Don’t Treat Wolves Like Lost Sheep

The doctrine of Our Lord Jesus Christ is full of seemingly antagonistic truths which nevertheless when examined closely, far from mutually denying one another actually complement one another, forming a truly marvelous harmony. This is the case, for example, with the seeming contradiction between Divine justice and goodness. God is at the same time infinitely just and infinitely merciful. Whenever we close our eyes to one of these perfections in order to understand the other we fall into grave error. In His earthly life, Our Lord Jesus Christ gave admirable proofs of His gentleness and His severity.

Let us not try to “correct” Our Lord’s personality according to the smallness of our views, to close our eyes to the Savior’s kindness in order to better understand His justice; nor on the other hand, to turn away from His justice in order to better understand His infinite compassion for sinners. Our Lord showed Himself perfect and adorable both when He welcomed Mary Magdalene with ineffably sweet forgiveness and when He punished the Pharisees violent language. Let us not tear up any of these pages from the Holy Gospel. Let us understand and adore Our Lord’s perfections as they reveal themselves in both episodes. And finally, let us understand that our imitation of Our Lord Jesus Christ will only be perfect the day we know not only how to forgive, comfort and caress but also to scourge, denounce and fulminate as Our Lord.

There are many Catholics who consider as unworthy of imitation the episodes of the Gospel showing the Messiah's holy wrath against the ignominy and treachery of the Pharisees. At least that is what emerges from the way they consider the apostolate. They always talk about sweetness and always seek to imitate this virtue of Our Lord. May God bless them for that; but why don’t they seek to imitate the other virtues of Our Lord?

Very often, when one proposes some energetic action in matters of the apostolate the invariable answer is that we must proceed with the utmost gentleness “in order not to further alienate those who have fallen astray.” Could one sustain that strong action invariably causes the misguided to “drive even further away”? Could it be argued that when Our Lord called to task the Pharisees with burning invectives He did so with the intention of “driving those misguided ones even further away”? Or should one perhaps suppose that Our Lord did not know or care about the “catastrophic” effect that His words would cause on the Pharisees? Who would dare admit such blasphemy against Our Lord, the Incarnate Wisdom?

God forbid we should call for strong action and verbal violence as the only remedies for souls. God forbid, however, that we should banish such heroic remedies from our methods of apostolate. There are circumstances in which one should be suave and other circumstances in which one should employ holy “violence.” It is always a grave evil to be gentle when circumstances require severity, or severe when circumstances require suavity.

* * *

All this unilateral order of ideas we are denouncing stems from a one-sided consideration of the Parables. There are many people who take the parable of the lost sheep as the only one in the Gospel. Now, this is a very serious mistake that we do not want to shrink from denouncing.

Our Lord not only speaks of the lost sheep, unfortunately bloodied by thorns, which the shepherd patiently seeks out at the bottom of the abyss. Our Lord also tells us about rapacious wolves that constantly surround the fold watching for an opportunity to slip in disguised in sheep’s clothing. Now if a shepherd who knows how to tenderly carry a lost sheep on his shoulders is admirable, what could be said of a shepherd who were to abandon his faithful flock and walk a long distance to fetch a wolf disguised in sheep’s clothing, lovingly take it on his shoulders, open the doors of the fold to it and place the ravenous wolf among the sheep?

However, if they were to apply effectively the unilateral principles of apostolate that they profess, how many Catholics would act exactly this way!

* * *

In order to better understand that the perfect imitation of Our Lord is not found only in meekness and suavity but also in severity we will cite a few episodes and sentences of some saints. A saint is one whom the Church has declared with infallible authority to have been a perfect imitator of Our Lord. How did the Saints imitate Our Lord? Let us see.

Saint Ignatius of Antioch, a martyr of the second century wrote several letters to various churches[1] before being martyred. These letters contain phrases about heretics such as: “ferocious beasts (Eph. 7); rapacious wolves (Phil. 2.2.); mad dogs that attack treacherously (Eph. 7); beasts with men’s face (Smyrn. 4.1.); Devil’s herbs (Eph 10.1.); parasite plants that the Father hath not planted (Tral. 11); crops destined for the eternal fire (Eph. 16.2).”

As we see, this way of dealing with heretics closely followed the examples of Saint John the Baptist who called the scribes and Pharisees a “brood of vipers,” and of Our Lord Jesus Christ Who named them “hypocrites” and liked them to “whited sepulchres.”

The Apostles proceeded in the same manner. Saint Irenaeus, a martyr of the second century and disciple of Saint Polycarp, who in turn had been a disciple of Saint John the Evangelist, recounts that when the apostle went to the baths he withdrew without washing because there he saw Corinth, a heretic who denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, for fear, he said, that the building would came down because in it was Corinth, an enemy of truth. The same Saint Polycarp, meeting one day with Marcion, a Docetist heretic who asked if he knew him, replied: “No doubt, you are the first-born of Satan.”

Moreover, in doing so they followed Saint Paul’s advice: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid” (Titus 3:10).

If the same Saint Polycarp happened to meet with a heretic he would cover his ears and exclaim: “God of goodness, why hast Thou kept me on earth to endure such things?” And he would immediately flee to avoid such company.

In the fourth century Saint Athanasius recounts that Saint Anthony the hermit called the speeches of heretics a poison worse than that of snakes.

And this is the way the Holy Fathers treated heretics in general, as can be seen from an article published in Civiltà Cattolica, a journal founded by His Holiness Pius IX and entrusted to the Jesuits fathers in Rome. In this article they cite several examples that I transcribe:

“Saint Thomas Aquinas, sometimes presented as invariably peaceful towards his enemies, in one of his polemics with William of Holy Love, who still had not been condemned by the Church, thus treated him and his henchmen: “Enemies of God, ministers of the devil, members of the Antichrist, enemies of the salvation of mankind, slanderers, sewers of blasphemy, reprobates, wicked, ignorant, equal to Pharaoh, worse than Jovinian and Vigilantius (heretics who denied the virginity of Our Lady).” Saint Bonaventure called Gerald, one of his contemporaries, “impudent, libelous, crazy, poisoner, ignorant, deceitful, wicked, foolish, perfidious.”

The mellifluous Saint Bernard, talking about Arnold of Brescia who led a schism against the clergy and church property, called him: “disordered, vagabond, impostor, vessel of ignominy, scorpion vomited out of Brescia, viewed with horror in Rome, with abomination in Germany, scorned by the Roman Pontiff, praised by the devil, worker of iniquity, devourer of the people, mouth full of cursing, sower of discord, maker of schisms, ferocious wolf.”

In more ancient times, Saint Gregory the Great, rebuking John, Bishop of Constantinople, denounced to his face his profane and abominable pride, the pride of Lucifer, his foolish words, vanity and lack of intelligence.

Nor did Saints Fulgentius, Prosper, Jerome, Siricius Pope, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Hilary, Athanasius, Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, the holy martyrs Cornelius and Cyprian, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Ignatius martyr, Clement, and finally all the Fathers of the Church who distinguished themselves by their heroic virtue speak otherwise.

If one wishes to know what rules the Doctors and Theologians of the Church provided to be followed in controversies with heretics, read Saint Francis de Sales, the gentle Saint Francis de Sales in Philotea, chapter 20 of Part 2: “The declared enemies of God and the Church should be vilified as much as possible (provided the truth is respected) and it is a work of charity to cry: Behold the wolf! when it is amidst the flock, or anywhere else it is found.”[2]


How many protests we would have to listen to if Legionário were to publish against contemporary enemies of the Church half of what has been said above!

The preceding article was originally published in O Legionário, on September 28, 1941. It has been translated and adapted for publication without the author’s revision. –Ed. 
The Irish Machabean has republished this article from the website of the American TFP

1.The Letters, or Epistles of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Father of the Church. Among these letters are those to the Ephesians, Philadelphians, Smyrnæans, and Trallians, mentioned here. ↑

2.Hitherto quotes are from the article in Civiltà Cattolica, vol. I, section V, p. 27. ↑

Immigration: Charity and Common Sense

In the wake of last week’s Paris attacks the topic of immigration has been brought back into the forefront of public discourse.

And as usual left wing liberals denounce as racist anyone with even the slightest misgiving about unlimited immigration.

They don’t explain, nor apparently even notice, the internal contradictions in their own position.

Many people who would prefer to limit immigration are mainly worried about one particular strand of the whole broad spectrum of possible immigrant groups. This particular strand is muslim immigration, and it is mightily defended and continually excused by liberals.

It must be complicated being a liberal these days.

On the one hand, they denounce as misogynist all opponents, however mild, of the feminist movement; to them the least challenge to same-sex “marriage” is homophobic; they think that only an uptight prude would call for modesty in dress or behaviour, and that only a racist would advocate immigration policies being subservient to common sense. They despise militarism.

But on the other hand, the culture that liberals support, defend and tirelessly excuse – islam with its sharia law – has women walking around in body bags, as the private property of their men folk; has homosexuals thrown from high roofs or burnt alive; flays, pours acid in the face of, or “honour” kills immodest women who dare expose to public view as much as an ankle or who bring disrepute upon the male members of their families; and whose spokesmen regularly announce plans to wipe out the entire Jewish race.

Oh, and the leftist liberal pompously declares that all this violence emanating from islam is caused by right wing extremism. Which is akin to using as an excuse, after committing a crime: “The devil made me do it.”

Immigration policy should be based on a combination of charity and common sense.

Charity dictates that, unless there is a grave reason to act otherwise, we should welcome visitors to our shores.

Common sense raises some questions:

At what rate can we accept immigrants, and still enable them to adapt and assimilate to our culture?

What would qualify as an exception to the rule of charity? Should we, for example, accept declared enemies, who have credibly claimed that they will suppress our culture, marry our daughters and supplant our religion?

When it comes to refugees, charity may desire to take them all in, providing food and shelter for those in need.

Of course common sense will ask the perhaps unwelcome questions:

What can we afford to do? How much can we give without impoverishing our own people?

How much can we give now without risking not being able to continue giving, and thus leaving the refugees in another desperate, perhaps worse, situation?

What we give should, ideally at least, be given voluntarily rather than through taxation for three reasons:

-           There is more merit in giving freely than in giving under coercion;

-          Those who disagree with current refugee policies need not support them, while those who strongly favour them can support them abundantly;

-           Governments are not necessarily the most efficient vehicles for administering charity.

Then there is the more controversial question:

Why don’t we send what we can afford, in order to help the victims of the crisis, to their own country? Couldn’t we, in this way, save them the risks, cost and hardships of the journey?

Naturally there are other concerns whose reasonableness was highlighted by the massacre in Paris: security concerns; concerns about integration of immigrants into their host countries.

The left dismisses these concerns as being the wild rantings of right wing lunatics and racists, telling us that the 3,500 refugees that Ireland has agreed to accept will make up less than 0.1% of our population.

That would be a useful statistic if we were dealing with a group of 3,500 people who might be easily assimilated into our society, with a profile that is evenly distributed among both sexes and a wide range of age groups, cultures and religions.

However what we are dealing with is a group with a very singular demographic profile, and one that is largely self-segregating from the rest of society. Its members belong to a religion that is fiercely hostile to the West and to Christianity, and that easily justifies subduing and killing of infidels, not just because the right wing extremists made them do it, but because their holy book instructs them to do so.

Furthermore, according to the United Nations, 75% of the refugees currently migrating across Europe are men. Video footage would suggest that it is even more, and that the majority are young and fit.

But even taking the UN figure of 75%, we would have 2,625 strong, fit, young male members of a religion that is deeply hostile to our culture, religion and way of life due to arrive in Ireland by the end of next year.

Rather than comparing their number to the whole population of Ireland, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to compare it to the numbers in our army? That would be 35%.

Mass Murder in Paris: the West is betrayed from within

Once again we wake up to hear of carnage on the streets of Paris. And once again the media and political “leaders” of the entire western world are unable to bring themselves to tell the truth about what happened.

A typical example is, not surprisingly, a report in The Irish Times, which goes into much detail about the terrorist attacks leading to the deaths of more than 125 people, without once mentioning islam or muslims. The report even goes as far as to state that Barrack Obama “declined to speculate as to who was responsible for the incidents.” Is that someone’s idea of a joke?

It is because of that kind of reporting, as well as the attitude of western politicians, that terrorism has become synonymous with islam in the mind of the public. But perhaps The Irish Times, Barrack Obama, and the rest of the western media and political establishment are correct. Maybe it isn’t necessary to make the distinction between terrorism and islamic terrorism.

After all, who in the western world is so dumb as to genuinely think that the terror attacks in Paris might have been carried out by anyone other than muslims.

And indeed if they had been, we can be sure that we would be well informed on the matter. It would be almost a cause for celebration among the western media and political elite – a proof of the great diversity and smooth functioning of our multicultural society. Or something like that.

Most people look to their governments to find some sort of solution to this situation.

But, at least in the West, governments are more the cause than the solution of the problem. They, backed by a great proportion of the media, are more responsible for the problem than islam is. Islam is what it is, and we can’t change that. There isn’t even any point in blaming islam.

Judging by media reports and statements from the political elite, we are not even supposed to expect muslims to behave responsibly, peacefully or justly.

The root cause of islamic terrorism in Europe is not what islam is, but the fact that it has penetrated into the heart of Europe, without showing any willingness to integrate with European culture, and taking with it its fiercely supremacist ideology. Not only do our governments and media turn a blind eye to this, but they actively facilitate it, accommodate it, and relentlessly persecute anyone who opposes it.

The establishment in the western world – media and government alike – is contributing to the death of European civilisation with a two pronged attack: while pandering to islam with legislation, easy immigration and financial assistance, those who defend western civilisation are treated as the enemy, are restricted in their ability to do anything about the problem.

Even debating the issue is no longer acceptable in much of the West.

Disarmed by their own governments – both physically and through myriad restrictions, regulations and laws – the western peoples are left as sitting ducks for a declared enemy of our civilisation, an enemy brought in by our governments without any mandate ever to do so.

At the very least the situation raises a question mark over the intentions of our government and media. 

Do they really want to destroy western civilisation, as appearances indicate?

Refugee Crisis: Who will pay?

Moral responsibility for the refugee crisis in Europe rests with us all, but not equally with all. Those who caused it, or who aggravate it, obviously should be expected to contribute more to its solution.

Not every party to this shared responsibility will agree on how best to solve the problem. In a civilised society diverse views on the problems of the day are acceptable. We don’t need to have a media packaged consensus on everything.

So, it is not necessarily racist to believe that an open border policy is unworkable (as Germany has discovered), or to believe that hunting down the leadership of ISIS (as British soldiers are doing) would be a more effective application of resources towards a solution than encouraging countless refugees and migrants to come to Europe.

Many political figures and media commentators, however, seem to think that opening borders and welcoming all comers is the only solution.

Some go so far as to denounce anyone who disputes their open borders policy, or even questions it, as heartless, uncompassionate and lacking their own superior moral virtue – which they are not in the least bit shy about publically proclaiming.

Thus Angela Merkel, without any consultation with other European governments, announced that Germany would take in 800,000 refugees this year. Backed up by such people as the president of the European Commission and the UN special envoy for migration, she then went on to roundly condemn other European countries that hesitate to follow suit.

No doubt she is a warm-hearted soul, at least towards the countless migrants that might respond to her announcement, if not always towards her fellow Europeans.

But we have to wonder: is it possible for the head of government of the most powerful country in Europe to be so simple-minded?

Even if she is not good at maths herself, she could have consulted someone who might still remember how to do long-division. Or someone with a calculator.

800,000 spread out over the year would be just under 2,200 arrivals per day. But her announcement was only about four months before the end of 2015, with still another half million refugees to arrive – increasing the average to about 4,000 per day. Last Saturday alone 12,000 arrived in the city of Munich.

Poor mathematics aside, there is also the imprudence of what was effectively an open invitation. How could anyone think that a population fleeing a war zone would be so self-regulated as to be able to limit the number of migrants to the number invited?

There are billions of people who could potentially take up Mrs. Merkel’s invitation. Of course billions probably won’t, but more than 800,000 likely will.

Furthermore, every crisis attracts those who would take advantage of it. Can anyone be so naïve as to believe that this one will be different?

• ISIS has claimed to have sent more than 4,000 of its members into Europe among the refugees;

• The Lebanese Minister for Education has stated that over 20,000 ISIS members have infiltrated camps of Syrian refugees in his country;

• Criminal and terrorist gangs are engaging in people trafficking and the sale of false passports and other documents.

Can we be surprised at this? It would be more surprising if wasn’t happening.

The UN provides the demographic profile of the current wave of migrants: 75% men, 12% women and 13% children – very different from the majority women, children and elderly that one would expect in a refugee crisis.

Already Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have refused to take in any refugees because of security concerns.

So, if some people in Europe believe that mass migration could be a security threat, they shouldn’t be labelled as xenophobes and neo-Nazis. It is a genuine concern for many people.

Even Germany, so welcoming in theory, found that in practice it had to revive some long forgotten borders to keep out the very people that it had attracted to Europe.

According to Germany’s interior minister, the reinstating of its southern borders is because of security concerns, as well as to put pressure on other countries to take in more migrants – that would be the ones that Germany’s announcement brought to Europe in the first place.

Not only was Germany irresponsible with its open invitation to potential refugees. Its government then went on to exploit the refugees to pressure the rest of Europe to fall into line. This is immoral and grossly insensitive to the desperate plight of the refugees.

And this brings us to the question of culpability. There has been havoc wrecked on Greece, Italy, Hungary and other countries on the frontiers of Europe by migrants desperate to arrive in the promised land of Germany.

Refugees and other migrants have died on the perilous journey, often ill equipped for the lands and climates in which they find themselves, or travelling in vessels that are not sea worthy.

Will Germany take responsibility for its recklessness? Will it pay for the damage and costs incurred by the countries that have suffered the consequences of its thoughtless invitation? Will it compensate the families of those who died at sea while following the beacon of false hope offered by Germany?

Through the arrogance of Chancellor Merkel Germany exacerbated the refugee crisis. It cannot force the rest of Europe to bail it out of this problem, especially while Mrs. Merkel still rejects all criticism of her mishandling of the situation.

Perhaps instead of condemning other countries for being less reckless than itself, Germany would like to show some sincerity by footing the bill for its ill-considered adventure.

Angela Merkel either knew or didn’t know that the crisis would unfold as it has. If she knew, one must wonder what her agenda is. If she didn’t know, then why was she so determined to impose on all of Europe a situation about the consequences of which she was entirely ignorant?

Either way she an unfit person to be setting the agenda for the whole European Union, and should refrain from dictating policy to other European countries.

Equality - A Utopian Fantasy

Yes Equality, Marriage Equality, Equality for Everybody and everybody for equality.

Etc.

Nice idea, especially if you only look at it superficially and from a feel-good perspective.

One wonders if those who give so much lip service to equality even know what it means, or what it would mean to have it universally imposed.

To Atlantic Philanthropies patron Chuck Feeney, for example, who does so much to promote the yes equality referendum, it would not mean that everyone in the world could be a billionaire like him. Nor is it certain that this is what he intends by his support for equality.

A more likely result of complete equality would be that Mr Feeney would become a relative pauper like the rest of us, which is hardly the outcome he is seeking.

Equality is a chimera, an unrealisable dream. And who really wants it anyway?

For most people it suffices in life to be able to pay the bills and enjoy moderate comforts and leisure.

Making everyone equal, or trying to, doesn’t contribute to that ideal. In fact, the desire for equality only sows envy and discord.

Being equal to Bill Gates, with all his responsibilities as well as his money, is not an attractive prospect for the vast majority of people – in spite of the almost universal fascination with his enormous wealth.

What, then, can be said of those who promise an equality that they can never deliver?

Samuel Johnson (1709 – 1784) famously said that: “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” Well, that was in the 18^th century, and perhaps it was indeed so then.

But today, far outrunning even the most false patriotism to that last refuge of the scoundrel, is the promise of equality to the masses.

And those who do so are either complete charlatans or invincibly ignorant, in as much as they either know the dire consequences of the false utopian ideology they promote, or they are unaware of those consequences.

Either way they are guilty of the fraud they are perpetrating and responsible for the outcome of their dishonesty or stupidity.

The 20^th century stands as a testament to the dangers of pretending that we can, or should, have perfect equality in this life. Rivers of blood have been spilt in its name.

Ironically, the same people who are so determined to inspire egalitarian ideals in the masses are often loud in their declamations of religion as the cause of wars. Of the religion of equality, perhaps it is true.

This is not to deny that all are due certain inalienable rights, such as the right to life and to at least the minimum conditions that will enable them to live their lives with dignity. Above all, everybody has the right to know and practice the true religion.

So all are essentially equal, but the accidental differences that result from genetic or environmental influences are infinite, so that no two people in the history of the human race were completely equal.

We differ from one another in age, appearance, wealth, strength, skills and in a huge variety of ways. This is what makes the world so interesting. Just imagine what it would be like if everyone were the same.

And what about Marriage Equality, a topic on which much ink has been spilled in the past weeks?

Marriage is currently defined as being between one man and one woman. Before that definition, everyone is equal.

But if equality means allowing some of those who reject the current definition of marriage to have their way, why not allow everyone who rejects it to have their way?

For example, there are those who want to marry animals, children or multiple partners, who will still be excluded from the new definition of marriage.

It seems that, as well as redefining marriage, those supporting the referendum want to redefine the concept of equality as well.

This is not entirely new. According to the ruling pigs of George Orwell's Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Strange Priorities in Modern Ireland

What should we make of the fact that the government, the media, and several representative bodies of society are pushing for the introduction of same sex “marriage” and even making of it the number one issue of our time?

It seems utterly surreal to observe our rulers sycophantically competing with each other to be the first and greatest champion of this dubious cause.

One might be excused for thinking that the burning issue of the day would have something to do with the survival of the human race or of what remains of civilisation.

This should be especially obvious in times like these, when society seems to be close to complete meltdown – socially, economically, politically and morally. Faced with this reality the Irish government can’t think of anything better to do than to make same-sex “marriage” its top priority.

Here are some of the issues that are being de-prioritised to make way for same-sex “marriage”:

- Top military analysts believe that this year will not pass without a major increase of hostilities between Russia and the West. Already Russia is provoking the West, testing our defences. Each day brings new threats, veiled or open, from the Russian regime. Even Irish controlled airspace has been violated several times, at least twice by nuclear armed Russian bombers, which actually interfered with Irish civilian flights;

- A new caliphate is being established in the Middle East, terrorising the world with its extreme level of violence. ISIS has opened up several cells throughout Europe and has carried out several attacks against Europe and the USA. Meanwhile the West is opposing it with half-hearted and ineffectual campaigns. We occasionally see reports that some militants of ISIS have been killed – even hundreds or thousands of them. But that is not going to stop a force of 200,000 fighters that is attracting hundreds of new recruits every day;

- Economists, forecasters, investors – many of them the top in their field – are foreseeing the likelihood of an economic crisis worse than that of 2008. Some of them go so far as to predict total economic collapse, pointing to the budgetary crisis in countries like Greece as an indicator of the direction in which world economy is going;

       

- Dissatisfaction with government throughout the West has never been higher. Protests and even riots in the streets over political and economic measures are becoming commonplace. Prosperous countries such as France, Germany and the USA are experiencing widespread rioting. And we can expect it to get worse too;

- Corruption at every level of government has reached critical levels;

- Hospitals, schools and other public services are in crisis;

- Even for those who don’t have time to follow world events, and for whom economic collapse and world war are remote menaces, it is no longer possible to ignore the very real danger of complete disintegration of society through escalating crime rates responded to with ever softer and more ineffectual punishments.

But the tranquil lives of our rulers must not be disturbed by such burdensome thoughts of dangers and existential threats. Issues that are less apocalyptical – if not less destructive of society – are easier to deal with, at least in the short term.

This short-term outlook will enable them to continue to bury their heads in the sand, in the certainty (or at least the hope) that the consequences of their insouciance won’t arrive until after they have departed their political office, if not this life.

So they attend to reproductive rights (meaning the right to not reproduce), adoptive rights (the rights of adults, that is) and, of course, the rights and privileges accorded on the basis of sexual orientations.

Thus they encourage the pursuit of rights without responsibility.

In this the action of the State is the opposite to that of the Church, which reminds us that rights always have corresponding duties and responsibilities. The Church teaches that sexual activity is only legitimate within marriage, which is between one man and one woman, for life, and that it must always be open to bringing new life.

Meanwhile the government is euphoric about reports that the economy could be recovering. In fairness, they might actually believe their own propaganda although, if they do, it is just another indication of the degree to which they are out of touch with reality.

Economic growth depends on population growth. There is not much of that going on, as our birth rates are below replacement level, and will continue to drop the more legislation and culture are focussed on self-gratification and relieving marriage of the responsibility for procreation.

This is a European-wide problem, and not exclusively Irish.

But, how far do we have to fall before our political elite are shaken out of their stupor of indifference and induced to turn away from their secularist, politically correct and morally bankrupt ideology?

Irish Government’s Confusion about its Raison d'Être

A complete list of the misconceptions and illusions that the Irish government entertains about its role in society would be excessively long for an article on the subject.

Of all of such misconceptions, by far the most prevalent is the idea that the government should micromanage and police every aspect of the lives of the citizens.

This idea, at least implicitly, runs through the vast majority of elected representatives as well as the non-elected permanent government in the Civil Service, quangos and other agencies of the State.

But worst of all, many people have come to accept that it is their lot to have their entire lives monitored and regulated by the government.

And a large proportion of the media, the fourth estate, who one would expect to alert society to this lurking danger, have instead become a veritable fifth column in imposing it on the citizens.

There is literally no limit to how this tendency in government manifests itself. A recent and rather extreme example is the compulsory micro chipping of dogs. If God intended dogs to have been fitted with microchips He could have done it Himself.

While it is true that stray dogs can be a nuisance, and dogs do get lost, making it compulsory to microchip them, like all such nanny-state type legislation, essentially transfers responsibility from the citizen to the State.

But while a ludicrous example like that is illustrative of how far we have deviated from the natural order, it is in the tyranny of everyday regulation of the lives of the citizens that we are being asphyxiated by an overbearing State.

And, before long, microchips in dogs will be found by government to be so useful and convenient that they will want to have them implanted in humans as well.

It is bad enough that the government thinks it has to regulate every aspect of the economy, about which its members and agents have little or no clue as to how it works, much less an ability to predict the potential outcomes of its interventions. With respect to this, suffice to recall the well known assertion of Milton Friedman:

“The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.”

The veracity of this assertion is ever more evident the more intensive involvement by government in the day-to-day life of a people fails to produce positive results. It is as if government sets out with the object of proving Friedman’s dictum to be correct.

But State intervention in the economy is far from the only area in which government action is excessive, nor is it the worst.

Even on issues that have nothing to do with State revenue, raising taxes and controlling public expenditure, our government still seems to believe that it has the duty to control them.

This is especially serious when it involves regulating what the citizens are allowed to say or even to think.

So, for example, we have incitement to hatred legislation which effectively judges the intention behind any words uttered. One of the many problems with this kind of legislation is that any such judgement is necessarily arbitrary as there is no standard reaction, no uniform way of feeling about what people say, nor how offended any sector of society will or won’t be by a statement.

And, by the way, government ministers and others who support the statist line can be entirely disparaging and contemptuous of the citizenry without any apparent risk of prosecution.

Equality legislation and the newly announced anti-trolling legislation being proposed by Senator Lorraine Higgins are along the same lines of excessive government regulation of what are essentially moral issues – how we treat our neighbours.

It would be hypocritical in the extreme for a government that legislated to allow the killing of the most defenceless person in society, the unborn child, to expect its citizens to be nice to each other on their own initiative. Being nice and killing defenceless babies are not really all that compatible.

Instead of trusting the citizens to treat each other with respect, the State will force us to be nice.

From a moral, and even a social, perspective, sincere feelings of respect and goodwill are preferable to the legislatively induced version thereof. Or, for that matter, even sincerely held hatred is less objectionable than State enforced fake niceness.

Our government seems to be oblivious to the fundamental contradiction between, on the one hand, its delusional admiration of and subservience to the international environmentalist lobby which promotes a tribal lifestyle as the ultimate expression of human freedom, and on the other hand, its own hyper-regulation of its citizens.

Among other misconceptions about the purpose of government that are dearly held by our political leaders, we often hear, especially from Enda Kenny, about how various government initiatives will be sending a message to other governments about how Ireland has advanced, evolved or is well disposed towards them. How can anyone take seriously a political leader who thinks that legislation is to be used to send messages rather than to solve problems?

If he wants to send them a message, he should write them a postcard or an email rather than abuse the legislative process for this purpose.

Legislation can indeed send out powerful messages, and for this reason it needs to be used with great restraint, and carefully analysed with respect to its consequences before being enacted.

A large proportion of the Irish public has long since reached the conclusion that the message actually being sent to those who wield power and influence beyond our shores is that, considering how compliant our government ministers have been in enforcing the political, social and economic agendas and ideologies of various transnational bodies, they should be considered for well paid positions to some unelected office when the Irish people expel them from Government Buildings in the next election.

And then there is the illusion expressed in relation to family legislation as well as numerous other areas, that government’s role is to reflect the realities of life in Ireland today. In so far as the government has a role in relation to the realities of life, its role is to restrain the excesses and errors of these realities, and to promote and facilitate their good aspects. But that concept would be lost on our present rulers.

In fact the realities of life are well capable of continuing to exist without the need of a government or legislation to reflect them. Such foolish ideas coming from prominent people in government only serve to bring the very concept of government into disrepute, and leave to the populace with the mistaken idea that they don’t really need a government at all.

To fully appreciate how ridiculous it is to legislate to reflect the realities of life, try applying the same “principle” to every reality of life in Ireland today – for example, murder, burglaries, suicide, violence, organised crime, fraud and political corruption.

But probably the worst type of misuse of the legislative process is to use legislation to directly undermine democracy, as was the case with the Children and Family Relationships Act, which was rushed through the Oireachtas in order to influence the upcoming referendum on the redefinition of marriage.

So, if the purpose of government is not to micromanage the citizens, and not to enact legislation to send messages to the world, and furthermore not to bring legislation into line with the reality of life, nor to influence the outcome of referenda, what else is there?

What is the role of government? It is to promote and defend the common good.

While there isn’t universal agreement on what constitutes the common good, most people (at least those ordinary folks who aren’t part of the government or state apparatus) would probably agree that government control of every aspect of life to the point of choking off all basic freedoms is not in the interest of the common good.

For far too long we have outsourced all our interests and responsibilities to a government that has less interest in our welfare than we do, as well as less of a clue how to facilitate it. The decline of our civilisation is an acute consequence of this.

But the question is: why? Why do government and opposition parties alike zealously unite to usher in such profound and almost irreversible changes to society? What sense does it make?

We can only guess the answer.

Once government loses sight of its raison d’être, that is to serve and promote the common good, it must find a new motive or ideal by which it will be guided. And almost always, on abandoning its responsibility to serve the common good, that new motive, a new ideology really, will be the perpetuation of the State.

Rather than ruling benignly and essentially by consent, the State and its agents in government now prefer to rule by raw force. It looks on its subjects with disdain and suspicion.

When government is directed towards the common good it prefers strong and responsible citizens, strong families, strong communities. It doesn’t fear strong regional government.

However when the government becomes statist, its preference is for weak citizens, families and communities, because weak is easier to keep under control.

Statist rulers tend to centralise all powers in the hands of the executive. They diminish the power of local government, or rather they absorb that power into the executive of a centralised government, as is happening in Ireland today. 

One only needs to look at the plan to abolish county and urban councils. At the same time, small Garda stations are being closed, while the force is becoming ever more centralised and militarised.

And while this is going on the family is being undermined and weakened through legislation. Communities are being destroyed by crime – which the government shows little interest in, or intent of, stopping.

So much for the concept of the balance of powers, of which some of our public representatives speak a lot, but do nothing to put the concept into practice.

Delicate at the best of times, this balance of powers is being systematically demolished under our current government.

The principle of subsidiarity  is essential to the proper functioning of society. We have heard much about subsidiarity from the EU, which claimed to uphold and promote it, even while systematically suppressing it.

According to this principle, social problems should be resolved at local level, only depending on higher authority for support when, and to the degree that, the lower authority can’t resolve them.

What this means is that local and regional authorities should be able to resolve their own problems, without unnecessary interference from the State. And this doesn’t just apply to local government. Families, associations of businessmen or of workers, as well as any groups that represent local or specialised interests, should be free to resolve their own problems as far as possible.

For this to work would depend on the government having at least some degree of confidence in the people. But, ironically, they don’t reciprocate any of the unlimited trust they expect from the citizens.

We would perhaps be a happier society if the government tried to foster more of a sense of responsibility among citizens rather than reducing us to a demeaning subservience.

But to encourage a sense of responsibility may require them to acknowledge a moral law higher than that of the State. Are they likely to do that?

Approaching the 1916 Centenary Celebrations

Today marks the beginning of the final year in the run up to the centenary of the Easter Rising, and is a good occasion to reflect on all that has passed since 1916; on the opportunities that our independence provided for us; and on whether or not we have used those opportunities to their best advantage.

We can ponder on the satisfaction or otherwise, of those who gave their lives for the freedom of future generations, regarding the fruits of their sacrifice. Would they even recognise the country that Ireland has become?

Let us try to put ourselves in the shoes of one of those heroes who sacrificed all, and who now finds himself back in the Ireland of 2015.

How would he feel about the state of the country, the culture, the economy, the government and the people?

Wouldn't he be a bit taken aback at the profound changes in the culture and way of life? Walking around the streets of Dublin he would wonder how anyone could live with the constant noise, the hustle and bustle – certainly a lot worse than in his day.

And everyone walking around staring at the strange device in their hands, thumbs working furiously, and white cables coming out of their ears.

Maybe he would see some of the irritating sights and sounds as the inevitable price of progress, although it is to be suspected that he would prefer the calmer ambience of the streets in his own day, more conducive to reflection.

The fashions, too, might shock him. And he couldn’t avoid noticing the parallels between those fashions and some of the behaviour he might witness, especially at night. “Definitely a moral and cultural decline since my day,” he might think.

Thinking, then, about how all these changes came about, he might have a look at what influences have been exerted over Ireland in the past century. He would want to look at government, at the media, and at what ties we have to other countries.

He would probably want to read some history books and newspapers – or maybe he has been keeping an eye on all that from Heaven anyway.

Many aspects of what he would see would make him question whether we fully appreciated the sacrifice he had made on our behalf.

“I could have lived another half century,” he might think, “and perhaps had some influence on the direction of the country. But then again, fifty years would not have been enough. It was in the past fifty years that the most profound transformation of the country took place,” he would add.

He would be greatly perplexed at the way we drifted into the European Union in its present form. Perhaps he would find our entry into the EEC acceptable. Perhaps!

But the incremental loss of sovereignty since then… the sovereignty for which he and his associates had sacrificed their lives… that’s another matter.

What would leave him most perturbed, though, would be the realisation of how far we have drifted from the purity of the ideals that they had held so dear, especially in moral and social questions.

The accelerated rate of change in these fields would upset him. Some of the legislation would horrify him.

Neither he, nor any of his fellow martyrs for Ireland, would ever have been unmoved by the trauma of a woman in a crisis pregnancy and in danger of death. Yet, would they have dared to legislate for the death of the unborn infant as a solution for this situation?

Not only would they not have contemplated such a final solution, but their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters, as well as every other lady they knew, would have staunchly rejected the killing of the child, even if it could have saved their own lives.

But they were of a generation that knew the value of sacrifice. And they were also sufficiently grounded in reality to realise that killing the baby couldn't guarantee the life of the mother.

They would have left no stone unturned to find solutions, but life affirming solutions. That is how medical science has improved.

Living in a more reflective era they might have pondered the issue more carefully, with more gravity, than our leaders of today, enervated as they are with the speed of life, with so many demands on their time and attention, with so many stimuli from their iPhones.

“I pity them,” our hero might think. “But still, they are an arrogant bunch. They preen around and argue over which of them is the true heir of 1916, which of them should rule the proceedings for the centenary celebrations. They have all abandoned the path that we laid down for them.”

He might also be a bit confused at seeing a whole culture dedicated to self-gratification to such an extent that even the government is so preoccupied with sexual rights issues that it can’t focus on the real issues of the day or the real dangers for the future.

His perturbation at the state of Ireland, his confusion, his acute pain at the abandonment he would feel, was most callously condensed into a single statement by An Taoiseach who, in referring to the referendum on the redefinition of marriage, said:

“As we approach the centenary of the Rising, a Yes vote would, I believe, send out a powerful signal internationally that Ireland has evolved into a fair, compassionate and tolerant nation.”

The insinuation was clear: the leaders of ’16 were unfair, merciless and intolerant. And even worse, no party in the Oireachtas, none of those who so proudly proclaim their political lineage to the Rising, raised a voice to contradict such a contemptuous statement.

The heroes of Easter 1916 must have turned in their graves.