his mouth shut seems to be the only mortal sin remained. And this, from the man who said he does not like giving interviews. Oh, the hypocrisy…
What will be interesting, here, is the reaction of the Pollyanna troops. They always say:
1. that the journalists distort the words of the Pope, and
2. that the Pope might have been, perhaps, more prudent.
If after around half gazillion major blunders they discover that Francis not only says his rubbish live, but insists in doing so, on the radio, and plans it beforehand, will some of them open their big blue cartoon eyes and finally realise that Francis is always reported by the press with all those “confusing” statements because this is exactly what he wants to do?
I truly wonder.
One thing is certain: Francis does not make the work easy for the Pollyannas. His entire pontificate seems directed at persuading even the most retarded that he really means what he says, and that he will keep repeating it – on live radio if needs be – until everyone got the message.
I will now go and pray for this Pope.
And for the next one.
In past times, journalists used to harshly criticise what other journalists had written, or their general outlook on life.
It generally ended at that.
If, say, Il Giornale criticised Paese Sera, none of its reader ran to the newsagent asking for a copy of the culprit newspaper, just to make sure they had been correctly informed and Paese Sera was really the Proto-Communist crap it was purported to be. You believed those you esteemed implicitly. The criticism was, therefore, a criticism that did not bring business to those who were criticised.
Not so today.
Today we have blogging journalists, and amateur bloggers, linking without any qualm to people whose opinions they disapprove of, heavily dislike, or even loathe. This brings business exactly to those who ideally should not have any; or at least should not have any from the right people.
It seems to me that blogdom and the advent of “linked” news has also caused another phenomenon: a controversy industry aimed not – or not only – at the excitement of their own supporters, but in a growing manner to the angering of their own adversaries; who will then angrily react and link to the culprit, moving vast numbers of people to bring money in the very pockets of their own adversaries. It is as if one would make a small contribution to the Labour Party everytime he thinks they are a bunch of senseless Commies. The worst of this is that the critics keep coming (look at the comment sections), so that it is clear there is no long-term price to pay for the short-term provocation advantage. The click is free to the one who clicks, but it brings an utility to those who are clicked. An utility so big, that entire businesses are run on that only. The more you provoque, the more money it brings, and in the long term. Not even Paese Sera could afford such luxury, and certainly not so easily.
The well-known blog multinational of all faiths and none seems to me a perfect, and at the same time an extreme example, of this. They do not have a print version, and the company as well as their bloggers profit from every click, it being utterly irrelevant whether it comes from people enthusiastic of their work or angry at their very existence. They will, therefore, be encouraged – encouraged in a very obvious and immediate way: ka-ching! – to be overtly controversial, so that their own adversaries may make their tills sing.
I do not think this is a behaviour that should be encouraged. Certainly not, when the person you – or I – deem spreading the wrong idea gets money whenever we want to make really sure that we disagree with him. It may be a smart move from their side to try, it certainly isn’t from ours to let them succeed.
Which is why I have, in the past, advisedly not linked to wrong blogs; particularly – but not only – those of the big Ka-Ching machine of all faiths and none.
I invite the other bloggers reading this to consider doing the same, and to be rather vague in their references: the reader must know enough to know that the criticised position comes from the wrong corner, without being exposed to the rather instinctive reflex to just click the link. Ideally, he should not even be interested about the particular blog or newspaper that occasioned the criticism: the argument made, and its refutation, could well be information enough; then we fight a battle of ideas and want to train each other to right thinking, rather than indulge in, say, heresy or dissent or cafeteria catholic voyeurism.
I know, the one or other will not like this, and will find that something gets lost in the way of information.
But it is, in the end, better than nourishing your adversary.
In past times, I never felt the need to give money to the Pravda, either.
I had a dream. In my dream, every time Pope Francis said something extremely laughable, or worse, thousands of Catholic blogger reached the nearest keyboard to openly moch his un-Catholic silliness, whilst thousands of other Catholic bloggers reminded their readers of how a good Pope should think and act; upholding the Papacy, as they make clear the unworthiness of the present occupant of the position.
In my dream, sincere bloggers who suffer at seeing an old boor walking over Truth and Tradition understood that – at least in peace time – there is no more devastating weapon than ridicule, and the end either of this Papacy or of most of his antics can be brought about by demolishing the reputation of this Pope as the dignity of the Office and the worthiness of his predecessors, are widely disseminated.
There was, on my dream, no danger that “the papacy could be damaged”, because people understood at this point the only way you can damage the institute of the Papacy for a long time is by allowing this man to go on unchallenged. They also understood that, as Francis continuously extols how good he is compared to his predecessors, relentless mockery would help even the common citizen – those who do not go to Mass and do not care for Catholicism or even religion – to understand that this is one who is mocked by his very own.
What the bloggers all had (in my dream) was a keen appreciation of what makes Francis tick: a boundless vanity. To hit him in the main driving force of his behaviour is, so they reasoned in my dream, the best, most rapid, most effective way to force him to at least downplay his senseless waffling, lest he should experience once again a tsunami of mockery in words, videos, cartoons, and the like. A deadly threat, this, for a person moved mainly by a clearly pathological desire for mass adoration.
In my dream, the result of this change of attitude was absolutely devastating. The good Popes of the past enjoyed a rediscovery, as their writings were mentioned more and more often to refute Francis' kindergarten waffle. The papacy was incresed in prestige, and this increase caused the current Pope the look the more childish, because the difference with a good Pope was made the more evident. The faithful first, and the public at large later, realised that this here is one whose statements would have sufficed to have him burnt at the stake under very many of his predecessors.
Slowly, in my dream (you know how dreams are…) an awareness of the tragicomic nature of this pontificate emerged. The mockery became mainstream, but it was in essence mockery of a horrible Pope, not of the Church; mockery of a man so unworthy of an office now more clearly understood, because the scales have finally fallen.
In the end, Pope Francis announced that his lung problem forced him to resign the office, and announced he would go back to Argentina and his 2 bedroom apartment, because he wanted to be free to ride the bus again, have a chat with the newsagent, and get the shoes from his favourite cobbler. Merriment everywhere at the hypocrisy to the end, but huge relief at his decision to get away from the ridicule and open the way for a decent man…..
Then I woke up.
I woke up, and discovered that Francis had just said, in so many words, that all Christians belong to the same “very big Church” whatever their allegiance, and the Holy Ghost wants that there are Protestants, because it's good for diversity.