Today the Church commemorates the
passion, that is, the suffering and martyrdom, of St. John the Baptist, he who
prepared the way of the Lord, baptizing Him in the Jordan and preaching of his
coming.
And why was he martyred? For
telling the truth to someone who didn't want to hear it. He told King
Herod that he was an adulterer for "marrying" his brother's wife
while his brother was still alive. This somewhat displeased the woman in
question, Herodias, who took advantage of her "husband's" rampant
lust for her daughter and forced him to have John executed. See Mark 6: 17-29; Matthew
14: 1-12.
St. Ambrose, in his Treatise
Concerning Virgins, (the third Reading for today's Matins prayers in the
traditional Office) states in part:
“We must not hurry past the record
of blessed Baptist John. We must ask what he was; by whom he was slain; and why
and how. He was a righteous man, murdered for his righteousness by adulterers.
He was a judge, who suffered condemnation to death by the guilty ones because
he had justly judged their guilt. He was the prophet whose death was a fee paid
to a dancing-girl for a lascivious dance."
Imprisoned and later killed for
speaking the truth to those who knew their own guilt but sought to pretend
righteousness, John the Baptist is a type for the Church today, which is
reviled and scorned and legally attacked for trying to uphold God's moral
law. Oh, wait...
At least, it used to be. These
days, we're not really hearing much from the Church about heroes like John the
Baptist or St. Thomas More, who similarly lost his head for refusing to condone
his king's adulterous desires. Instead, we're told by various
bishops and cardinals that we who stand up for Christ's definition of
adultery are "Pharisees" and "fundamentalists" who
"throw stones at people's lives." You can verify all those
statements, and more like them, quite easily with a word search or two.
Try names like Paglia, Schornborn, Kasper, Marx...and Francis. Or
Bergoglio, as he still apparently prefers to be known, having re-upped his
Argentinian passport in that name.
Yeah, him. I'm sorry, but I
can't let this go. The guy who is supposed to be in charge of defending
the Deposit of Faith seems hell-bent (no pun intended) on forcing priests worldwide
to give Holy Communion to "the divorced and remarried"--in other
words, to persons living in open and notorious adultery, which he and his
fellow travelers prefer to call "irregular unions." Don't believe that? I guess you haven't read the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which attempts to justify such a practice, among other problems. Never mind
those guys who were martyred for insisting that
when Jesus defined divorce and "remarriage" as adultery, he
meant it. Because, you know, mercy. Without repentance and
conversion of heart, without a firm purpose of amendment, without any commitment
whatsoever to cease engaging in mortal sin as Jesus Himself and His Church have
defined it since the beginning. You see, these definitions are too harsh,
too...unmerciful. As if these men, these fallen humans, can better define
mercy than God can. Righty-o, gentlemen, you go! That guy Jesus,
well, maybe he wasn't really God after all, you know, since he didn't really
multiply the loaves and fishes, 'cuz that was just, you know, a miracle of "sharing"
according to Bergoglio. So why should we get hung up on what he said
about adultery?
I would really like to see these
prelates stand before John the Baptist and Thomas More and tell them how their
martyrdom still means anything once unrepentant adulterers are admitted to
Holy Communion. What I don't want to see or imagine, because I
really don't want any soul forever to be lost, is those same bishops and
cardinals standing before the Lord trying to explain themselves, unless they
reverse this perilous course before then. I pray daily for their
conversion of heart. You should, too.
Laudator Jesus Christus!
