Daily Archives: March 11, 2015

A Saint Engages In Interreligious Dialogue. With Some Reflections

Follow the link to the blog “Call Me Jorge” and read an interesting page from an interesting book about the Middle Ages. if you click the page the click will lead you to the internet version of the book. 

Then try to explain the differences between the approach of a King of the past, and the approach of a Pope of the present. A Pope who would not only invite the Jew to his discussion, but would insist that he eats kosher as he assures him that the Old Covenant still applies to him and wonders why men must bicker because of matters that only interest theologians.

Finally, you may want to wonder what the Saint of the past would have thought of a Pope like the present one, and how would he have gauged the latter’s chances of salvation unless repentance intervenes before death.

Whenever I read these stories from the past I feel a sense of vertigo at the thought of how the most elementary sense of Christianity has deteriorated in our time. At the same time, it is consoling to know that even in places like Cluny mistakes of the sort were made; not that the Cluny monks would have been in the least interested in “dialogue” as it is understood today (the “I am OK, you are OK” sort; they certainly had the conversion of the infidels in mind at all times), but that they too were able to lack in prudence at times. 

Every Jew (or Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever else) is evangelisation material. Every Jew (or Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever else) is in danger of damnation if he dies in the denial of Christ. This being the case, one can only imagine what will might happen to a Pope that encourages infidels in their own error, and scolds the Catholics who want to convert them.

Francis must be an atheist. There is no other way how he could, otherwise, be able to sleep at night.

M

The Wife, The Head And The Sand

There is an article on Catholic.org that well exemplifies both the confusion reigning in the head of many, and the fact that sanity is slowly becoming mainstream.

The author of this article calls himself a conservative, but he ignores what conservatism is all about: Conservation. Permanence. Tradition. Doing things now as they were made before; because permanence is good, and goodness must be conserved.

The attempt to minimise the Unholy Father’s continued scandal becomes the condemnation of those who condemn the scandal. The desperate attempt to ask a Christian to please bend over backward and give Francis’ words an orthodox meaning simply ignores that vast part of the planet – as Francis all too well knows – will simply use his words for what they mean. The assumption that Francis takes Catholic faith and morals for granted but almost never defends them with a word is witness of a state of pure denial. The condemnation of the scandal of a Pope saying “who am I to judge” completely ignores the enormous subversive impact of such a statement, and becomes an excuse to even accuse of hypocrisy those who are so scandalised; which, unavoidably, extends to sixty generations of Christians.

This man is simply refusing to look at a reality staring him in the face, and twists himself in the most intricate ways in order to avoid to see the brutal truth in front of him.

Not so his wife. Her argument is brutally simple. Look around you, man.

The Unholy Father has now thrown such a vast quantity of rubbish on sound Catholicism, that even the wives of the Pollyannas (this one isn’t an extreme Pollyanna, but he is one all right) do not need to give them any more than the simplest of answers:

“How long are you going to keep your head in the sand?”

This one is a smart woman and, I am sure, a very good wife; the good tree, and all that.

We need more people like her.

Particularly if they write on Catholic outlets.

M

 

Publishing The Slander

During the recent and now officially more or less closed “Rosicagate” scandal, three posters unknown to me wrote comments full of slanderous accusations against Mr Domet, aka Vox Cantoris.

I did not publish any of them.

It seems to me that all too often the concept of “openness” degenerates into plain stupidity, as if freedom of speech meant that everyone has the right to write anything about anyone Else anywhere, with an expectation of his writing being published.

This is not so. Common sense must apply at all times, and common sense dictates that public personages can meet with not only criticism, but – if sufficiently founded and in the proper context – allegations that do not deserve any public hearing in other cases.

I do not allow anyone – and particularly one who never wrote on this blog; but anyone anyway – to come here and write rubbish expecting publication because hey, “it's a free country”. This is not only common sense, but actually a legal fact.

Mr Domet now rightly complains about a big outlet who thought it not below them to publish unverified rubbish about himself and his family, and I truly wonder what friends Rosica has inside that particular organisation.

I thought it right to give Mr Domet's righteous indignation an outlet; but the more general point is that I think that too many bloggers indulge in a kind of “freedom snobism“, which leads them to publish comments that should never be read by decent people as a burnt offering to the gods of freedom of speech.

There should be no need to say this. But I assure I see a lot of this around, and think it should change.

Freedom must always be seen in context. Every right impinges on other rights. We must apply prudence and common sense instead of indulging in a misguided sense of “openness”.

This space will remain heavily moderated. I wish many others were.

M

 

%d bloggers like this: