Does the post-Vatican II Church demand cultural genocide?

“He who thinks only of building walls and not bridges is not Christian.”

What an incredibly asinine thing to say.  I mean, I’ve heard open boarders arguments that sound intelligent, but only a complete imbecile talks like this.  It’s right up with “You can’t hug with nuclear arms.”

Christopher Ferrara marvels at the pontiff’s shamelessness in contradicting himself from one sentence to the next.

Responding to Trump’s suggestion that the Pope is too “political,” Francis offered this clever riposte: “Thank God he said that I am political, because Aristotle defined the human person as a political animal, and this means that at least I am a human person.”   Wow. Devastating. Except that when Aristotle says that man is by nature a zôion politikòn, he is not referring to politics in the modern sense, but rather man’s natural inclination to life in the polis or city-state emerging from a community of families.

Funny, isn’t it, how the same Pope who refuses involve himself in political affairs when it comes to the mass murder of unborn children or the legalization of “unions” based on sodomy—precisely where he should be involved—not only wants to talk politics but also to suggest how Catholics in America should vote when it comes to ending all state barriers to illegal immigration (except in the Vatican State, of course).

Concerning Francis and politics, something good did come out of this press conference. Only one question later, Francis was finally smoked out on “gay marriage.” Asked for his position on the movement for approval of “civil unions” for sodomites in Italy, where a bill legalizing this abomination is now moving through parliament, Francis refused to comment because “the Pope does not place himself into the concrete politics of a country. Italy is not the first country to have this experience.” This from a Pope who, only a moment earlier, had boasted of being “a political animal” and who is constantly meddling in concrete political issues concerning the environment, wealth distribution, immigration, housing, education, clean water, prison conditions, the death penalty, the Scottish independence movement, and anything else that arouses his always politically correct ire. The duplicity was stunningly shameless.

This doesn’t even touch on the most evil parts of the interview, the pope’s encouragement to contraception and eugenics.  Save that for another discussion.

Still, we should be thankful for His Holiness’s stupidity, for his policy on the annihilation of Western civilization is identical to that of his predecessors.  A more intelligent pope would have stated his evil belief more clearly.  John Paul II was an intelligent man, and Jim Kalb shows quite clearly the former pope’s horrifying genocidal beliefs here.

Here’s the Pope’s message for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees, which I gather is an annual event in the Catholic Church: “To Overcome Racism, Xenophobia and Exaggerated Nationalism”. What he says is in one sense typical — it follows the line all respectable Christian religious leaders now follow — but in another sense quite extraordinary:

  • He speaks of “undocumented migrants” as among “the most vulnerable of foreigners,” of “the Christian duty to welcome whoever comes knocking out of need,” of “true acceptance of immigrants in their cultural diversity,” and of “Christ, who through us wishes to continue in history and in the world his work of liberation from all forms of discrimination, rejection, and marginalization.”
  • He “urge[s] Catholics to excel in the spirit of solidarity towards newcomers among them.” “Such openness builds up vibrant Christian communities.” Therefore, “Christians must struggle to overcome any tendency to turn in on themselves.” He further points out that “if newcomers feel unwelcome as they approach a particular parish community because they do not speak the local language or follow local customs, they easily become ‘lost sheep’. The loss of such ‘little ones’ for reasons of even latent discrimination should be a cause of grave concern to pastors and faithful alike.”
  • He further requests that Catholics work with other ecclesial communities to create “societies in which the cultures of migrants and their special gifts are sincerely appreciated, and in which manifestations of racism, xenophobia, and exaggerated nationalism are prophetically opposed.”
  • He notes, however, that “solidarity does not come easily. It requires training and a turning away from attitudes of closure, which in many societies today have become more subtle and penetrating. To deal with this phenomenon, the Church possesses vast educational and formative resources at all levels. I therefore appeal to parents and teachers to combat racism and xenophobia by inculcating positive attitudes based on Catholic social doctrine.”

What does all this add up to?

First, it appears that every country should have open borders. If they aren’t open, some migrants will be undocumented and therefore become the special objects of hospitality and care. But if we have to welcome and care for them anyway, why not make it official and give all comers papers at the border?

Second, the flood of immigrants should be welcomed by local communities just as they are, and truly accepted in their cultural diversity. No boundaries of any kind may be drawn, because even the hint of a boundary would be latent discrimination. The Catholic Church should use its vast resources to inculcate such attitudes, and work with others to spread them through society generally. That, as all “social concerns” bureaucrats agree, is the prophetic function of the Church.

But what of the local culture? The Pope “also invite[s] the immigrants to recognize the duty to honor the countries which receive them and to respect the laws, culture, and traditions of the people who have welcomed them.” So it appears the net effect is to be a world without boundaries of any kind, in which each is equally present to all others and each respects and honors the particularities of all.

By calling for such a thing the Pope is saying nothing new but simply repeating with his usual intellectual and moral fervor the view all official moral teachers hold today. What he and other moral teachers leave unexplained, however, is how the particularities that are to be honored will be able to exist as anything but individual idiosycrasies in a world utterly without boundaries in which no culture is authoritative because each is equally present and equally honored.

The short answer is that they won’t. A culture is a particular complex of habits, understandings and loyalties that are normative although mostly unstated among a particular group of people. As such, it requires boundaries. A culture can exist as a culture only among a group of people who have grown into it together and feel that among themselves they can take it for granted. Such conditions cannot exist in a group that feels obligated to be utterly and continuously open to numerous new arrivals, avoiding even latent discrimination, and called to honor them in all their otherness.

What the Pope is calling for is therefore not the honoring of culture but the abolition of culture by the abolition of every social setting in which any particular culture can exist…

The odd thing is that the Pope seems to understand the problem. He says “The path to true acceptance of immigrants in their cultural diversity is actually a difficult one, in some cases a real Way of the Cross.”

So there you have it.  The pope calls for the crucifixion (his own metaphor) of Western civilization, our utter annihilation as a distinct people with a distinct history and way of life.

I plead once again to the princes of the Church to qualify these statements.  In your blinding hatred for white Europeans and their civilization, you have laid out a principle that demands the destruction of all distinct cultures everywhere.  Even if you insist on eradicating us, surely you don’t intend such an inhuman fate for all mankind?

13 Responses

  1. […] Does the post-Vatican II Church demand cultural genocide? […]

  2. Reblogged this on Among the Ruins and commented:
    Well put

  3. Then, what is to be done? The current crisis in the church needs to be solved and it seems that little in the way of progress is being made to do it. So we are left with a few options –
    1) Hope – we either hope that the current crisis is resolved by the few who are faithful in the church with the common faithful aiding them.
    2) Leave – we simply abandon the current church and band up with the sedevacantists, either believing they are correct or ignoring the potentially fatal errors they have
    3) Ignore – continue to remain faithful to the bride of Christ and highlight any and all errors that the current pope (and previous popes) have made. Condemn the errors of Vatican II and bring as many as we can to the correct position.
    So to conclude, we can only pray that the faithful can make it through this difficult time.

  4. 4) Achieve power and bring them to heel.

  5. Brilliant. Even as satire, it is what many want.

  6. We, the peoples of the West, benefactors of centuries of common culture that have enabled the greatest achievements in Jurisprudence, are lightly tossing it all away without due consideration of the consequences. A crisis not simply of Faith but of the Will to live.

  7. Reports like this make me question idealism regarding a religious revival.

  8. This–the Pope’s idiocy–makes me glad that I’m probably joining the Orthodox church, not the Catholic church, in the near future.

  9. Does it demand it? It is, itself, the beneficiary of it. Traditional Catholic culture didn’t evaporate: Paul VI personally presided over a brutal and pitiless campaign to extirpate it, stuffing the Curia with criminals and perverts (anything but Latinists!), frequently and publicly regurgitating obscene Protestant caricatures regarding idiot Catholics obliviously thumbing their rosaries all through Mass, and personally set the example for the iconoclasm that has decimated the Church. (Would that it had merely decimated it — the Church has certainly shrunk by more than 10%). If by cultural genocide we mean the deliberate attempt to alienate a people from their own cultural legitimate patrimony, then the post-conciliar Church is guilty as Hell.

  10. 1) Hope – Of course, God asks this of us. We should pray.
    2) Leave – No. St. Francis of Assisi was revealed in a vision to follow God, to obey God first, and not His servant (the Pope), yet he did great works with God’s grace and never left the church, but now dwells eternally with Our Father. The church has always had times of trial, and been filled with sinners, hypocrites, etc. Luther may have had valid complaints, but his error should not be ours.
    3) Ignore – Pointing out error and correcting sinners is not ignoring, but a work of mercy?

  11. @Bonald. One interpretation is that Christian leaders may regard the West as so wedded to evil, and so successful in corrupting their citizens, that the societies need to be destroyed – and mass immigration is the agent of such destruction (on the Old Testament principle of destroying a people by allowing them to have what they want).

    That would be a defensible view.

    What is not defensible is dishonesty; and that is perhaps the root of the problem.

    Instead of stating and repeating a clear, simple persepctive; most leaders of most large churches are dishonest. Some actually sometimes lie, calculatedly stating falsehoods they know to be false (such as the current Archbishop of Canterbury); but most of the time they attempt to mislead in the usual way of bureaucrats – to say some thngs that are narrowly, factually accurate, but produce a different impression.

    The laity are put in the position of trying to guess, or infer, what is *really* meant – and this is intolerable.

    Dishonesty is a sin – it is bearing false witness. And indeed it is one of the worse, most corrosive of sins – because… well, look around… that is why.

    When dishonesty is common, undetected, unpunished/ rewarded; information loses meaning, people don’t know what to believe – any specific statement might mean what it says, something else, or nothing at all.

    Of course, the mass media and leftists generally (being themselves dishonest, in principle as well as practice) are always accusing Christians, including leaders, of dishonesty (or hypocrisy). But some of the Christian leaders *really are* dishonest; or, to put it more cleary — anyone can clearly see that they are not even *trying* to be honest.

    I am not a Roman Catholic, but I want very much for that church to be a good and successful church – not least because much of the Christian world is Roman Catholic and must remain so (or not be Christian at all) for the foreseeable future. Therefore it is vital for the Pope to be honest – that is, he should always and in every situation, be trying to communicate validly what he believes to be the case as best he can (given the constraints of the situation). He must always and habitually strive to be of honest intent – and when he fails he must repent.

    In my judgment, Benedict XVI was an honest man – full stop. Nothing more needs to be said.

    Francis I? – not so; or at best… debateable. That means nothing he says can be relied upon, everything he does is ambiguous.

    For me, that situation is intolerable, and inexcusable. Honesty in a church leader in his public role is an essential minimum. Lacking which, he cannot *in practice* be regarded as a leader – although how this situation is managed in practice is variable.

  12. […] themselves. When we consider what the reaction was to modernism a century ago and compare it with today, it is self-evident of the dire state of […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: