I was reading the referers to this site, and I came across a Catholic type site, in which a thread / flame seems to have started regarding my mention of "Christian atheists". Some (who in my opinion have a straw tail) seem to be bothered by this definition and have some very nice thoughts about me.

Well, I'm sorry: the concept is not mine. I'd like it if it were mine, but it's not. The term is described by Miguel de Unamuno , in his book “San Manuel Bueno, Mártir”. The phenomenon is not only limited to the Catholic world: for example, the dictator Lukashenko defines himself as an "atheist Orthodox Christian".

When the Theocons arrived in the USA, the local press (which can reach not indifferent levels of ferocity when it delves into reality) reused the term making it mainstream in the USA.

But what is meant by "atheist Christians" or "atheistic Catholics"?

Let's put it this way: religious thought is a branch of metaphysical thought. As such, it is concerned with providing an "alternative physics" in which things (God, but also the soul) would exist, if not a whole "invisible" world, which is transcendent and spiritual. Good.

Having said that, the "religious Christian" or simply "Christian" believes in a whole story of heterologous fertilization and on the fact that a kind of primitive prose philosopher (Christ) would have explained to the world how to take care of the invisible part of oneself.

In short, religion proposes an alternative physics (the Orthodox speak of a "revealed world" as opposed to the "created world", which is the physical one), which is full of invisible entities, one of which is an aspect of man . If a man (or a woman, Loretta tells me) is a religious Christian, then to take care of the invisible part of himself he must do what Jesus said.

And let's be clear, there is only one way for which a religion is such: to be a metaphysics. If we take this component out of religion we have taken away God & other imaginary friends, we have taken away the prophets (reduced to mere psychopaths), the soul, the holy spirit, and all. Good.

For convenience, from now on we will call "spiritual agenda" everything a Christian does when, for reasons founded in his alternative physics, he decides to take care of the invisible part of himself by doing or not doing things, gestures, acts, works, thoughts and omissions. (cit.)

But religions also play politics. And since they do politics, they have an agenda that is not a religious one. It is in fact an agenda that does not originate from a metaphysics. Electoral results, governments, institutions, consensus, are all worldly matters .

We will call "political agenda" everything that a Christian does for reasons grounded in worldly politics (therefore without the need for metaphysics), when compliance with these precepts does not aim to improve the health of some invisible part of himself. ', but to adhere to the political agenda of the church to which they belong.

It is therefore possible to obey the political agenda labeled as Christian, without adhering to the spiritual agenda (believe in God, in short). Since politics is 100% worldly, you are "Christian atheists".

But if a Catholic has a political agenda but does NOT have a spiritual agenda, how do we know?

When (at least on an aesthetic level) the two overlapped, it was really difficult. There is no physical measure of adherence to a spiritual agenda. Except in some cases.

For example, according to Paul with baptism, Christians inherit the "duty" to be "Alter Jesus", or another Christ. In this sense, they should ask themselves "how would Christ behave in this situation?". And then do the same.

Bush who goes on TV to explain that in order to better kill Iraqi soldiers a Shock & Owe strategy was needed, that is, bombing him and then shooting them, definitely doesn't look like something Christ would have gladly said (unless that there are no very apocryphal gospels, such as "the Gospel according to Hulk Hogan"). On the other hand, Bush was hailed by fans as a… model of Christianity.

When the media of American commentators had to unravel the problem, they found the distinction between "spiritual agenda" and "political agenda" useful, because Bush adhered to political Christianity, but not to the spiritual one : but how to define a Christian who adheres to a political agenda called Christian, but not its spiritual agenda?

The definition was precisely that of "Christian atheist". A Christian who adheres to the so-called "Catholic" political agenda, but not to the so-called "Catholic" spiritual one: and if the discrimination normally seems difficult because it seems to process intentions, it becomes simple when the political and spiritual agenda contradict each other .

I give some examples of famous Italian atheist Christians.

The fascist adulteress who goes around singing about being a woman & catholic, so to speak, takes the term catholic from the fact that she adheres to the political agenda that is so called. On the level of the spiritual agenda, however, her state of adultery (having children out of wedlock, being aware of them and being able to avoid them for the Gospel is adultery) is not good. The spiritual Christian, of course, inherits from the Gospel the duty not to stone the adulteress in question, as was done with Mary Magdalene. And it's not that bad either, come on. Maria Maddalena Meloni plays well: M & M & M.

Here, M & M & M is certainly what is called an "atheist Christian".

Another example is a gambler very famous for his ranting about abortion, who says he is a standard bearer of the Christian Family and its values. He certainly adheres to the political agenda labeled as Catholic, but it must be recognized that the game of poker is not counted among the spiritual exercises of that religion. And being divorced it is not clear how he can give lessons in "family values". Even if we can object that it was his wife who divorced, from the point of view of the spiritual Christian the decision to remarry is at least controversial , and that of remarrying in a Las Vegas casino makes you turn up your nose. In fact, there are no biblical sources on the Las Vegas Casino as a place of Christianity. Perhaps you find them in the Gospel according to Hugh Hefner. Certainly the hot young ladies who are in those places are not nuns.

Adinolfi, therefore, is also to be counted among atheist Christians.

Sophia Loren's niece is in an even more critical position. While she is said to adhere to the political agenda labeled Catholic, she is in an awkward situation. Because Christ was not a convinced pacifist like Gandhi, and if on the one hand he prevented the Magdalene from being killed, on the other he clearly said that Sofia Loren's niece should tie a millstone around her husband's neck and throw him in a deep river. The obvious difference between the behavior suggested by the Gospel (in order to improve the health of one's spirit) and the actual behavior makes one thing clear: Mussolini adheres to the political agenda labeled as Catholic, but does not follow the "spiritual" precepts of the Gospel when it comes to sex with minors. It could be objected that to lift a millstone it takes more strength than Alessandra has, but the millstones of those times, with a little bit of effort and a little help, were manageable: an oil mill in those days was made so'

and the ballast stones were perfect to be passed around the neck (Christ was "solution oriented", evidently), but to get them into position it had to be relatively easy to lift them. Mussolini, therefore, has an explicit duty to heal her spirit by passing one of these stones around her husband's neck to throw him into some river. And no, this is NOT the Gospel according to Julius Evola, it is precisely the canonical one that the Church accepts.

Mussolini, therefore, can be classified among the "Christian atheists".

But now there is the problem: how is it possible that the political and the spiritual agenda diverge so much? In the case of Mussolini it is, I believe, the penal code: the Italian Republic has prejudices against people who throw their husband into a river with a stone tied around his neck. They are extravagant types, the jurists. It is the simplest case: Mussolini is a pragmatic girl, ever since she posed in Playboy (the well-known Sunday insert of Famiglia Cristiana) more naked than the Christian spiritual agenda would suggest. But she was forgiven. (If not from God, at least from me: he will be satisfied, I hope).

In the case of Adinolfi, no one has ever forced him to play poker (which I find to be quite discouraged in the Catholic world), to remarry, and to frequent temples of Christianity (according to Hugh Hefner, an underestimated prophet) such as casinos in Las Vegas. . In the case of the fascist adulteress, no one forced her to have kilometers of cock lowered on the cervix: apparently she should have insisted on remaining a virgin until marriage. The Gospel according to Nina Hagen does not say it, but it seems to be important for the church all the same. Nina will have to get over it. I'm sure he will succeed. Also because he never wrote any gospel. (Thanks, Nina!)

The answer to the question is simple: if you notice it, I have spoken of a "political agenda labeled as Catholic". The reason is even simpler.

When it comes to the Christian spiritual agenda, the game is simple. For the Orthodox the patriarchs and their schools make reference, the Catholics have simplified by declaring that in the field the Pope is infallible, and the only confused are the Protestants who say “RTFM” (Read The Fucking Manual).

It is therefore clear that in the end there is someone who takes the spiritual agenda and places a label on it. For Catholics he is the Pope, and for how papal infallibility is put (which is a dogma) if you have problems about it you are automatically excommunicated. (there is a grace time and you can always repent, but the gist is this).

If, on the other hand, we talk about a "political agenda labeled as Christian", who exactly puts the label? This is a problem that becomes central, because the last pope seems unwilling to stick this label on political agendas in contradiction with the spiritual one. And since on the spiritual one he is the supreme authority, who is it that labels as "Christian" a political agenda so distant from the spiritual one?

The spectrum of certification authorities is enormous: if you find only one capable of certifying Brunello di Montalcino, the situation becomes more complicated when it comes to political agendas. For years, Trump has been a very welcome certification body. So shooting guns, smothering unarmed negroes, putting children in cages, letting people drown in the sea, were all easily "certifiable" as a "Christian agenda". The Gospel according to Steve Bannon confirms this (his exegetic is very simple, if you wear a bulletproof vest while studying it).

But the important thing is that you don't need moral authority of the caliber of Trump or Sarah Palin to certify political agendas. It seems political agendas can self-certify.

If we ask the fascist adulteress how she certified a political agenda for which immigrants' boats must be shot (naval blockade implies this) while it is Christian to have her cervix pierced out of wedlock, we discover that… she says so. A case of Immaculate Conception religious self-certification. If you want exegetics, ask Franco er Menatutti , a well-known theologian from Colle Oppio.

And if we ask ourselves who has labeled Adinolfi's political agenda as “Catholic”, despite the fact that it includes weddings in Christian temples called Casinos in Las Vegas, or purifying practices such as Poker, the answer is very similar. This agenda is labeled Catholic as Adinolfi says so.

Even the Catholic agenda of the Niece, which includes indifferently the appearance in Playboy and the values ​​of the traditional family, such as living with a guy who should (according to the Gospel) rest at the bottom of a river, not to mention the apology of assorted dictators , it seems self-certified.

But the problem is that not even inside the church does everyone obey the Pope. The Catholic Church, being a huge system, has a periphery. And if no one would say certain things in Rome without being excommunicated, when they are away from Rome some priests take liberties, carrying out actions that are consistent with the political agenda labeled as Catholic, but vastly contrary to the religious one.

For example, I read in a trial of the inquisition of the Republic of Venice that a woman was sentenced to death for having buried an aborted fetus in consecrated ground. Because extreme unction requires baptism, and baptism requires (according to canon law) that the infant have breathed at least once. This is because in Genesis God would have blown the soul, which is therefore the breath, jadda jadda jadda. And then because the inheritance law must understand whether a child is "born" or not, and the criterion was to check (in the case of death) whether he had breathed at least once or not. So the aborted fetus cannot be baptized. So no extreme unction. Ergo no burial in consecrated land. Consequently, a certain Giovanni Paolo Zapparella da Verona (an inquisitor of the Republic of Venice) says that burying an aborted fetus in consecrated land is a type of profanation typical of witchcraft, and condemns the girl to death by strangulation (in short, hanging). .

Since I assume that this Giovanni Paolo Zapparella from Verona knew something about his religion to be an inquisitor, and this happened around 1740, I can opine the fact that today cemeteries are being made for fetuses.

But a class of "suburban" priests, taking advantage of the fact that the Pope does not see you from Rome, can also bury fetuses in consecrated ground, and nobody notices it.

Who has given the label "Catholic" to the political agenda that claims to do this? Well, taking advantage of the authority that comes from being a priest, they think about it themselves. Another case of quasi-self-certification. In this case, it seems that there are not only "atheist Christians" for whom the political agenda prevails over the religious one, but even atheistic Christian priests .

So yes, I'm absolutely right when I label characters as "Christian atheists". If someone tells me that I was mainly angry with women (Adinolfi?) Then I will quote Silvio (Orgia & Matrimonio) Berlusconi "the Christian Democrat who defends the values ​​of the traditional family", Gianfranco Fini "he who does not fuck a woman if he is not 'already the wife of a dormitory, but defends Catholic civilization ”, Matteo Salvini“ the man with a family past that seems ground zero ”who, guess what,… defends the values ​​of the traditional Catholic family.

Now that I have also done something politically correct, I would say that the definition of "Christian atheist" should be clear.

And yes':

• exists.
• I didn't invent it.
• we have numerous examples.

QED