“My kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18)
“Created nature has been condemned to frustration.”
(Romans 8)
“What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but
to lose his very soul?” (Mark 8)
“To live the life of nature is to think the thoughts
of nature; to live the life of the spirit is to think the thoughts of the
spirit; and natural
wisdom brings only death, whereas the wisdom of the spirit brings life and
peace. That is because
natural wisdom is at enmity with God, not submitting itself to his law; it is
impossible that it should. Those
who live the life of nature [e.g., of amoral environmentalism] cannot be acceptable to God; but
you live the life of the spirit, not the life of nature; that is, if the Spirit
of God dwells in you.” (Romans 8)
“I am astounded that
you should be so quick to desert one who called you to the grace of Christ, and
go over to another gospel; this
can only mean, that certain people are causing disquiet among you, in their
eagerness to pervert the gospel of Christ. Friends,
though it were we ourselves [the apostle Paul himself!], though it were an
angel from heaven that should preach to you a gospel other than the gospel we
preached to you, a curse upon him! I
repeat now the warning we gave you before it happened, if anyone preaches to
you what is contrary to the tradition you received, a curse upon him! Do you think it is man’s
favour, or God’s, that I am trying to win now? Shall I be told, now, that I am
courting the good will of men? If, after all these years, I were still courting
the favour of men, I should not be what I am, the slave of Christ.” (Galatians
1)
Our gospel, the Christian gospel, the gospel we have
received from our Lord Jesus Christ and from his apostles, is not about saving
mother earth. It is about saving souls! A curse upon those who are eager to
pervert the gospel of Christ.
Here is a powerful prophetic voice from the poor,
joyously evangelical Church in Guinea, a country that is 85% Islamic and
currently at the centre of an ebola epidemic. Robert Cardinal Sarah, Prefect of
the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments:
I
say frankly that in the previous Synod, on various issues one sensed the
temptation to yield to the mentality of the secularized world and
individualistic West. Recognizing the so-called “realities of life” as a locus
theologicus means giving up hope in the transforming power of faith
and the Gospel. The Gospel that once transformed cultures is now in danger of
being transformed by them. Furthermore, some of the procedures used did not
seem aimed at enriching discussion and communion as much as they did to promote a
way of seeing typical of certain fringe groups of the wealthiest churches.
[This obviously refers to people like German Cardinal Kasper, who wants to
dismiss the voice of the Church in Africa, but also to organizations like Development
and Peace.] This is contrary to a poor Church, a joyously evangelical and
prophetic sign of contradiction to worldliness. Nor does one understand why
some statements that are not shared by the qualified majority of the last Synod
still ended up in the Relatio and then in the Lineamenta and
the Instrumentum laboris when other pressing and very
current issues (such as gender ideology) are instead ignored.
The
first hope is therefore that, in our work, there be more freedom, transparency
and objectivity. For this, it would be beneficial to publish the summaries of
the interventions, to facilitate discussion and avoid any prejudice or
discrimination in accepting the pronouncements of the synod Fathers.
Discernment of history and of spirits
A
second hope: that the Synod honor its historic mission and not
limit itself to speaking only about certain pastoral issues (such as the
possible communion for divorced and remarried) but help the Holy Father to
enunciate clearly certain truths and useful guidance on a global level.
For there are new challenges with respect to the synod celebrated in 1980. A
theological discernment enables us to see in our time two unexpected
threats (almost like two “apocalyptic beasts”) located on opposite
poles: on the one hand, the idolatry of Western freedom; on the other, Islamic
fundamentalism: atheistic secularism versus religious fanaticism. To use a
slogan, we find ourselves between “gender ideology and ISIS”. Islamic
massacres and libertarian demands regularly contend for the front page of the
newspapers. (Let us remember what happened last June 26!). From these two
radicalizations arise the two major threats to the family: its subjectivist
disintegration in the secularized West through quick and easy divorce,
abortion, homosexual unions, euthanasia etc. (cf. Gender theory, the
‘Femen’, the LGBT lobby, IPPF …). On the other hand, the pseudo-family of
ideologized Islam which legitimizes polygamy, female subservience, sexual
slavery, child marriage etc. (cf. Al Qaeda, Isis, Boko Haram ...)
Several
clues enable us to intuit the same demonic origin of these two
movements. Unlike the Spirit of Truth that promotes communion in the
distinction (perichoresis), these encourage confusion (homo-gamy)
or subordination (poly-gamy). Furthermore, they demand a universal and
totalitarian rule, are violently intolerant, destroyers of families, society
and the Church, and are openly Christianophobic.
Who is Cardinal
Sarah referring to here? Is he concerned about greenhouse gases, ‘carbon
footprints,’ more recycling? No. Remember: Cardinal Sarah is from Guinea,
a country that is 85% Islamic and currently at the centre of an ebola epidemic.
He doesn’t care about currently fashionable bourgeois crusades like that. He has far more urgent concerns. This is a
man who comes from a truly poor people, who sees and understands acute suffering.
He is also a man of faith, a true Christian. We should pay attention to his concerns.
First of all, no doubt he understands that “The
Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in [non-Christian]
religions.” [see Nostra aetate,
Vatican II’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian
Religions”] But the African Cardinal is not interested in diluting the gospel
of Christ, turning away from Christ towards native religions or new-age environmentalism,
or in putting the two side by side as if there was some kind of parity between
them.
On the political side of things, our D&P rep (like
D&P in general) has urged the parishioners of OLMM to make a difference by
listening to her urgent message about making a difference to 'save the planet' -
and voting as if this should be our primary concern! It is well-known that
Development and Peace – like the Church in general – has long been infested by certain
bearers of a false gospel, committed to promoting world-wide acceptance of
abortion, and population control through promotion of intrinsically evil (and environmentally
harmful!) methods like the birth control pill. Obviously this is not the case
for every person working for D&P, but this is a major systemic problem for
that organization. Abuses have been so bad and so scandalous that in recent
history a number of our usually very forebearing Canadian bishops have been
moved to suspend promoting collection of funds for D&P!
Now what is the situation in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (our federal riding), politically? What are our choices? We have Pierre Lemieux, a father of five, a solidly pro-life Catholic family man, representing the Conservative Party. This is the guy that the D&P people (in particular our parish rep) pretty plainly imply we urgently need to oust, lest we “destroy our planet.” Obviously I’m not so sure we should believe the simplistic rhetoric we hear from D&P and the eco-alarmists – I’m pretty sure Mr. Lemieux does not want to destroy mother earth, leaving his five beloved children with no decent place to live. But what are the alternatives to Lemieux, the Conservative candidate? Not one of the other parties would allow a decent believing Christian man like Pierre Lemieux, who believes in and promotes the dignity of all innocent human life, anywhere near running for them. They are all, in the words of Cardinal Sarah, “violently intolerant, destroyers of families, society, and the Church, and are openly Christianophobic.” – Of course, they are also liars, because they sometimes like to pretend that their views are compatible with Christian and Catholic faith, when they plainly are not. They openly, intolerantly, and aggressively promote the killing of innocent babies as a human right! And they want to spread this gospel of death to every corner of the world.
As for the Election Guide put out by the Episcopal Commission for Justice
and Peace of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, this document is
useless and shameful. It presents all issues as being on par: it marks no
distinction between the imperative to obey the fifth commandment and a
completely morally neutral issue like
“honouring international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” The
document reads as if these two issues (and there are many such examples) are
morally equivalent! This is absurd and shameful.
For those who are fixated on a
quixotic mission of ‘saving the earth from destruction,’ and never mention the
hundreds of thousands of innocent children that we rich westerners tear to pieces in their mothers' wombs,
please read and ponder some Dostoyevski:
“Tell me yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature - that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance - and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth."
"No, I wouldn't consent," said Alyosha softly."
"And can you admit the idea that men for whom you are building it would agree to accept their happiness on the foundation of the unexpiated blood of a little victim? And accepting it would remain happy for ever?"
"No, I can't admit it."
No comments:
Post a Comment