A NEW POPE – AND THE ‘SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE VS. SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE’ BS

As Argentine Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio ascends to the Papal thrown, and one of the few remaining forces of tradition marches forward in a world increasingly hostile to it, the liberal media would have you believe that the only thing worth debating in Christendom is homosexuality and condoms. 

POPE FRANCIS: He is widely considered to be a social conservative

            I was, of course, expecting it (not expecting it would have been a grave error on my part, for I should know better by now).  MSNBC was only too eager to delve into the new Pontiff’s ‘social’ beliefs, uncovering the apparently dirty secret that he was in fact another ‘social conservative’ (a conservative who talks about ‘social justice’ as it happens), because he voiced an opinion regarding the legalisation of all forms of contraception in Argentina, not to mention his opposition to same-sex marriage (which is, as you can imagine, a great sin in Liberal Land, worthy of nothing less than accusations of ‘homophobia’). 

            Mario Bergoglio, however, has *no such irrational fear of homosexuals*.  He has called for homosexual people to be treated with respect and dignity – a stance I’m all in favor of.  The question that he is actually addressing is the sudden idea that a homosexual relationship is exactly the same as a heterosexual relationship.  Homosexuality has always existed, but the notion of marriage as being between one man and one woman has remained pretty much constant.  Marriage is the rock on which the family is built (a unit that has been chiseled at by its rival, the State).  Bergoglio is merely standing up for marriage as it has always been (what’s so evil about that?)  Nobody is being persecuted, gay people by and large can enter into the civil partnerships anyway, where they enjoy the same privileges bestowed upon married heterosexual couples. 

            Of course, for many ‘progressives’, this is a disappointment.  According to the Liberal Media, they were hoping for a Great Social Reformer, somebody who would spend his time fighting against the ‘injustices’ of the Faith.  I am surprised they didn’t call for Barack Obama to be elected Pope (you don’t have to be a Cardinal and he is about as ‘progressive’ as you can get). 

            Saint Barack was not elected Pope, of course (in any case he’s too busy being a Secular Messiah in the United States).  And the new Pope, Francis, is not a ‘progressive’. 

            What a lot of people in the media don’t understand, though, is that there cannot be a ‘progressive’ pope (or indeed a ‘progressive’ clergyman, or indeed a ‘progressive’ layperson).  ‘Progressivism’ relies totally on moral relativism (the ideological conviction that morals can change as society changes).  Religion, on the other hand, is, by its very nature, absolutist.  There is scripture, and the teachings of scripture are passed on from one generation to the next.  ‘Truth’ means what it always meant – right is right and wrong is wrong.  The job of the Pontiff is to continue to promote what he would see as Catholic truth.  That truth is based on scripture, not on the current fashion.  The same goes for all clergymen – they are followers of Christ, and, technically, must adhere to the same precepts.  Moral relativism (or ‘Progressivism’) is utterly different.  You’d often hear Secular Progressives say things like, ‘lifelong marriage was expected back in those days, but this is the 21^st Century, and times have changed.’    

            I always laugh at the ‘21^st Century’ argument, because it is totalitarian: what people who use this argument are actually saying is: *we’ve one the Culture Wars, we’ve had the Revolution, so shut up and accept the new world we’ve created*.  This argument implies that the ‘21^st Century’ is somehow magically right, simply because we happen to be living in it.  It goes further, implying that history is irrelevant, as the people of the past were ‘backwards’ and ‘inferior’ when compared to the Enlightened beings of today.  Strange, when the only reason these people can speak their minds is because men of the previous centuries created Magna Carta, trial by jury, freedom of expression, the rule of law and the Bill of Rights.  In 1721, Great Britain officially became a Constitutional Monarchy (although the powers of the Monarch had been taken away some years before).  This guarantee of Liberty whilst retaining the tradition of monarchy would later spread across Europe, to Denmark, Belgium, Luxemburg and Norway, as well as Spain.  This was all the work of men of the past, not of the 21^st Century. 

            Don’t be fooled by this argument (that usually erupts whenever the Church is in the spotlight).  Pope Francis cannot be ‘progressive’, he cannot turn away from history and tradition, for without these there can be no Christianity, without these there can be no Church.