Can One Be a National Socialist and a Bona Fide Catholic?

New blog on the kid: Can One Be a National Socialist and a Bona Fide Catholic? · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Can One be Austro-Fascist and Bona Fide Catholic?

I know one who qualifies as both.

But normally, no.

One cannot endorse the entire programme of the NSDAP and be a Catholic, and I'm not sure one can endorse the entire programme of ČSNS and be a Catholic either. ČSNS took inspiration from John Hus. The earliest attempts at making the party later known as NSDAP also started in Bohemia (in opposition to the Habsburg monarchy) by one Rudolf Jung. It's somewhat quirky if one Carl Jung tried to trace National Socialism to the cult (or the archetype even) of Odin, and National Socialism in the German form actually traces to a Jung.

Can one follow National Socialists on Social Media and be a Bona Fide Catholic?

I think one can, provided one has a certain capacity to take a distance.

As I'm doing here from a comment by Mark Shea.*

So, for instance, when the extremely public Catholic Vice President of the United States lets the world know he is following Nazis on social media, that is not an accident. It’s a signal, not least to other Catholics, of his contempt for the Faith and his will to use it as a means to satanic power, not to obey it. If you take him seriously as a disciple of Christ instead of an antichrist enemy, you are a fool.

I don't think the power of the state is inherently a satanic thing. Sure, Satan bragged about having it in his hands and Jesus did not contradict him on that, but that was before the Crucifixion.

I also don't think the power of the state becomes a satanic thing if a statesman takes a look or two at a National Socialist's social media.

And I also don't think a man who's disagreeing with Mark Shea is automatically using the faith as a means. Besides, if that were the case, a Catechist need not exclude him for that. I recall a certain King thought Paris could be worth a Mass. St. Francis of Sales made sure he was a better Catholic before Ravaillac killed him than at the moment of conversion.

This said, I think the deportation policy has long taken an inacceptable toll on social peace in the US, and the Vice President might want to advice the President on admitting that election promise failed.

Meanwhile, some Swedish National Socialists (no, not the Catholic one) recently on their publication invited in a guest writer who reviewed Crossroads of Ravens by Sapkowski.**

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Tatiana of Rome
12.I.2026

Romae sanctae Tatianae Martyris, quae, sub Alexandro Imperatore, uncis atque pectinibus laniata, bestiis exposita et in ignem missa, sed nil laesa, demum, gladio percussa, migravit in caelum.

* Advice for whoever is designing catechesis
January 8, 2026 | Stumbling Toward Heaven
https://markpshea.com/2026/01/08/advice-for-whoever-is-designing-catechesis/

** https://nordfront.se/crossroads-of-ravens

The Guest Writer is more impressed by Sapkowski than by Netflix. Crossroads of Ravens is a second prequel before the five books in The Witcher series. I think I share their views on Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf.

About the dubia

Mark Shea quoting Where Peter Is:

Take, for instance, Amoris Laetitia‘s (AL) opening of communion to divorced and remarried people who may have mitigating factors diminishing their subjective culpability, so that they are not in mortal sin. The format of the dubia, demanding yes-or-no answers, does not take into account the nuance demanded by this document, and the way the questions are framed tries to force Francis to chose between open heresy or forfeiting his manifest will. In this way, answering the dubia on their own terms would actually cause more harm than good.

In fact, while "affirmative" and "negative" are the most common traditional answers to dubia, one can find things like "if you mean so and so, yes" or "if this is what you mean, no."

Negative, excepto casu in quo, salvis sensu ac iudicio Ecclesiae, solidis argumentis probetur:

1° Hagiographum alterius dicta vel documenta revera citare;
et 2° Eadem nec probare, nec sua facere, ita ut iure censeatur non proprio nomine loqui.

CIRCA CITATIONES IMPLICITAS IN S. SCRIPTURA CONTENTAS
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19050213_cit-implicitas_lt.html

With my personal translation here:

In the negative, except the case in which, saving the sense and judgement of the Church, it be proven with solid arguments:

1° That the Hagiographer (holy author) is really citing the words or documents of someone else;
and 2° That he is neither approving them, nor making them his own, so that he can be rightly considered as not speaking in his own name.

Creation vs. Evolution : When Are Implicit Citations Licit?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/07/when-are-implicit-citations-licit.html

So, the dubia, as a form, do not require yes or no answers with automatic gagging of all nuances.

Thank you, Fr. Fleming! You have both shown that dubia can be answered with nuances, and that a perhaps better way of asking if "Pope Francis" is a heretic is asking whether "Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI" were so when back in 90's giving very clear favour to non-creationist readings of the books of Moses.

Now, is the truth humble? Personal virtue in a man on earth usually is. It wasn't quite known back when Moses said "I'm a humble man" but it is still true. However, there is a certain attitude among the liberal Anglicans and for that matter Agnostics of England a few generations ago, when Chesterton commented on it. Some have transferred, he said, humility as being about ambition, to being about certitude. Certitude and truth are not meant to be humble or quiet. Why am I saying this? See this quote within the latter of the articles I quoted from:

“Express how you feel, and then be quiet. Because the truth is humble. The truth is silent. The truth isn’t noisy. It’s not easy, what Jesus did. But the dignity of the Christian is anchored in the power of God. With people lacking good will, with people who only seek scandal, who seek only division, who seek only destruction, even within the family: silence, prayer.”

— Pope Francis, Homily at Casa Santa Marta, Rome, Sept 3rd, 2018

With such a silence, one can so to speak "say" without "actually saying" that one thinks and wants one's faithful to think, that so and so (for instance Cardinal Burke) is only seeking division. As to "within the family" I have seen situations where silence is no help. Also, with certain procedures of psychiatric evaluation, while silence may be a real right, morally, as holy or even holier than Miranda rights, it is not always a very good solution, which some of those tyrants are quick to point out.

Father Brown, a fictitious Jesuit, actually was silent after speaking up to a scandal journalist, who was unaware of who was the husband and who was the adulterer, and that the physical elopement from a hotel was a moral return to home, but he was silent about other journalists repeating the scandal which the first journalist was honourably trying to correct.

"Pope Francis" is more as Father Brown had been if the accusation "you helped her to elope" had been met with dignified silence, so the poor prejudiced Protestant could continue thinking the Jesuit favoured the adultery for some dark Jesuit schemed reason.

Because, a church man telling a pope "you spoke heresy" or asking him "were you speaking heresy?" is not to be considered lightly a scandal monger. There was a schism in Illyria who considered Vigilius an antipope (and apparently not a "bad pope" whom one should recognise but resist), and the error of his temporary admissions to an Emperor (Justinian, I think) were partly helped to correction by that schism, and partly by some others still recognising him, but resisting him on this point.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Parmentier library, Paris
Immaculate Heart of Mary of
Octave of Assumption
22.VIII.2019

PS, I think I detected a reference to a Gospel text, when Our Lord was silent in answer to reproaches. Yes, there was at least one such occasion, the night leading to Good Friday. But on that occasion, He very exceedingly well knew that He was up with a rigged trial, and had already said so indicating they could have caught Him earlier in the open, had He really said sth that merited any reproach.

So, they were quoting or rather misquoting him from verbal memory, and even then on one point, there was a clergyman, of the then Jewish Church, whose name was the Hebrew version of Aramaic Kephas, who was in a better position than simple false witnesses to ask, with a question better suited for answering than reference to false witnesses, and Christ answered with a non-nuanced "I am", which is "yes" (see Mark 14).

Burke, whose non-cardinality is more about who named him than about himself, is actually referring to a published and therefore consultable text, available both in paper and on internet./HGL

If A N Y O N E so Happens to Think they will Get me over to Pantheism ...

... I'm linking to Mark Shea, it so happens my internet time yesterday was nil and this time in a cyber is scarce:

A bit of my Creed book
JULY 22, 2019 BY MARK SHEA
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2019/07/a-bit-of-my-creed-book.html

There are two kinds of people who don't like "Pope Francis"

One of them is described here, by Mark Shea:

I do not understand people who struggle to understand this pope
JULY 15, 2019 BY MARK SHEA
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2019/07/i-do-not-understand-people-who-struggle-to-understand-this-pope.html

His rebuttal is given in this quote:

So it has, for instance, become de rigeur for the shriekers and hysterics (who seriously thought that “He used a ferula once! Eeeeeek!” was sufficient ground to nail him as a “heretic” to claim that saying some Catholic commonplace like “The poor save us” is somehow more firewood for the auto de fe in which he is to be burnt as a socialist. ... Meanwhile, people still interested in the Tradition recall that “the poor save us” is simply a restatement of St. John Chrysostom’s remark that the rich exist for the sake of the poor, while the poor exist for the salvation of the rich.

Fine, in this way (I did not quote for the sake of the ferula, but did not want to cut out more), this Jesuit (?) interested in St John Chrysostom joins the ranks of a very undoubtedly real Catholic Jesuit who also liked him, namely Father Ignaz Seipel and his Wirtschaftsethische Lehre der Kirchenväter which is basically the economically-ethic doctrine of St John Chrysostom (and perhaps one or two other Church Fathers thrown in for good measure ... I suppose half his patristic quotes are from St. John Chrysostom, first patron saint of Mozart and the other half from others.

This is the type of attack I actually defended "Pope Francis" against, even while not being convinced he was a Pope, back in 2013.

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : A Sedisvacantist linked to Limbaugh to refute Bergoglio
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/12/a-sedisvacantist-linked-to-limbaugh-to.html

However, there is another type of "quibble" about "Pope Francis is such he be" as I expressed myself back then.

• He has said "Fundamentalists are sick people". In 2014 he clarified "God is not a magician with an omnipotent magic wand" - yes, we Young Earth Creationists are in fact targetted.
• He has said "God wants all religions" without clarifying that God wants the false religions in the same way as he wants any other disaster - He wills to allow them, uses the evil for good, saves some in paradoxical ways, but the disaster is not in and of itself salvific. Someone who might have apostasised later may have died a saint instead, through a train accident, air plane crash, murder etc, but train accidents, air plane crashes and murders are not sacraments, and neither are Coran, Talmud, Tripitaka, Upanishads, Voluspa, Theogony, Book of Mormon, Calvin's Institutes etc.
• He has "canonised" the so called "Pope Saint John Paul II" for approving air plane crashes as such in Assisi (at least Wojtyla is not known to have regretted the Assisi prayer meetings!) and for "John XXIII" he has accepted "Vatican II" as Roncalli's miracle number 2. And now lately also "Paul VI".

I have recommended Bergoglio step down, change name spelling to Borgoglio (Bergoglio meaning "from the town Bergoglio" and the town Bergoglio now being called Borgoglio, plus BORGOGLIO adding up to 676, which is a lot safer than the sum for BERGOGLIO). I have not recommended him to stop backing the poor.

St. John Chrysostom (first patron saint of Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgang Gottlieb Mozart, better known as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart) saying basically that rich and poor exist for each other is a very good reason to be corporativist. Christian Social as the term was for Fr. Ignaz Seipel, and Austrofascist as at least the nick-name was for his successor as party head and as statesman, Engelbert Dollfuss.

I also do not understand how one can consider "Pope Francis" unclear, unless one wants by unclarity to clear him of suspicions to be a Modernist accepting Evolutionism as the predecessor of his Wojtyla showed himself to be more than once 1992 to 1996, and as their intermediate Ratzinger also has showed himself to be. Unless one wants to clear him of suspicion of being grossly uncharitable (not just politely disagreeing, but mocking and pitying) to Young Earth Creationists. Unless one wants to clear him of suspicion of believing a false religion is not just occasionally occasion for someone's salvation (as is often the case for those who convert from it to Catholicism) but practically a regular means for salvation, and unless one wants to clear him of suspicion of having canonised uncanonisables, to whom the "unclarity" is then also extended.

Plus, some would consider it unclear whether he's favouring Socialism. In fact, the St. John Chrysostom quote says, poor have no right to damn rich for being slow in giving what is not clearly due, while Bergoglio only says, what St. John Chrysostom also says, rich have no right to damn the poor who are their means of salvation.

For my part, it matters less if he is only one sided in expression or has a one sided, Marxist, perversion of the corporativist doctrine of St. John Chrysostom. Since on other grounds, I find it unbelievable to see him as Pope, the ones just stated.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Alexius
17.VII.2019

Mark Shea on Remote Material Cooperation in Evil (link)

A reader struggles with scruples about remote material cooperation with evil
June 26, 2019 by Mark Shea on Catholic and Enjoying It!
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2019/06/a-reader-struggles-with-scruples-about-remote-material-cooperation-with-evil.html

US May Have a Right to Build a Wall, But Not to Include a Death Trap in it.

There are various models of death traps in border walls.

Berlin wall, of unhappy (but happily over by now) memory involved machine guns which started firing at crossings. The widow of Honegger tyrant said "that hadn't need be, they didn't have to cross the border".

Before the Flood, I think dinosaur lands (more Jurassic Park than Kent Hovind's version) were used with T Rexes as similar death traps. One reason for the Flood being sent, I think.

And Sonora Desert without water is a place where people risk to die.

What Real Religious Persecution Looks Like
June 14, 2019 by Mark Shea
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2019/06/what-real-religious-persecution-looks-like.html

The trial of Scott Warren ended in a hung jury. For those not following the news, this was a guy who left water out in the desert so that desperate refugees would not die of thirst.

I'd consider the best enthusiast for the wall, even John Horvath, ought to stand up for Scott Warren.

This said, actual blocking, not from his blog, which happened to me again, but from a major internet logistic for links, like FB or Pinterest or Twitter is also persecution.

It may sometimes be the kind of persecution considered here:

And that no man might buy or sell, but he that hath the character, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. (Apoc. 13:17).

There just started an unjust blockade at FB, as I complained here:

HGL's F.B. writings : Abusive Block on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica Blog
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2019/06/abusive-block-on-ophilologica-blog.html

And it was not the only one, since I found "spam" as reason for considering another blog, this one ...

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/

... as contrary to the conditions. These kinds of blocks detract from my possibilities of getting my writings to the level of popularity where they could attract a paper publisher, meaning, they stop me from making money from my work as a writer.

That's a kind of persecution too. I'd say, Scott Warren as not convicted is somewhat luckier than I, but we are both luckier than guys who die from thirst in Sonora or than aborted babies.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Parmentier
Ember Friday of Pentecost
14.VI.2019

Should Live Action sue Pinterest?

Background provided by Faithwire:

Live Action Permanently Banned from Pinterest for Spreading ‘Harmful Misinformation’
By Tré Goins-Phillips Editor June 11, 2019
https://www.faithwire.com/2019/06/11/live-action-permanently-banned-from-pinterest-for-spreading-harmful-misinformation/

A statement from Pinterest informed Live Action its page was “permanently suspended because its contents went against our policies on misinformation.” The note went on to claim Live Action spreads “medical misinformation and conspiracies that turn individuals and facilities into targets for harassment and violence.”

This is not "you are not welcome in the club" as per a private dislike. This is more like doing some kind of public justice.

This means, Mark Shea's analogy of a platform deplatforming someone with a club showing someone the door fails. This one:

Mission Creep
May 8, 2019 by Mark Shea
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2019/05/mission-creep-2.html

He had echoed some who said "you make your own printing press", "you make your own TV channel", "you make your own internet platform", a theme on which I saw a caricature following up with "own government" and the glib PC's going "wait a minute ...". Here is his version:

The people shown the door by Facebook are not having their free speech impinged in the slightest. They can go find some seamy spot on Stormfront or elsewhere on the Dark Web and talk all they like. But FB, Twitter and any other platform that doesn’t want Nazis, racists, and conspiracy theorists does not owe them a thing.

Now, for National Socialists marked out as National Socialists (for instance not an Austrofascist mislabelled as one) and for Racialists openly acting as Racialists (I was shocked to see a Swedish NS site use the expression "race foreigner" or "race stranger"), that is all fine and dandy. If people wanting explicitly NS content know they cannot get it on FB, fine. Then they know they need to look for it elsewhere.

Like, if you go to Pinterest, you know you can't get porn. But we have a very different situation when Pinterest labels a pro-life site with a "porn block" filter.

Let's give an analogy. FB, Twitter, Pinterest are very large social media.

As of the first quarter of 2019, Facebook had 2.38 billion monthly active users.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/

Twitter reported that the number of monthly active users is declining. Twitter claimed 321 million monthly users, down 9 million, or more than 2 percent from the same time last year. Feb 7, 2019

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/02/07/twitter-reveals-its-daily-active-user-numbers-first-time/

Social network Pinterest has 265 million monthly active users as of the first quarter of 2019. As of that period, the visual bookmarking platform had 85 million MAU in the United States, compared to 206 million international monthly active users.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/463353/pinterest-global-mau/

Note, this is not like when a social medium requires you to be a certain type of person and you aren't, like Helgon net requires you to be open mind (not stating about what) and alternative (not stating to what), Haket required you to be writing poetry and short stories, I think it is down, Silverplanet requires you to be young ... you get the idea. When opening a profile, you describe yourself in certain terms. FB, twitter, Pinterest are not like this.

If a thing like Live Action is banned on more and more of the big social media, it comes out as a ban on free speech.

Now, in the article, Mark Shea shows a stick-figure comic stating free speech is protected only against government intereference against free speech.

This is not the case. I am not sure whether you heard of Castellucci's "on the concept of the face, regarding the Son of God." I and SSPX considered this piece as blasphemy, some SSPX went to pray a rosary outside the theatre as a peaceful protest (and of course as a way of making up for it before God's justice, as a reparation), when I wanted to join them a police officer pointed a gun to me. One of those who had got there in time got his leg ran over and fractured by police. Why so? Because, France takes "free speech" seriously, as a constitutional value. This means that "entrave à la liberté d'expression" (which I consider praying outside the theatre was not directly) is legally an offense, not just in police officers, but in any private citizen.

Imagine Trump had backed down on border wall, and also said border police are not allowed to detain illegal immigrants in prisons or take away their children - would you condone or imagine US would condone the continuation of such practises by private vigilante groups? No. So, obviously, when government restricts its own action against free speech, it also logically restricts other people's action against free speech.

You are shown out of your local pub, because the barman considers you a Nazi? No hindrance on free speech, since for one thing a pub is meant as much for drinking as for talking, and for another, the clientele of the pub tend to be a close knit set of people, or perhaps more correctly several such, at different hours. The barman's action would be the equivalent of a group of friends telling you to go away and play with someone else because "you don't belong with us". If the guy contested being a Nazi he could claim damages for being called that, but not totally for being shown the door. The barman might owe the non-Nazi beers, but not in his pub.

Now, getting shown out of FB, Twitter, Pinterest is more like a newspaper being banned from using post-office to distribute to households making a subscription, or the private company Tidningsbärarne (owned by major dailies in Scania, and I worked for them one summer on weekends, when I was less than half as old as now) deciding one of the papers, willing to pay the service and part owner (ok, part owner is where the analogy breaks down), no longer can use it, because the other major papers decide they dislike the political stance of that paper. Won't happen, the company no longer exists as such, but that could constitute breach of contract and hindrance to freedom of speech.

To an internet content provider, commercial or otherwise, FB functions among other things as a logistics company.

The company Tidningsbärarne may certainly decree "we don't do comics, they need the post office, otherwise our distributors have too much to carry some days", but it cannot stamp Arbetet as a comic, just because this daily extends the usual comic strips from one page to two pages. If they did and tried to ban Arbetet from distribution on that ground, one might suspect that Sydsvenskan, Svenska Dagbladet, Skånska Dagbladet had decided what amounted to a hindrance on freedom of speech because Arbetet was too unions' friendly. As said, since the company no longer exists, it won't happen.

You see what the difference is between banning a person from a close knit circle of friends and actually deplatforming someone from where he had freedom of speech and with it outreach to an audience. The latter reminds of banning free speech. As for alleged ground "some people don't want to listen" all social media I use have a "block" function : anyone who does not want to listen to Farrakhan can block him. Now, one may of course also state FB has liability for giving Farrakhan a platform for speech which might be illegal.

If Farrakhan tried to sue FB, and FB replied "we don't want to be crushed in court like Alex Jones" (at least Mark Shea considers Alex Jones was so, and FB is likely to agree with the sentiment, I don't know which affair it is about), the court could of course rule, FB was in fact protecting the legal version of free speech against someone committing illegal acts of utterance. In France that would be likelier for Farrakhan than in US.

The point is, such a ban on FB - especially if followed up by other social media bans - would be in fact a ban on a certain type of speech, and in cases not Louis Farrakhan on Jews in French justice (perhaps not even in that case) this ban could be seen as banning speech on non-legal grounds.

There may come a day when banned speech comes back as a not bannable government, and there may be a day when abortion personnel are getting handcuffed and pushed around by police officers.

Meanwhile, Pinterest has not acted as a club showing someone the door, Pinterest has acted like someone concerned with public interest, and ... wait, did I make a pun revealing the etymology for their name? .... making allegations about the person showed the door. In fact allegations about criminal behaviour, and such allegations can be punished if untrue.

Also, it seems Pinterest used a porn block to implement the permanent ban.

This is insult, disinformation, and could make a China man using Pinterest believe Live Action refers to pornographic content. (Let's say he tries to link to them, then gets a no to publication, with motivation "porn blocklist" and he is overconfident in "artificial intelligence" and believes a super intelligent computer has detected Live Action deals in porn). This not being the case, I think Live Action could very well sue Pinterest.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Parmentier
Ember Wednesday of Pentecost
12.VI.2019

I think FB has a more clearly neutral profile than Mastershop Cakepiece. I think some fair judge based on that and on much larger consequences from a ban from FB or Pinterest could argue Pinterest was discriminating, Masterpiece Cakeshop was sticking to a set policy. Not baking a gender transition cake is same policy as not baking a gay wedding "wedding" cake. Not baking for someone who previously sued one in court is fairly common among bakers or barmen./HGL

Mark Shea on D-Day and Prayer

Here is his work:

One of the remarkable things about prayer
JUNE 6, 2019 BY MARK SHEA
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2019/06/one-of-the-remarkable-things-about-prayer.html*

We cannot, obviously, change known outcomes so that the dead are not killed or the wounded are unharmed. But we can still pray for those men, in that hour, that they receive the grace, help, courage, strength and every other divine gift they need.

We cannot change known outcomes.

We can co-determine outcomes we are not yet aware of, in so far as God takes the prayer into account.

And, this is also true for praying for those on the losing side, meaning Germans. I especially like those getting out of the way from Bayeux in time:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Qui fut Dom Gaston Aubourg - et qui sauva Bayeux?
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2012/10/qui-fut-dom-gaston-aubourg-et-qui-sauva.html

Mark Shea confusing two matters

• Whether Incarnation would have happened without any need for redeeming Adam's sin?
• Whether Redemption was a payment by Crucifixion precisely for Adam's sin and for ours?

To the first question, would God have been man, St Thomas says no and St Bonaventura yes to even if Adam had not sinned, St Bonaventura arguing, it would have happened anyway to ennoble the human race.

To the second question, check session 6 of Trent, as cited via Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Whence it came to pass, that the Heavenly Father, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort (2 Corinthians 1, 3), when that blessed fullness of the time was come (Galatians 4:4) sent unto men Jesus Christ, His own Son who had been, both before the Law and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised, that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law and that the Gentiles who followed not after justice might attain to justice and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God had proposed as a propitiator, through faith in His blood (Romans 3:25), for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world (I John ii, 2)."

Doctrine of the Atonement
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

Key word : propitiator.

propitiation (n.)

late 14c., from Late Latin propitiationem (nominative propitiatio) "an atonement," noun of action from past participle stem of Latin propitiare "appease, propitiate," from propitius "favorable, gracious, kind, well-disposed," from pro- "forward" (see pro-) + stem related to petere "to make for, go to; seek, strive after; ask for, beg, beseech, request" (from PIE root *pet- "to rush, to fly").

The sense in Latin is perhaps because the word originally was religious, literally "a falling or rushing toward," hence "eager," and, of the gods, "well-disposed." Earliest recorded form of the word in English is propitiatorium "the mercy seat, place of atonement" (c. 1200), translating Greek hilasterion.

So, when God is "propitius", He is eager to come to us. When Christ (the God-Man in human highest dignity of king, priest and prophet) is propitiator, He makes God so.

Here is a citation from Mc Cabe, via Mark Shea:

"So my thesis is that Jesus died of being human. His very humanity meant that he put up no barriers, no defences against those he loved who hated him. He refused to evade the consequences of being human in our inhuman world. So the cross shows up our world for what it really is, what we have made it. It is a world in which it is dangerous, even fatal, to be human; a world structured by violence and fear. The cross shows that whatever may be remedied by this or that political or economic change, there is a basic wrong, persistent through history and through all progress: the rejection of the love that casts out fear, the fear that without the backing of terror, at least in the last resort, human society and thus human life cannot exist. The cross, then, unmasks or reveals the sin of the world. (p. 97)"

Taking apart the false theory of penal substitutionary atonement
May 16, 2019 by Mark Shea
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2019/05/taking-apart-the-false-theory-of-penal-substitutionary-atonement.html

In this theory, God would be made propitius towards us in what exact sense?

Unmasking human evil to God is not needed since He is omniscient, and is also not exactly apt to propitiate Him. One could argue, seeing the Son helpless on the Cross propitiates Him towards every helpless victim of human evil.

But Adam was not a helpless victim of previously existing human evil, he was a consenting victim to his wife's disobedience, or covictim with her, and she was a consenting and not totally helpless victim of Satan's guile.

This other theory, not Mc Cabe's but my para-Cabe, would therefore leave him out of atonement, whereas tradition says Christ going down went to take both Adam and Eve by the hands and raise them from the misery into which they had gotten themselves, exclusion from Heaven, as extant even to just men up to Crucifixion (Henoch and Elijah were and perhaps still are not living in Heaven properly, but one of the heavens, well below the pearly gates in space), and therefore a correct understanding of atonement cannot stand on my para-Cabe, because it leaves out Adam from redemption.

Again, this view of redemption means the victims of human evil are redeemed and the perpetrators damned as if Christ had never died for them.

This is also false, since forgiveness is offered to horrible evil-doers. Killing God (insofar as it lay in their hands, that is not quite so) is a very horrible offense, and therefore Christ would not have died for those crucifying him. This para-Cabe therefore leaves out the then Jews and Romans (with those sympathising with their act?) and at least some dictators and murderers and rapists and some more from the offer of redemption. Ergo, this view is not possible either on this ground.

So, Christ cannot have unmasked human evil to God the Father Who already knew all about it, excluding this understanding of Mc Cabe, and He cannot have unmasked human helplessness before evils of others either, because as just said that would leave out from redemption those who did evil without being just victims. Also, God already knew about human helplessness and therefore did not need God-as-Man to "rub it in", excluding my own best try to make sense of it.

Other version of what Mc Cabe could have meant by "unmasking human evil" is unmasking human evil to us.

Yes, the Crucifixion really does that, it reveals our sins needed Christ to die on a Cross to fully pay for them. So, the Crucifixion is pædagogic in helping to convert us. However, we are not supposed to be "propitii" towards God, but to be God-fearing and God-loving from all our heart. Therefore this conversion of us is something other than the propitiation. It helps us profit from propitiation, but it is not propitiation.

So, while Crucifixion unmasks human evil to us, therefore converts us, this is one reason why God chose this mode of propitiation, but it is not what propitiation consists in.

So, Mc Cabe cannot as far as I see argue Crucifixion unmasks human evil to God, therefore propitiating Him, and certainly cannot say Crucifixion unmasking human evil to ourselves is what makes it propitiatory of God. Therefore, arguing with Mc Cabe Crucifixion unmasking human evil is why it is propitiatory is false. And arguing it is why Crucifixion was chosen (as mode of propitiation) is something other than arguing wherein Crucifixion is propitiatory.

In fact, the theory of Mc Cabe doesn't square with the definition by Council of Trent.

Now, the funny or sad thing, at least ironic thing, is, Mark Shea is elsewhere considering assent to Fr. Aidan Nichols OP as bowing to a magisterium alternative to Rome. One irony is, assent to Mc Cabe is bowing to a magisterium clearly alternative to and not assenting with Trent. One other is of course, Mc Cabe is not trying to explain Council of Trent was not magisterial, but Fr. Aidan Nichols is very much trying to explain that "Pope" Francis is not magisterial. Therefore, that assent to him is not to a "magisterium alternative to the Pope" but to magisterium of previous Popes condemning a non-Pope.

In fact, SSPX is arguing* that this open letter by Fr. Aidan Nichols is a "third step" from 1) a private letter just after Amoris Laetitia, 2) the Filial Correction. In other words, that the considering of "Pope Francis" as a heretic is a procedure analogous to the procedures when superiors, ultimately Popes, consider an inferior as a heretic. I'd argue it is not so. We cannot judge the Pope as Pope, but we can judge a non-Pope as heretic and therefore non-Pope. And that this recognition is only a canonic act if there is a real canonic POpe or at least Council doing such judging, in other cases, it is a so to speak pre-canonic prudential judgement. One from which it follows one does not regard him as Pope, asks if someone else is, and if not how the Church can have a Pope again. Which is what Pope Michael** did when still layman in 1990 or a few months before, when convoking the emergency conclave. Therefore I hold the procedure of Pope Michael is better than that of Fr. Aidan Nichols. However, the then layman David Bawden was of course aware that 1986 showed someone previous to "Pope Francis" and by many presumed to be Pope as heretic or apostate if knowing sufficient, or as schismatic if not. Visit to Synagogue and Assisi prayer meeting were huge no-nos. This Fr. Aidan Nichols is not dealing with.

And I wonder exactly how Mc Cabe's explanation would have motivated the steps by Wojtyla which by traditional Catholic theology were forbidden.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Audoux
St. Paschalis OFM***
17.V.2019

* FSSPX News / Fr : A propos d’une lettre ouverte aux évêques de l’Eglise catholique
https://fsspx.news/fr/propos-lettre-ouverte-aux-eveques-de-eglise-catholique-47843

** Having own dubia about canonicity and Catholicity of his pastoral theology, but that is another matter. Here are the offending words on his media, not sure of his words or those of Fr. Francis Dominic, who was Baptist before conversion and ordination:

How old do I have to be before I am out from under authority?

We never outgrow the need to be under authority, and, in fact, we are commanded to be under authority at all times. Ye young men, be subject to the ancients. And do you all insinuate [to gently introduce] humility one to another, for God resisteth the proud, but to the humble he giveth grace.(I Peter 5:5)

Command to be subject to someone else in humility is not the same as command to be under someone else's authority!

*** Apud Villam Regalem, in Hispania, sancti Paschalis, ex Ordine Minorum, Confessoris, mirae innocentiae et poenitentiae viri; quem Leo Papa Decimus tertius caelestem eucharisticorum Coetuum et Societatum a sanctissima Eucharistia Patronum declaravit.

From Proto-History, Via "Myth" to Allegory

Genesis 3 is proto-history, it is not allegory. At least it is not an allegoric telling of the facts, however much it may be an allegory about future things. Eve's sin is told as Eve's sin, as it happened, not told as something else or in terms of another scenario.

Nathan's story of King David's adultery is precisely an allegory. It was an allegory about what happened then. Nathan told it as an allegory, because King David had a bias about the real life version of the story.

Mark Shea* misses this:

Both woman and man reject God in the mythic telling of the fall in Genesis 3. ‘Myth’ here does not mean ‘non-historical’. It means that a real event in human history—our species’ rejection of God—is told in non-newspaper language just as the story of David’s real sin with Bathsheba is told in Nathan’s story of the rich man who stole the poor man’s ewe lamb.

On top of this blindness, he has probably misunderstood the questioner.

The questioner considered someone as wrong for claiming neither Eve's disobedience nor Mary's obedience mattered very much.

While Mark Shea actually gives him the arguments he wanted, he misunderstands in a not very flattering way who it was who considered Eve's sin as of little importance.

In pondering Mary as the new Eve, it seemed like denying this claim (which several of my family members do as they have left the church) would somehow imply that it didn’t matter if Eve sinned.

He then proceeds to give anyway some of the arguments he could not answer, not meaning they are his arguments.

Blindness to the Bible and to how the Church Father's read it (Eve's Sin is a kind of negative allegory precisely for Mary's obedience, but Eve's sin is given in historic direct terms, not in allegoric disguise) engenders this blindness:

I’m not clear why seeing Mary as the new Eve, untying through her obedience the knot Eve tied in her disobedience, makes Eve’s sin not matter.

It is precisely the family members who left the Church and who deny the obedience of Mary matters who are also denying Eve's sin matters. Not the questioner.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris I
St. Zenon of Verona
12.IV.2019

Veronae passio sancti Zenonis Episcopi, qui inter persecutionis procellas eam Ecclesiam mira constantia gubernavit, et, Gallieni tempore, martyrio coronatus est.

A little PS : I forgot to mention that "myth" is the Greek word for story. And that the "myth" of Aischylos' Persai is history. The word as such seems so rich in meaning, but it is in fact an equivocation./HGL

* A reader has a question about Mary and Eve
APRIL 11, 2019 BY MARK SHEA | Catholic and Enjoying It
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2019/04/a-reader-has-a-question-about-mary-and-eve.html

It seems I was so tired I just cut and pasted but did not copy back two new line markers in the html this night, just above my signature.

It seems Mark Shea was so cowardly he effaced my comment, which was given with a link here, to this reply, since now there is only one comment and not by me, and it was not yet there when I was adding mine.

Being tired and messing up the html is a bit bad, but being cowardly is worse.

Rivalling Jimmy Akin, as Scholastic

When I say "rivalling", I am treating him as a man of goodwill. There is a word that says Noli aemulari in malignantibus somewhere in Psalm 36. Ergo, I am rivalling only a man of goodwill ... which Jimmy Akin is at least showing on this occasion by being a scholastic. I have not yet heard his audio, so I don't know he blows it. Here is first from Mark Shea's intro to Jimmy:

All of which is to say that Jimmy Akin stands in a deeply Catholic–and proudly nerdly–tradition of theological speculation as he ponder the wonderfully weird, but very interesting question of (among other things) teleportation and the Eucharist.

Jimmy Akin Stands in a Grand Tradition of Catholic Speculation
February 6, 2019 by Mark Shea
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2019/02/jimmy-akin-stands-in-a-grand-tradition-of-catholic-speculation.html

So do I. I also stand in it.

Now, there is a link to Akin's audio, here ...

Catholic Answers Live : Weird Questions
Jimmy Akin | February 02, 2019 - 12am
https://www.catholic.com/audio/cal/8914

... and I find on it not just the audio I cannot access right now, but also a list of questions:

• 01:36 - In the Swedish New Testament, we use Lukas for Luke, Matteus for Mathew, Markus for Mark and Johannes for John. What were the names in the original language?
• 08:40 - If teleportation is ever invented, would a teleported Eucharist still be the body of Christ?
• 14:20 - Is there a parallel universe?
• 21:40 - If we discovered extraterrestrial life, would we evangelize them or only teach the cardinal virtues?
• 29:02 - What is the Church’s stance on Ghosts, specters, and hauntings? Can a soul that’s departed this life stick around to “haunt” things or can these be interpreted as demons trying to “trick” us?
• 30:34 - How can we square scientific discoveries of early human life and the creation story?
• 35:00 - Will those who have died and been buried on Mars miss out on the final Resurrection?
• 44:25 - Can angels appear as dogs and cats?
• 45:51 - Are binaural and isochronic tones safe, from a Spiritual standpoint? Does the Church have anything to say on these?
• 48:15 - What may the existence of the Holy Grail mean for the faith?
• 50:42 - If Limbo does exist as the afterlife of unbaptized infants, are they aware of their status of being outside of heaven?
• 53:00 - Can you debunk the flat earth theory?

Here are my own answers, before hearing even a second of his audio:

• 01:36 - In the Swedish New Testament, we use Lukas for Luke, Matteus for Mathew, Markus for Mark and Johannes for John. What were the names in the original language?

Greek : Loukas, Matthaios, Markos, Ioannes.
Latin : Lucas, Matthaeus, Marcus, Iohannes

Now, English gets its names from older French pronunciations of them, and possibly Sweden might have had a similar system in which one Gospel was "Sankt Mats Evangelium" and another "Sankt Hans Evangelium". If this ever was so (probably not, but I'd need to check) this was ended because of how Reformation brought Renaissance Humanism to Sweden (the Petri brothers were disciples of Luther, who had at one time been disciple or admirer of Erasmus), and one of the perks or pains in the asses of Renaissance Humanism, depending on where you stand (I'm 50% / 50 %) is bringing back the old pronunciation and old spelling. Hence someone having either of the two or three John's of the new Testament would since then equally be called "Hans" or "Jan" or "Johan" or "Johannes" depending in style register parents were aiming for. A bit like a Russian might equally be known as Ivan (that form seems Ukrainean in origin) or as Ioan (the Church Slavonic form).

• 08:40 - If teleportation is ever invented, would a teleported Eucharist still be the body of Christ?

Probably it cannot ever be invented.

The answer would depend on how the probably impossible invention would be working in a way that is probably impossible for natural causes to achieve.

• 14:20 - Is there a parallel universe?

As far as we know, there is not.

However, God could have created one, or several, as easy as that. Narnia is not a fact, but it is not impossible for God. Parallel incarnation of the Son as Aslan probably is, since the incarnations would be valid in heaven, which according to the premiss is common to all parallel worlds, but that can be fixed by considering God the Son as Incarnate Man is in Narnia present under the accidents of a lion. However, that would need some speculations on what actually happened when in the book Aslan tickled Bree's ear and said "I am a true beast".

• 21:40 - If we discovered extraterrestrial life, would we evangelize them or only teach the cardinal virtues?

We won't.

If the universe is small, the stars are probably too small to have habitable planets around them. Even if it is not much larger than so far proven, travel would take too much time. I mean, the radius from Earth in the centre is at least one light day out, and in 40 years a fairly small probe as Voyager 1 has only come as far as 18 light hours out, about.

Other question, if we discovered hitherto undiscovered populations, and they seemed to be human rather than angelic or demonic, we should evangelise them if they did not already know the Gospel. And sorting out whether human, angelic or demonic would take some doing. Also, supposing a race of very longeval men had lived underground since a fourth son of Noah (the three sons are fathers of all populations above ground, so if a fourth son ever was born, either he has no descendants or his descendants live under ground, or they form no speparate population, unlike the ones descended from sons and grandsons of the three sons) and had what seemed like magic powers to us, they could do fairly roundabout manoeuvers to avoid us asking many questions or give them any tips.

Narnia is in this respect somewhat ... a mixed bag, theologically. On the one hand, men in Narnia are adamites, descended from Frank and Helen or from pirates in the south sea or other people in our world. On the other side, there are humanoids of whom it is implied they are not true men.

Giants, dwarfs, centaurs, fauns and marshwiggles are on the one hand bodies with rational souls, and therefore men, corresponding to "homo est animal rationale" and on the other hand created separately from Frank and Helen and therefore presumably not Adamites, therefore not partaking in Adam's fall and therefore not eligible to Christ's redemption. A bit like some view Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals as pre-Adamites. This is impossible.

• 29:02 - What is the Church’s stance on Ghosts, specters, and hauntings? Can a soul that’s departed this life stick around to “haunt” things or can these be interpreted as demons trying to “trick” us?

Both occur, but demonic frauds are more common. First, apparitions of saints from heaven do not count here, as they are visibly different from ghosts by being glorious.

Second, demonic frauds definitely abound (including some false apparitions, that is why it is important to see what the Church said about an apparition, like Shiluva and Lourdes are approved Marian ones and the time when St James personally walked back to the parish his statue had been stolen from is at least not disapproved).

Third, souls from Hell or Purgatory could be given permission to appear for two purposes, I'll give the best-knonw literary examples:

• Scrooge could really see the ghost of Marley warning him against joining him in Hell for sins of greed and incompassion (or any other mortal sins, but those were the besetting ones of Scrooge, except on Chesterton's analysis of the work - he had secretly been giving away Turkeys all his life);
• the Ghost of Canterville could really appear in order to ask intercessionary prayer to get him from Purgatory (however, the other parts of the story seem to colour, excuse the pun, this story with motives borrowed from Poltergeists who are usually demonic).

The more serious magisterial motive for accepting these two cases are St Gregory the Great saying so in Dialogues.

• 30:34 - How can we square scientific discoveries of early human life and the creation story?

No problem - once we see the limits of science.

Göbekli Tepe was built by men. One could imagine it built by giants and men only coming in as unlucky involuntary guest, we do know about human guests in Göbekli Tepe. Who did not enjoy the end of their stay, presumably. They are skulls with holes in them and cut off from their bodies, and the skulls were put on a rope, one above another.

Bottom layers of Göbekli Tepe are carbon dated to, I think, calibrated 9600 BC. Top layer is similarily dated to 8600 BC.

If we accept the dates, we are left with pre-Adamites, which is theologically impossible.

If we accept they were fallen men, descended from Adam, and Adam was really created 5199 or 5500 years (some would even try 4004 years) before Christ, then we must conclude something has been pushing the carbon dating to a mis-dating.

The very simple solution is, carbon 14 levels were rising, Göbekli Tepe is Babel, and so the carbon level at the start after the death of Noah in 2607 BC was such as to give an "instant age" of an extra 6993 years. And at the end, in the time when Peleg was born, as Julius Africanus specifically allows us to calculate 401 years after the Flood, 2556 BC, the carbon level had risen so as to give only an "instant age" of 6044 years. One could match the levels a bit more narrowly to each other, so as to make Babel last only 40 years, rather than 51, but I enjoy remaking calculations on this one and similar ones. This example would imply carbon level in 2607 was 42.916 percent of modern carbon 14 (percent modern Carbon, and abbreviated pmC, in French pCm since adjective is turned about), and in 2556 it has risen to 48.136 pmC. I use the carbon date calculator for this one, link below under the calculations.

Now, how much faster was carbon 14 being produced than now in this case?

2607 carbon level was 42.916 pmC. How much would be left of that 51 years later?

99.385 pmC is what a 51 year old organic object has these start out with 100 pmC. So, 99.385 % of 42.916 pmC = 42.6520666 pmC (the last three digits are appropriate for Nimrod's work ... giving calculation to make under link to the calculator).

How much new carbon is now formed in 51 years? Well, atmosphere unlike 51 year old dead organic objects has access to new carbon. And atmosphere now as then is 100 pmC.

100 pmC - 99.385 pmC = 0.6149999999999949 or 0.615 pmC.

If you add that, that is, if you suppose carbon 14 was forming at present speed back then, what do you get?

42.6520666 + 0.6149999999999949 = 43.2670665999999949 or 43.267 pmC. What do we want?

48.136 pmC. How much carbon 14 was in fact added?

48.136 pmC - 42.6520666 pmC = 5.483933400000005 or 5.4839334 or 5.484 pmC.

Now, how much faster was carbon 14 produced? Added carbon 14 = added pmC, so we compare theoretic and actual outcome:

5.483933400000005 / 0.6149999999999949 = 8.9169648780488625634

Carbon 14 was in Babel forming 8.917 times faster than now.

What do I suppose carbon level to have been back at the Flood, and why?

Neanderthals and Denisovans seem to be pre-Flood races, and they both seem to have died out in 40 000 BP. You may have heard of a survival to "ten thousand years later" in Gibraltar, but the Gibraltar cave has dates after 40 000 BP for Mousterian tools, not for carbon dated Neanderthal body parts. All the first 8 post-Flood people had been pre-Flood people and therefore some of them would have known Mousterian ware and how to use it, perhaps also how to produce it.

Let's remake the calculations for 2957 BC vs 38 000 BC (under the link to calculator). We'd need to have the carbon level for 35043 years to know the one for number of "instant years". 1.442 pmC.

Let's remake the calculation of buildup speed too. 1.442 pmC would in 350 years degrade to ... 1.442 pmC * 95.854 % (calculation under links), meaning 1.382 pmC. Meanwhile, normal speed of carbon 14 addition is now in 350 years ...

100 pmC - 95.854 pmC = 4.146 pmC.

And 1.382 pmC + 4.146 pmC = 5.528 pmC, but that is not what we find. For reasons stated we find 42.916 pmC.

42.916 pmC - 1.382 pmC = 41.534 pmC. That is how much carbon was produced net in 350 years.

41.534 pmC / 4.146 pmC = 10.01784852870236 ... let's say 10 times faster. This is compatible with levels of cosmic radiation being sustainable without gross damage to the body. Probably living at the equator back then was a bad idea. Probably living in caves was a good one. And probably this helped to shorten lifespans. AND ... yes, cosmic radiation is higher at times when it also gets colder, more probable (and a mechanism is proposed) cosmic radiation is affecting weather, and so, this also helped to produce the one single post-Flood glaciation.

Now, there are more methods of dating than just carbon 14, but this is the more reliable one. A potassium argon date probably says how cold the water was during the Flood, when lava cooled how much quicker than it would in air and affecting how much more argon was trapped. Note also, the peopling of Australia has as oldest organic and dated remains Mungo man, for whom carbon dates are post-Flood in this scheme.

2957 9600 2957 8600 0350 2607 0401 2556 2607 6993 2556 6044   Carbon 14 Dating Calculator https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html Scientific Calculator https://web2.0calc.com/ 99.385 * 42.916 / 100 = 42.6520666 1.442 * 95.854 / 100 = 1.38221468   38000 9600 -2957 2607 35043 6993

• 35:00 - Will those who have died and been buried on Mars miss out on the final Resurrection?

If that ever happens, as far as I know it hasn't, no, they will by angels be brought to the right spot.

• 44:25 - Can angels appear as dogs and cats?

Good angels usually would not take that appearance, though they could, but angels definitely can have some control over behaviour of cats and dogs, so guardian angels can use cats and dogs to save lives (just saw a great video about top tenz how cats saved lives, well, the guardian angels of the people concerned were not inactive and cats were not insensible or rebellious to them).

• 45:51 - Are binaural and isochronic tones safe, from a Spiritual standpoint? Does the Church have anything to say on these?

I would consider it depends partly on how deep you go, but even more what the "message" is. In case there are verbal messages in a meditation for inducing a trance, obviously one should check there are no suggestions contrary to the faith in it, nothing about "out of body experiences" or "astral journeys", nothing about previous lives, nothing about Hindoo gods.

But as binaural and isochronic tones, that would normally be non-verbal, and that would more depend on what it does to you.

• 48:15 - What may the existence of the Holy Grail mean for the faith?

That all relics are not accounted for by the Church. There was a time before St Helen discovered the Holy Cross when True Cross was not found and even Holy Grave was covered by a Venus temple.

• 50:42 - If Limbo does exist as the afterlife of unbaptized infants, are they aware of their status of being outside of heaven?

Yes, and that would be their one sorrow, with no physical suffering to worsen it, and with the consolation they can thank God for physical comforts and therefore have a natural and non-saving love of God.

• 53:00 - Can you debunk the flat earth theory?

Bible says FOUR corners, and if we project continents from a globe we do get four corners of land. With the projection presupposing North Pole as centre of a disc and South Rim as circumference of it, you get either three corners or have to let Australia count for two corners. Not very impressive match to the Biblical verses. Especially the one where "four points of the compass" is NOT an acceptable interpretation.

After these things, I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that they should not blow upon the earth, nor upon the sea, nor on any tree. (Apocalypse 7:1)

As to observations, I think flight times over large stretches of the globe as well as how the heavens look from Southern hemisphere are, with Magellan's and Elcano's journey, a fairly final scientific proof.

Thus I have answered, tu autem Dne msre nob9!

Mark Shea Thinks Pro-Deathers Should be Individually Converted, Not Politically Forced to Not Murder?

I put a question mark here, because I may have missed a nuance, but to me this looks so.

People on the left very often come from backgrounds that have never taught them the unborn are to be treated with respect. Are you offended when a Hindu does not worship Christ? Then why are you offended when somebody who does not believe the unborn to be as important as the born acts on their principles? Should their minds be changed? Sure.

This may be a fine reasoning to the effect that someone on the left who doesn't oppose abortion may not be guilty before God for this fact. It is less of an argument for having people on the left actually run the country.

Unless you presuppose that what matters most in rulers is not what they do as rulers, but whether they are in grace or in mortal sin. However, that position is Lollard, Waldensian, not Catholic.

Politics is not about deciding who is in grace or in mortal sin, but what policemen and other people with immediate or mediated power should be enforcing.

I previously read Mark Shea writing that there is nothing ominous in George Soros supporting abortion, since Jews don't believe abortion is wrong. In politics, this is from the Catholic point of view an argument for blocking Jews from doing politics other than among themselves. Mark Shea may consider that position "Christianist", but if we reflect on what the word "nation" means in the context of "all nations", Matthew 28:19, it would involve the political rulers.

How do you expect that to happen when it is obvious that even most of those who claim to care about the unborn do nothing of the kind when the unborn are inconvenient to their real aims of money, power and racist oppression of the weak?

That is why I oppose the slogan "adoption, the responsible option" and want a society where young girls are better empowered to be effectively mothers even at 14 and at 13. One in which having "your education" already done at least secondary, perhaps even college education, is a must for a man to have a job and family, and one in which marriage at a girls age under 18 (in some of the better states 16) a very cumbrous affair, is one in which the opposite is the case, girls are worse off at being mothers than before.

Now, this being so, I will let my readers read the citations in context, here is the link to Mark Shea's post:

A reader asks why I’m so much harder on “pro-life” Christians
January 31, 2019 by Mark Shea
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2019/01/a-reader-asks-why-im-so-much-harder-on-pro-life-christians.html

One more, even as to assessment of the person not raised to being pro-life. Compared to a Hindu not worshipping Christ.

As Catholics, we believe there is a natural law, one which binds because it is naturally accessible to all. It may be stifled on an issue because of bad education, and it may also not be stifled on that issue until the person stifles it himself or herself to fit on with those having provided that bad education. No man can be absolutely presumed to be excused from believing an issue of the natural law just because he wasn't raised to do so. That would be to say "natural law is only accessible to men as cultural law, by tradition", and before one had a "Traditionalist" dissent from Vatican II, this is the position that was labelled and condemned under the name "traditionalism". Not sure which Popes so condemned it, or if it was Holy Office, but some did.

Also, explaining why Christ is God naturally takes time to tell a story. Explaining why abortion is murder does not take that amount of time.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Ignatius of Antioch
1.II.2019

Wonder if Mark Shea Already Notified His Blogsphere on This?

Yes Magazine : For Women, by Women: A Sisterhood of Carpenters Builds Tiny Houses for the Homeless
Lornet Turnbull posted Aug 17, 2018
https://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/for-women-by-women-a-sisterhood-of-carpenters-builds-tiny-houses-for-the-homeless-20180817

Seattle is kind of Mark Shea's backyard, so ...

On the Date of Christmas

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Soon Christmas · New blog on the kid : On the Date of Christmas · Φιλολoγικά / Philologica : Second week of Tishri + 15 Month = Christmas · Does it Make Sense for Christ to Have been Born at Chanukka time?

Mark Shea has one of his more valuable things to say:

Since it’s that time of year again…
December 20, 2018 by Mark Shea
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2018/12/since-its-that-time-of-year-again.html

And so has Dwight Longenecker:

Yes, Jesus Really Existed and He Was Born on December 25
December 20, 2018 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2018/12/yes-jesus-really-existed-and-he-was-born-on-december-25.html

And Some More Reading - Where I Comment on Ryan, Rand and Shea

Introductory quote:

Obligatory quote from John Rogers: "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

I somehow don't think I am socially crippled. You see, I read the one that involves orcs.

However, I am being socially speaking crippled by both Randians and anti-Randians.

Why am I saying this? Well, it came up in the comment section of a post by Mark Shea, it was posted as a comment by one Illithid ... under this post:

The whole Western Tradition…. October 23, 2018 by Mark Shea http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2018/10/the-whole-western-tradition.html

It involves a comic where Ayn Rand is painted in a somewhat monstruous manner. It also involves a comment on Paul Ryan, but first I'm letting wiki sort out what his real position on Rand is:

At a 2005 Washington, D.C. gathering celebrating the 100th anniversary of Ayn Rand's birth,[192][193] Ryan has credited Rand with having inspired him to get involved in public service.[172] In a speech that same year at the Atlas Society, he said he grew up reading Rand, and that her books taught him about his value system and beliefs.[194][195] Ryan required staffers and interns in his congressional office to read Rand[195] and gave copies of her novel Atlas Shrugged as gifts to his staff for Christmas.[196][197] In his Atlas Society speech, he also described Social Security as a "socialist-based system".[198]

In 2009, Ryan said, "What's unique about what's happening today in government, in the world, in America, is that it's as if we're living in an Ayn Rand novel right now. I think Ayn Rand did the best job of anybody to build a moral case of capitalism, and that morality of capitalism is under assault."[196]

In April 2012, after receiving criticism from Georgetown University faculty members on his budget plan, Ryan rejected Rand's philosophy as atheistic, saying it "reduces human interactions down to mere contracts".[199] He also called the reports of his adherence to Rand's views an "urban legend" and stated that he was deeply influenced by his Roman Catholic faith and by Thomas Aquinas.[200]

So, as a Catholic, he does NOT endorse all Randian views (I suppose he endorses some, like 2+2=4, or, somewhat more controversially, architects should not be required to build to a style determined by bureaucracy), but even so Randian reading made him see how values are important for life and politics.

I don't see any contradiction. A Voyage to Arcturus (which I tried in vain to read, having a taste for CSL doesn't mean sharing all of his tastes), taught CSL how sci-fi (and by extension fantasy, but his first reading of it is closer to Perelandra than to Narnia) can be a vehicle of philosophy. This does not mean CSL shares the philosophy of whoever wrote Voyage of Arcturus.*

So, Paul Ryan was taught the importance of value (for life and politics) by reading Rand, this does not mean he shares all the values of Rand.

Now, what did Mark Shea say about Paul Ryan?

It took the genius of the Freak Show Right and and its Court Prophet Christianist predators like Paul Ryan to elevate this wretched enemy of God and her philosophy of Selfishness to a virtue ... [follow first a comic strip about Rand, then a video with a clip of Ryan] ... That this 4th rate writer and 10th rate philosopher and enemy of God is now the leading intellectual light of Cult 45 is but another proof that Christianism is a diabolical cult of a dimestore antichrist. Those who espouse this evil must repent. [follows Galatians 1:8-9]

Did anything Paul Ryan said in that clip agree with the monstrosity of Rand in the comic?

Paul Ryan on Ayn Rand
gallicho1 | 26.IV.2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmW19uoyuO8

As far as I can see, Ryan was saying no to Obama-care.

Does this need the philosophic support of Rand? No. Did Ryan invoke Rand in general terms? Yes. Did Ryan invoke this particular tenet of Rand's as shown in the comic strip? No.

He did say sth about collectivism. Specifically, if you look at The Fountainhead (by Rand), it seems to be as much of an Anti-Communist manifesto as 1984.

The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Russian-American author Ayn Rand, her first major literary success. The novel's protagonist, Howard Roark, is an individualistic young architect who designs modernist buildings and refuses to compromise with an architectural establishment unwilling to accept innovation. Roark embodies what Rand believed to be the ideal man, and his struggle reflects Rand's belief that individualism is superior to collectivism.

Roark is opposed by what he calls "second-handers", who value conformity over independence and integrity. These include Roark's former classmate, Peter Keating, who succeeds by following popular styles, but turns to Roark for help with design problems. Ellsworth Toohey, a socialist architecture critic who uses his influence to promote his political and social agenda, tries to destroy Roark's career. Tabloid newspaper publisher Gail Wynand seeks to shape popular opinion; he befriends Roark, then betrays him when public opinion turns in a direction he cannot control.

So, the comment arguably is not about not feeding hungry, it is more about not making hungry and non-hungry alike depend on bureacracy. Which is sth different.

I think Chesterton, C. S. Lewis and Tolkien, and even an agnostic like Lloyd Alexander are far better to teach values than Ayn Rand - but then they are so than George Orwell too. And yet, sometimes Catholics will cite Orwell.

Now, there is a thing which does not get attention from whoever wrote this strip, and which was and shouldn't have been overlooked by Mark Shea when publishing or quoting it (I don't care whether he overlooked someone else's copyright or not, if so, he arguably did so with reasonably presumed consent, or quoting one page can be seen as fair use - and if I'd like attribution, it is possible Mark Shea did withhold it by the modesty of a modest Christian sub-creator). It is the question "how should the poor be fed"?

In that comic, someone was giving that poor man bread. On Randian terms, as far as I can see, that is their concern if it makes them happier. It is very possible there are élites who pique themselves on being Randian, and who would act like that, but it is also very possible Rand is not quite part of them.**

Now, the analysis I like about social things is the famous Hudge and Gudge passage in Chesterton. If the man was crippled, perhaps he can't have three acres and a cow, and perhaps his employer (as per Pope Pius XI) has a duty to provide for the rest of his life to a man who was crippled in his or its*** service.

Perhaps contracts where employers of many who normally can afford a few cripples on a non-active quasi payroll too are not obliged to provide for someone crippled in their service are contracts that the state should forbid. But in 2012, the question was more about Obama-care. And arguably, it is totally beside the point about bread, if you want to attack a Randian or wannabe Randian on that account, take the town where panhandling is forbidden (if any). It is however about the freedom to choose your doctor or whether to go to the doctor and doctors' freedoms to provide in different ways - or not in certain ways. You see, there are apothecaries who are forced to sell condoms, bc the pharmacy is regulated and condoms are one service regulated for in France. There are doctors in Sarthe who are under attack for stopping abortions in a hospital by invoking the conscience clause - which still exists in France - and the Obama devotees are now attacking the conscience clause. I recall from 2012 or some of the following years an affair called Hobby Lobby. Were the employers in that case Randians for not providing a "health service" going against their conscience?

Was Ryan a satanic Randian for - presumably - standing with Hobby Lobby? I think Ryan was being maligned by yesterday's post by Mark Shea.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Torcy
St. Raphael, Archangel
24.X.2018

PS - Here comes a little PS, as very often in Tolkien and at least in this one of his fans. It is possible some of the organised readers of my blogs are in fact - I will not say "Randians" since I don't know enough of her to actually tell if their attitude to me is Randian, but élite Randian wannabes. It is possible, as they see I am homeless, that they are looking at whether I write or not. And at each blog to see how much. Some Russians were for instance probably looking 1965 times in one week on five particular posts where I don't write very much, one being my backup guestbook after the guestbook was taken offline, four others being links to blogs in countries where I have readers. Meanwhile the same Russians (it is not the first time Russian readership on this blog coincides nearly perfectly with reading of the five posts) are also neglecting so many other posts on this blog:

2018 (237) 0230 07
2017 (313) 0540 10
2016 (383) 0920 13
2015 (336) 1250 19
2014 (258) 1500 27
2013 (028) 1520+35=1555

Makes 1555 posts. Some similar to the four ones of "blogs in countries where I have readers" in containing more links than text and most not similar to them. It is possible these Randians then argue "look, he's taking credit for the work of ..." Martinand Sculpteur, Collaborative Learning, Tania’s Collections - no, but I do take some credit for checking them out so my blog readers can have more blogs than mine to read. Or they may think "this is the stuff he want's to make a book of?" - no, while I offer up all my posts (usually on conditions of voluntary royalties, sometimes perfect gratuity, sometimes checking with those who were also involved in the work) to any paper editor who likes, I don't pretend each post is equally printable as book content. A post like Des petites choses comme ça is meant like a cry-out to benevolent online readers about my situation. They do not constitute the majority of posts even on this blog, let alone all the other ones. They constitute a clear minority. Sure, if ever you need to write a book about my situation, they can serve as material ... but anyway, there are also Randians on other blogs (let's give Ayn the benefit of the doubt and hope that attitude makes them fake Randians - I will, I have not read her) who will look after what the latest post on that blog is. I am keeping up several blogs in parallel, partly bc my interests and languages are diverse, partly bc this allows an important post to stay last on its blog while I write on other ones. If you really want to know how much I write on a daily basis, look at the widgets of Latest on Antimodernism. Anyway, while it may strike them as insufficiently Randian on my part (I don't pretend to be a Randian in the first place, just bc I dislike public compulsory schools, anymore than I am a Muslim just bc I hate condoms), to write even a little once in a while and hope someone publishes despite my lack of work ethics, this taking account of those who looked on some blog where last post is from 2011 and concluding I haven't written much since, it is also not a very Randian pov to actively make a bureaucracy to stop my blogs from being read by more normal readers. They are as inconsistent with her often stated philosophy as her persona in the strip was when stealing bread she hadn't earned or bought from the person who hadn't earned it, just to make a point./HGL

* Olaf Stapledon? ** It is also possible they owe more to Shaw and Wells than to Rand. *** A collective employer could perhaps be considered an "it", right?

On Apologetics

The following can be considered a trialogue. If you think "dialogue" means "duologue", which according to most it does not.

Otherwise, this is simply a dialogue. Which I imposed on a work where Mark P Shea first cites Rober Barron, and then adds his own comments.

I answered Robert Barron's cited comments in extenso, and also a few ones by Mark P Shea. Here is his blog post:

Bp. Robert Barron, as usual, makes a lot of sense to me
October 11, 2018 by Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2018/10/bp-robert-barron-as-usual-makes-a-lot-of-sense-to-me.html

Here are the three persons' comments, marked with each "speaker"/"writer" above his text:

Barron

What would a new apologetics look like? First, it would arise from the questions that young people spontaneously ask. It would not be imposed from above but would rather emerge organically from below, a response to the yearning of the mind and the heart. Here it would take a cue from the method of St. Thomas Aquinas. The austere texts of the great theological master in point of fact emerged from the lively give-and-take of the quaestiones disputatae that stood at the heart of the educational process in the medieval university. Thomas was deeply interested in what young people were really asking. So should we.

My comment

I agree. That's what I am doing. You have heard I was in a Goth forum, or actually two? I'm back on the latter (nearly), but its hardly active now. It was when I was thrown out for being too Christian.

Guess whose questions and objections I was meeting?

Barron

Secondly, a new apologetics should look deep and long into the question of the relationship between religion and science. For many people today, scientific and rational are simply equivalent or co-extensive terms. And therefore, since religion is obviously not science, it must be irrational. Without for a moment denigrating the sciences, we have to show that there are non-scientific and yet eminently rational paths that conduce toward knowledge of the real. Literature, drama, philosophy, the fine arts—all close cousins of religion—not only entertain and delight; they also bear truths that are unavailable in any other way. A renewed apologetics ought to cultivate these approaches.

My comment

I agree on the looking long and deep.

I most emphatically disagree on "without for a moment denigrating the sciences."

Some sciences are by now pseudo-sciences and this needs to be said.

That literature and fine arts can propose truth, I would say this is in a rhetoric way - rephrasing in more personal detail or whatever is that changes, what religion or philosophy can state in general terms.

Philosophy should not be separated from science, or from criticism of sciences.

To St Thomas Aquinas, metaphysics and physics were no more separate than say, physics of air currents and air pressure, aerodynamics, flight mechanics.

Barron

Thirdly, our apologetics and catechesis should walk the via pulchritudinis, as Pope Francis characterized it in Evangelii Gaudium. Especially in our postmodern cultural context, commencing with the true and the good—what to believe and how to behave—is often counter-indicated, since the ideology of self-invention is so firmly established. However, the third transcendental, the beautiful, often proves a more winsome, less threatening, path. And part of the genius of Catholicism is that we have so consistently embraced the beautiful—in song, poetry, architecture, painting, sculpture, and liturgy. All of this provides a powerful matrix for evangelization. And as Hans Urs von Balthasar argued, the most compelling beauty of all is that of the saints. I have found a good deal of evangelical traction in presenting the lives of these great friends of God, somewhat in the manner of a baseball coach who draws young adepts into the game by showing them the play of some of its greatest practitioners.

My comment

I have not read Evangelii Gaudium, and since I don't consider Bergoglio to be Pope, I don't know I would intend to.

Self invention does not block searching the true and the good, that much I know from my Goth forums fairly extended period. And when on a Goth forum, the good and the true will definitely be brought up by the enemies of faith, so, we just have to answer.

Those who have it, and also those who have bits and parts of it.

Barron

When Jesus explained himself to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, their hearts began to burn within them. The Church must walk with young people, listen to them with attention and love, and then be ready intelligently to give a reason for the hope that is within us. This, I trust, will set the hearts of the young on fire.

My comment

An Apologist is not Jesus.

A lay apologist is also not Jesus, and not even a consecrated icon of Him.

This puts some dampers on my or any other apologists' capacity to make hearts burn.

Nevertheless, Chesterton occasionally does so - simply when pleading we are all Roman relics. We are heirs of the Roman Empire discarding idols and discovering Christ.

And also when speaking of Jesus.

However, I guess, He was working through him, and that without him using too much technique on the question of making hearts burn.

In other words, we should not necessarily make this effect an ambition of ours, we should receive it as an occasional reward (and sometimes unknown to us).

Mark P. Shea

Most the apologetics community in the US is now consumed with the right wing culture war against Francis and with making excuses for supporting our grifting Sex Predator in Chief.

My comment

While I am against Bergoglio, I was not a quick hanger on to this culture war.

While I am less against Trump than against Obama, I am not over enthusiastic.

As to whether he is spreading a culture of sex predating, I leave that to you. Let's hope not, from across the Atlantic.

Mark P. Shea

Discussions of beauty mostly devolve into bitching about liturgy wars.

My comment

Where Novus Ordo is rejected as simply un-Catholic, there is no liturgy war about it.

Those who are attached for only personal or aesthetic reasons to Antiquior Usus as some would call it (I refuse to call it Extraordinary Form, which it is only among those accepting Novus Ordo as OF) are sometimes under attack and need a defense.

While aesthetics are not irrelevant, this line of defense can become petty, like in "oh, I think Kumbaya so cringeworthy".

I don't think Kum ba ya, which is Gullah pronunciation of Come by here, which is Gullah phraseology for Come, is something disrespectful to say to Christ. If Catholics hadn't already a liturgy, and I were given the task of making one, which is impensable, or no, not impensable, since i am "pensing" it, but impossible, I might include Kumbaya. But the Catholic Church has already a liturgy.

This is an argument against other things too, like the new offertory. And here I think it less disrespectful to personal preferences and more to the point to say, I have theological objections to it.

One can quibble about whether "work of human hands" is treated as a raw material beside the natural resource, rather than an actor under God's action, but more grating, "fruits of the earth" recall the sacrifice of Cain, right?

Problematic, because if he lived before Göbekli Tepe, he had no cultivated wheat, but some other plant. His material would not have been possible as a valid matter for the sacrament. Also, simply by association, since in fact his sacrifice was rejected. Also, very Anti-Apologetic, since Protestants (who are among the unbelievers or wrongbelievers we need to be Apologetic to) will represent Cain's rejected sacrifice as proto-type of Papist Holy Mass.

Mark P Shea

[citing fictitious or not so fictitious example of uncharitable:]

"... You’re post-abortive? You know, I think women who have abortions deserve the death penalty."

My comment

While a woman in her carreer who is married (validly or not) and has children and aborts while not wanting another one, arguably could deserve death penalty, I think some women who aborted (girls no more, since pregnancy naturally = no more maidenhood) if they are like 13 or 15 have extenuating circumstances, like pressure from parents (including in some cases from mothers who aborted).

That said, other sets of legal penalties are possible. And, sorry, if the post-abortive woman actually asks, I will of course say what she wants to know, but I would not be the one to bring it up to a depressed person.

Mark P. Shea

That is the ambient noise of the subculture that regards itself as the Defenders of the Faith.

My comment

I have been blocked from commenting under Shea's posts and from getting answers when mailing him as far back as in 2014.

In other words, while I have shared parts of my apologetics with him, I have not heard from him that he actually read it.

Update:



Yes, Mark Shea has banned me, like the Goth forums banned me.

Citing Mark Shea on the Prejudice of Certain People he Considers as Racist

New blog on the kid : Citing Mark Shea on the Prejudice of Certain People he Considers as Racist · HGL's F.B. writings : Mark Shea : For Kaepernick AND For Tebow

Attentive readers of the blog may know, I often read Mark Shea. So I did today.

When white people* do well in this country, it’s because of their hard work and pluck. When the black president reminded them that the infrastructure of this country was not their doing, but was the fruit of immense state efforts to, for instance, create the colossal interstate system under Eisenhower or electrical grid under Roosevelt, he famously told them “you didn’t build that”. The ginned up Right Wing Lie Machine outrage over that supposed insult to hard-working white individuals resounded for weeks. How dare the black guy suggest we owe a thing to our country? We hard-working independent white people did it all with no help from anybody.

And when those white people march under the banners of the two regimes–Confederate and Nazi–who spilled more American blood on the Stars and Stripes than any other, our Traitor -in-Chief calls the marchers “very fine people” and pretends he gives a crap about the American flag while he calls the black protester Kaepernick a son of a bitch.

But when black people do well in this country, they are instructed to be “grateful”. They are where they are because we white people allowed them to get there and they would be nothing without our generous patronage and support. They didn’t build that. We did. And we might just take it away if they get too uppity.

Don’t ever forget that double standard. It’s one of the reasons people like Kaepernick kneel.

Indeed, there is a double standard about gratitude here.

One could of course say that the people Mark Shea refers to as Christianist have one standard - and one prejudice.

That prejudice being : white men contribute as tax payers, black men live off the dole, live off the tax payers.

And, sure, that prejudice forgets highways and policemen, army and judges are as much paid for by taxes as the doles of poor people.

It also involves some kind of "statistical likelihood" prejudice. Now, black people are perhaps statistically likelier to live off the dole and white people less likely, in US. But there are many blacks who do not live off the dole, and there are many whites who do.

So, a black man who doesn't needs to be solidaric with the black men who do, a white man who doesn't needs no such solidarity to white men who do?

Obviously false.

This kind of double standards I have once referred to as "bourgeois prejudice" to one Anthony Zarrella (I hope I got his last name right this time : memory technics, his family being Italian, and Italian language is generous in double consonants) and I got lectured on bourgeois not being more erroneous in erroneous prejudices than proletarians and no less right in right prejudices.

That was not the point. Erroneous prejudice is, first of all, diverse among diverse groups, and this one is of the type you can label bourgeois (except the bourgeoisie tends to be anti-racist, so uses it on other divisians than racial ones), and on that occasion I was simply saying what type of erroneous prejudice I was momentarily annoyed at.

Also, such bourgeois prejudice is far from absent from the proletariate - and is part of what fuels more "proletarian" prejudice. I spoke to a man who had a prejudice about "kissing cousins" erroneously thinking genetic conditions leading to lower intelligence are more a genes mutation problem (where you need same gene from two parents) than a karyogrammatic one. He put this into a Proletarian rant about monarchy being kissing cousins (somewhat true in Victorian times) and this having led to fall of monarchy in France (when there were under pre-Revolutionary Europe so many principalities and high noble fiefs that kissing cousins was mostly not a thing).

I saw Mark Shea lable the post "racism is a sin" ... I am not sure that is adequate. Chesterton once said "capitalism is a sin, socialism is a heresy" - and I think he would have labelled racialism as a heresy, not just a sin.

There may be on some non-Christian blacks a curse of Ham - since a prayer of the Church asks God to lift that curse from their hearts. Meaning, it is not a genetic curse, it is a moral one, which definitely can be lifted by Grace.

And it is not the same thing as living off the dole, anyway.

Some of my readers might know I like Mussolini, but some of the more attentive ones may also know I like him better for 1935 (when he told Chesterton he despised racialism) and for 1936 (when he helped Schuschnigg against Hitler) than for 1938 (true, he was helping Franco, BUT he was also giving Hitler free space to gobble Austria - and sign ...), Carta della Razza.

Some of my readers may also know, I am concerned about "le grand remplacement" - fewer babies from our own countries and more immigrants to replace them - but some of the more attentive ones may also know, I have not argued being mean or stupid to the immigrants already here is a solution. I have argued making more babies is a solution. And with or withut immigrants, a necessary one, you know old age pensions don't get automatic value (despite some Proletarian prejudice) just by being paid in advance when the pensioners were still working and laying aside. Real value has to be produced for real value to be consumed. An old man may occasionally drink a Burgundy from when he was working, but he is not likely to eat crackers from when he was working.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Torcy
Nativity of the Blessed Virgin
8.IX.2018

* Citing : On the Dumb Nike Flap
September 6, 2018 by Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2018/09/on-the-dumb-nike-flap.html