Politics More Important Than Faith: Should “Catholic” Rebecca Long-Bailey Win Labour Leadership Race? Really? 

Image result for Re becca long baileyRebecca Long-Bailey has appeared to suggest her politics are more important than her Catholic faith, as she attempted to extinguish a major row over her stance on abortion.

Amid a mounting backlash over her objection to later terminations on the grounds of disability, the Labour leadership frontrunner said that although she prayed to God every day she disagreed with “many” of the Church’s teachings.

Ms Long-Bailey’s attempts to distance herself from the Church carries echoes of the dilemma faced by Tony Blair, who was told by his advisers not to discuss his faith publicly because “We don’t do God”  Source – The Telegraph: Labour leadership: Rebecca Long-Bailey says politics comes before her Catholic faith as she tries to extinguish abortion row 

Comment: 

Before we give Rebecca Long-Bailey a hard time, reflect on two key issues: firstly, she is very young and has grown up at a time when the Church has been – and continues to be – in major crisis.  Thus, she clearly does not understand the nature and purpose of the Church, specifically, the role of the Church to protect and proclaim the natural moral law.  She doesn’t get it.  She doesn’t understand that “The Church” hasn’t made up the moral law. God did that, and authorised His Church to teach, preach, protect and proclaim the moral law.  

Secondly, this attitude – that politics is more important than our Catholic Faith – is embedded in many Catholic souls.  I’ve had many discussions, some bordering on attempted murder, trying to convince Catholic friends that they cannot go out canvassing for local politicians standing for election for a Party which condones the killing of unborn babies.  They think nothing of working to get such MPs elected and then present for Holy Communion at Mass.  Incredible.  No conflict of conscience whatsoever. 

It might be worth contacting Ms Long-Bailey to suggest that she re-consider her priorities because, Christ warned us to be ready for death at any moment – “you do not know the day nor the hour…” and it will not go well for her at her judgment, if she has put her political beliefs and aspirations before the Catholic Faith, given to us by God, so that we may be saved.   Click here for contact details..

See the source image

St Thomas More, pray for her…

 

Instrumentum Laboris: the most shocking Vatican Document EVER?

“Will the bishops, successors of the Apostles be silent? Will the cardinals, the Pope’s advisors in the governing of the Church be silent, in the face of this political-religious manifesto which perverts the doctrine and praxis of the Mystical Body of Christ ?”

The first reactions in response to the Instrumentum Laboris for the Amazon Synod were focused on its opening to married priests and the insertion of women into the sacramental orders of the Church. But the Instrumentum Laboris is something more: it’s a manifesto for liberation eco-theology which proposes a pantheist, egalitarian “cosmo-vision” , unacceptable for a Catholic. The gates of the Magisterim, as José Antonio Ureta, rightly highlighted, are being thrown wide open “to Indian Theology and Ecotheology, two Latin American derivatives of Liberation Theology. After the collapse of the USSR and the failure of “real socialism”, the advocates of Liberation Theology (LT), on the Marxist style, attributed the historic role of revolutionary force to indigenous peoples and to nature”.*

In the document, published by the Holy See on June 17, the Amazon “bursts” into the life of the Church like a “new entity” (n.2). But what is the Amazon? It is not only a physical place and a “complex biosphere” (n.10) but also “a reality full of life and wisdom” (n.5), which ascends to a conceptual paradigm and calls us to a “pastoral, ecological and synodal” conversion (n.5). In order to carry out its prophetic role, the Church must heed “the Amazon peoples” (n.7). These people are able to live in “intercommunication” with the entire cosmos (n.12), but their rights are threatened by the economic interests of the multinationals, which, as the natives of Guaviare (Colombia) say “have slashed the veins of our Mother Earth” (n.17).    Click here to read more…

Comments invited…  

Question Time Or The Fiona Bruce & Emily Thornberry Show? Your Verdict…

 

Fiona Bruce’s took over the chair of Question Time for the first time last night, Thursday, 10 January, 2019.  Don’t ask me why, because the BBC bias is nowhere as predictable, but I do try to watch it every week, either live or recorded.  Last night, I watched it broadcast right after the news, and I found it very frustrating viewing, indeed.

There were only two topics:  Brexit and knife crime in London.

Only Melanie Phillips’ contributions on both topics were meaningful, in my view.  Yet, Fiona Bruce allowed her to speak only once on Brexit – notice she is not called on to join in the toing and froing between the other members of the panel when controversy arose – while the Labour politician, Emily Thornberry is given free rein to say what she wanted, as often as she wanted, more or less unchecked. 

I’m also puzzled as to why the Tory politician, James Cleverly MP, appears so frequently on Question Time and other programmes where Brexit is the hot topic.  He is a weak “LEAVER”… oops!”  Just answered my own question.  There’s the reason he’s invited onto these shows and not Jacob Rees-Mogg or Owen Paterson.  

In any event, this thread comes in the wake of the call from the Bishop of Galloway (south of Scotland) to Catholics to become more involved in politics. 

Watching the media bias in matters political, the prevailing (and worsening) political correctness, is there really any point in Catholics becoming more involved in politics – and what, precisely does that mean?  Joining Parties which promote the evils of homosexuality and abortion? 

Finally,  IS it fair to describe last night’s Question Time as the Fiona Bruce & Emily Thornberry Show?  Your verdict, please! 

Pope Francis Doesn’t DO Catholicism

Christopher Ferrara, Fatima Center, writes:

As the homosexual priest scandal once again erupts around the world (including the revelation that fully half of the cardinals and bishops of the Netherlands are implicated in the cover-up of sexual abuse), the ex-President of the Italian Senate, Marcello Pera, was interviewed by La Fede Quotidiana concerning Pope Francis’ continuing silence in the face of Archbishop Viganò’s historic indictment of the Pope’s own role in the cover-up of homosexual corruption at the highest levels of the Church.

“It seems to me that the Pope does not intend to give a response, or perhaps thinks that others will respond, a dilatory tactic that, instead of promoting serenity and clarity contributes to general disconcert and confusion,” said Pera. “[I]t seems to be the same thing that happened with the Dubia of the cardinals,” Pera continued.

Respecting the attempts to demonize Viganò, Pera observes that he has “the sensation that the Pope trusts in that wing of the press that is always and everywhere favorable. He knew that he would be defended a priori by certain important journalists” who would be willing to shoot the messenger by way of character assassination. But, Pera rightly observes, “I am not interested in the motives that have driven Viganò but only in whether his allegations are true or not.”

Pera is also a renowned philosopher whose work focuses on the problems of cultural relativism, the post-modern denial of objective reality and “deconstructionism,” which reduces all truth claims to mere interpretations rather than statements of objective fact. Hence Pera knows whereof he speaks when he says that in his view Francis is symptomatic of the crisis of a “tragic and alarming diminution of the Christian conscience in Europe. Bergoglio substitutes for catholicity a secular humanism. From this step a schism can arise.”

Asked whether he knows the “Pope Emeritus” well, Pera replied that he does but that “I have not spoken to him in a long time.” As to whether he thinks Benedict is worried about the state of the Church under this pontificate, Pera answered simply: “I imagine so.”

Last July, Pera voiced even stronger criticism of the current occupant of the Chair of Peter. Concerning Francis’ insistence on “welcoming” unlimited numbers of Muslim immigrants into Italy, most of them military age males not helpless “refugees,” Pera told Il Mattino: “I do not understand this Pope. What he says is beyond all rational comprehension. Why does he insist on total acceptance? The Pope does it because he detests the West, aspires to destroy it and does everything to achieve this end…”
What Francis preaches, says Pera, “is not the Gospel but only politics. Francis is little or not at all interested in Christianity as a doctrine, on the theological aspect. […] His statements seem based on Scripture, in reality they are strongly secularist.” It is hard to dispute that opinion given the many indications that we have a Pope who doesn’t “do” Catholicism. As for example his recent refusal to give an Apostolic Benediction to a crowd of young people in Palermo because their number included “other Christians and religious traditions and even some agnostics.” Instead, the Vicar of Christ, refusing to mention Christ, invoked a generic “Lord God” for the intention of “blessing the seeds of disquiet in their souls” because “they want to make a better world” as “searchers for goodness and happiness” and travelers on “the road to dialogue and encounter with the other.”

A Vicar of Christ who studiously refrains from mentioning the light of Christ to those in need of it for their salvation, lest anyone in the audience be offended. What sort of Pope is this? One the likes of which the Church has never seen before, not even in the midst of the ecclesial tumult of the past 50 years.   Source

Comments invited…  

Pope Silent On Abortion, Outspoken On Mass Migration of Muslims: Why? 

Pope Francis Weaponizes the Mass for Politics
by Chris Ferrara
Fatima Perspectives #1213

The Pope who vows he will not interfere in the concrete politics of nations when it comes to abortion and “gay marriage” never ceases to interfere in politics when it comes to his obsession with promoting the mass influx of Muslims into Europe.

Thus the Vatican Press Office has just announced that tomorrow “the Holy Father Francis will celebrate a Mass for Migrants at the Altar of the Cathedra, in Saint Peter’s Basilica. The Mass coincides with the fifth anniversary of Pope Francis’ visit to Lampedusa (8 July 2013).”

Lampedusa is the place where Francis ostentatiously denounced as “shameful” a shipwreck off the coast of that island near Sicily in which many migrants from Africa, most of them military age Muslim males, were drowned. As if it were the fault of the government of Italy that illegal traffickers in human beings had provided an inadequate vessel for their cargo of illegal immigrants.

On June 14, addressing a conference on international migration at the Vatican, Francis demanded “a change in mindset: we must move from considering others as threats to our comfort to valuing them as persons whose life experience and values can contribute greatly to the enrichment of our society.”

The notion that the mass migration of Muslims into Italy in violation of Italian law enriches Italian society is utterly preposterous. And, as the recent elections in Italy have shown, the Italian people, who are overwhelmingly Christian at least by virtue of Baptism, have had quite enough of this nonsense.

Over the past five years Francis has continually glossed over critical distinctions between legal and illegal immigration, between true refugees with bona fide claims of asylum and merely economic migrants hoping to reap benefits by entering illegally, between able-bodied males and vulnerable women and children, between people fleeing wars or disasters and merely opportunistic individuals who had no compelling reason to leave their home countries, between people without skills who may have criminal tendencies and the best and brightest from other lands.

These are all legal distinctions it is the duty of civil authorities to sort out with appropriate legislation, including tight restrictions on the number of permitted legal immigrants, not excluding a total moratorium on immigration from certain places if it is deemed to serve the common good of citizens. The crafting of these laws and regulations is, frankly, none of Francis’ business.

Yet on June 14 Francis continued with his crude demagoguery on the immigration issue, demanding that European countries “tear down the wall of ‘comfortable and silent complicity’ that worsens their [the migrants’] helplessness; they are waiting for us to show them concern, compassion and devotion.” As if legitimate attempts to impose strong restrictions on immigration were immoral — restrictions like those in effect in Vatican City!
The Mass tomorrow will be a virtual weaponization of the sacred liturgy for political purposes, including a specially composed prayer, published by the Vatican, that declares: “O God, father of all men, for you no one is a stranger, no one is excluded from your fatherhood…” — as if to suggest that the exclusion of illegal immigrants is per se offensive to God.

The same prayer pleads that “we,” meaning, of course, the opponents of open borders, “be given a sensitive and generous heart towards the poor and oppressed.” One wonders when the Pope will have a Mass for the innocent unborn who are slaughtered by the millions each year, and when he will offer a highly publicized prayer that supporters of legalized child murder be “given a sensitive and generous heart towards the poor and oppressed” victims of their slaughterhouses.

But we know the answer to that question: Probably never. And therein lies the essence of the disaster that is this pontificate.   Source – Fatima Perspectives

Comments invited… 

Thinking Through Catholic Truth…

The above is the self-explanatory  introduction to our new series, “Thinking Through Catholic Truth – The Big Questions… Answered”.

Topics already in the pipeline include Scripture, Spirituality, Catholic education  and the “Institutional Church”.  

If you have a topic you’d like covered tell us in the comments, or if you would like to participate in any of our videos, let us know, either by commenting below or emailing the editor on editor@catholictruthscotland.com   

Click here to view the Catholic Truth videos posted on our website

Fatima, the Left, and the Coming Terror

Latest Fatima Center E-Newsletter

“Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the patrie.”
– Maximilien Robespierre, 1794


The Rage of the Left and the Coming Terror

In 1989, France marked the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution. It was a strained celebration, for even its most ardent apologists were compelled to admit the bloody and sordid nature of much that the Revolution encompassed. The guillotine remains its most enduring symbol.

The revolutionary leaders called for freedom, equality and brotherhood, and then proceeded to kill anyone deemed to stand in the way of these noble ideals, eventually murdering one another in the paroxysm of a brutal power struggle. (See:  “The 14 Bloodiest, Most Brutally Horrific Moments of the French Revolution”.)

In 1989, Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev went to Paris to participate in the bicentennial celebration and said, “The spirit of the French Revolution has always been present in the social life of our country.” As columnist Charles Krauthammer then observed: “Few attempts at ingratiation have been more true or more damning.” 

The bloodbath and horrors of communism have much in common with the bloodbath and horrors of what is now called “The Terror.” The Bolsheviks and the French Revolutionaries both relied on political assassination, domestic spying, denunciations and imprisonments, show trials and the criminalization of all dissent. Both terrorized the populace while committing their crimes in the name of “the People.” Tyrants always claim a democratic mandate.

 

The French Revolution’s Committee for Public Safety condemned to death almost 17,000 people in one year. (See:  “Reign of Terror”.)  This is a negligible body count when laid against the tens of millions that have been sacrificed on the altar of communism. We prefer to think that men such as Robespierre and Stalin are creatures of bygone eras and that conditions no longer allow for such horrors to be perpetrated. Perhaps, we should think again.

The Pope and the Antifa

Pope Francis has been called the new leader of the global Left. He has not demurred from the acclimation. He has been flatteringly featured in publications that can hardly be considered supportive of Catholic teaching, such as Rolling Stone. He has been praised by leaders of the pro-abortion movement, such as Hillary Clinton. Those who favor unrestricted Muslim immigration in the West and open borders feel they have a friend in Francis, and they are seldom disappointed.

But those who favor traditional Church teaching, including the indissolubility of marriage and the norms for receiving the sacraments, have felt the sting of the Pope’s rebuke and been subjected to personal insult. He does not answer dubia — questions concerning his positions; he denigrates the questioners. The ad hominem attack is his default mode. (See:  “Now Francis Targets ‘Rigid’ Youth: But what does “rigid” mean? And why does Francis never tell us?”.)

 Pope Francis acts more like a politician courting a constituency than the Vicar of Christ propagating a timeless teaching (See:  “An Interview with George Neumayr, Author of The Political Pope). His tactics are those of a candidate trying to undermine his opponent by character assassination. Missing from the voluminous homilies, speeches, interviews and press conferences of this pontiff is reasoned argument for his positions. (See:  “The Laity Roar While the Cardinals Meow: The Catastrophe that is Amoris Laetitia.) He relies on caricature, invective and vague “gospel” imperatives, which have an elasticity that can be adapted to most any circumstance.

Francis denounces “populism” as dangerous and fascistic whenever he disagrees with the “people.” Otherwise, he defends popular fashions in morals and ideology, often opposing the “living” reality of the times to the outmoded intransigence of traditional doctrine. He is with you so long as you are with him. We have never had a Pope who is so divorced from the normal exercise of his office and so eager for the approbation of the ruling classes, that is, the globalist Left. (See:  “For 2017 More of the Same: Leftist Politics Wrapped in the Language of Catholic Piety”.)

Meanwhile, the Left with which the Pope has aligned himself has suffered some setbacks, and it is not taking them well. Donald Trump has won the presidency of the United States; a “conservative” has been appointed to the Supreme Court. The unholy alliance of the “deep state” with its political masters is being exposed. The intelligence community is now known to be corrupt and untrustworthy. Democrats still control the media, but are hemorrhaging popular support. They appear more and more like generals without an army.

In Europe, the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. French nationalism is rising. Poland and Hungary are resisting Muslim immigration. And the narrative of current events is no longer tightly controlled by the propaganda arm of globalism — that is, the major news outlets — but is coming into public view, in factual and unedited form, from a growing number of information sites via the Web.

The Left has not, until recently, been called upon to defend itself. The ruling elites were protected from hard questioning by a supportive media that vilified anyone who subjected their positions to scrutiny. The media, like the Pope, resorts to the ad hominem attack as a matter of course. But their credibility is greatly diminished and the media’s fairness and accuracy are now being subjected to a scrutiny they have never before had to face. The control of the Left, which appeared so formidable for so long, is now unravelling.

The late John Vennari once memorably said that logic and liberalism cannot co-exist in the same head. Traced to its principle, a liberal position tends to fall apart from lack of coherence, internal contradiction or a collision with obvious facts. That Islam is a “Religion of Peace” is an example of a patently absurd liberal position; yet, every globalist, from George Bush to Angela Merkel to Pope Francis, has repeated this absurdity with the apparent expectation that it will be believed — or that people will fear to contradict the claim because the media will discredit and destroy anyone who dissents. (See:  “America Magazine Frets over Catholics’ Lack of Love for Islam”.) Facts, for the Left, are irrelevant. It is the narrative that is important, and the narrative can be shaped to suit the needs of the moment.

The Left is demonic in that its position is that of Lucifer: it wants to usurp the prerogatives of the Creator and refashion the world according to its likes and dislikes. It reverses Our Lord’s prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane and says, “Not Thy will, but mine be done.”  And it uses whatever tool is at hand to smash the natural order that stands in its way. Muslim immigration is just a tool for smashing what remains of European Christian culture. Transgenderism is a tool for smashing what remains of traditional sexual morality. Entitlement programs are a tool for smashing what remains of personal self-reliance. And all of this destruction is done in the name of compassion, of mercy. To oppose globalism is to be mean, bigoted, un-Christian. (See:  “Pope Francis Suggests Donald Trump Is ‘Not Christian’”.) It is to build walls instead of bridges. It is to invite finger wagging and invective from the Pope.

And while the Pope is vilifying the Left’s opponents daily at the Casa Santa Marta, mobs of masked “protesters” are appearing in cities across America and Europe. They are called the Antifa – for anti-fascists. It is a bit of Orwellian Newspeak from the Left’s Ministry of Truth. The Antifa disguise their faces, shout obscenities, beat people up, hurl trash cans through windows, set cars on fire, block traffic and shout down anyone who would say anything with which they disagree. They oppose free speech, freedom of assembly for any group they dislike, and are prepared to use violence if they don’t get what they want. The Antifa are, in short, fascists. (See:  “What is ‘Antifa’? And why is the media so reluctant to expose it?”.)

In Berkeley, they enjoy the protection of the University administration, the mayor and the police. (See:  “WOW! BERKELEY MAYOR Who Allegedly Told Police To ‘Stand Down’ Is Part Of Antifa Terrorist Facebook Group”.) We are asked to believe that the police force is no match for this rabble and therefore cannot guarantee the physical safety of conservative speakers, such as Ann Coulter. How stupid does the Left think the public is? There is collusion on a growing scale between the Left, the street mobs they incite and direct and the parts of the government they still control. That the Left is turning to orchestrated violence is a sign of things to come. If they cannot succeed through electoral politics, they will try to assert their will through social disruption, through fear, and then blame the chaos and bloodshed on the victims, the so-called fascists who had to be opposed for the sake of freedom and justice.

Just how far will the Left go to regain the power they have temporarily lost? This remains to be seen. One thing is apparent, however: civil discourse is no longer on the table. This is a struggle for raw power in which every outrage against decency is being justified in the name of “saving our democracy.” Network television programs now feature obscene rants against Trump and Republicans as a matter of course. The foulest language and fiercest hatred is countenanced as “entertainment.” It appears probable that the situation will only grow worse, for recent history shows that once the bar of decency has been lowered, it is never raised again. We can only descend at this point to ever more repulsive and brutish behavior on the part of the media in support of the Left.

 

The Long View and What We Can Expect

There is a professor in Berkeley named George Lakoff. He specializes in something called “cognitive linguistics.” Lakoff has long aspired to a role in politics, having offered his services to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. He is now counseling the Left on how it should regroup in light of the Trump victory. What he urges is what he calls “framing” the debate through the use of metaphors — that is, inventing appealing names for repellent things. (See:  “Moral Politics (book)”.)

His premise is that of the elite class: most people are too stupid to know what is in their best interest. The direction of their lives is best left in the hands of their intellectual and moral superiors, i.e. Lakoff and the Left. Hobbled by a nominal democracy, however, the smart people are compelled to manipulate the obtuse proletariat. Lakoff says this can best be done by using words that bypass reason and reach the unconscious, for reason is wasted on the masses. (See:  “The Framing Wars”.)

Conservatives supposedly believe in what Lakoff calls the “Strict Father” model of the family, which he describes as authoritarian and cruel; it is opposed to the goodness and light of what he calls the “nurturant parent” model, favored by the benevolent Left. Lakoff wants the Left to use language to move people from the authoritarian model of the family to the nurturant parent model. But Lakoff’s strategy requires patience. It is also seen by some on the Left as academic theorizing that may or may not hold good in the real world. Meanwhile, the Left is opting for the fascism of the Antifa. It is trying to shut down the opposition through suppressing free speech.  But Lakoff’s approach may also be tried.

Lakoff wants Democrats to stop using terms such as “federal regulations” and to talk instead about “protections.” He suggests the word “taxes” be replaced by the word “investments.” The media is always amenable to offering what help it can to “progressives,” for whom Lakoff is a self-appointed strategist, so we are likely to hear more linguistic legerdemain in the near future. The Associated Press Style Book has long used its power to push the Left’s agenda. The AP forbids the use of “pro-life” and “pro-abortion,” allowing only the term “pro-choice.” Most every newspaper and news outlet uses the AP as its usage guide. The media are likely to become the linguistic arm of the Antifa.

We should be alert to the fact that the Left is regrouping and a new language is being invented for presenting its agenda. Meanwhile, we can expect the street violence and the media assault against Trump to continue unabated. The public may tire of the turmoil and decide that Trump is too divisive a figure, a claim which the media will amplify in every way as the next election cycle approaches. If and when the Left manages to defeat its opposition, it will exercise power with an unprecedented ruthlessness. It has already discarded civil discourse and adopted the position that anyone who opposes them does not deserve a hearing, as their opponents are presumed to be motivated by racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, religious bigotry and consummate evil and stupidity of every description.

Their opponents are deemed hateful, and why should hateful people be given any quarter? Why should such deplorables be allowed to speak, or even exist? The brigades of the Antifa will be let loose, aided by all the apparatus of the government and media. The spirit of Robespierre, the patron saint of the Left, will be triumphant. How bloody will it get? It is beyond present imagination, for we find it difficult to accept possibilities that are deeply repugnant to us. But we have history as a guide.

All of the above takes into account only the human factors that shape events. There is the overarching power of Providence that can intervene at any time in unforeseen ways. We have a Pope who has sided with the Left and is trying to convince, even compel, Catholics to support the globalist agenda. The doctrinal patrimony of the Catholic Church is endangered by Francis’ alliances. No human power can effectively oppose his politicization of the Faith. Where do we turn?

Our Lady of Fatima said, “Only I can help you.” Perhaps the time is coming when the whole world will realize the truth of Her words.

Comments invited…