Possible Miracle of Sophia Forchas' Recovery

Sophia Forchas' Family Credits The Power Of Prayer To Her "Miraculous" Recovery
John F. Trent | Sep 23, 2025
https://culturecrusader.substack.com/p/sophia-forchas-family-credits-the

Carl F. Hostetter on me:

1) HGL's F.B. writings : Disagreeing with Michelle Arnold and an Anonymous Catholic, 2) New blog on the kid : Carl F. Hostetter on me:

Under a status of a Catholic ex-FB friend* whom I "talked" with earlier and who is now denouncing me:

I unfriended him long ago, I don't remember precisely why, but certainly it was in part because I discerned a certain level of bizarreness in his writings that wasn't sufficiently explained by his lack of fluency in English.

Was he in fact attributing to my supposed "lack of fluency in English" (which seems to have become a topos** among certain circles) what he would otherwise have attributed to my "bizarreness"?

Either way, it was a very great idea, if avoiding a confrontation of ideas was his goal, to attribute it to either./HGL

* Here is, in the second part of the link, the talking or mailing:

HGL's F.B. writings : Disagreeing with Michelle Arnold and an Anonymous Catholic
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2016/01/disagreeing-with-michelle-arnold-and.html

** Here is a place where this topos makes it to the surface:

HGL's F.B. writings : Ruari McCallion Tries to Make Allowances for my English
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2015/11/ruari-mccallion-tries-to-make.html

Update, Carl F. Hostetter TO me (and me to him, first):

HGL

If instead of just reading her version of what happened, you would like to get to the dialogue itself?

No shred of evidence it is my language skills blocking here:

HGL's F.B. writings: Disagreeing with Michelle Arnold and an Anonymous Catholic
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2016/01/disagreeing-with-michelle-arnold-and.html
Preview [not from article but from blog foot] : D'abord une lettre à mon curé a St Nicolas du Chardonnet, pas à propos son propre article dans "Le Chardonnet" mais à propos celui d'un dominicain: hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com

CFH

I did read your full exchange, and you treated Prthvi both uncharitably and most strangely. Your point seems to be that Catholics in the US are acting as Protestants if they follow US law in not permitting 14-year-old girls to marry. That is both non-sensical and contrary to Catholic teaching on the observance of a nation's laws. And it is simply bizarre that you think Prthvi's labeling of people in pictures is either suspicious or has anything at all to do with YOU. I urge you to pray and examine your conscience about your conduct.

HGL

No, that was HER interpretation of my point. If you read my work through again, you will find I said Protestants act BETTER than Catholics, and that US law does not require this violation of canon law.

"That is both non-sensical and contrary to Catholic teaching on the observance of a nation's laws."

But look at the real laws:

Age of marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_the_United_States
Preview: The age of marriage in the United States varies by state, but is generally 18. There are, however, two exceptions—Nebraska (19) and Mississippi (21). Most states, however, allow minors below 18 to marry (generally they have to be at least 16 but sometimes lower) with parental and/or judicial consent… en.wikipedia.org

Link given and cited in what you claim to have read through!

[I could have also referred him to Arcanum by Leo XIII, which does not exactly state the Church teaches just to folow national law, when it conflicts with Church Law.]

And as we talk of justice and charity, what was it you did talking to her in response to her status?

[linking here:]
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2016/01/carl-f-hostetter-on-me.html]

"And it is simply bizarre that you think Prthvi's labeling of people in pictures is either suspicious or has anything at all to do with YOU."

Considering how much actually has so, including your remarks on my English, it is more like a miracle of sanity I dared confess the first inevitable gut reaction. Also, what is your big deal with telling me my first suspicion was wrong, when I already said it was on the post? You've only made my case. I'll pray for you.

FB function:

"you missed a call from Carl F. Hostetter"

[I could thereafter not post:]

HGL

I seem to recall certain Pharisees saying certain things about Our Lord - and Him predicting we should get similar things from them.

FB function:

"This person isn't receiving messages from you right now."

What Should You Do If Your Son Had a Gay Wedding?

Boycott it.

Boycott gay weddings, even family, says Baptist leader
By Andrew Wolfson ; The Louisville Courier-Journal October 15, 2015
http://www.cruxnow.com/life/2015/10/15/boycott-gay-weddings-even-family-says-southern-baptist-leader-al-mohler/

Tolkien thought that Joy Davidman was legitimately the wife of William Gresham. Hence, he boycotted his friend's, C. S. Lewis', wedding to her after she had divorced.

However, if you want to give an encouraging word - encouraging to the person, not to the deed - you can also say: "come back when it's a gal you marry."

If I were a priest, which I am not, and two homo couples, a gay and a lesbian couple, came and asked for getting married (which they wouldn't, since it is known Catholic Church considers unions contrary to nature as totally the opposite of marriage), I'd tell them: "if you switch partners, you can come back then."

But I'd recommend one of the such formed couples to move away geographically from their same sex exes.

Someone might tell me I am totally clueless about homosexuality, but is that really a fault?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Hedwig of Poland*
16-X-2015

* Sanctae Hedwigis Viduae, Polonorum Ducissae, quae pridie hujus diei obdormivit in Domino. Święta Jadwiga Śląska / Heilige Hedwig von Andechs.

PS : I did not quote the "boycott it" passage, I just noted my agreement with it. Here I will quote:

Even if scientists prove people are born gay, the “sinfulness of homosexuality” would not be eliminated because human sin taints the world, Mohler said in addressing other topics of sexual identity.

One can certainly prove people are born more or less sex-typical, more or less close to stereotypes which in culture or even nature belong to other sex. But this does NOT mean they are born either gay or transgender, that is only things that by sins may come out of being born androgynous. Also, for homosexual androgynity is not even a requirement. Excessive typicality of own sex can lead to incomprehension of other sex, in some cases even to estrangement from it./HGL

Bishop Challoner for July 8th - ON THE SENTIMENTS WE SHALL HAVE AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH

As my being a layman, it is not my business to compete in the genre. But as a Christian, I would be very shameful indeed to withhold from other Christians when I find what a good bishop has said:

JULY 8TH ON THE SENTIMENTS WE SHALL HAVE AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH Consider first, how different judgment the soul will make of all things at the approach of death, from that which she is apt to make in life. O how shall the world then turn upside down before her eyes! Ah! my soul, how wilt thou then despise all worldly honours ad preferments, when thou shalt see thyself at the brink of the grave, where the worms shall make no distinction between the king and the beggar! How little account wilt thou then make of the praise, esteem, or love of men, who will now think no more of thee! How wilt thou then undervalue thy riches, when thou shalt see them slipping away from thee, and leave thee nothing but a coffin and a shroud! How contemptible will all worldly pleasures then appear in thy eyes, which at the best could never afford thee any true satisfaction, and now will show what they really are, and dissolve into smoke! O let us make the same judgment now concerning all these things as we shall do then! Let us weigh them all in these scales, and we shall not be cheated. For why should we set our affections upon such short-lived slippery toys? Why should we admit of a love that cannot stand the test of death? Consider 2ndly, O my soul, what shall then be thy sentiments with regard to thy sins, of which perhaps thou hast hitherto made but small account? O how hideous, how odious will they begin to appear to thee, how numerous, how enormous – when the curtain shall begin to be withdrawn, with which thy busy self-love has industriously hidden them, or disguised the deformity and malice of them, and they shall be set before thy eyes in their true light – when that false conscience which thou hast framed to thyself, and under the cover of which thou hast passed over many things in thy confessions as slight and inconsiderable, which thou wast ashamed to declare or unwilling to forsake, shall no longer be able to maintain its ground, at the approach of death? O what anguish, what remorse, what dread, what confusion, what despair, will invade a poor dying sinner at the sight of this dreadful scene, of this army of his sins drawn up in battle-array against him! Ah! Christians, let us be wise in time, and prevent so great an evil by taking all such precautions now, with regard to our sins, as we shall certainly wish to have taken then. Consider 3rdly, my soul, what thy sentiments will be at the time of thy death, with relation to the service of God, to virtue and devotion? O how lovely then shall the way of virtue appear to thee! O how wilt thou then wish to have always followed that charming path! But what shall thy sentiments be with regard to the value of grace? How bitterly shalt thou then regret the neglect of so many calls and invitations of thy gracious God; the loss of so many favourable opportunities of storing up eternal treasures, the squandering away so much of thy precious time, the misemploying of so many of God’s gifts and talents, the abuse of the sacraments, &c. Ah! how many great but disregarded truths shall then be unveiled to the sinner, against which he had shut his eyes before! How shall the false reasonings of the world, the delusions of his passions, and the subtilties of his self-love, together with the affected ignorance of such things as he had no mind to know, all forsake him at the approach of death and leave him in despondence at the time of his greatest distress? Conclude to enter into those sentiments now, with regard to all these things, that shall stand by thee at the hour of thy death. For why shouldst thou any longer suffer thyself to be the dupe of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and give in to their impostures, with evident danger of the loss of thy immortal soul?

Here is the Index page for all of these:

MEDITATIONS FOR EVERY DAY IN THE YEAR
BY BISHOP CHALLONER
http://www.liturgialatina.org/challoner/contents.htm

PS, since I found this Jewel through Stephanie Mann, I will link to another post of hers, not the one which was the mediation on fasting. Here is St Thomas More on the Consciousness:

Supremacy and Survival: The English Reformation : St. Thomas More and Conscience (Again)
http://supremacyandsurvival.blogspot.com/2015/07/st-thomas-more-and-conscience-again.html

No, I do NOT know where the Antarctic Entrance to Hollow Earth Is ...

... more importantly, I don't believe in a hollow earth in that sense. Nor do I believe in a solid one, the other modern option.

[1) Esoterism and Conversion, 2) No, I do NOT know where the Antarctic Entrance to Hollow Earth Is ... ]

As a Medieval (not by birth, as if born in 1212 or 1313 - I'd rather take 1212 btw - but by election) I believe Earth has in its inmost centre the spot where Satan fell down to and where damned souls go to. It is called Hell.

Note, the word "inferi" means lower parts. In a box shaped universe, where height is always 180° against lowness and never 180° against height, this means somewhere lower than Earth as we know it. In a Geocentric Universe, this means inside the surface. The latter is what I believe in, if you were for a second in doubt.

Note also, "inferi" does not only cover that lowermost and presumably innermost part where the damned go, it also covers the part where Abraham went, also covers where unbaptised children go, also covers purgatory. All of which are higher up and therefore further out, closer to the surface than the Hell of the damned sinners and demons.

Note even further, the Hebrew word for "inferi" also seems to mean netherworld.

"Sheol (n.) 1590s [in English, that is], from Hebrew, literally "the underworld, Hades," of unknown origin. Used in R.V. in place of Hell in many passages."

Some people really seem to have trouble understanding I have intellectually more in common with St Thomas Aquinas and Dante Alighieri than with Adolf Hitler, much as I regret he never made it as a painter (unless he escaped and became a painter under another name). But, really, I regret even more how he seems to have preferred the wildest theories, which, if Middle Age theology is true, are also the most dangerous to simply staying with Catholic theology. At least if it is true he sent an expedition to Antarctica to find the entrance to that other kind of netherworld I do not believe in.

And also, some people seem to have real trouble understanding they ought to talk to me if they consider me wrong (not meaning people I have already rejected the company of as nuisances, but in decent debate over internet) and NOT just pray along for me to get yet another chance to see what they mean by avoiding to read what I write.

Chesterton in his book about Catholicism and conversion considered a certain kind of fiction very ridiculous (the one which Jack Chick has kept up about the Catholic Church): "the priest can say anything, because the writer can say anything about the priest" basically.

Today it seems among some priests (yes, Catholics) that I can say anything, because the priest can believe anything about me.

So, any priest who thinks I am into Nazi theories or pre-Nazi semi-occultist theories of "hollow earth", quit praying for me to get confronted with your "seeing me through" and start reading what I write instead. Praise or condemn that, not rumours of what my ideas are. With more than 3000 articles on my blogs by now, it should be possible to find out what I believe on a given subject, if I have given it enough thought to think I should write about it, or even sometimes if you only want to know my spontaneous reaction.

And any Illuminato who wants to know how much I am into the know, the answer is as simple as not at all. Except about such people existing and insisting, contrary to both fact and decent presumption about fact, that I am in the know, and therefore spying on me and lying about me to priests.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Thomas Aquinas
7-III-2015

Oh, just in case someone gets some association with a recent film première (or it was even intended) : 1) I am NOT technically Jewish, since neither circumcised nor having made a Bar Mitzvah, nor intending to either; 2) I do NOT want to be taken for a Nazi, since I am Austrofascist; 3) I am technically a Catholic, since I am baptised and converted, and ... wow ... I actually also want to be taken for a Catholic. Like most Austrofascists I know of./HGL

On Mark P. Shea Not Getting Alive to Lake of Fire

Can't guarantee he won't get there as dead, but as far as I know the one or two persons who get thrown there alive has or have or one of them at least has a numerological specificity to the name. And Mark Shea's name in diverse shapes and forms as checked by ASCII Code just does not give that value described in Apocalypse 13:18 majority of manuscripts. I have heard of a man whose surname (internationally rare) does, and who could change an E for an O to get 676 and who hasn't. But his name is not Mark Shea. "Shoa" is certainly not an acceptable variant of Shea. But in that other man's surname, yes, the name has both an E and an O variety.

As for Mark Shea, I hope he enjoys the chronograms. As in - use number as a year (Anno Mundi, Anno Domini, Anno ante Christum natum, Annum ab Urbe Condita ...) and check out the events of that year. None of them were in his lifetime - unless you add 1000 to certain of the three digit numbers. Not sure if a relevant chronogram could be had by adding 1000 to a fourdigit number./HGL

A - Z = A - Z   A - M = Z - N       A - M = N - Z   other with value   A 65 78 90 space 32 B 66 79 89 lower case 32 C 67 80 88 D 68 81 87 hyphen 45 E 69 82 86 dot 46 F 70 83 85 dot-space 78 G 71 84 84 H 72 85 83 I 73 86 82 J 74 87 81 K 75 88 80 L 76 89 79 M 77 90 78 N 78 65 77 O 79 66 76 P 80 67 75 Q 81 68 74 R 82 69 73 S 83 70 72 T 84 71 71 U 85 72 70 V 86 73 69 W 87 74 68 X 88 75 67 Y 89 76 66 Z 90 77 65

MARK 299 325 321 PETER 384 371 391 SHEA 289 315 331 MARKSHEA 588 640 652 MARKPETERSHEA 972 1011 1043 MARK PETER SHEA 1036 1075 1107 ten minuscules add 320 Mark Peter Shea 1356 1395 1427 MARK SHEA 620 672 684 six minuscules add 192 Mark Shea 812 864 876 MARK P. SHEA 778 817 837 Mark P. Shea 970 1009 1029 M. P. SHEA 602 628 640 three minuscules add 96 M. P. Shea 698 724 736 MARKPETER 683 696 712 MARK PETER 715 728 744 seven minuscules add 224 Mark Peter 939 952 968 mpshea 641 664 676 !

H. H. Pope Michael on Lent 2015

I H. H. Pope Michael on Lent 2015 · II Five Years Ago · III Pray for a Pope · IV Reflection on Sedevacantism and Conclave of 1990 (quora) · V How Many are Currently Claiming Papacy or Claimed to be Popes?

Reposted with H. H. permission:

Lent 2015 "In the eyes of civilized man and savage alike, the strongest argument in favor of a doctrine is to be found in the sacrifices made by those who propagate it; the sacrifice of life, if need be, and, in a minor degree, the sacrifice of ease, country, fortune, home. The is the secret of success of our missionaries abroad, and of he most influential and venerated priests around us.” Daily Thoughts for Priests page 97. Dear friends of Christ, We are entering the holy season of Lent on Ash Wednesday, February 18, 2015. Lent is a good time for spiritual spring cleaning. Lent is a good time to see where we are and more important where God wants us to go. Out next step this Lent is to get out the map and plot out our course to where God wants us to go. We must be ready to say with Jesus: “Not my will, but Thy will be done.” We are all called to be saints. It is time to ask ourselves, what would the saints before us do at these times? In difficult times, they have abandoned the comfort of their home to defend the Church. Saint Bernard left his monastery to defend Pope Innocent II against Antipope Anacletus I. Many today look for martyrdom, but martyrdom is not a grace that is given to the lax, but those who prepare for it by a life lived for the love of Jesus Christ and in His holy service. If we must be ready to sacrifice our life if called upon, we are all called to live our life for Jesus Christ. And if this is true in all ages, how much more so today, when so few live as they ought. We have a lot to meditate on this Lent. “For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Matthew 18:20) Are we gathering together in Jesus Name and praying for an end to the Great Apostasy? We must remember that our spiritual strength begins with a life of serious prayer. We can preach all we want to with our lips, but if our heart is not near Jesus, our words will be worthless. It is our heart we must bring close to Jesus. In Lent we will find we have drifted away from Jesus a bit. We always do, because we live in the world and the world is full of distractions. In Lent, it is time to come home and bring our heart back close to Jesus. Jesus gave us the example, He spent forty days and forty nights in the desert praying before His public ministry. The desert is a place separated away from the noise of the world. During Lent, we should separate from the world as much as duty will allow. We need this time to reflect on our lives and on moving forward spiritually. We also must retire often to prayer. Jesus also retired often to prayer, during His public ministry. Scripture says He went up a mountain to pray. A mountain is also away from the noise of the world, where we ascend spiritually to life our hearts up to God. “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, end the Great Apostasy.” Every one of us must ask ourselves, are my actions extending the Great Apostasy or ending it? Remember Jesus did not give us a middle ground. We are either gathering with Jesus or we are scattering. The Holy Ghost has blessed us with a knowledge of the truth. Why has He chosen us? He has chosen us, because He wants us to bring others to a knowledge and acceptance of the truth. And yes, He has chosen you, because He has led you to this email. We cannot follow the worldly, who allow others to do their work whenever possible. We are called to go and teach all nations. And so, this Lent let us ask ourselves, what am I doing to end the Great Apostasy. Oremus, +Michael pp

Pietro Gasparri avait tort sur la charité

1) deretour : Émotion et passion, s'égalent-ils selon la Somme? ; 2) New blog on the kid : Pietro Gasparri avait tort sur la charité

Voici une page que je viens de trouver en milieu tradi:

MAURRAS TOURNONS LA PAGE
IL Y A MIEUX, BEAUCOUP MIEUX
par LOUIS-HUBERT REMY
http://www.a-c-r-f.com/documents/LHR-Maurras_tourner_page.pdf

Avant de lire le tout, je tombe sur une erreur théologique déjà au début, ou qui me semble tel, à savoir dans la note en bas de page numéro 2:

Si l'on parle de charité, on devrait rappeler auparavant, que cinq conditions s'imposent pour que la charité soit vraie :

• 1. Être en état de grâce.
• 2. Qu'elle soit mue par des motifs surnaturels.
• 3. Qu'elle soit efficace :
  • a. en tant qu’elle se rapporte à DIEU, elle doit porter à accomplir Sa divine volonté ;
  • b. en tant qu'elle se rapporte aux hommes, elle doit nous porter à chercher le bien du prochain.
• 4. Qu'elle soit ordonnée :
  • a. aimer DIEU par-dessus tout, et pas n'importe comment : Si quelqu'un M'aime, il garde d'abord Mes commande-ments ;
  • b. faire passer l'amour pour la patrie après l'amour pour l'Eglise ;
  • c. ne pas chercher le bien du prochain au détriment de notre propre bien spirituel ;
  • d. chercher d'abord le bien spirituel de l'âme de notre prochain et, après, le bien matériel de son corps.
• 5. Qu'elle se déploie dans la justice et la Vérité.

Et comme référence pour cette définition de la vraie charité:

Catéchisme catholique par le cardinal Gasparri, Chabeuil 1959, p. 759 et sv.

Allons aux erreurs et aux correctitudes.

Sa première condition:

Être en état de grâce.

Commentaire

Être en état de grâce n'est pas une condition au sens juridique du terme, c'est plutôt une condition dans le sens logique. Mais attention, avoir la charité est dans ce sens là également une condition d'être dans l'état de la grâce.

On peut avoir la foi sans la charité et donc sans être dans l'état de la grâce sanctifiante.

On peut avoir la foi et l'espérance sans la charité et donc aussi être sans l'état de grâce.

Mais si on a foi, espérance et charité, on ne peut pas ne pas être dans l'état de la grâce, comme on ne peut pas ne pas avoir foi, espérance et charité si on est dans l'état de la grâce.

Sa deuxième condition:

Qu'elle soit mue par des motifs surnaturels.

Commentaire

Aucune objection - ceci est correct. Aimer Dieu parce qu'Il a accordé une bonne vacance par la providence mais ne pas l'aimer parce qu'Il est très saint, ce n'est pas la charité divine. Aimer le prochain parce qu'il est sympa ou pitoyable mais pas parce que Dieu le veut, ce n'est pas la charité du prochain.

Sa troisième condition:

Qu'elle soit efficace :

• a. en tant qu’elle se rapporte à DIEU, elle doit porter à accomplir Sa divine volonté ;
• b. en tant qu'elle se rapporte aux hommes, elle doit nous porter à chercher le bien du prochain.

Commentaire

Prétendre aimer Dieu sans le vouloir obéir ce n'est pas l'aimer. Prétendre aimer le prochain sans lui vouloir faire le bien connu comme tel n'est pas aimer le prochain. Au moins dans les situations où le bien est un bien qui est obligatoire à chercher.

Sa quatrième condition:

Qu'elle soit ordonnée :

• a. aimer DIEU par-dessus tout, et pas n'importe comment : Si quelqu'un M'aime, il garde d'abord Mes commandements ;
• b. faire passer l'amour pour la patrie après l'amour pour l'Eglise ;
• c. ne pas chercher le bien du prochain au détriment de notre propre bien spirituel ;
• d. chercher d'abord le bien spirituel de l'âme de notre prochain et, après, le bien matériel de son corps.

Commentaire

Malheureusement Pietro Gasparri ne donnait pas un résumé totalement correct.

Le premier point est correct: aimer DIEU par-dessus tout, et pas n'importe comment : Si quelqu'un M'aime, il garde d'abord Mes commandements.

Le deuxième point n'est qu'une conséquence de la charité bien ordonnée, comme la définent St Thomas après St Augustin. Un Catholique bien instruit doit être d'accord, mais un catholique mal instruit ou un non-catholique ayant une appartenance paradoxale à l'église, peuve se tromper au moins pour des instants là-dessus, sans que ni leur foi ni donc leur charité soit fausse.

Par contre, ce point est important pour comprendre pourquoi Action Française, ou Maurrassisme intégral, fut condamné. Si Maurras en tant que non-Chrétien et Lyndon La Rouche en tant que non-Catholique ont été capables à mal définir soit ce point, soit la charité ("politique d'abord" pour Maurras, Positiviste, ou "charité veut dire être inventif pour maximiser la densité de la population humaine" selon la théorie du Quaker marié à une Catholique), un Catholique en revanche ne peut pas adhérer à une mouvance politique où il est de rigueur d'adhérer à ces erreurs des fondateurs, pour combien il soit autrement autorisé à les valoriser.

Donc, point b est une conséquence, pas une condition en soi, de la charité bien ordonné.

Points c et d sont par contre mal formulés.

Correction sur c: On ne doit ni chercher le bien du prochain, ni celui du propre corps au détriment de son propre bien spirituel, c'est à dire pour le minimum, on ne doit jamais commettre un péché mortel, ni pour le bien de son corps, ni pour le bien du prochain. Aussi, on ne doit jamais renoncer à sa foi ou a son espérance du salut et des conditions qui y conduisent pour rendre un tel bien. Et non pas à sa dévotion à Dieu non plus.

Correction sur d: St Augustin et St Thomas nous donnent une autre liste des priorités:

• 1) Dieu - comme déjà dit.
• 2) La propre âme.
• 3) Le prochain.
• 4) Le propre corps.

Ce n'est donc pas dans l'amour du prochain, mais bien dans l'amour de soi-même qu'on doit faire primer l'âme sur le corps. Du prochain on ne connaît pas l'âme, ou non pas toujours. On peut préférer un bien à son corps certain à un bien à son âme incertain. On peut préférer une aumône matérielle selon les sept oeuvres de la charité matérielle définies à une correction dont on ne sait pas si elle est due, dont on ne sait pas si le prochain va profiter.

Quand on doit refuser un bien du corps du prochain pour son âme à lui, on le doit généralement aussi pour son âme à un-même. Par exemple, le prochain dit qu'il va mourir si on lui refuse un péché partagé de la chair, c'est possiblement pour le bien de l'âme du prochain et certainement pour le bien de son propre âme qu'un Chrétien refuse ça.

Si on se dit, "moi je pourrais bien faire ce qu'il demande sans que ça nuise mon âme, mais si je le fais il va devenir orgueilleux", on se trompe, car on ne le connaît pas. Ou, si c'est chose certaine qu'on doive éviter ce qu'il demande, on se trompe en se disant qu'on pourrait le faire sans nuire son propre âme, car c'est le cas surtout pour les péchés mortels. Définis comme tels.

Sa cinquième condition:

Qu'elle se déploie dans la justice et la Vérité.

Commentaire

Ceci, comme la première, n'est pas une condition séparé. Dans la justice veut dire dans la justice dont les principes supérieures sont la charité de Dieu et du prochain. Dans la vérité veut dire qu'une charité véritable n'existe pas sans une foi véritable. Donc, encore une fois, c'est rédondant.

D'ailleurs, comme la vérité de la foi peut être obscuré sur tel ou tel point même pour un Catholique, comme on peut au moins momentanément avoir la foi sans avoir la confession catholique (un rudiment pour les très mal instruits, comme les ayant jamais rencontré un Chrétien ou un Missionaire, serait de croire que Dieu existe et qu'Il remunie ceux qui Le cherchent), ainsi aussi, la vérité dans laquelle se doit déployer la charité peut aussi être obscurcie au moins momentanément pour quelqu'un sur tel ou tel point.

En total les "cinq conditions" donnent un peu l'impression de devenir un moyen pharisaïque de juger de l'état de grâce d'autrui, éventuellement pour le condamner. Au début - la condition "être dans l'état de grâce" semble donner l'instruction de s'assurer de l'état de grâce par les sacrements - ça pourrait ressembler à une liste pour avoir une idée qu'on ait déjà la charité ou qu'on doive se corriger pour l'avoir. Mais la "cinquième condition" est formulée de manière à porter plutôt à un jugement des autres. Qui est prêt de se dire que les propres actions se déroulent en dehors de la justice ou de la vérité? C'est plus facilement de le dire sur un autre.

C'est aussi un moyen d'excuser ceux qui prônent une inégalité indue envers des prochains faisaint "objets de charité" qui se disent qu'en refusant des aides aux corps et l'explicant, non pas par leur manque de moyens, ni pour le gêne que sa causerait pour la société en général, ni par le fait que la situation actuelle était une dans laquelle ce prochain était obligé de se contenter par paix chrétienne (ce qui n'est pas le cas pour chaque situation mauvaise), mais pour le bien de celui auquel on refuse le bien, à savoir auquel on refuse le bien corporel pour lui donner le bien spirituel.

Après, sur Gasparri, il a été là quand Pie XI donnait les États de l'Église à un roi auparavant excommunié - Victor-Emmanuel III - comme ses prédécesseurs depuis son grand-père Victor-Emmanuel II pour leur occupation depuis 1870 et quand en retour il reçut la somme que de la suite il organisa en l’Amministrazione delle Opere di religione que son successeur (ou présumé tel) Pie XII transforma en Institut pour les œuvres de religion qui faisait tellement comme une banque qu'il fut surnommé Banque du Vatican. Donc, j'ai peut-être une autre raison de ne pas trop aimer Pietro Gasparri.

Cardinal Stickler - ou qui aurait été tel si les Papes qui le nommaient avaient été des Papes disait comme canoniste qu'il y a trois choses qu'un Pape ne peut pas changer:

• La Bible
• Les rites pour l'administration des sacrements (y compris, selon Stickler, la Messe Tridentine)
• Le "status Ecclesie"

Tant que je sache, ceci est le territoire auquel renonça Pie XI en 1929, avec Gasparri comme signataire du Concordat. Status en latin médiéval veut parfois pas juste dire état comme qualité passagère mais plus prolongé qu'instantanée, ça veut parfois aussi dire l'état dans le sens politique.

C'est à dire, si j'ai bien compris les canonistes que Stickler cita, Pie XI n'avait pas le droit de céder les États pontificaux - aussi dits États de l'Église ("status Ecclesie") - à qui que ce soit.

Dois-je regretter avoir prôné telle ou telle observation de Maurras, parce que celui-ci avait tort en prônant l'amour de la patrie audelà de l'amour de l'église? Non, car je n'ai pas prôné cette erreur. Dois-je regretter avoir prôné telle ou telle observation de Lyndon LaRouche quand celui-ci redéfinissait de manière erronée l'essence de la charité? Non, car je n'ai pas prôné cette erreur là non plus.

Je ne suis ni un Action Française intégral des heures où Maurras méritait la censure ecclésiastique, ni un Nouvelle Solidarité intégral d'aujourd'hui.

Je dois davantage à deux Catholiques qu'à ces deux hommes, à savoir à J. R. R. Tolkien et à Gilbert Keith Chesterton.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Samedi de Quatre-Temps
20-XII-2014