top of page

Unconfessable


Unconfessable

In the last film of the classic trilogy The Godfather, the protagonist, Michael Corleone, decides to confess to a cardinal, although he has committed several crimes, his greatest need was to ask forgiveness for the death of his brother Fredo, which he ordered the murder, in the previous film, after the death of both their mothers. Michael knew he couldn't do it while his mother was alive, however, he had in mind that Fredo conspired for her death and, therefore, considered fratricide justified and useful to keep him in power.

Just as he had done with his brother-in-law, Carlo Russo, responsible for the death of Sonny, the first-born of Michael's parents, the family leader considered that eliminating him was necessary, so, as soon as his mother passed away, he tried to put an end to Michael's life. Fredo, however, even though Michael had a considerable list of victims, some of them the result of his direct action, considering that Fredo was his blood, the son of his parents, the head of the most powerful mafia family in that work. fictional, I was aware that it was a sin with greater weight.

Faced with a member of the clergy who inspired him with confidence, since the protagonist of the trilogy perceived in that priest someone who truly kept the faith, Michael decided to confess, in particular, for having ordered Fredo to be murdered. The past idea, at least for those who understand the Sacrament of Confession or Penance, is that the mafioso, despite being a cold and violent criminal, could not bear to live with the guilt of fratricide.

For someone affected by moral relativism, as is the case of revolutionaries, it is impossible to understand the meaning of the confession, since, when being recruited among the different hordes that march according to the drumbeat of the revolutionary elite, it will be necessary to renounce the reality, therefore, the most common motto among such groups is the fallacy that “truth is relative”, being, therefore, conditioned by the point of view, therefore, it is necessary to note that every revolutionary is a relativist, since, seeking impose his detached view of reality, whether on purpose, when it comes to leaders, or out of ignorance, when in the lower layers, confusing reality with the point of view, becoming incapable of assuming that he is spying on the facts from the angle that best suits them. suit your intent.

In that maxim that a six can be a nine, depending on the angle from which he observes, the relativist will see the number that is most convenient to him, therefore, the attachment to statistics that serve his desire, shamelessly disregarding any others that point something that contradicts them. For a revolutionary, lying will be the alternative to repentance, transferring responsibility to other individuals or factors beyond their control.

Confession has as essential elements the recognition of guilt and repentance for the transgression, therefore, the one who makes it needs to accept his weakness, his error, and seek forgiveness, not for social convenience, but for real repentance in the face of the evil that caused. For someone who believes that morals and faith are volatile according to their “conscience”, there is no need to admit a mistake and seek forgiveness, unless this has a specific purpose, such as avoiding rejection or the consequences of their actions, such as that figure who, caught deviating, goes public to expose, through a clearly artificial speech, a kind of regret, when, clearly, he seeks to reconcile with those he believes can harm him.

In the shoes of Michael Corleone, a relativist would simply limit himself to blaming Fredo, who in fact conspired to kill his brother, thus avoiding taking the blame or begging for the Cardinal's forgiveness. Moral degradation turns repentance into a mere signaling of staged virtue, so that confession, along the lines of Catholicism, would never make sense, as it does not enjoy the advertising character of an apology on a social network.

The priest is prohibited from exposing what is said in the context of confession, a prohibition accepted even in the national legal system which, at least for now, guarantees the person who confesses the confidentiality of what is said during confession and protects the priest against authoritarian outbursts. who try to dissuade him from revealing something that he learned as a confessor. Allowing any authority to have the means to force the priest to expose the content of a confession would seriously harm the sacrament, given that it would undermine the relationship of trust between the faithful and the Church, therefore, it cannot be ruled out that , under the allegation of the secular State, the sacraments are relegated to a status of insignificance, removing such protection within the scope of national law.

It is imperative to remember that secrecy also applies to professionals such as lawyers and psychologists, however, although they are not reached by the argument of state secularism, we can imagine that a relativist could suppress lawyers' prerogatives regarding secrecy, since they admit so many other violations to the category, as well as to psychologists in the name of defending a “greater good”, as in the case of persecution of professionals who defended what they called “gay cure”, and, finally, we have the doctors, who were openly persecuted for opposing the crazy measures during the collective experiment episode of the recent pandemic, in addition to those who defended the so-called early treatment or warned about the unrestricted risk of the experimental technology called Gene Therapy.

In practice, when it comes to relativists, figures who even fight against nature, all kinds of madness can be the next step, however, considering that the most diverse violations are, in the revolutionary mind, justified in the search for power, expecting that destroy a sacrament in the name of their sick quest for utopia is the least we can do. At least in the West, protecting the confession, as well as the professionals mentioned above, is part of the trust between the person who confesses and the person who has the duty not to disclose what they learned due to their profession.

The sacrament of confession must be protected and what revolutionaries call a secular State is, in fact, a State that seeks to destroy the basic religion of Western society, therefore, Christianity, with a special focus on Catholicism. Therefore, any declaration of hatred towards Christians is solemnly ignored by authorities who pretend that only some religions can be protected, with the same false pretext as those who incessantly seek to unilaterally criminalize racism, just to stir up racial conflicts. and the idea that a certain sect deserves privileges in exchange for their total allegiance to the powerful.

If, on the one hand, the revolutionary despises the Catholic Church, vowing to destroy it or infiltrating it to corrode it, on the other, he is incapable of recognizing the importance of confession as a self-examination of man's own flawed nature and, consequently, the seeking forgiveness and strengthening through penance, learning from mistakes to become an increasingly virtuous individual.

Stripped of honor and humility, the relativist believes that he can always escape the consequences of his actions, however harmful they may be. There is no way to expect individuals who openly preach the destruction of everyone who stands in the way of their totalitarian desire to do an honest analysis of conscience, something they apparently do not have, to admit that they made a mistake and seek sincere repentance.

A socialist leader will never care about third parties, being able to exterminate as many lives as necessary to obtain what he wants, however, once pressured, he may simulate regret or, as in most cases, transfer responsibility to third parties. As they did with German National Socialism and fascism, which, even though all the elements fit them into the collectivist spectrum, were quickly transferred to the opposite political aspect, being treated as forces linked to liberalism and conservatism, only for their bad fame was transferred, unjustifiably, to what is known in the political field as the right.

Subsequently, the Chavista dictatorship that consumes Venezuela was also labeled as being on the right, which was not a successful movement due to the decentralization of information provided by the internet, something that relativists fight to destroy, as well as culture. “woke” was treated in an isolated article, but which serves as a rehearsal for future proposals, as something embryonic on the right, a narrative quickly overturned by, once again, the merit of decentralized information. It is practically impossible to imagine how many atrocities revolutionaries covered up before the advent of the internet, remembering that such abject figures deny the Holodomor with all their might.

Denial has two reasons in particular and the first, as we can easily imagine, is the lack of regret on the part of those who consider morality as relative and the second, the inability to admit their mistakes and face their consequences, seeking to exempt from responsibilities, deny or omit their faults or turpitude, which, in fact, is useless, given that reality, sooner or later, will knock on the door.

When confronted by the truth, the revolutionary will be left with suicide, denial or sacrifice of the part he considers less essential, however, he will never confess his crimes, as repentance is not a quality of the psychopath or of those who follow him, therefore, morality of the relativist is null, given that he needs to lead his followers to the abyss if necessary or, when in the lower layers, swear unhealthy vassalage in exchange for crumbs.

A member of the German People's Court or a high-ranking officer of the Schutzstaffel could follow the Führer's fate, insist that they did humanity good in their search for the Aryan race or, simply, point to part of the group as a “bit of a bitch”, who sacrifices themselves for others, to escape the consequences of their actions, however, they would not confess to their atrocious crimes unless this were the means offered to escape a more serious punishment. We cannot expect anything less from all the tyrannical leaders who today occupy positions of power, but who fear, one day, being confronted and held responsible for the evils they cause.

The example of the Venezuelan dictatorship, which insists on maintaining itself despite the blatant defeat in the electoral process, since it is possible to audit votes individually, shows that the revolutionary clings to power, precisely, so as not to face the consequences of his actions, openly denying its loss of legitimacy, if it was ever legitimate, to guarantee its impunity. Maduro, knowing he is a tyrant out of control, remains in power by force so as not to be held responsible for the evils he has caused, hoping to die in the Miraflores chair, as his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, had done.

Because he does not believe in something greater, divine justice or the duty to do something for others, Maduro aims for the fate of despots who died in power, such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel and many other beings who would never confess, because they were proud. too much to submit to God. Adolf Hitler preferred suicide over condemnation and, in Brazil, we have the example of Getúlio Vargas, who also preferred eternal damnation to those who do not repent, claiming that he was leaving his life to go down in history, when in fact, he was trying to cover up his putrid nature with an act that imitated martyrdom.

Likewise, the revolutionaries who today occupy the most diverse thrones, such as Maduro himself and the Nicaraguan dictator Ortega, insist on denying their guilt, since they are nothing more than leaders devoid of conscience, willing to undermine anyone who challenges them or simply bother them.

In the recent episode of totalitarian outbursts during the health pandemic, several examples of abuses could be cited, however, their artisans seek, by all means, to avoid being held responsible for the evils they caused, not confessing that they applied unreasonable measures, such as welding doors to businesses. commercials, sealing supermarket shelves and even curfews, without any justification, given that the duty to repair the damage they caused will remain clear. There were also those who fought against so-called early treatment, persecuting anyone who dared to preach in defense of such medicines, even when it came to health professionals, however, they openly denied any responsibility.

“Crying is free”, became a “stay at home if you can”, without the slightest shame and the media, which counted deaths and coordinated news in a true cartel, which it dubbed the press consortium, as custom, he washed his hands of his actions and did not accept the harm he had caused, something that also applies to so-called “bigtechs”, such as the Meta and Google groups, which openly acted to suppress or reduce the reach of any dissonant voice from that orchestrated international press cartel.

In some countries, those with a greater democratic tradition, processes and investigations are already underway to hold accountable those who, in some way, acted in bad faith during the period. However, people under the command of totalitarian despots still suffer the actions in silence. From the same tyrants of that time, in some cases, the compulsory administration of gene therapy to children is still demanded, just to maintain the narrative that such an experiment was or is necessary. The central aim of those who insist on an experiment that proved to be disastrous, whether due to the various cases of devastating side effects or the need for subsequent unforeseen doses, seems to be, not the search for immunization, but the preservation of the authorities who insist on not confessing the atrocities that they consciously, or not, put into practice.

Another way of not confessing your actions is the judicialization of politics, in which smaller groups start to govern in a kind of society with the Judiciary, which, because it does not place itself under the scrutiny of the people, does not suffer the consequences of its decisions, at least directly. , thus being able to change the direction of politics at will without suffering a setback at the polls. Using unlimited hermeneutics, the Judiciary can be called upon to assume any aspect of the State, because, if it acts shamelessly, it can interfere in any matters claiming to be in the name of a greater good. Even more serious would be, in rare cases of hypertrophy of the Judiciary, this being able to act even without the provocation of interested parties, initiating actions with consequences, which undermine other powers and which will never be put in the confessional, as in some environments, like courts and newspaper offices, it seems that repentance is not natural.

There are beings who flatter tyrants, who, even today, don't mind serving as sniffer dogs for powerful totalitarians, demeaning themselves in a despicable way in exchange for crumbs, such creatures are even more miserable than their masters and have denied their actions. When confronted, therefore, they will try to omit their crimes, confessing to them only if exposed and, even then, they will only do so in search of earthly forgiveness, not truly repenting. The vassals of evil will be worms even in hell.

Revolutionary leaders are left with a fruitless struggle against reality, seeking only to hide themselves as a form of protection, not against their enemies, but in relation to the consequences of their own actions, as their crimes are unconfessable.

“Those whose sins you forgive will be forgiven, and those whose sins you retain will be retained” (St. John 20:23).


Article published in Revista Conhecimento & Cidadania Vol. IV No. 49 – December 2024 Edition - ISSN 2764-3867




Comments


Featured Posts
bottom of page