It is worth remembering that the so - called preference for the mediocre has no Scriptural, evangelical, or magisterial basis. It is only the flower of the alleged liberation theology, or subversive mixture of Jesuitism and Marxism, which is an infertile component of the "cultural revolution" of the late 1960s.
In fact, it must be noted that the invention bears all the marks of the judaic deception. It was Judas in his holy hypocrisy who resented that the precious Nard oil that Mary of Bethany utilized to anoint Christ's feet had not been sold and the money thus obtained had not been distributed to the poor. Then comes the definitive answer: “You have the mediocre at home, but you do not always have me.” At the time of the sermon, the key conviction is “Blessed are the mediocre in spirit”, not in possession.
In another words, if the eventual and overriding intent is to save the soul, then in the light of its attainment, it does not substance the least, what is the position of someone's property – in this context only the attitude towards him matters. Only in this sense, "the rich will barely enter the kingdom of heaven," that this may hinder him from being besides attached to earthly goods.
However, in no way does it consequence that the mediocre must have easier in this substance – and surely it is not easier erstwhile it is told at all turn that it has a "preferential option" to usage "systemic" relief solutions. On the contrary, in specified a situation, he is on a simple way to depriving himself of institutionalized claims that are a fatal obstacle to the way to the salvation of his soul, and thus is in precisely the situation in which Marxist infiltrators would like to put the Gospel on their head as a consequence of a complete reversal of the hierarchy of natural and supernatural order.
In conclusion, if you are dealing with a concept that, erstwhile jumping out of a hat in the period of the global neo-Marxist revolution, presents itself like a Judas deception, sounds like a Judas deception and leads to deceptive effects, it is surely not an component of the Gospel teaching or tradition of the Church. Quod erat demonstrationum.
Jakub Bożydar Wiśniewski
