Atheist: Pope Destroying The West

Pope Francis

ROME, July 12, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – An atheist philosopher friend of Benedict XVI has strongly criticized Pope Francis, accusing the Holy Father of not preaching the Gospel but politics, fomenting schism, and issuing secularist statements aimed at destroying the West.

In a fiery interview published July 10 in Mattino di Napoli, Marcello Pera, who co-wrote the famous 2005 book Without Roots with then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, said he cannot understand the Pope who, he said, goes beyond the bounds of “rational comprehension.”

A philosophy professor, member of Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia party, and a former president of the Italian Senate, Pera said he believes the reason why the Pope calls for unlimited immigration is because he “hates the West” and is seeking to do all he can “to destroy it.”

He added that he does not like the Pope’s magisterium, saying it is “not the Gospel, only politics,” and that Francis is “little or not at all interested in Christianity as doctrine, in its theological aspect.”

“His statements appear to be based on Scripture,” he said, but “actually they are strongly secularist.”

Immigration has become a highly sensitive topic in Italy in recent months as thousands of refugees arrive every month, mostly from north Africa, placing considerable strain on local communities and services.

Pera’s comments also come after another conversation between the Pope and the atheist Eugenio Scalfari in which Francis allegedly told Scalfari to be “very concerned” about the summit last week of the G20 group of industrialized nations because they have “very dangerous alliances” and a “distorted view of the world.”

According to Scalfari, who is over 90 and doesn’t record his interviews, the Pope also said the G20 worried him because of the issue of immigration, saying the problem is “unfortunately rising in today’s world, that of the poor, the weak, the excluded, of which migrants are part.”  Some of the G20 nations have “few local poor but fear the invasion of immigrants,” he said.

In the July 10 interview Pera, went on to say that he believes the Pope isn’t concerned about the salvation of souls but only social well-being and welfare, and argued that if Europe were to follow the Pope’s position, it would be committing suicide. “The Pope reflects all the prejudices of South America against North America, against the free market, liberty, and capitalism,” Pera added.

On the issue of migration, the philosopher politician believes the Pope’s approach is not from the Gospel, and his words are designed to win easy applause from the United Nations.  His political vision on migrants and society, he continued, has “nothing to do with the Western tradition of political freedom and its Christian roots.”

Pera’s book with Cardinal Ratzinger, whose full title was Without Roots —The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam, warned of the dangers facing civilization if the West abandoned its moral and cultural history. The joint authors called on Western leaders to embrace a spiritual rather than political renewal, accepting the moral values of its Judeo-Christian heritage which would enable society to make sense of today’s economic, political and social challenges.

In this week’s interview, Pera said he believes the open doors approach to migrants that the Pope is advancing will lead to a “bad reaction” with no desirable solution. He said the Pope’s positions underline that he is not in “perfect harmony” with “conservative Catholics and the rest of the Church.”

He added that Francis is not only causing problems in politics over migration, he is also fueling a kind of schism within the Church.

Pera, whose 2008 book Why We Must Call Ourselves Christians contained a preface by Pope Benedict XVI, maintained that an “apparent hidden schism exists in the Catholic world” that the Pope is “pursuing with obstinate persistence and determination.”

But he said this “new course” being pursued by Francis does not convince him at all, and argued that it is “exploding the Second Vatican Council in all its revolutionary radicality.”

Pera further believes these ideas, which he thinks are devastating for the Church, have their origins in the Council. “That aggiornamento (updating) of Christianity secularized the Church, triggering a very profound change, even if it risked bringing a schism that was kept at bay in the years that followed,” he said.

He credited Benedict XVI and Pope St. John Paul II for saving the Church, “resisting and trying to mediate the new with tradition.” They did this in a “lofty way,” he said, but now Francis has brought all back into discussion: “human rights, all without exception, have become the ideal point of reference and compass for the Church” while the “rights of God and of tradition have almost gone.”

In an interview with the National Catholic Register in 2006, Pera warned against multiculturalism, saying it leads to the exact “opposite of integration, because it gives rise to separate communities, that are then reduced to a ghetto-like status and enter into conflict amongst themselves.”

He also said then that his diagnosis for Europe’s future was “not a happy one.”
“If Europe goes forward with its relativist culture, with the refusal of its own tradition, with its low nativity rates, with indiscriminate immigration, then Europe is going to end up Islamized,” he warned.

Referring to Benedict XVI’s comments in Without Roots, he said “the impression today is that Europe resembles the Roman Empire at its fall.”  Source

Comment: 

Well, we know he’s destroying the Church, humanly speaking – but the entire western world? Over to you… 

Should UK Ban Covering of Faces in Public Places – Including Muslim Veil?

The Swiss agency ATS announced on June 9 that the full Muslim veil (the burka and the hiqab) will be forbidden in Austria in public places beginning October 1, 2017. 

Indeed, the integration law voted in mid-May by the parliament stipulates that any violation of the ban on the full veil will be punished by a fine of up to 150 euros. The law also requires all refugees and asylum-seekers to sign a one-year “integration contract” that includes language classes, civic classes, skills assessment, and preparation for integration.

The president of the Republic, Alexander Van der Bellen, promulgated the text on June 9, explaining that “it is not a good law”. Whereas the social democrat (SPÖe) chancellor Christian Kern declared during his presentation: “We have accepted to forbid the full-face Muslim veil. This agreement has not been easy for us. There are pros and cons, but a coalition has to find a way to work together.” “We believe in an open society that is also based on open communication”, declared the Social Democrat (SPÖe) and Conservative (ÖVeP) coalition on this interdiction.

The minister of Foreign Affairs, Sebastian Kurz, leader of the conservative party ÖVeP since mid-May, ignited a controversy in the beginning of the year when he suggested going further than just forbidding the full-face veil, and banishing the veil for public service employees.

The first European country to forbid the full-face veil in public places was France with a law promulgated in October 2010, then applied starting in April 2011, that “forbids hiding one’s face in a public place”, with a 150€ fine. There have been 1,600 infractions since. Belgium followed in 2011 and Bulgaria in September 2016. At the end of April, the German deputies decided to forbid the full-face veil for government officials, and oblige persons with their faces hidden to uncover them in the case of identification verification. In Switzerland, only the canton of Ticino has forbidden the burka in public places since July 2016, following a popular vote.  Source

Comment:

I must confess, I’m more concerned about the “hoodies” among us – usually teenage boys who may hide their faces in order to get away with crimes, including  physical assault.  Legislation to ban “hoodies” then, gets my vote. 

Religious dress,  though, or, more accurately, cultural dress albeit associated with a particular religion, is a bit different. Much as I find it perplexing that any woman would choose to be covered up from head to toe, I don’t see it in  quite the same category.  I can see the arguments for banning the full Muslim veil in public places although I recognise that there are “civil liberties” and other arguments against the ban.

Convince me, one way or the other… To ban or not to ban?  That is the question…

Little Charlie Gard: Victim of Rampant Disposable Culture – Cardinal Sgreccia

Little Charlie Gard’s Case in 10 Points, by Cardinal Sgreccia
Give Care Even When One Cannot Cure
July 5, 2017
ZENIT Staff Pope & Holy See

CHARLIE GARD
by Constance Roques with Anita Bourdin

Italian Cardinal Elio Sgreccia, former President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, analyzed little Charlie Gard’s case and offered “10 critical points” for consideration in the Italian daily La Stampa, on Monday, July 3, 2017.

We recall that Charlie Gard was born on August 4, 2016 and suffers from mitochondrial depletion syndrome, which has affected his brain. He receives assistance to breathe, is hydrated and fed through a tube, but receives no other care.

Give Care Even when One Cannot Cure

Cardinal Sgreccia stressed first of all that “the non-curable character can never be confused with incurability” (1).

He explained: “A person affected by an ailment considered, in the present state of medicine, as incurable, is paradoxically the subject that, more than any other, has the right to request and obtain continuous assistance and care, attention and devotion: it is a cardinal principle of the ethics of care . . . The human face of medicine is manifested precisely in the clinical practice of ‘taking care’ of the life of the suffering and the sick.”
Human Dignity

Cardinal Sgreccia then affirmed the intrinsic dignity (2) of every human being and the rights that stem from it, regardless of his state of health: “The right to be continually the object, or better still, the subject of attention and care on the part of members of the family and others, lies in the dignity of a human person, including a new-born, sick and suffering, and never ceases to be possessed.”

Feeding and Hydration Are Not Therapies

He then recalled the duty to feed and hydrate (3): they are not aps of therapies but the minimum necessary to survive of every human being: “Artificial feeding-hydration through a nose-gastric tube in no case can be considered as a therapy . . . Water and food do not become medications by the sole fact that they are administered artificially; consequently, interrupting them is not like suspending a therapy, but it is to let someone die of hunger and thirst who simply cannot feed himself autonomously.

The Parents’ Decision

Cardinal Sgreccia pointed out that there must not be a caesura between the doctors’ gestures and the parents’ will (4): “The cardinal idea that founds the informed consensus is linked to the principle according to which the patient is never an anonymous individual . . . but a conscious and responsible subject . . . This implies the necessity that he be involved in the decisional processes that concern him, in a dialogic relation that avoids his finding himself in the situation of having to suffer passively the decisions and choices of others. The history of little Charlie proves on the contrary that, in the course of time, a dynamic has been created of substantial detachment between the decisions of the medical team and the will of the parents.”

An Integral Palliative Approach

Cardinal Sgreccia declared himself in favor (5) of an “integral palliative” approach: “It is possible that the experimental therapy does not give the medical results expected, but it is also true that Charlie’s sufferings call for an integral palliative and systematic approach that could hypothetically accompany the experimentation itself.”

To Keep the Pain under Control

Cardinal Sgreccia recommended (6) to keep the pain under control”: “ In our opinion, the principle of the best interest of the minor hardly entails, or better, hardly legitimizes a passive form of euthanasia as that which was decided to practice on little Charlie. We believe that his best interest lies in the direction of assuring him the most dignified existence possible, through an opportune antalgic strategy, which enables to keep the pain under control should it prove to be impossible to follow the route to access the experimental protocol already underway in the United States. It is exactly what Charlie’s parents have not ceased to request up to today.”

The Opinion of the European Court 

The Cardinal believes (7) that the European Court did not respect these criteria: ‘The European Court of Human Rights has glided in an unbelievable way on all the aspects of content listed up to here and it also seems that it went beyond, assuming a purely procedural position, in the name of the principle of the margin of appreciation … It considered that it should not enter the subject of the issue of the suspension of artificial feeding-hydration-respiration in the name of that sovereign autonomy of the Member States, which authorizes them to regulate at their discretion the themes of the ethically most complicated aspects, such as the case of the practicability or not of passive euthanasia on a new-born.”

A “Rampant Disposable Culture”

Cardinal Sgreccia lamented the “rampant disposable culture”: “Hidden behind each aspect of this story, although never mentioned, is the idea of the efficacy in the management of health resources that pushes to make use of them in a manner that cannot but generate a rampant disposable culture.”

The False Paradigm of the “Quality of Life”

He questioned (9) the “paradigm” of the so-called “quality of life”: “More disquieting yet is the lightness with which the paradigm of quality of life is accepted, namely, that cultural model that inclines to recognize the non-dignity of certain human existences, completely identified and confused with the pathology of which they are bearers or with the sufferings with which they are accompanied.”

Euthanasia Demanded 

Finally, Cardinal Sgreccia lamented (10) a drift toward a trivialized euthanasia: “In the transparency of schizophrenic positions implied by these new cultural paradigms, one can perceive the ambivalence of those that, in demanding the freedom of total and indiscriminate access to euthanasia – basing it on the exclusive predominance of individual autonomy — deny at the same time this decisional autonomy in other cases, as the one of which we speak, where it is considered that only the doctors have the legitimacy to decide, without any involvement of the parents.”

Readiness of the Vatican’s Hospital

We recall likewise that on Monday, July 3, the President of the Bambino Gesu (Infant Jesus) pediatric hospital, a dependency of the Vatican, Mrs Mariella Enoc, said she was ready to receive Charlie Gard in Rome if his parents so wished and if his state permitted it.

In a press release on Monday, July 3, 2017, she quoted in Italian Pope Francis’ Tweet, posted on his account @Pontifex_it on June 30: “Defend human life, especially when it is wounded by sickness, is a commitment of love that God entrusts to every man.”

“The Holy Father’s words, in reference to little Charlie, summarize well the mission of the Bambino Gesu hospital. That is why I asked the Health Director to verify with London’s Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital, where the new-born is hospitalized, and if the health conditions exist for Charlie’s eventual transfer to our hospital. We know that the case is desperate and that, apparently, effective therapies do not exist.”

Pope Francis’ Closeness

Mrs Enoc expressed her closeness to the parents, saying: “We are close to the parents through prayer and if it is their wish, we are ready to receive their child at our hospital for the time that remains to him to live.”

Pope Francis addressed a message to Charlie Gard’s parents on Sunday evening, July 2, expressing his closeness, through his spokesman, Greg Burke: “The Holy Father follows with affection and emotion the affair of little Charlie Gard and he expresses his closeness to his parents.” Pope Francis, he said, “prays for them and hopes that their desire to accompany and care for their child to the end is not disregarded.”

On June 27, the European Court of Human Rights rejected the request to take the child to the United States for experimental treatment and the British High Court pronounced itself in favor of halting the respiratory, hydration and feeding assistance.

Mrs Mariella Enoc, President of Rome’s Bambino Gesu hospital, who had expressed her readiness to receive the baby, if his transfer was possible and if his parents so wished, announced on Tuesday, July 4 that the transfer would not be possible for “legal” reasons: it is in any case the answer of the English hospital where Charlie is at present, reported Vatican Radio. Mrs Enoc said she was contacted by the baby’s mother to discuss his care.
In regard to surmounting the legal reasons, the Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin assured : “If we can do so, we will,” reported the same source.
[Article Translated from French]  Source – Zenit

Comment:

The UK Government cites “legal grounds” for not permitting this baby to be taken to the Vatican Hospital – click here

Recall,  though, that the “legal grounds” for only permitting people of opposite genders to marry were overturned in a heartbeat, as was the law prohibiting the murder of unborn babies in their mothers’ wombs.  Laws can be changed when it suits politicians.  What, then, is going on here? Why are the doctors and politicians so keen to allow this baby to die, despite his parents’ desperate desire to keep him, care for him, raise him in a loving home? What is going on?

An Independent Protestant Scotland…

One of the Treasures of the National Archives of Scotland, the Declaration of Arbroath was written to the Pope in 1320, on behalf of the barons and community of the realm of Scotland. This eloquent letter, written in support of King Robert Bruce (Robert I) and an independent Scotland, is still regarded as a spirited statement of a nation’s claim to freedom. Click here to read the Declaration of Arbroath

Comment:

With the SNP once again calling for a referendum on Scottish independence, it is worth reflecting on Scotland’s deeply Catholic roots in order to consider the question of  “freedom”. Outside the Catholic Church, can there BE true freedom for Scotland?  Think “gay marriage”; think Named Person Scheme; think the Freemasonic roots of the EU, which the SNP wish to rejoin after Brexit/and (they hope) a successful independence referendum.  Take note of the  reference to “poor Scotland” in the Declaration – a description so apt in our times. Poor, poor Scotland.

In short, knowing that the original call for Scotland’s independence was made by loyal sons of the Church, is it permissible today for  Catholics to vote in good conscience for an independent (Protestant) Scotland?  

17/10 Brexit: Letter from a [Catholic Truth] Scotsman to The Scotsman!

Today’s Scotsman carries the following superb letter from our blogger Athanasius. It’s little short of miraculous that it ever saw the light of publication.  I wish I could be that lucky fly on the wall when the powers-that-be in Holyrood read it – as read it they will!  

“Political correctness is the natural continuum from the party line. What we are seeing once again is a self-appointed group of vigilantes imposing their views on others. It is a heritage of communism, but they don't seem to see this.” ― Doris Lessing

Click on flag to read original letter

From Martin Blackshaw – Brexit Hypocrisy…

It was very interesting listening to the new SNP deputy leader, Angus Robertson, speaking on STV’s Scotland Tonight programme about Brexit and a second Scottish independence referendum. The misinformation and hypocrisy emanating from the man were just astounding.

Like Nicola Sturgeon, he commenced with the old chestnuts that 62 per cent of Scots voted to Remain in the EU and that the people of Scotland are therefore entitled to their democratic right to a second independence referendum in the event of a “hard Brexit”.

In fact, that 62 per cent he speaks of was 62 per cent of the 2.68 million who actually voted, not 62 per cent of the 3.98 million Scots who were eligible to vote.

In reality, then, only 1.66 million of almost four million Scots voted to Remain in the EU while just over one million voted to Leave and 1.3 million (33 per cent of the population) didn’t bother to vote at all. This significantly alters the intensity of what the SNP calls “the voice of the Scottish people”.

As for the “democratic right to a second independence ref- erendum”, the SNP is still furious with David Cameron for granting the people of Britain a democratic vote on the EU, a right that they and others resolutely declare should have been denied us. Yet now they demand the right to a second referendum on independence, having already been accorded that privilege just two years ago. What about “the voice of the Scottish people” in 2014, a voice that said NO in proportionally greater numbers to separation from the UK?

So here’s where we actually stand on true democracy. By the democratic voice of the Scottish people we remain part of the UK, and by the democratic voice of the British people we are leaving the EU. Attempts to undermine this free and unanimous choice of the people with nationalist propaganda is not democracy, it’s a form of anarchy.

Furthermore, if David Cameron, then Prime Minister of the fiftth largest economy in the world, could not persuade the unelected bureaucrats who run the EU to grant a few urgent constitutional concessions to the UK, then what chance does Nicola Sturgeon think she has persuading them to act in Scotland’s interests?

Like the old Supreme Soviet of the Cold War era Brussels has become the centralised government of Europe. Its apparatus exists to gradually eradicate national identity and sovereignty from individual member states, primarily by the bait of the single market, and bring all under the control of unsympathetic and untouchable foreign dictators. Our military personnel fought and died in two great wars to preserve us from just such a fate.

Woe betide us, then, if we sever the bonds of a 300-year successful union with the rest of Britain in order to shackle ourselves to a centralised government in Europe. It would be the equivalent of selling ourselves into slavery. MARTIN BLACKSHAW – Source

Comments invited.