Pope Francis -- Against the West?

[Danno 1,228]

Pope Francis -- Against the West?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Friday - March 15, 2013

"The Faith is Europe. And Europe is the Faith," wrote Hilaire Belloc after that bloodbath we call World War I. "Either Europe will return to the Faith or she will perish."

By 1938, Belloc concluded Christian Europe was done:

"The bad work begun at the Reformation is bearing its final fruit in the dissolution of our ancient doctrines -- the very structure of society is dissolving." He was right. Europe is the dying continent.

And looking back at the history of the Old Continent, we see the truth of G.K. Chesterton's insight: When men cease to believe in God, they do not then believe in nothing, they will believe in anything.

Consider the idols to which European Man has burnt incense since losing his faith: Darwinism, Marxism, Bolshevism, fascism, Nazism, now globalism -- the idea of a secular paradise where mankind's needs are met by the state and people spend their lives consuming cultural and material goods until the time comes for the painless exit.

Wednesday, even as Europe has said goodbye to Rome, Rome began to say goodbye to Europe, where the fastest growing faith is manifest in the mosques rising from Moscow to Madrid.

The College of Cardinals, for the first time ever, chose a pope from the New World: Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina.

To be exact, Pope Francis is not of the indigenous peoples of the New World. His father was an immigrant from Italy who came to Argentina before he was born. Yet, though by blood an Italian, Pope Francis, heart and soul, does not belong to Europe.

The reaction of our secular media to the election of this first Jesuit pope, who lives his "preferential option for the poor," was easily predictable.

On redistribution -- "Is he a conservative, or a Great Society liberal who will push the 'social gospel'?" -- the new pope passes with honors. He has a simple apartment, rides the bus and lives among the Buenos Aires poor.

But on the "social issues" -- "Is Pope Francis a progressive who will move the Church to a more 'tolerant' view of abortion and same-sex marriage?" -- the disappointment of the media elite was evident.

Pope Francis adheres to orthodox Catholic teaching that abortion is the killing of an unborn child entailing automatic excommunication for all involved. He has denounced same-sex marriage and regards homosexual adoptions as a crime against children.

That the media showed visible disappointment at learning this makes one wonder if they know anything at all about the Catholic Church.

To be Catholic is to be orthodox.

Indeed, let us presume the impossible -- that the Church should suddenly allow the ordination of woman, and decree that abortions in the first month of pregnancy are now licit, and that homosexual unions, if for life, will henceforth be recognized and blessed.

This would require the Church to admit that for 2,000 years it had been in error on matters of faith and morals, and hence is not infallible. But if the Church could have been so wrong for so long, while the world was right, and many had suffered for centuries because the Church erred, what argument would be left for remaining Catholic?

If the Church were to admit it had been wrong since the time of Christ about how men must live their lives to attain eternal life, why should Catholics obey the commandments of such a fallible and erring Church? Why not follow our separated brethren of the Protestant faiths, and choose what doctrines we wish to believe and what commandments we wish to obey?

And how have those churches fared that have accommodated themselves to the world?

Of the Christian denominations, the closest to Catholicism has been the Anglican or Episcopal Church. For a time, Anglicans were not regarded as heretics. For though they had rejected the primacy of Rome, they had not rejected the truths fundamental to Catholicism. They had been seen in the time of Henry VIII as schismatics.

But lately the Episcopal Church has been in the vanguard of all Christian churches in ordaining women priests and consecrating women and homosexuals as bishops.

Result? No church has suffered greater losses, as Catholicism has benefited from a steady stream of defecting Anglican clergy.

What the secular media reaction to Pope Francis reveals is that traditional Catholicism is today almost as deeply alien to our present-day West as it was in Roman times, only the West chooses to ignore Catholicism, where Rome feared and persecuted it.

One hears that President Obama will send to the official installation of the Holy Father to represent America our ranking Catholic officeholders, Vice President Joe Biden, along with former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

One wonders what His Holiness will be thinking as he greets these ornaments of American Catholicism, both of whom regard Roe v. Wade, which has resulted in 53 million abortion deaths, as a milestone of progress for women's rights and homosexual marriage as the civil rights cause of the 21st century.

http://buchanan.org/blog/pope-francis-against-the-west-5504

Edited March 15, 2013 by Danno

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Hilarious! Thanks for the smile.

[X Factor 1,112]

The previous pope is smiling too

[decocker 7,198]

pat buchanan lol.

[X Factor 1,112]

pat buchanan lol.

Was it the ears

[^_^ 5,021]

nevermind.

Edited March 15, 2013 by ^_^

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

I'm not a religious person. In fact, I consider the idea of a personified deity, more precisely, anybody who believes that there's an old guy up in the heavens with a white beard and a ####### who popped out his son out of a woman's ####### who was still a virgin afterward, pretty retarded.

That said, if a person's religious belief is that human life begins at conception, and that the idea of marriage is to create a holy union that will result in the procreation of those who were created in their creator's image, then it is simply impossible, outright impossible to accept abortion or marriage of men who hump each other and put their stick in where the brown stuff comes out. I know this sounds brutal, but that's the way it is. Any Pope who softens up in regard to abortion and gay marriage will initiate the end of a religion that still has 1.1 billion followers worldwide.

To politicize this issue, the GOP, who has a large portion of Christians as their followers, simply cannot move in the same direction without alienating those folks. A true Christian, somebody who believes in the stuff written down in the Old Testament, will put preserving the life of unborn children and the sanctity of marriage over other issues that may effect them personally. Yes, wars suck, the economy sucks, sleeping on a park bench sucks, illegal immigration sucks, but if they can save thousands of lives . . . doesn't that serve a greater purpose?

Food for thought.

[Danno 1,228]

I'm not a religious person. In fact, I consider the idea of a personified deity, more precisely, anybody who believes that there's an old guy up in the heavens with a white beard and a ####### who popped out his son out of a woman's ####### who was still a virgin afterward, pretty retarded.

That said, if a person's religious belief is that human life begins at conception, and that the idea of marriage is to create a holy union that will result in the procreation of those who were created in their creator's image, then it is simply impossible, outright impossible to accept abortion or marriage of men who hump each other and put their stick in where the brown stuff comes out. I know this sounds brutal, but that's the way it is. Any Pope who softens up in regard to abortion and gay marriage will initiate the end of a religion that still has 1.1 billion followers worldwide.

To politicize this issue, the GOP, who has a large portion of Christians as their followers, simply cannot move in the same direction without alienating those folks. A true Christian, somebody who believes in the stuff written down in the Old Testament, will put preserving the life of unborn children and the sanctity of marriage over other issues that may effect them personally. Yes, wars suck, the economy sucks, sleeping on a park bench sucks, illegal immigration sucks, but if they can save thousands of lives . . . doesn't that serve a greater purpose?

Food for thought.

HAve you ever been fishing and after a few hours you realize _this place sucks man... theres nothing here.

Thats what it's like reading your posts so often, if you would post more often

it would help me to remember you and not waste my time.

Thnx.

[BaBamSam 239]

HAve you ever been fishing and after a few hours you realize _this place sucks man... theres nothing here.

Thats what it's like reading your posts so often, if you would post more often

it would help me to remember you and not waste my time.

Thnx.

Danno, stop talking about yourself like that.

Personally, I would like to see the Catholic Church become more progressive and admit a lot of its wrongdoings. Will we see that, nah? A pope is a pope is a pope.

[Danno 1,228]

Danno, stop talking about yourself like that.

Personally, I would like to see the Catholic Church become more progressive and admit a lot of its wrongdoings. Will we see that, nah? A pope is a pope is a pope.

Progressive? Give an example of a denomination which went that rout and does not now have empty pews.

Anyway Your narrow Idea of what Islam or Catholicism or any other orthodox "Should be" will be fade like a spring flower as these faiths will continue.

But I'll say this, the hubris you folks have is a marvel to behold. What makes if even more entertaining, is when you have a, oh I don't know, a 5 minute conversation you realize the "all knowing one" really couldn't even pass a

basic test on the topic he stands so firmly on.

hubris |ˈ(h)yoōbris|

noun

excessive pride or self-confidence.

[BaBamSam 239]

Progressive? Give an example of a denomination which went that rout and does not now have empty pews.

Anyway Your narrow Idea of what Islam or Catholicism or any other orthodox "Should be" will be fade like a spring flower as these faiths will continue.

But I'll say this, the hubris you folks have is a marvel to behold. What makes if even more entertaining, is when you have a, oh I don't know, a 5 minute conversation you realize the "all knowing one" really couldn't even pass a

basic test on the topic he stands so firmly on.

hubris |ˈ(h)yoōbris|

noun

excessive pride or self-confidence.

First, we are not talking about Islam/

Second, everyone can have an idea on what something "should be". Even the most obedient and dedicated Catholics can have ideas or opinions on how the Catholic church handles itself. I was born and raised in the Catholic Church (since denounced) and many of my family members are practicing Catholics who can intelligently criticize certain aspects of the Church. In the last decade, Catholics as a whole have become much more progressive in their ideas on gay marriage, for example. Religion has its roots in society - created and upheld by society. When society changes, religion changes. Not in the same ways and not to the same rate, but it changes and transforms. I didn't say that the Church had to change, or even should necessarily change, but I believe it should be progressive in that it acknowledges a changing demographic and for its past mistakes (particularly with its excessive spending of Church funds on certain things and its cover up and continuance of child molestation).

I'm assuming you included that definition for your own benefit so as not to forget what it meant while changing tabs between dictionary.com and VJ to reply.

[Danno 1,228]

First, we are not talking about Islam/

Second, everyone can have an idea on what something "should be". Even the most obedient and dedicated Catholics can have ideas or opinions on how the Catholic church handles itself. I was born and raised in the Catholic Church (since denounced) and many of my family members are practicing Catholics who can intelligently criticize certain aspects of the Church. In the last decade, Catholics as a whole have become much more progressive in their ideas on gay marriage, for example. Religion has its roots in society - created and upheld by society. When society changes, religion changes. Not in the same ways and not to the same rate, but it changes and transforms. I didn't say that the Church had to change, or even should necessarily change, but I believe it should be progressive in that it acknowledges a changing demographic and for its past mistakes (particularly with its excessive spending of Church funds on certain things and its cover up and continuance of child molestation).

I'm assuming you included that definition for your own benefit so as not to forget what it meant while changing tabs between dictionary.com and VJ to reply.

Your Catholic Story is like so many today, total lack of proper teaching on the church... just the things you suggest be changed show that.

I'm not picking on you because I and everyone I know had the same experience and it wasn't until I was years older

and began to study it abit that I began realized ... I really knew nothing of even the principles of the faith.

The changes you suggest would be like the U.S. changing the constitution to eliminate voting, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. For such changes to take place doesn't indicate "progress" but simply we now have a whole different form of government ... though the name be the same.

There are certain teaching which can change and adapt as historical realities change. But you're suggesting the Church turn from it's foundation, it's understanding of human nature and the relationship between God and man. This is not only impractical but not possible.

I used the word Hubris earlier because it is so fitting of your outlook. Here you are a person who can't be much older than 50 years, telling an institution 2000 years it needs to change it's to meet this particular moment of pop culture which is unique to this particular part of the world and only in the last several decades.

Think about it ...though your view on gay marriage is a very small minority in the world, you want the church to flip it's finger to the rest of mankind (not to mention its self and follow your concept of human relations.... though you are a denounced Catholic.

I ask you to show me the denominations which have flourished... even in the west after embracing things like Gay marriage?

So, to recap you are wrong not just on understanding how the Church works, but also on a practical level you can't even show where such changes are wanted by most catholics in the world (if this were a democracy) or have improved any large denomination... even in the west.

BUt I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

[BaBamSam 239]

Your Catholic Story is like so many today, total lack of proper teaching on the church... just the things you suggest be changed show that.

I'm not picking on you because I and everyone I know had the same experience and it wasn't until I was years older

and began to study it abit that I began realized ... I really knew nothing of even the principles of the faith.

The changes you suggest would be like the U.S. changing the constitution to eliminate voting, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. For such changes to take place doesn't indicate "progress" but simply we now have a whole different form of government ... though the name be the same.

There are certain teaching which can change and adapt as historical realities change. But you're suggesting the Church turn from it's foundation, it's understanding of human nature and the relationship between God and man. This is not only impractical but not possible.

I used the word Hubris earlier because it is so fitting of your outlook. Here you are a person who can't be much older than 50 years, telling an institution 2000 years it needs to change it's to meet this particular moment of pop culture which is unique to this particular part of the world and only in the last several decades.

Think about it ...though your view on gay marriage is a very small minority in the world, you want the church to flip it's finger to the rest of mankind (not to mention its self and follow your concept of human relations.... though you are a denounced Catholic.

I ask you to show me the denominations which have flourished... even in the west after embracing things like Gay marriage?

So, to recap you are wrong not just on understanding how the Church works, but also on a practical level you can't even show where such changes are wanted by most catholics in the world (if this were a democracy) or have improved any large denomination... even in the west.

BUt I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

See, it's hard to discuss things with you because you imagine what the other person is saying or thinking. I did not say that the Catholic Church needs to change. It is my opinion that it should consider adapting certain things. And opinions, mind you, are a freedom awarded to everyone.

Do NOT tell me my opinions are wrong, OK? That is a horribly insulting and ignorant thing to say to anyone. Opinions are just that. They are not facts. They are subjective. They are based on individual experiences and understandings. Just because my Catholic education is different than yours does not mean that it is any less relevant. My reasons for separating from religion are personal and not because an entity "failed" me.

You can tease me on opinions, and you know I will do the same to you, but do not condescend me by telling me that I can't believe/think a certain way on a certain topic. I ask for your respect there.

I only brought up gay marriage, by the way, because 54% of American Catholics now support it (source) and only 38% oppose it, according to a recent study (the trend of increasing support can be seen for the last decade in various studies of different origins).

The Church has changed to adapt to a society that increasingly sees people as equal. Women are no longer punished as severely for their sins. Annulments are much more acceptable, with divorce approaching realization for Catholics. Adultery is no longer punishable by death. Etc. Some things are phased out over time. It is naive to believe that the Catholic Church of today is the same as it was 2000 years ago (when it wasn't even the "Catholic Church", mind you).

It might be impractical to say the Catholic Church accepts gay marriage - I for one see no need to force it on them. I am pro-gay marriage, but I do not believe that we need to force religious entities to change beliefs. For me, we only need to change the secular law.

[Danno 1,228]

See, it's hard to discuss things with you because you imagine what the other person is saying or thinking. I did not say that the Catholic Church needs to change. It is my opinion that it should consider adapting certain things. And opinions, mind you, are a freedom awarded to everyone.

Do NOT tell me my opinions are wrong, OK? That is a horribly insulting and ignorant thing to say to anyone. Opinions are just that. They are not facts. They are subjective. They are based on individual experiences and understandings. Just because my Catholic education is different than yours does not mean that it is any less relevant. My reasons for separating from religion are personal and not because an entity "failed" me.

You can tease me on opinions, and you know I will do the same to you, but do not condescend me by telling me that I can't believe/think a certain way on a certain topic. I ask for your respect there.

I only brought up gay marriage, by the way, because 54% of American Catholics now support it (source) and only 38% oppose it, according to a recent study (the trend of increasing support can be seen for the last decade in various studies of different origins).

The Church has changed to adapt to a society that increasingly sees people as equal. Women are no longer punished as severely for their sins. Annulments are much more acceptable, with divorce approaching realization for Catholics. Adultery is no longer punishable by death. Etc. Some things are phased out over time. It is naive to believe that the Catholic Church of today is the same as it was 2000 years ago (when it wasn't even the "Catholic Church", mind you).

It might be impractical to say the Catholic Church accepts gay marriage - I for one see no need to force it on them. I am pro-gay marriage, but I do not believe that we need to force religious entities to change beliefs. For me, we only need to change the secular law.

Awwe BamBam, lighten up I am just jousting with you a bit, don't take it personal. But thanks for pointing out a FLAW OF MINE.

There is the old saying "You attract more flies with honey than vinegar" I have yet to learn that truism.

I doubt our Catholic education is all that much different...we probably both learn traditions and little else.

But listen, even if the Catholic doctrine were based on American polls in 2013, it would be tiresome not to mention disheartening for Catholics through out the centuries to keep adjusting.

This decade Abortion is an intrinsic evil but by the next it is quite alright?

This decade Men forming marriages with men is also a sacrament and by 2050 everything changes back to being a grave sinful act.

How would the Church body have any confidence at all in the church?

As to your suggesting that Rome consider the American polling to make church doctrine.... what say you about the rest of the world? Should the church throw them under the bus to appease the dying here in the USA?

My friend if we are going to go the "doctrine by polling" method why not poll the people where the Catholic church is growing or at least is healthy?

[BatmanUSA 105]

"This would require the Church to admit that for 2,000 years it had been in error on matters of faith and morals, and hence is not infallible. But if the Church could have been so wrong for so long, while the world was right, and many had suffered for centuries because the Church erred,"

Please explain....

If one acknowledges that times, and people, are changing, and if the Church adapts to the world's changes... how/why do you conclude that this means that the Church was wrong for 2000 years..??

for example, if a US senator condemns the President for increasing the federal deficit, then in 5 years, that senator becomes president and now says that deficits are not important. Does this mean the former senator is admitting that he was wrong to demand fiscal restraint some 5 years earlier.?? and should we now conclude that this former senator is now admitting that he has no understanding of federal budgets and deficits. ?

Also, if such a man were to admit his error, why should people now believe any words spoken by such a fallible and erring man.?