Not even thinly veiled racialists

…upset by Church’s failure to be racist. Basic subtext summed up by post-Christian racist comboxer:

The Church moves with the times.

If the white man is on top, you defer to him.

If the Brown horde is coming for Rome, you get on your knees to them.

Not very spiritual, but very good business, indubitably.

When you abandon the faith that all humans are in the image and likeness of God, you start falling for this kind of racist filth. Incredible as it may seem, the Church operates by an entirely different calculus than this guy can even imagine.

Meanwhile, reader Kurt Higdon replies to this swill by identifying the arch-conspirator behind the Church’s sinister vision of globalism and the horrible fruits of letting miscegenation poison the purity of the white man’s essence:

This all goes back to that notorious globalist Jesus Christ who commanded his apostles to preach the gospel to ALL nations. One of those apostles, Thomas, made it all the way to India where he established a branch of the Church whose nuns are currently caring for patients at our local hospital here in Corpus Christi. What an insidious 2000 year global conspiracy!

Speaking of racists, I am pleased to note that The American Catholic site stood up to one in their comboxes and banished him. Well done! The same individual has periodically afflicted me in my comboxes too, so I applaud TAC for showing this man the door. Such filth has no place among either Americans or Catholics. Bravo, TAC!

  • Thomas R

    Yeah using Sailer and “Camp of the Saints” as support for a position is pretty much just saying you’re racialist. (Sailer has done some okay film criticism, but I’d hesitate quoting him even there)

    • Varenius

      You’re being a bit unfair to Sailer. His views are pretty mild compared to most of the “HBD” crowd, and — tellingly, I think — never expresses contempt for other racial/ethnic groups, even if it he feels the data show they are intellectually “inferior”. (Other HBDers, on the other hand…)

      • Thomas R

        Oh sure he’s more mild and reasonable than many racialist, but a respectable racialist is still a racialist.

        • Varenius

          Now I’m left wondering why would you consider him a true racialist in the first place. Is looking at biological group differences and voicing what you (think you) find enough to make you a “racialist”? Does it take merely considering the topic regardless of what you conclude from your findings? I’d say it’s only when you devalue the inherent worth of groups and individuals based on your investigation that you deserve the label.

  • The Deuce

    Yup. I find the Rod Dreher piece that he linked to deeply worrying though, as it suggests that Benedict himself (and not just scaaaaary multiracial bishops) has gone off the deep end and taken his Papal teaching authority with him. I really, really hope this isn’t true: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/2011/10/25/pope-benedict-global-government-one-world-catholic/

    • Mark Shea

      Since you are, if memory serves, a Protestant you already subscribe to the heresy that the Pope has gone off the rails. Meanwhile, those of us who believe Jesus’ promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail have one less thing to worry about.

      • The Deuce

        Yes, I’m born and raised a Protestant, but I’m also very sympathetic to the Catholic Church, and have become moreso as I learn more about Thomism, etc. That’s why I visit Catholic blogs so frequently. I usually end up defending the Catholic Church against other Protestants when they bash it. If I were ever to leave the denomination I am in, I would probably become Catholic.

        I’m not worried that the gates of hell will prevail against the Church. But I am worried that imprudent choices could cause a great deal of suffering for its members. I understand that the Pope wants a world authority that would secure the common good for everybody, enforce justice, respect human rights, protect the unborn and the weak, and be inspired by charity and truth in general.

        But I don’t see how that could happen unless the World Authority were explicitly Christian. Even then, I can’t imagine how it could stay that way for long, human corruption being what it is. It just seems like the Pope is wishing for a utopian earthly human authority to be what only the Kingdom Of God can be at the end of the age. The transnational authorities that we *actually* have have uniformly proven themselves to be deeply and unrelentingly hostile to Christ and the Church, usurious, dedicated to population control, exploitative and abusive, and unconcerned with the needs and desires of the people they supposedly serve. And the bigger they get, the more this seems to be the case.

        I think it would turn out to be a very bad thing for Christians around the world, at least in the near term, if they actually worked towards creating an empire with “teeth” on the belief that this would or even could represent a real-world solution the world’s present economic ills (they would certainly find many secularists willing to “cooperate” with them in this goal), only to find out too late what such an entity really entails.

        • J

          Agreed. Nicely written.

        • Thomas R

          I don’t know if the Pope is for all of this. But yeah I think much of the document is about an ideal, not anything real. Although I can understand why maybe we shouldn’t be so dismissive of it, seeing as many of us can’t believe it I think dismissing it is understandable too.

  • Joseph

    As much as I used to enjoy Dreher, I came to the conclusion long ago that he’s an ex-Catholic with a chip on his shoulder. He’s not looking for someone to change his mind on this, his mind is made up. He’s just created more traffic to his blog, which is frequented by Protestants like himself (I know he’s Orthodox, but he left the Catholic Church under the auspices that it wasn’t “conservative” enough rather than on merits of truth… that makes him a Protestant) by dropping the “one-world government” bomb.

    I usually ignore his Catholic-baiting posts.

    • Thomas R

      I don’t think that’s quite accurate. He didn’t leave it for truth reasons, but to me a Protestant is one who leaves it for Bible-based reasons. Or the Bible played some role. The Bible didn’t play a role in what he did. I’m not sure how to put this right, but what I read of him he left for what I might call “aesthetic” and “organizational” reasons. Orthodox church services are “prettier”, more traditional, and he doesn’t have any bad experiences with their hierarchy.

      He does strike me more as an ex-Catholic than a current Orthodoxer. Particularly as he basically said something like that once.

  • Andy

    I read Mr. Dreher’s piece and found it to be the usual complaints about a one world government. He ignores the condemnation of the current economic processes in the world today. What concerns me is his statement in the com-boxes: …thought it was pretty clear in my post that I’m talking about “binding” in relative terms — in other words, that Catholics have to take an encyclical a lot more seriously than a statement by a Vatican dicastery. A papal encyclical is not an ex cathedra teaching, obviously, but neither is it merely an expression of opinion that one is free to breeze past if it doesn’t suit one’s own biases.” And then this from another poster: What Stephen said. Just for a slight expansion, this quote from the article on encyclicals at New Advent’s Catholic Encyclopedia site, emphasis added:
    As for the binding force of these documents [encyclicals] it is generally admitted that the mere fact that the pope should have given to any of his utterances the form of an encyclical does not necessarily constitute it an ex-cathedra pronouncement and invest it with infallible authority. The degree in which the infallible magisterium of the Holy See is committed must be judged from the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case.”
    Since Mr. Dreher and the quote which is from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia seem to indicate that Papal Encyclicals are not binding – where does that leave the anti-abortion crowd, or those interested in pelvic issues? It seems to me that although Mr. Dreher would like to declare the cafeteria is closed – he actually opening the door even wider. Perhaps a wiser head than I can puzzle it out, but on the face of it, his pronouncements are troubling. THis strikes me as an attempt to muzzle the Church, or at least minimize, as it addresses the dignity of human kind.

    • Thomas R

      Opposition to abortion is explicitly mentioned in one of the Councils, I think, and in the Didache. I don’t think it rests on encyclicals.

      I would think not all encyclicals even can be infallible because if they were we might still be bound to that one from the 18th century that says Catholics can never work for a Jew. And I’m pretty sure Catholics are allowed to have Jewish people as boss. Maybe even be a servant to a Jewish person as the encyclical was maybe referring more to servants and slaves.

      • Andy

        Thomas R. -Thank you – I read the excerpt from the Didache – I wish indeed that all of the excerpt provided was followed and not just the focus on abortion and homosexuality – “Do not covet your neighbor’s property; do not commit perjury; do not bear false witness”; do not slander; do not bear grudges. Do not be double-minded or double-tongued, for a double tongue is “a deadly snare.” Your words shall not be dishonest or hollow, but substantiated by action. Do not be greedy or extortionate or hypocritical or malicious or arrogant.
        Maybe this document should be more readily available and followed.

      • str

        “Opposition to abortion is explicitly mentioned in one of the Councils, I think, and in the Didache. I don’t think it rests on encyclicals.”

        Actually, the core of opposition to abortion is mentioned in the Ten Commandments.

        The rest ist science…

  • nate

    Nice little piece on the King statue on the American Catholic site. (Unfortunately, as noted here, the combox discussion there went in some unfortunate directions.) I’m always amazed, in my own college classrooms, how uninformed my incoming freshman are of the religious sentiments of Dr. King. It should be common knowledge that he based his justification for civil disobedience and desegregation on a good ‘ol fashioned natural law. These facts are, I would guess, problematic to our high school history book writers. At the very least, this is my assumption, given how shocked most of my freshman are to discover that King talked not only about God, but about fellows like Aquinas and Augustine. Scandal is right.

  • B

    Personally, I like the original form of our Constitutional gov’t. with stronger local gov’t. That said, I don’t think forms of gov’t is a moral issue as long as said gov’t protects the individual God given freedoms of all. Also I know the pope is smarter than I, so I try to really mull his words over. In the end, unless he is speaking ex-cathedra, I’m free to form my opinion.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X