I read in one of those “small c” catholic blogs about a priest who would have been so unspeakably bad as to berate the mother of the child he was baptising, in front of all her relatives, for being an unwed mother.
The small c author then proceeds to mention the preparatory document of the upcoming Synod; in which, with usual prostituted hypocrisy, what 2000 years of Christianity have considered a shame has now become praiseworthy, because something even worse (abortion) has not happened. Which is as logical as praising a marijuana smoker for not being a heroin addict; but hey, who are we to judge?
Now, of course issues of prudence play a role here, but it seems to me that the same prudence should not lead us to condemn (or in Francis' parlance, “judge”) the priest. He is the one in charge of souls, he is the one who will answer of how he has taught them, and he should be considered the one who knows how to do it; unless we think that priests have fun in humiliating unwed mother in front of all her relatives.
If I were in the priests' shoes, in such situations I would say – provided I have decided the condition for baptism are given; and no, the child has no right to infant baptism – that a private ceremony is far more fitting, because there is an objectively scandalous situation; and that if the woman insists on the full-scale, bells-and-whistles ceremony I will comply, but also adress the full-blown scandal of a birth outside of marriage, and of a child who is, as 2000 years of Christianity have told us, a soul loved by God, but also the fruit of sin. This, I would do so that no one thinks Father is fine – as the preparatory document of the Synod and the small c “catholic” bloggers both are – with a baptism in which the scandalous circumstances of birth are either not addressed, or even glorified.
We do not know what has happened in this case. What surprises me – or perhaps not – is that everyone should be so ready to attack a priest upholding Christian values, in the name of a false charity that achieves nothing else than encouraging sinful behaviour; apart, of course, from letting everyone feel good with themselves. And in fact, here as in many other cases the priest who teaches Christianity is the automatic guilty party, condemned of all people by – you knew it – the “who am I to judge”-crowd.
Christianity is harsh. It has an awful lot of unpleasant rules, and it promises a lot of suffering – even for their descendants – to those who refuse to follow them. This is the reality on the ground, and no boot licking of the secular world will ever change a iota in that. Our grandmothers knew it very well, and were very vocal in telling the truth in season and out of season, lest the young mother without a wedding were, one day, to be their own granddaughter. They were, in this, helped by priests who taught things properly, like the good priest undoubtedly did on this occasion.
Nowadays, Christianity is supposed to celebrate everything and not condemn anyone; after which we complain – at least those among us who are honest enough to see it – that Christianity is vanishing from “feel-good” Countries.
In my eyes, those who have such a problem with Christian rules should be honest with themselves and admit that they have a problem with Christ, who gave us 2000 years of the very hard, and very “judgmental” religion Christianity has always been before this time.
But they don't.
They shoot the messenger instead.
Two future parents are informed their unborn child will die shortly after birth. The baby is now 20 weeks old in the womb. The parents decide to bring the pregnancy to the end, and allow the child to live for as long as he can. They are, obviously, photographed with him. The child dies after around ten hours.
The usual Nazis mock the parents because they have decided to face months of difficulties – somehow these people don't get that pregnancy is one of the most natural processes one can imagine – for ten hours of life. To them, this is clearly what the old Nazis called lebensunwertes Leben, “life unworthy of living”. One must say XXI Century Nazis have learned Hitler's lesson by rote.
But this post is – stupid and blog worthy as the rant of XXI Nazis are – not about them. It is about the baby.
Has he been baptised?
In the article I have read from the “Pewsitter”, I found no mention of it. The controversy seems merely about the defence of human life. But this does not consider the fact that a human life is so infinitely worthy because it is the life of an infinitely worthy soul; and that issues concerning afterlife are, be definition, infinitely more important than the duration of this life's sojourn on earth.
And it pains me, it pains me to tears to think that perhaps the baby has been brought so near to an eternal destination of supernatural glory and the parents have thought of the photographer, but have not thought of baptism. They might have, of course, and the article has merely not informed us of it. But what a crushing thought to think that they might have not; or that they might have thought there is no need for it, because hey, God doesn't require that we follow His rules, right?
If the same article had appeared, say, sixty years ago about a child who died shortly after birth, there would have probably been no need for the information about the baptism. The child was baptised. Duh.
Nowadays, though, things aren't so easy. Pro-life doesn't necessarily mean “Christian”, or even “Believer”. It might mean either none of those, or some strange and vague belief in some strange and vague cosmic force. It might even mean a sort of home-made Christianity, that thinks it can do without Baptism!
If this is not so, and the child has been baptised, then even this sad event has a glorious happy end, and certainty of Paradise for a child now much better off than any of us, who are all at risk of damnation and struggling with sin, as the happy child is already enjoying inconceivable glory and supernatural happiness forever.
If it is not so, and the child has not been baptised, the child's destiny is – for all we can see, and as the Church teaches us to believe – Limbo, which is still an irreparable loss compared to the supernatural happiness of the Divine Presence; and for which, by the way, there was no need of the child being born at all. If Limbo it was, the child is – sub specie aeternitatis – not better off than if he had been aborted; earning the avoidance of a horrible death and ten hours of life on earth, but still losing the Great Prize.
Once again: I hope the child has been baptised. But it is very sad to reflect that in the middle of the sated, gizmo-saturated, HD Western society this might not have been the case; and that this might not have been the case because we are living in times of vanishing Christianity, in which faith in the Christian God is becoming for huge masses – and, in many ways, the occasional Pope – an echo, a vague and distant concept, or a faint belief in an all-forgiving, all-merciful, Hollywood-generated Force that does not require anything from anyone: not Christian morality, much less Baptism.
I have written some days ago about the Argentinian lesbians now about to have “their” child baptised in the presence of the satanical Mrs Kirchner. The “confirmation” of the dykes was also announced.
Some press sources now state the confirmation will not happen, and one of the dykes has spoken with the press about it without authorisation. This means, I think, that the priest has tried to avoid being punched on the nose by the dyke saying vague words like “we'll see if you both are ready”, and the dyke has thought as they are obviously ready, it's a done deal. Anyway, I can't imagine even a dyke inventing two confirmations without any reason to do so.
Therefore, the situation appears – if the news was no April Fool's joke: online publication is 31 March, perhaps for print publication on the 1 April – to be as follows: the two “parents” are deemed to be unfit for confirmation, and therefore unsuitable to ground a solid hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic faith. Of the – as far as I know – three godparents, one is Mrs Kirchner who is there merely as attention whore, another is a friend of the “family”, of the third I do not know anything.
How can one, then, be so naive as to think that the child has any realistic chance to be raised in the proper way?
Will Mrs Kirchner regularly visit the couple to teach the child Catholicism? What kind of Catholicism would that, pray, be?
Will the “friend of the family” go in the education of the child frontally against his own conviction, as one who is “friend” with dykes living in sin clearly has no problem with what they do?
Will the unknown third godparent, assuming he is orthodox, be allowed to teach the child something as blatantly in contrast with the dyke's “morality” in their own home? If you believe this, there's nothing you can't believe if you want to.
If anything, in this absurd matter the news that the absurd confirmation of the two dykes will (might) not take place highlights even more the absurdity of baptisms given not only for the asking, but clearly serving an homosexual agenda; either because those who consent to it are perverts themselves, or because they are so uncaring for Christ that they would simply do everything that advances their own popularity.
But what we are really seeing is something different: a perversion of Catholicism, fuelled from the highest place, in which “seeking the Lord” is the only requirement. Strangely enough, Mafiosi aren't allowed to go on and hope in Salvation if they “seek the Lord”, but dykes and fags can, no questions asked.
This thinking is so secular, you know it has Francis written all over it. For a Christian, though, wilful murder and sin of the Sodomites belong in the same ballpark; and one could even add that most Mafiosi go through life without ever executing, ordering or witnessing a murder – the Mafia is not a street gang in Los Angeles or Naples – whereas sodomites tend to have an extremely high number of sodomy acts with a multitude of perverts like them.
But no: in Francis' new religion there is no place for Catholicism. Bring on the dykes, there's a good photo-op for the likes of Francis.
Beware of the wolves.
In the land of boorish populism, Pinocchio masses and Tango masses, (you will see a familiar face in both I am afraid) it was only a matter of time before this here happened: two lesbians having their own child baptised and being confirmed themselves.
Now, I have already written about the fact that a priest is supposed to baptise if, and only if, he thinks that the child has a reasonable, well-grounded hope to be raised in the Catholic faith. Say, two Jews are thinking of conversion, but they want their offspring to be baptised and raised as Catholics in the meantime. I never got a problem with the fact that Felix Mendelssohn and his siblings were all baptised before their parents converted to Christianity. In that case, it made sense to do so, and there was more than solid ground to believe the children would be raised in the Christian (if, alas, not Catholic) faith. But this here is beyond belief.
Firstly, one must ask how well grounded is the chance that a child will be raised in the Catholic faith if the people he lives with are the very epitome, and very publicly so, of all that the Church opposes. This is as if Stalin would have asked for his son to be baptised; with the difference that in Stalin’s case one might have hoped the mother of a child was a closet Christian; no risk of the sort here.
Secondly, one must ask what kind of demented – or rather, perverted – priest can allow two lesbians to stand in front of the altar and the congregation and state that they believe everything that the church believes and profess everything that the church professes and pretend he believes what they say.
There isn’t much to say here: this is how the Church of Bergoglio sanctions abominations under the disguise of “mercy” at all costs; only in isolated cases at the beginning, and more and more frequently in future, so that if this disgraceful papacy is allowed to continue it is not at all unthinkable that in five or ten years time such exercises will be the norm, and every fag and dyke in the land will feel authorised to be extremely incensed should a priest deny the baptism to the child, or the confirmation to them.
For the record: I think such a baptism is madness. It would be a madness even if the godfathers were Catholics of unimpeachable credentials; but in this case the godparents seem to be friends of the “family”, so they are perverts by association, full stop. That one of them is supposed to be Ms Kirchner already says it all about what is going on here.
The sacraments only have sense if they are given in conformity to the sense and function they have. If everyone should be baptised just because he is born, then I wonder why Francis does not proceed to a declaration of Automatic Universal Baptism of All The Unbelievers In The World Upon Birth and be done with it. At that point, you can give communion to every public adulterer because of the hope some sacramental grace may flow from the desire of the adulterer to receive communion, and give give the sacrament of confirmation to, say, avowed lesbians (I know, it’s absurd; just making a point here… I hope…AAARRRGGHHH!!!)
You will say: “but Mundabor, this is not how it works. You just can’t give baptism automatically to everyone”.
I know, it’s not how it works.
Exactly this is the point.
I seem to notice that with the election of the new Bishop of Rome, The Humble Francis, and with the alarming increase in modernist antics among his prelates, a new sport has developed. This new blogging discipline consists in denying an even bigger evil than the one Francis & Co. are accused of, as if this were evidence of the falseness of the accusations.
So, we read here or there that such and such defrocked priest is still defrocked. Well of course he is, it is not that priests are easily “refrocked”, nor has anyone accused Francis of wanting to reintegrate in their priestly functions all the nutcases who have been kicked out in the last years. Please note that in order to be kicked out from the priesthood one needs to have been an obvious madman for many years, and nothing else will do (unless, perhaps, one is a Traditionalist). As it is, scores of Jesuits and assorted idiots can happily promote sodomy year in and year out, and they live and die as priests in good standing (Father Gallo docet). In short, to say that Francis isn't a raving lunatic proves absolutely nothing as to his not being an utter and complete disgrace.
The same mechanism is at work when Francis does something very stupid, or worse. Yes, he can baptise the child of concubines, but honestly I struggle to remember one single article or blog post that claimed he is not allowed to do it. The gravity of what he did lies, for the umpteenth time in his still young pontificate, in the implicit but still very loud message he sends with his gesture, not in a matter of Canon Law.
The latter, though, even applies to his liturgical abuse on Maundy Thursday 2013. Again: whilst he is the Pope and has, therefore, the factual power to avoid sanctions if he breaches the rules, the fact remains that the rules are there to be followed and the Pontiff, the First of the Servants, should also feel the first obliged to do so. Still, the same observation was made on this occasion: he can, so where's your problem.
The same has happened again with the most recent antics of Cardinal O'Malley. No, he wasn't baptised “again” and he knew that; but certainly, his gesture gives to external observers – particularly if casual ones; the well instructed ones cannot but be scandalised – the impression that there is no difference, or no real one, between being a Catholic and a Protestant. How stupid were, then, all those who have died or have suffered horrible persecutions for the One True Church, and how intolerant was Jesus to found only One Church, as if Catholics thought they possess… the Truth!
Every time, the neocon “nothing to see here” crowd tries to persuade us that everything is normal because the Cardinal has not openly apostatised, the Bishop of Rome can commit liturgical abuses without being censored by anyone, and he can obviously baptise the baby of concubines if he believes – or at least this is the rule – that there is a grounded hope that the baby will receive a Catholic education. But this is just not the point. This is like grounding one's idea that Hitler was fine on the fact that he was never known to chew the arms of little Jewish children, or to drink their blood.
It should be clear to every blogger and Catholic journalist that the Church is, even in Her current miserable shape, still a formidable opponent for everyone who want to openly, formally, challenge and demolish Her tenets; and that therefore every open challenge to Her must perforce occur in a way that, at least in the form, does not openly deny the received truth. She is not the Labour Party, that can be transformed in something radically different just by way of a Congress; or the Italian Communist Party, that can decide to switch allegiance from the Warsaw Pact to the NATO literally overnight. Everyone who wants to play Che Guevara with the Church will have to make his revolution – what he can do of it – according to certain rules.
The gravity of the words and acts both of Francis and of his prelates must be measured accordingly.
It can make sense, at times, to give baptism to babies whose parents are not sacramentally married. Those of you who love classical music might, for example, remember the case of Felix Mendelssohn and his siblings; all of them baptised, even if born of Jewish parents.
But you see, Mendelssohn was raised as a Christian – albeit, alas, a Protestant one -, as were his siblings. When he was baptised, the decision to raise him as a Christian was already made. It was no question of what the relatives of the parents “expected”, or of a nice ceremony and party, or of the child not feeling “different” when at elementary school. The intention to have people around the baby caring for a proper Christian upbringing was certainly there already.
This is most certainly not so for many couples nowadays, who consider having their children baptised only in order to avoid discussions with their parents, or because of the “nice ceremony”, or because everyone else in their circles does it. That they do not care is already not shown, but shouted, by the simple fact that they are not married in church. There might be other people – perhaps the uncle, or the grandparents – taking this obligation for themselves; but how often this is the case nowadays both you and I can easily imagine.
Never one to let a good headline go to waste, Bishop Francis has now baptised the son of a couple who did not consider it right – or did not have the right, I do not know the details – to marry in the church, though they apparently did consider it just the ticket to have their baby baptised by the Pope. Would the Bishop of Rome object to this? Well, of course not…
Francis is very aware – whatever the Pollyannas might think – of the worldwide echo of anything he does differently from his predecessors, and he has already complained in public about those priests who are restrictive in their decision to give baptism (probably because they care, I add). When, therefore, Francis proceeds to baptise the baby of public concubines living in scandal, he willingly undermines both marriage and baptism. The first because he sends the clear message that another usual testimony of Christian faith, that is obviously a sacrament and an obvious precondition for a chaste life in common rather than concubinage, can be dispensed with; and the second because it again creates the perception that a baptism is something you give to a baby like you would a pacifier.
This may seem strange to us, but certainly isn't in Francis' world. If atheists can be saved and Jews don't need to be converted, baptism is clearly no big deal. If God punishes us with a slap on the wrist at most, then clearly God has already slated us for inevitable salvation at conception. If there is no need to convert anyone to Catholicism, or Christianity come to that, then there is no specific value to be attached to the peculiar rite of admission to this Christian faith and baptism can be given for the asking, merely as a token of something already there for everyone.
In Francis' vision there is only one community of faithful, the humans. He has already baptised all of them – be they atheist in “good conscience”, Jews eating kosher or Muslims observing the Ramadan – in the name of the Black Shoes, the Ford Focus and the Wheelchair. It is very clear to him Christianity is just one of many options, all of them leading to inevitable salvation, with the worst case scenario being a slap in the wrist. He probably considers Christianity the best option; but again, certainly not to the point of trying to persuade others to follow his choice. He will merely point out to you the advantages of choosing this option: having more joooy, experiencing more luv, and the like.
Why on earth would he ever have a problem in giving baptism to absolutely anyone?