When was last time you heard about the “Francis effect”? Yep, and you now know why: even the secular press knows it did not work.
The article is, as you would expect by a libtard publication like the NYT – the author works for “First Things”, though; more about this later – entirely centred around secular issues. In line with the forma mentis of your average IYI (“Intellectual Yet Idiot”) reader, The Church is seen like a party, or a product, or a firm: where an “innovator” who seems “in line with the times” steps in and “revitalises” the ailing organisation. And this leader does such wonderful things as living in a luxury hotel, wearing black shoes, shooting selfies, and other such like stupid things very much liked by a stupid age.
The article, showing the great ignorance of his author in matters of Catholicism, (but we are talking of Libtards here) even absurdly criticises the Pope because
Francis has also shied away from big changes on doctrinal matters. Instead of explicitly endorsing communion for the divorced and remarried couples, he has quietly urged them on with a wink and a nod.
(Yes: you can facepalm here. No, really. It’s ok).
The secular mind sees the secular Pope at work; it sees him trying to make of the Church something similar to the Democratic Party; it sees, also, that he is failing miserably.
The secular mind cannot understand the Church more than the devil can like holy water. They just do not get that the Church – as an organisation – prospers when she opposes the world, and withers when she cozies up with it. If they knew this simple truth, they would never invent strange and absurd expressions like the “Francis effect” and mean that it would be good for the Church as an organisation.
The Catholic mind understands the folly of all this. But hey, they are “homophobic”, so they don’t count.
As the author points out, very rightly, Francis has failed miserably even in the other – and originally, we were told, the most important – reason for his appointment: the reorganisation of the inefficient, corrupt Vatican apparatus. We knew that already, because we know that South American dictators tend to be extremely stupid wreckers of everything they touch. But it’ s nice to see that some libtard notices that, too.
However, the obviously Catholicism-free author must have heard, at some point, something about Catholicism at First Things, because he seems to have a very confused idea of how the Church works. Examining the cause of the continuing decomposition of the Church in the US, he writes something that has always been a mainstay of this little effort:
Francis has built his popularity at the expense of the church he leads.
The cult of man damages the Church of God. Francis, in his vanity and folly, presents himself as the good guy in opposition to the bad guys of the sixty generations before his. It can work for him, for a while, until people understand what a phony the man is. But it will never be any good for the Church. This is now apparent, and the “Francis effect” thingy has gone the way of “reading Francis through Benedict”.
The author, who is so blind that he sees something positive in Francis “paying his own hotel bill” and “eschewing the red shoes”, still has some ideas left of what Catholicism is:
Those who wish to see a stronger church may have to wait for a different kind of pope. Instead of trying to soften the church’s teaching, such a man would need to speak of the way hard disciplines can lead to freedom. Confronting a hostile age with the strange claims of Catholic faith may not be popular, but over time it may prove more effective. Even Christ was met with the jeers of the crowd.
So, is this author Catholic after all, and just too servile to the NYT to write like one? I don’t know, and I am not interested to know. What interests me here is that even the entirely secular outlook of this article must see Francis’ dismal failure.
The Church is the enemy of the world. Francis is the friend of the world. Francis is the enemy of the Church.
And he has failed.
Even Libtards see it now.
I have glanced a couple of articles today describing Mark Thompson as a “practising Catholic” and fuelling some hopes about his editorial behaviour in his new position. I must say I had to smile; in case you should think Mark Thompson, the new CEO of the New York Times, is a person vaguely approaching decency as far as Christian values are concerned, I suggest you abandon every hope now.
As a resident of the United Kingdom, I have witnessed for years the relentless anti-Christian bias and utter enmity of basic morality this man incarnates. I have written a couple of blog posts about the Beeb, but the examples are truly countless.
This is a man who led an organisation who refused to call the 7 July bombers (more than 50 dead) “terrorists”, preferring “fighters” in pure Osama Bin Laden style. This is also the kind of person who uses double standards for Islam and Christianity and defends his choice, whilst calling himself a “practising Catholic.
The examples are really countless. I haven’t noticed any improvement in the last years. The contrary is the case. The BBC is the aider and abetted of everything that is perverted in this country. Starting from their own corridors, as it is now well known…
On the other hand, how could anyone expect that the NYT would suddenly accept a Christian ( I mean a real one) as commander in chief? It would be more likely that Obama converts to Christianity.
Make no mistake, the NYT will continue to be as bad in future as it was in the past; the only difference might be dome attempt to masquerade as “Christian” the one or other satanic fad. Hey, he says he is a “practising Catholic”, doesn’t he now…
Those among you who have the rare ability to read German (a very beautiful language in its own right; not easy to assimilate for sure, but ready to compensate the one who puts the effort with countless pearls of breathtaking literary beauty) will certain enjoy this blog site.
In the superior two-column format allowed by the Blogspot structure (not found by me on WordPress at the time of beginning this blog, and sorely missed afterwards when changing format or even “blog provider” would have meant a major disruption, pain in the neck and possible loss of information; but I digress…) you will notice that the left column is devoted to the usual, beautifully orthodox, Catholic apologetics, whilst the right column is devoted to none else than the Pastor Angelicus: the favourite of conservative Catholics the world over and the last great Pope: Pius XII.
I translate the best citations therein reported near the original German text:
“Nur die katholische Kirche protestierte gegen den Angriff Hitlers auf die Freiheit. Bis dahin war ich nicht an der Kirche interessiert, doch heute empfinde ich große Bewunderung für die Kirche, die als einzige den Mut hatte, für geistige Wahrheit und sittliche Freiheit zu kämpfen.”
“Only the Catholic Church protested against Hitler’s attacks to freedom. Until then I wasn’t interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone had the courage to fight for spiritual truth and for moral freedom”.
Albert Einstein, 1940.
“In dieser Weihnacht ist der Papst mehr denn je die einsame aufbegehrende Stimme im Schweigen eines Kontinents. ”
“This Christmas, the Pope is more than ever the lonely voice raised amidst the silence of a continent”
New York Times, commenting on Pius XII’s Christmas address, 1942.
“Die katholische Kirche und das Papsttum haben bewiesen, dass sie so viele Juden, wie sie konnten, gerettet haben.”
“The Catholic Church and the Papacy have demonstrated that they have saved as many Jews as they could”
Raffaele Cantoni, Head of the Jewish Welfare Committee during the War, 1946.
“Mehr als alle anderen haben wir Gelegenheit gehabt, die Güte und Edelmütigkeit des Papstes während der Jahre der Verfolgung und des Schreckens kennen zu lernen in einer Zeit, da es schien, dass für uns keine andere Hoffnung mehr bestand.”
“More than any other had we the opportunity to know the goodness and noble mindedness of the Pope during the years of persecution and terror, in times when it seemed that for us there was no other hope anymore”.
Elio Toaff, Roman Chief Rabbi, 1951.
“Die ganze Welt schwieg über die Schoah, und da will man jetzt nahezu die gesamte Verantwortung für dieses Schweigen auf die Schultern des Souveräns legen, der weder Kanonen noch Flugzeuge hatte; der sich zweitens bemühte, seine Informationen mit denen zu teilen, die solche Waffen hatten, und drittens, in Rom und anderswo eine große Zahl derer zu retten vermochte, für die er die moralische Verantwortung trug.”
“The entire world kept silent during the Shoah, and now they want to unload almost all the responsibility for this silence on the shoulders of the Sovereign who had neither cannons nor aeroplanes; who, secondly, went to great lenght to share this information with those who had such weapons and, thirdly, in Rome and elsewere succeeded in saving a great number of those, for whom he carried moral responsibility”
Bernhard-Henry Levy, 2010
I understand that the celebrations for the upcoming beatification of the saintly, but rather ineffective (other would say: catastrophical) John Paul II will divert some attention, for the time being, from this truly saintly, truly courageous, truly Catholic, truly great Pope. Still, even in the weeks leading to what will certainly be a huge media event we should never forget the towering figure of our beloved Pastor Angelicus.
I will blog today about the extremely grave episode that has happened in one of the cradles of Western civilisation, Florence and has since dominated world news.
As in the meantime everyone who doesn’t live on the Moon knows, an extremist Christian has succeeded in entering a Mosque in Florence and has violated and desecrated a place of worship. The entire action was filmed and has been on youtube & Co. for some days now. This caused widespread outrage among the Muslim community the world over, repeated threats from the Iranian government, calls to Jihad in all major Muslim capitals, great burning of Western flags, the killing of several priests and Christian laymen and in general frightful tensions between the Christian community and the Muslim one.
I am sure that every reader of mine will agree with me that such acts are extremely shameful and and that sincere Christians feel ashamed at what their co-religionist has done.
For this reason, it is also not surprising that the NY Times, CNN, BBC, the “Guardian” and in general the world media have condemned the action as one man, echoing the world wide outrage this senseless act has caused. This has been going on for days now so if you haven’t noticed, you must have been sleeping all the time or more probably, you are dead already.
This was to be expected, I hear you say. You can’t violate a place of worship of a religion with a worldwide following and around a billion faithful without the entire media world making a huge uproar about that, can you?………………………
Oh well apparently (and to use a phrase very much en vogue, at least until the beginning of November) yes, you can!
The only thing you must do is avoid targeting Islam. Best thing to do is to target Christianity. This way, you will be sure that you will be able to dance on the high altar of the Florence cathedral without the world media noticing the episode in the least!
Now if you had proposed to, say, burn a Koran, this would have been different of course. One just doesn’t do such things unless he is a racist Nazi Ku Klux Klan fundamentalist bastard deserving of death by stoning and subsequent frying in camel’s urine.
But if you desecrate an altar to the point that it will possibly have to be reconsecrated, then it is very fine and no world wide outrage will erupt.
Similarly, there will be no calls to a Crusade, no danger for the life of Islamic clerics in European countries, no world wide self-flagellation from soi-disant intellectuals and no global media coverage to the point of nausea.
Which probably explains why nothing has happened in this case.