The Devil's Evangelist

Catholics are not the only ones with their krazies.  This is a problem throughout the world of religions when individuals or groups lose the focus of religion and pervert it into something evil.  Unfortunately it is all too common whether it is ISIS style Islam or Jews who, with the claims that God gave the land of Eretz Israel to them exclusively, want the Palestinians expelled from their ancestral lands or Hindus who burn churches and kill Christians.  We are all familiar with the saga of Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani teen who, as an advocate for the education of girls in the Muslim world, was shot by the Taliban and who, after her recovery, continues to live under death threats from “religious” extremists.  Less well publicized is the violence against Muslims in Myanmar (Burma) by the Buddhist monks known as the  Mabatha and led by the demagogue monk Ashin Wirathu.  Of course there are people in our country who advocate violence against people for their religious beliefs, and especially against Muslims.  Many of these people make the claim that they are “Christians” but their message is not merely a distortion of the message of Jesus but a 180^o perversion of it. 

One Christian demagogue who spent his life preaching a gospel of hatred in the name of Jesus was the Reverend Ian Paisley, founder of the Free Presbyterian Church movement of Ulster and of North America.  Paisley had been raised in religious bigotry—his father had been an independent Baptist preacher who had served in the Ulster Volunteers—a Protestant militia formed to protect the Protestant ascendency in the years immediately before World War I.  Paisley himself began preaching at the age of sixteen and his message from the first was one of fundamentalism and religious bigotry.

The conflicts that tore Northern Ireland apart during the second half of the twentieth century were not essentially religious conflicts but rather a socio-economic struggle between the native Irish who were held in menial jobs and high unemployment by the Scots-Irish who were the descendants of Scottish settlers whom the British had transplanted to Ireland in the late seventeenth and in the eighteenth centuries.  The native Irish tended to be Catholic; the Scots Irish were usually Presbyterian, though sometimes Anglican, Baptist, or Methodist.  Due to the eighteenth-century British laws that prohibited Catholics from owning land, studying at the universities, entering the professions, or having sufficient capital to build or own industries, eighteenth-century Ireland had economically fragmented with the Protestant minority being the landowners and capitalists and the Irish majority being tenant farmers and menial workers.  Nineteenth-century reforms and twentieth-century independence of the Irish Republic corrected this imbalance in southern Ireland, but in Ulster, the six-counties that remained under British occupation, the Scots-Irish Protestant population was the majority and was able to hold the Irish (and Catholic) sector of society in economic bondage.  The problem was that despite the relative prosperity of Ulster, there were only so many jobs to go around and what employment there was was tied to the Orange Lodges—Masonic-style associations of  Protestant Unionists.  Unionists were those who were dedicated to maintaining Union with Great Britain in the “United Kingdom.”  You got your job through your connections with the Lodges.  As Catholics did not, and could not, belong to these associations it was much more difficult for them to find employment and when they did it was in the more menial work that the Protestant upper and middle class would not undertake.  The result was high unemployment among the Irish (and Catholic) underclass and the resultant social evils that go with economic hopelessness.  In 1964 Ulster Irish looked to the experience of the African American struggle for Civil Rights and began their own peaceful organization for civil rights.  They wanted”

1.   and end to job discrimination and a fair share of the employment; and in particular equal access to civil service jobs

2.   public housing to be allocated on the basis of need and not of religious affiliation

3.   reform of the police force where almost all police were drawn from the Protestant sector of society

4.   an end to property requirements for voting so that all citizens could vote regardless of whether or not they owned property

5.   guarantees of habeas corpus, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, all of which were frequently denied the Irish Catholic community

6.   electoral reform to end the gerrymandering that gave the Unionists disproportionate representation in government.

Terrence O’Neill, the Unionist Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, showed an openness to the movement and the reforms they were seeking.  Ian Paisley immediately organized a resistance to the civil rights movement, founding the Ulster Protestant Volunteers, a paramilitary group whose aim was to intimidate the civil rights movement out of existence.  This in turn spawned the Ulster Volunteer Force, another Protestant association to prevent civil rights for the native Irish.  The Ulster Protestant Volunteers and the Ulster Volunteer Force began organizing marches through native Irish neighborhoods to intimidate the populace from civil rights activities.  At this point, the Irish Republican Army was still dormant and had not become active, but in June 1966 the Ulster Volunteer Force was responsible for the burning of several homes and businesses belonging to the native Irish and several Catholic schools.  They also shot dead two Irish civilians on their way home from Mass.  This is generally considered to be the beginnings of the period of terror known as “The Troubles” in which over 3500 would lose their lives and almost 50,000 would be injured. This also  triggered the revival of the Irish Republican Army, an Irish and Catholic terrorist group whose goal was to protect the native Irish population from the Unionist violence and to respond in kind to the aggressive attacks of the various Unionists militias.  In response to the escalation of violence which he had begun, Ian Paisley would later organize two more paramilitary groups, The Force and The Ulster Resistance. 

Paisley’s political views and reliance on violence was rooted in his religious convictions that saw Catholicism as the religion of the anti-Christ.  For Ian Paisley true religion was not simply Protestantism—he was as opposed to most Protestantism as he was Catholicism—but in a Biblical fundamentalism, a rigorous Calvinism with its doctrine of double predestination, and an appeal to the sixteenth-century reformers who had declared the pope to be the Anti-Christ and Catholicism to be a diabolic corruption of authentic Christianity.  Paisley had left the Presbyterian Church in Ireland to form his own denomination, the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster.  He was rigidly anti-ecumenical and one of the reasons he broke with mainline Presbyterianism was Presbyterian involvement in the World Council of Churches which he saw as compromising pure Protestant doctrine by its association with other denominations.  (The Catholic Church does not belong to the World Council of Churches, though it does have “observer status” with it; several Orthodox Churches do belong however and they do certain things such as prayers to the Mother of God of which Paisley disapproved vehemently.)

It really was Ian Paisley who turned the conflict in Northern Ireland from a political and socio-economic conflict into a religious one by making it a Protestant cause. 

How did Ian Paisley feel about the native Irish?: his rhetoric was worthy of a George Wallace or a Ross Barnett:  "They breed like rabbits and multiply like vermin" he declared.  "Catholic homes caught fire because they were loaded with petrol bombs; Catholic churches were attacked and burned because they were arsenals and priests handed out sub-machine guns to parishioners" he said.  It wasn’t because they were Irish that he said these things—he himself claimed to be “Irish” though his ancestry was Scots. It was because they were Catholics.  When the beloved Pope John XXIII died in 1963, Paisley declared from his pulpit: “This Romish man of sin is now in hell.” 

In the New York Times obituary this morning it was reported that while his politics had softened in his final years, the legacy of hatred remains:

But his politics were predominantly a crusade against Irish Catholics. And when it was over, when he had softened the diatribes and accepted leadership in a power-sharing government, the legacies of fighting and religious hatreds remained. Housing was still overwhelmingly segregated, discrimination in jobs was still common, and 3-year-olds, researchers said, continued to display sectarian instincts.

Sixty years of preaching leaves a legacy of hatred.  This man was the devil’s evangelist with his gospel of hatred.  If Calvin were right and we are predestined from all eternity to heaven or to hell, there is no doubt where a man whose life produced such evil fruit would find himself.  But, ironically, if the Gospel as proclaimed by the Catholic tradition is right, there is a hope of mercy for us all, even Ian Paisley. 

The Obamazation of Pope Francis VI

Nelson Mandela died last year on December 5^th.  Tributes to the man who smashed apartheid in South Africa poured out from world leaders, among them Pope Francis who wrote:

 It was with sadness that I learned of the death of former President Nelson Mandela, and I send prayerful condolences to all the Mandela family, to the members of the Government and to all the people of South Africa. In commending the soul of the deceased to the infinite mercy of Almighty God, I ask the Lord to console and strengthen all who mourn his loss. Paying tribute to the steadfast commitment shown by Nelson Mandela in promoting the human dignity of all the nation’s citizens and in forging a new South Africa built on the firm foundations of non-violence, reconciliation and truth, I pray that the late President’s example will inspire generations of South Africans to put justice and the common good at the forefront of their political aspirations. With these sentiments, I invoke upon all the people of South Africa divine gifts of peace and prosperity.

For decades Nelson Mandela was a controversial figure.  He was demonized by those who were desperate to keep South Africa a bastion of white supremacy.  He was lionized by those who were determined to break the stranglehold of the Afrikaner minority over the indigenous peoples of South Africa.  Like most historical figures, and indeed like most of us, he was neither as good a person as he should have been nor as bad a person as he could have been, but few people in our modern world have had the impact for justice that  had Nelson Mandela.  On the principle of de mortuis nil nisi bonum we can let it rest there. To the average Catholic the Holy Father’s comments were measured, rational and appropriate.

But the wing-nuts in the Church were not willing to let it rest there.  Their discomfort, indeed fury, with Francis was only fueled by his relatively neutral remarks about the late President.  There were those like “Mac” who wrote on motheofgod.com  “Im (sic) disappointed with Pope Francis choice of words again.”  Ok, fair enough. We can always be disappointed.  But then Janet from Restore DC Catholicism came on a lot stronger with her disappointment, writing:

 With disappointment I read the news that Pope Francis paid public tribute to genocide-facilitator Nelson Mandela …by no stretch of the imagination was Mandela "promoting the human dignity of the nation's citizens".   ...  The Holy Father's "tribute" does not constitute dogma or even the lowest level of Church teaching. Deo Gratias!

Ladies and gentlemen, let's be clear about something, shall we? We have been promised by Our Lord that His Vicar will never solemnly promulgate error. But that's it! Never has Our Lord promised that all pontiffs will be wise. The Church's history has featured many popes who did much damage to the Church. ….we  do not hold him (Pope Francis) above question in matters of prudential judgment.  
 Well that was actually fairly mild compared to “EastSideHunky” on Stephenson County Pro-Life’s blog: Pro-Life Corner and their Posting “Pope Francis and the Child Killer.” 

Francis is clearly a modernist, one day quite orthodox and the next a total liberal. On these “off the cuff” comments one can totally ignore and disregard as divisive as they are. They are not magisterial nor proper to the teaching office of the supreme pontiff. Unfortunately, many conciliar Catholics and libs will either be confused by Frank ( Pope Francis) or cheer his heterodoxy.

This marks a notching up of the rhetoric when a figure as multi-faceted as Nelson Mandela is reduced to a simplistic caricature such as “Child Killer.”  This is precisely the same sort of reductionism that these same voices use to demean President Obama.  And where is the heterodoxy in Francis’ message of condolence?  And what qualifies East Side Hunky to label something as heretical?  This is the sort of partisan negativity that makes any true dialogue, whether political or theological, impossible.  It totally undermines rationality with bias.  But it gets even more outrageous.

When Britain’s Catholic Herald headlined “Catholics around the world mourn Nelson Mandela” one Agnus Dei replied

"No they do not! Not those who abide by the Church's teachings. Those who call themselves "Catholic" and who are not, are far more dangerous than those who say they would never join the Church because they do not agree with Her teachings. They do not harm the Church, professing to follow and worship Christ, yet fulfilling Satan's agenda to remodel Christ's Church in HIS own image. Making Her pay lip-service to Holy Church, whilst at the same time allowing Her to be undermined and perverted by those working so tirelessly against Her. 

Wolves disguising themselves as sheep have come into the sheep-fold and the sheep are being led astray. adhering to the doctrines of demons. The Holy Church of Christ is in perilous danger.

So Pope Francis and other prelates who paid tribute to President Mandela are remaking the Church in Satan’s own image and are leading Christ’s sheep astray.  That is far more than a vote of no confidence in Francis’ leadership, it is a strong indictment against him and his papacy.  But it follows the line of argument put forward by one wing-nut website which expressed its unhappiness with Pope Francis, not only for his message of condolence on the death of President Mandela but for his tolerance of gay people.   It gives us a picture into the rabid hatred that motivates those who are committed to the resurgence of racial hatred and the ties of racial bigotry to gender bigotry. 

The increasingly anti-traditional Pope praised the recently deceased communist and anti-white terrorist Nelson Mandela.  ….

Mandela’s South Africa was a genocidal, anti-white nightmare, where the most disgusting depravities were enshrined as “human rights”.  In South Africa we see the future of the entire White world, a future which Francis and the corrupted Catholic Church are fighting for.

Now granted that particular website is clearly wing-nut territory, but let’s look back to a more moderate one: Stephenson County Pro-Life’s Blog, Pro Life Corner, where Linda writes

Nelson Mandela did NOT sacrifice his freedom for anyone! He was justly convicted to life in prison for the mass murders of thousands of innocent men, women and children, white and black–as the leader of the “armed wing” of the African National Congress. He proudly pleaded guilty of terrorist acts, and REFUSED to denounce his violent activity as the leader of the “armed wing” of the African National Congress. He was a ruthless, heartless killer, a Communist, who enacted revenge while president of South Africa on those who protested his legalization of ABORTION, PORNOGRAPHY, PROSTITUTION, GAY MARRIAGE! Adolph Hitler did a lot of “good things” for Germany: built a modern road system, increased jobs, repaired infrastructure, etc. Do you think Pope Pius XII would have given such gushing accolades for Adolph Hitler at Hitler’s death because of those “good things he did”, like Pope Francis did for the Communist Nelson Mandela? Or would the Pope use the very words of Jesus, speaking of another secular governor, Herod: “That FOX…” This is a sad, sad day in the Catholic Church.

Linda’s rants are reminiscent of the sort of the discrediting libel that the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover put out against the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King in the Civil Rights Era.  There is a mad, irrational affixing of labels and names that bears no relation to the nuances of historical facts.  People—in this case, President Mandela and, by association, Pope Francis—are painted with broad brushes that ignore the subtleties of fact and the distinctions of history. 

What explanations can we draw from the sort of the attacks that conservative Catholics are making on Pope Francis?  What are they really upset about?  Is it a message of condolence to a nation on the death of their re-founding father? 

At the transition of millennia, we are witnessing the shift of history’s tectonic plates.  Power—and the future—are shifting from the North to the South.  The White race is losing the hegemony over the world since a global consciousness emerged in the sixteenth century with the Age of Exploration.  In the same way—and much closer to home for many of us—the gender roles have shifted dramatically within two generations.  Women head nations, major corporations, and even religions.  Openly Gay, Lesbian, and Transgendered men and women are taking places in society that were closed to them until a decade or so ago.  Those who find their identity (and comfort zone) in the white male patriarchy that has governed life in American—and the greater part of the developed world—society are feeling more and more disenfranchised.  Many of us do not have the standard of living that our parents had twenty years ago.  We feel politically voiceless as well as increasingly economically emarginated.  Change is very threatening.  Nelson Mandela is a powerful symbol of change.  Pope Francis’ papacy is symbolizing change.  A President of African lineage in the White House is enormous change.  Fear and Anger are normal responses when we find ourselves threatened by the slippery slope of being on the downside of history.  Get over it.  Put on your big boy (girl) pants and decide how you are going to be part of the future and stop fighting it.  Our Christian faith tells us that somewhere in that future is the Kingdom of God.  Shape the future, don’t fight it.  

When Religion Goes Bad

I was very disappointed that Malala Yousafzai didn’t wind the Nobel Peace Prize.  I can’t think of anyone better to symbolize the victory of Peace over Violence in our contemporary world.  But last week when I saw Diane Sawyer interviewing a group of Muslim women and heard them say that Malala should “return to Islam” and express their opinions that non-Muslim women like Ms. Sawyer are “oppressed” because they don’t live “under God’s will” but as “beholden to the slavery of their own desires” I saw not only the danger of radical Islam but the danger of radical religion of any stripe. 

Several days ago The New York Times carried a story of two Rabbis who—for a hefty fee—would arrange for men to be kidnapped and tortured until they gave their wives a get (a religious bill of divorce, required by Orthodox interpretation of the Mosaic Law for a woman to be released from marriage).  And again, like listening to those Muslim women, I cannot but wonder about what religion   devolves into among those who consider themselves “orthodox.”  Kidnapping and torture are a legitimate means to carry out compliance with the Mosaic Law?  And I read a story on the internet a few days ago how Orthodox Jewish settlers had not only stolen the land from Arab families in the West Bank but adding insult to injury, defaced their mosque.  And this is done because Jewish extremists make the claim that “God has given this land” to them.  The Name of God is blasphemed when it is used to justify such atrocities just as it was blasphemed when Christians used horror stories of child kidnappings and murders to instigate pogroms against the Jews of Europe. 

Extremist Hindus murder Muslims and Christians in India in the name of religious teachings that would demand religious conformity to all ethnic Indians.  And Buddhists—despite the clear teachings of the Buddha—massacre Muslims in Myanmar.  No wonder so many in our modern world just walk away in bewilderment and even disgust from religion all together. 

And sadly there is a Catholic Taliban too that would impose on all in our country, of whatever religion or of no religion, the dictates of the Church when it comes to matters of marriage or reproduction.  There are those who would bind not only the consciences but the freedom of others to rules of conduct whose only basis for authority are religious teachings. 

I am not saying that there are not moral standards and that Christianity’s moral law is in any way arbitrary.  I am only saying that any religion that compels adherence of unbelievers to its creeds or to its specific moral precepts is essentially a false way of life.  As Christians we have a mission to convert hearts, not to impose laws.  Winning hearts is a far more challenging mission than imposing laws, but it is the mission Christ gave to his Church and the only one we do with his blessing.