Against Racism: empathy or love?

https://mattstauffer.org/257/please-remember-my-black-son/

So what we need is empathy? ("Our problem is that we don’t empathize with Black people.")

CCC 1767: "passions are neither good nor evil. They are morally qualified only to the extent that they effectively engage reason and will."

Empathy is entering into and sharing in the passions/feelings of another. It is a passion (a feeling, an emotion, a reaction). It is "neither good nor evil" (etc. - see above). When empathy has the effect of encouraging one to disengage reason, to disregard facts, it is evil. (Consider: "I have a lot of empathy for serial adulterers." Sure - but that's not a good thing!)

http://qpolitical.com/1-heres-one-thing-obama-wont-tell-dallas-shooting-police-officers/

Love drives out hate.

Empathy may be useful, or not. Empathy may just mire a person in another person's irrational passions. Empathy in itself is not a strength. Empathy is different from love. And it is love, not empathy, that drives out hate. Empathy alone may lead a person to wallow in vain passions. Love leads to - it demands! - forgiveness, reconciliation, understanding. But only because genuine love is a participation in the love of the one God, who is justice, mercy, truth. Empathy is only a participation in the fragmented and contradictory world of individual passions.

The Good Samaritan, a parable of latter-day saintliness?

The preaching that was preached to me this past Sunday was ostensibly about the parable of the Good Samaritan. The preacher took the opportunity to share with us some history which he believed we needed to understand in order to understand the Gospel reading, namely Lk 10:25-37. He reviewed the basic story of the Jews’ Babylonian exile, the introduction of the Samaritan people into the vacated land of Israel and their development there of a syncretistic religion which included significant Judaic elements, followed by the return to Israel of the exiled Jews and their subsequent hostility towards the Samaritans and towards the Samaritan corruptions of the Judaic faith. In this context he described in particular the Pharisees – a name meaning ‘set apart, separated’ – as a manifestation of a particular attitude towards the Samaritans – the ‘corruptors of true religion’ – which prevailed among some or most of the Jews of Jesus’s time, but especially among the Pharisees. The preacher’s take on Jesus’s parable of the Good Samaritan was that Jesus was engaging in a kind of expanding of religious consciousness, challenging the Pharisees’ negative stereotypes of Samaritans and Samaritan religion, and the Pharisees’ practice of valuing and cultivating separateness from the corrupting influence of their neighbors. Instead, it seemed the preacher was suggesting, Jesus rejected such separateness. Jesus wants to be a friend to all, and thus to destroy separateness. His mission, and so ours too, starts with relationship, and this emphasis on relationship is incompatible with the separateness of the Pharisees. He also threw in some bland remarks about the need to avoid being either 'all head and no heart' (presumably like Jesus’s interlocutor in the Gospel reading?), or 'all heart and no head' (it’s unclear to whom this was meant to refer).

This analysis struck me as superficial and misleading. It was what the preacher wanted to say, and probably sat well with most of the pew-sitters; but it wasn’t what Jesus said or implied in the day’s Gospel reading. In the Gospel, an expert in the law – a ‘lawyer,’ who may or may not have been a Pharisee – asks Jesus about eternal life, and Jesus directs him to the law – the law of Israel, the law revealed by God, the law by which God chose and set apart and sanctified a people for himself. (If you’re not familiar with these concepts, by all means read the Old Testament!) The ‘lawyer’ then asks Jesus about the meaning of the law, and Jesus tells him a parable about love of neighbor, wherein a Samaritan shows love to a stranger in need: to a Jew, that is, with whom he has no prior relationship and with whom, we may well assume, he does not go on to have any subsequent relationship. That is to say, in despite of those who wish to read into it certain views about evangelization that are trendy in these latter days of Christianity, it is not a story about the connection between mission and relationship. (If we consider the example of Jesus himself, his public ministry – his Gospel mission – lasted only three years and touched the lives of many thousands of people. There is no indication that ‘personal relationships’ were the essential element of his mission and every reason to think that they were not, since, simply practically speaking, that model would have been impossible.)

What about the business of the ‘separateness’ cultivated by the Pharisees, and criticized by Sunday’s preacher, ostensibly speaking with or for Jesus in doing so? I gather that that kind of thing is a popular line among Christians of these latter days. We all believe (of course!) in a ‘universal call to holiness’ – whatever we take that to mean. It suits many people just fine to be told that they shouldn’t separate themselves from others, and that others should not feel separated from them. Thus, for example, a lot of people believe in a universal call to receive Holy Communion. This call is for everyone, that is, for whomsoever shows up to mass, whensoever and howsoever often they happen to do so – unless they’re too young (don't have an official 'first communion certificate') or prefer not to – but then they should still be universally encouraged to come up to at least receive a ‘communion blessing.’ Why? Because this minimizes 'separateness.' Jesus may, or may not, have been serious about the separation of the sheep and the goats on the Last Day when he shall come in glory, but surely that kind of thing has little to no application to us now. The ‘universal call to holiness’ means that we should recognize that everyone is holy – ‘everything is grace,’ as some so sweetly say – and that Christ has destroyed all enmity between the sheep and the goats.

Except that that is anything but what Jesus Christ preaches. (By all means read the New Testament, in its integrity, if you doubt this!) So far as I recall, Jesus never criticizes the Pharisees for their separateness. He does criticize them for their hypocrisy, their lack of integrity. (Seven times he calls scribes and Pharisees hypocrites in Matthew 23; in Matthew 5 he says we must exceed their righteousness, and be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect, loving even our enemies – which seems different from pretending we don’t have any, or that we’re all already righteous and perfect enough). But hypocrisy is not even remotely the same as separateness. Hypocrisy is as different from separateness as it is from holiness. In fact ‘holy’ (Hebrew qodesh) means pretty much the same as ‘Pharisee’ – set apart, sacred, consecrated. (Jeremiah 1:5, for example, reads: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee” (i.e., "made thee holy"), also translated as “I set thee apart.” Paul’s letter to the Romans begins: “Paul, servant of Jesus Christ, called an Apostle, set apart for the Gospel of God (Latin segregatus (segregated); Greek aphorismenos (at least reminiscent of the Hebrew to Aramaic derived pharisee)).”) The Pharisees cultivated separation because they believed in the call to holiness – like Abraham, Jeremiah, the blessed virgin Mary, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, etc., and like Jesus Christ: “be holy” (see Leviticus 20:26: “And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine”; cf. 1Peter 1:16; etc., etc.!). They read the Psalms, as we should too (Psalms 1 and 119, for example), and so believed in the connection between loving God, loving the law, and loving holiness. For a preacher to disparage separateness, then, is effectively for him to disparage holiness. And this suggests that he may not know what holiness is, at least from an authentic Judeo-Christian perspective; and even though he may well be rightly ajudged a rather exemplary preacher of latter-day Christianity – which is interesting, isn’t it?

Grateful to Pope Francis

"It is just that we should be grateful, not only to those with whose views we may agree, but also to those who have expressed more superficial views; for these also contributed something, by developing before us the powers of thought." (Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book II)

Fr. Zuhlsdorf (here): "Last night I read a surprising account of some off-the-cuff remarks offered by Pope Francis on marriages.  He opined that most marriages today aren’t valid because people don’t understand very well what they are entering into.  Of course we know that people who don’t understand very well what they are entering into can and do validly contract marriage. [Similarly, we know that people who don't understand very well what they are entering into can and do validly receive baptism, for themselves or for their children (notwithstanding the obligatory baptismal dialogue: "Do you clearly understand what you are undertaking?" "I do. (I think I do. I sort-of do. I really don't but I just want to get this over with.)").] And so the Pope’s remarks give us pause.  We pause and reflect seriously about the sort of catechesis (the lousy catechesis) we have given people for decades and the less than optimal marriage preparation so many couples receive.  We are, hence, ready to get our noses to the grindstone and improve the situation because, as we know, people can and do enter into valid marriages without knowing fully what they are entering into.  After all, validity is one thing and having the graces that come with the sacrament of matrimony are another."

So reflecting on Aristotle's words and Fr. Z's comments, we should be grateful to Pope Francis, even when he expresses superficial views, insofar as he affords us the opportunity of developing our powers of thought. Even if he isn't intentionally encouraging us to do so (and to some extent we can assume that that actually is part of what he is trying to do), if we are rightly disposed that should be the effect upon us: if we are struck by the superficiality and inconsistency of his views (as we should be), we should be encouraged to reflect more deeply so as to avoid such superficiality and inconsistency in our own thinking.

[Of course the problem with Francis's remarks is that most people are not rightly disposed towards reflecting carefully and deeply on the truth (nor are they intellectually well-equipped to do so), and unfortunately Francis's example (as too-often manifested in his problematic statements) hardly seems likely to serve as an encouragement for them to become better disposed towards love and care for the truth (or better-equipped intellectually) - it is rather the opposite danger that seems likely. But still: grace works in mysterious ways and God is able to bring about good even from evil.]

Bishop Barron: "Polishing the Diamonds" [with comments]

Polishing the Diamonds [link here]

By Bishop Robert Barron

There is a regrettable interpretation of the cross that has, unfortunately, infected the minds of many Christians. This is the view that the bloody sacrifice of the Son on the cross was “satisfying” to the Father, and appeasement of a God infinitely angry at sinful humanity. In this reading, the crucified Jesus is like a child hurled into the fiery mouth of a pagan divinity in order to assuage its wrath. 

[Really? Are there “many Christians” who believe this? Or is this a straw man? Say you get a crowd of 500 Christians and ask for a show of hands: “Who believes this?” I wonder how many hands would go up. (Very few, if any, I would guess.)]

But what ultimately refutes this twisted theology is the well-known passage from John’s Gospel: “God so loved the world, that he sent his only Son, that all who believe in him might have eternal life.” John reveals that it is not out of anger or vengeance or in a desire for retribution that the Father sends the Son, but precisely out of love. God the Father is not some pathetic divinity whose bruised personal honor needs to be restored; rather God is a parent who burns with compassion for his children who have wandered into danger. 

[Oops. Bishop Barron (because of his own twisted universalist theology?) is being not quite honest here. The well-known passage reads: “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, so that all who believe in him might not perish, but might have eternal life.” Barron omits “might not perish” and fails to mention the immediately following caveat: “Whoso believes in him is not condemned; but whoso does not believe is already condemned, since he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.” He talks only about ‘burning compassion’ and infantilizes sinners sinning (for Barron, we sinners are all just “children who have wandered into danger”), while ignoring the perfectly clear note of warning to those who do not believe. But the only-begotten Son is, of course, a sign of contradiction, destined precisely for the rise and the ruin of many.]

Does the Father hate sinners? No, but he hates sin. Does God harbor indignation at the unjust? No, but God despises injustice. Thus God sends his Son, not gleefully to see him suffer, but compassionately to set things right. 

[Okay, Bishop, but I wonder: Is sin really more hateful than a sinner? Is injustice really more hateful than an unjust person? Are particular acts of wickedness really more hateful than the source of wickedness, the heart from which wickedness comes (see, e.g., Mark 7:20)? In Revelation 3:16, does God threaten to vomit the lukewarm believer from his mouth, or just the sin of lukewarmness? How about this: Does the Father hate unbelievers? No – but he condemns them. Does the Father hate sinners? No – but he condemns them if they do not believe in his only-begotten Son. As for the claim that God does not send his Son “gleefully to see him suffer,” surely that is all-too-obvious; but Barron’s claim that instead he sends him “compassionately to set things right” seems to be also not correct, and certainly more of a trite platitude than a satisfying explanation of Christ’s mission and death by crucifixion.]

St. Anselm, the great medieval theologian, who is often unfairly blamed for the cruel theology of satisfaction, was eminently clear on this score. We sinners are like diamonds that have fallen into the muck. Made in the image of God, we have soiled ourselves through violence and hatred. God, claimed Anselm, could have simply pronounced a word of forgiveness from heaven, but this would not have solved the problem. It would not have restored the diamonds to their original brilliance. Instead, in his passion to reestablish the beauty of creation, God came down into the muck of sin and death, brought the diamonds up, and then polished them off. 

[It would be worth examining some actual Anselmian texts here. Again, however, this seems clearly not what God came to do: “re-establish the beauty of creation” – and if that was what God had wanted to do, Barron has still not at all explained why the awful, bloody cross was necessary for this, or even why it was helpful. We should also note that Barron gives no evidence of believing in original sin here: he claims that we have “fallen into the muck,” we have “soiled ourselves through violence and hatred.” This sounds like personal sin. But the first sin was a sin of pride and disobedience to God, and we are all “in the muck” not primarily because of our “violence and hatred” (personal sins), but because of the Fall: we universally inherit the fallen condition (our understanding, willing, and desiring are all more or less out of whack), that is, we inherit the original divine punishment of the original human sin against God. The prevalence and inevitability of our personal sins (violence, hatred, etc.) follow from our being in this penal state.]

In so doing of course, God had to get dirty. This sinking into the dirt—this divine solidarity with the lost—is the “sacrifice” which the Son makes to the infinite pleasure of the Father. It is the sacrifice expressive, not of anger or vengeance, but of compassion. 

[“In doing so of course, God had to get dirty.” Oy! What to say? Just, oy! This explains nothing! Why would his only-begotten Son’s “sinking into the dirt” give “infinite pleasure” to the Father? “Solidarity with the lost” sounds nice, but again, the bit about condemning unbelievers is conspicuously unaccounted for.]

Jesus said that any disciple of his must be willing to take up his cross and follow the master. If God is self-forgetting love even to the point of death, then we must be such love. If God is willing to break open his own heart, then we must be willing to break open our hearts from [for?] others. The cross, in short, must become the very structure of the Christian life.

[First, yes, Jesus said that. But secondly and thirdly, the two “if-then” statements that follow stand sorely in need of some explaining. Likewise, the cross is certainly a central symbol in Christian doctrine and life, but it’s not at all clear what it means to say that it “must become the very structure of the Christian life.” It is easy enough to see how various parts of Christian life need to be related to the cross, but very difficult to see how the cross itself could become the very structure of Christian life. Perhaps a better candidate for “the very structure of Christian life” would be just the Christian faith, in its entirety (belief, morality, prayer, sacraments, form of worship), as handed down through the apostles. (Of course ‘the cross,’ while not becoming the very structure, has an important place within this structure.)]

"Let us be frank. Our opinions were not honestly come by..."

People are ignorant. This is a permanent part of the human condition (we have limited intellectual capacity, limited resources for developing those capacities, and limited will to do so). Thus, ignorance, just in itself, is not at all a moral defect. (In itself ignorance is purely intellectual, that is, in itself ignorance is not imputable to the will).

But people are not wholly ignorant (again, we do at least have limited intellectual capacity, limited resources for developing those capacities, and a limited will to do so). So ignorance, together with the concrete circumstances in which it arises, very often is connected to moral defect. (It very often does involve a defect of the will, i.e., evil choices.)

A priest-friend commented earlier this week to a small group of us that he simply couldn’t understand how so many people could go through life ignoring God, not praying, not seeking the truth, not seeking to know God’s will and plan for them. It utterly baffled him! His simply confessed bafflement made me smile and chuckle a bit, I’m not entirely sure why, but I suppose I felt a kind of delight because his bafflement, so frankly and simply expressed, is in fact so well justified: no matter how confused and ignorant people are (including, often, the seemingly most clever people), at bottom it is that simple and there’s nothing complicated about it: God is important and it’s very difficult to come up with any good excuses for failing to recognize that and do something about it.

“Let us be frank. Our opinions were not honestly come by. We simply found ourselves in contact with a certain current of ideas and plunged into it because it seemed modern and successful. At College, you know, we just started automatically writing the kind of essays that got good marks and saying the kind of things that won applause. When, in our whole lives, did we honestly face, in solitude, the one question on which all turned: whether after all the Supernatural might not in fact occur? When did we put up one moment's real resistance to the loss of our faith?”

(C.S. Lewis, “The Great Divorce”)

Environmentalism and intrinsic evil

What should we say about someone who, faced with the option of voting for a Nazi candidate, urges careful consideration of the pros and cons? “We should avoid violent anti-Semitism and such. But we also need to promote effective strategies for national stability and security through economic recovery. We face very difficult choices.” Hopefully we would not be impressed. Why? Because such a person fails to recognize that you cannot promote or cooperate with something that is intrinsically evil (violent anti-Semitism) in order to gain something that is good (economic recovery).

What should we say about someone who, faced with the option of voting for a Nazi candidate, urges careful consideration only of the pros? “The Nazis have an effective plan for restoring our ruined economy. It is very important that we get out and vote.” Such a person appears not to even care about the intrinsic evil being promoted by the Nazis. In this case, even more than in the first, anyone who has a well-formed conscience should be disgusted and angry in the face of such rhetoric.

The first case here is analogous to that of the CCCB’s shameful and useless “Election Guide” (http://www.cccb.ca/site/eng/).

The second is analogous to the agenda promoted by Development and Peace (https://www.devp.org/en).

The second also corresponds to the recent urging of our parish D&P rep to "get out and vote because we need change" (the clear implication for us being, for anyone with even the slightest mastery of logic: get rid of our incumbent pro-life Conservative candidate!). And the change that we need is what? The only issue she mentioned was what? Saving planet earth! To think that that is compatible with the gospel of Christ is gravely erroneous and surely betrays a malformed conscience.

Of course, I am aware of Pope Francis’s Laudato si, wherein he points out that the earth is our common home and that we must care for it and exercise responsible stewardship. These general points are true and indeed obvious, although it is not at all obvious, and certainly not within the authoritative competency of the pope as such, how best to go about actually exercising responsible stewardship (to insinuate otherwise is either grossly naïve or simply disingenuous). But to think that Laudato si constitutes an excuse for those who would completely ignore basic issues regarding intrinsically evil acts (abortion, contraception, euthanasia, violation of conscience, etc.), in order to promote highly debatable and tendentious prudential recommendations directed towards exercising responsible stewardship of the earth? Surely no one could seriously believe this!

It is not always possible or obligatory to do good (ponder well the words of St Paul: “created nature has been condemned to frustration”); but it is always possible and obligatory to refuse to do evil. In the words of Pope Saint John Paul II (Veritatis splendor, §52): “It is always possible that man, as the result of coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not doing certain actions, especially if he is prepared to die rather than to do evil.”* And for those who want to ignore this, who want to promote good by ignoring and cooperating with intrinsic evil, consider directly the gospel of Christ: “What sorrow awaits the world, because it tempts people to sin. Temptations are inevitable, but what sorrow awaits the person who does the tempting.” Or another translation: “Woe to the world, for the hurt done to consciences! It must needs be that such hurt should come, but woe to the man through whom it comes!” (Matthew 18, 7)

*[This idea is powerfully evoked by Dostoevski in The Brothers Karamazov:  “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 [perhaps even saving Mother Earth!], but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature – that little child 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.”]

So go ahead and consider Laudato si; or, if you like, consider this synod intervention of Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles: “I believe that the church must present a new evangelical catechesis on creation, as an essential element of the new evangelization. We must proclaim the beauty of God's plan of love for creation, for the human person, and for the human family. Our new evangelization must proclaim an integral human ecology that reveals the nature, vocation and theology of the human person as created by God.” Would such statements in any way suggest that we may now ignore and cooperate with intrinsic evil, in order to promote this ‘integral human ecology’? Of course not! That would be an absurd suggestion. Any Catholic with a well-formed conscience must clearly understand that an integral, indeed the most fundamental, part of any authentic ‘integral human ecology’ must be the recognition of the intrinsic dignity and inviolability of all innocent human life, from conception until natural death. To promote more recycling and energy-efficient practices at the expense of ignoring this fundamental imperative is unconscionable. It is utterly incompatible with both the natural law and with the gospel of Christ, the revelation handed down through the apostles, the deposit of faith.

Any Catholic who thinks to appeal to Pope Francis to justify some other view should ponder this: “The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in order that, by his revelation, they might disclose new teachings, but so that, by His assistance, they might devoutly guard the revelation handed down from the apostles, the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth” (from the Decrees of the First Vatican Council). In the words of St Paul: “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!” These are strong words, but the Church and the world urgently need clarity here: in promoting some project that we think is good, we are not permitted to promote, cooperate in, or ignore intrinsic evil.

"My kingdom is not of this world" - but vote! (or not)

"My kingdom is not of this world" - but vote! (Unless you are young and/or foolish and have no understanding of the important issues, have a poorly formed conscience, etc. - in that case, don't vote!) We have recently had a couple of spiels after mass from our parish D&P rep. I wrote the following as a response:


“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."