Thursday, July 6, 2017

The Evil in Men's Hearts...

Today I read an article in the Daily Mail from 2016 which told the story of a young boy in Lagos who had been accused of stealing from the community. He was seized by a mob, his feet were bound so he could not run, and he was beaten and burned to death. A link to the article is here. There is a video in the article that I am not encouraging you to watch. I am merely posting this as an example of what happens when we do not value the Individual. When we believe we get our value from the groups we identify with.

This boy, whatever he did, was "the other", the one outside the mob. He was the one individual that THEY, "the community", didn't value or think worthy enough to live. He was arbitrarily declared "evil", and evil, as we all know, is a threat to the community, and so it must be cut out.

I am sure the members of the community that tortured and burned this boy to death, went away without remorse, I bet some of them had a sense of righteousness, that they had done the right thing, a good thing. I fear too, that some of them took delight in the cruelty they inflicted. But they are wrong!

Evil, or at least the potential for evil, resides in every human heart. It struggles with the Love, or potential for love, that resides there also. Evil likes to mock goodness, it masquerades as good, it hides as virtue, and it tries to tell you that you are worthless. That others don't matter unless they help you in some way. Evil tells you that there is no point to suffering, and that life of suffering is pointless and people have no more value than ants and can be crushed underfoot for the greater good because it is all meaningless in the end anyway.

Evil is a liar!

The problem I have with identity politics, with social justice warriors campaigning for the "rights" of the ever expanding plethora of "victim" communities is that it does not value the individual over the group. In the West we have civilised the mob mentality, we identify the oppressor, the privileged, the "other". We declare ourselves virtuous, and the "other" is anyone who threatens our "community" or the "community" we stand in solidarity with.

Richard Spencer attacked on the street.
In the West, we are not as barbaric as the people who tortured and burned this boy alive, or so we lie to ourselves. Yet, we say "it's
Sean Stiles was hit over the head
with a bike lock by an ANTIFA protester.
alright to punch a NAZI in the face," we think it is reasonable to hit a stranger in the head with a bike lock because he is on the "other" side of our protest. We think it is a reasonable step to shoot politicians who we see as a threat to our values. We think we have the right to shut down people speaking because they might say something that
Congressman Scalise shot by a
left-wing ideologue.
 we disagree with, or that
might give offence or hurt our feelings. We think it is alright to kill children in the womb because they threaten the circumstances of our lives. We lie to ourselves all the time.

A text book image depicting how to
perform an abortion.
The truth is, however, we are no more civilised. It was people in the west who developed the pernicious and evil ideologies of communism and socialism that were collectively responsible for the cruel deaths of hundreds of millions of individuals because they were deemed the "other" by a society that valued the "community" with which they identified over the individual.

We are no more civilised than the individuals who made up the mob that cruelly murdered this child BECAUSE we are no more human than they are. We are, each of us, responsible for our own actions and helping those around us where we can. Instead of fighting for victim classes, for "communities" that are oppressed, we should first love. Love this individual who is being "victimised". Love the individual who is victimising them. Try to understand the situation, try to explain it, try to improve it. This is how we best make a difference. There is meaning to life. There is meaning in suffering, it is not the message we want to hear perhaps, but it has a very profound meaning. We grow as human beings through suffering and sacrifice. It is not the group we identify with that makes us virtuous, it is the way we confront the suffering we find in our lives that does. It is the way we allow Love to rule over the evil in our hearts, the way we let Truth banish lies from our lives, and the way we value the individuals who wind their way through our lives for who they are and not which "community" or group they identify with.

"The line between good and evil runs down the middle of every human heart," how we confront the evil each of us is capable of will determine how we confront true societal evils that threaten us all.
A person's character is built by courage, honesty and love. Make Love your God.

"God is Love." (1 Jn 4:8)

Sunday, April 10, 2016

A Matter of Intention

Friday's release of the disastrous Amoris Laetitia has raised more questions than it answers. That is, I think, it's intention.... though is is the intention that causes me the most worry. You see, I think that the whole divorce and remarried being admitted to Holy Communion thing is a ruse to distract us from the real goal of this document. That is to change the intention of the Church in the matter of the consecration of the Holy Eucharist. The "pastoral" practice advocated in this document means that the intention of the Church in confecting the Eucharist will expand to permit the desecration of the Holy Eucharist by way of permitting persons in an objective state of mortal sin to receive Holy Communion. I asked a friend, a bishop of the Catholic Church to answer my queries on this matter. I will keep you appraised (while protecting his identity) of the answer.
My Lord,
Without changing any doctrine of the Church, it seems that Pope Francis has permitted situation ethics to take precedence over the rule of law, even the natural law, in the pastoral practice of the Church (cf. AL. #304 including footnote. I recommend a fuller reading of St Thomas to see the context from which this quote has been torn).
It seems also that he is using this situation ethics to recommend a guideline which is open to the prospect of admitting living in "irregular" situation, even though these be "an objective situation of sin", to the sacraments (cf, AL. #305 and footnote in which he specifically mentions confession and the Eucharist.).  
My question has to do with the nature of the Eucharist and the intention of the Church. It is my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, that in order to confect the Eucharist there must be valid matter, form and intention. The priest need only intend to do what the Church does and the Church will supply the proper intent to cover any defect in the priest's own belief or understanding. The intention of the Church, then is to follow the Lord's command to "Do this in memory of me" to transubstantiate the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for our sanctification, vivification and consolation on our journey towards our true homeland in heaven. It is also done that we might also give due honour, worship and glory to God, that we might receive the bread of life, and adore Him who saved us by His death on the Cross and revealed the resurrection and who revealed that He would be with us even to the end of the world. The Church then, and the Clergy in particular, has the solemn duty to safeguard the Sacred Species from all harm, dishonour, blasphemy and desecration. To this end, the Church since the days of St Paul has counselled that whoever eats and drinks unworthily bring judgement on themselves. Our Lord taught specifically that divorce and remarriage is adultery and the Church has maintained the discipline of not admitting the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion (cf, Familiaris Consortio #84.)
If a priest, then, using the moral relativism of Amoris Laetitia #304, determines that a person living in an objectively sinful situation is not subjectively that sinful, and in the process of accompanying them on their journey and using the principal of "gradualism" decides to admit certain divorced and remarried persons to Holy Communion, is he not changing his intention. Is he not intending to permit the blasphemous reception of Holy Communion by an unrepentant person, and if he intends to allow the desecration of the Sacred Species for whatever "pastoral" reason he may use as justification, is the consecration still valid. For the same reason that a priest cannot validly consecrate hosts for a Satanic Black Mass, the intention is either directly or indirectly to desecrate the Holiest of the Holy, and that is not the intention of the Church, at least up until now.
That brings me to my next question, has Pope Francis, for all intents and purposes just changed the intention of the Church? Has he not severed the Church from the roots of the Apostolic Tradition? I am not asking this for any reason other than my own clarification. I am not trying to put you on the spot. I am genuinely at the doorstep of the Church, and while I will never abandon Christ or the faith, I am at the point where I am ready to reject the magisterium of Pope Francis in total. I think we could be witnessing the final harvest, the separation of the chaff from the wheat. I need guidance from someone I trust.
I am ever yours in Christ,
Temple Police.