mercredi 16 juin 2010

Catholics still have a conscience, when it comes to other things than hunting pedophiles ... or presumed such

Here is an article by Leila on Catholic Culture called Department of Icy Timelessness, Office of Unintended Consequence Management.

It says among other things:

The interaction of desire and gain is too close. On the one side is too much passion for fulfillment of a basic human hope; on the other, too much of a reward with little oversight, even if the process were licit, which it is not.

In the breach: the barely formed little ones, lost in their frozen limbo. Facilitating denial: the sheer passage of time, in which we all get familiar with and, frankly, desensitized to the evil.


It’s wrong to make the begetting of a child into a mechanical production. It’s wrong to think that if you can do something you may, because you want to so much.

Yes, that was NOT the matter of chasing pedophiles ... or presumed such. It was - as you will find out if you read the article - about in vitro fertilisation.

Here is another article. It is about whether predating priests should be "defrocked" i e laicised or controlled in other ways.

I will quote the main issue:

Now in the 1989 case that was cited in the AP story, the bishop of Springfield, Illinois, sought to laicize a priest who had abused children. Cardinal Ratzinger might have been perfectly happy to see that penalty enforced. But he told the bishop that a severe canonical penalty could not be imposed without allowing the priest a canonical trial.

Anyone familiar with the term "due process" should readily grasp the future Pope's point. The Church, like the state, has its own system of justice, its own canonical courts. A priest can be penalized for misconduct, but only after he has been found guilty.


Let me repeat the question, because if reporters were seriously interested in protecting children, rather than attacking the Pope, that is precisely the question they should ask: How should the Church protect young people from a predatory priest?

Ask that question, and immediately you come to a realization: The Church can suspend priests, or laicize priests, or excommunicate priests. But the Church can't jail priests. A priest who is laicized-- or "defrocked," if you prefer-- remains at large. He still might have access to children.

What the Church can do, and should do immediately, is remove abusive priests from active ministry, so that they cannot use their clerical status to lure young men. In the 1989 Springfield case, Bishop Daniel Ryan had both the authority and the duty to pull the accused priest out of active ministry while he pursued the canonical case for laicization.

In many cases, actually, the suspension of an abusive priest might be more effective than laicization, in terms of protecting young people. A bishop cannot put a priest in jail. But he can assign a priest to work in a remote location, under close supervision. He might even tell the priest to live in isolation in a monastery-- although the priest would have the right to appeal such a directive. Once that priest is laicized, the bishop has no more control over him.

This post is by Phil Lawler, Leila's husband.

He is actually flouting the requirement of due procedure before laicizing in order to achieve something he wants very much. Protect children. So does everyone, but not everyone wants to ruin the lives of the possibly innocent or make impossible for the guilty to make repairs at smaller cost than the ruin of their lives.

He actually wants the life of an offender controlled for the rest of his life. That is more than secular law traditionnally asks. That is more than Church law asks.

Secular law asks that an offender, unless his crime be so extreme as to merit death penalty, serve his sentence. After that society does not control his life as closely. He may still be in policde registers, but he can roam about.

Church law traditionnally asks that an offender of this particular nature be laicized, after due procedure of course. And after that, the laicized priest is in registers, he can no longer pose as a priest. Which was the position in which he got his victims.

And parishioners are usually warned against defrocked. Whatever the occasion for defrocking. It happened to Paul Ballaster, according to his own words due to doctrinal deviation from the Franciscan fathers about the Papacy. He had to leave where he was staying (Barcelona) and got support from Protestants before becoming Orthodox, even bishop of Both Americas. But he was regarded ascance for defrocking by Catholics.

Defrocking a priest is usually a protection of Catholic children, even when the Church guards no longer any control over a priest.

Here we see a reasoning asking for much closer control over his life - but without due procedure. Now, that is unjust.

Not only is it unjust, but coupled with other new fashions it may have exactly opposite effect. The then not yet Pope Joseph Ratzinger once harboured a priest who had offended in a way he was perhaps not aware of, but he did know an offence was involved. He also knew that the destination was not a due process but "councelling" i e that his own bishop had decided to keep him under control by psychology or psychiatry. As with "Fr." Gheoghan, in whose case Ratzinger was not involved, but Cardinal Law was, this turned out to be illusory.

There is one thing a laicized priest might do himself to guard himself from further offense: marry (according to older Church law a laicized priest could not marry in Church, but now there are secular ways to wed) or get a concubine. Some would have been better off like that perhaps? Though the latter case involves a risk of eternal ruin to his soul, due to breach of celibate promises and against chastity.* So does an ambition to control the rest of his life, because it provokes obviously hatred. Especially if control is improportional to offense, or if the presumed offender is innocent.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mairie du IIIe, Paris

In a well known other case a lot of people believe the offender should not have his life controlled to the end of his days. But there of course there was no vow of celibacy and he did marry.

*One reason the Church did not allow offending priests to marry after laicisation was that a crime does not dissolve a vow. Another is that in the case of a priest who believes as Catholics should believe, the crime in question usually includes spiritual incest. And if they wanted to keep celibate and in the future chaste and penant, the Church did not refuse prayers for that purpose.

samedi 12 juin 2010

Sont-ils expulsés parce qu'ils manquent évêques ...

... et certains sacréments - ou parce qu'ils croient que Jésus est Dieu?

Un commentaire cité:

"Ecoutez moi bien! je vais vous dire une chose, Ce n'est pas le gouvernement qui expulse ces Chretiens de merde, c'est le peuple Marocain. bon debaras! C'est notre pays et c'est nous qui decident"

Je crois que le vieux Marocain se trompait quand il disait à Francisco Franco qu'on les comptéra comme civilisés quand ils vont en chaussures plutôt que des babouches.

1) Ils éliminent les chrétiens catholiques avec la décolonisation.
2) Ils éliminent les chrétiens évangéliques aussi.

Ils donnent un fatwa comme ça:

Notons, parmi les chrétiens et anciennement aussi les juifs la limite basse était douze ans.

Et contre les chrétiens:

La situation des évangéliques persécutés me rappelle quand un évangélique de Suède, Ulf Ekman, vient en Albanie après la chute du mur, et après sa prêche un homme l'ayant écouté vient le rencontrer pour lui dire "Moi je suis catholique AUSSI"

"Comme une majestueuse font de la divinité, profonde, merveilleuse et claire, le cœur de Jésus ..." commence un hymne suédois utilisé par les ... on les appellera "catholiques aussi"? Dont le refrain reprend la conclusion très orthodoxe de St Thomas d'Aquin que Lui, Il a ouvert la porte des perles.

Les gens qui viennent de plus ou moins faire une canonisation de Cassie Bernall me plaisent d'avantage que les gens qui faisaient un monument à Coligny ou Coligny lui-même. Ils me paraissent plus catholiques. Suffisemment pour ne pas les trouver trop Protestants pour soutenir, face aux Musulmans.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Lendemain de Sacré-Cœur
Sur G. Pompidou

C'est un peu embêtant d'avoir fait depuis d'années un effort et des propos cohérents ...

... et de les voir bafoués par des gens qui "attendent un effort ou un propos cohérent" de vous, parce que ça veut dire qu'il y a longtemps qu'ils n'ont pas vu ce qu'il y avait à voir, ou pas voulu voir et quand même ils se sont ingérés pour bloquer mes efforts dans une situation qu'ils n'ont pas compri.

Je compose, on attend que je joue les instruments pour lesquels je compose. Or: je me sens trop vieux pour devenir un bon instrumentiste. J'ai vérifié les diapasons et les autres limitations techniques des divers instruments, c'est tous qu'on peut demander. Un guitariste qui joue la guitare ou un pianiste qui joue le piano mieux que juste d'être capable d'y trouver les notes, peut jouer les compositions de quelqu'un dont le niveau technique sur l'instrument est insuffisant. Si, comme c'est mon cas, son niveau théorique ne l'est pas.

Je refuse de devenir moine, on attend que je prenne un emploi pour nourrir une famille. Or: je me sens trop vieux pour passer des années en petits boulots avant d'avoir une famille dans peut-être dix ans d'ici, et j'aime les enfants, trop pour renoncer d'en avoir par le choix d'une femme ma contemporaine qui n'ait pas enfanté.

J'ai écrit, j'ai composé, j'ai donné les licences qu'il faut pour qui que sera volontaire de prendre un petit risque, que je prendrais moi-même si j'avais les ressources - si par exemple j'avais le niveau technique sur un instrument, si j'avais un instrument.

On peut pas prétendre que je composerais mieux la musique en ayant fait du travail physique, mon style n'est pas le rock, il n'est pas basé sur la testostérone. On ne peut pas prétendre que j'écrirais mieux en ayant fait un travail physique, George Orwell (de vrai nom Eric Blair) a été policier en Birmanie et plongeur à Paris, ça n'a pas fait un bon écrivain, mais un très mauvais. Car de cœur impur.

Par contre, C. S. Lewis a détesté l'éducation physique, il a été officier, mais c'était dans les tranchées, donc pas beaucoup d'exercise physique, et regardez son œuvre!

Si j'évoque deux romanciers, ce n'est pas en prétendant être romancier moi-même, j'écris la "littérature des idées" comme on vient de l'exprimer.

Or, j'écris que les entreprises comme Coca Cola ou Pfizer seraient plus honnêtes en reproduisant leurs boissons noirs et médicaments cardiaques pour un pays ou region ou localité en partageant les recettes avec d'autres brasseurs ou apothicaires pour les autres pays ou regions ou localités.

Est-ce à dire que je serais malhonnête moi-même en exploitant mes écrits (ou compositions) pour d'argent? Biensur que non. Car boissons et pilules contre crises cardiaques sont des choses qui doivent être reprises dans un autre exemplaire matériel pour faire leurs utilités, donc le mérite pour l'utilité réside plus principalement dans le producteur matériel, tandis qu'un écrivain peut avoir son œuvre relu plusieurs fois dans le même exemplaire ou être utile par le mémoire de son œuvre, car il est spirituel avant d'être matériel. Et le musicien qui me joue peut utiliser une même partition pour les fois qu'il joue la même composition, jusqu'à ce qu'il connaisse tel morceau par cœur et n'ait plus besoin de regarder la partition.

La différence se cache derrière la phrase "propriété intellectuelle" utilisé pêle-mêle pour les deux catégories, le brevet et les droits d'auteur.

Voici le message index à mes écrits sur le blog trilingue suédois-français-anglais "deretour", le URL abrégé sur le service "o-x" est et 4mwb peut donner en allemand "für Maria wir bleiben".

Voici le message index générale pour mes compositions et mes écrits de théorie musicale, le blog "musicalia", dont le URL abrégé est ce que donne en anglais prononcé en français "ze faïve kise" - vu que je n'utilise pas tous les 24 gammes à même fréquence, mais les cinq ou sept plus connus le plus souvent.

Sur les deux pages vous trouverez un lien à une autorisation. Pour les écrits c'est "Conditions d'utilisations ultérieurs" et "Note on further use conditions" qui se complètent. Pour les choses musicales c'est "What is the deal/C'est quoi ce truc" ce que j'ai écrit pour expliquer une autorisation qui se trouve déjà en bas du blog et de chacune de ses pages.

Ce que je viens de faire n'est ni illégale, ni incohérent. Pour faire usage de mes œuvres vous n'êtes pas obligés d'attendre jusqu'au jour qui viendra peut-être jamais, celui que la recette pour Coca Cola se trouve chez chaque brasseur locale honnête et la recette pour les médicaments cardiaques chez chaque apothicaire. Ni est ma préférence pour les bougies à cire, qui ne coûtent ni pétrole, ni uranium, ni champs inondés, une indication que vous devriez boycotter mes œvres avant qu'ils se trouvent écrits à main sur parchemin, quelle que sera l'opinion d'"edf" là-dessus.

Peut-être le problème pour certains n'est pas tellement mon prétendu manque de cohérence, mais plutôt ma bonne cohérence devant une compétition sur les idées où les autres en manquent et s'irritent parce que je dis, par exemple, que si ce sera par hazard un jour vrai qu'on sera trop de monde dans le monde pour consommer électricité comme aujourd'hui, ce n'est pas une raison pour la capote, mais pour la bougie à cire, et pour remplacer la diversion faite par radio ou télé par une diversion faite par un homme lisant à haute voix et lui éclairé par deux bougies, les autres en demi-ombre. Ce que sera aussi bénéfique pour les yeux qu'on ferme en l' écoutant ou qu'on ne ferme pas, mais qu'on ne concentre pas non plus sur un écran à impulses lumineuses ou les lettres d'un livre. Ou par la diversion faite par un chanteur. Ou par plusieurs personnes en conversation intelligente sur ce qu'on vient de lire ou faire ou voir pendant la journée.

Et, n'en déplaise pas trop à "Suez", quand le pétrole pour déplacer la nourriture fera defaut, qu'on se déplace plutôt vers la production agricole. De toute façon, qu'on ne prenne pas la vie en ville comme un sinéquanone pour la vie de chaque ou presque chaque homme si en ce faisant on croit être obligé de limiter la population humaine. La vie est faite, citadine ou campestre, au travail physique ou au travail intellectuel, pour faire son salut et le but n'est pas le progrès pour le progrès. Surtout pas les progrès qui gâchent la paix ou les familles ou les libertés individuelles des gens. Par contre, si le salut demande parfois des sacrifices, ce n'est pas et ne doit pas devenir la vocation universelle du chrétien d'être martyr vivant dans une société apostate, on fait souvent son salut avec moins des pertes en âmes si on peut vivre paisiblement et joyeusement en chrétien.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Paris, Marie du III et bibl. Mouffetard
Sacré-Cœur et lendemain

mercredi 9 juin 2010

A very bad article about Martin Luther - with some answers

Here it is

Bad quote I:

Saxon monk Martin Luther was 34 years old when he posted his 95 Theses on the church door in Wittenberg, Germany.

The Theses were in medieval Latin—a language only understood by scholars and the clergy of the Latin Church.

Sympathetic friends translated his Theses into German, and thanks to the newly invented printing press, they were all over Europe in a month!!

Fact I:

Latin was understood by everyone with some non-commercial lettered education.

Bad Quote II:

in 1521, Emperor Charles V was the most powerful man in the world due to the discovery of the New World by John Cabot.

Luther appealed to him because he knew he would get no justice at Rome.

Fact II:

By Luther "getting no justice" (at Rome) is meant Luther having already gotten more justice than he bargained for. Leo X had condemned the thesis, according to which souls in Purgatory (!) who prefer to get out of it than serve their term (!) are in mortal sin and cannot enter Heaven. And some forty other theses as well, but not all of the 95 or Luther's earlier 97 (he had picked the condemnations from both lists).

Quote III:

The emperor did not immediately condemn Luther because many of the German Electors were favorable to the Reformation. However, the emperor did not lift the ban on Luther for fear of offending the Pope. Luther—a man of peace—would never allow his followers to fight for him. He was able to escape the wrath of the emperor and Pope by trusting his soul to Jesus—the Great ruler of the nations.

Fact III:

Back then one did not actually fight for Luther since he fled, or for Reformation, but pretty soon both Lutherans and Calvinists were fighting.

Bad Quote IV:

The printing press was God's gift to Saint Martin Luther!!
Wittenberg was the printing capital of the world for at least 50 years after the beginning of the Reformation.

Saint Martin's press threw OCEANS of ink at the devil.

Fact IV:

One thing left out from above quote: In 1450, Johannes Gutenberg invented printing from movable type.

Between that date and Reformation, the Catholic Church had used printers ink in a more appropriate way. That includes some near 20 correct translations of Holy Bible - Luther not only committed but knowingly defended translation mistakes, as Abraham being justified "by faith alone" which is neither there in the Latin, nor in the Greek text.

In Sweden the first printers were Carthusians, and first printed book in Swedish was an instruction about how to pray the Rosary.

However, Gustav Wasa, the King who ordered the Reformation, in order to spoil churches to pay mercenary allies, and who did so spilling eventually much Swedish blood, especially in Dahlcarlia, confiscated the Carthusian printing press and handed it over to the Protestant Reformers. Neat feat to convince a people if other side is unjustly deprived of printing press and if unconvinced are beheaded.

English Reformation and Danish Reformation were analogous, but monks were killed rather than just exiled, as from Sweden.

Genevan, Dutch and Scottish Reformation were about as violent as the Russian Revolution.

Bad Quote V:

Instead of Saint Martin going up in flames, the Papal Bull Exsurge Domine, the Decretals of Clement VI, the Summa Angelica, the Chrysposus of Dr. Eck etc., etc., went up in flames. ...Thus commenced the burning of Babylon which will continue to the end of the world.

Vth response, a principle or two more than a mere fact:

Thus Luther showed himself a barbarian, incapable of answering a detailed condemnation of selected theses by defending the condemned theses (indeed the one I cited above Luther left, when he left belief in Purgatory) rather than condemning the condemner and burning Christian books.

Thus Luther showed himself as putting himself above the Roman See.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Audoux, Paris III

PS: "some near 20 correct translations of Holy Bible"=to diverse German dialects - add other languages, in which Catholic Church was also printing Bible and Bible Part Translations.

mercredi 2 juin 2010

Debate on communism (posted on day before and day of St Justin Martyr, A. D. 2010)

FB fr: What inspires your respect?

several different takers ...

me: Giving commies and other atheists a good argument.

FB fr: Hans, you often make it clear what you are against--but what are you for? Those who navigate primarily by what they don't want get bounced around like a pinball in a pinball-machine--they have no course to steer by, but instead let this or that repulse them and scatter them all over--that makes for a hard life. And, like the pinball, they become readily steered by others who knock them about by their fears and revulsions.

me: My dear ... : I abhor communists because communism is so much like the pinball-machine.

And because once they have heard you are against them, they refuse to let you be for anything. Goes pretty much for Freemasons and the like too.

I did actually not only make it clear I was against them, or I did not even make that clear. I made it clear I was for something else, that something being giving them a good argument.

"Karl Marx was a talented Jew, who understood the problem of Capitalism" ... not quite true, as Lyndon LaRouche observes he underestimated usury ... "but not the solution to it."

That was a good argument, it was stated by José Antonio Primo de Rivera.

Understanding the solution involves Rerum Novarum (Leo XIII) and Quadragesimo Anno (Pius XI) which Dollfuss and Schuschnigg were pretty much for.

And I am for them. [it] seems St Michael owns my respect too ...

Ch. D. : Karl Marx felt that the best society was one that worked as a whole so as to share and share alike. Yet he never did a hard days work in his life and had a wife with 6 kids that he refused to support financially. 2 of his kids died in infancy due to hunger and 2 committed suicide.

What money he did manage to get his hands on (at the expense of someone else) he spent on liquor and cigarettes.

me: May have something to do with demonic interference, but his ideas about society are at odds with human nature.

That "best society" existed and still exists, it is called family. Destroying family in order to remake state and city, market and public services according to the model given by family is so clearly wrong.

Monasteries do work after family model, but there it is voluntarily [as for adult members], same can be said for kibbutzes - or could be said for them, earlier on [I've read news they are being privatised] - and some hippie camps.

FB fr: And of course the communal living described in "Acts of the Apostles" also comes to mind. Sharing is beautiful, when it comes of free will and has the support of faith beyond the material. Communism reminds me of what Tolkien said about Gandalf, if he had taken the Ring: that he would ultimately become worse than Sauron, because eventually he would succumb to the temptation to use it to force people to be good, thereby making evil the last bastion of freedom.

And we, for our part in the USA, have suffered some of that reaction. By resisting Communism for so many years, we have come to mistrust sharing, when we used to be famously generous. We have come to define ourselves as capitolists, rather than as innovaters and defenders of freedom. We have come to make a virtue of greed, and to place mammon above God. This is another reason I find it dangerous to emphasize too much of what you're against rather than what you are for. By defining ourselves as not-Communist, we lost a great deal of what we used to be for.

me: true

Acts of Apostles describing Church of Jerusalem (not every other Church around it) is of course model of coenobite monastic living

but communists as "Gandalf taking the ring" would be about better ones - there is something far worse to it

hold it about US

you and some other people I know are clearly not Cheney or Bush (or Clinton either)

FB fr: Well that's part of becoming worse than Sauron. Once you start forcing people to do what you believe is good, your own concept of good becomes increasingly warped, and eventually downright evil, because you have cut out the very root of goodness, which is love (God is Love.) To deprive others of free will--or of freedom--is to have no love for them, to regard them as things to manipulate, not souls with rights.

me: true

There are people who became communists for getting revenge. That is what I mean about being worse than "Gandalf taking the ring" ... sigh

mardi 1 juin 2010

Accused of being [too] libertarian

Ch. P. If freedom is for the sake of doing good, why do we give so many people freedom to do a bunch of crappy things?

I like how St. Augustine put it down - that Freedom is not Free-will. Free-will is the capacity to choose between good and evil, whereas Freedom is the ability to choose what is good (as opposed to being enslaved by sin).

No person ever defines what is good for themselves, rather they discover what is good for them through discernment and reason - when speaking about basic-human actions (4 cardinal virtues).

To define good is to absurd as trying to tell the world to cease to contain oxygen in it. It will have oxygen whether we like to or not, and no mental act alone can change reality as it stands.

To define what is good is principally a dishonest means to wiggle out of what we already know to be true.

M. B. how do we discern between this "what we already know to be true" and 1) a modern interpretation of what is good for the common person or group, and 2) a personal definition of varying levels of subjective conscious wellbeing.

It would seem that in obtaining/creating a "true" or "God given" set of moral principles, we unintentionally (or intentionally) inject some subjectivity. I believe this subjectivity is a function of what is currently accepted in society.

Ch. P. M., its important to realize that subjectivity is not contrary to objectivity. Both are mutually important. What makes subjectivity authentic, is integrity (searching out the truth through our own experience without being dishonest with ourselves, i.e. rationalization, self-deception, etc). Thus, our subjectivity can be objective, without necessarily being a contradiction.
For instance, it is a universal principle that we should do all things in moderation. If I'm hungry I should not eat 100 hamburgers, nor should I only eat one fry. Both are extremes *(one a defect the other an excess). But that moderation is "relative" to each person, insofar as one person's metabolism differs from another. Thus, the objective standard is immaterial (principle) meanwhile the application is relative. In most cases that is, but there are some instances where there are things that are "intrinsically evil"

ego: Your metabolism likeness answers the question: one man needs the freedom to eat one burgher and a small bag of french fries, another to have two big french fries and a BigMac, plus plenty of mayo, so both freedoms exist.

The crappy things are like the latter eating or getting money to eat only one burgher and a small french fries, or the former eating the BigMac, two big bags of french fries plus plenty of mayo.

But that is not abusing a freedom that should not be there, it is abusing one that should be there, but for opposite combination of use and subjects.

Ch. P. True, and even St. Thomas would agree, people need to have the freedom to "wiggle" a bit. But I think or the most part the issue is an uncontemplated government. It "reacts" to fads, and population demands, but it doesn't even contemplate its own purpose. Ask a politician what the purpose of having freedom is, and you'll get a confused answer.

"Why is freedom good?" And you'll get an answer probably like "It just is" or "its good to do whatever you want."

None of these answers are sufficent, and if they are the basis for freedoms...crap, we are going to have a bunch of people that are "free" because its good to be free (whatever that means?) and then we'll have others who will just do whatever the Heck they want. *Yah...that is a civilized world

ego: But, other things being equal, it is good to do whatever you want, rather than being stopped from it.

And no, it is not a case of "even St Thomas would agree people need to have the freedom to wiggle a bit", it is rather a case of his saying there is a difference between God's law and secular law, and the latter simply should not forbid as much as the former.

Vide: de lege, utrum lex debeat omnes peccata prohibere.

Ch. P. The Natural and Legal Law are subordinate to the Divine Law and are derrivitive of the eternal law.

Furthermore, I'd rather be stopped form doing something that I want, if it was harmful to me. LIke I said before I think its a matter "of balance"

I mean, if you take what you are saying too far, essentially there'd be no reason for Police or a Justice System.

ego: Justice yes, in so far as mortal sins that harm others are to be prohibited, as well as others that harm public peace.
Police, maybe not: it was a Moslem invention. Charlemagne did without, not so Haroun ar Rashid

Ch. P. You truly are a libertarian.
Thomas Aquinas believed in police :)

ego: Where does he say so? That he believes in judges, prosecutors, witnesses is clear, what is totally NOT clear is a supposed belief on his part in policemen monitoring who "signs in" in a hotel or helping doctors to make mental patients captives under treatment or helping social assistants take away children from parents (except if they were killing their child or taking away a baptised child's Catholic faith) or helping school teachers to shove children to schools where they do not want to be. That is totally not clear from what he said or wrote.

And, no, I am not a [total] libertarian. I do not believe abortion, sodomy, rape, et c should be tolerated. Or murder or theft.

I do however believe part of the duty of protecting citizens against murder and mayhem, or even slavery, may well be in the hands of armed citizens rather than an armed special force.

Thus Church Fathers cite the case of a man killing in self defense against a criminal attack "according to the laws of the emperors".

Posted 27/V/2010 - 31/V/2010