February 27, 2017

March 14, 2013

So, you want theocracy?

It’s my question for folks who write stuff like this,

Many Argentines remain angry over the church’s acknowledged failure to confront a regime that was kidnapping and killing thousands of people as it sought to eliminate “subversive elements” in society.

What do you mean by “confront”?  Are you saying that the church should have “done something” about the government?

“Well, no.  But they should have ‘raised consciousness.’” 

Would you say that if the church issued a statement like, “Poverty is bad”?  No, you would be harumphing about the church’s empty words and demanding ack-shun.

Same standard about abortion?  Usury?  Porn?  Confiscatory taxation? 

Can you please give me your list of situations in which the church should run the world?

A great many people, inside of the church and out, are like the fellow in this coming Sunday’s Gospel, spouting high sounding agendas and expecting the Lord to serve them.  But the Lord is ultimately expendable in their earth bound master plan.


Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



I have been thinking about this a little, since I saw the comment I mentioned about the new pope being a right-wing reactionary who supported the junta.

Well, let’s see: “when Bergoglio argued that gay adoptions discriminate against children, Fernandez [President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, currently re-elected for her second term and widow of the former president] compared his tone to “medieval times and the Inquisition.”

So, as far as I can make out, the Church attempting to intervene in politics is a bad thing when it’s against a liberalising regime like the current one, but it’s a good thing when it’s against a conservative government.  I think we all agree that torture and oppression of the citizens is bad no matter who’s doing it, but it seems to me - if I’m understanding the mindset of the critics - that the reason Pope Francis and the church hierarchy are getting all the blame (never mind the conspiracy theorising about being an actual collaborator and war criminal) is that they didn’t call for or support armed revolution.

The idea seems to be that, since the government of Argentina at the time was right-wing, they naturally would ally with the Church.  Now, I hope the critics think that the dictator and his cronies didn’t actually believe in Christianity or Catholicism but were just bargaining for “you keep the people quiet by preaching to them to submit to our lawful authority and we’ll let you keep your power, status and wealth unlike what happened in Mexico”, but it really does seem to me that they think that the people who came to power in a military coup and were disappearing all the dissidents would really have said “Archbishop, I had no idea murder was wrong!  I will immediately stop ordering my troops to pick people up in dawn raids now that you tell me not to do it!”

How on earth do they think that a self-described Roman Catholic like President Fernandez, who is told by the cardinal that legalising same-sex marriage, adoption by gay couples, free contraception and free artificial insemination is wrong, can simultaneously refuse to be instructed by him yet still claim to be a faithful Catholic?  Why do they think she’s right not to do as the bishops tell her, yet the bishops were in the wrong by not getting the right-wing politicians to obey them?

Really, all I can conclude is that their idea is that oppression, torture and right-wing views all go together and the Church is the natural ally of such because it refuses to be progressive.

But I still can’t figure out how they think the archbishop of Argentina could have forced the junta to do anything.  Excommunicate them?  We’ve seen how well that works with politicians!  Urged the people (of course every single Argentine was a superstitious peasant who blindly followed the lead of the priest who told him or her what to think and what to do) to rise up in armed rebellion against them?  And there were no armed rebels already, and it’s of course the job of any church to wage war and lead revolutions?

[1] Posted by Martha on 3-14-2013 at 01:14 PM · [top]

When I heard this today on the radio I wasn’t that surprised.  I knew it wouldn’t take long for the liberal MSM to begin dragging him through the mud because he upholds orthodox Christian teaching. What a joke they are.

[2] Posted by johnd on 3-14-2013 at 07:09 PM · [top]

I imagine his critics were probably hoping he might have taken a lead from John the Baptist, who told Herod that is was not lawful for him to have his brother’s wife. The junta were nominally Roman Catholics, who received communion from John Paul II during his visit there. So surely it would have been right and proper for the Catholic church to remind Catholic leaders of their duty to follow justice and righteousness in their leadership, and to follow the 6th Commandment - Do not murder.

Incidentally, here’s an article which looks at Pope Francis’ testimony regarding these events - http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112656/pope-francis-and-argentinas-dirty-war-what-he-knew

[3] Posted by spicksandspecks on 3-17-2013 at 03:48 AM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.