Daily Archives: January 4, 2015
Read here about another fruit of the atheist madness of our times: the slaughter of hundreds of babies in the Netherlands, “deemed” to desire to exercise a “right to die” about which, irrespective of the evil of the desire, no one ever even asked them.
The monstrous mind of the atheist, liberal world is exposed very clearly when such things happen. Similarly, we are once again reminded of the slippery slope of liberal legislation, which has never failed to produce results abhorred by many of their very original proposers: abortion was initially thought as a (evil) remedy for extreme cases, like the fifteen years old girl very near to suicide. Pro-pervert legislation was initially smuggled as a way to help dykes and faggots to have an easier life in their administrative matters (will, say; or hospital visits). Euthanasia as a remedy to the oh so atrociously suffering, oh so terminally ill, oh so old man or woman.
How it ends – how it must end, then when one starts to take leave from reason it is unavoidable to go down the road to madness – is abortion on demand, so-called “gay marriage” and adoption rights, and the slaughter of innocent babies.
There can be no middle way between the Christian way and utter madness. God’s rules are not only good for our salvation, they are perfectly logical, eminently practical and completely sensible for the human being. It is an illusion to think that a Lawmaker can take leave from Christian principles without progressively drifting into utter and complete, monstrous cruelty.
But hey: these people certainly are in good faith, aren’t they? They follow their consciences, don’t they? Therefore, a question spontaneously arise:
Who are we to judge?
“Christianity in Germany is ideologically bankrupt”.
“More people between Flensburg [in the extreme north] and Oberammergau [in the extreme south] believe in UFO’s than in the Last Judgement. Welcome to Diaspora Germany”.
“…the last socialized and actively Christian generation will soon be exiting the workforce, and dead within three decades. Then the facade of the Church, too, will crumble. Behind it, a minority will become visible – a minority not much larger than the community of Jehova’s Witnesses”.
“…Wherever the Church does not base herself upon timeless, incontrovertible truth, she reveals herself to be purely man-made. Political programs should be “relevant to the times,” entertainment programming, too; but a religion must take command of absolute truths – or it is no religion at all”.“Faith requires a pinch of naivete, the readiness to give up control and open oneself to the Incomprehensible. Groping and hoping. No wonder that many find this increasingly difficult in a world which is set upon industrially reorganizing the last untouched domains of being: sexuality, love, birth, death. Total control, complete autocracy over one’s own life is in trend. A more inhospitable breeding ground for faith is barely conceivable”.
Doesn’t matter, as I clicked my way there and found a pearl called “Church in Crisis: Diaspora Germany”.
The original article, a longish piece appeared on the prestigious (if often anti-Catholic) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, was entirely translated into English by the blog author. You have read some of its paragraphs above.
The article is a beautifully pained (and painful) description of an issue often touched on this blog: the progressive disappearance of Christian (and specifically: Catholic) thinking under a varnish of Christianity that is still there, but is more and more relegated to social custom and cultural tradition rather than being, well, faith, or what one believes.
Some of the figures mentioned there are shocking (mass attendance has apparently decreased 10% in only one year. 2013-2014 were the years of the “scandal” in the diocese of Limburg, but again this says a lot about the mentality of many churchgoers), and some people mentioned in the article are also shocking (though the shocking events narrated happened, it must be said, a long time ago).
The picture is, though, clear: a country on the way to exiting Christianity, as the last generation of Christians was replaced by a generation of my-own-way Christians and now rapidly giving way to a generation of I-am-my-own-god non-Christians. The Chancellor, the immortal culona inchiavabile Angela Merkel (no, I will not translate this), has the gut to call herself Christian and support civil partnerships for perverts, though she tries to save some face with the few Christians really left by, say, denying the same perverts some tax advantages, as in: it’s not sin, provided it doesn’t cost me money. This, at least, the last time I looked. Merkel would be a rather good weathervane, if the size of her backside would not stand in the way.
I invite you to follow the link, or directly duckduckgo the article. Your time will be well spent. Not only will you find there a tragic description of what is happening in Germany, but you will – minus the Kirchensteuer – easily be able to make a parallel with your own Country.
I disagree with the author on only one point: the difficulty to cope with elaborate liturgy for the man not culturally prepared to it. I do not know about Lutherans, but Catholic liturgy has, when it was properly made, never failed to inspire poor miners, humble factory workers, or even illiterate peasants. It is, in case, purely the arrogance of our time that compels everyone to abandon every pursuit which does not promise immediate satisfaction. But if a man has such a reaction the issue is his own thinking, not the liturgy.
Still, a stellar article, and it deserves some praise that the FAZ has decided to publish it.
A prayer for both the author of the article and the translator are certainly in order.
Once-Catholic (hopefully, at least) Cardinal Marx is on record with the following words:
“Luther did not aim to split the Church, but, with his calls to reform, wished to draw attention to grievances that obscured the message of the Gospel,”
“After 50 years of joint ecumenical dialogue, it is possible for a Catholic Christian to read Luther’s texts appreciatively, and to learn from his thoughts.”
The first statement cannot be the fruit of crass ignorance. It must be willed deception. Luther was not simply a reformer. He was a heretic. His home-made theology was at variance with the Church, and led countless in the same pit of error and probable perdition. To say that a heretic merely wants to “draw attention” to “grievances” is pure deception. I do not need to tell you what the Cardinal’s motivation is: the Kirchensteuer, and the resulting need to be mainstream, accepting of everything, ecu-maniacal, and simply wrong.
The second statement is just as interesting in its evil intent. To read from a Cardinal that it is possible to read the texts of the possibly worst Heresiarch ever appreciatively, and learn from his thoughts, is even worse than to say that it is possible for a Catholic Christian to read Mein Kampf appreciatively, and learn from Hitler’s thoughts; because whilst Luther hasn’t willingly staged a Holocaust, the devastation he has created, and the loss of souls he has enabled, vastly exceed the limited genocide, of limited human bodies, staged by Hitler.
Cardinal Marx should be defrocked. Not only he is useless as a priest; he is outright dangerous in even willingly inviting his own sheep to delve into in heresy and learn from it, at the same time downplaying the very heresy as a “call to reform”.
One thing the Cardinal should learn from Luther: to state openly that he is a heretic. I doubt we will see such a step from him.
The year 2017 – with the resulting “celebration” of the Heresiarch – is rapidly approaching.
One wonders how the Church in Germany will survive it.
Some time has elapsed and I still pine the loss of the beautiful blog, “Ars Orandi”. In this particular case, the loss is made more acute by the seemingly senseless rant with which the author of that worthy blog decided to put an end to it.
I have wondered at times what Mr Werling’s sentiments are now; whether he is still persuaded that he has done the right thing, or whether he has perhaps come to realise his decision was rash, and his words to justify it the fruit of a state of heightened stress and lack of proper reflection.
It may even been that Mr Werling was, at the time, fully persuaded of what he was doing – and writing – but that he has in the meantime come to the conclusion that both the decision and the attitude were wrong.
I know that some of my readers will be tempted to comment on this blog with statements on the lines of: “his decision, and his problem”, “the bed he made”, “faber est suae quisque fortunae”, etc. But the Good Lord made me an optimist, and I cannot avoid hoping that, in the meantime, the man may have reached a different conclusion about the merit of his decision.
In this beginning of the year, the period when many look at the past and make proposals for the future, perhaps Mr Werling is seriously reflecting – or he is beginning to reflect – whether a comeback, with an explanation of the thinking process behind it, would not be the thing to do.
If this is the case, and if Mr Werling chances to read this blog – which would be an encouraging sign already, I allow myself to add – I would like to assure him that I would be an affectionate reader of his effort again, and there would be no recriminations or accusations at least from my part and, hopefully, from many of my readers.
We all make mistakes. We live and learn, and grow to discern them. I have lost count of the times I have cried bitter tears of shame and regret at thinking at what my outlook on life was, before my re-discovery of the True Church. A re-discovery which I owe firstly to God’s grace, and secondly to the London Oratorians, who introduced me to a coherent, truthful, solemn, profoundly devout but at the same time muscular, manly Catholicism I did not even know it still existed; and at the core of all this, to a Traditional Liturgy whose beauty and spiritual profoundness takes my breath away every time.
My little effort is the fruit of the desire to – after adjusting for my own particular character and inclinations – put out there in the world the same spirit, introducing Catholics to – or reinforcing them in – that truthful, solemn, muscular, manly Catholicism they might not have easy access to.
Mr Werling’s blog was, in my eyes, exactly the same. I am sure that it benefited greatly other people as it did me. I am here mourning its loss after almost two years, which in fact should say enough on the matter.
If Mr Werling ever reads this blog, I hope he will examine to prayer to reconsider. Best wishes to him and his family in any case.