Stephen Roney's Blog, page 129

Forgiveness

 

Parable of the Good Samaritan

The gospel reading this week was the parable of the Good Samaritan. It is unusual among parables in that the message is clear, if often ignored: you must love your neighbour; and your neighbour is not someone who lives near you, or someone of the same religion, or race, or ethnicity, or gender, or anything else, but any good person, or any even unknown person in need of help.

The priest at my wife’s parish in the Philippines managed to twist it instead into a sermon on how we must forgive those who wrong us; that the problem it was meant to address was anger. How he derived this from the passage is hard to guess. My wife says he lead into it by arguing that the priest who walked by and did not help the poor victim lying n the ditch was doing so because priests in ancient Israel were not allowed to touch blood.

So we are being unjust in criticizing him or the Levite, and praising the Samaritan over them. 

No word on what we should feel about the poor guy lying in the ditch.

Having been the victim of childhood abuse, and therefore caring deeply about right and wrong, and about being assaulted and having no one lend a hand, my wife says it was all she could do not to stand up and argue with him during the sermon. As it was, she became literally sick to her stomach, and had to leave in the middle of the service. It took her some hours to recover.

Such a view serves those who enjoy doing evil. It inflicts an additional cruelty on those who have been wronged, making them feel guilty about it instead of offering support. It was the Devil himself preaching. But it is only too common a sermon to hear these days: “forgive, forgive.” “The problem is not the sin, but the condemnation of the sin. Nobody should criticize anyone, and then we would all live in peace and harmony.” One is supposed to offer “unconditional love.”

For the record, the Bible does call for forgiveness of those who have wronged us; but only if and when they have admitted their sin, asked for forgiveness, and attempted restitution or done penance. This ought to be clear to a priest, since it is what is required for a valid confession.

Anyone who preaches this false doctrine of ignoring sin or wrong automatically condemns themself: for if the fault is not in the sin but in criticizing the sin, then they are still at fault, for criticizing the criticism of the sin as a sin.

Moreover, to ignore sin in another is to condemn them to Hell. This is not a neighbourly act. To endorse it is also to become an accessory, and guilty of the sin yourself.

To deny sin is sin is the very sin against the Holy Spirit which Jesus describes as unforgivable.

And we now must often hear it preached from the pulpit.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Us and Them

 

A leftist friend posts this cartoon on Facebook, with the caption “the public good vs. individual liberty.”

It’s been bugging me. No doubt because it looks superficially true. The right stresses individual liberty. The left stresses group identity. This looks from a distance like selfishness. Individual = self = selfishness.

Nevertheless, conservatives consistently give more to charity, do more volunteer work, and are more likely to belong to voluntary associations—think churches. In other words, they care more about community than the left. The left may speak of “community,” but they generally mean people they do not know who share the same interests. Here “community” is a euphemism for “tribe” or “special interest group.”

Selfishness has nothing to do with individualism. Stressing one’s individualism necessarily sets one apart from the “other.” But, equally, stressing one’s group identity necessarily sets one apart from “them,” the non-members of your group. Either is potentially selfish. But it is easier to be selfish in a group, because the group consensus can drown out the voice of conscience. And group selfishness can do much more harm than an individual. Think the Nazis, the Fascists, Stalinism, Maoism, Pol Pot and the Killing Fields…

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The View from Patmos

 

I heard what seemed to be a voice in the midst of the four living creatures. It said, “A ration of wheat costs a day’s pay,* and three rations of barley cost a day’s pay. But do not damage the olive oil or the wine.”

When he broke open the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature cry out, “Come forward.”

I looked, and there was a pale green* horse. Its rider was named Death, and Hades accompanied him. They were given authority over a quarter of the earth, to kill with sword, famine, and plague, and by means of the beasts of the earth.

I try to avoid apocalyptic thinking; old people are too prone to it. But has anyone noticed that we have already seen two of the four horses of the apocalypse canter by?

COVID-19 has decimated us. Just when it looked as if over, it has mutated into something more dangerous than other recent variants, and is surging again in most of the Northern Hemisphere, even though it is summer. If it does not end up killing us all, monkeypox is in the wings. That’s the first horseman, pestilence.

The war in Ukraine continues; it could in principle at any moment become nuclear, or a world war. It is certainly killing a lot of people, displacing more, and disrupting the food supply everywhere. That’s the second horseman, war.

And partly as a result of the first, partly as a result of the second, food shortages are beginning to appear. Many predict worse by the fall, and perhaps famine in some parts of the world. That’s the third horseman, famine.

Is the fourth horseman on the horizon: Death? Perhaps that refers, broadly, to the doctrine of human “overpopulation”; environmentalism, “climate change.” What John Paul II called the “culture of death.” This horse is green, at least in the ASV translation; and he seems to correspond a verse or two later with “the beasts of the earth.” Environmentalism is indeed causing severe problems in the Netherlands. In principle, environmentalism wants to kill most of us. The recently mysteriously destroyed Georgia guidestones advocated a total human population of no more than 500 million.

The signs of the apocalypse are so vague that they can probably be made to fit the events of any era. Indeed, I believe they were not meant to be a prediction of the future, but a description of the eternal present as a war against good and evil. Jesus himself warns against trying to predict the end time. “Nobody knows the day or the hour”; he will come “like a thief in the night.” Were things really more orderly and coherent in the 1930s? The 1960s? 

So no, I reject the thought that this is literally apocalyptic. But the Devil is playing his tricks. There is an intelligence behind this; a Satanic weltanschauung. It has many names: “the great reset”; “the new world order”; “critical theory”; “postmodernism”; “social justice.”

More simply, evil is being allowed its day. 

It is given dominion, according to St. John, over a quarter of the earth. That’s enough to do a lot of damage.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Murder Cows

 

Dutch farmers are protesting, a protest that seems to be spreading across Europe. The Dutch government—and other European governments, in principle—are forcing farmers to cut their herds, due to the possible effect of cows on global warming. This makes many family farms uneconomical; family farming is always on a tight margin. In Europe, this can mean losing a farm that has been in the family not just for generations, but for centuries.

Given that global warming is a clear and present danger—a debatable claim—it still seems odd to press for this just now. Experts are warning we are on the verge of a general food shortage and possible famine, due to existing supply chain problems and the war in Ukraine. Why now?

It also seems unlikely that the main cause of global warming is European family farms. Are there really more cows in Europe now than a hundred, or five hundred, years ago? If so, might the projected decline in the European population solve the problem without such measures?

This is eerily reminiscent of the Canadian government’s insistence, recently, that all truckers had to be vaccinated against COVID. Even though ninety percent already were; even though they came in contact with virtually nobody in their jobs; even though we were facing severe supply chain disruptions.

Why are governments taking such radical actions that seem to be against the public interest?

It is not because of global warming, and it is not because of COVID; because different governments are appealing to different supposed emergencies. There has to be an ulterior motive. One they do not want to admit to.

Thomas Jefferson, inventor of liberal democracy, maintained that a liberal democracy, in order to survive, required independent freeholders—family farmers. If governments became oppressive, only independent freeholders had the resources to resist. Only they were not beholden to the system, surviving paycheck to paycheck. If necessary in order to organize opposition, they could survive for a time off the grid, outside the system, feeding themselves and their families. 

Add to them truckers; if one jurisdiction becomes oppressive, truckers can move with their livelihood elsewhere, even if necessary living in their truck. This continues in a way the tradition of the open west; a tradition of migration that may also historically have ensured American freedom. 

If governments are in open confrontation with these two groups, it means government wants to shut this option down. It means their intent is to terminate our ability to resist or change our government.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The Invisible Empire

 

I understand that Russian popular propaganda is more often targeted against the British than against the Americans.

This might seem odd, since either militarily or economically, the Americans are stronger.

But Russia is run by the secret service, and long has been. I remember talking years ago with a well-educated Russian émigré who had Marxist sympathies, and probably once moved in high circles. He expressed with grudging admiration the opinion that nobody could touch the British civil service for efficient bureaucratic control.

I suspect the Russians think the British MI5 is worth more than all the American factories and armaments. And perhaps they are right.

I also suspect that the Russians believe that, for all the USA’s strength on paper, they can be managed. Largely due to their incompetence at intrigue. The Russians probably figure they can control key people. Notably including Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. The evidence of this is more or less in plain sight, on Hunter Biden’s laptop, and in Hillary Clinton’s storage of all her government files on a private Ukrainian server. The claims from the very same people that Trump was a Russian asset, or that Tulsi Gabbard is, were classic examples of misdirection.

I suspect China is playing the same game. Why wouldn’t they? Biden just began selling off the US strategic oil reserve, at a time of growing international tensions—and sending some of it to China. It is hard to account for some of the things he does with mere incompetence. It looks like deliberate sabotage.

Other Western government seem to be doing self-destructive things. Notably Canada’s. Might other politicians be bought?

We know the current elite is selfish, and look to their own interests instead of the general welfare. So why wouldn’t they?

Britain may be relatively immune for a variety of reasons. Long experience at espionage, for one. The remarkable ability of the English to conceal their true feelings, making them ideal spies. Global contacts thanks to the old empire. And a surviving tradition of personal honour and duty; the code of the old ruling class.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Brownout

 

I have to admit to a sense of satisfaction about Patrick Brown being tossed out of the CPC leadership race by the party. It feels as though justice has been served.

There is a danger of the leadership race being manipulated by the party brass; this seems to have happened in the last race, which selected Erin O’Toole. On the other hand, candidates cannot be allowed to flout the rules, either; as seemed to happen when Patrick Brown won the Ontario leadership, or when Mulroney beat Clark for the federal job. And in Brown’s campaign, something smelled wrong. Why and how would a mere small-city mayor get so many new party members signed up, when his platform was indistinguishable from that of a much higher-profile candidate, Jean Charest? Not to mention Brown’s prior history of political jiggery-pokery. 

It feels like a much cleaner Conservative party with Brown out of the running.

Charest can hope to get the lion’s share of Brown’s support, if we count only votes that were not bought. This will allow him to mount a stronger challenge on the first ballot. But he was always likely to be a Brown voter’s second choice, and get those votes on a later ballot; or vice versa, had Brown outpolled him on the first. And the bought or fraudulent votes from the Brown campaign will probably just evaporate; improving Poilievre’s chances. If he does not take it on the first ballot, Baber’s and Lewis’s voters are likely to have him listed as a later choice. All Charest can still hope for is some of Aitcheson’s supporters. And there is no way Charest is going to lead on the first ballot.

Barring some upset, that looks like a wrap for Pierre P.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The Church Taken in Heresy

 

A Summerside, PEI, community church is in hot water, at least with the CBC, for hosting a talk on “how to protect children from what is happening during Pride Month.” Major attention from our national broadcaster, for one church in a town of 15,000 people. Good that they have their priorities straight. 

Scott Alan, the “youth programme coordinator” of a local gay group, is quoted lamenting, “I grew up always believing that church was a place for people to experience love and community and acceptance. So to see the complete reverse from a church is a little bit upsetting."

Scott Alan.

"What do you think Jesus would do? Would He cast the first stone? Or would He love and accept our community for who we are in hopes that the Holy Spirit would work through us?”

The church is not casting stones. It is simply protecting children from them. 

The relevant Bible passage is probably Matthew 18:6:

“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

Even if it is debatable whether the Bible or Jesus indeed disapprove of gay sex, transgenderism, public displays of sexuality of any sort, and/or the sin of pride, it would still seem prudent to prevent children from being exposed to them. Even if they only might be against their faith.

And the passage from Matthew also explodes Alan’s claim that Jesus and Christianity is all about acceptance of sin. Jesus does not sound very accepting of bad parents in the quotation, does he?

The idea of “gentle Jesus” is from the Devil, not the Bible. In the Bible, Jesus will come to judge the living and the dead. He calls Pharisees a “brood of vipers.” He separates mankind into sheep and goats, and the latter go to eternal punishment.

Alan refers to the story of the woman taken in adultery. But he misrepresents it. Perhaps he has not read it. Jesus refuses to cast the first stone—that is, literally, he refuses to put the woman to death. That does not mean he endorses the sin. He tells her to “go, and sin no more.”

If he said the same to gays or “Gay Pride” marchers and youth workers, would Alan really be satisfied with that? 

For it seems far more accusatory than the Summerside church.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Come the Revolution ...

Some are saying the US is on the brink of civil war.

I wonder if instead they, and all of us, are on the brink of revolution.

People are becoming convinced that government, the big corporations, and media are the common enemy; that there is an immoral “elite” in charge, and they are all colluding for their own interests against the general good.

Jordan Peterson calls it “the fascistic state.” He is right.

Traditionally, the argument between the right and left was because the left thought big corporations were exploiting us, and the government defended us; while the right thought that government was trying to control us, and the free market protected us. Now they are on the same side: the left no longer trusts the government, and the right no longer trusts big corporations.

I think this is largely the result of better communications technology. Veils are being lifted. But I think the ruling elites are also more selfish and less competent than in the past. This comes with the decline of religion and of established moral codes.

I listen to Russel Brand, Jimmy Dore, Joe Rogan, Tim Poole, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Klavan, Michael Knowles, Tucker Carlson. Some are supposedly on the left, some on the right. But they are now mostly saying the same things.

It looks as though it is not going to be a conflict between two communities or points of view, as in the US or the Spanish civil wars. It is going to be a conflict between the people and the elite, as in the French or the Russian Revolution.

Granted that there is another faction: the client groups, like the crazies who want to say men can decide to be woman, who demand safe spaces and de-platforming and “equity.” But they have been groomed to be dependent. As a result, they are unlikely to be a serious factor in any active conflict.

The bad news is that this sort of revolution, that throws out the established powers wholesale, tends to end badly. The American Revolution ended well—but because the elite of the colonies remained in place. It was really a civil war. 

We may come to hope for a civil war.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Happy Independence Day

 

To all my American cousins.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Prosecuting Justin Trudeau

 

The continuing scandals and abuses by the Trudeau-Singh government present a grave problem. It will not be enough to vote the rascals out of government at the next opportunity—assuming there will still eventually be an opportunity. It also seems necessary to exact some greater punishment, for some protection against similar actions by future governments, and to restore public trust. The people must not be in fear of the government.

Yet any possible action looks just about as risky to democracy. If leaders face prosecution on leaving office, this becomes an incentive to refuse to leave office.

Appointing Tamara Lich and other leaders of the Freedom convoy to Lieutenant-Governorships and the Senate might help. It would at least make a statement. Putting up statues of Tamara Lich and of the aboriginal woman trampled by police horses during the February protests might also have symbolic value.

But here’s another, more substantive, idea.

NATO looks on the verge of admitting Finland and Sweden. At its recent summit, it also invited delegations from Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. If all these countries joined, NATO would come close to being an alliance of all the stable liberal democracies. This could be exceptionally useful, for purposes other than mutual defense; for purposes of protecting and preserving liberal democracy everywhere. There is much the United Nations cannot be trusted to do, in terms of human rights, because the bad actors are themselves full members.

NATO could also be appealed to a neutral outside party, in Cases like Canada’s, to prosecute violations of human rights or democratic principles by government bodies within member countries. Should any internal group try to seize or subvert the democratic government, or the democratic process, the alliance could combine against it just as they would an external threat.

This should be an important incentive for governments to join: so long as they are honest, it protects their regime and e3nsures they are not shot in their beds.

Perhaps it would be too intrusive to allow soldiers from Fort Drum to cross the border now; but a subsequent government could refer prosecution of a previous government to NATO as a neutral body, so that it would not be, and would not appear to be, a political show trial; and so that those leaving office could have some expectation of fair treatment. Indeed, the current government might, in all honour, pass prosecution of Tamara Lich and the other convoy leaders, and the investigation of the invocation of the Emergency Act, to such an outside tribunal as well. We could constitute a jury of peers: elected representatives from twelve sister democracies.

The same mechanism could be available to the USA to justly sort out January 6th and Trump’s possible guilt; and the legality of the 2020 federal election. It would no longer be partisan. 

The US might well resist, always sensitive to losing any sovereignty to untrustworthy foreigners. Even so, a formal condemnation by a NATO panel might still be of great moral force.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.