Gilbert Keith Chesterton vs Clintons

We already know that the Clinton Foundation is supportive of Malthusianism and GKC certainly wasn't.

Does this reflect an even older quarrel?

Gilbert Keith Chesterton was named for St. Gilbert of Sempringham, who was, of course, from Sempringham.*

This is the seal of Sempringham. It features St. Gilbert.

Gilbert was born at Sempringham, near Bourne in Lincolnshire, the son of Jocelin, an Anglo-Norman lord of the manor, and an unnamed Anglo-Saxon mother. He had a brother, Roger, and a sister, Agnes.

Unusually for that period, his father actively prevented his son from becoming a knight, instead sending him to France, probably the University of Paris but possibly under Anselm of Laon, to study theology. Some physical deformity may have made him unfit for military service, making an ecclesiastical career the best option. When he returned in 1120 he became a clerk in the household of Robert Bloet, Bishop of Lincoln, started a school for boys and girls (the existing primary school at Pointon is still named after him) and was ordained by Robert's successor, Alexander.[4] Offered the archdeaconry of Lincoln, he refused, saying that he knew no surer way to perdition.

Now, that's the connection between St. Gilbert, whose unwillingness to become a higher clergy member was noted by Gilbert Keith Chesterton, and Sempringham.

Where do the Clinton's come in?

At the Dissolution of the Monasteries, Sempringham Priory** came to the Clintons***, who demolished it and reused the stone to build their residence on the site. Today little remains of priory or residence.

Which Barons might be distant relatives to Bill Clinton's stepfather, whose name he bears./HGL

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_of_Sempringham
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sempringham
*** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Clinton

Je ne pense pas que ce soit de la misogynie d'être contre la coéducation ...

Répliques Assorties : Charlotte d'Ornellas me donne presque raison · New blog on the kid : Je ne pense pas que ce soit de la misogynie d'être contre la coéducation ...

1929, pape Pie XI :

C'est une erreur du même genre et non moins pernicieuse à l'éducation chrétienne que cette méthode dite de " coéducation des sexes ", méthode fondée, elle aussi, aux yeux d'un grand nombre, sur un naturalisme négateur du péché originel. En outre, pour tous ses tenants, elle provient d'une confusion d'idées déplorable, qui remplace la légitime communauté de vie entre les hommes par la promiscuité et le nivellement égalitaire. Le Créateur a ordonné, et disposé la parfaite communauté de vie entre les deux sexes seulement dans l'unité du mariage; ensuite, elle les sépare graduellement dans la famille et dans la société. Il n'y a d'ailleurs dans la nature elle-même, qui a fait les sexes différents par leur organisme, par leurs inclinations, par leurs aptitudes, aucune raison qui montre que la promiscuité, et encore moins une égalité de formation, puissent ou doivent exister. Les sexes, suivant les admirables desseins du Créateur, sont appelés à se compléter réciproquement dans la famille et dans la société, et justement par leur diversité même. Cette diversité est donc à maintenir et à favoriser dans la formation et dans l'éducation, en sauvegardant la distinction nécessaire, avec une séparation correspondante, en rapport avec les âges différents et les différentes circonstances. Ces principes sont à appliquer en temps et lieu, suivant les règles de la prudence chrétienne, à toutes les écoles, mais principalement durant l'adolescence, la période la plus délicate et la plus décisive de la formation. Dans les exercices de gymnastique ou de délassement, que l'on ait particulièrement égard aux exigences de la modestie chez les jeunes filles pour qui il est d'une souveraine inconvenance de se montrer et de s'exhiber aux yeux de tout le monde.

DIVINI ILLIUS MAGISTRI
LETTRE ENCYCLIQUE DE SA SAINTETÉ LE PAPE PIE XI SUR L'ÉDUCATION CHRÉTIENNE DE LA JEUNESSE
le 31 décembre 1929
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/fr/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri.html

2025 :

Témoignage glaçant d'une collégienne sur une affaire scandaleuse au sein de l'éducation nationale !!
Bulbe Fâché | 3 févr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCtaESmrDI4

Par contraste, la partie la plus heureuse de la scolarité de ma mère (décédée en 2023) était dans ce qu'on appelle en suédois une "flickskola" une école pour les filles ou collège des filles./HGL

I seem to have been slightly wrong about Alexandra Kollontai

I had been used to thinking, since about 20 years ago, she had been Komsomol chief and in that quality stated "to have sex is like having a glass of water, to me" ...

Here is what wiki has to say:

First:

Born Alexandra Mikhailovna Domontovich
31 March 1872
Saint Petersburg, Russian Empire

OK, sounds like she was 45 when the Russian Revolution broke out. Not exactly young enough for Komsomol.

Next, the Komsomol and the glass of water aren't pure figments of someone's debrided imagination, they are actually someone (whom I read and trusted) taking her words in a story as autobiographical:

A common myth describes her as a proponent of the "glass of water" theory of sexuality.[57] The quote "...the satisfaction of one's sexual desires should be as simple as getting a glass of water"[58] is often mistakenly attributed to her.[59] This is likely a distortion of the moment in her short story "Three Generations" when a young female Komsomol member argues that sex "is as meaningless as drinking a glass of vodka [or water, depending on the translation] to quench one's thirst."[60] In number 18 of her Theses on Communist Morality in the Sphere of Marital Relations, Kollontai argued that "...sexuality is a human instinct as natural as hunger or thirst."

So, will this have any kind of impact on some society which I have a relation to? I'm not Russian ... well, yes. She was a diplomat in Norway and in Sweden, for the Soviet Union.

And while in Sweden she supported and influenced RFSU. And no, it's not so much "free love" in the sense of I Am Curious (Yellow), it's the rejection of marriage, Alexandra Kollontai being a pendant to Almqvist with Sara Videbeck and the Chapel, a rejection of marriage as lifelong and exclusive.

How did I get to think of and look up Alexandra Kollontai?

Well, it seems she had a somewhat parodic pendant in Sue Ellen Browder ... according to herself (Sue Ellen, not Alexandra), in her Subverted: How I Helped the Sexual Revolution Hijack the Women's Movement. Whom Lois McLatchie-Miller evoked in her open letter to Lily Phillips.

Another bad influence of Alexandra Kollontai on Sweden:

The workers' state needs new relations between the sexes, just as the narrow and exclusive affection of the mother for her own children must expand until it extends to all the children of the great, proletarian family, the indissoluble marriage based on the servitude of women is replaced by a free union of two equal members of the workers' state who are united by love and mutual respect. In place of the individual and egoistic family, a great universal family of workers will develop, in which all the workers, men and women, will above all be comrades. – Alexandra Kollontai (1920), Communism and the Family

There are people who really think they are the mother not just of the own children, but of the neighbours' children all the way down the street and around two more corners. The Kollontai promoted them. Sweden has them. Alexander I did less damage to Finland or Sweden than Alexandra did to Norway* and Sweden.** I consider it especially grotesque when they are critical of the children's own mother and have more social leverage than she has.

A pendant to the non-exclusivity of wifehood is obviously the non-exclusivity of motherhood. When I left Sweden for Austria in 1977 (with voyages to US and UK, same and next year), I was not yet a Christian, had a long way to go before puberty, and these things didn't matter to me. Since I came back in 1980, being a Christian, having seen Austria, a country where at least you wouldn't speak of contraception and where abortion on demand had been illegal, and still remains rare to this day, I have never been reconciled to what Alexandra Kollontai did to my country. I left it in 2004.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Ember Friday
20.XII.2024

Alexandra Kollontai, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Kollontai

* 25 October 1927 to 20 July 1930 ** 20 July 1930 to 27 July 1945.

The Story of Josefina Vilaseca

The 12 year old saint who was found incorrupt
Jerome Chong, 6 July 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHQOsqWN23c

David Wood pretended Muslims grow because of their birth rates

2.9 vs 2.6 children per woman. Muslims and Christians, world wide.

2.9/2.6 = 1.1153846153846154.

Pose fertility rate of 2.0 for non-Muslims of a country having 95 % non-Muslim population. Let's pick France.

This would mean 2.0 * 1.1153846153846154 = 2.2307692307692308 for the 5 % Muslim one.

How long would it take for Muslims to grow from 4 % (as they once were) to 8 % or 8.8 %?

Avec environ cinq millions de fidèles français, l'islam est considéré comme la deuxième religion de France, derrière le christianisme. Ainsi, sur un total de 67,1 millions de Français, les musulmans représentent 8 % de la population hexagonale, une proportion parfois largement surestimée par l'opinion publique.

https://fr.statista.com/themes/6482/l-islam-en-france/

Le Pew Research Center estimait en 2017 que les musulmans étaient 5,7 millions en 2016 en France, soit 8,8 % de la ...

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_en_France

This would involve (mathematically) "converting children per woman" to "population growth per year". France had 2 children per woman some time between 1975 and 1980. Back then the yearly growth rate was 0.45 %.

So, let's make a rule of three:

2.0 : 1.0045 = 2.23 : x
2x : 1.0045 = 2.23
x : 1.0045 = 2.23 / 2
x = 2.23 * 1.0045 / 2 = 1.1200175

12 % yearly growth rate per year?

1.0045 : 2 = x : 2.23
2.23 * 1.0045 : 2 = x = 1.1200175

Yep. Or should I perhaps count the increase only instead?

0.0045 : 2 = x : 2.23
2.23 * 0.0045 : 2 = x = 0.0050175

Ah, this looks better!

Suppose (not checking stats) in 1977 France had had 4 % Muslims. Would birthrates have given them 8.8 % by now?

2022 - 1977 = 45 years. This is what 1.00045 should be raised to the power of. We'll start from a population right between those of 1975 and 1980, and make the hypothetical 4 % Muslims (I don't know how many the Muslims really were back then) into an actual number of inhabitants:

(53,868,009 + 52,688,576) / 2 = 53,278,293 hypothetic population mid 1977
53,278,293 * 0.04 = 2,131,132 hypothetic number of Muslims back then
53,278,293 - 2,131,132 = 51,147,161 hypothetic number of non-Muslims back then

Now we'll insert the 0.45 and 0.5 % annual population growth into each part of the population.

Non-Muslims: 51,147,161 * 1.0045^45 = 62,599,214
Muslims: 2,131,132 * 1.0050175^45 = 2,669,460
62,599,214 + 2,669,460 = 65,268,674
2,669,460 / 65,268,674 = 0.0408995592587035

Ah, no. In 45 years this would only make the Muslims go from hypthetical 4 to hypthetical and counterfactual 4.1 % and not to 8.8 %! But perhaps in 100 years?

Non-Muslims: 51147161 * 1.0045^100 = 80,133,782
Muslims: 2,131,132 * 1.0050175^100 = 3,515,384
3,515,384 + 80,133,782 = 83,649,166
3,515,384 / 83,649,166 = 0.0420253323266845

No, even in 100 years, the discrepancy in birthrates would have them grow from only 4 to 4.2 % of the projected population.

So, why are Muslims up in 8.8 % in France now?

Well, for one thing, non-Muslim women do NOT give birth to 2.0 children each, but less. The growth of Muslim part of the population is not due to THEIR birthrates, but to OURS, namely us having too low such.

And there is the immigration too. Extra-European immigrants being often North African or Subsaharan African, and the former usually, the latter often Muslim.

But there are conversions. If you are in the street, if you have (with certain people, like shrinks) a reputation of being an alcoholic, getting totally sober either by Alcoholics Anonymous or by converting to Islam or to Evangelicals may be your one option to get a decent life. I have eschewed it, and I still have not a decent life* - despite working fairly hard as a writer.** People with less persistence in virtue could have apostasised to Islam or some "Non-Denominational" Congregation and even to the even more antichristian Alcoholics Anonymous.

So, Muslims, Evangelicals, Alcoholics Anonymous*** are on the rise, and actually real Catholics have sinking numbers. My recipe is not complaining about Muslims being fertile, or about Muslims believing their religion, even if it is not the true one. My recipe is Catholics getting back to being fertile and getting back to believing our religion, which is the true one. Blocking new arrivals or expelling ill behaved old arrivals from the Muslim world would be an optional extra for us, and I'm not into pushing that one. But harrassing Muslims who reside here and who will continue to reside here and who will continue to have a legal right to be Muslims over their fertility or over their religiosity is so counterproductive. This is partly what France would have been doing by youth related social and mental health services as well as schools, all the time from 2005 after suburb rising to 2015, with the terror attack.°

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
II Lord's Day after Easter
1.V.2022

* Case in point : Aggressé, avant-hier matin · Après l'attaque - j'ai eu des problèmes de virilité
** 28.III - 4.IV.2022, 22 articles in 8 days. 2.75 per day. Despite an attack on my luggage, leaving me in too much cold. 21 - 28.IIII.2022, 14 posts, of which one share, so 13 articles, in 8 days. The hit on the head has slowed me down, and that may be what some wanted.
*** I obviously count Catholic members of AA as Apostates. Anyone that tells you "you are the art work" is an evil man, and they are into remaking people. Very few exceptions, and a monastery works better when one is young, has not been an option for me since 2000, and frankly wasn't my most eagerly desired one before that either.
° On my blog En français sur Antimodernism I had saved some 50 messages in French from from my up to February 2009 MSN Group Antimodernism and some of these were related to not harrassing suburb residents administrationally just because they were the population involved in the 2005 risings. As you can see, the blog is being targetted for definitive suppression.

One stray comment was actually not quite spam

Not linking to the video, not seen it yet, but here is a story:

The USA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal is a series of criminal activities involving the sexual abuse of minors in which Larry Nassar, a fired USA Gymnastics national team doctor, has pleaded guilty. He is named in hundreds of lawsuits filed by athletes who allege that Nassar sexually abused them under the pretense of giving them medical treatment.[1] Since the first allegations were brought by former club gymnast Rachael Denhollander against Nassar and made public in September 2016, former USA Gymnastics national team members Jamie Dantzscher, Jeanette Antolin, McKayla Maroney, Aly Raisman, and Gabby Douglas have accused Nassar of sexually abusing them as well. Nassar initially denied the sexual abuse charges. In July 2017, Nassar pled guilty to federal child pornography charges and is currently in jail awaiting sentencing. On November 22, 2017, he pled guilty to seven charges of first-degree sexual assault and will enter another guilty plea on November 29, 2017.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Gymnastics_sex_abuse_scandal

Some have been presenting sexual predating as mainly a case of clergy. Here we see, other people in positions responsible for younger people are abusing the position. Modern culture is pushing youth into too much dependence, too far into adolescence. Sport, education, scouting, etc./HGL

What is Wrong with The West

Q

What will differ between the old people of today and the young people of today when they are old?
https://www.quora.com/What-will-differ-between-the-old-people-of-today-and-the-young-people-of-today-when-they-are-old/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Self Employed at Writer and Composer

Answered just now

Unless people start making more babies, young people when they get old will have even less indigenous young people to support them, in the West.

This will mean, the West will more than today be manned by immigrant labour, which is then more likely to dominate politics and society and less likely to pay taxes and social security fees for a system which ruined us.

Instead of living in a small home with a pension allowing some pleasures, many one of them will be in the street, or in new versions of pauper homes.

Q

What should a middle aged, child free, single person do to prepare for aging and retirement?
https://www.quora.com/What-should-a-middle-aged-child-free-single-person-do-to-prepare-for-aging-and-retirement/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

ARq

Answer requested by Harriett Xing

HGL, as above

Answered 5m ago

A man should try to get married. Unless he is a monk or a priest.

A woman is a bit late for marrying, she could look for a monastery or for a place as private teacher (a work which can be kept up to very late, making retirement unnecessary).

Why I Have Not Signed Correctio Filialis

One reason: I am not adressing a fairly clear Antipope as "father".

As to content, I consider anyone who has not rejected Bergoglio yet should at least study Correctio Filialis.

Here is Bishop Fellay on the matter:

SSPX news & events : Bishop Fellay: Why I Signed the Correctio Filialis
September 26, 2017
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/bishop-fellay-why-i-signed-correctio-filialis-32240

And, if you do not find it in your heart to reject Bergoglio straight away, you should consider signing the Correctio./HGL

Philadelphia!

Here is a good document, seen through an ecclesiastic journalist! Quotes via mail dot com :

Archbishop Charles Chaput, who is known for strongly emphasizing strict adherence to Catholic doctrine, issued a new set of pastoral guidelines for clergy and other leaders in the archdiocese that went into effect July 1. The guidelines reflect a stance taken by St. John Paul II [sic].

"Undertaking to live as brother and sister is necessary for the divorced and civilly remarried to receive reconciliation in the Sacrament of Penance, which could then open the way to the Eucharist," the guidelines read.

...

The Philadelphia guidelines say Catholics in same-sex partnerships, civilly remarried parishioners and unmarried couples living together should not be permitted to serve on parish councils, instruct the faithful, serve as lectors or dispense Communion.

...

The new guidelines also address Catholics "who experience same-sex attraction." Chaput says such parishioners can still live out a heterosexual marriage with children, despite that attraction. Others in same-sex relationships should avoid sexual intimacy.

mail dot com : Philadelphia archbishop: Divorced Catholics must avoid sex
https://www.mail.com/int/news/us/4461710-philadelphia-archbishop-divorced-catholics-avoid-s.html

I obviously disagree with calling antipope Wojtyla "St. John Paul II", but even if his deeds in Assisi 1986 and 1994 were evil, his theology on marriage was generally good. Chaput is one better for this line:

The new guidelines also address Catholics "who experience same-sex attraction." Chaput says such parishioners can still live out a heterosexual marriage with children, despite that attraction.

This seems to have not been stated explicitly since an equivocal statement by Montini sowed doubts about it, and now at least one bishop (insofar as Vatican II Sect can be said to have bishops with jurisdiction) is back on the line of the Church on this one. Deo gratias! Explicitly so./HGL

There is a Difference Between Counsel and Obligation

Transalpine Redemptorists : If possible, choose to remain in unmarried chastity.
http://papastronsay.blogspot.fr/2016/09/if-possible-choose-to-remain-in.html

His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry. Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given... He that can take, let him take it.
(Mt. 19)

This is the teaching of St John Chrysostom, Origen, Theophylact, Euthymius, St Jerome, St Augustine, St Ambrose, Tertullian and others:

Jesus Christ and St Paul advise every believer to live in unmarried chastity.

"Christ in this place, as well as St. Paul (1 Cor. 7:7), gives the counsel of continence to every believer. For nothing is counselled except what is in man's power and good pleasure with God's grace, which truly he offers and provides for all who ask it."

(Cornelius A Lapide on St Matthew XIX, Vol. 2., pg 330.)

Note, counsel, not command.

Look at the words of - here is one of the authorities cited in the article - St Chrysostom:

All cannot receive it, because all do not wish it. The reward is held out to all. Let him who seeks for glory, not think of the labour. None would overcome, if all were afraid of engaging in the conflict. If some fail, are we to be less careful in our pursuit of virtue? Is the soldier terrified, because his comrade fights and falls by his side? (St. Chrysostom)

Note well, in his day there was no Third Republic or French Revolution with universal drafting. Signing up for being a Roman miles was certainly (once Paganism was gone) laudable, but it was optional.

This means that chosing the better path in this question is also optional.

That is what is meant by calling it an advise.

I wonder how many years Church men have the right to single someone out and pray he stays in opportunity of heeding this advise, when he has stated again and again he does not want to?

If between a date in I think June 1996 and some date in 1999 or early 2000 I had married or in any other respect won a girl named Christina, I would have preferred that to monastery. If I had after eviction gone to a monastery I would have been then, before that date in 1999 or 2000, obliged to ask for entry, and if admitted do a year's novitiate.

In that date 1999 or 2000, I got an answer from a monastery, the vow in question was not obliging. Just not to repeat it.

I haven't. From that answer on, I date my resolution to marry, and to NOT consider me as in any way, shape or form bound to getting to a monastery. Why? Because it was the second time I tried to keep the vow even by the monastic way, where the first lemma of the vow was in fact not even monastic at all.

"to either win Christina or enter Le Barroux or another monastery of traditional rite".*

I did neither, but I was impeded in all my attempts to do either.

Since then, I have a fear, later even hatred for the priests who have done everything for me to remain without my choice celibate, like praying as if supporting my own prayers for a celibate life. The majority of my prayers 1996 to 1998 were for Christina, not for monastery.

Any priest who is willing to tell me "oh, you are not married, why not become a monk?" deserves a punch on the mouth - except as I am a layman it would be a sacrilege on my part to give him that punch, and as I am baptised I can get excommunicated for sacrilege.

Any pastor of the sects which deny there is any kind of even counsel (as in real counsel, applicable perfectly if you are one of those who feel for following it) to monastic life, their sheepfolds do not include Catholic ladies, married or marriageable.

Witham is very clear that there is no universal OBLIGATION.

He that can receive it, let him receive it. Some think that to receive, in this and the foregoing verse, is to understand; and so will have the sense to be, he that can understand what I have said of different eunuchs, let him understand it; as when Christ said elsewhere, he that hath ears to hear, let him hear. But others expound it as an admonition to men and women, not to engage themselves in a vow of living a single life, unless, after a serious deliberation, they have good grounds to think they can duly comply with this vow, otherwise let them not make it. Thus St. Jerome on this place, and St. Chrysostom where they both expressly take notice, that this grace is granted to every one that asketh and beggeth for it by prayer.

(Witham)

And in other words, not granted to all those who feel ill at the thought of so praying.

Some graces one must ask for, however one might feel. If I had been a sodomite by inclination, which I am not, I would have had to ask not to live after that inclination. But there are two ways of asking that. One was the way examplified by Josh Weed. That he is a Mormon, alas, is no reason whatsoever to deny that his solution is Catholic. Certain habits indicating directly I should better quit them by marrying (let's not be gross again in same paragraph by being explicit) I have prayed for to quit. But between quitting them and not yet being married, it takes a toll on my good mood. It is a strain on the body. It is for me not the happy life described by the Redemptorists of Papa Stronsay. I do not doubt it is a happy life for those who have earnestly prayed for it. I am saying I have, most of the time, not done so. And it is not so for me.

There are priests who will here think "well, if he hasn't the sense to pray for it, we'll do it for him, and we'll especially discourage any girl interested in him from detaining him from a vocation, even if he doesn't feel it".

When I read, in Belloc, the story of La Vallière, mistress of Louis XIV, I got the impression it was a pre-marital love interest of his, that he would have married her instead of the Spanish Princess if she hadn't gone into a monastery. I felt, if I had been Louis XIV, I would have been damned of that had been done to me. I would have become a persecutor of the Church to revenge myself for the sadistic wanton wounding of my heart. It seems after what I have seen since, I was mistaken about La Vallière. It was a mistress he entertained by adultery. If I didn't misread Belloc, his chapter "The Annealing of the Heart" in his biography or monography over that king is mistaken.

I was able to pray the rosary, when I was hoping, either that priests were not praying or acting that way - or that God would not hear them.

And while not praying the rosary, I am also not praying the Lord's Prayer, also not praying "sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris".

It is a credit to what importance God sees in the Catholic Priesthood that any priest so praying should have so far succeeded in keeping me from marriage, and God even made their opponents their tools. If Mormons, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Atheists and a few more hadn't been acting as if Catholicism were a kind of phase they hoped to get me out of (by prayer, by discussion, by imposed therapy, you name it, even by seduction), if people hating the message of my blogs had not been hoping to rearrange my opinions through seduction with possibly marriage, if there had not been rumours about my blogs being a kind of monastic venture I would normally leave off for paid work once I decided to marry - as if it were inherently impossible for me to get paid for what I write, rather than they putting obstacle after obstacle in my way, I would already have had a Catholic wife and been living off what I write.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy are in a way twin religions. My first instinct when at all deciding to convert, was to become Catholic. One of my motives was, I had read how Russian Orthodox had been forcing people (notably false Dmitris) into monasteries.

If Catholic clergy do the same, and say so, I must count them as apostates. If anyone does so behind my back, I must hope both that God counts them as apostates for it, and that God does not count me as guilty of saluting an infidel because seeking a Communion with someone who was hiding his behaviour from me.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Jerome**
30.IX.2016

* I answer that, The obligation of a vow proceeds from the will: because "to vow is an act of the will" according to Augustine [Gloss of Peter Lombard on Psalm 75:12. Consequently the obligation of a vow extends as far as the will and intention of the person who takes the vow. Accordingly if in vowing he intend to bind himself not only to enter religion, but also to remain there evermore, he is bound to remain in perpetuity. If, on the other hand, he intend to bind himself to enter religion for the purpose of trial, while retaining the freedom to remain or not remain, it is clear that he is not bound to remain. If, however, in vowing he thought merely of entering religion, without thinking of being free to leave, or of remaining in perpetuity, it would seem that he is bound to enter religion according to the form prescribed by common law, which is that those who enter should be given a year's probation. Wherefore he is not bound to remain for ever. Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q189, A4. So, if I had either in any meaningful sense won her (friendship, conversion or marriage : seduction would have fulfilled the vow, but in a manner I thought unworthy) or done one year of novitiate, I would have been free to be a married man, if not with her with someone else. If we go back to A3 : Hence it follows that he who binds himself to enter religion is under an obligation to enter religion according as he intends to bind himself by his vow: so that if he intend to bind himself absolutely, he is obliged to enter as soon as he can, through the cessation of a lawful impediment; whereas if he intend to bind himself to a certain fixed time, or under a certain fixed condition, he is bound to enter religion when the time comes or the condition is fulfilled. - The condition of not winning Christina, I would have counted as actualised by the time I was impeded from staying in her neighbourhood. Eviction from my apartment = going off to Le Barroux by any means at hand. I was impeded from doing that. By psychiatry. And I am NOT now going off to a year of novitiate. Now, the canon law of St Thomas' time would have granted me the right to marry under three conditions, apart from the obvious one of having won Christina. 1) Novitiate. 2) Failing to keep vow despite trying, twice, literally trying to enter monastery twice after a vow primarily directed to that. 3) Papal dispensation. I count myself as dispensed according to the second alternative. I was for those years amply trying to fulfil the vow, including obviously by trying to win Christina - sth made difficult because she was a minor. The canon law of 1917, if such it be, does not even give any rule for that kind of vow, since it was neither a perpetual and solemn one, nor a "votum privatum coram communitatem". It cannot become "coram communitatem" and thus more obliging, just because I have been forced to tell my story./HGL ** Yes, I know, you were a great counseller for the option I reject.

Hesses vs Holding

1) When Looking at Elena Maria Vidal's Book on Daughter of Cesars ... · 2) Answering J. P. Holding / tektontv on Quiverfull, Lifespans, Onan, up-dated : and Romans · 3) Trying to Get Through to Holding · 4) Hesses vs Holding

Here the Hesses, by Holding are told
How (not) to think of Heavenly art

tektonticker : The Quiverfull Movement, Part 2
http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-quiverfull-movement-part-2.html

Holding attacks the Hesses for this paragraph:

Even more outlandishly, the Hesses put God directly in charge of genetics, asking, "does God decide eye color or does Mendel's Law?" [183] and, quoting a source as saying: "God individually chose and gave each child his or her blue eyes. We have to keep in mind that God can modify or abolish genetic or reproductive trends as He wills." [184]

From this little rhetoric question, one might presume Holding considers, unlike the Hesses, that God left genetics to Mendel's laws.

Left it to them to determine.

OK, there is one point in so far that Mendel's laws give the normal framework. But is that a framework which allows either chance (on atheistic views, or reduced to secindary causes) or God (an a Christian view) little or much freedom?

Let's get it straight about chromosomes. These were not directly described in Mendel's laws, but predicted by oberving, through them, the phenomenon of tied (as opposed to independent) characteristics. Also, they differ between kinds and even species in number. There are mice with 22 chromosomes and there are mice with 40 (I presume we mean 2n=22, 2n=40, so it would mean 11 or 20 pairs), one can refer to them as different species or as different chromosomal races. I have very little doubt those with fewer chromosome pairs have "evolved" if you like from the larger number by telomere fusion.

The opposite process is harder to get around.

Man, however, has 23 pairs, ALL "races". 22 pairs which are what they are independently of one's sex, and a 23:rd pair which is either XX for ladies or XY for gentlemen. The non-sex paris are numbered according to size of chromosome. 1 is biggest, 22 smallest. Trisomy 21, you hav Downs' syndrome. Trisomy 1, you usually die before birth.

Now, we were talking about how much this leaves of regular natural results and how much it leaves to either chance or God.

You begin when a sperm (Latin for seed - also used of unground whole cereal seeds in original language) from your father meets an ovulum (Latin for "little egg", and some languages say "egg cell" instead, like Swedish "äggcell") from your mother.

The sperm contained 23 of your 2n=46 chromosomes, the ovulum the other 23 of yourself.

For each sperm, it was a hazard which of your father's chromosome 1 you should get, and independent hazard which of his chromosome 2 you should get and so on in that particular sperm. And exact same for the ovulum selecting 23 from your mother's 2n=46 chromosomes.

What does this mean mathematically?

Chromos.	possibilities by nth chromosome
1	2	7	128	13	8192	19	524,288
2	2*2=4	8	256	14	16,384	20	1,048,576
3	4*2=8	9	512	15	32,768	21	2,097,152
4	8*2=16	10	1024	16	65,536	22	4,194,304
5	16*2=32	11	2048	17	131,072	sex	8,388,608
6	32*2=64	12	4096	18	262,144

The sperm that became the sperm which meeting an ovulum became you is genetically one out of 8,388,608 millions different sperms your father could have produced (OK, in any case where he had two identical versions of a pair, this figure needs to be halved). From your mother, the ovulum which received the sperm to become you was one in 8,388,608 genetically different ovula which she could have produced.

8 million 388 thousand 608 times same number of possibilities from other source is 70 trillion 368 billion 744 million 177 thousand 664.

So, if your parents had had 70 trillion plus babies, one of them would statistically have been you.

Usually it is very rare to have even as many as 20.

Say your parents had 20 babies, the chances of one of them being you was:

2.8421709430404007434844970703125 e-13

e=1

2.842,170,943,040,400,743,484,497,070,312,5

e-3

0.002,842,170,943,040,400,743,484,497,070,312,5

e-6

0.000,002,842,170,943,040,400,743,484,497,070,312,5

e-12

0.000,000,000,002,842,170,943,040,400,743,484,497,070,312,5

e-13

0.000,000,000,000,284,217,094,304,040,074,348,449,707,031,25

So, within the framwork of your parents' genetics, the main factor determining your exact genetic makeup is God's providence.

"Mendel's laws" are a framework more often than not veried in God's result.

But God could make a sheer miracle, like when cloning Eve from Adam without his Y and with an extra or doubled X, and when He cloned Christ from Mary, except one X (let's assume Hers were identical) exchanged for a Y.

God could also make you the first carrier of a mutation. Its presence in you is not determined by Mendel's laws, since it does not follow from previous.

God could make you trisomic. Trisomy 1 is lethal, so is trisomy 3, trisomy 21 is Down's. Some trisomies affect neither life nor intelligence, like a trisomy in sex chromosomes, might make you the last of your line. XXY is a man less likely to be fertile than normal XY. XXX is a woman less likely to be fertile than a normal XX.

God is also in charge of the exact number of both identical and non-identical ancestors you get in each generation before your own, within or sometimes between generations.

If you have blue eyes, God made sure the first person with blue eye gene would be one of your ancestors, would be it on both your father's and your mother's side and would have passed on that gene to both of them.

So, yes. God is in fact in charge of your genetics.

When the Hesses advise readers that, "we would do well to give God control over how many children we have," [57] they do not simply mean we should allow God to be sovereign; rather, they envision God as having direct, micro-managerial command of conception ("lock, stock, and baby" as they put it [94], and elsewhere, "pregnancy is not going to occur except through God's active agency" [106], and yet again, "...the Scriptures prove that God Himself is our birth Controller" [141], and finally, "God Himself is all the birth control we need" [158]…and let us add, as a related point, this quote: "Menopause occurs at exactly the time in a woman's life when God decrees that she is to bear no more children." [189] I have not seen even a Calvinist assign God that much micro-managerial control!).

Well, I am not a Calvinist, and I very much do believe God does micromanage it.

I believe in free will, and yet that our lives are micromanaged.

God being outside time, for Him there is no problem to take into account each and every free willed decision through all history to micromanage all history. Some things, like sins, God simply allows. He allots that decision to sin, taken by that creature, to that specific moment in his life, but He did not chose for the creature to sin. Some things He directly produces.

And the lives of human persons is one of these.

Even if a person is conceived in a rape, God chose for that particular rape to result in pregnancy, whereas for another rape He chose there would not be that result.

So, yes, God is in direct charge of what happens for pregnancy or not once sex is freely (usually, fortunately, freely on both sides!) engaged in.

If Adam and Eve had not sinned, they would have been able to know perfectly at what moments their union would be fertile, and if wanting to use occasion, would not have used it in vain, Eve would have become pregnant every time.

But after their sin, it often happens that a coitus is a little too late for an ovulation or a little too early for the sperms to survive up to ovulation, or too few sperms to reach ovulum, after previous coitus. Every unsuccessful coitus is, so to speak, "beside nature", "praeter naturam". But making it unsuccessful by choice is to go against nature, "contra naturam".

If a Catholic couple abstains from coitus on the nights when the Church traditionally demands so, they are allowing God the freedom to chose how many occasions of abstinence shall mean failure to conceive, and how many coitus right after abstinence shall be on the right moment for increased chances. Overall, this would usually tend to child spacing. To having children less often than if using marriage each night. Which is good for the female body (also due to the curse after the first sin, being fertile whenever possible is a chore for the female body).

But, if one does not abstain certain nights for piety, at least one should allow God to do what He wants with the coitus where He offered the couple the pleasure. The couple should offer back to God the occasion for making a child.

Also, the human soul of each conceived (at least each conceived and fully human) fetus is directly a creature of God. And to each soul God allotted the genetics it should have.

Hesses are right, Holding is wrong.
Match is over, hear that ding-dong?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Margaret of Scotland
10.VI.2016

Answering J. P. Holding / tektontv on Quiverfull, Lifespans, Onan, up-dated : and Romans

1) When Looking at Elena Maria Vidal's Book on Daughter of Cesars ... · 2) Answering J. P. Holding / tektontv on Quiverfull, Lifespans, Onan, up-dated : and Romans · 3) Trying to Get Through to Holding · 4) Hesses vs Holding

What I am quoting:

tekton ticker : Perpetual Green Arrow: The Quiverfulls, Part 1
http://tektonticker.blogspot.fr/2016/02/perpetual-green-arrow-quiverfulls-part-1.html

First comment:

"In the OT world, infant and child mortality was exceptionally high."

Especially in the tenth plague of Egypt.

One could argue infant and child mortality were exceptionally low now ... if it weren't for abortion.

Seriously, where do you get your arguments for stats from OT world?

"In addition, the average human lifespan was around 35 years."

Repeating what I already refuted, are you?

My original reply to you:
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : "in a time when most people died at an average age of 35"
http://filolohika.blogspot.fr/2015/01/in-time-when-most-people-died-at.html

And it's in a series which recently got a part 10:
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : [forgot to copy title :] http://filolohika.blogspot.fr/2016/05/story-of-cardinals-title-with-pre.html

Unless you want to count this as part 11:
New blog on the kid : When Looking at Elena Maria Vidal's Book on Daughter of Cesars ...
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2016/06/when-looking-at-elena-maria-vidals-book.html

It links back to two parts of a French series of similar content, which now is on part 12:
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Lesseps fut aussi à La Pérouse
http://filolohika.blogspot.fr/2015/11/lesseps-fut-aussi-la-perouse.html

"In contrast, infant and child mortality in the modern West is extremely low, with such persons living well into their 80s and 90s."

If you check my probes method stats for older times, you will find that for older times too.

And "extremely low" ONLY figures if you exclude abortion from it.

"Big families were a survival necessity in the ancient world, but in the modern world they are not."

Because old age pensions will take care of that?

Who yo kiddin'?

Japan, Austria, Germany, Sweden, France have ALL found your recipe wanting.

They are ALL starting to get embarassed about old age pensions, due to the age pyramid.

So, large families are a survival if not necessity at least clear asset.

No children, well, I am already living as a beggar, and that is how your old age may look, if you get no children and your pension system breaks down.

"The reader will note here that I have not engaged any arguments regarding overpopulation. Nor will I do so to any real extent, since it requires sociological expertise that I do not possess."

You do not possess the expertise you think you possess for the arguments you did give either!

And if you are quoting your pastor, you can tell him so too.

I note that your post here is from Friday, February 5, 2016.*

My original post in answer to you was from Thursday, January 8, 2015.

You have had more than a year to reassess your pseudo-expertise, but you haven't.

Your comment will be visible after approval.

New comment as per seeing more:

"Campbell misuses the story of Onan as though it were a teaching against contraception (link below)."

It is.

[9] He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother' s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother' s name. [10] And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

[9] Ille sciens non sibi nasci filios, introiens ad uxorem fratris sui, semen fundebat in terram, ne liberi fratris nomine nascerentur. [10] Et idcirco percussit eum Dominus, quod rem detestabilem faceret.

In other words, he was not just unfair against Tamar, whatever the real issues with that.

Thank you at least for noting This concept was later institutionalized in the Deuteronomic law as levirate marriage (Dt. 25).

In other words, Onan was not flouting the law of Dt. 25. It did not exist yet.

Also, not doing what one has been told to do is not per se "a detestable thing".

BUT, your argument in nr 4 (and much of the rest leads up to it) is flawed:

Onan was therefore setting it up so that he would get the inheritance and leave Tamar penniless and helpless. If Tamar had no heir born to her, guess who got the family's inheritance?

Pure guesswork.

No where does it say he was planning to leave her penniless.

They were all living in a kind of Beduin tribe under Jacob (or perhaps still Isaac).

[Admitting, not quite so, since Judah had left his brothers and was living among Canaanites.]

Nowhere is it indicated that Tamar was going to be cast off by Onan. They were living together, Onan was having his fun. Neither was poor.

So, Tamar was provided for, that was not the issue.

The detestable thing was. Namely the repeat offense of an act of contraception.

Which repeated on the mass levels we do experience in the Western World last 50 years ALSO will be leaving quite a lot of oldsters unprovided or ill provided for when childlessness breaks down the pensions systems even further than already the case.

Your comment will be visible after approval.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Prime and Felician
9.VI.2016

PS, I missed a point and so made a third comment:

Oh, I had missed this:

"Campbell's intro writer also claims that Romans 1 speaks against contraception inasmuch as it speaks of those who do things "against nature." However, Paul goes on to quite clearly specify what he means when he says: "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." This illicitly expands the category from homosexual behavior to "perversion/selfish unbiblical gratification," and under the errant assumption that contraception is one such perversion, wrongly assumes it is condemned by Paul."

If the infertility is achieved by voluntary means other than abstinence, this is indeed a perversion.

"Against nature" means "against conception" or "against conjugal love / conception / pregnancy / birth / breastfeeding / educating children in a loving way and all that" because THAT is precisely what the word "nature" means in the ancient world in such contexts. See C. S. Lewis, Studies in Words, the chapter on Physis, Nature, Kind. And yes, he was a professional philologist, even if in other books he was an amateur apologist.

"The rub of this is that by this reasoning, any couple that is not able to conceive for some reason — whether because of illness or some other cause beyond their control — is therefore constrained to avoid sexual intercourse altogether, since they are not able to use their bodies, as she puts it, for anything but the "gratification" aspect of sex!"

Unless of course God makes a miracle, as with Sarah, as with Hannah, as with St Elizabeth.

In other words, involuntary infertility is not a reason to give up matrimonial intercourse, though St Ambrose thought people who are too old to beget should give it up for the latter part of the marriage.

Your comment will be visible after approval.

PPS, here is a charming little comment from him NOT having approved my comments:

J. P Holding June 9, 2016 at 8:01 AM Hit the road, Hans. I don't advertise for pests who think "I say so" is an argument and whose reading level appears to be grade school texts.

* That is the anniversary of a decent act, as in resissting a state crime in Sweden, but which I went to prison for. J. P. Holding is a prison guard, so he may be in the know about that. That might also be why he did not check out my material but presume he could ignore my arguments.

What does Shankar Dayal Sharma Have in Common with Adolf Hitler ?

Both attacked Aryan fertility.

That Hitler did it with that of Gipsies, on the « expertise » of Portzschy, is very sadly known.

That is why he's the one fascist statesman, along with those of Ustashi, I really do not like as a statesman. He should have stuck to painting.

Less known but equally sad was the policy in India under Shankar Dayal Sharma, in the part of the world where Gipsies originate from :

The disassembly lines: Indian Women sterilized under industrial conditions
by James A. Miller on 1997 Jul 1
https://www.pop.org/content/disassembly-lines-indian-women-sterilized-under-industrial-conditions

I just checked what president of India was responsible for this crime.

1997 India had two successive presidents, what James Miller described was not newly introduced just after the shift, so, at least the president from early 1997 must be responsible for this crime.

Shankar Dayal Sharma (19 August 1918 – 26 December 1999) was the ninth President of India, serving from 1992 to 1997.

Fits the bill.

The sterilization camp was conducted in October 1994 at a rural hospital in the Palakkad district of Kerala, India.

Or wait, was president Sharma only targetting Tamils, as non-Aryans ?

Kerala is in the Tamil area.

Let's put it like this : Republic of India belongs to the Politically Correct world. When it hijacked Portuguese India, also referred to as Goa, Nehru was considered a hero and the Portuguese fascist dictator Salazar a villain.

But under such a « villain » as Salazar, at least Goa would not have had that sterilization camp.

Nehru paved the way for a villain like Shankar Dayal Sharma, and was, as introducing the two child policy, a villain himself.

However, as « India » (Republic of) belonged to the PC world, I would be surprised if Shankar Dayal Sharma had dared target Tamil fertility openly with more force than Aryan fertility.

So, I suppose, same things happened up where Aryans were living, North in Punjab and Rajasthan.

So, Shankar Dayal Sharma did same crime as Hitler toward Gipsies (at least the directly fertility related one, and if Gipsies consider Punjab and Rajasthan as home of their kinsmen), but is not as lambasted as he.

Politically Correct world does not want Republic of India lambasted.

I take my distance from Hitler (as a politician, he should have remained a painter), and from Shankar Dayal Sharma. I need not take any from Salazar or from Dollfuss, because they were not targetting Gipsies that way.

And yet, some Gipsies think I am the kind of « Nazi » who should just shut up ?

I saw two beggars coming to reclaim the places where I was begging with signs for my blogs, and it seems they would prefer me to have a comfortable time, but absolutely as little as possible be seen on the streets doing publicity for my blogs.

Even if I am not into Hitler, Portzschy or Shankar Dayal Sharma as politicians.

Perhaps they should ask themselves whom they listen to?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Paul of Constantinople
7.VI.2016

What are they Saying of Amoris Laetitia?

• 1) Mahound's Paradise : James Carroll (Yes THAT James Carroll) Pens the Best Analysis Yet of Amoris Laetitia and It's Relation to Post Vatican II Catholicism
  http://mahoundsparadise.blogspot.com/2016/04/james-carroll-yes-that-james-carroll.html
  
  
• 2) Ten Reasons for the Marriage Mess
  April 10, 2016 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker
  on Standing on My Head
  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2016/04/ten-reasons-for-the-marriage-mess.html
  
  
• 3) Abbey Roads : A priest comments on Amoris Laetitia ...
  http://abbey-roads.blogspot.com/2016/04/another-priest-who-likes-pope-and.html
  
  
• 4) the the bones that you have crushed may thrill : The Ambiguity of the Amoris Laetitia Reveals Far More than it Conceals
  http://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-ambiguity-of-amoris-laetitia.html
  
  
• 5) Vox Cantoris : Pope Francis and his poison!
  http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2016/04/pope-francis-and-his-poison.html
  
  
• 6) TIA seems not yet to have commented.
  
  
• 7) Dito for DICI.org
  
  
• 8) FromRome : This ‘Amoris Laetitia’ cannot be tolerated in silence
  Apr9 by The Editor
  https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2016/04/09/this-amoris-laetitia-cannot-be-tolerated-in-silence/
  
  

  What many have not noticed is that the entire argument advanced in Amoris Laetitia presupposes that Ecclesiastical Tradition is merely a human hand-me-down, left over from a darker more puritanical age, and that it does not come from Christ nor was it faithful to the Apostolic Preaching.
  
  For this reason, one must say with many others that this document is in toto, heretical. That is represents, from even a brief study of the history of the Pontificate of Cardinal Bergoglio, a manifest and pertinacious attack upon the Church and denial of revealed truths.
  
  It is exceedingly pertinacious, since the Pope received the corrections of numbers of theologians formally and informally, yet still published it.

  
  
  
• 9) The Eponymous Flower : "Revolution" Amoris Laetitia: the — "Pastoral Realignment" of the Church
  http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2016/04/rome-pastoral-reorientation-of-church.html
  
  

  Methodology of the imprecise wording
  
  Is the result of the Synod as outlandish as they had expected it? Ultimately, yes. It did, as several high church officials, including Curial Archbishop Georg Gänswein, assured, not come to a startling break. Yet one can clearly deduce the fracture on closer inspection of the details. Therein lies the confirmation of expectations. The changes, the "revolution", the "revolutionary change" (words of Cardinal Kasper) happens when it happens, subtle in inaccurate word sausage formulations. In this respect therefore, there is nothing new under the sun. The method used already on the Second Vatican Council, to dissolve the clarity in the obscurity of the wording, will be continued. The Jesuit Karl Rahner, whose Jesuit brother is the reigning pope, found t language methodology as downright brilliant because it ultimately always allowed whatever reading or interpretation was wanted.
  
  It is the method that revolutionaries, who lack the majority or the armies, wish to impose its will directly and quickly. It is even more the technique of pseudo-revolutionaries who do have radical ideas, but where the final drive is missing, in openly professing the Revolution. The popular theology, whose representative Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina was, and his rejection of the armed struggle of his confreres for Marxist liberation theology offers several approaches to understanding this pontificate.
  
  Utterly irritating, though it was mentioned only in passing, is the largely uncritical "yes, to sex education", pronounced by Pope Francis. Given the experience of school sex education and government "education campaigns", given that the gender ideology wants school sex education to put their stamp on a massive scale, given the appropriate "curricula" of Baden-Württemberg, Vienna or Bavaria, to name just a few, it's a wonder just what "reality" the Pope and his ghostwriter have in mind on this issue.

  
  
  
• 10) Myself? With Vox Cantoris, with Eponymous Flower, with FromRome. So far, though I have not actually read it. But I would be surprised if all having read it were wrong on it offering for divorced and remarried a solution which I cannot consider Catholic. Also, if Rahner, Schönborn and Kasper are for it, I would be surprised if it were good. This is why I am not making a blog post of my own on the matter.

I am not known for praising Jews very much, but here some praise is due!

JewsNews : UN Official: We Should Make Every Effort To Depopulate The Planet
http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/04/27/un-official-we-should-make-every-effort-to-depopulate-the-planet-2/

Now, I suppose the video verifies the quotes attributed to Christiana Figueres, and if so, she needs the debunking she gets here.

And especially losing the power she now wields as UN offical.

Here is what God said about population:

Genesis 1: [26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.

I am taking this from a Catholic Bible, and if Glazerson was right about this year being numeric equivalent of passages about returning to God, then we might see the author of the article as a Catholic (but not a Bergoglio style one), within a year. Best wishes for conversion, if that is what God has in mind for you!

Hans Georg Mikael Elitzur Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Octave of Holy Innocents
4-I-2016

A Judge with Poor Judgement

Here is the quote with link to the article:

Judge Thomas Kay told Brianne Altice on Thursday that she needs to have responsibility for her actions. 'You were the adult, you were the teacher, you were the one that could have stopped that from happening,' he said

Utah teacher, 36, who sexually abused three male students and continued a relationship with one while out on bail is sentenced to up to 30 YEARS behind bars
By Associated Press and Alexandra Klausner For Dailymail.com
Published: 23:37 GMT, 9 July 2015 | Updated: 12:10 GMT, 10 July 2015
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3155546/Female-ex-Utah-teacher-36-sexually-abused-three-male-students-tearfully-begs-forgiveness-sentenced-30-years-bars.html

Let us break this down.

"You were the adult"

The boys were 16 and 17. Not children. "The" adult sounds as if teens were equivalents of children.

"you were the teacher"

But where they the students who were most attentive to her class performance?

Or where they there because they had no chance of doing otherwise?

"you were the one that could have stopped that from happening"

What about:

• society forcing boys to go to school?
• society forcing them to abstain from profitable work and marriage?
• society imposing coed?
• society therefore imposing no bars between teachers of one sex and students of another?
• society not paying her husband enough so he could keep her at home and with children?

'I am human and I messed up during a very vulnerable time in my life,' she told the court.

The mother of the then-16-year-old victim said her son was also vulnerable.

'You hurt my son in ways that you will never know. You hurt all of those boys,' said the woman. She did not give her name, and The Associated Press does not generally identify family members of sexual assault victims to avoid revealing a victim's identity.

Indeed. She introduced him to adultery and was unfaithful even in adultery.

But so did a society which made this situation a setup. Hurt, introduce him, and be unfaithful.

As long as teen pupils are enrolled in schools en masse, because society stops them from doing anything else and even requires them to be there up to a certain age, both school shootings and tragicomedies like these are likely to happen over again.

What could have become a comedy has turned at least somewhat tragic. The worst part is that her husband is filing for divorce.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Felix of Valois
founder of Trinitarians
20-XI-2015

PS, I would of course NOT have written this if the perpetrator had been a male seducer. Oscar Wilde deserved his sentence (whether he deserved conditions as they were in prison is another matter) and he knew it./HGL PPS - a male seducer of males, that is./HGL

Synod of Adultery vs St Theodore the Studite (or Theodore vs that synod) (LINK)

Rorate Caeli : Roberto de Mattei: "The Synod of Adultery: the Church has been here before”
Roberto de Mattei
Corrispondenza Romana
26th August 2015
[Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana]
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/08/roberto-de-mattei-synod-of-adultery.html

Homeschooling is Usually Not University Level AND Graphic Porn Does More than Expose to Ideas

1) Science and Religion - Citing Two of my Opponents, 2) Blogosphere in the Feast of Sts Simon and Jude 2015, 3) Homeschooling is Usually Not University Level AND Graphic Porn Does More than Expose to Ideas

When my own ma homeschooled me (not all the time, but when circumstances allowed), her idea was not to shield me from un-Christian ideas, but rather to provide antidotes. However, shielding from un-Christian ideas is actually a good idea for homeschooling Christian parents, if they can and want to. And they should want to if they are not able to provide antidotes.

Now, a homeschooling community has turned to an university in order to get a textbook which does not openly preach Big Bang Atheism. Or sth like that.

Sorry, to American Astronomical Society.

In other words, they want a textbook which gives all of the current cosmology except the overtly atheistic parts, like, say Big Bang Creating Matter Out of Itself, rather than God creating matter. That is overtly atheistic, insofar as you have to be atheist in order to even believe it. There are covertly atheistic parts, which they are not protesting against, like Heliocentrism, which you may believe even if a Christian, but cannot give a coherent proof of unless you are atheist ("there is no God who can turn the universe around Earth each day" is atheistic, but if had been true would prove one of its points, and "there are no angels that can move stars in the movements called parallax and aberration or planets in the movements around zodiac, often with retrogrades and other signs of spirograph patterns being involved" is also atheistic, or anangelistic, but if it were true it would also prove a point for Heliocentrism : however there are Christians who believe these points without these proofs). But where the atheism is open, where even believing it is obviously atheistic, no, there they do not want it.

They turned to American Astronomical Society. It is probably very expert at Heliocentric cosmology. They want everything they can get about that, except Big Bang overt Atheism. Is that any problem?

Of course not, they can get confronted with atheism later on in their lives. The age of seven to twelve is not really made for intellectual confrontations with beliefs other than your own, especially not in contexts where these other beliefs may be socially favoured and not believing them may expose one to bad manners. After all, seven to twelve is not just about getting from ignorance to some useful knowledge, it is also about acquiring good manners. And thus also about not getting them ruined by useless confrontation with bad manners. In other words, Christian children that age should not be forced to attend schools where majority are atheist. And, what is more, Atheist children that age should not be forced to attend schools where majority are Christians.

And if they are not being forced to "confront the other team", neither do they need an immediate intellectual preparation for such confrontation, by direct study of its tenets.

That is reasonable.

Now look at this:

Agenda Quoted:

To add to the polarization, a few scientists have spread an atheistic naturalistic worldview together with their teaching of science as if it was part of science itself. As a result many parents avoid materials they consider controversial and students later come to believe they must choose between science and their faith. The key to bridging this gap are professional astronomers who hold to a Christian worldview and who can speak both languages, understanding the complexities of both communities.

Coyne's Comment A:

This, of course, buttresses one of the main goals of Christian homeschooling: to avoid exposing children to anything that might damage their faith or make them question it.

My comment

So far, correct analysis, but why is that upsetting him?

Does he consider HE has the right to decide for THEIR children?

Does he imagine HIS recipe for them would not imply a school situation which would hurt them, like the Swedish one hurt me?

Coyne's Comment B:

In truth, I seriously doubt that in public secondary schools children are exposed to “atheistic worldviews” that supposedly make them choose between science and faith. The reason young people exposed to science leave their faith is, I suspect, mainly because science teaches them to question, to doubt, and to trust evidence. Taken seriously, the produces an erosion of faith.

Not at all!

The truth is that questioning has not hurt my faith.

But it is the atheistic "science" which has gone down before my questions.

Where Evolution and Heliocentrism are presented as hard and undoubtable facts, first of all, the child is deceived, second, this deception involves statements about truth which at some point at least contradict the real one.

Coyne's Comment C:

[Taken seriously, the produces an erosion of faith.] And that’s why people like this book’s authors are so desperate to get to the kids before they have that exposure. The book is, in fact, a form of brainwashing: imposing the parents’ religious views on the children. The abstract continues:

Before we look

why not guess what he would stamp as a kind of brainwashing? Large passages stating non-extancy of proofs for Heliocentrism? Even that would not be brainwashing, it would be exposing the brainwashing that goes on in schools run by science sectarians ultimately depending on atheism (as I just mentioned, as for showing, I'll do that another time, if you think there are MORE proofs for Heliocentrism than the false ones I mentioned)(or, actually, I did that another time already). But no, such doubts about Heliocentrism is NOT what he is quoting.

Here IS what he quoted after describing it as a form of brainwashing:

Agenda Quoted:

The role of science educators is to teach science, not to impose worldviews. Science is well received by Christians when it is presented not as a threat to faith, but rather as a complementary way to understand God, leading to a more integrated view of reality.

Wait a minute!?

Just mentioning that the science is a way of understanding God is somehow brainwashing them in Christianity?

Well, that pretty much says all that needs to be said about HIS definition of "brainwashing". He is acting like an Inquisitor for Atheism. But not just that, he is acting like an Inquisitor who cannot see the difference between seduction to heresy and brainwashing someone to heresy.

I will not say that brainwashing into Darwinism and Heliocentrism is done because there exist school manuals that present them. I would not even totally do it because very many (and not just one) media treat them as undoubted facts, not just when the media are on the topic, but even when that is off topic, except for the also near total lack of media that present the opposite view. My blogs are trying to supplement this lack.

Here is where Jerry Coyne made this blooper:

Why Evolution Is True : Accommodationism at the American Astronomical Society
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/11/12/accommodationism-at-the-american-astronomical-society/

Now, at University, even a Christian student totally SHOULD be able to confront Heliocentric and Darwinist ideas, though of course not fall for the suggestion of believing them, and if he feels he must shield himself from confronting them, he should do sth else.

Same thing in a way goes for ideas about how homosexuality affects lives.

But Fun Home apparently does not only present the biographical facts about Alison Bechdel, apparently she has included some graphic content which can be described as pornographic. Like two nude people in bed, presumably (the previews on Amazon give NOT that kind of detail, just innocent childhood pictures).

Here is a quote with letters of protest by the students:

“I feel as if I would have to compromise my personal Christian moral beliefs to read it,” Brian Grasso wrote on the Duke University Class of 2019 Facebook page, a closed group. He cited its “graphic visual depictions of sexuality,” as part of his reason. “Duke did not seem to have people like me in mind,” he added. “It was like Duke didn’t know we existed, which surprises me.” “There is so much pressure on Duke students, and they want so badly to fit in,” Grasso observed. “But at the end of the day, we don’t have to read the book.” Grasso was not alone in his protest. “The nature of ‘Fun Home’ means that content that I might have consented to read in print now violates my conscience due to its pornographic nature,” Jeffrey Wubbenhorst wrote in an email to The Chronicle.

Did you get that?

“graphic visual depictions of sexuality,” ... "content that I might have consented to read in print now violates my conscience due to its pornographic nature"

Jeffrey Wubbenhurst would have consented to read same things in print, but not when presented in pictures.

So, the problem for at least Jeffrey Wubbenhurst, probably Brian Grasso too, was not any idea presented. It was the problem of visual pornography.

Now, how do Coyne AND none lesser than Salman Rushdie take this?

Coyne's Own Comment:

This is pathetic. Those students are not only keeping themselves in the religious bubble in which they’ve been raised, but cutting themselves off from exposure to ideas that might help not only them, but society as well. I’m convinced that one of the reasons that gay rights, for instance, progressed so fast in this nation is that people not only listened to what gay people said, but got to know them, and saw (as they eventually will with atheists), that they were just normal people who deserved equal treatment. This, at least, is one of Steve Pinker’s theses, in The Better Angels of our Nature, for the moral progress we’ve seen over the last five centures. Exposure, exposure, exposure!

"Your honour!"*

Neither of those quoted were refusing to "get to know" Alison Bechdel in any work where she expressed same biography in words. Without the mentioned pictures.

They were protesting against an assignment roughly akin, though not fully equivalent to watching a porn movie.

Salman Rushdie's Comment, Quoted by Coyne:

“There was an episode a few months ago where (some incoming) students at Duke University refused to read Alison Bechdel’s book (‘Fun Home’) because it was written by a lesbian and offended their religious beliefs. I thought, ‘Maybe you should just not be at Duke. Maybe you should just step down and make room for people who actually want to learn something.'”

Rushdie!

Not wanting to watch porn pictures is "not wanting to learn" in your book?

Here is where Coyne quoted and himself commented Brian Grasso and Jeffrey Wubbenhurst:

Why Evolution Is True : More fragile student feelings: Christian students refuse to read Duke’s summer-assignment novel because (horrors) it deals with lesbians and other touchy subjects
[note dishonesty even in title]
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/08/26/more-fragile-student-feelings-christian-students-refuse-to-read-dukes-summer-assignment-novel-because-horrors-it-deals-with-lesbians-and-other-touchy-subjects/

Here is where Coyne quotes Rushdie:

Why Evolution Is True : Salman Rushdie, receiving Chicago Tribune literary award, decries college censorship
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/11/12/salman-rushdie-receiving-chicago-tribune-literary-award-decries-college-censorship/

Further Quote of Rushdie:

“The university is the place where young people should be challenged every day, where everything they know should be put into question, so that they can think and learn and grow up,” he said. “And the idea that they should be protected from ideas that they might not like is the opposite of what a university should be. It’s ideas that should be protected, the discussion of ideas that should be given a safe place. The university should be a safe space for the life of the mind. That’s what it’s for.”

I Wonder:

How many University Sites here have exposed students to the challenge I give on Darwinism and Heliocentrism, or on popular conceptions about history?

IF they were indeed following the idea Rushdied appears to say, I should have a lot of readers by now. Students.

But perhaps, in his book, it is only traditional and religious ideas he thinks need to be challenged "every day". In that case, we are not dealing with a fresh challenge from a new angle every day, but with an attempt of anti-religious and anti-traditional ... what was the word Coyne used in that other context? Ah, yes : brainwashing.

Porn is by the way a way to abuse passions in order to, among other things, brainwash into shamelessness.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Martin I, Pope and Martyr
12-XI-2015

* Not really. Just a cheap trick of rhetoric, taken up from videos by Kent Hovind, before he came to use these words in the proper context at a trial - or sham trial. Btw, Jerry Coyne has quoted a pretty disturbing view attributed to Kent Hovind, where I think that the proper view was expressed by William Lane Craig, or part of it at least. This has however been sent to Kent Hovind in a mail, I will see if he answers.

Carole Raveraud Véhicule Aussi des Contrevérités

1) Pour corriger une idée “bienveillante” sur l’homosexualité, 2) Carole Raveraud Véhicule Aussi des Contrevérités

D'abord ce qui n'est pas une contrevérité: Islam ou Charia punit la femme violée.* Il y a en Afrique des gens qui font excision, pour empêcher des femmes de jouir.

Clitoridectomie et nymphectomie sont l’apanage de nombreux peuples noirs y compris dans les pays européens où ils migrent, ce dont les organisations féministes parlent assez peu de peur d’être taxées de racisme ou d’islamophobie.

Notons deux choses.

Ces populations ont aussi une grande peur de la folie - il s'agit des gens qui croient plus facilement, probablement par la culture et pas par la race, dans la folie d'autrui que ne le fait traditionnellement l'Européen.

Et cette méthode a été utilisée par Charcot - psychiatre français - avant qu'il ne se tourne à l'hypnose.

Encore une chose : il y a eu un échange culturel entre la France et l'Afrique dans le XIX S.

Bonne question alors: l'excision, est-elle une mauvaise habitude africaine temporairement valorisé par le psychiatre Charcot? Ou est-elle une mauvaise idée de Charcot, appliquée de manière plus égale entre femmes, ce que fait des femmes des moins égales avec les hommes, par les Africains?

Je ne sais pas si nous savons ou pouvons savoir ça. Je ne connais pas des textes antérieurs à ce siècle là dans lesquels des Européens auraient exprimé que ce soit curiosité ou que ce soit dégoût pour cette pratique, ni des textes antérieurs à ce siècle là dans lesquels des Africains auraient fait la recommandation de cette pratique.

À différence de la prison pour la violée (ou avant la lapidation de la violée), cette pratique n'est pas universelle parmi les Musulmans et ne remonte pas à leur Coran. Elle n'est pas non plus restreint à eux, je crois que des Animistes et des Chrétiens d'Éthiopie en certains endroits (mais ça pourrait être confusion avec les Musulmans de ce pays, il y en a aussi) ont fait des choses comme ça aussi - et ça sans que ça remonte à la Bible, ni, que je sache, à la théologie de ce pays. L'église étant liée à celle d'Égypte, et cette pratique ne se faisant pas là ... non, la théologie de base n'est pas en cause, ni en Chrétienté éthiopienne, ni chez "les Frères".

Charcot + un certain égalitarisme intraféminin (quoique pas entre les sexes) pourrait être l'explication.

Je ne défends ni l'un, ni l'autre.

Ensuite, contrevérité complète, ou presque, vous savez ce qu'on appelle "démi-vérité" mais, notons, parmi le plus néfaste possible.

Elle cite Deutéronome, 22.

La question n'est pas dans la jouissance féminine, je vais citer la vrai cause de l'article de Carole:

... elle mourra, parce qu’elle a commis une infamie en Israël, en se prostituant dans la maison de son père. Tu ôteras ainsi le mal du milieu de toi.

Et ça ne serait pas entraver à la jouissance féminine? Non, elle aurait bien pu, au lieu de se prostituer dans la maison de son père, demander à papa de lui arranger un mariage avec tel ou tel beaugosse. Et elle aurait pu jouir - dans le mariage. Mais, dira-t-on, il y avait des limites d'âge?

Dans l'Ancienne Testament cette limite d'âge était vraisemblablement à 12 pour la fille** - elle n'aurait pas eu à attendre à 18 pour le faire dans le mariage. Seule entrave, pendant l'Ancien Testament (et encore dans les églises chrétiennes du premier siècle, ou quelques-unes) elle devait avoir l'accord de son père pour le mariage.

Pour la loi de l'église après, celle qu'on appelle la loi canonique, comme pour celle d'Espagne d'il y a un siècle, l'accord du père n'était même pas indispensable. Aussi avec la limite de 12.

Contrôler une fille entre 9 et 12, même "un peu précoce"***, pour qu'elle ne se fasse pas coupable d'un crime lapidable? Est-ce si impossible que ça? N'est-il pas plus probable que dans le cas d'une non-virginité vraiment constaté par le mari, elle avait fait ça après 12? Quand elle aurait bien pu, plutôt, demander à papa de faire un mariage?

Et pourquoi devait-ce être un crime?

Il y a une raison spécifique à l'Ancien Testament (et cette loi de Deutéronome n'a pas été écrite pour être appliquée après la venue du Messie, donc, il n'y a pas raison de confuser les problèmes avec la situation actuelle), à savoir que le peuple Hébreu allait donner naissance à Jésus-Christ.

Il y a encore une raison spécifique à la situation juste après la venue en terre sainte : se démarquer des mœurs chananéennes.

Mais il y a une raison générale pourquoi les mœurs chananéennes sont mauvais et pourquoi "se prostituer dans la maison de son père" est mal, même si ça ne doit plus donner occasion à des lapidations (Rome ayant, providentiellement, ôté au peuple Hébreu le droit de faire sa propre justice capitale, juste avant la venue de Notre Seigneur).

Celle qui le fait, se donne comme "peu chère". Et une culture qui tolère ça va tolérer des vrais cas d'abus aussi. "Non, elle voulait, elle-même" ... en dessus d'un âge limite (qui monte en fonction des abus) elle ne pourra pas dire et espérer comme ça va de soi d'être crue en disant "biensûr non, c'est une chose qui ne se fait pas si on n'est pas mariés!" Carole vient de célebrer les mœurs libérées des Nazis, et après on a soldé une Allemagne où la pédérastie a sévi - parfois dans les années 70, de manière sournoise et indirecte déjà dans les Kindergärten. Cette sexualisation "tôtive" reste une faute même en absence d'actes directement exploitifs, et donne un "terrain" favorable à l'exploitation plus tard dans l'enfance.

N'hésitons pas à soupçonner que c'était très le cas parmi les Chanaanéens.

Je suis heureux d'avoir été plutôt en Autriche qu'en Allemagne (et les années en Allemagne, j'avais des nannys quand ma mère absentait en Suède comme médecin en formation). Autriche (et Bavière aussi) a mieux résisté aux libéralismes sexuelles du Nazisme.

Mais il y a encore une raison pourquoi c'est mal de se prostituer dans la maison de son père et mal pour une culture de tolérer ça. Et biensûr aussi mal de mettre les âges de mariage tels que cette tolérance devient une humanité indispensable : que la vie peut être triste quand on est amoureux ou amoureuse et quand le mariage "doit" être déféré parce qu'on est "trop jeune". Et à différence d'une situation telle que l'a vécu John Ronald, qui à l'âge de 16 s'est fiancée à une Édith ayant l'âge de 17****, cette oppression des jeunes va maintenant jusqu'à rendre impossible pour quelqu'un en dessous de 18 (et vis-à-vis une autre personne en dessous de 18, j'ai vécu les deux situations!) de même parler de mariage.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St Pantaléon de Nicomédie
Médecin et martyr
27-VII-2015

L'article se trouve - je ne donne pas le lien - sur le blog "Sororité Aryenne" sous le titre "Sexualité aryenne et sexualité afro-sémite". Celui pour l'article avant ibidem, mais avec le titre (un titre avec lequel je suis biensûr d'accord, titre et contenu ne se couvrent que partiellement), "Nocuité des lobbys homosexuels masculins occidentaux".

* À ce propos, il y a des circonstances qui pourraient mitiger sinon ôter l'impression d'une législation barbare. Il me semble très évident que la femme Musulmane apprend dès très jeune les arts de défense et qu'aussi les gens de bien apprennent un certain retenu vis-à-vis une femme qui se défend. Parmi eux. Mais je ne sais pas comment est la jurisprudence quand l'homme était vraiment trop fort et mal élévé.

** Le Judaisme Talmudique a eu des coutumes étranges, en allant bien au-dessous de 12, semble-t-il. Parlons pas de ça!

*** Puberté atteinte entre 9 et 11 existe, mais c'est rare, comme puberté pas atteinte qu'entre 14 et 18, pour une fille. Les trois ans typiques pour la puberté sont pour les garçons entre les 13^e et 16^e anniversaires, là les pubertés qui attendent 16^e à 19^e anniversaires existe et est rare, comme celle entre 9^e et 13^e. Obviement, depuis la chute, il y a un petit décalage, de manière que la maturité mentale (y compris du cerveau, atteint à l'âge de 12) et la maturité physiologique peuvent tantôt montrer précocité, tantôt retardation de la physiologie par rapport à la raison - et les très jeunes pubertés (avant 14/12 selon les sexes) doivent donc pas justifier des mariages tôt faits.

**** Ils ont dû attendre des années, pas parce que leur âges étaient trop jeunes en soi, mais parce que le père d'Édith ne voulait pas qu'elle devienne Catholique ou qu'elle épouse un Catholique, et le tuteur du jeune Tolkien a dû s'opposer de son tour aussi, pour le risque au moins théorique qu'autrement son pupille apostasie pour l'épouser - et pour des motifs prudentiels.

Were the Ehrlich's Wrong to Fear Exponential Growth?

Here is a passage from The Population Explosion by Paul R. and Anne H. Ehrlich.

EXPONENTIAL GROWTH

The time it takes a population to double in size is a dramatic way to picture rates of population growth, one that most of us can understand more readily than percentage growth rates. Human populations have often grown in a pattern described as "exponential." Exponential growth occurs in bank accounts when interest is left to accumulate and itself earns interest. Exponential growth occurs in populations because children, the analogue of interest, remain in the population and themselves have children.

[Footnotes 7 and 8:]

Exponential growth occurs when the increase in population size in a given period is a constant percentage of the size at the beginning of the period. Thus a population growing at 2 percent annually or a bank account growing at 6 percent annually will be growing exponentially. Exponential growth does not have to be fast; it can go on at very low rates or, if the rate is negative, can be exponential shrinkage.

Saying a population is "growing exponentially" has almost come to mean "growing very fast," but that interpretation is erroneous. True exponential growth is rarely seen in human populations today, since the percentage rate of growth has been changing. In most cases, the growth rate has been gradually declining since the late 1960s. Nevertheless, it is useful to be aware of the exponential model, since it is implied every time we project a population size into the future with qualifying statements such as "if that rate continues."

For mathematical details on exponential growth, see P. R. Ehrlich, A. H. Ehrlich, and J. P. Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment (Freeman, San Francisco, 1977), pp. 100-104. The term "exponential" comes from the presence in the equation for growth of a constant, e, the base of natural logarithms, raised to a power (exponent) that is a variable (the growth rate multiplied by the time that rate will be in effect).

[Back to paragraphs footnoted:]

A key feature of exponential growth is that it often seems to start slowly and finish fast. A classic example used to illustrate this is the pond weed that doubles each day the amount of pond surface covered and is projected to cover the entire pond in thirty days. The question is, how much of the pond will be covered in twenty-nine days? The answer, of course, is that just half of the pond will be covered in twenty-nine days. The weed will then double once more and cover the entire pond the next day. As this example indicates, exponential growth contains the potential for big surprises.

[Footnote 9:]

The potential for surprise in repeated doublings can be underlined with another example. Suppose you set up an aquarium with appropriate life-support systems to maintain 1.000 guppies, but no more. If that number is exceeded, crowding will make the fishes susceptible to "ich," a parasitic disease that will kill most of the guppies. You then begin the population with a pair of sex-crazed guppies. Suppose that the fishes reproduce fast enough to double their population size every month. For eight months everything is fine, as the population grows 2→4→8→16→32→64→128→256→>512. Then within the ninth month the guppy population surges through the fatal 1,000 barrier, the aquarium becomes overcrowded, and most of the fishes perish. In fact, the last 100 guppies appear in less than five days — about 2 percent of the population's history.

One problem with this analogy is that it is very highly theoretical. It is purely based in maths.

I do not know any pond which has been covered with pond weed in one day, after having only half as many the day before.

I don't know any Aquarium of guppies where in nine months the guppy population is caught by ich and mostly perishes.

Besides, a key word if it would occur is "sex crazed".

Men have some of that after fall, but also a capacity for self control, like in punishing rapists as for collective capacity, or like in going to monasteries as for individual one.

Now, let us have a look at the concept of exponential growth of population.

Can a population double in a generation? Theoretically that is not a problem. Two people get four children (but Adam and Eve got more). Or the six people in the generation after Noah get twelve children (each two getting four, but actualy they got more than that) - no problem. Suppose you do not believe in Adam or Noah? Well, the mathematical capacity for doubling is the same. So, Evolutionists say we have been around for 100.000's of years (just counting Homo Sapiens and presuming, probably wrongly, that Heidelberg man and Neanderthal man were no men, plus assigning the usual ages to these creatures presumed to be ancestry intermediate between apes and us, and probably just dead old uncles - or ancestors - between Noah and us). We Christians say humanity had one round before the Flood and has had another since then, basically 5000 years (ok, 4972, actually). Since Noah. How many generations are that? How much would we have doubled to, if exponential growth had been uniformally 2:1 per generation?

I made a calculation on that one, assuming 5000 years, so it goes likely nearly twice as many as we should get in pure mathematics for just 4972 years. Here are my results:

5,708,990,770,823,839,524,233,143,877,797,980,545,530,986,496 = 2152 = doubling each generation for 152 generations. 5000 years : 33 years per generation = 151.5151515 ... generations. Obviously there are other factors to population growth than exponentiality, but it is one main such - the other main being limited resources and our perception of them, while disasters augmenting temporarily mortality are a subsidiary strong third.

This is from back 24-II-2015. I saved it in my guestbook.

Perhaps the population in pure exponential mathematics would just have been:

2,854,495,385,411,919,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Let's divide this by 7 billion:

407,785,055,058,845,678,571,428,571,428,571,428

So, the calculation is that much off between the theory of exponential growth at set rate of doubling each 33 years and the actual population we have.

Is that because there has been another set rate, which is lower and which has been uniform? No, it is because human behaviour is adaptable. Even if a couple easily can get four children, many don't get into couples and many don't get four children.

This much the Ehrlichs agree on. It's just that they think this can be done easier by contraception.

Well, it can also be done easier by wars. And these might not always be as bad as contraception.

Nevertheless, in same chapter, they slurred the Catholic Church:

Even though the media occasionally give coverage to population issues, some people never get the word. In November 1988, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the Catholic Church's ban on contraception. The occasion was the twentieth anniversary of Pope Paul's anti-birth-control encyclical, Humanae Vitae.

Fortunately, the majority of Catholics in the industrial world pay little attention to the encyclical or the Church's official ban on all practical means of birth control. One need only note that Catholic Italy at present has the smallest average completed family size (1.3 children per couple) of any nation. Until contraception and then abortion were legalized there in the 1970s, the Italian birth rate was kept low by an appalling rate of illegal abortion.

The bishops who assembled to celebrate the anniversary defended the encyclical by announcing that "the world's food resources theoretically could feed 40 billion people." [Washington Post, Nov. 19, 1988, p. C-15.] In one sense they were right. It's "theoretically possible" to feed 40 billion people - in the same sense that it's theoretically possible for your favorite major-league baseball team to win every single game for fifty straight seasons, or for you to play Russian roulette ten thousand times in a row with five out of six chambers loaded without blowing your brains out.

One might also ask whether feeding 40 billion people is a worthwhile goal for humanity, even if it could be reached. Is any purpose served in turning Earth, in essence, into a gigantic human feedlot? Putting aside the near-certainty that such a miracle couldn't be sustained, what would happen to the quality of life?

First of all, I don't think feeding 40 billion people would take a miracle. But second, I also do not think that it would mean a quality of life being lowered. Using the kind of resourcefulness and reruralisation I think feeding them would imply is probably rather healthy for the overweight and overstressed.

And thirdly, I think that Catholicism has two sides when it comes to population: banning contraception and extolling monasticism.

Now, not that I'd want to become a monk myself, as per where my life has brought me, I might have done better at age twenty, but it uses far less resources and has a far better quality of life and extends this better quality of life to non-monastic Catholic or even not actively anti-Catholic non-Catholic neighbours.

So, I trust the tradition of the Church as well as the common sense that God created our genitals to be used for procreation, and consider the recommendation of the Ehrlichs as being as stinking as my pants are right now, since two shorts and one pair of pants were stolen or lost and with too few people giving money for my laundry.

And that stinks!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Austin of Canterbury
28-V-2015

To honour today's saint, here is "And His Word Went Marching On"
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2014/03/and-his-word-went-marching-on.html

Not linking to Ehrlich book, but title is Paul R. Ehrlich & Anne H. Ehrlich, The Population Explosion, 1990. And chapter cited is 1 Why Isn't Everyone as Scared as We Are? - The title could be answered "because we are not New England Puritans or otherwise into Responsabilistic Heresies". Not being Atheist, we believe God takes His responsibility for making observance of His law work out.