Francis to America: Christ-like hugs all around!

Francis to America: Christ-like hugs all around!

In commenting on the generally tragic movement of the anti-Christian bar in Indiana and Arkansas recently, D.C. Cd. Donald Wuerl opens with a glowing discussion of the Pope’s Christlike openness and outreach.

When Pope Francis comes to the United States in September, his message will be that “God loves all of us the way we are” and “God asks us to love one another,” said Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl of Washington.

“We see in him not just the message, but how you do it,” the cardinal said in an interview with Fox News on Easter. “The way in which he lives, treats people, responds to people says, I think, to many people … he sounds and looks a lot like what Jesus would have sounded like.”

Cardinal Wuerl said that “a beautiful part of his ministry” and why people find Pope Francis “so inviting” is that “he keeps saying, ‘Go out, meet people where they are, and accompany them on their journey,’ so that perhaps all of us could get a little closer to where we all need to be.”

I find this kind of thing ugly. Why do we always have to be treated to some kind of verbal embrace when we hear about the Pope? Don’t worry sinner. Here, have a hug! I know you can’t help it. You’re just that way!

It’s not love. It’s just warmth, and it’s not what Jesus would have sounded like at all.

Jesus sounded like He did in the Bible.  Those are His words, yes?  If Jesus sounded like Pope Francis they never would have killed him.  They would have begged him to come visit and praised him in the Temple.

In the Fox interview, Cardinal Wuerl discussed the ongoing debate on religious freedom and discrimination, saying that people involved in that debate need to realize there is strong discrimination against the Catholic Church.

“If we talk about discrimination, then we also have to talk about discriminating against the Catholic Church, its teachings and its ability to carry out its mission,” he said.

“No one should be forced to follow the actions of another and accept the actions of another. … Our schools should be free to teach. We don’t believe in abortion, and we need to be free to teach that,” the cardinal told Fox News.

He also talked about, for instance, the situation of a Christian baker being forced to make a cake for a same-sex wedding when the baker is morally opposed to such marriages.

Cardinal Wuerl asked whether the use of anti-discrimination laws is seen as one-way street.

“I wonder if across the board we’re not seeing different measuring rods being used when it comes to issues that we’re facing here, for example,” he said. “Why would it be discrimination for a Catholic university to say we’re not going to allow a gay rights or an abortion rights group to have their program on our campus, and it not be discrimination for that group to insist that the Catholic school change its teaching?”

In one case, the Christian owners of a bakery in Oregon face a fine of $150,000 after being found guilty of violating a state anti-discrimination law for declining to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

Cardinal Wuerl said he believes there must be a way to “recognize the dignity of everyone and at the same time recognize the freedom and the rights, especially religious liberty, of everyone.”

It’s encouraging and appropriate to hear the powerful American cardinal make an eloquent defense of Christians, but does it really matter now that we’ve lost this battle and our side wants to pretend we’re still negotiating?

 

 

francis dove

Oh Pope Francis, work your magic!

 

As the frightening Obama Iran Nuke capitulation seems perhaps to be stalling on all sides; John Allen, Pope Francis, and Obama remain believers.  Seeing how effective the Pope was in lining America up with the Cuban thug regime, Allen suggests it’s time for Pope Francis work another miracle. Will the Vicar of Christ come through?

Popes generally use their Easter Urbi et Orbi address, “to the city and the world,” to pray for peace amid global conflicts. Francis followed that tradition on Sunday, among other things commenting on a tentative nuclear deal between the P5+1 nations, including the United States, and Iran.

The pontiff said, “In hope we entrust to the merciful Lord the framework recently agreed to in Lausanne, that it may be a definitive step toward a more secure and fraternal world.”

That may not amount to a direct endorsement, but it’s certainly more favorable than the commentary coming from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Republicans in Congress about the outline for an accord reached April 2 in Switzerland, not to mention Iranian hardliners who see it as a threat to their national interests. (On Monday, Israel backed off its insistence that Iran halt all uranium enrichment, a move seen as acknowledgement that the pact required concessions on all sides.)

What is the political point of Pope Francis?  Is it to go around lending ‘spiritual’ leverage to enemies of the Church worldwide?  Why do John Boehner, Jeb Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden all seem to be faithful new Catholics of FrancisChurch?  Does he have something they all want?

Moderates on both sides of the divide, in other words, may struggle to bring along the hawks in their own shops. In that effort, the Vatican could turn out to be a surprisingly potent resource.

First of all, Pope Francis has plenty of political capital at the moment because of his high approval ratings and perceptions of his moral authority. He also has a proven capacity to translate that capital into results, as his role in restoring relations between the United States and Cuba illustrates.

If Francis were to lend his seal of approval to the nuclear deal, even campaigning for it in the oblique but unmistakable way popes sometimes do on political matters, it could move the needle in terms of public opinion.

On a more long-term basis, the Vatican may be the global institution with the best shot at rebuilding trust between Iran and the West.

Is it ‘building trust’ or just lending false credibility in the name of Christ?

 

 

Chair warmers

Chair warmers

At the Remnant, Hilary White’s title says it all:

Vatican OK with using force as “last resort” against ISIS, on the off chance we might come to it some day

In our world today there is nothing detectable whatsoever in the way of Christian power. We have numbers, but we are completely enervated, sleeping, smothered, choked – you choose the descriptor. We are like an enormous man dying.

Are we to give a sigh of relief, or a cheer, that the Vatican seems finally to be noticing that Christians are being systematically wiped out en masse in the cradle of Christian civilisation? Or that they are telling the UN Human Rights Council that the use of force “may” be used as a “very last choice,” to defend them?

Some news services are reporting that the Vatican “says military force should be harnessed,” in response to the growing threat of ISIS, but I think this might be a bit strong. I’m pretty sure the word “should” was a bit of journalistic license. At the press conference, Time quotes the Vatican’s UN delegate Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, saying, “We have to stop this kind of genocide.”

“Otherwise we’ll be crying out in the future about why we didn’t do something, why we allowed such a terrible tragedy to happen.”

Alright, but the official joint statement says… well, what, exactly?

The Middle East is living in a situation of instability and conflict that recently have been aggravated. The consequences are disastrous for the entire population of the region. The existence of many religious communities is seriously threatened. Christians are now especially affected. These days even their survival is in question.

Efforts to build a better future for all are frustrated. We witness a situation where violence, religious and ethnic hatred, fundamentalist radicalism, extremism, intolerance, exclusion, destruction of the social fabric of whole societies and communities are becoming the features of a non-viable political and social model, endangering the very existence of many communities, the Christian community in particular.

Why is it necessary that our Holy Church in it’s officials acts and it’s application of doctrine must be entirely passive, even declining to use words on behalf of Christianity itself?  In short, what good actually does the Vatican do? Isn’t diplomacy just what happens when nothing is really happening?

We are talking about ISIS, of course, as everyone knows. ISIS, the Islamic supremacist group that grew, with the help of US backing, out of the “rebels” fighting the Assad government in Syria, and has now declared itself the new “Caliphate” to fulfill the command of Mohammed to dominate the whole world. ISIS, only one of the group’s acronyms, stands for “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria,” and the motivation for its goals is the issue that is being so carefully avoided with such determined diplomatic use of the passive voice.

And all the world knows what ISIS is doing: mass slaughter, mass rapes and enslavement of captives, mass deportations, child soldiers, beheadings, crucifixions, burning captives alive, bulldozing and setting fire to churches, monasteries, towns and villages, jackhammering away any cultural or historic trace of anything that is not specifically Sunni Islamic. But diminished and chest-less modern men, apparently even those representing the Vatican, seem incapable of forthrightly condemning this monstrous Old Testament scenery.

Instead we have from the ostensible leaders of Christianity, an apparently unbreakable habit of dainty, non-committal, UN committee-approved terms like “terrorist groups,” the “so-called Islamic State,” who are creating “a situation of instability and conflict” by committing “human rights violations, repression and abuses.”

In the statement’s strongest language – still doggedly retaining the passive voice – it admits that Christian communities are subject to “barbaric acts of violence: they are deprived of homes, driven from their native lands, sold into slavery, killed, beheaded and burnt alive. Dozens of Christian churches, and ancient shrines of all religions have been destroyed.”

But there is no expression of normal, human outrage, no horror at this, no booming demands for international military intervention. Instead, the situation “raises deep concerns.” This is always coupled with the continued insistence that force can be used only as a last possible resort, and no hint at all how many have to die before we may divine when that point has been reached.

The only force that will be insisted upon for the moment will be the force of dialogue, the force of ‘encounter’ – you know those contemporary pseudo-Christian imperatives which honor and elevate the dishonorable and deadly.

Perhaps most depressing in this minimalist and insipid declarative sentence is the meticulous avoidance – by the Catholic Church – of any mention that the Christians in the Middle East were there first. This and gaping eloquent silence on the long history of Islamic conquest and brutal subjugation – is all the acknowledgement they get from the pope’s representative for 1700 years of suffering.

For every Christian life and village taken today there will countless generations of hopelessness and suffering.  Islam, engendered in terror, blackened what was once the great ancient and Christian world well over a thousand years ago.  What will it make of Europe now?

So, why is it a bad thing to violently wipe out the remaining shreds of the (native) Christian civilisation? Well, because, Diversity!

In our globalized world, pluralism is an enrichment. The presence and the contributions of ethnic and religious communities reflect an ancient diversity and a common heritage. A future without the different communities in the Middle East will run a high risk of new forms of violence, exclusion, and the absence of peace and development.

A journalist friend in Rome told me that he has occasionally interviewed high-ranking representatives of the Vatican’s diplomatic service and confronted them about their habitual diffidence and addiction to UN-speak. He said that he asked why in none of their official statements they ever actually come out and say anything Christian. That they never forthrightly proclaim that Christianity – that Christ – is the solution to all this. The reaction, he said, was one of blank incomprehension.

In fact, the statement says little about anything, and nothing the world needed to be told about the Middle East, Islam or ISIS. But it does certainly say a lot about its authors and about the deeply engrained culture of diffidence, passivity and, frankly, relativistic weakness – of an absence of belief – that rules all the institutions of the formerly Christian West, and, perhaps particularly egregiously, is the favoured language of official Vatican pronouncements. Certainly there is nothing here to upset the sensitivities of the internationalist bureaucrats, the “aggressive secularists” at the EU who famously refused to acknowledge even the historical existence of Christendom.

Why do we throw our hands up while a feckless, faithless hierarchy destroys the Church?

Much is made today of the danger of sexual sins, of the reality of Hell, and the widespread disregard for chastity.  We also hear volumes at the moment (even if only to advocate for statist policy) about the sin of neglect for the needy.  But I don’t think Our Lord or Our Mother in Heaven will lament those sins the most when they have the final say on our generation.

I think they will wonder at our cowardice, our failure to do like Peter and Paul: to stand in the Temple and defend the Faith.  They will be pleased with our Rosaries said outside abortuaries, but they will wonder why we let so many die in sin or at the hands of killers who hate Truth.