Absolutely brilliant blog post from the “Little Catholic Bubble” about misguided compassion.
The author of the blog first describes her observation that
The culture has quickly moved from complete aversion to gay “marriage” (which was unthinkable even fifteen years ago) to the beginnings of real acceptance. I’ve noticed that most who have moved towards acceptance have done so out of a misguided sense of compassion.
We see here the poisoned fruits of a culture that has substituted Christianity with a wooly “let us feel good” mentality, where too many believe that, provided one “doesn’t harm anyone” (I didn’t know sodomy doesn’t harm, by the way), then it is all fine because we are oh sooo charitable.
When you have to explain to anyone that a sin is harmful because it offends God, you know that Christianity is in trouble.
But the fact is, the author continues, that such misguided compassion harms Christianity (and Catholicism) in a very direct way, by being used as a weapon to attack Catholic institutions: this is what we are seeing in several American states regarding adoption agencies, a story seen in similar ways in the United Kingdom and that has relevance for everyone of us in his daily life (try being a bad-and-breakfast owner and have to accept pervert in the house you live, and then tell me….).
A second, but crucial issue is the one of “discrimination”: if it is accepted that perversion is all right, then calling perversion as it is suddenly becomes discrimination, and hate speech; and the person must be very stupid who believes that liberals will be anywhere near “liberal” with everyone disagreeing with them. The author puts it, again, brilliantly:
when grave sin is re-categorized as a societal virtue and a civil right, then you and your Church are suddenly the ones in violation and will be penalized for speaking or acting in opposition.
The fact is, very simply, that the liberal is the enemy of the Church. To try to appease him is a feat of Chamberlain-like stupidity. It is the foolish idea that you can live together with those who want to get rid of you, and will have them as friends if you help them to do so. To say it again with the words of the author:
And so I implore you, fellow Catholics: Stop trying to “get along” with the world. The world hates you as it hated Christ, an assurance we have from Our Lord Himself. The new age of secularism is upon us, and its endless drone of “tolerance” does not apply to you.
It is time to wake up and realise that we are living a new, if not less dramatic than the old one, clash of civilisations: the Christian world against the new secular/liberal Nazism. This Nazism has already made vast inroads into our Christian societies, with abortion, euthanasia, and sexual perversions being just some example. Having being allowed to go as far, it is now moving toward the destruction of Christianity, which they – make no mistake on this, or you’ll pay the price – rightly see as in total opposition to their ideology and world vision.
It is perfectly coherent for a secularist to want to destroy Christianity. But it is perfectly stupid for a Christian to help them do so and feel good in the process.
We need a war cry to get out loud and clear from the Christian ranks. We need to realise that this is not about tolerance, or compassion. This is about the survival of Christian civilisation or its transformation in a world dominated by Nazi poofs. The cry that should go up from the Christian world is the one you hear above, courtesy of the genius of Giuseppe Verdi:
Guerra! Guerra! Guerra, guerra, guerra!
As we all know, heterodoxy lurks from all corners. We find it among bishops (look at the United Kingdom, and seek no further); among priests (the last “strange” homily was from that Jesuit from Wimbledon saying on the lines of “hell is a way of saying that we shouldn’t shortchange ourselves with second class choices”); we find it among politicians a’ la Nancy Pelosi and – obviously – we find it among journalists a’ la BBC.
Now how would a progressive, heterodox journalist describe the notorious excerpt? “A change in Church teaching” would be a way; a “softening” would be another; a third one might be a show of “compassion”. Let us see why this is wrong.
1) Church Teaching doesn’t change. Circumstances are always changing, but moral categories never change. We live and die in a world confronting us with exactly the same moral choices of St. Thomas Aquinas’ time. If this wasn’t the case, we’d need a new Gospel and a new Christ. We need no new Gospel and no new Christ; the Truth has been transmitted to us and it is valid for all times and for all (ever changing) circumstances.
Right is right even if no one is right and wrong is wrong even if everyone is wrong. There is no way on the planet the use of a condom should be considered any differently in 2010 than in Humanae Vitae’s time (sodomy had already been invented; sexually transmitted diseases too) or, come to that, in Romans’ times. We are dealing with moral categories here, not with technological advancements.
2) The one with the “softening” is also funny. It implies that the Church’s teaching about the use of condom is, well, wrong somehow. That it should be “improved”. Poor little sodomites, to whom the Church, which tells them not to commit sodomy in the first place, also makes it impossible to enjoy sodomy in the proper way…..how cruel is that! Don’t ya feel for them, mate? Such a thinking can earn one some kudos in a homo bar or in a BBC studio, but is certainly not Christian. The Church says hard words when she is confronted with harsh situations, with hardened sinners, with abominations, with serious danger to one’s soul. Not only is this the charitable thing to do, but it is the most practical advice. Condoms will never eliminate the risk of infection, chastity will. Condoms will never be conducive to eternal salvation, chastity will. There’ s nothing hard in telling the truth, and nothing to be softened. Truth will make you free and will, possibly, lead you to a long and healthy life instead of a painful agony of spiritual and physical self-destruction.
3) Third one is the one with the compassion. To allow a sodomite to commit such an abomination would be “compassionate”; to suggest the best way to multiply the number of his unspeakably lurid (in all senses) acts would be “compassionate”; to satisfy the desire of the sinner to sin with as few conscience pangs as possible would be “compassionate”.
What has become of us. When the moral instance gives way to the consideration for the comfort of the sinner, we have a clear case of false compassion. When not the sinner as human being is being helped, but the sinner is helped on his way to sin, we have false compassion. When “compassion” is not seen as eliminating the sin from the sinner, but the danger from the sin, we have false compassion. When the physical health of the sinner (through the use of condoms) is considered more important than his spiritual health (through chastity), we have false compassion.
Really. What has become of us.