Another stunning example of the shamelessness of the current Bishop of Rome is now everywhere on the Internet: Bishop Francis has made an appeal to his Brazilian bishops to do exactly what he refuses to do whenever it becomes in the least uncomfortable: protect (among others) the unborn.
Wait a moment: “Brazilian”? Isn't this the country where abortion legislation has been passed merely days ago? The country visited by him, and where the World Francis Day took place? The country he visited just in the days preceding a still possible presidential veto on the measure? The country where he met millions of people, including the above mentioned President, and never mentioned abortion?
How can anyone be in possession of such an amount of hypocrisy as to shout his silence during his visit and issue, after the fact, the pathetic fig leave of this message to the bishops?
If we only had a cowardly Bishop of Rome, it would be bad enough. But we have here one who wants to be a coward, and look good whilst he does so.
The true Jesuit.
And so the gay-friendly – at least when they are his own buddies – Bishop of Rome is now in Rio, a place known all over the world for its spiritual atmosphere and culture of contemplation and asceticism. Apparently, the mission objective is supposed to be – besides the usual “youth” rhetoric – to revitalise Brazilian Catholicism.
Sandro Magister informs us not more than around two thirds of Brazilians are Catholics nowadays, with Proddies of a newer sort – those who believe in God, I am told – making massive inroads particularly in the big cities; in fact, the same source tells us in Rio the percentage of Catholics is merely 46%, thus making of them a minority compared to the population as a whole.
I have written in the past, but repeat today, that these short-term media exercises all have a short life. You'll hear a lot of people saying they are so “energised”, “inspired” or the like; but when you look at the long-term collective effect, you'll see it tends towards zero.
Pope Benedict XVI visited the UK in 2010 amongst crowds far, far exceeding the most optimistic expectations. Three years later, we have the so-called same sax marriage, and few of those who call themselves Catholic care a.. fag. Nor have his travels in Germany or the US or elsewhere left a permanent mark; nor did, in fact, his predecessor, with his huge theatrical streak, the earth-kissing and the like.
There is no reason whatever to believe the Bishop of Rome will have more success; actually, seeing the type one would be scared at the new Catholics he were to allegedly covert; but be not afraid: it won't happen.
These are media stunts; mere straw fires; the populace flocks to see the Pontiff largely because it's an “event”, something worth one's time in an age constantly looking for some form of excitement. I have actually even heard people saying a Papal visit is a “cultural” event. One doesn't need any sort of value investment to participate to such an event, nor will he take away anything durable from it.
Of course, here and there someone will be deeply impressed. Someone is always doing something. But it is very reasonable to assume serious work on the ground is far more important, and leads to far more serious conversions, than this kind of media circus.
On the contrary: the media circus tries to cure the disease administering more poison to the patience: more superficiality, more easy slogans, more entitlement mentality, more sneaking socialism: that is, more of what has caused the loss of faithful in the first place.
The real evangelisation is made with serious priests on the ground; reverent masses; proper Catholic instruction; open defence of Catholic values on the public square, and the courage to talk about the whole faith – including the unpleasant parts – rather than always hammering on the easy parts (the obsessive mantra of “joy” is the one that always amuses me most; it's like a motivational course for the kindergarten.
We are going to get an awful lot of this in the next days, including all the talk about how “energised” Brazil is. But it is just another straw fire.
This comes courtesy of Rorate Caeli, and one must say these Episcopalians have most certainly lost their senses…
Thank God they aren’t Catholics. Considering what is happening to holy and orthodox people like the SSPX priests, they would have the Vatican steamroller driving over them in no time…
OK… forget that…
Let’s try again….
A beautiful Mass in the Spirit of VII in Brazil…. Extremely solemn Novena….
Don’t get me wrong, I think the tune is fantastic, fantastic! But I wonder whether it might be… perhaps… not totally appropriate?
To stay in tune with the youth without losing sight of our beautiful liturgical tradition, I would suggest a couple of spirited Brazilian tunes which would, with their reverence and solemnity, give a solid contribution to the great flourish of the “spirit” which we now see happening all over the world after the historic event of Vatican II. The second video in particular has what in my eyes are great suggestions for a more relevant liturgy, while the first is, alas, too much male-centred.
Either way, they would make great suggestions for relevant, inclusive post V-II liturgical music, I am sure…
If there’s a country where perversion is accepted as a lifestyle by a sizeable minority of the population this is, alas, the once rather uniformly Catholic Brazil. Alas, times have changed and nowadays the countries boasts a high degree of “tolerance” towards every kind of sexual perversion. You would think this is one of those country where a politician has nothing to lose in espousing the so-called “gay rights” agenda.
As you well know, the vast majority of elected politicians are legalised prostitutes, ready to approve and support every fad – no matter how morally repulsive, or economically stupid – for the sake of short-term survival. We have seen this in recent years with the “environmental” craze and with the sodomites’ movement, both episodes of a moral or logical madness accepted for the sake of the electoral return.
Sadly for the perverts and the environ-mentalists, in works also the other way around. The elected politician, always with his very fine nose in the air, will soon catch the wind of change and will react accordingly, accurately avoiding the identification with his heroes of yesterday.
Again, it helps to think of an elected politician – particularly in “first past the post” country, like England – as of a prostitute, trying to retain and, if possible, expand her client bank. Being a prostitute, morals has nothing to do with what she does to please her clients: she will simply do whatever helps her to retain them. As soon as she sees the danger of the clients going away, she will change her tune with astonishing, and utterly moral-free speed.
We assist to the same process in Brazil, where so-called gay pride parades are rapidly sinking. They sink in everything: funding, popular participation, and popular support. The (obviously) bitching remark of the president of the parade association, that
“The candidates who were not at the Parade or didn’t interest themselves in make contact and get to know us, are people who do not have a broad vision of politics, or don’t want to diminish discrimination and prejudice,”
only shows the impotence and rage of the little pervs. “Whoever is not with us is an enemy of the people” does not work anymore in Brazil, and if the Church wakes up a bit this might become a very interesting Christian battleground. As I have often written, Catholic culture has very deep roots, and even those who do not attend Mass will not so easily espouse pagan thinking, though if nothing changes their children are most certainly at risk and their grandchildren probably will.
But this is interesting: when a mass phenomenon attracts the attention of the political prostitutes (again: the majority of professional politicians, particularly in first-past-the-post systems) it means it is becoming noticeable, and it is becoming dangerous to ignore it.
If the next pontificate will give us courageous bishops and a Pope with a modicum of bite, I’ll say the Gaystapo will be liquidated in very few years, exactly as it has already happened with the Environ-mentalists.
One never ceases to be amazed at the absence of personal dignity of a modern politician, particularly when elections loom and the absence of every scruple in order to be elected becomes most evident.
Last in the long list of shameless politicians is Dilma Rousseff, the probable winner of the next Brazilian presidential election, to be held in January. The lady is the candidate of the Labour party, which supports abortion and in the last weeks the pressure of pro-life groups has evidently become uncomfortable.
Faced with the possibility of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, Ms Rousseff informs us that she is, er, a Catholic and “personally opposed” to abortion. Except that, well, she isn’t.
Apart from the fact that her party is in favour of legalised genocide (currently still substantially banned in a strongly pro-life country) and she wasn’t on record with any opposition to this, the way the lady talks says a lot about the way she thinks.
Abortion is “violence against the woman”, she says, and one is surprised at the fact that one life is killed, but the lady is so worried at the violence the woman who has consented to kill him has suffered. If the peasant kills the kittens because he doesn’t want the nuisance around he at least doesn’t start talking about how violent the experience was to him; and we are not talking of kittens here but of human lives.
Not content with this, the lady resorts to the usual abortionist vocabulary: abortion is a “health issue” and if this is the mentality, one supposed that euthanasia is a health issue, too. She also “values life”, a beautiful soundbites in Cameron style. Apart from the fact that even Stalin wouldn’t have had any problem in agreeing with her, the measure of how much you “value” something is what you are ready to do to protect it. You can’t say to the child you just killed that “you valued his life so much”; it just doesn’t square.
Ms. Rousseff also says that women “have to be cared for”, but this is again too generic and doesn’t say anything about whether this care also includes the death of the child.
There’s a chilling Obama-mentality here: “Dear child, I value your life so much and I personally would be against killing you; but be informed that you are now a health issue and therefore you’ll have to die. Thanks for your understanding in this difficult circumstance. We’ll celebrate your life that, though short, has given so much joy to all of us”.
I do not mean here that the woman must say what she doesn’t think. Hey, if she an abortionist third-worldist anti-American proto-commie, this is her choice. But in a democracy one should say what he stands for and the electorate should decide on the basis of his values. What Ms. Rousseff does is wanting to have her cake and eat it and this is just not right.