Benny continues to follow Johnny

In a recent speech in St. Peter’s Square, on a day he named “World Day of the Emigrant and Refugee,” Pope Benedict XVI, who I had once thought was a wise and intelligent man, echoed his lunatic open-borders predecessor: countries have a moral obligation to welcome and embrace all immigrants, with no notion that countries have legitimate interests that might be damaged by the mass immigration of people from different cultures and civilizations. At least George W. Grayson of DailyPress.com wasn’t buying it. So VFR is not completely alone in the world.

- end of initial entry -

Gary M. writes:

The Pope and those at the highest echelon of the Church may use flowery, high minded language to put a positive spin on illegal immigration, but these are intelligent, educated men who know exactly what they’re doing. Most of the Church’s adherents are poor, uneducated, and not particularly sophisticated. They don’t hear nuance, they hear “you have a right to go to the United States if you think it will improve your station in life.”

And let’s look at the cardinals, the upper management of the firm, so to speak. You will not find a bigger open borders nut-case than Roger Mahony – not to mention his shielding of pedophiles. If Benedict had any problem at all with it, he would have cleaned house a long time ago. Or is the Church afraid of wrongful termination lawsuits?

Think of it this way: do you think the chief of police in Mexico City isn’t taking bribes, but his patrolmen on the street are? The cop on the beat doesn’t do anything that the culture of his department prohibits, and it’s the same thing with the Church.

(A reader challenges this blog entry and I reply here.)

Tom P. writes:

Is referring to the Pope—the leader of the most venerable Western institution—as “Johnny” and “Benny” really in keeping with a traditionalist perspective?

LA replies:

I dealt with this issue at the time of John Paul II’s funeral, when the whole world including the non-believing liberal world was making a saint of him while I was pointing out how he had been a disaster and was certainly not the “conservative” everyone was saying he was, and some readers were offended that I was criticizing the pope at that time. I said, the whole world is telling these pious lies about him now, why should only their view be allowed, and not mine?

Also, as regards immigration and Islam policy, I’m dealing with the two popes specifically in their role as political actors. No one asked JPII and Benedict to involve themselves in immigration policy. As long as they are intruding in the political affairs of nations (and of course JPII was far worse in this regard than Benedict), and, moreover, in such a destructive way, they are actors on the political stage and do not deserve any special deference.

I’m not speaking of them in their role as priest and bishop, but as political actors doing extremely damaging things. A little irreverence is good in these circumstances.

There is far too much automatic obeissance to political and intellectual authority among conservatives. Look at how Bush has been made a god by his supporters. Look how the name Bernard Lewis—one of the most dishonest, destructive intellectuals of our time—has become a byword for wisdom, ending all thought.

Speaking about Benedict, when he did his “Lawrence Summers” routine last fall, first criticizing Islam in this unprecedentedly bold way, then turning around and kissing its foot, did he deserve to be treated with respect after that? Yet the worst I’ve done is call him “Benny,” which is rather genial. I’m not calling him the Whore of Babylon.

Bottom line: I am not obligated to treat with deference people who are enemies of my civilization, people who bow down to Islam, people who kiss the Koran, people who support the admission of Turkey into Europe, people who turn Christianity into a mandated recipe for national and civilizational suicide via open immigration. Popes cannot be traitors to the West, and then expect to be automatically treated with the respect due to the head of the most venerable Western institution.

J. writes:

With respect to my concern over American clergy pushing Spanish-language worship in their churches, I just found this in your earlier post on the popes:

“Bottom line: I am not obligated to treat with deference people who are enemies of my civilization, people who bow down to Islam, people who kiss the Koran, people who support the admission of Turkey into Europe, people who turn Christianity into a mandated recipe for national and civilizational suicide via open immigration. Popes cannot be traitors to the West, and then expect to be automatically treated with the respect due to the head of the most venerable Western institution.”

This applies equally to the heads of individual churches, I think, when they tread onto political ground. The hard part is when they clothe their programs in the Gospel, as mission outreach. But it seems to me that unless there is an existing need for other-language worship in a congregation, the pastors have no business creating that need where none existed. Wouldn’t the more appropriate response be to send foreign-language missions out into the community and world, rather than alter and divide the existing congregation and its worship?

It strikes me as adulterous—imagine how would my wife and children would feel if I were to invite another woman and her children to live in our house, because they were in need, in order to share the goods, companionship, and protection that is naturally due my own family.

Thank you, I will be taking this up with my pastors.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 25, 2007 11:31 AM | Send