Defending His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI against the Western World's Satanic media

Let there be no doubt, when I use the word Satanic I am not using a figure of speech or an image. I mean the Evil One. I mean the evil spirit in the world that the Bible speaks of and that Christians have no doubt exists. I mean without any ambiguity that this evil spirit has so infected the Western media that many if not most media enterprises are driven by the evil promptings of the devil, promptings that are willingly followed. Where decent journalists exist in these enterprises their good work - often token and permitted for image purposes - is circumscribed by the hate-filled ideological objectives of the enterprise's executives and senior reporters who are waging an unrelenting war against Western Civilisation. Foremost among newspapers at the vanguard of this campaign are:

The New York Times

The Los Angeles Times

The Washington Post

The Times (UK)

The Guardian (UK)

The Age (Melbourne)

There is nothing these newspapers will eschew in order to blacken and discredit the foundation and builder of Western Civilisation, the Catholic Church. No misrepresentation, no falsification, no manipulation is too outlandish or morally offensive as long as their image and their campaign do not suffer a negative reaction. The evidence is continually before us. The brazenness of their political action is due in part to the knowledge that their commentaries will be swallowed by a thousand other lower level media enterprises and regurgitated uncritically for a prurient readership that by this point in the 21st century has been robbed of the ability to see the falsehood or the malignant objectives.

For militant atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who are in a permanent abusive rage against the Catholic Church, talk of the devil is simply further evidence of the irrationality of the faithful Christian and the culpability of the Church's leadership. No doubt they are amused no end by the Vatican's clerical exorcist who claimed the devil is behind the attacks on Pope Benedict.

Let me leave aside the breakdown in the reasoning of Dawkins & Co who assert that the people of religious belief are necessarily irrational. The empirical evidence (inductive reasoning) contradicts the claim and there are no premises which would deductively support the claim. There is also the problem that a materialist cannot claim objectively that the Church is evil - or that there is any such thing as objective evil. Materialism deals only with the observable. Morality - goodness or badness in behaviour - is not susceptible to sense perception. So, in fact, the unrestrained ranting about the Church by Dawkins and his mates is just so much emotional expression of dislike.

Dawkins' disciples at the New York Times and their sister newspapers are similarly expressing emotion rather than moral fact - contrary to the intended image. But the incoherence of their moral arguments against the Church, given their materialist worldview, is of no concern when political propaganda is concerned. The overturning of one worldview and replacing it with another depends on will and political might. This is the path The New York Times and her newspaper sisters are unashamedly on. So that brings me back to my claim about an evil spirit objectively infecting a media enterprise like the New York Times.

Christians know that an evil spirit truly exists because Bible tells us so. The Bible also describes the way the 'father of lies' works. On the briefest inspection, we see all the 'devil's pomps and works' reflected abundantly in the NYT's attack on Pope Benedict. Of course, Dawkins, Hitchens and their sisters at the NYT would laugh their heads off at this. How stupid, accepting claims of truth merely on the say-so of a bunch of long dead Jews - or even worse, a gentile interpretation of that say-so. Use your brains, we hear!

Dealing with a group who damns and abuses on the basis of ignorance and fancy of what the Bible is actually about, we could with an ironic smile ignore that opinion, if it were not for the political campaign generated from that ignorance and fancy. Indeed, state-sanctioned and media-promoted persecution is within sight. But there is another important point here. If the faithful are guilty of pusillanimous unquestioning acceptance of dogma, we are not the only ones. To start with, observation (that is, empirical evidence) of the recent grand conference of atheists in Melbourne showed what a very stupid and intolerant rabble they are. Slinging off like a hall of drunks at religion and people with religious belief (read Christians) seemed to be a permanent state of mind. (See previous comments 1 2)

Second, and perhaps more important, it really stretches one's credulity that each and every member of the atheist class really has a grip on the 'Enlightenment' philosophy that underwrites the worldview of modern atheists. How many would have heard of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason or Hume's A Treatise on Human Nature, let alone read these scriptural and seminal works of the Enlightenment? Very few, I suspect. Even high priest Richard Dawkins shows an appalling ignorance of the metaphysical issues raised by materialism. In brief, ninety percent of the atheist class have to accept their ever-developing dogma on the say-so of its high priests - those like Dawkins and Hitchens.

Christians are no more guilty of accepting the elements of their belief system largely on the authority of its leaders - originally the witness of the Apostles - than the great mass of people who claim to be atheist. But there is this difference: relying solely on the rationalistic method - the way of arriving at a materialist position - as the way to truth actually ends up in scepticism. The ordinary atheist punter who has to accept the philosophical underpinnings of atheistic materialism on the authority of his high priests is blissfully unaware of this. Christian philosophers who see the nature of reason differently from the materialist are confident in the truths our limited reason gives us.

I know I have said much of this before. But as Dawkins & Co and newspapers like the NYT continually flap out the same charges and arguments against religious belief no matter what the objections, I feel justified in continually describing the quicksand foundations of their position.

This is defending the existence of the Evil One on the basis of Scripture. As the Church teaches that faith and reason go together, let me now offer compelling evidence of the existence of the Evil One. And, indeed, it is provided in the pages of the NYT.

Nothing could be clearer than that the NYT is working feverishly to destroy Pope Benedict. The present attempt to make incriminating evidence of cover-up of child abuse and harbouring a paedophile priest stick is only the latest move in the campaign to destroy the person who more than any other Catholic prelate represents the Catholic Church of the centuries, that is, represents repugnant dogma and an antithetical worldview. This is the first point of observation: that a political campaign is run under the cloak of an unbiased search for truth. It is obviously nothing of the sort.

Far more serious is the attempt destroy a good man by blackening his character. In Pope Benedict's case it is not only destroying a good man, but a man of exceptional moral insight. The Pope has an impressive body of work behind him. His three papal encyclicals have subtlety and depth of learning that requires many re-readings. Most important of all, Pope Benedict in following on from John Paul II is outlining a social program to rescue the world from its present decay and despairing nihilism - the inheritance bequeathed by atheistic materialism.

No report, commentary or article that I have read provides conclusive evidence to support the charge of cover-up and harbouring. At the most, it is only suggestion of a possible connection. But this has not stopped the general copy-cat media in presenting the case as if it has been proven. The worst of the commentaries are the straight-out ravings and rants of anti-Catholic bigots.

Even on this basis (the suggestion of a possible connection) the Pope could only be guilty of neglect. Any but a kangaroo court would throw out any other charge. The frenzied assault on the man and his work is enough to fill one's nostrils with the unbearable stench of evil. But when the evidence the New York Times offers cannot on close inspection prove its claims then we are confronted with such diabolical evil that we cannot but think there is an evil spirit at work here.

The following comments present an irrefutable case against the New York Times.

A response to the New York Times

Cardinal Levada responds to the New York Times

Archbishop Dolan responds to the New York Times

The Pope and the Murphy case: what the New York Times story didn't tell you

When confronted with these detailed objections a NYT's spokeswoman said:

"The allegations of abuse within the Catholic church are a serious subject, as the Vatican has acknowledged on many occasions," said Diane McNulty. "Any role the current pope may have played in responding to those allegations over the years is a significant aspect of this story." (Newsmax)

No response, just evasive waffle that she knows is enough. None of the thousands of media organisations worldwide who mindlessly regurgitated the story feels a need to respond. And they won't. Their best hack writers will churn out the usual mockery and ridicule - and the lies. And the abusive sometimes barely literate bigots who inhabit the internet will get up another head of steam.

What more proof does one want for the existence of an evil spirit in the world?

Comment: gerard@gerardcharleswilson.com