Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Lost Sermons
"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." [Lc 12:51]
(Drawing by Mme Émy Létourneau. Also, this drawing must be interpreted in the light of #3, #8, etc.)
In the Catholic Church, being responsible for a schism is like being responsible for mass murder. Anybody planning to create a schism had better find some good rope in a hurry, because Christ says:
"It is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea" [Mk 9:42].
So why talk about a schism that "comes in the Name of the Lord"?
As already stated, being actively responsible for a schism is a mortal sin punishable by eternal Hell-fire [CCC, #2089, etc.]. But it is possible to be a canonized saint and to be "passively responsible" for a schism. This is just another application of what can be called the "Principle of Double-Effect". Basically, it's good to seek a good end, despite an involuntary, inferior and unavoidable negative side-effect.
There is an enormous difference between a bad Bishop who actively tries to cut himself and his flock off from Rome, and a good Bishop who tries to defend the teachings of the Catholic Church by punishing dissidents who reject the authority of Rome.
It is unfortunately possible that dissidents who get punished by good Bishops will cause a schism. Actually, it's far from just a theoretical possibility; such a threat has been, is being, and will be used by dissidents to intimidate Bishops into inaction. Remember, dissidents are not "good Catholics with a different lifestyle and uncommon gifts of the Holy Spirit", but wolves in the sheepfold. Their goal in life is to destroy the Church of Jesus Christ. They are quite aware of the timidity of many Bishops, and will exploit that weakness to the hilt.
The usual objection of bad religious leaders who shy away from their less pleasant duties is to claim they are "working on the positive". This is like stupid teachers who refuse to discipline bad students who disrupt the whole class. These teachers claim that they are giving a perfectly good course, and that most students are nice and will want to learn.
The problem with the school metaphor is that in real schools, bad students are nowhere near as bad as wolves in the sheepfold! I've been bothered by twits who gabbed during classes and prevented me from concentrating, but I've never seen anything like a "dissident student".
A "dissident student" would not only gab while the teacher was talking, but would also go up front and erase everything from the blackboard, as soon as the teacher tried to write it, and put duck tape over the teacher's mouth. Such a student would also steal the exam copies as they were handed in by his classmates, and give the best grades to the worst students (all the ones like him), and fail the ones who studied hard, did all their homework, and listened quietly during classes. Such a "dissident student" would then claim, based on the exam results, that the best way to learn was to drink beer and beat up younger kids to get their lunch money. He would even try to get himself elected as the school Principal, to apply his "New Pedagogical Theory".
With enough "dissident students" in a school, that school is doomed to destruction. Such problems don't just go away by themselves.
Killing the Church of Jesus Christ is easy, and the formula is simple:
Minority of Dissidents + Anti-Catholic Media + No Discipline = Dead Church
Bishops and Priests who try to excuse themselves by saying that dissidents are a minority are either blind and stupid, or wolves. Maybe the dissidents are a minority inside the Church, but because the Media is anti-Catholic, these dissidents are the only ones heard on the public square, and they are inevitably presented as geniuses and saints.
Since the religious leaders don't publicly and severely discipline these dissidents, the dissidents can proudly proclaim: "Not only are our theories the best, but on top of that they are Catholic!"
These dissidents can then infiltrate Seminaries, Universities, Schools, Parishes, Catechism classes, etc. They can then teach everybody to drink beer and beat up younger kids to get their lunch money, and bingo: dead Church!
Why do some religious leaders do this? One answer: priorities.
Imagine you are married to the most beautiful and sweetest woman in the world, who has given you many lovely children. Imagine also that you want to get yourself elected as the mayor of your city. Suppose a rich and popular politician broke into your house and threatened to rape your wife and strangle your children. What would you do? If you legitimately try to defend yourself and your family, this rich and popular politician will probably die, and will certainly not try to help you get elected. But if you don't shoot the bastard, he will rape your wife and kill your kids. Priorities, priorities...
Bishops and Priests, when deciding whether to discipline or not the dissidents, have to make a choice. If they only have bodily eyes to see their worldly popularity and their physical comfort, and if they no longer have spiritual eyes to see what happens to souls when they are led away from the pure teachings of Christ, then their priorities will be clear.
Satanic, but clear.
It's not an accident that the "Principle of double-effect" quoted in #2 here above is also used to explain legitimate defence. Actually, there seems to be a stunning connection between the unhealthy fear of passively causing a schism, and the current intense unpopularity of legitimate defence and the death penalty. In all these cases, we let the bad guys kill who they want (physically or spiritually), in order to avoid behaving like real Hemen (whether real Judges, or real Fathers, or real Bishops).
Jesus isn't effeminate. Blessed is He, who in a virile way, comes in the Name of the Lord.
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Lost Sermons