A boat without Peter, or Peter without a boat?

From our correspondent in Rome

There exists a certain philosophical simulacrum, whose most profound meaning is expressed in the maxim ‘a truth’s worth is always in keeping with the number of its followers’. Such an idea dominates the capacity of forming judgments of a great number of our contemporaries, who think it unnecessary to distinguish between believing and voicing an opinion.

We could call this philosophical “hooliganism”. In the conception of its proponents, manipulation of the masses with the information propagated (and interpreted) by written and audio-visual communication is the only reliable font worthy of prestige for a truth in the globalized world we live in. Only the applause of the crowds points towards the authentic paths of history.

The problem is that recently all the media racket is accompanied by a certain subtle background rumor…the kind that frightens analysts and political advisors when they perceive that the curve of prestige is decreasing for the first time on the graph which had previously displayed only direct ascension.

Truth doesn’t make noise.

That is why the globalized “opinion leaders’ may appear surprised that some claim to have perceived something happening within the domain of Bergoglianism.

Recently, civil unions were legalized in Italy — the first step toward the pseudo homosexual marriage — after a heated debate, in which the silence of the Vatican called more attention than the uproar of confrontation between the opposing parties. The Family Day promulgated in Rome, a demonstration congregating adamant followers of the traditional family, was a clear display of the struggle of a multitude, who had surely wished that the voice of the clergy would make itself heard. What should one suspect? That such voices don’t exist? Or that were they silenced? But the main questions that arises is another: Just who really is with Francis? Some speak of a boat without Peter. What if it is the contrary…?

In the political ambit — wherein the Bishop of Rome delves when and where he pleases — there is a growing current of opinion infiltrating into the midst of the tremendous wave of ‘popular support’ that the media has commonly attributed to Bergoglio. Regarding a recent jest of little persuasive worth, the “astrologists” of the White House have been more inclined to foretell a victory for Donald Trump, ever since his quarrel with Francis. In fact, friends and sympathizers of Bergoglio are gradually tending toward the losing side as time goes by. Cristina Kirchner, Evo Morales, Nicholas Maduro…Curiously, all of Francis’ friends head left-wing parties unfurling the flag of the “people” – a people that nonetheless showing signs of wanting to flee from under its shadow, in search of something that might better shelter it. Could it be that the root of truth is steadily destroying all of the paths that Francis has dedicated to asphalting during the past three years? Within the ambit that truly corresponds to the Pontiff — that is, the religious ambit — a growing silence is perceived, calling more attention than any background noise.

Even though Bergoglio doesn’t demonstrate a hint of shame in welcoming suspect movements, he should understand that for true Catholics — those who are in the boat and not those clinging to it on the outside — militant homosexuality, in all of its numerous manifestations, is incompatible with morality.

“The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16: 18). This phrase refers to Jesus Christ and his Church. If the stone over which Christ himself founded the Church does not make itself present, the very hand of God will sustain it. Perhaps it is necessary to use vocabulary adjusted to the intelligence level of the “philosophical hooligans” — whether or not they are fans of the San Lorenzo football club — in an attempt to explain to them that though the game continues, the championship has already been bought, at the expensive price of the Blood of Christ. This doesn’t diminish interest in the game; on the contrary, it shows that it will not be easy to win, and that at times — as in the current Bergoglian pontificate — there will be some who end up thinking that the risk of losing is great. However, despite the hysteric cheers that have accompanied Francis ever since he entered the field until now, the scoreboard is slowing down. It reminds us of those politicians who have a greater number of public applauding them than those that voted in their favor…

In reality, the efforts of evil are useless. And paradoxically, it is the media itself that brings us the pieces of the puzzle which, when put together, seem to emphasize the opposite of what they intended to transmit: the resounding echo of silence.

2 thoughts on “A boat without Peter, or Peter without a boat?

Comments are closed.