 |
| Thomas Cole, Destruction, 1836 (The New-York Historical Society) |
The triumph of Donald Trump has been the latest proof, of planetary dimensions in this case, of a reality that has been apparent for some years now. What was crucial was not Trump's triumph, for which I am very happy, but the crushing defeat not so much of Kamala Harris, a poor and mediocre wretch, but of the media, unconditional and indispensable allies of world progressivism. We had seen the same phenomenon last year in more modest dimensions with the triumph of Javier Milei in Argentina, and the astonishing popular support he retains after a year in office, and in other countries in the Americas and Europe -- but the American case, like it or not, is paradigmatic. In a few words, it has been demonstrated to the whole world that a change of Age is at hand.
[A more than disturbing detail: epochal changes are happening more and more often. They no longer take centuries, but decades, and are as brutal, if not more so, than the classic epochal changes that occurred from century to century. Could it be the acceleration of the approaching end?]
This epochal change is marked, then, by the disappearance of those who pompously proclaimed themselves the “fourth estate”: the press and journalists hired by ideology or by the fat envelopes from the masters of the world will greatly diminish their influence in favor of the social networks. But we can point out several other characteristics: if only because of the pendular movement of history, I believe that there will be a shift to the right, understood as “extreme right” according to the media denomination. I am referring to a movement not only political but also cultural that will affirm traditional Western values. By the way, I am not referring to a “restoration of Christian culture” or a refoundation of Christianity, but simply a return to the basic elements of human reasonableness.
The most profound and important changes, however, in my opinion, will come from something with respect to which we have not yet taken its proper dimensions. I am referring to artificial intelligence. In a very few years we will see the disappearance of traditional professions, the disappearance of the mass presence in university and, consequently, the disappearance of accreditation of knowledge and ways of accessing the labor market or, in other words, the ways and conditions of life of each one of us. This is a revolutionary change of which we are not yet fully aware and which will astonish us more than we think.
But this is not a blog for political or social reflections. What I am interested in asking myself in the face of this completely new panorama we are facing is how the Church is reacting and how she is preparing to react. If we look back in history, we will see that the Church has always reacted in advance to the changes of the times; that the measures have always been of “conservation of the received” (serva quod habes), that is to say, they were conservative reactions. Sometimes it worked out well, sometimes more or less, and sometimes badly. It is a subject that we can discuss but, for example, the reforms of St. Benedict of Aniane on the eve of the Carolingian Renaissance; or that of St. Bernard on the eve of the medieval splendor, went well. That of Trent in the face of the world reconfiguration due to the Protestant Reformation, the discovery of America, and the consolidation of Muslim power at the gates of Europe, went very well, although with serious side effects. That of Vatican I and the Pascendi against political and theological liberalism was a lamentable failure. And that of Vatican II against the emerging post-war world, which changed its strategy and instead of “keeping what it had received,” handed it over to the enemy (perde quod habes), was catastrophic. And everything suggests that what will happen this time will be even worse.
First of all, it is a fact that the change of epoch found Pope Francis old and without resources in his wallet. He has already spent them all. As a good Jesuit, he smelled change in the 70s and became a right-winger during the Argentine military government, which ended up earning him the episcopate; he smelled change in the 90's and became a progressive and skillfully managed a moderate progressivism that ended up earning him the pontificate. Once in that position, he tried to set himself up as the leader of global progressivism - the government of the Church was not enough for him; he wanted to be the lord of the world. And he quickly spent all the flares and fireworks he had saved. But they were of poor quality; he failed and now that the world is irremediably turning to the right, he is already old, tired and too stuck to low-intensity Wokism to try some of his typical feline acrobatics and fall back on the right side. The question is no longer watching the reaction of Pope Francis to the change of epoch, but the reaction and reflexes of the cardinals in the upcoming conclave and the ability of whoever is elected.
And the first factor that the new pontiff will have to deal with is precisely the way in which the change of epoch is already affecting the Church and which implies a radical change with respect to what we Catholics have been accustomed to in the last fifteen centuries: and I am referring to absolute irrelevance. And this reality does not need too many syllogisms to demonstrate it. Let us look at what happened at the synod on synodality; in spite of the forced propaganda, it was of the most complete uselessness and irrelevance. Resources of all kinds - from intellectual to economic - wasted for years for nothingness itself. But the gravity deepens when we see that the media not only did not give it the least space in their webpages -because they are not interested in it since it does not attract visitors- but, even if they had given it, it would have been useless because, as we said at the beginning, the mainstream media have already lost their power.
That is to say, the Church has not only lost weight and presence in the global mainstream -- it is no longer visible because it does not arouse interest and, in any case, the only presence with any relevance in social networks belongs to the critics of Bergoglian policies -- but it has also lost presence and influence in the political establishment. The weakened progressive governments ignore and despise it as was to be expected (let us remember what happened a month ago in Belgium), and the conservative governments as well, because they rightly consider it part of the enemy alliance. Paradoxically, [it seems that] the Catholic Church does not belong to the “forces of heaven”!
This shows, on the other hand, the brutal clumsiness of Bergoglio who was unable to anticipate the change. It is precisely the Church that could have adopted a role of great relevance, and become a strong ally of the conservative governments that have begun to establish themselves, since they share a good part of the traditional ideals. However, she chose to place herself on the other side of the fence, shamelessly defending the United Nations 2030 Agenda, which will have to be extended by at least a century; perorating with the authority of regrettable pontifical documents on global warming and the anthropic causes of climate change, and adopting all the postulates of the woke culture: from LGBT claims to the defense of indiscriminate immigration.
Some naive person might say that this is precisely the prophetic mission of the Church: to oppose the diktats of the world, but the reality is that the prophetic mission is the proclamation of the Gospel and not foolish opposition. If the governments of the world, for whatever reasons, adopt principles in accordance with Gospel principles, the prophetic mission of the Church will be to support them. With Bergoglio, and as an exquisite flowering of Vatican II, the prophetic mission of the Church became confused with the defense of the causes proper to the decisions following the Second World War II, which ended up degenerating into the current progressivism.
Bergoglio has little time left. The question, as we said, is who will succeed him. And that depends on the cardinal electors, almost all of whom have been appointed by Francis. Will it be a Bergoglian Pope? Bergoglianism will cease to exist when Bergoglio breathes his last. Is there hope then? There is no reason to think that the criteria for the selection of cardinals has been different from the criteria for the selection of bishops. Let us get the sad idea that the average of the cardinals is the average of the bishops. The successor of Francis will be chosen by nullities analogous to Jorge Garcia Cuerva, Dante Braida, Jose Cobo, or Francisco Cerro Chaves. That is to say, with Bergoglio's successor, the Church will continue to sink even faster into irrelevance.
I return to Ratzinger's prophecy: small groups that will keep the fires burning. And I am not necessarily referring to groups that will break with the structures of the Church; the very inconsequence of the latter will render the break with the Church inconsequential. And I would not even be surprised if, as a result of the inevitable change of epoch, these small groups and these wavering fires are kept, to a great extent, oxygenated by the social networks. [Source]
