Paedophile priests scandal: an intelligent Atheist perspective.

Some Atheists are better than this. Source:worldofweirdthings.com

It is some months old now, but I would like to mention this very interesting article from Brendan O’Neill.

Brendan O’Neill is an atheist. As such, the “press consensus” fed us by the BBC would want him outraged at the paedophile priest scandal and – as he has been raised as a Catholic – probably to consider himself a victim of some mild form of abuse in the form of Catholic brainswashing.

But if you read his article you’ll discover that an atheist can still maintain a rational attitude in front of a scandal (grave in itself, no doubt!) concerning a religious institution.

He doesn’t try to minimise any crime. He doesn’t whine. He doesn’t predict the end of the Catholic Church or try to say that Pope Benedict’s Papacy is in tatters. He doesn’t tell the Catholic Church how She should change to comply with his own standards.

Instead, you find that he mentions his sources; that he reads them; that he looks at actual numbers and sets them in the broader context of society and societal changes; that his analysis goes beyond the easy barking and shouted sensationalism so typical of those only bent to exploit the “theme du jour”; that his refusal of emotional language and easy headlines is – admirably – as total as his opposition to atheist anti-Christian fanaticism.

Of course, we as Catholics cannot agree with everything he writes and our analysis would be different from his. Still, the honesty of his approach is to be commended.

Please read the (longish) article in its entirety. It is certainly worth the time. I will here only mention its conclusion:

“Whatever you think of the Catholic Church, you should be concerned about today’s abuse-obsession. Events of the (sometimes distant) past which nobody can change are being used to justify dangerous trends in the present. A new kind of society is being solidified on the back of exposing abusive priests, one in which scaremongering supersedes facts, where people redefine themselves as permanently damaged victims, where freedom of thought is problematised, and where parents are considered suspect for not adhering to the superior values of the atheistic elite”.

Mundabor

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to Paedophile priests scandal: an intelligent Atheist perspective.

  1. Brother Burrito says:

    Atheists have full competence to reason well, within the bounds of their known universe. Good on Brendan O’Neil for his intellectual honesty. May his pursuit of Truth bring him to Him.

    Atheists get into trouble when they try to reason about the much larger heaven and earth of Catholics. They are like blind artists, deaf musicians, or anosmic perfumiers.

    And so they produce an ugly result.

    Like

  2. lutonia says:

    In one sense the significant thing is not that this is about a post by an atheist, but about a post by one who loves truth. It is the desire for truth and honesty that makes debate possible. Without it we degenerate first into polemic and then to a slanging match.
    It is good to read this

    Like

  3. Mundabor says:

    “Atheists get into trouble when they try to reason about the much larger heaven and earth of Catholics. They are like blind artists, deaf musicians, or anosmic perfumiers”.

    Very funny and very beautifully put, BB! 😉

    Personally what angers me (I mean, many things anger me; but this one more than many others) is when atheists or people without any concept of religion start thinking that they are the metre of …. other people’s Christianity. For example, the idea that it be “not very Christian” to quarrel about “priestesses”.
    “Everyone as he/she/it likes it” seems to be their idea of Christianity.

    Good night everyone.

    Like

  4. joyfulpapist says:

    Thanks, Mundabor

    I’d missed that article, and it perfectly expresses what I’ve been trying to say to an atheist who has posted on my blog a rather nasty little comment about the Church and its attitude to abortion, sex abuse, and other sins.

    Like

  5. Caroline says:

    This article is a must-read because O’Neill perfectly articulates the manner in which abuse by a few is being used by militant atheists to attack not only the institution of the Church but the right of parents to bring up their own children in the Faith. This is the slipperiest of slopes. Please read the article in its entirety; the implications are staggering.

    Like

  6. Caroline says:

    On the lighter side of the pedophilia issue is Elizabeth Scalia’s “Celibacy Lecture” from her blog, “The Anchoress,” at First Things.

    http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/2010/04/12/the-celibacy-lecture/

    “I have my own response to the “if only priests were not celibate” lecture but because it is a rather mean answer, I only use it if the lecturer has been rude about it. I ask them: was there a period in your life, where you were celibate, either because you hadn’t started having sex, or you had no one to have sex with?

    When they say yes, I ask how they managed, during that time, to battle their instincts to go around sexually abusing adolescents. [My italics]

    Like

  7. toadspittle says:

    It is a good article. I suspect O’Neill’s background is similar to mine, from his name. I personally can’t summon up enough certainty to be either a believer or an atheist, but there you are. O’Neill is right about the over-reaction on pedophilia. Any ‘isolated’ group of society – priests, servicemen (or women) scouts, Foreign Legionairies(?) Submariners, all are at ‘risk’ of same sex relationships.
    More interesting to me was Dawkin’s charge that the very teaching of religion is ‘abuse.’ We can laugh – and do, but as Catholics, would we want our kids taught Islam or Quivering Brethrenism?
    I happen to suspect – along with Rorty (and against everyone else on here) that truth is what other people let you get away with.

    Truth IS relative. When I was young Limbo was true, whatever Mundabor says. And it was untrue that one could stand in the middle of a field in Moratinos and have a conversation with a friend in New York. It would have been witchcraft. All sorts of political assumptions were ‘true’ about communism Russians, Americans, Franco, the welfare state, England’s superioty at football, you name it. Now they’re not.
    I am glad I was ‘indoctrinated’ with Catholicism when young. It encouraged a healthy skepticism. (Well, I think it’s healthy.)

    Like

  8. omvendt says:

    “Truth IS relative.”

    Is that relatively true?

    Maybe, at least on occasion, you should be a little more skeptical about your skepticism.

    Like

  9. cumanus says:

    What weird claims you make toadspittle. You can only be a sceptic if you accept that ultimately truth IS NOT relative, for it’s that that enables you to doubt – to be sceptical about – the truth-claim of any particular assertion, or even all such.

    That’s why a “coherence theory of truth” in the manner of Rorty’s pragmatism, not to mention naive classical or even kick-in-the-balls Humean scepticism, in the long run doesn’t lead anywhere.

    Nice to see you here though, hombre.

    Like

  10. Caroline says:

    Toad:

    “I personally can’t summon up enough certainty to be either a believer or an atheist, but there you are. ” I think I might err on the side of Pascal….

    Like

  11. toadspittle says:

    “Atheists get into trouble when they try to reason about the much larger heaven and earth of Catholics. They are like blind artists, deaf musicians, or anosmic perfumiers”.

    In fact, it is debatable whether atheists (or agnostics or indeed anyone except Catholics) are really fully-formed human beings at all – it says here. Untermensch,(probably spelled wrongly) is what the rest of us are. Best just stand us up against the wall and put us out of our ignorance and misery. Has worked before.

    Now, BB yours is the kind of smug, pompous, self-satisfied brainless comment that gives Catholics a worse (as if they needed one) name than they presently have. No wonder Mundabor liked it.

    Like the ‘aosnomic,’ though. Would be quite an advantage not to be able to smell the ‘noxious stench of fear and brimstone’ that emanates from between the lines on here.

    Like

  12. Mundabor says:

    Moratinos, 2010: “Truth IS relative”

    Pontius Pilatus, 33: “What is Truth?”.

    I think you should start from the beginnings, Moratinos. A reading of the Gospels (and a correct understanding of its cultural implications for which the Gospel is not enough anymore; but you are an excellent reader) will persuade you that Jesus was either God, or a charlatan and imposter of the worst kind. Aut Deus, Aut Homo Malus. This would be, I think, a very good start.

    When you start accepting the simple Truth that Jesus was God Incarnate, all the rest follows. *This* is what allows you to tell why you want Catholicism to be taught to your children, but not Islam, etc.

    You start from the Truth and go on from there guided by the Light of the Truth. You don’t start from the statement of fact that some things you thought true turned out not to be so because laptops and wifi were invented and go on blindly from there.

    M

    Like

  13. Mundabor says:

    Moratinos,

    as far as I know the Limbs Infantium is, qua Limbo, alive and kicking and no one has ever “abolished” it or made it to become “untrue”.

    But – always as far as I know – Limbo is a theological speculation now as it has always been and it has never been defined dogmatically. The Church does never change Her teaching. But she may correct the wrong perception of them and about Limbo I have heard strange things more than once, so clarifications are always welcome but are never “changes of the Truth”. The truth doesn’t change.

    Like

  14. Mundabor says:

    “Now, BB yours is the kind of smug, pompous, self-satisfied brainless comment that gives Catholics a worse (as if they needed one) name than they presently have. No wonder Mundabor liked it”.

    Come on toadspittle, please switch off the angry liberal mode. 😉

    What BB wants to say is that when Atheists want to talk about the faith, they are talking of something they just do not have any instrument to understand. This has nothing to do with being Untermenschen.

    I do not get into any discussion about nuclear physics because this is a sphere of reality which goes simply beyond what I can understand as to offer any reasoned contribution.

    Like

  15. Benedict Carter says:

    Toad:

    Have you not done any research into the miracles with which the whole history of the Catholic Church is littered? They seem to me to be a sure proof not only that God exists but that the claims of the Catholic Church are true.

    It was very noticeable how, in another place, when asked to do this, the atheists became enraged and refused to countenance the possibility that such a thing could exist. It seemed to frighten or enrage them or both.

    Like

  16. omvendt says:

    I suppose the old ‘ad hominem’ is better than nothing if logic is so stubbornly intrusive.

    Like

  17. toadspittle says:

    This blog is already in danger of becoming a lifetime’s work for me. And I doubt if sufficient lifetime left even to handle today’s crop…
    So I will just settle fo Caroline’s point, which I assume to be Pascal’s wager. I happen to think it is the one of the most detestable, grovelling suggestions ever offered in favour of religion and belief.
    And I even suspect that some others, even on here, may well agree.

    But I do absolutely go along with the poor, sickly old thing, (pensee 414) that;

    ”Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness.”

    ( And I’m not angry, Mundador. Really.)

    Like

  18. Benedict Carter says:

    Toad:

    Do you have a Hall, by the way?

    Are you an existentialist? If yes, I hope the Gauloises are not doing you much harm? The two usually seem to go together.

    Like

  19. Mundabor says:

    I know you aren’t, toadspittle (how is that translated into Spanish? 😉 ).

    I do thik that you love to spice the confrontation a bit when you don’t have one of your brilliant jokes ready 😉

    I can take an attack of considering other people Untermenschen. But I will answer with an argument and then wait for the answer to that 😉

    Like

  20. Mundabor says:

    “I happen to think it is the one of the most detestable, grovelling suggestions ever offered in favour of religion and belief”.

    I do agree with you that there are better ways to God. The Church demands prayer, Mass attendance etc. even by those not graced by Faith. The point here – as I see it – is that whilst you may not be able to accept the existence of God rationally, you are requested to be rational enough as to understand the might of the Church’s position. See my post above about Christ’s extremely frequent claims to Divinity. They are so many and so powerful that one cannot just ignore them, whether graced by Faith or not.

    On the wager itself, I’d like to know what is “sordid” in it. To me it makes perfect sense not as a statement of faith, but as a betting reasoning. The fleeting pleasures and ego satisfaction deriving from Atheism risk to be paid at an infinitely high price if the wage on the Atheist horse proves the losing one.

    This is nothing to do with Faith, but all to do with risk and reward. An Atheist will not care because he doesn’t think there is a wage in the first place, but an Agnostic should give it the most careful consideration, I think.

    M

    Like

  21. glynbenedict says:

    Truth is not relative; our perception of it is. Perhaps the best we can say is: “I believe I know what the truth is, and I will follow my conscience in promoting it, but I will be cautious in attacking those who disagree.”

    We are between a rock and a hard place: we need to remember that no-one has a monopoly of the Holy Spirit; but there also needs to be passionate commitment in human affairs, else we all sink into the relativistic mire of indifference. Surely wisdom helps? And wisdom helps to inform conscience.

    Like

  22. toadspittle says:

    At last, a serious question by airy old Mundabor, oddly enough.

    ”Toad” in Spanish is ”Sappo”
    ”Spittle” is ”Saliva (boring) or, alternatively, ”Baba” (fun)
    So, I am ”Babadelsappo” possibly.
    (Had to look it all up. My Spanish is not so good that such words crop up with much frequency. But I must listen more closely in future.)

    I suppose, re Blaize P., that the idea of going along with something simply because it is convenient and risk-free, rather than what one viscerally believes – is repugnant to me. Different for others, no doubt. (Pompous old Toad!)

    Like

  23. Mundabor says:

    Toadspittle,

    if one viscerally believes that there is no God, he is not interested in wagers anyway. Pascal’s wager becomes only then interesting, when one is in doubt whether he is not throwing away eternal salvation (but he doesn’t know) for some decades of fleeting pleasures (which might be the only opportunity before some great Nothing).

    It appears to me that your premise is therefore wrong.

    In Mundabor’s Spain, you wouldn’t even be forced to go to Mass on Sunday (look here! The tolerance! 🙂 ). But you would, as a person living in a Christian country and which takes his Christian heritage seriously, have to buy your milk and chicken’s forage on some other day.

    Fair enough, grumpy old man? 😉

    Like

  24. joyfulpapist says:

    I realise it is the height of uttleyism to quote myself – but it is 5.40 in the morning, I haven’t had breakfast yet, and the train goes at 6.33. 🙂 So here’s a scrap of an article I posted on my own blog about relativism, as part of a series on the eight enlightenment ideas that invaded the Church in the West.:

    Moral relativism is the core philosophy for situational ethics, the concept that ethical actions and responses vary according to circumstances. It also contributes to other errors, including the view that tolerance means accepting error. Tolerance is the practice of treating other people with respect even if you disagree with them. The term has been redefined to mean accepting another person’s viewpoint as being correct for them – which is a very different thing. ‘I have a right to my opinion,’ says the relativist, meaning, ‘I have a right to expect you to treat my opinion as valid.’ Tolerance in the first sense means not mocking you when you claim to be able to breathe underwater. Tolerance in the second sense means standing by and letting you drown.

    Paradoxically, moral relativism has become a moral absolute in our society – a demand for tolerance in the modern sense is the final argument and the highest authority. In a world where one person’s opinion is as good as another’s, those who insist that their opinion is the correct one are seen as rude, judgmental and hating.

    In other words, ‘Truth is relative’ leads inexorably to ‘teaching religion is child abuse’ and ‘arrest the Pope’.

    It is also wrong.

    Like

  25. glynbenedict says:

    Thank you, JP, for a wise post. I agree with you, especially on the matter of tolerance. Toleration is not the same as approval, and you do us a service in reminding us of that. (For example, I tolerate homosexuality, I do not wish to see homosexuals persecuted, but I do not approve of homosexual acts, so I will not condone them. I offer this merely as an example, not because I see sexual sin as necessarily worse than any other kind.)

    “Paradoxically, moral relativism has become a moral absolute in our society…” Yes, our relativistic society sees judgement of the actions of others as the ultimate moral failing, evidence of one’s bigotry! And how illiberal the liberals are towards those who dare to challenge their assumptions…

    Our Lord told the woman taken in adultery, ‘Go and sin no more’. He did not affirm her lifestyle choice; he did not relativise his judgement of her deeds, but he showed her compassion and forgiveness. The maxim, ‘Hate the sin and love the sinner’ lies at the heart of Christian moral theology, because in applying it we really are imitating Christ.

    Like

  26. omvendt says:

    Father Cumanus has dealt briefly and brutally with the preposterousness of Richard Rorty’s ‘take’ on truth

    To move from the abstract for a moment, the following story can be helpful in assisting us to appreciate the importance of truth.

    The story goes that the bandit, Jose Rivera (sorry, can’t do accents) was disturbing the peace of the good citizens of Texas by frequently robbing banks in little Texan towns.

    Finally, in exasperation, the good citizens despatched a ranger to hunt Rivera down and bring him to justice.

    In the course of his pursuit the ranger arrived at a little cantina on the Mexican side of the border. He spotted a young man sipping a beer at the counter and another, older man sitting on a chair, his hat over his eyes, snoring.

    The ranger explained to the young man that he was on a mission to find and arrest Rivera, and he asked the young man if he had seen him.

    The young man pointed to the snoring figure on the chair and sad: “That is Jose Rivera”.

    The ranger sauntered over to the snoozing outlaw, tapped him on the shoulder and said: “Are you Jose Rivera?”

    “No speak English”, was the reply.

    The ranger recruited the young man to translate for him in order to complete his mission.

    A rather lengthy but fruitless exchange ensued involving much translation back and forth.

    Eventually the ranger ran out of patience and told Rivera he had two choices: he could tell the ranger where the loot was and walk away freely or be shot dead on the spot.

    Seeing that the game was up Rivera turned to the young man and said:”Tell him to go out of the bar and turn right. After about a mile he will see a well. There is a very tall tree near that well. Beside the trunk of the tree is a very large concrete slab – he may need help to remove it. Under the slab is a pit. And in that pit is almost all of the booty I have stolen.”

    The young man faced the ranger and, swallowing hard once or twice, said:”Jose Rivera says… Jose Rivera says… Go ahead and shoot!'”

    I stole this joke from Ravi Zacharias by the way.

    Like

  27. toadspittle says:

    This is wondrous new blog is, for me ,at least far more satisfying than others.
    BUT.. I must (of course) argue with Joyful….at 18.33.

    ”In other words, ‘Truth is relative’ leads inexorably to ‘teaching religion is child abuse’ and ‘arrest the Pope’.”

    I have said it before, only hours ago, Joyful – but would you regard your child as being abused, if – in some less than perfect world , (such as this) – the school ( with some pushy muslim teacher) was teaching your child that Islam was the only religion worth following? Or would you think that that was abuse of your child?

    Like

  28. toadspittle says:

    OMVENT, at 20.33

    ..and a jolly good joke it was, too. Laughed til the tears ran down my legs.

    While we are exchanging pleasantries, and in case you didn’t see Damian’s blog for a day or two, here’s an ancient one of mine from the States:

    ”If Jesus, was Jewish, how come he’s got a Mexican name?”>/i>

    Said, not originally in jest, I believe..

    Like

  29. toadspittle says:

    Why, Oh why..
    ..can I never get the coding right?

    Like

  30. toadspittle says:

    Ben at 12,16 asks me if I have a Hall.

    Far better than that, I have a Kingdom (The Peaceable) .

    Like

  31. toadspittle says:

    Off to me old ‘uncle Ned’ as Damian would say, (although he would probably say, ”me bleedin’ uncle Ned.”)
    Nighty night!

    Like

  32. Brother Burrito says:

    Moratinos,

    I think my kind friends have answered well on my behalf. I do not consider non-Catholics to be untermenschen, but I do think them incompetent to comment on matters of the Catholic Faith, because such matters can really only be understood from the “inside”. As a cradle Catholic who lapsed badly on leaving home and (Catholic) school, but was brought back to the Faith, years later, by Providence, and a solitary, life changing, brief internal locution, that’s the best way I can describe it.

    My reading is far less than yours, and you rightly call me an ignoramus, but I am sure we are both familiar with Plato’s cave allegory.

    Catholics are those happy souls who are released from their chains (by whom?) and struggle blinded towards the light, gradually acclimatizing to it, until they are in full sunlight and see everything.

    As Socrates worked out, such an enlightened one would feel pity for those still in the cave. Pity enough to mount a rescue, perhaps? Of course, being now accustomed to the light, he will be awkward and stumbling when he re-enters the cave’s mirk.

    Like

  33. joyfulpapist says:

    Dear Toadspittle (and how often does one get to say that with a straight face?)

    As a convert who travelled down many highways and byways before finding my way home, I have always encouraged my children to find out everything they can about other religions. I am confident that if they do so, they will find the same truth as I have. So far, from my four birth children, this strategy and the grace of God has given me three devout Catholics, and one devout evangelical (this is the one with severe permanent brain damage, which may – of course -be a coincidence). My two long-term foster children are both theists, but uncommitted as yet. St Monica and I are praying for them.

    So, in answer to your question, if I found that my grandchildren were fortunate enough to be learning about other belief systems from people who practiced those beliefs I would be delighted. I have total confidence in the ability of their mothers to seize the teaching opportunity thus offered, and of the children themselves to think things through.

    Like

  34. joyfulpapist says:

    After all, my own children managed to retain their faith through an education in a Catholic school being taught Catholic-lite by feminist liberals! What could a Muslim teacher do that was worse than that?

    Like

  35. churchmouse says:

    Not much, joyfulpapist. Thank goodness you are a good mum.

    We are destroying ourselves in various ways by being useful idiots.

    Like

  36. Mimi says:

    Hello, everybody.

    I feel a bit like a gatecrasher, since you all know each other so well, so may I ingratiate myself by saying how much I like your blog? It’s really great.

    @Brother Burrito:
    “As a cradle Catholic who lapsed badly on leaving home and (Catholic) school, but was brought back to the Faith, years later, by Providence, and a solitary, life changing, brief internal locution”

    That is a perfect description of my life! Isn’t it an incredible experience to realise that the Good Shepherd has sought you out and thrown you over His shoulder and carried you home?

    Like

  37. Mundabor says:

    Moratinos/toadspittle:

    Catholicism is not fostered by keeping children in the ignorance of other religions. It is fostered by making clear that Catholicism has the fullness of the Truth and showing the elements of Truth present in other system of faith whilst always pointing out to the superior wisdom imparted by the Only Church. When seen in this way, dealing with other religions is not only not dangerous, but fascinating and instructive from a Catholic perspective.

    Your argument about the teaching of Islam is not pertinent. This is supposed to be a Christian country and this fact is supposed to have some relevance. Anyway, even in the Italy of the past – when the teaching of Catholicism was obligatory – the Jew and the Atheist in my elementary class were both exempted.

    Like

  38. churchmouse says:

    Thanks, Mundabor, for raising an important point about exemptions on religious grounds. The secularists say that everyone has been ‘coerced’ since time immemorial.

    Like

  39. Benedict Carter says:

    Brother Burrito:

    “As a cradle Catholic who lapsed badly on leaving home and (Catholic) school, but was brought back to the Faith, years later, by Providence, and a solitary, life changing, brief internal locution”

    You too? I had mine minutes after John Paul II died. Was lapsed for more than twenty years.

    Like

  40. toadspittle says:

    ”Dear Toadspittle (and how often does one get to say that with a straight face?)”

    Dear Joyful, you are not supposed to say it with a straight face…(sigh)

    Like

  41. toadspittle says:

    Burro, at 21.21

    ”I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.”
    Socrates

    Just a thought. The fellow on the left here doesn’t seem too happy about it, either.

    (Mimi’s post made me think. Bit incestuous round here.)

    Like

  42. Caroline says:

    Moral relativism is an absurd concept; to say that there are no moral absolutes is fallacious–a contradiction in terms.

    Wiktionary:

    Absolute; noun: 1. “That which is independent of context-dependent interpretation,
    inviolate, fundamental.”

    Like

  43. joyfulpapist says:

    Don’t sigh, Toadspittle dear. I laughed out loud this time. (But then I’m not in the middle of an open-plan office, this time.)

    Like

  44. New Templar says:

    Athiests are often excellent at reasoning but lack intuition. I recently read the story of an athiest sci-fi author who converted to the Faith.
    http://yourownfireside.blogspot.com/2010/02/truth-is-stranger-than-science-fiction.html
    His is an excellent example of how God always gives a person who is sincerely seeking the truth a break when requested.

    Like

  45. omvendt says:

    I think that when the so-called ‘Four Horsemen of the New Atheism’ contend that to give a child a religious upbringing is akin to child abuse they have Catholicism primarily in mind.

    For example, in ‘The God Delusion’, Richard Dawkins recounts that he was once invited to comment on reported cases of child sex abuse by Catholic clergy. He responded:”… as horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term damage of bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.”

    This is to display crass insensitivity to the victims of sexual abuse: it makes a grotesque mockery of their suffering.

    Plainly, Dawkins wants to criminalise the rearing of children as Catholics.

    This is not untypical of the mindset of the statist.

    This kind of statist rejects the idea of a transcendent moral order flowing from a loving God.

    Rather, the statist knows better than ignorant parents who believe naively in objective moral values.

    It’s a totalitarian mindset ultimately based on the principle that might makes right.

    We see another chilling instance of this kind of thinking in Christopher Hitchens’ claim that to teach children that abortion is wrong is child abuse. Hitchens considers abortion as a back-up for failed contraception, so that makes it ok.

    He says it’s all right for parents to teach their children that smoking is wrong, and that they should care for the environment; but for parents to teach their children that abortion is wrong is child abuse.

    Friends, we can’t escape the culture war. We know we’ve got to fight as best we can the culture of death. Even as ordinary Catholics we have an apostolate by virtue of our baptism.

    There are many, many times when I feel discouraged – and certainly personally inadequate as a combatant in this battle. Too often I’m cowardly when I should be courageous. Being a bit of a thicko is kind of suboptimal as well.

    But the rousing words of St Boniface light a fire: “Let us not be dumb watchdogs or silent spectators: Let us not be hirelings that flee at the approach of the wolf. Let us be faithful shepherds preaching to all… in season and out of season.”

    Like

  46. Mundabor says:

    New Templar, beautiful link you have posted! The man certainly knows how to write and his story is highly entertaining and highly edifying.
    ———-
    “Friends, we can’t escape the culture war. We know we’ve got to fight as best we can the culture of death. Even as ordinary Catholics we have an apostolate by virtue of our baptism.”

    Beautiful words, Omvendt. There’s a war to be waged here, no doubt about it.
    Taking refuge in “oh let us just get along with each other”-mentality is going to lead to ruin. Fourty years of this mentality have seen a constant advance of secularism whilst too many Christians were happy with being nice neighbours who always say “good morning” with a smile and too many priests and bishops felt they shouldn’t oppose the building of new mosques, or condemn the spreading of a secular mentality, or constrast the creeping heterodoxy regarding abortion, divorce, same sex so-called marriages and other controversial issues.

    We must become vocal. We must say it out loud every time that we can do so in a prudent but effective manner. We must not be afraid of opposition, sarcasm, ridicule. We should expect it. It means that we are doing something right.

    M

    Like

  47. Benedict Carter says:

    Omvendt:

    Serious and good post. You are fighting my man; and well, by being here!

    Like

  48. omvendt says:

    Thank you, Benedict.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s