Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Politics
Politics is not the same thing as Religion. We all agree on that general statement. But politicians cannot pretend that religions don't exist, or that the teachings of a religion can never have any influence on the citizens of a Country. More precisely, if a religious leader starts to transmit a doctrine, even an exclusively religious doctrine, which threatens a Country's security, that religious leader must be kicked out.
Strangely, I have all kinds of trouble convincing Leftists that religions are not subject to some kind of quality control. Indeed, Leftists tend to believe that all religions are naturally peaceful and overflowing with justice and compassion. Nevertheless, it's easy to imagine a religion which would teach very bad things, like "The Disciples of the Holy Machine Gun".
We can imagine a more subtle example. A religion could seem to teach very nice and noble things, and still transmit a moral poison to its disciples, a poison which would eventually cause incalculable damages to both the faithful of that religion, as well as the whole Country where those faithful live.
Let your imagination run wild. Imagine a religion which would teach that:
A subject may know full well the [moral law], yet have great difficulty in understanding «its inherent values», or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.
This religion would say that we can know a moral law, for example "Thou shalt not put bombs on the airplanes of Air Canada", but that if we don't understand «its inherent values», we can decide not to respect that moral law without committing a sin!
Let your imagination run wild a bit more:
Naturally, every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience, formed and guided by the responsible and serious discernment of one's [religious leader of this religion], and to encourage an ever-greater trust in God's grace. Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the [«sacred» book of this religion]. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one's limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.
So, if for example we have «the objective ideal» of not slitting the throats of people who are not in the same religion as us, we could still slit their throats, while comforting ourselves with the idea that «for now is the most generous response which can be given to God», and therefore that God is proud of us, even if we don't reach «the objective ideal»!
Let's approach this problem from another angle, and since I get to choose the angle, I'll indulge myself a bit. I don't recommend this movie, but there is a delightful scene in "Miss Congeniality". If this YouTube hyperlink doesn't work anymore, it's easy to describe. Sandra Bullock plays the role of a policewoman who goes undercover to find a criminal, except she goes undercover as a pretty girl trying to win a beauty pageant. When all contestants are asked: "What is the one most important thing our society needs?", they answer: "World peace", but when the undercover policewoman is asked the same question, she answers: "Harsher punishment for parole violators!" The whole stadium becomes very quiet. Everybody is stunned. You can even hear the crickets in the night! Then, realizing her mistake, she adds: "... and world peace!", which makes all the spectators break out in relieved applause!
Now combine that scene with this image:
If you read the label carefully, it says toward the bottom:
"I firmly believe that bacon has the potential to bring about world peace"
OK, that's funny, a silly can of bacon which would bring about world peace! But let's put on our Politician's Thinking Cap. What if we had to put something in a can that really could bring about world peace, what would it be?
(We're in the Political Section of this website, so you're not allowed to cheat and say "Jesus" or something like that.)
You could try a process of elimination. Of course, it would not be something material. Something made out of molecules, whether gold, or bacon, or a computer chip, or anything like that, would not be enough. It would have to be an idea. So which idea has the greatest potential for bringing about world peace? Medical science is good; having all those children saved from malaria and tuberculosis and cholera is nice. You could also say Agronomical science; not much use having good health care if nobody has anything to eat! You could even say Mathematics, because how can you do serious Medicine and Agronomy (and Physics, and Chemistry, and all the other hard Sciences) if you don't have Math?
But we can go up even higher in the hierarchy of ideas. Indeed, all the Science imaginable will not help Mankind, if we don't have Morality. Actually, Science is often used for immoral purposes! So we would need to put Morality in that can. But let's push our reflexion further. What is the most important idea in Morality? If there were only one fundamental idea of Morality that we could put in a can, what would it be? I claim one of the most fundamental Moral principles is:
Our conscience doesn't create norms of Good and Evil.
Think about it. If every single human person on this Earth decides for himself or herself what is "good" and what is "evil", then isn't that the exact contrary of world peace? Bank robbers could decide that robbing banks was "good"! Assassins could decide that killing innocent people was "good"! Liars could decide that telling lies is "good"! That would be the most catastrophic idea imaginable, the idea most directly opposed to world peace!
Actually, one of the oldest books known to man talks about this:
In the Book of Genesis we read: "The Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'You may eat
freely of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die'
With this imagery, Revelation teaches that the power to decide what is good and
what is evil does not belong to man [...]"
[Veritatis Splendor, #35.]
So if you wanted to destroy world peace, a good way would be to package in a attractive "can" the idea that our conscience creates moral standards, then give it away to as many people as you could!
Would anybody be Satanic enough to do such a thing? Carefully re-read what I think is the most important question anybody has ever asked a religious leader:
After [this religious leader's declarations] does one still need to regard as valid
the teaching [...] that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience
"Pope Francis" telling a big lie to all of Mankind.
You're telling me a religion would never teach such things? Go read Amoris Laetitia by "Pope Francis".
Canada should arrest all "catholic" Bishops who are in this Country, and ask them if they agree with "Pope Francis". Every Bishop who would refuse to sign a public declaration rejecting the teachings of "Pope Francis" should be stripped of his Canadian citizenship and be deported manu militari.
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Politics