I am reflecting on which one is the most inclusive city. The city that accepts everyone without any “judgment”, and embraces every person “as he or she is”.
Will it be Paris? London? Los Angeles? Stockholm?
I have thought long and hard on this. The biscuit must certainly go to…
Sodom has it all. Complete non-judgmental behaviour, and every perversion under the sun seen not only as accepted in the name of tolerance, but as equal in the name of equality. Surely, Sodom must win every human right competition the UN and the Libtards should throw at it. Sodom must, also, serve as the perfect prototype for a city in which FrancisMercy is in power, “who am I to judge?” Is an unquestioned mantra, and God’s mercy is given without even the asking, whilst those who dare to question FrancisMecy are branded as bigots who “do not have God”.
We live in a world which, whilst in part still professing itself (vaguely) Christian not only forgets, but attacks and betrays our values. Our religious leaders help the decline of Christianity in the West in every possible way.
At the beginning of the new year, allow me to wish a long life in power and a growth in wisdom to the most important of the few Christian Heads of State still around: Vladimir Putin.
Until not long ago most people were, in a way, simply educated. As a result, in what concerns big matters they would allow their betters, and their forefathers, to decide for them. The farmer of 1910 trusted what his forefathers had believed in matters of religion with the same natural, sound attitude with which he trusted them in matters concerning the way to run his farm. Likewise, he knew that he was simply educated, and that wiser or better learned people than him should be entrusted with the running of things above his pay grade.
All this collapsed in the Sixties. For the first time in history, the young generation could feel, and was universally recognised as, better educated than their parents. They compared their undoubtedly higher degree of conventional education with the one of their simply educated parents, and felt that the world was run by the wrong people, in the wrong way. Inebriated by a feeling of superiority – also fuelled by the many things their parents did wrong; their petty superstitions first and foremost – they started to throw away the baby together with the bathwater.
Suddenly, everything had to change. The dawn of a new age required a new thinking. Everything those old people were doing was simply old, and wrong. A vast exercise in collective hubris started to take place, and the very humility of the older generation, up to then a virtue, was now seen as a part of the problem, and the direct result of their lack of education and self-consciousness.
The older generation, made of simple people, often did not have the resources to articulate their thoughts. They saw their children where better educated, and had often undergone great financial deprivation to achieve that result. The rebellious and condescending attitude of their children was, in the end, exactly what they had worked so hard for. The rebellious son sounded rather stupid, or even evil to their ears; but hey, “they have studied”, would they say to themselves, and not without parental pride. The young began to win the war for the hearts and minds.
Here, the biggest catastrophe ensued: the Church, who should have remained a bulwark against this folly, decided to make friends with those who were – as it was abundantly clear by then – her enemies. The slogans of renewal were soon incorporated in the thinking and acting of our hierarchy. Predictably, the revolutionary process took its course even within the Church. The Aggiornamento never stops at Kerenski: at some point, you will get Lenin.
If the Church had opposed Her wall of timeless wisdom to the arrogance of those young people – who thought an accountant was vastly more qualified to decide what is right and wrong than a peasant – things could have been stemmed rather easily, and much of the revolutionary wave would have been stopped; but the attitude of the Church starting with John XXIII told the world exactly this: that the young accountants were now the leading force, and the old peasants had to change with the times; as the Church Herself was, in so many little and great things, doing.
When the time of a generational battle came, the Church hierarchy decided to side with the wrong side; possibly thinking, in the best cases, that in this way the revolutionary wave would have been domesticated, or asphyxiated in the warm embrace of a Church too strong and too dominant to be seriously damaged by them. However, it is clear by now that in many cases utter and totally willed complicity with evil was at work.
The new generation thought they knew better. Actually, they started to think they can decide (as opposed to learn) what is Right and what is Wrong. This attitude is, of course, vastly more arrogant and vastly more ignorant than anything their less educated parents ever were; but it is a vastly known phenomenon that people with a thin varnish of knowledge are those who think themselves smartest, and most educated.
As human things always go, the evil seeds of one generation became poisonous plants in the following one. The new generation started to reject everything even their “revolutionary” parents considered taboo. The first generation of destructors had still grown up with a sound foundation, the second did not have even that. What followed is a moral vacuum filled with the cheapest sentimentalism imaginable, the deification of “love” in whatever form, even perverted lust, and the astonishing confusion between goodness and allowing anyone to do anything with himself, including planned annihilation.
“Would you be happy if YOUR love was outlawed?”, said the message outside a well-know Londoner shop chain after Obergefell. This astonishing senseless piece of childish stupidity would have had the allegedly uneducated peasant of 1910 laughing out loud, but the allegedly far better educated young people of today are unable to even see what functional retards they have become, what total absence of thinking lies behind this emotional, brainless fluff unable to even recognise the possibility of anything like good and bad, provided they can sacrifice on the altar of the new god of their functionally retarded minds, Lurv.
The West has created, in only two generations, an army of stupid oxes utterly unable to think logically, without any concept of morality, without the slightest idea of right and wrong, and manipulated at will by a bunch of proto-communists who hate everything that is sacred, and in many cases certainly side with Satan. How more intelligent, and how less prone to manipulation were their peasant ancestors: who, though not educated, had firm coordinates concerning right and wrong, justice and injustice, true love and veritable abomination, the law of God and the sinfulness of man.
The modern Functional Retard has a degree in something often useless even in real life, and almos always utterly unusable to get to heaven. In this Country, he is not unlikely to be even unable to spell. But he thinks he is well educated, and able to decide what it right, or wrong, or “love”.
Retards with a useless degree, prepped for hell in huge numbers. This is what the last two generations have given us.
The Chuch hierarchy, collectively considered, has been an accomplice every step of the way.
It is a well known fact that those preaching “inclusion” are the first ones to exclude those they don’t like. They are pretty numerous nowadays. There is the Canadian Basilian (like Father Rosica: they must learn thuggery in the seminary…) who offends Cardinal Burke most brutally for… being an orthodox Catholic; then we have the already mentioned Father Rosica, whose “mercy” apparently includes attacking poor family fathers for pointing out he has insulted the Holy Father and blasphemed Christ; let us not forget Cardinal Wuerl suddenly putting orthodox Catholics in the same boat as dissenters, and obviously Francis constantly reminding us how very bad unnamed good Catholics can be. All this, in the last couple of weeks or so.
It seems, therefore, to me that “inclusion” is now a favourite buzzword of people who want to kick Catholics out of the church, pretty much as it happened in Arian times. Starting, of course, from the Bishop of Rome himself, to whom stinking of perversion is apparently better than having an ordered life obviously committed to Catholic values.
But let see this word again: inclusion. Is inclusion really a value?
Does a flag include all the others? When you stand up and sing your national anthem, are you “including” everyone else? Does your rooting for a certain team “include” the rooting for their rivals? What about associations, circles, clubs of all kind: why do they exist in the first place?
The truth of the matter is that it is simply not possible to define us as something without automatically excluding all those who are something else. Those who tell you they “love everyone” do not really love anyone, but themselves. Those who say they are “world citizen” do not love their flag, do not love any flag.
To be Catholic is to have a certain set of beliefs. Automatically, this excludes those who do not share these beliefs or actively betray them. There can be no escape from this reality. There can be no “inclusiveness” of this sort, ever. Neither do New York Yankees fans “include” Red Sox fans in their rooting, or Lazio fans include Rom fans, or Chelsea fans Arsenal fans. You are either here or there. You can’t be and not be something. You must make a choice.
This express will of “overcoming differences” (seen very often in Francis, albeit in him it might be evil intent rather than simple stupidity) pretends to forget that pretty much everything is defined exactly by its differences with everything else. You can’t be Christian and Muslim. You can’t be Catholic and Protestant. You can’t be right and wrong.
The Church must never aim at including. The Church must aim at converting. You are different from me, and this is not ok at all! You are different from me, and I want you to renounce to the differences and become like me! You are wrong, and I want you to be right!
None of this can be “inclusive”. The club accepts those who are fit to become members and share the club’s values. It cannot be any differently.
Even the apostles of “inclusion” never dream of “including” Traditionalist in their (hopefully not lewd) embrace. They know very well that there are differences. They practice themselves what they condemn in us. They aren’t more “inclusive” than Chelsea or Yankee fans are of Manchester City and Red Sox fans. They write Tweets to you with “STFU”, not “we welcome and include your inspired and candid approach”. They want to shut you up all right. They might even sue you to keep you out!
No. Inclusion is a fable made to fool the gullible. It is always here or there.
We are here. Francis and his likes are there. There can be no inclusion.
I am against inclusion. I am one of the least inclusive chaps you’ll ever meet.
I want conversion, not inclusion.
The Psalmist’s rod and staff are traditionally used images to convey the fact that the faithful will invariably need unpleasant correction. As the shepherd uses the rod and the staff in a way which is not pleasant to the sheep but keeps them away from harm or sudden death, the spiritual shepherd must at times use his spiritual rod and staff to make clear to his sheep that they are headed in the wrong direction and a correction of course is needed. This kind of correction is unpleasant – more so in modern times, where more and more people think that they are the creators of their own moral coördinates – but is nevertheless necessary and salutary.
For too long, we have been led to believe that the good shepherd is the one who is popular among the sheep; the one whom the sheep consider a frightfully nice chap, a smiling tolerant inclusive fellow and, in short, a pleasant bloke all around. For too long, our spiritual shepherds have tried to be our friends rather than our guides, have thought that we would naturally grow out of all our shortcomings instead of charitably but clearly pointing out to them and have in general tried to avoid every occasion of making themselves, well, less popular. The first result of such a shepherd’s behaviour is that many of his sheep start to die; the second, that more and more sheep start to question whether they need a shepherd at all; the third, that an increasing number of sheep lose the sense of why the shepherd was there in the first place other than to entertain them with platitudes abundantly available everywhere.
Thankfully, all this slowly begins to change. As the post-Vatican II (and post Sixty-Eight) generation of priests slowly retires and a new generation of more orthodox priests begins to fill the pulpits, a clear tendency to a more assertive style of spiritual guidance is frequently noticed. The rod and the staff are coming back. You can see here that the Holy Father himself insists on the point.
The Holy Father’s words are particularly important, because they come at a time when the push toward tolerance at all costs is particularly strong within the secularised West; strong, in fact, to the point that such an “inclusiveness” seems to have become the new religion, the moral absolute and the ethical compass of a growing number of secular – or simply not properly instructed – individuals.
We need more of these assertive shepherds. We need more Fulton Sheens and less Roger Mahonys. We want our shepherd to use his rod and his staff to help us to grow instead spoiling us rotten so that he may be popular and have an easy life.