dimanche 24 mai 2015

A Video with Walter Hooper and One or Two Differences with him


Usually comments under a video are first done under the video in comboxes and then put on assorted retorts blog or its French sister blog répliques assorties. Now, this time comboxes were closed. I posted first link to video to my FB wall, not thinking I would comment, it was all so good or at least innocent as far as it went : then about ten minutes before the end, Walter Hooper started saying things that made me stop. So I posted these under the link on the FB wall. Which means it technically comes under this blog.

Which fits, because I mentioned Walter Hooper earlier here.

Walter Hooper: A Disciple of C. S. Lewis Who Became Catholic - The Journey Home (7-21-2003)
EWTN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEX9Smwqg2Q


46:29 Walter Hooper misquoted CSL and Declaration of Independence.

Decl. didn't state and CSL didn't quote it as "right to happiness by any lawful means" BUT as "[right to] pursue happiness by any lawful means".

The distinction is important. We all pursue happiness, we do not all get it.

We "have a right" to buy a journey to a tourist resort, we do not have a right to rule over it so as to eliminate anything in it which might make us unhappy. We have (more or less, cfr. St Francis of Sales on this one) a right to play poker about 1 pound sterling bets, but we do not each have the right to be the one who wins the 5 pound sterling around the table. We have a right to wax our moustaches, but not a right to be found handsome by the lady we prefer because of our moustaches. They have a right to shave their legs (perhaps, and moreover "don't need it if they are blondes", some non-blondes asked me what I shaved my legs with and then understood my body hair doesn't show because I am blonde), but they do not have a right to be found handsome by whatever man they prefer because they shaved their legs.

We have a right to buy and sell, but not an automatic right to be the seller sufficiently favoured by buyers to live without economic worries.

In other words, we have a right to hope for good luck, but we are not cheated if we don't get it.

However, I would add, some seem at times to have arranged so someone doesn't get the luck which is coming his way, that is called envy. And sometimes it uses illicit means and makes a life unnecessarily full of miseries.

Testing someone about his willingness to abide by this principle is beyond a certain point not a lawful means or way of caring for his happiness and certainly the gloating over people one "educates" or "larns" is not a lawful means for one's own happiness. Indeed, in The Four Loves, CSL describes men in authority whose affection for men under their authority or previously so becomes a tyrannical exaction of them admitting such authority, sometimes even when it is no longer there.

47:10 "The homosexual wants to marry another homosexual"

Well, take a gay couple and a lesbian couple, ideally living in two different places, let them do a partner switch, one man from the gay couple moving to where the lesbian couple lives, one woman from the lesbian couple moving to where the gay couple lives. That could be arranged.

Of course, when a homosexual does make a real marriage, it doesn't always happen that the other person in it is also homosexual. The wife of Josh Weed is or was somwhat of a tomboy but as far as I know she was never lesbian.

As I am from Sweden, there is a gay couple and a lesbian couple over there, both claiming to be Christians, and both VERY much in the media. I had to deal with this problem of moral theology before leaving. It was omnipresent. Even if you are not in Swedish Church, if you live on the territory, they send you their material for free, and in one issue the son of the better known gay with one of the lesbians was featured.

47:30 a bit before "you are broken and you need healing"?

WELLLL ... that is my issue with Vatican-II-ism on this level.

They are sinners and need conversion. No one should tell them they are "mentally ill" and need therapy.

If they are in any way willing to abide by the commandments, whether by letting a marital choice override their inclination and its consequences or whether by letting perfect chastity or an attempt to do it so, that should be enough for a curate to accept they are sane.

53:31 "Mother Teresa"?

It seems she recommended NFP to the poor in Calcutta.

I would not canonise her if I were Pope, and for whoever did pretend to do so, I would not think he is or was Pope.

Pope Michael has not canonised her. Papal Claimant Alexander IX has retroactively excommunicated her. Probably also for not being a Christian missionary, for n ot trying to convert from Hinduism or Islam. He's a Feeneyite and canonised (or succeeds one who canonised) or (in either case) pretended to canonise Fr Leonard Feeney.

I am not totally agreeing with Alexander IX, she may not be in Hell at all, but she was weak and - not canonisable, I would say.

mercredi 13 mai 2015

For the Rape Victim in Paraguay

RD
In this case, what should a catholic do?

NBC News : Paraguay Rape Victim, 10, Denied Abortion; UN Raps Government
First published May 12th 2015, 11:59 am
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/paraguay-rape-victim-10-denied-abortion-un-raps-government-n357506


BM
Pray

BG
I would ensure the VICTIM, which is the child, has FULL protection from further RAPES by abortionists-- as well as accorded access to care for her and her child-- a legislature fund, and that this monster takes no further part in society, the girls life or the baby. The UN might tell us that the 10 year old child would be better served by ABORTIONISTS and will bully Paraguay by denying the poor their ROTTEN cargoes of food for the poor- BEWARE the tyrany of the western media- corporate- gates triad-- very dangerous

CMacL
Hang the rapist.

JC
Pray the child isn't the one punished for the crime.

JB
take not the life of the baby, the ten year old of the misplaced Dad of the Baby. All are in God's image

CF
I wrote on this last week. At 21 weeks the child has to give birth.

She ought to be closely monitored and given a c section under general. And advised/counseled/supported in terms of birth options and whether she wants to raise the child.

PÓC
Can the child actually have a viable birth. Surely her pelvis is too underdeveloped? Child brides in Africa end up with fistulas between vagina and anus and faecal incontInence after prolonged birth resulting in dead baby, and then being cast out of tribe and divorced due to not producing live baby and being unclean.

AC-J
Remove girl to safe place with another member of the family who can support her and baby while she grows up. She has already been violated once; another violation by adults will only increase her feeling of being used by them. If cost is a problem, get the father to pay, or let the state step in,

GO’C
I read that carrying the child full term and having a cesarean section is safer for both the girl and the baby. God protect them.

AS
O my God the monster she is only a baby herself

HMcL
"Paraguay has refused to provide treatment to save the life of the girl, who is five months pregnant, "including safe and therapeutic abortion in a timely manner.""

Exactly HOW is an abortion supposed to "save the life" of this poor wee lassie?

[Perhaps like a Caesarian would, namely ONLY in cases when small and not sufficiently elastic pelvis would make natural birth a lethal procedure. Not known in advance, I presume.]

MT
"...and therapeutic abortion..." Now I've heard everything!

MH
The fistula issue mentioned above is not about child brides - in parts of Africa mothers of all ages suffer this horror which is entirely due to female genital mutilation. Matercare I believe is the charity with the most information about this. As for this child - abortion would only make things worse - violating the girl a second time and murdering an innocent while having no effect at all on the rapist. Abortion is an evil and cannot bring good to this situation. The idea that because of her age her pelvis may not be developed enough is questionable. If it were an issue - doctors and midwives would be aware of it but I suspect that God knows what He is doing. Once a young woman reaches puberty and can physically conceive I have no doubt that in most cases she will be capable of giving birth naturally. And this would be the most natural and beneficial outcome for this girl and her baby. The rapist has done his part and should be dealt with by the justice system. His sentence should include a financial levy towards the upkeep of both his victims.

PÓC
Girls Not Brides Blog: Fistula, a silent tragedy for child brides
A longer version of this post appeared in the Life and Style section of ThisDay newspaper, Nigeria, on June 2, 2013.
http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/fistula-a-silent-tragedy-for-child-brides/


JTB
We are going to hear many more examples of tragic cases like these, the object of which reportage is not to rouse pity for the victim(s) but to use their tragedy to vilify and excoriate those who are pro-life; to bracket them along with the rapists as heartless, cruel monsters, as violators of children's "rights", as intolerant fanatics - and thus crush all resistance to the global imposition of "abortion rights". That this child's plight is dreadful is beyond doubt, but as long as there are ways of saving and healing her without the destruction of the life she is carrying, these should be the primary recourse.

HGL
Allow her a Caesarian later, if that is necessary to save her, might even not be the case.

LifeNews : 11-Year-Old Rape Victim Gives Birth to Twins, Babies Saved Thanks to Abortion Ban
Steven Ertelt May 23, 2014 | 4:58PM Washington, DC
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/05/23/11-year-old-rape-victim-gives-birth-to-twins-babies-saved-thanks-to-abortion-ban/


"Can the child actually have a viable birth."

Yes.

"Surely her pelvis is too underdeveloped?"

Maybe, that is where Caesarian Section might come in. On the other hand, pelves while growing [at that age! I meant to say] are more elastic than they become later.

In extreme cases, nine year olds can get pregnant (while at other extreme a girl might not be able until 18, while 12 and some months is the normal age), which God would not have made that way if it were automatically lethal.

"she is only a baby herself"

No. One can get a baby, one is certainly a baby no longer oneself.

PÓC , from your article:

"pregnant at 12 and developed an obstetric fistula after prolonged labour and her baby’s death"

Is that what happens every time when a girl gets pregnant at twelve? Or just sometimes?

"Fistula is a condition that affects hundreds of thousands of women, sadly 90% of them in Africa."

I think in Africa there would be more women than that who start motherhood at 12. In the case mentioned, there are other circumstances that shouldn't be, for moral reasons.

"who was married to her uncle at 9"

At 9 – below Canonic age of Catholic Church [traditionally 12, dispensations only papal and given only one half year below]. Muslims are wrong on this one.

To her uncle – too close relatives. At least under New law. Muslims are wrong on this one too.

Was married – I don't know if she was given a choice or not. If not, that is wrong too.

BUT the case of Hadiza's fistula is not a medical indication that the rape victim of Paraguay should have abortion, not even necessarily a Caesarian, that would be a further question, when birth gets started.

She is not named, but her stepfather is:

"Gilberto Benitez Zarate is accused of raping his 10-year-old stepdaughter."

Divorce and remarriage? Would he have done so if the daughter had been his? More important, would her real father from whom she was separated, have done so?

From the article by life site news now:

"However, she said her daughter would need to change schools to avoid being bullied by other pupils."

Wouldn't school compulsion be to blame for that, if so?

lundi 11 mai 2015

Overpopulation Still Falsehood


1) Creation vs. Evolution : Natural Law is Constant : St Augustine Presumably Refuting Sarfati on Sibling Marriages [after second generation of mankind] · 2) New blog on the kid : Moral or Ceremonial : Was it Against Moral Law to Eat Porc Between Moses and Jesus or St Peter? · 3) HGL's F.B. writings : Overpopulation Still Falsehood

J. H:son
shared a picture of, possibly, Shanghai or Hong Kong . Or somewhere . Text on pic : « Overpopulation is a myth » - « what kind of idiot said that ? » Said by two people to each other too far from each other in crowd to hear each other.

At first
selecting the few comments on thread I answer to. Will be quoting more in full when I come in.

J. H:son
Overpop is easy to define! It exists when the pop of an animal exceeds the carrying capacity of the natural environment in which it exists.Without the fossil fuels that we eat,we are undeniably massively overpopulated and heading for whatever hell awaits on the other side of peak oil!

J. P.
A picture of a congested city is just as much a strawman, and you know it. The entire 7 billion people on earth coulf fit in New Zealand. NZ would then be overpopulated, but there is more than enough arable land to sustain 7 billion people. I mentioned this to someone once and they responded 'but all the arable land isn't in NZ!' *facepalm* It doesn't all have to be in NZ for it to be sufficient.

J. H:son
Agreed J. P.,but take out the fossil fuel inputs and we still are hugely overpopulated now,by a factor of at least 3

… You eat 10 calories of fossil fuel energy for every calorie of food you consume,that's not sustainable and 7.3 billion cannot be fed using organic methods of agriculture,not in this universe!

… And now Finland arrives to comment.....and find itself another strawman! Density doesn't matter it's sustainability that does! I'm sure you've all seen that graphic about how much of the Sahara needs to be covered in solar panels to power the world? What it fails to address is the amount of resources,metals ,fossil fuels ,man hours,etc etc etc etc that would need to go into producing the infrastructure necessary.It simply doesn't scale and work! And that's dis-regarding the place where it is geopolitically and the occurance of sandstorm to bugger everything up 10 times a year!

… And away they go to look for something to refute me with,good luck on that people.......

J. P.
I've never heard of a fossil fuel/caloric connection, I assume you're talking about fossil fuels used for industial agriculture? Do you have an article I could read for that? Wouldn't conversion to renewable energy allow for the same levels of food production in that case?

A. D.:
shared pic from oz.

J. H:son
Yes A. D.,but on average what kind of a population would oz be able to support sustainably without fossil fuels? in reflection,oz is one of the few places that are not overpopulated,even though the interior is a huge dry,basically lifeless desert,because the fringe of the continent is so fertile! The Darwin river system is screwed though,due to over-exploitation...

A. D.
Did you know J. H:son, that Italy and Russia and somewhere else i can't remember right now are dangerously underpopulated, and the term demographic sueside has been used on those places

J. H:son
M. A. P. ,as I said to about 50 people on this page,invitation to suicide is not a clever or winning debating tactic and we don't advocate genocide anyway,just responsible breeding,don't we V. de V.?

V. de V.
Yes responsible breeding especially where familes cannot afford to have larger familes. My cleaning lady who works once a week for me only, says when I ask how she manages, that god will find a way. As I see it, it's my government with their child care grants that's doing gods' job as I ain't seeing any money transfered from his account at church HQ to her account.

Now
I am quoting more in full. Inverting order of commons to get better understanding from readers, since I added two on a row without seing one came between. Then added another to answer that one.

HGL
Crowding is not a matter of how many people there are, but how few of them live on the land. I e, how many tractors there are.

E. M.
Even if overpopulation is not a myth why do the trolls put such little faith in science's ability to solve the problem of a projected scaricity of resources?

HGL
J. H:son "Without the fossil fuels that we eat,we are undeniably massively overpopulated and heading for whatever hell awaits on the other side of peak oil!"

The fossil fuels you EAT? I wouldn't do that if I were you!

J. P. " Wouldn't conversion to renewable energy allow for the same levels of food production in that case?"

I hope you mean conversion to renewable energies like human arms and legs and animal's legs and hooves?

Because, replacing these with either petrol (non renewable presumably, I think it came from Flood of Noah) or rapeseed oil (renewable), does not augment the number of mouths that can eat, but only diminish the number of hands working with what the mouths eat.

V. de V.
Hans, consumed via the food produced by that fossil fuel.

HGL
J. H:son "Not just involved in machinery,but agri-chemicals, refrigeration,transport,full cycle"

Transport and refrigeration : mainly a question of mouths not living near where food is grown.

Agri-chemicals may well be replaceable. Pesticides with birds and ladybirds, fertilizers (most of which are old Guano anyway) by local human and animal dung and food waste.

V. de V., what do you mean "produced by"? If you cook 1 ton of strawberry jam in a factory on fossil fuels, you can as well cook 10 kg of strawberry jam in someone's home on normal fuels, like wood. The strawberries don't grow on fossil fuels per se.

[Meant to add, 100 different homes over.]

J. H:son
I think you know what I mean HGL!

'Because, replacing these with either petrol (non renewable presumably, I think it came from Flood of Noah)'
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You didn't REALLY mean that ,did you?

HGL
I very certainly do.

HGL (here is somewhat inverted order)
I very certainly do mean that.

And I have already answered what I think you may reasonably be meaning.

J. H:son
Then you are unworthy of being replyed to!

HGL
Ah, well, you did reply.

J. H:son
There are 10 calories of fossil fuel energy in every calorie of food that you eat. That is how you eat fossil fuels HGL!

HGL
"There are 10 calories of fossil fuel energy in every calorie of food that you eat."

Now you are counting in pilpuls, like how much and what energy transport took, etc.

HGL (back to normal sequence, as posted)
V. de V. "Yes responsible breeding especially where familes cannot afford to have larger familes"

  • 1) Are you paying her what she should have?
  • 2) Is her husband out of work or underpaid through no fault of his own, like the capitalist and industrial structure?


G. C.
J. H:son 10 calories of fossil fuel energy in one calorie... Not sure how you have accurately quantified this "Guardian Newspaper" again ?...... or is it like the one long haul flight per year that is allowable to YOU although you have two as it's not a one way trip. You must also be forgetting the carbon dioxide that is removed from the air by any plant growth and the structure of the food itself being carbon based.

J. H:son
G. C. ,Irrelevant .....

G. C.
Yes of course you are a Borg drone trying to assimilate us all into your collective of twats.

V. de V.
G. C. you are quickly becoming irrelevent to the conversation. You are the weakest link, goodbye.

HGL
G. C. , he is talking about calories of transport, mainly, and of industrialised modes of preparation, which means that could be fixed by living closer to the food, and by preparing in more decentralised fashion too, with grown fuels.


I searched for someone who could be V de V in public. From clues in username, one can guess in this direction:

Wiki : William Waldorf Astor III, 4th Viscount Astor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Astor,_4th_Viscount_Astor


Which is of course somewhat speculative, but not out of possibilities.

BUT, I seem to have been wrong. Just checked in V de V's profile.

dimanche 10 mai 2015

A Pope is NOT a Masonic Venerable NOR a Pentecostal Pastor

David Bawden/Pope Michael (with shared meme):
very simple

I'm old school

I BELIEVE IN HAVING
GOOD MANNERS,
RESPECTING MY
ELDERS AND HELPING
OTHERS WHEN I CAN.

Share if you're proud to be old school


Me
key word : MY elders.

A Mason or Jew or Protestant outside my family who is older than me is not MY elder. Mason as in freemason, not as in legitimate physical builders, of course.

Nisi Dn9 edificaverit domum ... which He clearly doesn't when it comes to the building project of Speculative Masonry ... in vanum laboraverunt q edificant eam ...

Btw, if you enjoy the title "Your Holiness" from me, I advise to not behave as if running the Church with lots of Masonic behaviour.

INCLUDING to really answer on behalf of someone else who is not answering, but who thinks someone needs a lesson.

And if you say you have NO idea of what has gone on between me and Chris Ferrara (who is indeed 63 and older than I, and supposed to be a Catholic, except according to you he isn't, as long as he is not acknowledging you as Pope), well, might be you were acting out the pastoral someone else is trying to hold on me, and trying to do by praying for me to be corrected.

Either case, not a good show for a Pope.

jeudi 30 avril 2015

One Unpleasant Admin Type (pretending to be Trad Catholic, perhaps pretending to be admin too - see his correction below)

MR (not visibly identical to one other MR)
stop supporting wackos, we are getting tired of nonsense discussions here, otherwise we are going to ban you from the group

this is a Traditional Catholic group, and some of us certainly are sedes but supporting nuts is another story

why are you using two profiles to comment? this leads to suspicion, you are going to be allowed to use only one, so please chose the one you like to use

your comments are going to be observed

My response to this MR:
"stop supporting wackos"

If I thought them wackos I would not support them.

"we are getting tired of nonsense discussions here"

Some of you have shown so, are you an administrator or is it an empty threat?

Otherwise, you attitude is like that of bourgeois pagans in Athens who were not loving Socrates at all. As you know, the Catholic view of them is that their view was more erroneous than his.

"otherwise we are going to ban you from the group"

I am used to it.

That is one reason why I save discussions on blogs, so as not to have completely have wasted my time in a group hostile to me onto which I was added by some wellmeaning friend.

For instance I was friends with a well known blogger Rosman, a modernist Catholic, he obviously wanted to have me confronted with a real discussion with atheists, here is what happened:

HGL's F.B. writings [this blog] : I am not sure you know Artur Sebastian Rosman
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/07/i-am-not-sure-you-know-artur-sebastian.html


"this is a Traditional Catholic group, and some of us certainly are sedes but supporting nuts is another story"

The title of the group mentioned nothing about not being a nut or not supporting a nut.

You see, trying to exclude nuts is incompatible with the cathollicity of the Church. All ages (yes, angels created before man to bliss after Harmageddon), all nations, all of the revealed doctrine. That much even you knew, but what about ALL CLASSES OF MEN?

So, excluding nuts is more like a Jewish Talmudic Yeshiva than like a Roman Catholic group.

"why are you using two profiles to comment?"

Already answered, since I was added under both profiles. Why do I have two profiles in the first place? Because some Pharisees perhaps of different confession than you, but certainly of similar morals, blocked me from my first account, and I got it back after creating a second one. Since I have exactly the same name on BOTH profiles, commenting under the two of them cannot be compared to creating different persons with different names. The profile Hans Georg Lundahl is a bit too similar to the profile Hans Georg Lundahl to be really efficient as a sock puppet. So, "this leads to suspicion" = a statement amounting to complete absurdity.

"you are going to be allowed to use only one, so please chose the one you like to use"

If this is your take, what about - neither?

"your comments are going to be observed"

Oh yea? Like previewed before showing in public? No thanks to that. However, if you meant "observed" as in people paying attention to what I say, I have nothing against that for a change. That is one more reason why I republish debates on my blogs so that more people can observe my comments. Now, your turn.

He seems to have
first let me stay and debate a few hours more, then excluded me. Without further ado. However, when opening my other profile I was a bit unreasonably annoyed, since ...

I got same text
on said this my other profile and answered “Already answered:” linking to this post while it only contained above. Whereupon:

MR
Hey Wacko Stop writing me, or I will report your account to Facebook and the NSA

HGL
NSA? I was answering your repeated (or initially doubled?) message. I was annoyed by YOUR writing me that, now that is said, I have no more reason to write you, except if you instead of satisfying my curiosity on NSA go off another tirade of bad manners.

MR
I´m An Administrator in a Group you used to be a member, so I wrote you to warn you, i have no other interest in comunicate with wackos as you, hippie

HGL
thanks for taking my word of "neither", the other MR was getting clearly annoying, on both of my profiles.

As to hippie, I'd rather be that than Pharisee, but on the other hand, what do you know about me?

MR
I couldn´t care less about you

HGL
Bad manners to presume things about people you couldn't care less about.

If you want to say sth about someone, first care enough to find out what's there to say.

Apart from that little lesson, what a relief!

MR
if the other MR is: MR, he is the new group admin you should correct your blog, the part of ¨perhaps pretending to be admin too¨ or maybe not your 2 or 3 followers wouldn´t care much

so have a good life hippie, i´m not going to waste my time with wackos

HGL
Your correction will be inserted. With anonymising of him too.

MR
Thanks Hippie your 2 folwers will be pleased

HGL
How do you know they are two?

I thought you referred to public followers, there are none on that blog.

“Il n'y a aucun membre pour l'instant. Soyez le premier !"

mercredi 29 avril 2015

Too tired for a broad joke? Or was it a good one, even?

ED had a picture status with “Big Apple, meet your Anus” (misspelled for “Angus”and probably not on the busses, but photoshopped).

JS
Yes, spelling matters.

DG
The boyth in the Village thertainly apprethiate it.

HGL
I wonder if lisping is an anti-Spanish slur among Hispanics, historically?

A Colonial would pronounce caza as kussuh, a Spaniard as kuththuh.

Not to be confused with the other word casa, which both Colonials and Spaniards pronounce kussuh.

Btw, by Spaniard you should understand "North Spaniard". Seville has seseo like Latin America.

EB
That is so funny!

HGL
now, spelling matters in some connexions but not others

pheasant, feasant, faisant, phaisant are four spellings for one word

Mozart spelled German in ways which would in modern schools (he was homeschooled and writing German correctly was not a major point) have earned him bad marks.

And Shakespear, whether his orthography was fixed or not in his own mind, certainly lived in a day when orthography varied, and neither consistently used the orthography of Dr Johnson which is still in English use, nor the (ugh) reformed orthography of the US.

I don't mind US pronunciation, but taking away the u from "colour" doesn't add the pronunciation of an r which is already there. That said, if US people WANT to spell it "color" as if borrowed directly from Latin (not the case), spelling does not matter so much they should be forced to do otherwise - as in turn they should not ask me to adopt their spelling either.

ED
Spelling doesn't matter in this photo, either. It's actually a good description of what McDonald's served.

HGL
I am not that hard on McDonald's, especially not in US where you can ask for raw onion rings (you can still do that, right?)

ED
I assume so. Their food scares me. I can eat a triple cheeseburger, feel like crap for an hour, and then feel like I didn't eat anything at all.

HGL
might that be the choice of triple cheeseburgher?

ED
Yes, but in my defense, they're a hamburger restaurant.

HGL
True. If I go to an ice cream restaurant and take a bowl with ten scoops, will your defense be it was an ice cream restaurant?

Or would you find that less defensible?

ED
Oh, I simply mean that the quality of food is bad. A triple cheeseburger at McDonald's isn't really that much food. It equals about 1 normal cheeseburger at a decent restaurant. It's just the fact that it's enough to make me feel like I ate something substantial, but the aftermath is horrible.

They used to make their burgers out of pink slime. They claim they've changed that, but I suspect they just changed the colour.

HGL
Perhaps the one cheeseburger at a normal restaurant was better suited for your stomach because it was one. Like if I went to ice cream restaurant next door next day and took only three scoops, was the difference the restaurants or the quantity?

As to "pink slime", meat is pink until fried and sometimes slimy.

Did you mean sth else?

MJB
^Are you autistic?

HGL
Who of us? Why?

MJB
Not ED.

Because you're analyzing (heh) the shit out of a joke.

HGL
Ah, me. Why? Because I find the rejection of McDo excessive or because I have too little sleep to appreciate a joke?

In the latter case, how about getting me paid for what I write (an offer ED knows of) and when I get enough sleep, we'll see if I can take a joke as it should?

MJB
Right. That's our responsibility. Silly me, I forgot you were entitled to that.

HGL
ED himself complained of not being rich enough to get a girl.

I gave him a link to my offer.

I did not say it was in any way YOUR responsibility MJB, unless you happen to be a bit dissatisfied with your present income and might need a possibility. Get the difference?

MJB
Autistic, gotcha.

HGL
Something which however IS your responsibility is to NOT block that revenue for me by, for instance, telling ED he should NOT use my offer, whether because you find me autistic or because you ANALYZE the SHIT out of my serious offer.

Get the difference?

MJB
"...how about getting me paid for what I write..."

Why should I get you paid?

HGL
Yes, how about the REST of the quote, like the fact ED knows of an offer which he may or may not have shown you but you haven't told me he has shown you?

By the way, I am not too autistic to notice at least on FB what games people are playing.

You are friends with Hugh MacDonald a musician who knows about another offer, related to my compositions. You are also friends with one Hoffmann whom I disagreed with on astronomy and what are proofs or not.

Do I smell some kind of intrigue? I do.

ED
Gentlemen, can I suggest a peaceful discussion about Anus burgers?

ED
And HGL, if I could donate, I promise I would. I'm barely able to contribute to my parish.

HGL
ED, can I suggest that you do not call someone a gentleman who brings up barbaric modernist "diagnoses" like autism? THOSE creeps have been at me for years, in the nooks and corners of my existence.

MJB
Or, just allowing a joke to stand, unmolested, free to be giggled at?

HGL
He made the joke April 25 at 7:32am and it must stand unalysed for all eternity?

HGL
What about getting some MORE by using my offer?

ED
I don't recall your offer. I'm sorry.

HGL
That was to ED, now as to MJB, it seems you might be autistic, you have forgotten what FB walls are for.

ED
Did you pm it to me?

HGL
No, I wrote it openly on the wall, probably of a common friend. Or yours, can't recall.

By the way, if you give me a minute, I will post it here again!

hglwrites : A little note on further use conditions
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/a-little-note-on-further-use-conditions/


MJB
I have to be honest, I am seriously amused that *I* of all people am considered a part of some conspiracy. I gotta go. Hasta la vista, Hans-Georg. We're watching you.

HGL
Ah, the guys whom I do suspect are those who are "seriously amused".

MJB
You're wise to be wary. I have to go report to my handlers now. Sleep tight.

HGL
Not the hour for sleep here.

MJB
It never is with *us* around, muahahahahahahaha!!

KS
I eat cheeseburgers when I eat at McDonald's too. But, the anal burger will give me pause. I, for one, am glad all those autistic folks have cleared out so we can talk beef.


It seems it was arranged on purpose that it was not ED but MJB who asked “why should I get you paid” etc. I had invited it if he autistically mistook “you” as my meant “you in general” for “you” as in him specifically.

If ED had asked me the question, and if I had been let into the staircase this night so as to have decent sleep, I might have answered “why do you want your employer who pays you bad to get paid from you?” Because any employee is making sure his employer is paid, otherwise he is fired and ins’t paid himself. A self employed printer of my blogs would also make sure I was paid, but he not I would be deciding how much for himself and how much for me. Which is how I am more favourable an option than an employer.

If ED really respects guys like KS or MJB more than me, that rather than his low income might be the reason why he’s not married.

As to the point “spelling matters”* that has been brought up against my writing. An US American spell check on any of my own English texts would detect lots of British spellings as “spelling mistakes”in Swedish people have in Communistic fashion presumed either spelling inability or “autistic” desire for singularity because I have taken a hatred to Swedish politics including the spelling reforms, and in French, as a Swede, I have no real ear for when it is “réprésenter or représenter”(in our language in certain unaccented syllables, it’s different sounds for same letter and both sounds acceptable) and which any even half decent corrector could easily detect when I make a fault, so, it is easy to make a faulty assumption about my general spelling capacity - when I get enough sleep, that is. Lack of sleep makes spelling capacity less than it should be, at times.

* As I am NOT French, in my native language a final S is NOT silent, so I am not likely myself to make the linguistic fault in English to omit or add a finals S contrary to English grammar. Since it was not there, I presume some access admin (not to be confused with forum admin) made a little practical joke so as to make my English look worse than it is. Had I been a native Frenchman, the idea would have been perfect.

dimanche 26 avril 2015

Pius XI, Dollfuss, Mussolini - a Debate with a Wholehearted Admirer of the Latter

1) HGL's F.B. writings : Pius XI, Dollfuss, Mussolini - a Debate with a Wholehearted Admirer of the Latter, 2) New blog on the kid : Once Again : Austrofascist and Nazi is NOT the Same Thing.

Background
I had on a FB photo commented that Italian Fascism was better before introducing in 1938 Carta della Razza (before which moment there was no at least officially or directly racist policy, and that means the beginnings of Italian Fascism were in that respect better than later. Perhaps a few more things. I get a PM:

JW to HGL
April 12th, 1:34pm
On Benito Mussolini being a great Catholic and Italian hero Look these are some of the things that Benito Mussolini did for Italy! :

  • Mussolini ordered crucifixes to be put back in classrooms and courtrooms.

  • He made religious instruction mandatory in schools.

  • He brought respect back to the Church and to religion in a time when anti-clericalism dominated Italy.

  • He eliminated Freemasonry.

  • He eliminated the Mafia. "By the beginning of the Second World War, the Mafia was restricted to a few isolated and scattered groups and could have been completely wiped out... “- Michael Pantaleone

  • He decreased crime.

  • He created food packages for the poor.

  • He oversaw the Italianization of Italian territories.

    [Including of what he called Alto Adige and I call Südtirol]

  • He brought fear and respect back to Italy, after Italy had been treated as second-class by the English, French, and Austrians.

    [By Austrians? Here is some confusion. Austro-Hungarian Empire could have been considered to "look down on Italy" before 1870 or even up to WW-I - but Mussolini was not involved in changing that. In Mussolini's time such a large Austria no longer existed, so it cannot have done so either.]


The list is endless for what Mussolini did for Italy.

Benito Mussolini made Catholicism the official religion in Italy:

Citing Costituzione della Repubblica Sociale Italiana, Capo 1., Art. 6:
"La religione cattolica apostolica e romana è la sola religione della Repubblica Sociale Italiana." (The Roman Catholic and Apostolic religion is the only religion of the State.)

Resuming his words:
Benito Mussolini made religious education mandatory in schools:

Citing Costituzione della Repubblica Sociale Italiana, Capo II., Art. 86:
"La Repubblica Sociale Italiana considera fondamento e coronamento dell’istruzione pubblica l’insegnamento della Dottrina cristiana secondo la forma ricevuta dalla tradizione cattolica: perciò l’insegnamento religioso è obbligatorio nelle scuole pubbliche elementari e medie. La legge può stabilire particolari casi di esenzione." (The Italian Social Republic considers as the foundation and fulfillment of public education the teaching of Christian doctrine in the form received from the Catholic tradition: therefore religious education is obligatory in public elementary schools and secondary schools. The law may establish certain exceptions.)

[That was only in Salò Republic, and as much as Austrofascists did.]

Resuming his words:
Benito Musssolini made the Vatican an independent State. Without Mussolini there is no Vatican City. Benito Mussolini was actually the first Fascist leader to come to power as well! Benito Mussolini came to power in 1922, Francisco Franco in 1939, and Adolf Hitler in 1933. On February 13, 1929, Pope Pius XI praised Mussolini as the man "who was sent to us by Providence" and shortly after ordered the clergy to say a prayer "for the King and the Duce" ("Pro Rege et Duce") at the end of daily mass. Soon after the pope's speech, four weeks before the invasion, the cardinal's legate once again celebrated Mussolini as "the man of Providence" at the national Eucharist Congress. Many clergy also said this man was divinely appointed by God! :

Citations:
"Just as the "Divina Mens" sent Octavian; so also in Italy there arose the Man of Providence, the Man of Genius, who saved the State, and founded the Empire, and gave a more perfect consciousness of Italian national unity and religious peace." - Cardinal Schuster

The renowned Padre Pio also praised Mussolini: “Mussolini is one of the greatest politicians that I have ever seen, his views reflect the sake of what is written in the holy Bible and is the perfect driver of humanity." - Padre Pio

[Not totally doubtful, but a closer reference to where in their works or biographies would be appreciated.]

Resuming his words:
Mussolini was overwhelmingly loved, it is in fact a characteristic of his rule which non-polemical authors even admit. (Fact: His body was desecrated by Yugoslavian Communists and Italian Partisans that were also Communists NOT his own people)

Citing Luisa Quartermaine in 'Mussolini's Last Republic' (2000):
"I shall be very clear about this. Mussolini was loved by the people, but was hated by those who knew that his revolution would gradually destroy their privileges. He was hated also by a few ambitious politicians and officers, who could not accept their inferiority when compared with his genius, and aspired to take over from him."

Citing Sugata Bose in 'His Majesty's Opponent' (2011):
"It seems to me that the majority of the Italian people love the iron government of Mussolini."

Resuming his words:
Benito Mussolini even kept a confessor! A personal priest, Fr. Tacchi Venturi! It was Fr. Venturi who baptized Mussolini's kids in 1923, married him to his wife in 1925 (in a solemn religious service/ a Catholic marriage), helped with the Lateran Pacts in 1929, etc.

Regarding Mussolini being an atheist: His only time as an atheist was during his Socialist days, approximately the early 1900's to approximately 1919 or 1920 or so. A period of about 15 years. He was Catholic the entire rest of his life, both before and after that period.

He officially ceased to be a Socialist between 1914- 1919.

He was Catholic definitely by 1920. Possibly earlier.There is the fact that he married his wife in a religious ceremony, after having already been married to her civilly. He made it a sacrament.

[Though that could be because SHE was a Catholic, like his brother and his mother.]

I have a couple early quotes from him from 1920- 1923 or thereabouts:

Citing:
“I maintain that the Imperial and Latin tradition of Rome is represented today by Catholicism.”
-Benito Mussolini, Speech Before the Chamber, June 21, 1921

"Fascism is not an anti-religious movement. Fascism is not anti-religious in general, and is not anti-Christian or anti-Catholic in particular."
- Benito Mussolini, Article from Il Popolo d'Italia, July 27, 1922

"My spirit is deeply religious. Religion is a fundamental force which must be respected and defended. I am therefore opposed to anti-clerical and atheistic demagogy, which represents an old game. I affirm that Catholicism is a great spiritual and moral power, and trust that the relations between the Italian State and the Vatican will henceforth be very friendly."
— Benito Mussolini, Statements Made in Lausanne, November 21, 1922

"Fascism respects religion; it is not atheist, it is not anti-Christian, it is not anti-Catholic. It rarely happens that a Fascist funeral rite is secular."
-Article from Il Popolo d'Italia, May 25, 1922

Citing Other quotes:
"Just before I came out here I went into the church and knelt before the altar. That was not done to pay superficial homage to the religion of the State ; it was the expression of an intimate conviction, for I believe that a people cannot become great and powerful, conscious of its destinies, without religion ; unless it looks on religion and feels the need of it as an essential element of its public and private life. With this thought as motive for your actions you will see how country is served above all in silence, humility, discipline, without many or great phrases but with unfailing daily works."
— Benito Mussolini, Speech in Vicenza, September 23, 1924

The Doctrine of Fascism: Benito Mussolini (1932)
"Fascism, in short, is not only a law-giver and a founder of institutions, but an educator and a promoter of spiritual life. It aims at refashioning not only the forms of life but their content - man, his character, and his faith. To achieve this propose it enforces discipline and uses authority, entering into the soul and ruling with undisputed sway. Therefore it has chosen as its emblem the Lictor’s rods, the symbol of unity, strength, and justice."

“My labor had not been easy nor light; our Masonry had spun a most intricate net of anti-religious activity; it dominated the currents of thought; it exercised its influence over publishing houses, over teaching, over the administration of justice and even over certain dominant sections of the armed forces. To give an idea of how far things had gone, this significant example is sufficient. When, in parliament, I delivered my first speech of November 16, 1922, after the Fascist revolution, I concluded by invoking the assistance of God in my difficult task. Well, this sentence of mine seemed to be out of place! In the Italian parliament, a field of action for Italian Masonry, the name of God had been banned for a long time. Not even the Popular party the so-called Catholic party had ever thought of speaking of God. In Italy, a political man did not even turn his thoughts to the Divinity. And, even if he had ever thought of doing so, political opportunism and cowardice would have deterred him, particularly in a legislative assembly. It remained for me to make this bold innovation! And in an intense period of revolution! What is the truth! It is that a faith openly professed is a sign of strength. I have seen the religious spirit bloom again; churches once more are crowded, the ministers of God are themselves invested with new respect. Fascism has done and is doing its duty.”
- Benito Mussolini, My Rise (Autobiography), 1928

Resuming:
On the Fascist symbol, is it pagan? : First of all, just because a symbol is used by people who were pagans does not make it a pagan symbol. Not every symbol used by ancient people has a religious meaning. The Fascist symbol is the Fascio Littorio or Lictors Rods, also called a Fasces. It is a bundle of rods and an axe tied together with a rope. It symbolizes authority and unity in society. This has nothing to do with paganism or theology. It is actually a Protestant mentality, found very often in anti-Catholic literature.

"Pagans used candles, therefore Catholics are pagan; pagans invented the Roman institutions, therefore the Catholic Church practices paganism; pagans breathed oxygen, therefore true Christians should kill themselves"

etc.

What is Fascism? Fascism: A great political ideology! Fascism stands for Traditionalism; it believes in traditional social, family, and religious values. The Fascist State does not attempt, as did Robespierre, to set up a "god" of its own; nor does it vainly seek, as does Bolshevism, to efface God from the soul of man. The Fascist State sees in religion one of the deepest of spiritual manifestations and for this reason it not only respects religion but defends and protects it. Fascism indeed has its moral code; it proclaims true Catholic ethics as its moral character. It is for this reason that true Catholicism completes Fascism; for without it, Fascism would not be the same. In keeping with this moral code, Fascism opposes homosexuality, egalitarianism, feminism, contraception, abortion, pornography, etc. as against nature and as detrimental to society. Fascism is also not opposed to a Monarchy, for the first 20 years the Italian Fascist State was officially a Catholic Monarchy. Many Fascists are also strong supporters of Irredentism. No aspects of Fascism as an ideology are heretical.

[That depends on who defines Fascist ideology - a book of Gentile was on the index. By the way, I had NOT called the Fasces a pagan symbol.]

And neither Mussolini, nor any Fascist Party member, were ever formally excommunicated, like the Communists were.

Citing Emilio Papasogli, in 1923:
"In truth, Fascismo constitutes the reaction of the Latin mind and of Catholicism against the aberrations and the degeneracies of the modern spirit. The ascendancy of modern thought, born with the Protestant reformation and developed through the French revolution, is now at an end. With Fascismo, reaction and renovation, a new age begins."

And moreover:
"What is Italy defending? Italy is defending her Catholic faith with equal violence from 'Russian' Bolshevism on the one side, and the confusing and sectarian doctrines of the Anglo-Saxons governed by Jewry on the other."
— Carlo Scorza, Secretary of the National Fascist Party, July 18, 1943.

Pius XI felt the need to write against both Germany and Italy, and the Holy Office under him condemned anti-Semitism, but never once did he speak out against Jewish crimes. Mussolini suppressed the Catholic Action group because it was engaging in covert political operations. So they actually violated the concordat, and Mussolini rightly suppressed them for their anti-Fascist political activity. The Concordat specifically forbade these groups from engaging in politics, they violated that, and Mussolini responded. Catholic Action carried out political propaganda. This was forbidden by both the German and Italian concordats. They were to stick solely to religious and charitable work, and stay away from politics. They did not live up to their agreement.You can read the concordat/ Lateran treaty of 1929 here! :

THE LATERAN TREATY
11th February, 1929
http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/THE_LATERAN_TREATY.pdf


Regarding who was right Benito Mussolini or Pope Pius XI: Pope Pius XI was in the wrong. Pius XI got greedy, did not appreciate what he had. He pushed for church control of education, while hypocritically arguing that education should be in the hands of the parents (which means neither the church nor the state). He was not content with the fact that Catholicism was mandatory in state schools. This was the main point of contention. The other point was the issue of Catholic youth groups, which were "hotbeds" of democratic and anti-fascist political propaganda. The groups were supposed to be purely spiritual and apolitical (non-political), but continued to privately promote anti-fascism. Pius XI denied this at the time, but the fact that there was such a strong network ready to form anti-fascist parties and groups in 1943 after Mussolini was overthrown shows these groups were in fact privately harboring anti-fascism, and anti-fascist defenders of Pius XI later boasted of this fact after the war, when it became popular to disassociate the Church from Fascism; they boasted that these groups violated the concordat.

There was no country in Europe in the 1920's and 1930's that was more Catholic than Italy. Italy was one of the few countries in Europe at the time that still had an official religion, and which also mandated religious instruction in schools. While Portugal (in the 1920's) and Spain (in the 1930's) were being overrun by socialists, anarchists, anti-clericals and Masons, the Church was flourishing in Italy; crucifixes were in every classroom; new churches were built; priests blessed the founding of new cities; every flag, banner and monument was blessed; Fascist funerals were solemn religious services; Fascists partipated in all Catholic ceremonies and observed Holy Days; Fascists advanced the cult of St. Francis and St. Catherine; Canon Law was the official law of the State. Name one State that was more Catholic in this period. People love to go on about Catholic Poland, but many people do not realize that Catholic Poland recognized Talmudic Judaism alongside Christianity in their constitution. People also love to go on about Catholic Austria, but even Catholic Austria, which had a very pro-Catholic government in 1934, did not make Catholicism the official religion of the State when they issued their new constitution.

[They had a strong Calvinist minority in Burgenland - which contributed to Nazism, btw. Hungary just East was NOT confessionally Catholic and Horthy was a Calvinist.]

Some extra sources for my "On Benito Mussolini being a great Catholic and Italian hero " article here:

[Lists:]
  • the Duce on religious matters generally." here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Tacchi_Venturi


    [I think the article has changed since he looked at it.]

  • Regarding Catholic action violating the Concordat we read "and when Fascists said that catholic action was disloyal they were right to the extent that some real opposition to Fascism in Italy grew with time" even though Pius XI denied it, here:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=nqloAAAAMAAJ&q=and+when+fascists+said+that+catholic+action+was+disloyal+they+were+right+to&dq=and+when+fascists+said+that+catholic+action+was+disloyal+they+were+right+to&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hwPnVIWqMYevogTt2YLgDg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA

  • In 1924 a law was passed mandating crucifixes in all schools , courts and hospitals. It's a well known law that became controversial a few years ago when crucifixes were banned. Here is a classroom from the Fascist period:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/0/0f/Aule_nel_1930.JPG

  • This is simply a matter of looking up dates. I don't know why this can not be done without me having to do all the work. The most notable church is the Chiesa di Sant' Antonio da Padova built in Predappio, Mussolini's birthplace, thanks to donations by Mussolini's family. It can be viewed here:

    http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiesa_di_Sant%27Antonio_%28Predappio%29

  • Just one example, the new city of Aprilia being blessed:

    http://lnx.lepinimagazine.it/lepini/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/posa-prima-pietra-Aprilia.jpg

  • As for banners, flags, etc. being blessed, there are hundreds of examples.

    Here is a gonfanon (banner) being blessed by Cardinal Gasparri:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i5aVkUXctU

  • Mussolini himself said that Fascist funerals were very rarely secular. One example of a solemn Catholic service here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qoGSvZQK8s

  • Mussolini himself speaks of the salary of priests in his Autobiography, here:

    https://archive.org/details/MyAutobiography

  • The advancement of the cult of Saint Catherine of Siena in Fascist Italy can be read about here:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=18DBLbQ8kpEC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=it+was+against+this+background+that+the+promotion+of+the+cult+of+saint+catherine&source=bl&ots=PbzBxm1qPh&sig=0J1S7fRSK4AbITt_y-5gZWKtgM0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7__mVIm1L5CwogSj_YCgDw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=it%20was%20against%20this%20background%20that%20the%20promotion%20of%20the%20cult%20of%20saint%20catherine&f=false

  • It is well known that Fascists celebrated the 700th anniversary of St. Francis in 1926, with Mussolini honoring him in his speech, and urged the Vatican to make him the Patron of Italy, which it did in 1939. Mussolini praised Saint Francis of Assisi as the "the most Saintly of Italians, and the most Italian of Saints." Mussolini also declared October 4th a National holiday in the Saints honor. This can be read here:

    Fascist Voices: An Intimate History of Mussolini's Italy
    Christopher Duggan
    https://books.google.com/books?id=Lkuo4RmOncoC&pg=PA109&dq=%22the+most+Saintly+of+Italians,+and+the+most+Italian+of+Saints.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MgHnVILgOZHWoASi-4K4Dw&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22the%20most%20Saintly%20of%20Italians%2C%20and%20the%20most%20Italian%20of%20Saints.%22&f=false


  • Benito Mussolini made Canon Law (Church disciplinary laws) the official law of the State: The references to Canon Law can be found in theLateran Accords of 1929, here:

    THE LATERAN TREATY
    11th February, 1929
    http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/THE_LATERAN_TREATY.pdf


The May Constitution is from 1791. That's two centuries prior to what we're even talking about. We're talking about the Poland of the interwar period, the Poland which is defended and extolled as a great Catholic country, while Italy is condemned. The Polish Constituion of March 1921 was very controversial, and Catholic clergy at the time were outraged. It is written about here:

[Link given as: http://books.google.com/books?id=RUOMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA92... =?=]

Poland in the Modern World: Beyond Martyrdom
Brian Porter-Szücs
http://books.google.fr/books?id=RUOMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA92&redir_esc=y


Citing Article 114 of the Constitution states:
"Wyznanie rzymsko-katolickie, będące religią przeważającej większości narodu, zajmuje w państwie naczelne stanowisko wśród równouprawnionych wyznań." "The Roman Catholic religion, being the religion of the overwheliming majority of the nation, will have a primacy among other religions which all have equal rights."

Resuming his words:
Therefore there was no State religion, and all other religions, including Judaism and Protestantism, were considered to have equal rights. All that is awarded to Catholicism is a sort of "primacy of honour" ("first amongst equals") because most of the populace was Catholic. This is word for word the same policy of Napoleon, who is also criticized and condemned by traditional Catholics for his religious policies. Yet these same people give their undying devotion and support to "Catholic Poland" and condemn Italy -- which was undoubtedly more Catholic at the time than Poland. And while the Polish Constitution was met with outrage in 1921, the Italian Lateran pact was met with universal praise in 1929.

My friend a true Italian Fascist gave me this information.

[I think he might have gotten my reference to Pilsudski wrong. I had said nothing implying that Pilsudski régime was more Catholic, though I considered Austrian was, since Austrofascists considered themselves obliged for societal organisation by the Popes' words. I said that if Mussolini had not invaded Ethiopia, which was anyway an ambition inherited from the bad old anti-Catholic days of Risorgimento, Mussolini and Pilsudski instead of Hitler could have led sth like Operation Barbarossa to deliver Russia and Ukraine and Belorussia from Communism - and they would have done a better job. That is a compliment to Mussolini too, not just to Pilsudski.]

HGL to JW
April 12th, 9:22pm
"He brought respect back to the Church and to religion in a time when anti-clericalism dominated Italy."

I'd like this to be true. But he upheld some kinds of anticlerical activities, as Pius XI complained in Non abbiamo bisogno.

"He eliminated Freemasonry."

One of the viceroys of Italy, I think Badoglio, was a Mason.

Generally speaking, his mother and his brother Alessandro were pious Catholics, he not so clearly, or at least at times very clearly not.

This does not mean a Catholic cannot be a Fascist or admire him.

"He brought fear and respect back to Italy, after Italy had been treated as second-class by the English, French, and Austrians."

In my book, first of all Austria had not treated Italy as second class up to any act of Mussolini, second, Austria owes a mixed gratitude to Mussolini, he defended Austria against Anschluss in 36, but no longer in 38, third and most important, Austria was a far more Catholic country than influential parts of Italy.

"Benito Musssolini made the Vatican an independent State. Without Mussolini there is no Vatican City."

Owed back to Popes was in reality all of Papal States. He wiggled that out of Pius XI.

"Benito Mussolini came to power in 1922, Francisco Franco in 1939, and Adolf Hitler in 1933."

Engelbert Dollfuss became a Fascist dictator in 1933. I hold Engelbert Dollfuss far over Hitler, and somewhat over Franco and Mussolini as well.

Not meaning I hate Mussolini or anything like that, he's just more problematic than Dollfuss.

"On February 13, 1929, Pope Pius XI praised Mussolini as the man "who was sent to us by Providence" and shortly after ordered the clergy to say a prayer "for the King and the Duce" ("Pro Rege et Duce") at the end of daily mass."

And a bit later, as this was fulfilling his part of agreement, Pope Pius XI, without abrogating these measures, complained Mussolini had not kept his side of the bargain. Non abbiamo bisogno, as said.

He praised Dollfuss more by agreeing the latter was applying Quadragesimo Anno correctly. And he never took that back.

JW to HGL
April 12th, 10:36pm
Pius XI felt the need to write against both Germany and Italy, and the Holy Office under him condemned anti-Semitism, but never once did he speak out against Jewish crimes. Mussolini suppressed the Catholic Action group because it was engaging in covert political operations. So they actually violated the concordat, and Mussolini rightly suppressed them for their anti-Fascist political activity. The Concordat specifically forbade these groups from engaging in politics, they violated that, and Mussolini responded. Catholic Action carried out political propaganda. This was forbidden by both the German and Italian concordats. They were to stick solely to religious and charitable work, and stay away from politics. They did not live up to their agreement.You can read the concordat/ Lateran treaty of 1929 here! :

THE LATERAN TREATY
11th February, 1929
http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/THE_LATERAN_TREATY.pdf


Regarding who was right Benito Mussolini or Pope Pius XI: Pope Pius XI was in the wrong. Pius XI got greedy, did not appreciate what he had. He pushed for church control of education, while hypocritically arguing that education should be in the hands of the parents (which means neither the church nor the state). He was not content with the fact that Catholicism was mandatory in state schools. This was the main point of contention. The other point was the issue of Catholic youth groups, which were "hotbeds" of democratic and anti-fascist political propaganda. The groups were supposed to be purely spiritual and apolitical (non-political), but continued to privately promote anti-fascism. Pius XI denied this at the time, but the fact that there was such a strong network ready to form anti-fascist parties and groups in 1943 after Mussolini was overthrown shows these groups were in fact privately harboring anti-fascism, and anti-fascist defenders of Pius XI later boasted of this fact after the war, when it became popular to disassociate the Church from Fascism; they boasted that these groups violated the concordat.

HGL to JW
April 13th, 9:09am
"never once did he speak out against Jewish crimes."

  • 1) He condemned eugenic crimes in Casti Connubii.

    Racial legislations about marriage are also a Jewish crime, originated in synagogue saying "you may marry someone of Jewish origin whether they are baptised or not" and imitated by Hitler in Nuremberg laws of 1936 and alas by Mussolini too in 1938, which Mussolini had condemned as late as his interview for Chesterton, see the latter's The Resurrection of Rome (1930).

  • 2) He condemned Capitalistic crimes in Quadragesimo Anno. Dollfuss, whom he supported, had removed Jews from administartion with individual exceptions and also forbidden them access to Catholic Universities;

  • 3) He condemned Communism;

  • 4) Killing Christian children had hardly been done since back in the Beyliss case in Russia [1911];

  • 5) Zionist crimes were not yet being done on a large scale, and if any Church officials in Palestine were condemning such, they probably enjoyed full support of Pope Pius XI.


So, Pope Pius XI was condemning Jewish criminality everywhere where it was to be condemned.

[If we were to extend list of Judaeo-Typical crimes to 6, religious crime of Judaism, it was Pius XII who started loosing up the condemnation for that in some respects, not Pius XI, and to 7, psychiatry, this crime was shared by Mussolini.]

"Mussolini suppressed the Catholic Action group because it was engaging in covert political operations. So they actually violated the concordat, and Mussolini rightly suppressed them for their anti-Fascist political activity. The Concordat specifically forbade these groups from engaging in politics, they violated that, and Mussolini responded. "

That is not really the version I think Pius XI would have agreed to.

"Catholic Action carried out political propaganda. This was forbidden by both the German and Italian concordats. They were to stick solely to religious and charitable work, and stay away from politics. They did not live up to their agreement."

If a Catholic group in US would say "you must not vote for pro-abortion politicians", would it be doing "politics"? Or would it be doing catechism, thus religion?

I think the latter!

[Of course, Mussolini was not as bad as abortion liberals!]

"Pius XI got greedy, did not appreciate what he had. He pushed for church control of education, while hypocritically arguing that education should be in the hands of the parents (which means neither the church nor the state)."

  • 1) Parents as in neither Church nor state is FULLY realised when parents decide without any State interference who they hadn their children over to for education.

    Catholic parents would homeschool, give children over to Catholic artisans for apprenticeships or give them over to schools of the Church. Protestant or Atheist parents would not do so, and neither would state enforce them doing so anyway, nor would Church ask that, as long as it was not a group the Church asked to suppress anyway (like Albigensians in 1300). As long as they had a right to exist in civil liberty, they also had a right to decide freely on schools.

    In the Papal States before 1870, Jews were NOT required to send children to Catholic schools. The one Mortara case, the baptised Jewish child was practically homeschooled by Pope Pius IX of venerable memory.

  • 2) This was NOT the case in Italy. The Excommunicated Kings of the robber state which had violated Papal States, Austria and Two Sicilies had instituted school compulsion of some sort.

    This being so, Church had a right to defend the conscience of Catholic parents within schools it was not directly running. Namely those which the State was forcing Catholic parents to send their sons and daughters to.


So, Pius XI was perfectly in the right.

Moreoever, Italian schools under the 19th C. liberals were certainly, and under Mussolini at least still possibly honouring men like Galileo and Giordano Bruno. This was possibly a breach of Lateran Treaty on part of Mussolini, and certainly, if continued under him, a breach against the natural law and the respect due to the conscience of parents.

You said he "got greedy". Well, I say the Lateran Treaty was his NOT being "greedy" enough. He committed basically a crime of treason against the Papal States by handing most of them over to Italy.

That said, my take on Mussolini is his one problem was being too loyal to Italy as established by the excommunicated Sardinian tyrants. And that means I hate Vittorio Emmanuele II and Cavour and the Roman Mayor Nathan in a way I do not hate Mussolini.

Mussolini could also have avoided the Ethiopian misadventure, if he hadn't been inheritor of the ambitions of 19th C. idiotic liberals of nationalist bent. AND if the freemason Badoglio had not been sent as viceroy there. At least possibly.

If anything, Pius XI was too weak against Italy.

"Pius XI denied this at the time, but the fact that there was such a strong network ready to form anti-fascist parties and groups in 1943 after Mussolini was overthrown shows these groups were in fact privately harboring anti-fascism, and anti-fascist defenders of Pius XI later boasted of this fact after the war, when it became popular to disassociate the Church from Fascism; they boasted that these groups violated the concordat."

If this is so, that means that Pius XI may have been ignorant of what was going on.

[Other explanation, see below after I actually looked up article 43 - I had considered JW as a man capable of reading with reading comprehension up to giving this answer, and then later - see below - found I was wrong.]

That would mean that part of his complaints (that part) in Non abbiamo bisogno, was due to his being misinformed about fact.

Let us hope he was so, rather than hypocritical.

JW to HGL
April 14th, 3:01am
""Italy illegally took the Pope's land, Pope Pius IX excommunicated all those who supported Italy."

I think that the person who said this needs to mind their own business; that matter was settled nearly 100 years ago, move on.

It is funny that the people clamouring for the restoration of the papal states are people who do not come from Italy, and apparently are not well versed in history.

The Vatican State is the modern papal state, and the pope in 1929 (Pope Pius XI) relinquished all claim to other parts of Italy, and was given compensation. In other words, THE PAPACY HAS ALREADY RENOUNCED THE TERRITORIES IN EXCHANGE FOR MONETARY COMPENSATION AND THE RECOGNITION OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE VATICAN CITY-STATE ON THE PART OF ITALY.

Who are you (or anyone else) to start claiming for the popes what the popes themselves have renounced?

Yes, the siezure in the 19th century was illegal, but that makes no difference now, because today (and ever since 1929) Italy has legally possessed all the territories, and the popes have recognized this fact.

And if these people want the pope to have more land, then go ahead and offer him their own country.

This siezure wasn't even under Mussolini either, it was during the Italian Wars of Independence in the 19th century, which led to the Roman Question, which was solved in 1929 by Benito Mussolini.

The pope was given millions in compensation, he was given a library by Mussolini, the Vatican State was recognized as independent and sovereign. And in exchange the pope relinquished all claims to Rome and Italy.

So, it really doesn't matter what Pius IX said or did, because Pius XI made his own political decisions in the name of the papacy."

HGL to JW
April 14th, 12:23pm
"I think that the person who said this needs to mind their own business; that matter was settled nearly 100 years ago, move on."

If so, why don't you move on about Mussolini's honour and the breaches of the Lateran Treaty?

Either we can or we can't take sides in past conflicts.

I'm not the one saying we can't.

But you are basically saying you can and I can't.

"Who are you (or anyone else) to start claiming for the popes what the popes themselves have renounced?"

Cardinal Stickler claimed there were according to Canonists three things even a Pope cannot touch. One of them is "Status Ecclesiae". He did not decide what it means. I think it means "Kirchenstaat" = "Papal States".

In other words, Pope Pius XI overstepped his competence in granting Papal States outside Vatican City and Castel Gandolfo to Italy.

Moreover, Papal States had subjects which had families. This means that up to 1870 Popes were showing how a state should deal with family rights.

Italy has taken a wrong turn in several items, like school compulsion, and like 18 year age limit for marriages (these crimes were committed by other states, Soviet Union and by now most European States have imitated this evil). It is true that the criminal pseudolegislation hurt Italy before Mussolini. But it is also true that it did hurt.

Maria Goretti and Alessandro Serenelli might have had a decent married life under Popes in Papal States, if, for instance, he could have instead of proposing to make her pregnant to get a dispensation to marry her before she was 18, he could have said "you are soon 12, shall we engage with your mothers' consent and marry in a few months?"

Saint Maria Goretti is really in a way IL CIELO sopra la palude, but it was replacing Papal States with Italy which provided la palude.

And did so for the poisoning of Serenelli's mind with anticlerical stuff too.

Oh, one more thing, look which article Paul VI and Italian police broke:

Citing Art. 4 of Patti Lateranensi, 11 Febbraio 1929, Trattato:
La sovranità e la giurisdizione esclusiva, che l’Italia riconosce alla Santa Sede sulla Città del Vaticano, importa che nella medesima non possa esplicarsi alcuna ingerenza da parte del Governo Italiano e che non vi sia altra autorità che quella della Santa Sede.

Resuming own words
Abbé de Nantes came to Vatican to depose an accusation dossier against Pope Paul VI for heresy before Pope Paul VI as judge.

Abbé de Nantes was impeded from deposing this, illegally against all Canon law, since evicted. But there is more to it. He was not evicted by Swiss Guards, but by Italian policemen clearly breaking article 4 of the Lateran Treaty. but that was of course a fault of Montini/Paul VI, of which Pius XI is innocent.

After going from Trattato to Concordato [Patti Lateranensi, 11 Febbraio 1929], here are a few things (not quoting whole articles) which struck me:

Citing Art. 37
I dirigenti delle associazioni statali per l’educazione fisica, per l’istruzione premilitare, degli Avanguardisti e dei Balilla, per rendere possibile l’istruzione e l’assistenza religiosa della gioventù loro affidata, disporranno gli orari in modo da non impedire nelle domeniche e nelle feste di precetto l’adempimento dei doveri religiosi. …

Resuming own words
This was broken by Fascists, which is one reason for Non abbiamo bisogno. And stated as such in the text thereof.

Citing Art. 36
L’Italia considera fondamento e coronamento dell’istruzione pubblica l’insegnamento della dottrina cristiana secondo la forma ricevuta dalla tradizione cattolica. …

Resuming own words
This means that the Church needed a right to say stop if part of the public instruction was in any way against “the Christian doctrine according to the form received by the Catholic Tradition”. As I argued earlier.

Citing Art. 34
Lo Stato italiano, volendo ridonare all’istituto del matrimonio, che è base della famiglia, dignità conforme alle tradizioni cattoliche del suo popolo, riconosce al sacramento del matrimonio, disciplinato dal diritto canonico, gli effetti civili. … Quanto alle cause di separazione personale, la Santa Sede consente che siano giudicate dall’autorità giudiziaria civile.

Resuming own words
I left out a big chunk, but the problem is that the Church seems not to have insisted that a priest marrying a fourteen year old young man to a twelve year young lady, should be able to not only do so, but have this recognised and of course not rescinded in any civil court. Here I think Pius XI was simply weak.

Oh, yes, the question of Azzione Cattolica ...

Citing Art. 43
Lo Stato italiano riconosce le organizzazioni dipendenti dall’Azione Cattolica Italiana, in quanto esse, siccome la Santa Sede ha disposto, svolgano la loro attività al di fuori di ogni partito politico e sotto l’immediata dipendenza della gerarchia della Chiesa per la diffusione e l’attuazione dei principî cattolici. La Santa Sede prende occasione dalla stipulazione del presente Concordato per rinnovare a tutti gli ecclesiastici e religiosi d’Italia il divieto di iscriversi e militare in qualsiasi partito politico.

Resuming own words
But since “Democrazia Cristiana” was NOT a political party at the time, simply criticising Fascism for totalitarian tendencies did not constitute a breach of the article.

[And White Horse media also does not quote the article other than forbidding political parties. The requirement was not verbally to be totally apolitical in every respect, that would have been an reinterpretation, like First Amendment (or was it second?) is reinterpreted as "separation of Church and State" in US.]