That used to be as redundant as asking if the Pope was Catholic. Unfortunately, over the past 40 years since the Vatican II Revolution, many faithful Catholics have been asking themselves precisely those two questions. Of course, being Catholic and being pro-life used to be redundant. At the risk of enraging those Catholics who think the Pope can do no wrong, the Holy Fatherís actions (or lack thereof) with regard to Notre Dame and Gaza leave many wondering just how pro-life Pope Benedict XVI really is.
Itís bad enough that His Holiness just gave a papal imprimatur to Israeli war criminals flush from dropping white phosphorus on Palestinian children; but the silence coming from Rome over the controversy at Notre Dame is truly deafening. Iím sorry papalolotors, but the buck stops at the top. The president of the University of Notre Dame (Notre Dame means ďOur LadyĒ) serves at the Popeís pleasure, as do all the bishops around the world. One stroke of the pen and theyíre removed from their posts and off to a monastery. So the fact that Father John Jenkins is gloatingly snubbing his nose at Rome and pro-lifers across the country by inviting the King of Abortion, President Barack Obama, to Notre Dame must meet with the Popeís tacit approval. The Pope has near absolute power in the Church. So if he doesnít use it, it must be because he doesnít want to. If thereís another way of looking at it, please enlighten me.
When even the liberal Washington Post and Time Magazine criticize the Pope for his contradictory behavior in allowing pro-abortion policiticans to receive communion, you know weíve got a problem. He did the same thing last year when he came to the United States and allowed pro-abortion ďCatholicĒ politicans to receive communion at his papal Masses. Iím sure we all remember that great photo-op he gave the hideous Nancy Pelosi when she was snapped kissing his ring, as he beamed at her. She recently had a private audience with the Pope (no photos allowed Ė at least he learned that lesson), and lo and behold, she remains un-excommunicated. Then His Holiness failed to mention abortion in his speech to the United Nations (that purveyer of third world abortion) which even John Paul II did not fail to do. I never thought Iíd find myself longing for the days of John Paul II, who despite his hostility to Tradition, was at least staunchly and vociferously pro-life.
Of course, those same liberal rags mentioned above, along with the rest of the anti-Catholic media, just had a field day picking apart the Popeís words and actions in Israel. He apparently didnít bow low enough before his Zionist masters. He used the word ďkilledĒ instead of ďmurdered.Ē And worst of all, the Pope didnít impute collective blame to the German people as a whole or on the Catholic Church for the Holocaust. And last but not least, we were reminded ad nauseum that he was in the dreaded ďHitler YouthĒ as a child. [It's interesting that Jews (rightly) reject collective blame for the Crucifixion, yet every German man, woman, and child, even those born after World War II, is somehow collectively responsible for the Holocaust.] That old photo of the young Joseph Ratzinger in his Hilter Youth uniform was dusted off and rubbed in all our faces over the past week; but to me, that photo just makes them look weak and vindictive. The Pope looked like he was about 8 years old in that photo, and the expression on his face shows that he wasnít exactly thrilled. But anyway, how many of these liberal hacks (or their parents) were card-carrying Commies whose first pair of diapers were red? Did I mention that Communists were responsible for the Holocaust of tens of millions of Christians in the Soviet Union? Ah, but some Holocausts are more equal than others. Hypocritically, the Holocaust of unborn babies isnít a crime to them.
What a kick in the teeth Pope Benedictís silence is to the many pro-lifers who are right now being arrested at Notre Dame and will now have criminal records. Including an 80 year old priest who was arrested, roughed up, and dragged away by police like a sack of potatoes. They walk the walk, while the Pope talks the talk. Actually, he barely even does that. Iím sure my fellow Catholics want to crucify me right now for daring to criticize the Pope, but ask yourselves: am I lying? You know Iím not. St. Paul loved the Pope (St. Peter) and the Truth enough to admonish him for the sake of souls. I love the Pope enough to demand that he protect his flock. Who really cares more about the Pope: Those who insist that he do his job and punish those who promote what the Church considers an instrinic evil? Or those who enable him to shirk his responsibility? The Holy Father will be judged more harshly than any of the rest of us when he meets his maker. To whom more is given, more is expected. And as it stands now, heíll have a lot to answer for in terms of sins of omission.
While in Israel the Pope dutifully mentioned the Shoah at every turn, and lamented Jewish suffering under Hitlerís regime. Fine. It is a valid point. Jews were singled out and died in massive numbers and that was a crime against humanity. Regardless of the controversy over how many Jews actually died during World War II, there is no doubt that the insanity of Hitlerís pagan (not Catholic) ideology of racial supremacism really was an atrocity and no decent person denies that. Granted. But what about the Shoah the Israelis have been perpetrating against the Palestinians for the past 60 years? How does the fact that they were victims of the Nazis justify them turning Nazi on the Palestinians? Does the Pope not notice this double standard? Itís not enough that the Pope visited a Palestinian refugee camp and stated that they deserved their own homeland, if he doesnít mention how they came to be refuguees in the first place. They had their own homeland. It was called Palestine. Itís now called Israel. How did that come to be? The fact that the Pope also failed to mention the recent Israeli excursion into Gaza which killed at least 1,400 civilians, mostly women and children, does make one question his pro-life bona fides. What would Jesus say?
If the Pope really is pro-life, and Iím sure in his heart of hearts he is, itís time for him to speak out unequivocally. Itís time for him to use his unlimited power to restore order in the Church, and he can begin by sacking Father Jenkins. If it costs him his life for speaking out against abortion and Israeli atrocities, then so be it. The Good Shepherd lays down his life for his sheep. But so far, heís been allowing his most vulnerable sheep to be slaughtered, and giving a free pass to their butchers. That doesnít bode well for him on Judgment Day. In fact, taking a bullet for his sheep may be the only way he earns a ticket to heaven if he continues at this rate.
I love the Holy Father. I appreciate his gestures toward Tradition, and I believe that he means well and loves his Church.
But Iím sorry, thatís just not good enough. The souls of aborted babies and incinerated Palestinian children cry out to heaven for justice. And they will be heard.