Tag Archives: Pope Francis

(Prison) Wall of Denial

Here’s a little update to my last post, “War on Dissenters.”  No less an eminent figure than Al Gore himself, high priest of the Church of Climatology, also said, at a speech at the South by Southwest (SXSW) Festival down in Austin, that  “climate change deniers” (whatever that means, exactly) need to be “punished.”  Though apparently, unlike others I mentioned calling for prison time, he didn’t specify exactly how this punishment should take place.  Perhaps all “Deniers” (meaning, from what I gather, anyone who opposes more punitive “environmental” government regulations on business and agriculture) would be shipped off to a Climate-Denier Gulag somewhere.  Not sure where it would be; I hear, due to global warming, Siberia is getting too warm to be effectively punitive, like it was in the good old days of the USSR.

Believe it or not, once upon a time, liberals actually used to support free speech!

Gore also praised Pope Francis (“How about that Pope!”) for being on board the statist “climate change” bandwagon.  I don’t know about you, but I have so much more confidence in the Pope, knowing he has Al Gore’s approval.

Of course, it’s not clear how long free speech will last on Al Gore’s great invention, the Internet, after the Democrat members of the FCC (evidently on the orders of Dear Leader) voted last month to put more regulation on the internet under Title II rules.  No doubt, it’s only a matter of time before Big Brother starts finding ways to “regulate” and punish dissenters and “deniers” on teh interwebz.  So enjoy my denial and dissent while you still can, folks!

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The War on Dissenters

Every time you hear talk denouncing a “war” on something not an actual military enemy, get your shovel ready, because what invariably follows is an avalanche of nonsensical bullshit designed to drown out all rational thought and any opposition whatever to the lefty Party Line.

You might recall all the ridiculous hysteria from the Left in 2010 over the alleged “Republican War on Women.”  Dare suggest that maybe people should pay for their own damn contraceptives, and you’re a horrible misogynistic monster who hates all women, and no doubt supports full legalization of rape.

(Expect this nonsensical rhetoric to return with a vengeance once Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Jackass Party’s next Anointed One, takes the presidential nomination.)

Well the cover of the latest issue of National Geographic magazine warns us of a “War on Science.”   Apparently, an Army of Darkness made up of Global Warming Deniers, Creationists, anti-vaccine folks, and others, have their big guns set on the guys in the white coats, ready to blow them off the face of the earth and plunge us all back into the Dark Ages .  (Clearly a much bigger national security threat than, say, ISIS, who are after all, only victims of Capitalist-induced poverty, in need of better jobs from the government.)

National Geographic still provides quality geographic and nature stories and photography, but lately its editor’s leftist ideological slant has come to rival that of the dope-suckers at Rolling Stone.

Of course, when “liberals” whine about a “war” on something, what they really mean is that (oh the horror!) there are people out there who disagree with them on something.   That thought is in itself absolutely intolerable to the bleeding hearts.

Take the global warming (or “climate change” if you prefer) issue.  Everyone must support the Party Line that a) not only is the earth currently in a warming trend (an increase of 1.5° F over the past couple centuries), but b) that this is mostly caused by humans burning CO2 and other “greenhouse gasses,” and c) will lead to climatic catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions, and (this is the important part!) d) that draconian government measures will save us from the Climate Apocalypse.

Cast even the slightest doubt on any parts of this and you’re a hopelessly ignorant and/or evil “Denier,” which, in nice progressive circles, places you on the scale of scumbaggery somewhere between a child molester and a Nazi Party member.  “Deniers” and other heretics in this secular religion of Climate Apocalypse and the Almighty State as Savior must be punished by denying research funds, academic tenure, and even – according to a rising chorus of leftists from Bobby Kennedy Jr. to popular bloggers —  actual prison time!  That’s right; throw all dissenters behind bars!  And some still deny the enthusiasm for Soviet-style totalitarianism on the American Left.  And they call us conservatives fascists.  Can’t make this stuff up, folks.

There are actually plenty of serious scientists who don’t buy the man-made climate apocalypse scenario, and, no, most of them are not political right-wingers nor on the payroll of Big Oil.

Science was traditionally built on the method of subjecting all hypotheses to rigorous testing before arriving at any known conclusion, rather than on some democratic “consensus,” but now all evidence which contradictions politically correct conclusions are to be dismissed off-hand and vigorously suppressed by those holding the “consensus” view.  (You might recall that geocentrism was once the majority scientific consensus.)  “Scientific” fundamentalism at its finest,

Regarding the creation/evolution debate, not only must you believe in the biological evolution of species, but you must not deviate from strictly materialist Darwinist dogma, which insists that the whole process, and the origins of life itself, came about through nothing but pure, dumb, directionless chance.  (It’s simply not true that intelligent design theory is simply a code word for literalist six-day young-earth creationism.  The biologists who proposed intelligent design actually believe in evolution; they just don’t believe that mere dumb luck can account for all its workings.)

It’s similar regarding the origins of the universe itself.   Belief in a divine Creator who is the source of all being is to be dismissed as superstitious nonsense unworthy of belief by rational, scientific persons. But the equally unscientific but far more hip and fashionable (yet much more unbelievable, imho) belief that the entire universe simply pooped itself into existence uncaused out of nothing is to be lauded as “Reason” and “Science.”

Somehow this has become a major political issue with the bleeding hearts.  I even heard one say that belief in evolution was his most important criteria for judging politicians.

Personally, I hold the no doubt backwards and unscientific view what politicians think about evolution is completely irrelevant to anything, and that it is not the place of the federal government to dictate to schools and teachers what they must teach.

But that’s really at the core of the entire issue – today’s secularist “liberals” see indoctrination of the masses in an atheistic ideology as a duty of the Almighty State.  You know, like they did in enlightened lands like the USSR.

After all, belief in a transcendent God is dangerously subversive to the belief in an all-good, all-powerful State that is central to leftist ideology.

But it’s not just global warming and evolution.  In debates on every social issue from abortion to “gay marriage,” liberals reverently invoke the name of “Science” like that of some mighty pagan deity.  Of course, the god “Science” seems to always predictably favor the left-wing stance.

Properly speaking, of course, the physical sciences cannot themselves determine the morality – the rightness or wrongness–  of any human action.  That’s the job of moral philosophy or theology, which of course is immediately dismissed as “unscientific.”

 

With this widespread growth of materialist atheism and loss of Christian Faith in the Western world, along with the rise in horrific violence and persecution of Christians by radical Muslims elsewhere, you’d think the Vicar of Christ would have plenty to talk about.

But, we’re informed on good authority that Pope Francis is instead busy writing an encyclical on the horrors of Climate Change, something which (whether you agree or not), everyone’s already heard about ad nauseum from secular sources from Al Gore to NPR to National Geographic.

But, heck, maybe he’ll once again get his smilin’ face on the cover of the Rolling Stone.  Or maybe even the National Geographic.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Day That Lives in Infamy

Tomorrow, as you’re probably aware, we commemorate the 41st anniversary of the abominable Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade which (absurdly) declared killing one’s unborn child a “Constitutional Right,” and in effect made abortion-on-demand the law of the land.   The Bishops have declared this a day of prayer and fasting.  (And no, again, the Pope has not told Catholics to shut up about abortion, all liberal lies to the contrary.)

People (including now , sadly, many “Catholics”) try to pigeonhole or dismiss the abortion issue and the right to life as simply another “rightwing” political issue, invented by conservative Republican politicians to divide the country – or something.  However, the right to life should not be a “conservative” or a “liberal” issue, but is in fact a fundamental human value, which should transcend politics.

The right to life is the most fundamental human right the law can guarantee; without the right to life, all other human rights are rendered void.  If the law does nothing to protect the lives of innocent human beings at their most vulnerable, it is worthless.

And, yes, unborn babies (or “fetuses” or “embryos,” or whatever you want to call them) are in fact human beings from conception.  From conception the human embryo/fetus/child is a living being, genetically and biologically distinct from both parents.  And it is human; it does not change at some point from a non-human species.  Yes, the human being in its very early stages of life is undeveloped compared to more mature stages, but so is a newborn infant, or a toddler, compared to an adult.

Growth and development is a continuous, gradual process from conception to adulthood.  This is confirmed by modern biology.  While pro-aborts love to accuse pro-lifers of wishing to impose unscientific religious dogmas on everyone, it is the idea that a human baby suddenly, magically, changes from dead to living, or from non-human to human at birth or some other point that is superstitious and unscientific.

It used to be that advocates of legal abortion typically denied that an unborn child is a human being, calling it a mere “clump of tissue” and such.  But ultrasounds and other modern technology are helping expose that lie.

However, there’s a truly disturbing trend of more and more people who are willing to admit that the unborn child is in fact a human being, but say that it’s okay to kill it anyway.

These folks, following the godless philosophies of Dr. Peter Singer and his ilk, seek to separate the concept of legal “personhood” from an individual being a human being.  According to Singer, not all human beings are “persons,” and “personhood” should be based on various extrinsic factors such as cognitive development and such.  (Using such standards, most liberals should be excluded from “personhood,” but I digress.)

Of course, once we base legal personhood and the right to life on anything other than the fact of being a human being, the standards of “personhood” become ultimately completely arbitrary.  Thus, Singer uses the fact that there is little real difference between an unborn fetus and a newborn infant, to argue not that abortion should be illegal, but for legalizing infanticide.  According to Singer, killing the severely disabled is also acceptable.  In this brave new world, courts and panels of “experts” determine who is and is not a legally-protected “person” – and there’s always room to move the lines.

Ultimately, the fight over abortion is between those who believe human life is itself intrinsically sacred, against those who see human life as in itself worth, and only given worth to others on subjective extrinsic criteria.

Some people (pro-abortion liberals, as well as some “conservatives”) accuse pro-life conservatives such as myself of hypocrisy.  How can we claim to be for small limited constitutional government, while at the same time support the power of the government to take away the individual’s choice to have an abortion?

The truth is that the Roe v. Wade decision was hardly a victory for limited, constitutional government, but trampled the rights of states and the peoples, granted god-like powers to the federal judiciary, and made hash of the Constitution.  Before Roe, per the Tenth Amendment, laws concerning abortion belonged to the individual states.  Roe v. Wade took this power from the respective states and granted it to the federal government, smashing any state restrictions on abortion.  The SCOTUS justices justified their decision by citing unstated “rights” supposedly hiding deep in the dark “emanations of the penumbra” (literally, “emissions from a shadow”) of the fourteenth and other amendments.

Thus, in one blow, on no solid basis in the Constitution whatever, killing the unborn child was declared a universal “constitutional right,” and the Supreme Court granted itself the power to declare which human beings are and are not legal “persons” having a right to live.

Legal protection of the life of all innocent human beings (including the unborn) is simple justice.  Every law puts some restriction on human choice (or rather puts legal consequences on certain choices).  No one talks about being “pro-choice” in matters such as theft or rape (or the murder of persons already born).  So unless you’re an absolute anarchist, “pro-choice” arguments are utterly bogus.

Ironically, many liberals and leftists arguing that an all-powerful “right to choose” trumps the baby’s right to life, oppose the right to choose in countless other areas.  I’ve argued with many a liberal who adamantly argues for the right to choose to kill an unborn child, while equally adamantly arguing against the right of individuals to choose certain health insurance plans, or weapons for personal defense (to use just two examples.)  For the liberal, many things in fact trump absolute human choice, but human life itself is not one of them.

“Pro-choice” was never anything more than a dishonest and sophistical propaganda slogan.

And speaking of abortion, Phil Lawler of Catholic Culture beat me to this one last week, but his piece, “Pope Decries Abortion; Sun Expected To Rise in East,” confirms some points I’ve been making here regarding the shallowness of the “mainstream” media in reporting on Pope Francis and abortion.  Apparently, according to the AP, the only reason the Vicar of Christ could possibly have for upholding the Church’s two-millennia-old teachings against abortion is to throw a bone to us disgruntled conservatives.  Sigh.

Yes kids, the Pope is Catholic, and abortion is still very, very bad.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Great Religious Right Schism & Other Fantasies

You gotta hand it to the folks in the “mainstream” liberal press.  Their consistent ability to cram enormous amounts of nonsense, distortions, and falsehoods into brief articles – especially with regards to religion, especially with regards to the Catholic Church – is nothing short of amazing.

This piece I stumbled across last week from some guy named Peter Weber is pretty typical.  It’s titled, “Why Pope Francis Won’t Cause a Schism in the U.S. Religious Right,” and the gist of it was that the current Pope’s allegedly liberal “pro-choice,” “pro-gay” positions had failed to create a rift between faithful Catholics and conservative Evangelical Protestants on hot-button “culture war” issues such as abortion and “gay marriage.”  Shocking.

Perhaps it’s just me, but I detected a hint of disappointment in the piece’s title.  Maybe even a tear or two.  You see, it seems those darned orthodox “conservative” Catholics will just stubbornly cling to their unenlightened positions against abortion and “gay marriage” regardless of what the Pope says.

After quoting some rather ignorant statements of alarm at the Pope from some conservative Evangelicals, Weber quotes some typical delirium from lefty gay-activist “journalist” Andrew Sullivan, who crows, “The Catholic hierarchy has been knocked sideways by the emergence of Pope Francis and his eschewal of their fixation on homosexuality, contraception, and abortion. That fixation — essentially a Christianist and de facto Republican alliance among Protestants and Catholic leaders — has now been rendered a far lower priority than, say, preaching the Gospel or serving the poor and the sick. Francis has also endorsed secularism as the proper modern context for religious faith.”

(Ooh!  There’s that scary, scary word, “Christianist”!  If you’re pro-life, or don’t want “gay marriage,” you’re some blood-crazed fanatic eager to lop the head off of Infidels.)

And never mind, of course, that not a word of Sullivan’s gushing is actually true, but more on that later.

Weber disagrees with Sullivan’s liberal triumphalism, concluding:

“The long papacy of happy culture warrior John Paul II didn’t turn Ted Kennedy or John Kerry or Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi — Catholics all — into anti-abortion activists. And Pope Francis’ shift away from cultural politics won’t convert John Boehner or make any of the conservative Catholics on the Supreme Court — Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas — less eager to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

True (excepting, I’d argue, the eagerness of Roberts & co. to overturn Roe v. Wade).

But Weber (like most of his media brethren) remains completely clueless.

Both Weber and Sullivan, like most in liberal press, are unable to see Catholic moral teaching in any context other than American “liberals vs. conservatives” politics.

They apparently labor under the delusion that opposition to abortion and homosexual activity is a recent invention of the Republican Party, rather than what the Christian Faith has always taught for 2000 years, as found in the epistles of St. Paul and in the Didache.  (And, unlike the GOP “leadership,” the Church is actually serious about what it says.)

Besides the fact that personal papal interviews contain zero magisterial authority, and, as I noted previously here, Pope Francis did not change or do away with any of the Church’s moral teachings, which remain clearly stated in the Catechism.  (Excellent article in Catholic Culture by Phil Lawler here.)

The notion that Pope Francis reversed the Church’s teachings on abortion, etc., and that pro-life Catholics are now just as much in dissent from Church teaching as Pelosi, Kerry & co. were back in the pre-Francis days, is a heaping load of absolute and total excrement.  Sorry, if you ain’t pro-life, you still ain’t Catholic!

Those who think the current Holy Father is “pro-choice,” “hates dogma,” or wants the Church to just shut up about abortion and other moral issues, need to read his recent address to Catholic physicians, where he spoke of the importance of the right to life of all persons from conception, proclaiming:

Every child who, rather than being born, is condemned unjustly to being aborted, bears the face of Jesus Christ, bears the face of the Lord . . .  And every elderly person, even if he is ill or at the end of his days, bears the face of Christ. They cannot be discarded, as the “culture of waste” suggests! They cannot be thrown away!

Hardly the words of a Pelosi-esque “pro-choicer,” or of one who thinks the Church needs to “get over its fixation” on abortion.  Of course, those words of Pope Francis got almost no “mainstream” media attention.

Much as lefties may eagerly anticipate it, a socially-liberal Catholic Church leading the faithful to the light of acceptance of abortion and sexual immorality remains a deluded fantasy.  As it always will be.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Papal Bull, Part III: The Spirit of Vatican II Arises from the Grave

Hey you cool cats and kittens, haven’t you heard the news?  The times they are a-changin’ in the Church.   The Eternal Bride of Christ and Bark of Saint Peter is finally casting off its irrelevant dusty, musty 2000-year-old moral teachings on things like the grave sinfulness of abortion, contraception, and homosexual activity, at last seeing the light proclaimed by the wise luminaries in Hollywood and the secular media.

Everybody’s now free to commit sodomy and slice and dice babies all they like without fear of hellfire and loss of Eternal Salvation.

The Catholic Church now realizes it must get over its ancient sexual hang-ups and get with the current liberal zeitgeist, or else be swept into the dustbin of history.

Freed from its archaic obsessions with sex and the sanctity of human life, the Church is at last free to focus exclusively on the issues that really matter, like gun control and global warming.

Hey, don’t look at me like that, Da Freakin’ Pope himself said so!

Or, at least that’s the impression the casual reader will get from reading the brouhaha breathlessly reported by the AP and others in the “mainstream” media concerning Pope Francis’ recent remarks in an interview with an Italian Jesuit magazine.

he AP dutifully recorded the various  gushings of an assortment of liberal “Catholic” advocates, as well as Hollywood celebs (including Jane Fonda “who said the Pope “loves the poor and hates dogma” and Chris Rock, who tweeted that the Pope “may be the greatest man alive” regarding Francis’s spectacular wisdom in allegedly leading the Church to embrace the Hollywood set’s social values).   (As we all know, the opinions of comedians, Hollywood actors, rappers, and such are of infinitely greater importance than those of us mere mortals in mundane lines of work – especially on matters of Faith and Morals.)

The AP story was linked to on a conservative website with the shocking headline, “Pope Francis says Church Obsessed with Homosexuality and Abortion.”

Of course (if you actually bother to read the fine print), Pope Francis in reality said nothing of the sort.  His words were essentially about the importance of Christ-like charity and mercy towards the sinner, summed up in the Church’s age old admonition to “hate the sin and love the sinner” (a concept of which the modern world is utterly clueless,) and that the Church is not in the business of judging the state of individual souls.  After all, without charity as St. Paul declared, without love, we are but a “noisy gong and a clanging cymbal.”

The Pope did not declare any change in the Church’s 2000-year-old moral teachings regarding the grave immorality of the sins of abortion, homosexual activity, or contraception, nor did he declare such doctrines irrelevant – much less that he “hates dogma.”  In fact, Pope Francis stated that he was simply teaching what the Catechism teaches (which clearly states that homosexuality is “objectively disordered” and sodomy gravely sinful, but also that homsosexual persons should be treated with respect and compassion).

Mainstream media reports on the Pope’s remarks were careful to emphasize the alleged “sharp break” between him and his predecessor, that awful meanie homophobe Benedict XVI.  Thus, the story was woven into its standard narrative myth of Loving Progressive Catholics vs. those horrible phariseeical Conservative Catholics, who impose rigid dogma by day and bugger altar boys by night.  (Never mind the inconvenient fact that most of the vile and disgraceful sexual abuse and cover-up were conducted by liberal and heterodox clergy, including ultra-libs Cardinal Mahoney and Archbishop Weakland).

While this is yet another example of media distortion, and will likely have little effect on the faith of solidly orthodox Catholics, it has the potential for widespread destructive effects.

I’m afraid it may have a “Spirit of Vatican II”-type effect.  I’m referring here not to the actual black-and-white words of the documents produced by that Council, but that foggy, ethereal undead wraith which perpetually haunts the halls of liberal “Catholicism,” and has been invoked to justify every manner of heresy and liturgical abuse, and has declared everything existing in the Church prior to the mid-sixties to be null and void.  (That unholy ghost is actually close kin to that other liberal American horror, the constantly-mutating monstrosity known as “the Living Constitution.”  “Coming soon to your local drive-in, Twin Terrors Double Feature:  The Spirit of Vatican II and Night of the Living Constitution!”)

Liberal pro-abortion and pro-homosexual “Catholic” dissidents will (as they already have begun) claim that they have the full blessing and approval of the Pope and Rome, and declare the Church’s moral teachings to be discarded by the Church, while pro-life Catholics and those who publicly uphold the Church’s moral teachings will be denounced and derided by liberal clergy as troglodyte throw-backs opposed to the Church’s new progressive teachings.

Nothing really new here, but this will likely spread further confusion among the ill-informed pew-sitters (or as Rush Limbaugh would say, “low-information Catholics”) who are too ignorant to know better, and too lazy to learn the truth for themselves.  (“What, I thought the Church got rid of all those old teachings about gays and abortion!”)

While the Pope’s interview and subsequent media distortion may win him the approval of the Jane Fondas of the world (though only a spectacular idiot of Hanoi Jane’s caliber could read him as “hating dogma.”), it will do nothing to win over conservative Protestants and Orthodox concerned with actually following Biblical Christian morality, and will only further drive away “Rad-trads” convinced the Vatican has fallen into the clutches of the Beast.

While I believe the Pope’s message has been grossly distorted by the media, his words are ambiguous enough to lead to some unnecessary confusion and misinformation.  For this reason, the Pope needs to choose his very words carefully in interviews and such with the media – being mindful that most “journalists” today are not unbiased seekers and reporters of truth, but a ravenous pack of wolves and brood of vipers who will distort every word to promote an ideological agenda 100% at odds with the teachings of the Church.

While it’s right to promote love and charity, moral teaching must be made clear more than ever in this time of lies and confusion.   Truth is worth nothing without charity, but true charity does not neglect the truth.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Habemus Papam! (Holy Smoke and Yet More Papal Bull)

Wednesday, white smoke issued from the Sistine Chapel, and soon after it was declared that former archbishop of Buenos Aires Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio had been elected Pope, taking the name Francis.  Thus ended weeks of nail-biting suspense on the part of the mainstream media concerning whether the next pope would be a “progressive” who would change the Church’s teachings on contraception, homosexuality, abortion, and the priesthood, and bring the Church into the glorious new modern era of gay marriage and womyn priestesses – or another nasty old “conservative” who would keep the Church mired in the Dark Ages of Oppression and teach what the Church has always taught for 2000 years.  I suppose the whole suspense wasn’t quite so nail-biting for me, as my money was always solidly on the latter.

I admit to being a rather lazy Catholic, and having done little research on most of the contenders for the papacy,  I was completely unfamiliar with Cardinal Bergoglio.  When scouring the news on teh interwebz for information on the new pope after first learning of his election, most of the “mainstream” news stories seemed to read mostly: “sex abuse, sex abuse, sex abuse . . . scandal, scandal, scandal . . .” (and liberals accuse the Catholic Church of being obsessed with sex).  Of course the commentary from the readers’ peanut galleries was even more depressingly predictable.  While some progressive souls took initial comfort that Bergoglio was apparently a “moderate” and a Jesuit, they soon expressed profound disappointment on finding that (in the words of one gent) he was yet another “dour homophobe” who had – gasp!—opposed the legal institution of homosexual “marriage” in Argentina.   (That profoundly inane pc epiphet “homophobe” again.  The Church has always taught that any “heterosexual” behavior outside marriage is mortally sinful as well, yet it would be just as moronic to decry the Church as “forniphobic” or “heterophobic.”)

This brings up a rather interesting issue regarding all the self-described “Catholic faithful” who are so insistent that the Church needs to change her moral teachings to match their own opinions.

If the Church can simply change her teachings on faith and morals to jive with whatever happens to be popular at the time, then what moral authority would the Church possess at all?  If Church teachings on faith and morals are changeable, and based on popular opinion – rather than on timeless eternal truth –  what’s the point of belonging to the Church in the first place?  The belief that Church teaching can be changed on whim implies that the Church’s teachings are not based on any divine authority, but merely human opinion and politics.  If you feel a need to belong to an organization governed by democratic principles and preaching sexual libertinism coupled and salvation through humanitarian good works (conveniently done by the government), there’s already such an organization for you.  It’s called the Democratic Party.  Or if you really insist on the whole churchy thing, the Episcopalians will be happy to take you in.

Before some of you get all upset, I’ll make it clear that the following is purely hypothetical, and I have faith that it will never happen; but the moment a Catholic Pope reverses the Church’s unpopular teaching on contraceptives, or abortion, or homosexuality, or any other moral matter, I will promptly leave the Church and no longer consider myself Catholic.  No, not because I place my own personal rightwing troglodyte prejudices over the teaching authority of the Church, but because such a reversal would prove the Church’s moral teachings to have no divine authority built on the Rock of Peter and the Fire of Truth, but to be built on the shifting sands of human opinion.  If Church moral teaching is nothing more than a weather vane blowing in the winds of popular opinion, there is no reason for me to subjugate myself to it.

On the other hand, if you are an unbeliever, and consider the Catholic Faith to be a bunch of superstitious nonsense, then, really, why should you even care what the Pope teaches?  I myself am not inclined to insist that Mormon leaders, or the head of the Church of Scientology, change their teachings to be closer to my own beliefs.  Indeed, I think effort would be better spent trying to get people out of those absurd cults, and to know the actual truth.

But I suppose the reality is that liberals both outside and inside the Church – having no tolerance for any beliefs or viewpoints outside the dictates of political correctness- want to turn the Catholic Church into nothing more than yet another mouthpiece for liberal political opinion.

Another thing I find both amusing and confounding is how those demanding change in Church teaching seem to always explicitly or implicitly blame the evils of sex abuse and its cover up in the Church on the Church’s rigid “conservatism” and doctrinal orthodoxy, and talk as though somehow more liberalism in the Church, with a good dose of “gay marriage” and womyn priestesses, would fix the problem.  However, many of the bishops most guilty in the cover-up of priestly sexual abuse were anything but conservative.  The disgraced Cardinal Mahoney, for instance, pretty much epitomized “liberal Catholicism,” and has been a bane of “conservative” and orthodox Catholics for decades.  As had the notoriously liberal and heterodox Archbishop Weakland of Milwaukee, who was involved in one of the first of the major sex scandals to come to light.

While there are shrieks of condemnation and gloom-and-doom for the Church from both the left and the hysterical “rad-trad” right, I think we can rest assured that, for whatever the pros and cons of his reign, will continue preaching the exact same Faith and moral truths that his predecessors have since St. Peter.  May God grant him a long, holy, and glorious reign.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,