If we lived in sane times, controversies like this one would never happen. But we don’t, so they do.
Bannon is right on the money is mentioning the… money as the cause of the oh so social attitude of our disgraceful bishops. However, I would add another component that seems to me to be a very important factor in what we see happening in the Church all over the West: loss of faith.
A Bishop who has faith is not afraid of speaking the inconvenient truth. A Bishop who has lost his faith easily – almost automatically – defaults into do-goodism and bleeding heart attitude. This drift is, in itself, not about money. It is about the search of a role in society and a measure of self-esteem for a person who does not believe in hell and heaven anymore – or has neutered this belief to make it comfortable for him – and is now in need of being appreciated by the also tepid believers in the pews, and by the man in the mirror.
This phenomenon is not new. I once read a shocking fact: Angela Merkel’s father was a Protestant preacher/missionary who, after WW II, chose to live in the Russian Occupied territory that had become the German Democratic Republic because…. he found the Communist project more Christian than Western Capitalism. When the wall came up and those who were in the East were condemned to stay there, turned out this idiot condemned his entire family to a life under a communist tyranny. This is how stupid these people can be, and this would never have happened if Father Merkel had kept his Christian faith.
By the way, this also shows that the apple does not fall far from the tree, as the culona inchiavabile* Merkel dabs in this anti-Christian, anti-Western do-goodism just like papa.
However, Steve Bannon does not say anything original. He speaks to common sense. Everyone can see that the bishops’ message just does not square with common thinking and with traditional Catholicism. Nowhere has it ever been said that national boundaries are unjust, and everyone – and most of all infidels – must be allowed in just for the asking, or because they are very good at massacring each other (which they undoubtedly are). This nonsense is just not the religion of our forefathers, it’s the new religion of the faithless.
It is evident to my cat that these people are losing customers like they are selling old smartphones, and are also looking for an easy way to get other people in the pews, whose children they can ruin. It’s the vicious circle of faithlessness, permanently looking for more victims.
It is time to expose these faithless clown for what they are: prostitutes to their own misguided conscience and the money from the Great Government Tit, who try to look good at your children’s and God’s expense.
Give me that old religion, instead of these mediocre politicians.
By the way: Bannon would make an excellent bishop. Better than almost anyone of them.
*© Silvio Berlusconi
I read in a horrible fake Catholic magazine (and therefore, no link) that if several among the highest-profile US Bishops and cardinals were to make some grand gesture in favour of illegal immigration, they might control the narrative for some 24-48 hours, thus allowing most Catholics to know where they stand on this very crucial matter.
All this is very moving, and as I speak I have a furry polar bear cub and an extremely cuddly baby seal near me, and sharing my commotion. oh, how good-hearted we feel!
However, the reality on the ground is that:
- There is nothing in Catholic doctrine that says a bishop, or any Catholic, should promote, endorse or aid and abet illegality (try the latter as “grand gesture”, bishops! No oranges from me when you are in jail!).
- It is not unlikely that an awful lot of Catholics (perhap smore than 50% of those who voted) have voted for Trump.
- It is fairly sure that White Catholics have supported Trump in their majority, and again it is very fair to assume that these provide the biggest chunk of the donations.
It follows from this that if the Bishops managed to have all American Catholics accurately informed about their stance on illegal immigration this would not help them a bit to “convert” their sheep. Rather, it would have the effect of the sheep finally realising what obscene bunch of (effeminate) social justice warriors they have as shepherds, and cutting their donation as a result.
It would be nice to see all those V II churches have to ask leftist, abortionists, and assorted perverts for financial help in order to avoid closing. And closing is what the Social Justice Church of V II deserves, until the utter failure of this depraved generation becomes so apparent that the pendulum starts swinging in the other direction and something gets done. For the avoidance of doubt, I support every action with which the U.S. Bishops help the faithful to understand what scoundrels they are. Oportet ut scandala eveniant, and all that….
Dear US reader, please don’t give any money to any diocese with even a whiff of approval of illegal immigration. Direct your donations to the SSPX, FSSP or other organisation without any trace of SJW mentality in them instead.
Starve Archbishop Gomez, cardinal O’Malley and all their ilk.
Make the Church great again!
The US Bishops have launched a multi-faceted initiative aimed at strengthening Catholic identity in the Country.
One can only look at such initiatives with favour, also because none of them appear to be of the unCatholic/populistic/controversial sort (like for example encouraging illegal immigration). Still, one cannot avoiding noticing that even when it would be easy to demand a certain behaviour (= meatless Friday) the US Bishops stop short of doing it and prefer to remain by the “encouragement”.
Meatless Friday is a traditional Catholic penance; it is nothing earth-shattering, or extravagant; it has been already reintroduced in other Countries, like the United Kingdom.
Past generations well knew that these little but constant reminders not only of Christ's sacrifice for us, but of our Catholic identity and culture do help, in time, to properly shape a man. Past generations, who did not have fridges or freezers, were asked to conform themselves to such small rules. It is not clear to me why it should be too much to ask that modern US-Americans do the same rather than merely encourage them to do so.
If the clergy of one country thinks even such small obligations are too much to ask, how can they I do not say demand, but even make their faithfuls aware of grave problems like politicians aiding and abetting abortion, sodomy, one day euthanasia? If one refuses to obey in the small things, how will he obey in the bigger ones?
I hope the US bishops will soon see the logic of this reasoning, and start the long work of reshaping Catholic identity by demanding that their faithful live by rules – starting from the small ones – that have served past generations so well.
Bring back the meatless Friday. Remind people every week of what they are, and what they stand for.
“The idea that I as a Catholic should have to pay for some woman’s abortion makes me reach for the vomit bag”
This is Bill Donohue, the President of the Catholic League. Whilst this phrase is memorable in itself, more memorable is what may happen next Summer all over the United States.
It would appear the U.S. Bishops are planning an unprecedented two-weeks protest against the HHS mandate and the Anti-Catholic policy of the Obama administration. The time is very well-chosen, with the two weeks preceding the Fourth of July and at the same time the weeks at least part of the legislation could be, erm, retroactively aborted by the Supreme Court (I have written about this).
Note every pretence of “neutrality” is now gone: the Church is going to march against secular and anti-Catholic forces, and I am very curious to see who, during of after the carnage of political careers that will ensue, will have the gut to demand that the Church lose her tax status.
Already as it is now, only the blindness to reality of Adolf Hitler in his most drug-fuelled days can prevent Obama from realising the trouble in which he has put himself. He must now even renounce to the illusion the Church would renounce to further raise the stake (and I can’t imagine Washington has not sent some more or less veiled threats about what will happen if they don’t shut up; which might have persuaded Dolan & Co. they cannot afford in the least to shut up), and must see how the anti-HHS campaign is ramped up during the summer, overshadowing the 4th July and reducing his chance at reelection with every week that passes.
Perhaps would, at this point, be better for Obama if the Supreme Court kills the Unaffordable Care Act and thus spares him the humiliation of having to backpedal to avoid electoral massacre? At this point, even if Obama should be reelected – which might depend more from Romney’s mistakes than from his own merits – what would be the price his party has to pay in terms of congressmen, senators and governors? Romney may not succeed in attracting the widespread opposition to the Obama policies, but there would certainly be no scarcity of suitable candidate on the national level.
Adolf Hussein Obama truly shot himself in the foot and he is now limping along, saying to his supporters all his fine. He might be in serious trouble by July, and he has already gravely damaged every chance of his party of a decent show in November.
I begin to think November will bring to the United States something now so desperately needed:
CNA has a story about Dan Avila, an advisor to the US Bishop, calling Catholics to arms with words whose clarity can only be lauded.
“We just can’t simply sit back. Every Catholic and every Catholic institution concerned about marriage and the family will need to be able to step forward and advocate for the Defense of Marriage Act as federal policy,”
“Even if there’s no immediate prospect for this bill to race through Congress, the fact is that the pressure is building and the case is being made for the eventual demise of DOMA. All those concerned about the preservation of marriage simply need to pay attention, stay tuned, and be ready to respond.”
“Marriage is the keystone of the common good. When you erase from a policy on marriage any reference to sexual difference, you will force the government to ignore and to be indifferent to the absence of either the man or the woman in the most fundamental relationship that we know of.”
“I would daresay that Congressman Nadler and others who are advocating the repeal of DOMA are not also advocating for the repeal of the requirement that be limited to people,” he said. Many who argue for same-sex marriage have taken positions against recognizing group marriage, even as polygamists have filed suit charging that polygamy bans are discriminatory.
One can’t say for sure that the US Bishop will respond to this call to arm with half the energy it would require; but one thing seems clear to me: this issue is going to stay with us, and it will grow in public awareness as 2012 approaches. By supporting the (hoped for) move to repeal the DOMA, Adolf Hussein Obama has taken sides and he will have to live with the consequences.
It surprises me that Adolf Hussein would choose the side that has lost 31 times out of 31, but this is such a self-deluded child president that one should never be too surprised at seeing him, once again, piddle out of the potty-chair without even noticing the puddle.
I do hope he’ll have more of these brilliant initiatives in the months to come. More liberal, more socialist, more populist, more “change”, more Obama.
Go on, Adolf Hussein; you saw how good it worked in 2010….
Being so vast, the US are a country full of contrasts, where you find some of the most orthodox Catholics and some of the most desperate cases of insanity.
One of the latter has been divulged in the last days: a booklet from a self-professing “Catholic” group seriously (I think; ready to stand corrected) maintaining that a “full Catholic” position on certain marriage can be different from the one doctrinally prescribed by the Church. You couldn’t make it up, could you now?
In this matter, the “heretic but still fully Catholic” chaps and chapettes have decided for the righteousness of “marriage equality”. This, mind, doesn’t mean anything concerning the position or the dignity of husband and wife within the marriage (as I had, very stupidly and in my innocence, initially believed), but it is basically meant to mean that marriages between man and man, or between woman and woman, are “fully Catholic”. I don’t think it squares with the English language, but there you are; I suppose that everyone must throw in some “equality” nowadays as it lets one feel oh so good.
The US Bishops have punctually reacted. Now, do you think that they have said that these ideas are absurdly and openly heretical? Do you think that they have invited the people clearly responsible for such beastly ideas to backpedal or be excommunicated? Do you think that they have profited from the occasion to sound from all trumpets what marriage is?
Wrong. They have “emphasised” (ok: they actually “emphasized”) that the beastly booklet is “not in conformity” with Catholic teaching and have invited those responsible for the publication to not identify themselves as “Catholic”.
This reaction is typical of the half-diplomatic, half-cowardly approach of so many bishops everywhere in the West. They see HERESY written all over the place and they limit themselves to some polite remark, putting some dots on the “i” and hoping not to upset anyone.
Do you want evidence of ths? This group is clearly identifiable with a religious sister and a priest (I won’t do them the favour of mentioning them; well, no really, I can’t be bothered to cut and paste their names) and the US ecclesiastical authorities have needed several years of pro-homo madness (seven, to be precise) of the two before barring them from working for the Archdiocese of Washington as they were happily doing. When the two stopped working for the archdiocese but continued their evil work, the vatican needed another (get this) fifteen years before barring the two from any work with homosexuals. What has become of this ban is not entirely clear to me as it is obvious that the two – pastoral work or no pastoral work – continue to try to influence as many homosexuals as they can.
We are now informed that “serious questions” have been raised about the adherence of this bunch of nutcases to catholic teaching, thirty-three years after the group was founded.
Serious questions? You don’t say!
Notice here that Fr whatshisname and sister couldntcareless are still – at least from what transpires from the CNA article – in possession of their respective religious dress.
One truly wonders.
William Oddie of the “Catholic Herald” has a very interesting article about the parallel stories of the USA (where a judge has overturned the popular decision on Proposition 8, as repeatedly reported here) and the UK (where the Charity Commission has decided against the right of the last Catholic adoption agency to only serve heterosexual couples).
Mr. Oddie poses some interesting questions:
what, precisely, is the authority of the Charity Commission to pronounce that same-sex couples can be successful adoptive parents? What does this dire quango actually KNOW about this or anything else?
The sad reality is that this dire quango (for you non-British: QUasi-Autonomous Non-GOvernmental organisation, that is: a sort of agency fed with taxpayer money but not part of the proper government activity) is the ideal screen to allow the British Government of the day (the fake conservative one actually in power not excepted) to have potentially controversial, highly political decisions taken by some organ not residing within the Government, thus letting it appear a “technical” decision. Bollocks of course, as the extreme political content of this last decision abundantly proves.
The author further asks:
And how can it be in the “interests” of children to be adopted, not by a stably married couple, but by a gay couple instead (apart from anything else, gay relationships are notoriously unstable), “through other channels”?
and here an interesting question is posed: the instability of homo couples cannot be overlooked. It is extremely clear here that the interest of the child is the pawn of an ideological orientation.
On the contrary, common sense tells us that, as the US bishops have declared:
same-sex union […] contradicts the nature of marriage: it is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot co-operate with God to create new life; and the natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by a same-sex union.
and that as a consequence of that
it is not unjust to deny legal status to same-sex unions because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities.
The astonishing thing is that not more than a couple of decades ago this would have been considered purest common sense by believers and atheists alike. It would have been considered common sense, because it is. And in fact the author points out that
it surely requires the most extreme credulousness to believe [….] that marriage and same-sex unions are essentially THE SAME reality and that a gay couple can therefore give adoptive children the same benefits as a man and wife
Mr. Oddie observes that
Our descendants will look back in amazement at the gullibility of our age
and how can we disagree with him on both arguments (that we are in a phase of institutionalised madness and that the next generation will see the madness of our ways).
The author concludes with this words:
“Oh Liberty,” in the famous words of Madame Roland as she mounted the scaffold, “what crimes are committed in thy name.” It was, I fear, ever thus.
The fight against the madness of the “right to perversion” continues. It will be victorious in the end, but it might be after our time. Not a reason to avoid the fight anyway.