On the level of the universal Church, the Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah has become the most full-throated defender of Catholic faith… Christianity is not a matter of blood, or of race, or of victory in this world. It requires us to accept defeat in this life so we might enjoy triumph in the next. A Catholic cannot be certain that his line will continue or his country thrive. He only knows that the gates of hell will not prevail against Christ’s Church… [N]o Christian would mind if [black men would bear forth a faith and culture abandoned by whites].”
Thus, despite the literary window dressing, this is nothing more than clichéd deracinated neoconservatism that has become par for the course in the modern age. Against the backdrop of history, it seems patently absurd to think that Christians should welcome a future where Africans are sending missionaries into Europe, but that is precisely what Schmitz suggests. Catholicism is simply stripped of its European heritage and history, and we are supposed to accept the notion that Cardinal Sarah is the vanguard of an African wave that will sweep across Europe, bringing back Latin Mass and traditionalism, even at the expense of the indigenous European peoples. One would be hard-pressed to not detect the apparent longing for a counter-imperialism, an inverse Age of Exploration that sees whites as the savages that need to be civilized by the Third World masses, all while trying to mask that longing behind a feigned desire for tradition. After all, what would an Afro-European Church look like? Would such a Church restore the Catholic faith as Schmitz implies, or would it represent its destruction?
For example, it has been noted that “the African Christians have not considered [the Gospel] very significant in their lives,” but occult beliefs and practices “are a reality in the lives of many Christians in Kenya.” Indeed, according to a 1994 report commissioned by the Kenyan government, “devil worship is so widespread it represents the single greatest threat to Kenyan society.” More broadly, it has been said that the mixture of Christianity with native African beliefs “is already present in Africa, no matter whether one inculturates or not,” and even “if one rigidly opposes any kind of Africanization of the Gospel message, the Africanization inevitably happens in one way or another by the African receptor.” In Zambia as recently as last year, Fernando Cardinal Filoni felt the need to ask local Catholics to avoid incorporating native beliefs into the faith. In 2009, Benedict XVI condemned beliefs in witchcraft in Africa, but Fr. Patrick Lafon, now Dean of the Faculty of Humanity and Social Sciences at the Catholic University of Cameroon, remarked at the time that “many Catholics may show up for Mass on Sunday, but if there’s sickness in the family, they’ll also consult their tribal medicine man to find out who placed the curse and what they need to do to lift it.” This is precisely what has been seen in places such as Haiti where about “80% of Haitians are Roman Catholic; roughly half the population also practises voodoo.”
While Cardinal Sarah may not be a practitioner of voodoo or the like, he also is not representative of truly traditional Catholicism. For example, he has previously said, “Islam has been present in Europe for a long time and no one has ever been afraid of it,” that “true Muslims have never murdered anyone,” that Catholics should “promote brotherly coexistence” with Muslims, and that we “do not have the right, just because we do not share someone’s faith, to insult [and] caricature [Islam].” In light of the so-called “refugee crisis,” Cardinal Sarah admonished the Church, not for helping to flood the West with foreign hordes but rather for not focusing enough on evangelizing those hordes. He has also condemned hardline nationalistic movements as being similar to communism, homosexuality, and abortion. We also cannot overlook that, “despite showing a clear conservative side since coming to Rome,” he remains a “Vatican II man,” described as “traditional on the culture wars, yet strongly progressive on social justice issues.” He is certainly no crusader seeking to defend the Church, but he is rather another ecumenical progressive. It just so happens that he feels strongly about certain traditions within the framework of the modernists.
So while Schmitz may think that an Africanized Christianity sending missionaries into Europe would preserve “a faith and culture abandoned by whites,” his neoconservative religion is no different than secular neoconservatives believing that a future non-white United States would remain unchanged so long as the Constitution remained. The Gospel and the Constitution may both stand unchanged in the hypothetical non-white future, but that does not mean either would be treated with the same reverence or be understood in the same way. What the neocons are proposing is a defeatism, a sense that the war has already been lost and that there can be no return to a Christian Europe, or to a strict constitutionalist United States, unless foreigners engage in a counter-imperialism, carrying the Cross and Old Glory as they invade those who had originally carried them forward across the globe.
The neocons have embraced their defeat at the hands of liberalism and modernism, but they find a strange comfort in telling themselves that their enemies will be their own undoing. It is fine that the West is being turned into a suburb of the Third World because, in their fevered fantasies, the savages will miraculously morph into Christian crusaders and strict constitutionalists who will carry on after whites are forgotten. Neocons never ask themselves why they find this acceptable because it is ingrained in their belief system. Why should Europe cease to be European? Why should Christianity be Africanized? The neocon never ponders or addresses these questions, but they are rather dismissed out of hand with, “Why not?” This is precisely the “victory through defeat” that Schmitz tells us is required by Christianity, a perverse recasting of charity and selflessness, not as heroic, but as defeat. Again, as Schmitz says, when one becomes a literal cuckold, that is when he “becomes true Christian and knight.” There is no thought given to the fact that a godly crusader raising a faithful family and fighting the enemies of the Lord is a “true Christian and knight.” No, it is the cuckold in Schmitz’s eyes that truly represents his supposed faith, a man not giving of himself because he chose to do so but rather one thrust into a situation by the sins of another.
We are supposed to ignore that God divided mankind (Genesis 11:1-9) and set the boundaries of nations (Acts 17:26). We are also to ignore that the Son said to make disciples of all the nations (Matthew 28:19), not to undo the boundaries the Father had set and to join together that which He had divided. We must also ignore that the Bible tells us (1 Timothy 5:8) that “if any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” And the Father must have made a mistake when He commanded the Israelites, “Destroy all the inhabitants of that land: beat down their pillars, and break in pieces their statues, and waste all their high places, Cleansing the land, and dwelling in it. For I have given it you for a possession… But if you will not kill the inhabitants of the land: they that remain, shall be unto you as nails in your eyes, and spears in your sides, and they shall be your adversaries in the land of your habitation. And whatsoever I had thought to do to them, I will do to you.” Never mind that Jesus told his followers to arm themselves (Luke 22:36), that He said He came not to bring peace but a sword (Matthew 10:34), or that St. Peter was indeed armed in His presence (John 18:10).
In this neoconservative Christianity, we are not to look to St. James the Moor-Slayer, or St. Ferdinand III of Reconquista fame, or Saint Nicasius of the Knights Hospitaller who was beheaded when he refused to convert to Islam, or even Our Lady of Victory who saw the faithful through the likes of Lepanto and Empel. We are instead to look to a downtrodden man whose wife has made him a cuckold, asking that he raise the product of her adultery as his own. He could simply put her aside for her sin and not remarry himself, but he instead “becomes true Christian and knight” by embracing cuckoldry, the true essence of neocon Christianity… a supposed faith that would see an Africanized Christianity in an Africanized Europe, witch doctors and voodoo being a concern where European Catholics had once fought and died to preserve the true faith, slums and mud huts slowly growing like a plague where European Catholics once erected marvelous cathedrals to honor God, ear and lip plates becoming common where European artists once mastered marble and paint in depicting the Lord, Our Lady, and the saints.
The neocon’s religion is just as modern and progressive as his politics, and, with both, he tells himself that he is a true traditionalist because his liberalism is wrapped in a shallow veneer of tradition. Religious belief and political ideology are stripped of historical context and repackaged into a sort of politically correct conservatism, a safe dissent that is radical only insofar as it is radically opposed to true reactionary thought. The modernist cries out for a deracinated, multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural Utopia with a religion that promotes all of the above, a new Tower of Babel, and the neocon stands in the way, shouting, “That’s fine, but I prefer Ad orientem.” One can imagine what Europe would be like today if Charles Martel or El Cid had embraced such a bastardized form of the faith, and no true believer thinks that doing so would be a good idea now any more than it would have been then.
While it is true when Schmitz says we know “that the gates of hell will not prevail against Christ’s Church,” that is because we know that good will triumph over evil, which includes us fighting the good fight, not accepting defeat and hoping that someone else will fight where we surrendered. We do not need African voodoo practitioners or Mexican followers of Santa Muerte to save the Church or the West. We do not need to Africanize or Mexicanize the faith to sustain it in the future. The true faith will prevail because it is the truth, the only truth, God’s truth. When the Lord entrusted the keys of the kingdom to St. Peter, il primo Papa established the Church in Rome. When the Lord told the Pharisees that the kingdom of God was being taken from them and given to another nation yielding the fruits thereof (Matthew 21:43), who else could He have been speaking of but Europe? Who else has carried the Word to the furthest reaches of the Earth? Who else has done so much in the name of the Lord, from exploration to philosophizing, from artwork to proselytizing? The Son said the kingdom of God would be given to another nation, He entrusted St. Peter as the rock upon which His Church would be built, and St. Peter founded that Church in Europe.
So, no, Christianity is not for “cucks.” It is for warriors and poets, theologians and philosophers, painters and sculptors, kings and peasants, and, yes, Europeans and Africans, albeit on the terms of the Roman Church. It most assuredly is not, however, of those who value it so little that they tell themselves losing is winning, changing is preserving, collapsing is standing tall. The state of the West today is not because of Christianity, but it is rather because of liberalism and modernism, forces diametrically opposed to the faith. Those same forces underpin the neoconservatives’ thinking. There is no greater sin than being “racist” because that is what the liberals and modernists think. There is no greater glory for a conservative than defeat because that is what they need us to think. As the meme says, “Which way Western man?” Will you buy a sword and take up the cross as the Lord said, or will you hope that your quadracial great-grandchildren’s medicine man invokes the name of Jesus?