Conversion, Not Inclusion!

It is a well known fact that those preaching “inclusion” are the first ones to exclude those they don’t like. They are pretty numerous nowadays. There is the Canadian Basilian (like Father Rosica: they must learn thuggery in the seminary…) who offends Cardinal Burke most brutally for… being an orthodox Catholic; then we have the already mentioned Father Rosica, whose “mercy” apparently includes attacking poor family fathers for pointing out he has insulted the Holy Father and blasphemed Christ; let us not forget Cardinal Wuerl suddenly putting orthodox Catholics in the same boat as dissenters, and obviously Francis constantly reminding us how very bad unnamed good Catholics can be. All this, in the last couple of weeks or so.

It seems, therefore, to me that “inclusion” is now a favourite buzzword of people who want to kick Catholics out of the church, pretty much as it happened in Arian times. Starting, of course, from the Bishop of Rome himself, to whom stinking of perversion is apparently better than having an ordered life obviously committed to Catholic values.

But let see this word again: inclusion. Is inclusion really a value?

Does a flag include all the others? When you stand up and sing your national anthem, are you “including” everyone else? Does your rooting for a certain team “include” the rooting for their rivals? What about associations, circles, clubs of all kind: why do they exist in the first place?

The truth of the matter is that it is simply not possible to define us as something without automatically excluding all those who are something else. Those who tell you they “love everyone” do not really love anyone, but themselves. Those who say they are “world citizen” do not love their flag, do not love any flag.

To be Catholic is to have a certain set of beliefs. Automatically, this excludes those who do not share these beliefs or actively betray them. There can be no escape from this reality. There can be no “inclusiveness” of this sort, ever. Neither do New York Yankees fans “include” Red Sox fans in their rooting, or Lazio fans include Rom fans, or Chelsea fans Arsenal fans. You are either here or there. You can’t be and not be something. You must make a choice.

This express will of “overcoming differences” (seen very often in Francis, albeit in him it might be evil intent rather than simple stupidity) pretends to forget that pretty much everything is defined exactly by its differences with everything else. You can’t be Christian and Muslim. You can’t be Catholic and Protestant. You can’t be right and wrong.

The Church must never aim at including. The Church must aim at converting. You are different from me, and this is not ok at all! You are different from me, and I want you to renounce to the differences and become like me! You are wrong, and I want you to be right!

None of this can be “inclusive”. The club accepts those who are fit to become members and share the club’s values. It cannot be any differently.

Even the apostles of “inclusion” never dream of “including” Traditionalist in their (hopefully not lewd) embrace. They know very well that there are differences. They practice themselves what they condemn in us. They aren’t more “inclusive” than Chelsea or Yankee fans are of Manchester City and Red Sox fans. They write Tweets to you with “STFU”, not “we welcome and include your inspired and candid approach”. They want to shut you up all right. They might even sue you to keep you out!

No. Inclusion is a fable made to fool the gullible. It is always here or there.

We are here. Francis and his likes are there. There can be no inclusion.

I am against inclusion. I am one of the least inclusive chaps you’ll ever meet.

I want conversion, not inclusion.




Posted on February 24, 2015, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

  1. Mundy- I just read this post (it’s not too long) and thought I would give you and FYI. Do you side with Rorate or with Ann?

    And if TMAHICH elevates a schismatic to the level of Doctor, does that put into suspect his elevating John XXIII and JPII to sainthood? What a crazy time we live in. God bless you:+)

    • I am not a theologian.
      Rorate says those were years of intricate, complex relationships and conflicts, and is no theologians of conservative bent (say, from the SSPX, or their allies) will cry scandal I will not either.


  2. M: You don´t understand because you are not familiarized with the advantages of Doublethink.

%d bloggers like this: