Zikagate: The Catholicism-Free Pope.
The question was as follows:
Holy Father, for several weeks there’s been a lot of concern in many Latin American countries but also in Europe regarding the Zika virus. The greatest risk would be for pregnant women. There is anguish. Some authorities have proposed abortion, or else to avoiding pregnancy. As regards avoiding pregnancy, on this issue, can the Church take into consideration the concept of “the lesser of two evils?”
The journalist was possibly a feminist looking for a scoop, but in fact she gave the answer to the Unholy father herself: every boy who is preparing for confirmation is supposed to know – even today – that the Church does not condone “lesser evils” of any kind. The church tolerates the double effect (one effect is good, the other bad; under certain circumstances, I will have to accept the bad effect, that I do not want, because it’s the only way to obtain the good one, which I want. Example: Hamas shoot from the roof of a hospital, you shoot on the hospital; Wehrmacht snipers shoot from bell towers, you take down the bell tower, etc), but never, ever does the Church say “I accept that you do something less evil (when your intention is to do something evil) in order to avoid something more evil”.
This is very simple. Still, the press always does what they can to misinterpret it. Some years ago, with the notorious “condomgate”, Pope Benedict used a very unfortunate example that, whilst not trying to endorse the lesser evil, was interpreted (wrongly, but you understood where they came from) from a lot of people. I wrote about this here and here.
The press will misinterpret. The press will try to let a Pope say what he does not want to say. Whenever unguarded, a Pope, even one in good faith like Benedict, can unwillingly say things that will be misconstrued. It is extremely important that a Pope, of all people, avoids this. Benedict made the mistake once or twice, and in perfect good faith. Francis did it perhaps three hundred time, and I very much doubt the good faith.
So, let us see what a bad Pope answers to the question above. A question, let me repeat it once again, which offered the answer in a silver plate, then a Pope must know that the Church does not accept the lesser evil or has no business being Pope.
Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. That’s what the Mafia does. It is a crime, an absolute evil. On the ‘lesser evil,’ avoiding pregnancy, we are speaking in terms of the conflict between the fifth and sixth commandment. Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape.
Don’t confuse the evil of avoiding pregnancy by itself, with abortion. Abortion is not a theological problem, it is a human problem, it is a medical problem. You kill one person to save another, in the best case scenario. Or to live comfortably, no? It’s against the Hippocratic oaths doctors must take. It is an evil in and of itself, but it is not a religious evil in the beginning, no, it’s a human evil. Then obviously, as with every human evil, each killing is condemned.
On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, or in the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear. I would also urge doctors to do their utmost to find vaccines against these two mosquitoes that carry this disease. This needs to be worked on.
The man gets the first two short sentences right. From there, he talks like a person who does not understand jack of Catholicism. Like a Dalai Lama, say, or a Barack Obama on a good day. He accepts the position of the “lesser evil”, and even explicitly says that it is not a “religious” evil, but a “human” evil, in some confused and un-theological way creating a way to even discuss the way this “lesser evil” might be accepted. Then he calls Paul VI “a great man” (keep the man away from the grappa, says I). Then he mentions the non-existent case of Paul VI having “permitted the use of contraceptives” (which, it appears clear, never took place; but which, being contrary to Church teaching in matter of “lesser evil”, would have never been justifiable if it had taken place). Then he crowns everything with that truly drunken, delirious, ab.so.lu.te.ly bonkers statement about the “conflict between the fifth and the sixth commandment”. Conflict between Commandments? What does the man smoke in the morning? Even in my young age, any boy who would have said something as enormously stupid as that would have been surrounded by astonished gasps, and stares of incredulity. The man is just plain ignorant of the first three things of Catholicism. He has no idea. He does not know where Catholicism begins. You could make your agnostic janitor Pope, and he would talk less nonsense than this nincompoop. Really, it’s as bad as that.
Bloggers and newspapers concentrate on the scandal of the Pope clearly admitting that he thinks in terms of “lesser evil”, and believes such a logic is perfectly acceptable and practiced by people he, unsurprisingly, considers “great men”. But already the other enormity about the “conflict between the fifth and the sixth commandment” would have been enough, in saner times, to cause a never ending uproar of condemnation and scandal.
The man is just Catholicism-free. There is no Catholicism in him. Not one bit.
Not, mind, because he is senile. Because he is an arrogant godless socialist sold to the world, that’s why.
Can’t wait for this pontificate to end. Join me in my prayers for it.
Enough with this clown.