One of the most common trait of every internet discussion – and of many discussion in the real world – is the unavoidable intervention of the compulsive do-gooder.
The compulsive do-gooder lives in a world made of platitudes and common places. He thrives so much in such an environment, that he googles around looking for controversial discussions on the Internet – this forum, or that blog – to intervene and dish his accustomed list of banalities.
For the do-gooder, war is always bad. He can’t countenance that some be rich, and many other poor (he is, well, certainly not rich himself; if he is, he feels guilty for that, but without becoming poor). He finds it extremely worthwhile to complain about “inequalities”, as if God had made a world dominated by equality, and men had decided to subvert God’s plan. That human beings have always possessed the most varied degrees of intelligence, wit, beauty, or physical strenght never occurred to him and hey presto, here’s the next platitude…..
Most of all, the compulsive do-gooder has no controversial opinions. He will tolerate everything and everyone, as long as he feels approved. He will throw “Jesus” in every discussion, and this will allow him to avoid taking a stance on whatever problem, or controversy, or perversion going against the thinking of the lazy, indifferent, fat mainstream. When the do-gooder is “against” something, it will be something that is, in principle, uncontroversial. He will be in favour of “peace”, “love”, “understanding”, “tolerance”, “prosperity for everyone” and “the environment”. In doing so, he will conveniently forget the very reasons why he should be in favour of all these beautiful things. He will be in favour of peace when confronted with Nazism, “love” when confronted with genocide, “understanding” when aeroplanes go against skyscrapers. He will want prosperity but will criticise the very Capitalist society that produces it in unprecedented measure. He will be in favour of the environment, but will never care for the danger that stupid environmentalism – and make no mistake, that’s what he will support – poses to the economy and, therefore, to peace, prosperity, and “understanding among the peoples”. If you disagree with him, he will consider you intolerant, for disagreeing with him.
The do-gooder lives in a parallel world. He fancies a planet where human beings behave exactly as they should – which invariably means : as he wants – instead of, well, like human beings. In his world no criminal, no dictator, no genocide is evil. No one is evil, though some are misunderstood. If we would just talk to them! Oh, how insensitive we all are!
When I was at school, and later too, the do-gooders invariably – which means, without exception – belonged to a particular group of people. Not very smart, very lazy, and not much esteemed. Mediocre in all they did, and dull in everything they said, they never received the consideration they clearly craved for and which their overflowing vanity demanded. Having nothing to impose them to other people’s attention, they needed to feed their vanity by imposing their own alleged moral superiority on them.
Their desperate need for vanity fodder created on the one hand an extreme egalitarianism born of their own mediocrity – if you are mediocre every talking of aspiration, striving, application, sacrifice will be marked as evil; therefore the do-gooder will be against grades in class, against better and worse and, very predictably, against richer and poorer – and on the other hand it produced an extremely strong need to take the moral high ground, to be considered better because they could not be considered smarter, and to condemn every form of competition because they couldn’t win it.
I saw these people at work, and was dumbfounded by the extreme stupidity of their behaviour and attitude. Being a somewhat outspoken guy, I never refrained from saying so and exposing them without any reserve in the public debates they so clearly desired and were the first to ask for – Italian schools were then, alas, the mecca of the stupid debates, with people barely able to grow a beard feeling so good whilst crucifying the entire Western Civilisation -. By doing so, I caused tsunamis of indignation and, invariably, savage accusations of insensitivity. But in my simple world, if you’re stupid you’re better off shutting up than trying to look intelligent, because it never works and you’re bound to find the one who’ll make you look the ass you are. Si tacuisses…. particularly then, when your stupidity goes against everything sacred, causes Communism to advance, and makes Holocausts possible.
The do-gooder is passive-aggressive, which works beautifully with most people, though sends them straight to the wall with those who can’t stand such a behaviour. He will start a discussion immediately aiming at the moral high ground, and at the first resistance will put his tent firmly there by claiming foul play, and emotional rape. How do you dare to expose his idiocy, he only wants a world where everyone lives in peaaace!
The do-gooder is a failure, perceived or – more often – real. He will either not have done anything sensible in his life beside stroking his vanity, or he will be frustrated because he doesn’t feel his achievements are valued enough by “society”. He might be a teacher whose brother-in-law- is a successful lawyer, or the ne’er-do-good daughter of a successful businessman, that is: people earning less than the former generation, or than their peer within the enlarged family. Nothing better to stimulate socialist thinking. Being very materialistic, the do-gooder will judge other people from the economic success they have, and will think everyone does the same; but being losers, they won’t have any. Ouch! Then, they will criticise the materialistic society, consumerism, and all those people who consider them good-for-nothing; exactly as they do, secretly, themselves.
It is, I think, a sad reality of our days that most champagne socialist are, in fact, unable to afford the champagne. They only like to mix with the few who can.
My impression is that an awful lot of do-gooders have become teachers, and very many have become social workers of some kind. Even more of them have become nothing at all, and now build tents in strange places, desperately trying to attract people’s attention on how oh so beautiful they are. Their motivation is the one that drives them in everything they do: to please their vanity, and to be considered an elite of fine thinkers rather than a motley crew of lazy asses.
Very few of them will choose the clerical profession. The one or other among them might become, say, a bishop of the Anglican so-called church, and one of them actually became the Archbishop of Canterbury. Some others may become Catholic Bishops, or Cardinals, and write about their strange theories of world government, and global monetary authority. These are among the very few that will be seen, from the world at large, as authoritative.
Still, make no mistake: they are waste of space, all of them.
The so-called (this is important, “so-called”. He is an usurper. Never forget!) Archbishop of Canterbury clearly is more confused than we thought and I slowly wonder whether some professional help might not be of some use to him.
Believing to be talking in front of a North-Korean audience, our old man first decided that Shakespeare was a Catholic (I know that this has been rumoured for very long; but now that we have the confirmation from him I rather begin to doubt) and then proceeded to please the audience (he thought he was in North Korea, remember!) by saying that the fact that the old and well-off Bard was “hoarding grain and buying up property in Stratford” makes him, in the eyes of Comrade Williams, “not very attractive”. Which is rather easily said when one disposes of lodgings in places like Lambeth Palace, you might say; but we don’t want to be fussy, do we?
I wonder if someone has informed the old man that Joseph of Arimathea was so wealthy that he hoarded I do not say grain and houses, but even superfluities like …….. luxury tombs. And a very expensive one he had there, just in case…. pure capitalistic decadence! Remaining in Gospel times, Zacchaeus and Nicodemus were not entirely poor, either, but I was under the impression that Jesus seemed to find both of them attractive. How very strange…..
Clearly, Our Lord was not as socially advanced as Mr (note here: no holy orders for him I’m afraid) Williams, who just can’t like people who are doing very fine, as in: even better than he.
Possibly because no applause had ensued, he decided to reinforce the concept with the following pearl of wisdom:
“If he was a Christian, he wasn’t a saint.”
Well nor are you, old ….. boy. Nor am I, or most of us. But wait, Joseph of Arimathaea is a canonised saint!? Recognised even by most Anglicans?! How can it be, if he had so much grain on the side? And the rich Nicodemus? He is a Saint too? !You don’t say?! Who’d have thought it?! What is next, the canonisation of people who were rich enough as to have their own private zoo, like…. St. Thomas More? (Oh well, I assume Thomas More doesn’t count for the Anglicans, does he now….).
We need Mister Williams to start working seriously at the remaking of Christianity. We really do. These last two thousand years have clearly been a promising start, but without him we would still be thinking that it isn’t a sin to be rich, and that riches are a grace that must be used properly and administered like a good steward would. We would even think that the Church has been helped to carry her work by countless rich and saintly men and women, who have given generously not only to alleviate the suffering of the poor, but also to help the Church to grow and spread Christ’s word. We wouldn’t even understand that Jesus has clearly said that property is theft, so blind are we! And we would, perhaps, even be so mad as to be thankful to the countless generous donors who have allowed so many works of sacred art to be created ad maiorem dei gloriam!
Where would we be, without this old… boy.
I sometimes wonder whether those who care for such obviously superfluous, clearly failed, ridiculous outfits as ARCIC truly believe in what they are doing or simply enjoy the travels, the meals and the jolly good times.
This news would actually speak for the latter hypothesis. It turns out that the so-called Archbishop of Canterbury has nominated this woman to be part of the Anglican side of the ARCIC team. The Anglican team will be ten strong, which will make for jolly entertaining conversation.
One can imagine the Catholic side sitting in front of the Anglican ones, with the intent of discussing a possible “union” with…… a bishopette. It would make a good “Little Britain” sketch.
On the other hand, if you accept the fact that ARCIC is there to provide selected Anglicans and Catholics with a travel to Italy, some seriously good food and some pleasant conversation the entire exercise truly makes perfect sense.
Another brilliant article by Stephen Glover on the Daily Mail.
Glover points out, with great clarity, to some striking facts:
1) Benedict’s authority eclipses Rowan Williams’
2) Irrespective of authority, Benedict has the guts to say things straight and Rowan Williams hasn’t.
3) There is a thirst for religious values. The coE can’t satisfy it. It doesn’t even want.
4) The atheist crowd has been silenced and exposed for what they are: haters. But they hate Benedict, not RW, because the latter is no threat at all.
Let us read some of the most striking passages of this eye-opening article.
“In a manner wholly unlike our home-grown clerics, the Pope spoke to the soul of our country, affirming eternal moral verities which our own political and religious leaders normally prefer to avoid”.
“Pope Benedict’s declarations over the past few days have been remarkable and, in modern Britain, virtually unprecedented”.
It is almost a shock to hear a religious leader speak in so blunt a way, so inured are we to our own religious leaders, particularly Church of England bishops, accommodating themselves to secular values.
(I would add here: Catholic bishops are not bad at accommodating secular values, either)
“The tragedy is that Dr Williams and Anglican bishops probably agree with almost everything Pope Benedict said about the dangers of secularism – and yet they do not have the courage, or whatever it takes, to say it”.
And whereas the Pope speaks clearly in English, which is his third or fourth language, Dr Williams often speaks opaquely or in riddles in the language that is his own.
(true.. 😉 ).
In his concluding address, Pope Benedict said that he had discovered ‘how deep a thirst there is among the British people for the good news of Jesus Christ’. He is right. And yet how often our national Church – the Church of England – fails to proclaim this good news.
In large parts of the Anglican Church there is a sense of defeatism in the face of the incoming tide of secularism, as congregations dwindle and parish churches close. But look at the young people in Hyde Park or those lining Princes Street in Edinburgh or those standing outside Westminster Cathedral. They yearn for the good news, and they invite moral certainty. Would it be too much to hope that Anglican bishops might learn something from the fearless commitment of the Pope?
Speaking of the aggressive anti-Catholic atheists, Glover writes:
Their foaming and often unbalanced denunciations of the Pope reveal their fear. They fear him because he adheres so strongly to traditional Christian teaching and champions principles they abhor. They fear him because the values he reiterates commend themselves to millions of people and, above all, to millions of young people. They do not trouble to vent their spite and vitriol on the Archbishop of Canterbury because Dr Williams has been so cowed by the forces of secularism that he no longer poses any threat to their bleak vision.
In invoking the heritage of our Christian past, and suggesting we might still have a principled Christian future, Benedict XVI has achieved more than the Church of England over many years. The lesson of the past few days is that Britain is not quite the deeply un-Christian country that the BBC and other parts of the media would have us believe.
Of course, Mr. Glover doesn’t get it completely right. He describes papal infallibility as “bizarre” and doesn’t even stop to reflect what be so “bizarre” in it, or to wonder whether he has perchance not just assisted to infallibility at work.
Still, this is a remarkably outspoken article making clear that the country can recover its values and that a courageous Pope, not the so-called church of England is the one able to do the job.
I imagine that a good part of the Daily Mail reader, whilst not Catholic, feel an instinctive sympathy not only for the courage of the man Benedict, but for the courage of an institution not ready to accommodate her principles to those of the world. One can only hope that in time, this vague perception may become in many a more profound feeling and identification with Christian values and the acknowledgment that those values cannot be adequately defended by imitations, but only by the Original.
Classic FM is the biggest radio station for classical music on the planet. It is listened daily by more than 5 million people. As it is fitting for such a broadcasting heavyweight, they have their own news team.
Unfortunately, this news team sounds like the lovechild of the “Guardian” and the “Independent”; so much so, that I generally switch away before the news as there’s nothing worse than beginning the day by being infuriated by those people.
This morning, I imprudently omitted to do so and therefore I heard that the Pope would held today 1) an ecumenical ceremony 2) in a “show of unity with the Anglican church” (the very words! I kid you not!).
I almost had my caffellatte going down the wrong pipe. Besides the obvious absurdity of the “show of unity” with an ecclesial community of which the Church doesn’t even recognise the validity of the order (and which, by the way, goes to show the extent of wrong information and utter tosh spread even by national media outlets), I was not at all pleased at hearing that still another “ecumenical encounter of the wrong kind” would take place. The words led me to assume that it would be a mass, which would be unsurprising by people thinking that this would be a “show of unity”; but honestly I do not remember the exact words now as the “show of unity” bomb and the caffellatte took all my attention.
Can you imagine Pius IX having an ecumenical Mass with the so-called archbishop of Canterbury? Pius X perhaps? Pius XI? What about Pius XII?
There is a reason for this. Whatever the theological gimmicks used to justify such exercises, every ecumenical Mass engenders the idea that there be no big difference whether one is Catholic or Anglican, whether his communion is the Real Presence or a fraud, whether the celebrant is a priest or a layman, a Catholic or a Heretic.
This cannot be right and in fact it isn’t. Every old doctrinal text or booklet will tell you that a Catholic is supposed not to pray together with members of other faiths, let alone participating to ecumenical masses.
Therefore, after succeeding in sending my caffellatte down the right pipe and as I felt the usual adrenaline surge of such occasions, I thought that this was a very bad mistake.
Thankfully, though, the website of the papal visit seems to give a different view. The program merely mentions a “fraternal visit”, with the Evensong. The papal visit website doesn’t even say whether it will concelebrated. It might be that the Pontiff merely listens, I do not know yet.
Bad as this is, this not an ecumenical mass, which softens the blow considerably. Still, I do think that this is a mistake and that the Papal visit should have sent a stronger message in defence of Catholicism and should have paid more attention in order to avoid any confusion between the Only Church and the rest. You can be diplomatic without being ambiguous after all.
How inappropriate this Evensong is, is showed by the likes of Classic FM, for which this largely diplomatically motivated encounter becomes “a show of unity”. One could say that the Pontiff is not responsible for the superficiality of utterly ignorant liberals and one would be right; but once again we are in front of the importance of sending a clear message.
A lot of people inform themselves only superficially; the Church should, if you ask me, help even superficially informed people not to have any doubt about what is what.