Concerning Cardinal Kasper’s fifth column work, more or less asking that we “tolerate” what we cannot “accept”, the rather baffled Father Z asks: “what else do we tolerate though not accept?”
I have an answer there.
In Italy, brothels were called case di tolleranza. I was always told, and have always taken for granted, that this is because the Church could not allow or in any way consent to the existence of brothels, but considered not fitting to crack down on them. This is the reason why in the Roma papalina prostitution was rife; be it because of the presence of an army of priest, not all of them very chaste, be it because of the position of Rome as an extremely important destination for pilgrimages, then largely the preserve of men, with the consequences anyone who is not a finishing school girl can easily imagine.
Therefore, in order to avoid the huge pressure to which girls would have been subjected in case of crackdown on brothels, the Papal States chose to tolerate brothels. Not “authorise”, mind; simply renouncing to a massive crackdown on a factual situation out there; a situation to which the Church lent no assistance or support whatever, forbidding the visit of brothels and constantly reminding of the consequences of sin on one’s soul.
This is the only example of “toleration” I know. I notice here that when brothels were outlawed in Italy in 1957, this was out of the initiative of a feminist Socialist female senator, enthusiastically followed by her own party and the Communists. Neither during Fascism nor during the dominance of the Democrazia Cristiana in the De Gasperi era did the governments of the day move to crack down on brothels: tolleranza was considered the best choice, and actually since Fascism also a strict regulation (for medical reasons, mainly) followed.
Now, what Cardinal Kasper suggests is that the Church does the same with the public adulterers. This is tantamount as to suggest that the Church should bring prostitutes in the houses of men, in order to offer a “pastoral solution” to men’s testosterone problems, and reacting to the million of men vociferously asking for p***y as a matter of elementary justice.
The Church tolerates, instead, that there are concubines today, just as she tolerated that there were prostitutes yesterday. The Church tolerates concubines in that she does not move towards the crackdown of the deplorable phenomenon, and does not demand for legislation making of it a criminal offence. But this is completely different from actively proceeding to sacrilege, and asking the priest to commit himself a sacrilege. If you can do that, you can as well make of the priest a pimp, and ask him to run a “pastoral” brothel for his flock.
Cardinal Kaspar, whose mind frame is rather the one of the prostitute than of the priest, doesn’t get the difference. To him, a client is a client, and as long as the client pays the Kirchensteuer, he will do whatever it takes to please him.
He will then call it “pastoral concern”; a “concern”, mind, very strong in those countries where the Kirchensteuer provides an enormous income, as can be seen from the illustration on this blog post.
Pastoral concern? I call it prostitution. Whenever a German prelate talks of being “pastoral”, follow the money.
I have written on another post that if the Catholic clergy dared to wage open war on sodomy, their efforts would not fail to be crowned with success. Let us see why.
One of the greatest fallacies of democracies is the diffused thinking that as every head has one vote, every vote was born equal; this is simply not the case.
In England as in every other democracy, a politician looks for the approval of lobbies and pressure groups, and tries to follow the popular fashion. What terrorises him is a negative press. This counts, and nothing else. The vast mass of voting sheep do not interest the politician. He doesn’t care for the fact that most people abhor sodomy, because this abhorrence is diffused and not organised; it’ s not opposed by any organised group threatening to put an end to his career, nor is it a fashionable issue able to give him some nice headlines.
Homos, on the other hand, do have organised and vocal pressure groups, and they have managed (through the cowardice of the common man and the silence of religious authorities) to create a narrative that lets them appear –incredibile dictu – in a favourable light. The professional politician, who in the end is often nothing better than a better dressed prostitute, registers all this, and acts accordingly.
How do you, therefore, persuade this kind of person to follow the Christian line? By following the rules mentioned above. He must be terrified of the flak that will be unleashed against him if he does not comply, and the Christian group must be recognisable as a biting organisation determined to get his scalp. Do this, and you are assured to get the attention and the compliance of the majority of your MPs and local politicians.
If you think that it does not work, please reflect about the influence gained by fringe groups of perverts: they did not do it through numbers (which just aren’t there) but through the powerful (if effeminate) voice their being organised and ready to fight gives them.
Now please reflect: if your MP is scared of a tiny minority of perverts, how terrified will he be of the Catholic steamroller moving towards him? The steamroller doesn’t have to be fast: it is sufficient that everyone should know the Church has time, and once a fight has been picked it will be continued until the flattening of her opponent. Imagine being an MP who has just noticed the Church will fight him to his complete atomisation (this means: taking care he can’t even be elected to represent a borough, and can’t be put in a quango to save his backside unless the government is looking for trouble) and think the effect this will have on all his colleagues. Being (the concept is a bit harsh; but again, life is…) whores, the said elected representative will run to espouse those principles the opposition to which is so dangerous to their political survival, and will do so more and more as the Church slowly starts getting a grip on the Catholic masses.
Lenin really was right in this: that democracy or not, the organised and motivated minorities are those who call the shots. The vast majority of voters are a herd of uneducated lazy me- too followers without own opinions, who will gladly absorb whatever trend and dominant “climate” they see around them. Do you want proof? Three years ago every cretin was an environmentalist; what has changed now is not that they have become smart, but that environmentalism is not the attitude that one must have to be deemed smart anymore…
Finally, let us consider that whilst perverts are a tiny percentage of the population, Catholics are a much vaster cohort; not only in sheer numerical terms, but in the speed with which they can make it “uncool” for the herd to oppose them. To do so you don’t even need to mobilise the 5 million Catholics in the UK, or the 1 m weekly churchgoers. Perverts don’t mobilise even a tiny part of their (very scarce) basis! What would suffice is to give your average politician a taste of what is rolling towards him; instant conversions to the arguments of the Catholics will be the result.
There is a time for peace and a time for war. Dear Catholic clergy, please lead us in battle instead of endlessly waffling about peace.