“There’s no use trying,’ she said: ‘one can’t believe impossible things.’ ‘I daresay you haven’t had much practice,’ said the Queen. ‘When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.’” – Through The Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll As I watch the nightly news from urban liberal war-zones like Portland or force my eyeballs to stay open through the Democrats’ virtual convention, I keep thinking, “We’re through the looking glass, people!” And that’s not just an expression. I mean that, like Carroll’s mad Red Queen, in order to be a Democrat in 2020, you are required to believe an unlimited number of impossible things. The Party’s embrace of “Alice In Wonderland” level madness inspired me to start making a list of these impossible things. To be a Democrat today, you have to believe… 1. That a pre-born human baby is not a human being deserving of protection from killing, and neither is a baby that was born 10 minutes ago if the mother decides she doesn’t want to keep it. 2. That capitalism, which has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and despair worldwide, is evil; but socialism, which has caused the oppression, impoverishment, starvation, and death of hundreds of millions of people over the past century, is the only hope of the future. 3. That the best solution for rioting, looting, arson, and violence in the streets is to defund the police. 4. That all the gains in the economy under Trump were really caused by Obama, but the worldwide economic crash following China’s unleashing of a pandemic was caused by Trump. 5. That Trump has a plan to rig the next election that involves making the Obama Administration remove thousands of mailboxes several years ago. Also, that the Post Office is removing little-used mailboxes in Oregon because the key to Trump’s reelection is for him to win Oregon. 6. And on that subject, that nobody ever complained about the US Post Office being slow, inefficient, and unreliable until Trump was elected. 7. That America is an oppressive, racist, white supremacist nation that’s the root of all evil in the world and its culture is inferior to that of other nations, including the many nations where people are willing to risk their lives just for the chance to come to America. 8. That Trump built “cages for children” on the border during the Obama Administration. 9. That viruses spread like wildfire at church services, but not at crowded protest rallies for left-wing causes. Also, viruses spread at bars that serve chips, but not at bars that serve sandwiches. Because “science!” 10. That people with male genitals are women just because they say they are, but people who say that actually having female genitals makes them women are intolerant, transphobic bigots. 11. Also, hospitals must be forced to give gynecological exams to “women” with male genitals, and taxpayers forced to pay for abortions for them. 12. Again on that subject, that someone born male who developed a muscular masculine physique before deciding he was a girl has no unfair physical advantage in sports over the much smaller teenage girl whose face (s)he is crushing into the wrestling mat. 13. That Trump botched the response to COVID-19 by xenophobically shutting down travel from China and crashing the economy with a shutdown, but Democrats would have prevented both the pandemic and the crash by not stopping travel from China and shutting down the economy sooner, harder and longer. Also, it’s absolutely impossible for Trump to keep people from crossing our border, but he could have kept a virus from crossing our border. 14. That an acceptable way to express how much you care about black lives is to burn black neighborhoods, loot black-owned businesses, and tear down statues of abolitionist leaders. Also, that all black lives matter except those of black cops, black Republicans, and black pre-born babies. 15. That free healthcare is a right, free college is a right, free food is a right, a guaranteed paycheck is a right, and citizenship for illegal immigrants is a right, but free speech and freedom of religion are not rights. 16. That the people who presided over the rise of ISIS, the Iraq and Afghan wars, a nuclear Iran and North Korea, and even Iran falling to the Mullahs in the first place, are trusted diplomatic professionals, while the man who crushed ISIS, dealt with Iran and North Korea, and crafted a historic Middle East peace agreement is a dangerous amateur who’s destroying our foreign policy. 17. That disproven rumors are evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to undermine a presidential election, but Democrats paying Russians for disproven rumors and using them as “evidence” to launch a Deep State coup is NOT collusion with Russia to undermine a presidential election. 18. That 2 + 2 only equals 4 because of white supremacy. 19. That there are 57 genders but only one acceptable political viewpoint. 20. That burning a flag is protected free speech, but objecting to someone burning a flag is not. Okay, this could go on forever, so I’m going to stop at 20 and let you add to the list in the comments. Have fun, if that’s not impossible these days… Email Link https://conta.cc/34lrdGa
A Sort-of Goodbye to Germany?Victor Davis Hanson Aug. 20, 2020President Trump recently ordered a 12,000-troop reduction in American military personnel stationed in Germany. That leaves about 24,000 American soldiers still in the country. A little more than half of the troops being withdrawn will return home. The rest will be redeployed to other NATO member nations such as Belgium, Italy, and perhaps Baltic and Eastern European countries. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is said to be furious. She claims the redeployments will “weaken the (NATO) alliance.” German commercial interests chimed in that the troop withdrawals will hurt their decades-old businesses serving U.S. bases. Perhaps, but Merkel surely cannot be surprised. Six years ago, all NATO members pledged to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Yet only eight of 29 so far have kept their word. Germany spends only about 1.4 percent of its GDP on defense. As NATO’s largest, wealthiest and most powerful European member, it sets the example for the rest of alliance. Merkel’s reneging on her 2014 pledge helps explain why less wealthy and influential NATO members also see no reason to meet their obligations. Germany surely knows that 2020 marks the 75th anniversary of the end of the World War II, and the 29th year since the fall of the Berlin Wall — the symbolic end of the Cold War. Will there be any point in the future when Europe is confident enough to be a full defense partner with the U.S. rather than an eight-decade client? NATO, of course, still provides a common European defense, but only by habitually relying inordinately on U.S. military contributions. That dependence seems increasingly odd when the European Union has an aggregate GDP nearly as large as America’s. More important, NATO’s frontline threats are now mostly concerned with rogue member Turkey, especially its bullying of Greece and its increasingly aggressive stance in the Middle East. Russia always poses a threat to Europe. But the likely flashpoints are not on the German border, but more likely eastward in the Baltic states or on the Russian frontier with Poland. Moreover, the Merkel government has concluded, over American objections, a huge natural gas deal with Russia that is currently under some U.S. sanctions and short of cash. Russian energy exports to Germany are said to earn Russia $10 billion a year, with a likely doubling of that income once additional pipelines to Germany are completed. Merkel likes to lecture the world on moral issues, but what is so noble about empowering Russian President Vladimir Putin, who recently reclaimed Crimea and seems now to be eyeing Belarus? Like a modern-day Byzantine emperor Justinian, who recovered much of the lost Western Roman Empire, Putin seems to think he can reabsorb the lost Soviet republics. In recent polling, Germans were more anti-American than any other nation in Europe. And while about 75 percent of Americans believe the U.S. still has a good relationship with Germany, only about a third of Germans feel that way about the U.S. Nearly half the German population in some polls want U.S. troops out. Note that Germany piles up the largest annual trade surplus with the U.S. of any nation in Europe — roughly $55 billion to $70 billion in most years. The Trump administration says the surpluses have grown in large part due to asymmetry in tariffs and duties, with Germany the far more protectionist of the two partners. With Germany now united, rich and often angry, and with the Soviet threat largely over, it’s Germany, not the U.S., that seems to have altered its view of this once-solid relationship. Does Merkel really believe that if her nation cuts huge deals with NATO’s historically greatest threat, polls as the most anti-American country in Europe and still refuses to honor its promises to increase defense spending, Germany still deserves a large American commitment of 36,000 troops to anchor its defense? There is one caveat that the Trump administration and other European countries might consider. According to its founders, NATO was created for three reasons: to keep the always aggressive Russians “out” of Europe, to keep the often isolationist Americans “in” to help protect it, and to keep the supposedly restless Germans “down” in order to avoid a replay of their invasions that ignited both world wars. In other words, the huge defense commitment to an often ungracious Germany over eight decades was not just envisioned to create a central base from which to protect Europe from ancient Russian ambitions, but also to remind Germany itself of its checkered past. That third mission seems ossified and silly now. But it is not entirely forgotten, and it may explain why many in Europe — and some in Germany itself — are worried when any American soldiers leave Germany.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on BRAVO PRESIDENT TRUMP/ BOO CHANCELLOR ANGELA MERKEL According to its founders, NATO was created for three reasons: to keep the always aggressive Russians “out” of Europe, to keep the often isolationist Americans “in” to help protect it, and to keep the supposedly restless Germans “down” in order to avoid a replay of their invasions that ignited both world wars. In other words, the huge defense commitment to an often ungracious Germany over eight decades was not just envisioned to create a central base from which to protect Europe from ancient Russian ambitions, but also to remind Germany itself of its checkered past.
In the Summer Issue of the Latin Mass Magazine, 2020, there has appeared an article by Father Brian Harrison, on pp. 12-19, with 21 footnotes, entitled, “Is Benedict Still the Pope”.
Since I was named in the article and insulted, I will reply to the the entire argument. I was not notified of the publication by either the editor of the magazine or the author of the article. A reader informed me.
For a summary of my reply, see the end of this article. I have decided to make no preliminary comments, because I want you to use your reason, not my opinions, to evaluate my criticism of what Father Harrison says.
First, I will thank Father Harrison for attempting to defend his position with words. He holds that Benedict is certainly no longer the pope. By expressing his thoughts in words the entire Church is given the opportunity to assess the value of his argument. This is so unlike 100% of the College of Cardinals and 99.99% of the Bishops and 99.999% of the priests.
I invite you to obtain a copy of the magazine and read his article so you can avail yourself of this rare opportunity to, as it were, look into the mind of a priest who names Pope Francis daily in the Canon of the Mass.
I will only outline the argument and comment, here, as my reply.
Second, I thank the editor of the Latin Mass Magazine for admitting the controversy exists. This controversy became heated in November 2018. So to discuss it in his magazine nearly 20 months later, is the very least a sign that the controversy has not gone away. This is so unlike 99% of all Catholic publications, which have neither the courage nor integrity to confront the issue.
However, since those who say Benedict XVI is no longer the pope have had 20 months to put their arguments together, every reader of Father Harrison’s article should expect the best of all arguments.
So here is my running commentary on the argument presented in his article.
Resignationists, p. 12
At the beginning of his article, Father Harrison explains that he will slur all his opponents with a name: resignationists. This is really not necessary, and quite uncharitable. For as Aristotle says, when a man fails to have a rational argument for his position he begins with insults (ad hominem arguments). And to do that at the beginning of your article sends the wrong message.
But in his haste to insult his opponents, he has made a logical error. Because it is he who holds that Benedict has resigned, and his opponents who hold that he has not resigned. This oversight, at the very beginning, makes us wonder whether Father Harrison wrote this article in a calm thoughtful state of mind, without excessive anger or passion.
Frame the Discussion, p. 12
The first honest way to enter a debate is not to open by saying that those who disagree with you are psychologically of doubtful sanity or suffer from psychosis (inability to accept reality). But that is what Father Harrison does, by saying that the thesis of his opponents hold an opinion which disagrees with 5000 less 2 Bishops and 100% of the Cardinals. Therefore, he argues you should dismiss it on grounds that the world considers it improbable.
This is not the proper way to argue. Since truth is not determined by a vote, the truth can be that which the majority might disagree with. But also, Father is arguing ex silentio. Because clearly 99% of the Church has never examined the evidence for or against the validity of the Papal resignation. So that they hold any opinion is not evidence of anything other than that the hearsay is that the Pope has resigned and that the vast majority did not think to question the hearsay. That proves nothing about the truth, it only makes an observation about the power of the mass media and political networks to convince the masses that something is true, whether it be true or not. I think we can all admit that the Media has this power, as we have just come out of a lock down for a winter flu!
Moreover, just as we would not build a sound argument as to whether the world is flat or a globe, based on the opinion of 99% of the population, because in one age, that was thought to be the truth, which in another age was thought to be false, so in all other things, we do not judge what is true based on opinions of those who do not know, but guess.
Father Harrison by opening his article with such an argument is saying that those who have never investigated and who cannot know the facts, because of their failure to investigate, should be taken, before we investigate, as the presumptive possessors of the truth. That is simply absurd, as it is the principle of thought in highly ignorant and primitive pre-scientific societies.
If Father really believes in such a principle, it is a wonder what he believes about many other affairs in which 99% have not the expertise to know the facts, laws or scientific principles which regard it.
When one argues, one should begin with the strongest of arguments. And so we must assume that Father Harrison has done exactly that, and move on to his other arguments.
But Benedict is not ignorant, pp. 12-13
Next Father Harrison argues, that since Benedict is not ignorant, then what he intended or did is what I think he intended or did, because otherwise what he intended or did would be stupid or erroneous.
That is a good argument to use while you are shaving in the bathroom all alone, but I assure you it does not convince anyone outside your bathroom.
What is necessary for a pope to renounce his office (munus)?, p. 13
Next Father Harrison opens by framing the question thus. And he shows that he does not even know Latin, by calling the office by the Latin word munus. I admit that if one has been reading the Code of Canon Law according to the English translation widely found on the internet, this can happen. I committed the same blunder in my Scholastic Question. But munus does not mean office, as any dictionary of the Latin language will tell you. And though in Canon 145 §1 it says that every officium is a munus, according to the rules of logic, that does not mean that the word munus translates as office. Just as if you said, that “Every dog is a living animal”, it does not mean that in the sentence, “Homo est animal vivens” you can replace animal vivens with dog. (For those who do not read Latin, that Latin sentence says, “A man is a living animal”).
But rather than discuss here what the word munus means, he launches into the second half of Canon 332 §2 and puts off the crucial argument to the end. Which is a really bad way to argue, since your first arguments will have no foundation in fact or law if you have not yet admitted what you hold about the nature of the act which the canon requires. Even Our Lord told us what will happen with those who build on sand, so I do not have to repeat His teaching.
Did Pope Benedict XVI resign freely?, p. 13
The first argument should be whether Pope Benedict resigned, and then having proven that, whether he did so freely and with due manifestation. That would be to argue logically and according to the order of words in Canon 332 §2.
But Father Harrison does not do that. He begins with the debate over liberty. His argument is basically, that those who say the renunciation was not free are presuming, as there is no conclusive evidence. I am surprised at this point that Father Harrison wants to look at evidence, since he told us at the beginning of his article that we must presume that that what 99% of everyone who have not investigated hold a thing to be, is what we should presume a thing to be. Why should we investigate whether the act is free or not? if we are to begin with such presumptions? He does not say.
As for what criterion must be met to establish a canonical act to be free, Father Harrison does not cite any canonical principal. He also does not distinguish between the freedom to do one thing and the freedom to do another. That Pope Benedict XVI says in his Declaratio of Feb. 11, 2013 that he freely declares does not mean that he was free to do that which I think he meant, when I close my eyes to what words he actually said. That would be to transfer his claim of liberty in what he said, to my claim of what he meant by what he said. And that is simply incorrect. Nor does it mean that if he freely declares, that which he declared he did freely, just as if a man says, “I freely declare that I will vote for Trump,” does not mean that he will vote for Trump or has voted for Trump.
I would like to see a canonical reference to what constitutes liberty in a canonical act. I think as of yet this is one of the great weaknesses in the discussion.
For transparency, I admit that I presume an act to be free, unless its author says otherwise at any time. But I only hold to be free the act which he specified, not any acts which I believe he may have or might have wanted to posit. I think in the presence of a lack of further information this is the only sound position.
Father Harrison closes this section by appealing to the principle that those who assert the act was not free are the ones who need to prove their assertion. This is a good principle of argumentation, and I recommend that Father Harrison think to apply it to his own argument.Because, as it is he who says that Benedict is not the pope, when he in fact agrees with the whole Catholic world that Benedict was validly elected as the Pope, it is the duty of Father Harrison TO PROVE CONCLUSIVELY that Benedict XVI is NO LONGER the pope, before we accept anything he says. He has not done this, so you can judge the solidity of his arguments on that forensic basis.
Did Pope Benedict XVI duly manifest what he did?, pp. 13-14.
Father Harrison also holds that the act was duly manifested. He seems to not know what the canonical term, rite, means, as he makes no reference to the law. But in substance he argues as if it means what it does mean, namely, that the Pope make his act known in the presence of at least two Bishops, and does so most properly before the body which elected him, the Cardinals. I agree that this was done, but it is immaterial if you do not address WHAT the pope did, because, if a pope rite manifests that he declares the Moon made of cheese, you cannot rightly judge the canonical value of his act without considering whether the Moon is really made of cheese or not, and whether the Pope has the authority to make such a declaration or not. This is obvious. A child can see it.
Did Pope Benedict XVI renounce that which he had to renounce?, p. 14
Father Harrison frames the core question within the context of a due manifestation. This is not precise, but adequate for purposes of debate.
He opens his argument by saying that munus and ministerium mean basically the same thing, as all dictionaries of Ecclesiastical Latin show. I do not know which dictionaries he uses, so I cannot judge his statement. I know how to use Latin Dictionaries, as I have translated more than 9000 pages of medieval Latin. I my opinion his appeal to dictionaries is a bad argument, even if dictionaries were uniform — which they are not — since dictionaries are uniformly inaccurate and full of errors. Only one who really uses many dictionaries and who has precisely studied the Latin of one epoch knows how to avoid such errors and how many errors there are. Moreover, even if a dictionary has among the many meanings of a word, the same meaning as those meanings which are found under the heading of another Latin word, THAT DOES NOT MEAN that in any given sentence or writing, in which both words appear, that the author intended to use them in the same sense. This should be obvious. Otherwise, every author talking about how his dog got upset and bit the surface of a tree, would not be able to be understood as to what he was referring with the word, “bark”. If Father Harrison really wants us to believe and accept his principle for verbal interpretations, I think he is joking with us.
But more importantly, Father Harrison seems to be entirely ignorant of Canon 17, which is discussed frequently in this debate. Because in Canon 17 it does not cite dictionaries as a source to be used to understand the meaning of any term in Canon Law. Father Harrison must know of canon 17, as everything I write refers to it frequently. As he will next directly name me in his article, he cannot be ignorant of it. Therefore his omission of reference to this Canon should be understood as a BIG SIGN that he knows his argumentation would fail if he opened that can of worms, as we say.
It was Benedict’s indisputable intention, p. 14
After accusing Catholics of presuming that Benedict did not have the intention to resign, without evidence, Father Harrison opens his argument about munus and ministerium by asserting as a principle, that Benedict indisputably intend to use both words synonymous. But though he asserts this and repeats it, he gives no proof.
As a translator, I know that is the wrong way to approach any text. First, you see how the words are used, and second you argue from what is clear. But you certainly never say that when an author uses different words, that it is certain he intended to mean the same thing. Such a principle is not even rational, and it is certainly not one which comes from a mind which seeks to precisely know the causes of every variation in a text. What more can I say, than that it is a weak argument, because once again, Father Harrison wants us to take him as the authority on what Benedict intended, even though he has argued well that those who make assertions must prove them, and as we will see in the following, he never proves this assertion, he just keeps referring to it. Thus, he argues as if the rule of proof does not apply to himself, only to his opponents. And that is a very bad way to argue, because it makes you appear intellectually conceited.
Furthermore, his argument is bad forensics. For it is like the argument, “If you keep your eyes closed you will see that there is no evidence in this room of a murder”. For, Father Harrison first wants to convince us not to look at the evidence by running at us with an argument which takes him as the authority that there is no evidence to see.
The Pope meant munus when he said ministerium because…, pp. 14-15.
Beside repeating that self-referential principle, Father Harrison advances an old argument, which I summarize thus: Since what Pope Benedict XVI says in his Declaratio, contains words which follow the renunciation of ministerium, which only would in fact have effect IF he renounced munus, then we must read ministerium as if it were munus.
This is one of the strongest arguments that can be mustered for the validity of the renunciation. I say, strongest, because it seems strong to those who do not think about it. It was the very hermenutic that I held for 5 years, when I did not think about it.
But if we use comparisons, we can see that it is not an argument at all. And this is the proper way to begin to think about it.
Here are some examples of what humans can say and whether this principle of interpreting words which are prior in a sentence by words which follow in a sentence is a valid way of reading a sentence. Take these 3 examples:
I went to the mechanic to fetch my car after its repairs, so that my wife would not invite me to play bridge with her friends.
I went to do my weekly shopping at the supermarket, so that I would not miss out on my haircut.
I am going to renounce eating bananas, so that the see of Peter becomes vacant.
In the first sentence, we see that what follows in the second half of the sentence refers to a condition which the speaker wanted to avoid, but it does not explain why his car needed repairs, only his cause for doing a necessary thing at that moment. If one argued that the game of bridge caused the meaning of the first half of the sentence, and not merely indicated an occasion which the speaker wanted to evade, you would end up concluding that the car needing repairs had something more to do with the game of cards, which is patently absurd.
In the second sentence, we see that there is something which the speaker leaves unexplained. And we the readers are left to conjecture as to why the speaker has put both thoughts together. We might postulate that the barbershop is near the supermarket or along the way to or from it, but that would be pure supposition. We are left not knowing the intention of the speaker and it would be clear that we could not really know it without asking him. If we assume anything, it is clear that we are adding data which is not contained in the statement, and by doing so might end up with a totally unfounded conclusion, based on our erroneous supposition and interpretation.
In the third sentence, we are confronted with something which is inexplicable, because we recognize that there is no rational cause why renouncing bananas has to do with vacating the Apostolic See. If we assume that which follows in the second half of the sentence requires that the word, bananas, means the papal office, then we are clearly being irrational and unjust in our interpretation. And if anyone tried this, he surely would be laughed at.
But Father Harrison commits this same blunder. If his key argument that what Benedict intended to do requires us to read ministerium as munus, then he must be honest to admit that that is his interpretation, and that if there be no rational reason why a renouncing of service leads to a renunciation of office, then his argument is unjust and irrational itself, and thus should be laughed at.
Father Harrison does not address the relationship between ministerium and munus, where he admits such words might mean two different things. But if he needs help, he only needs to examine the facts of history throughout the hold world in recent months.
For the Bishops of the world renounced their priestly ministry to the faithful during the lockdown. Thus if a renunciation of ministry leads causally and necessarily to the renunciation of munus, then the Bishops are no longer our superiors. Does Father Harrison actually believe that? And if he does NOT, why does he think such an argument is valid to kick Benedict out, but not kick out his own Bishop?
Footnote 10, p. 14
But as Father Harrison cites my Scholastic Question in footnote 10, of this his argument, I will respond to his objection there. He says that since Benedict uses ita ut, not simply ut, my objection regarding ut, does not apply. He seems to think that ita ut and ut are two different phrases in Latin, generically different, that is, of two different genera. He has evidently never studied Latin grammar, since ut is a conjunction and ita is an adverb, and thus, the phrase ita ut is a species of an ut clause. What I have said, that an ut phrase indicates a goal but does not necessarily achieve that goal is in no way undone by Father Harrison’s gratuitous assertion that ita ut does introduce a clause which alters the meaning of the main sentence, because if you do that which Father Harrison is fond of — use a Latin dictionary — you will see that “ita” when used as an adverbial particle means “so much”. So Father is saying that in the sentence,
I declare that I renounce bananas so much that (ita ut) the see of St. Peter will be vacant.
the use of ita ut produces the vacancy of the See. If that is his argument, I think all humanity would disagree.
Actually, however, having read 9000 pages of Latin and written a Latin Grammar, I can tell you that ita ut can only be translated as “so much that,” when that which precedes is capable of quantification.
Such as in the sentence:
I walked so much that I began to feel very tired.
And since no amount of renouncing service causes the loss of an office, since these two things are not quantitative measures of one another — service being exercise, and office being that which is exercised — you cannot read ita ut as “so much that,” if you still want us to consider you a rational being, arguing in good faith.
But Father Harrison ignores this glaring inconsistency, and moves on and says…
A Certain Br. Alexis Bugnolo, p. 15
Well, I thank Father Harrison for naming me, even if he does so as if I were a certain species to be on guard against. In English it is a denigration to put “certain” in front of a persons name. But since he also prefaces this by calling me a resignationist, I will suppose that 2 insults to introduce me is a psychological way to warn those readers who want to be mind controlled by Father Harrison, that I am a dangerous individual and that all should accept what Father Harrison says of me, and not consider or investigate further!
I am reminded of certain thought control institutions of the Soviet Union — but I digress.
Here are Father’s actual words:
The resignationist who insists most emphatically, and in the most detail, that regardless of the Pope’s own intentions, formally renouncing the ministerium, but not the munus, will not leave Peter’s See vacant, is a certain Brother Alexis Bugnolo. So what is his proof that ministerium can never be used canonically as a synonym for munus? He tells us: “This can be seen from its use in the Headings of the New Code for canon 145 §1, where every ecclesiastical office is called a munus, not a ministerium.”11 Well, that is true of c. 145, but throughout the subsequent 51 canons in this section,12 “every ecclesiastical office” is called an officium not a munus.
Here, I have to laugh. Because Father Harrison counters my assertion which regards the predication of officium with munus, with the assertion that the English translation has office for the Latin word munus. Does he think that is an argument?
I am talking about the Latin text, and he is talking about the relationship between the English and Latin texts. That does not disprove what I say. To disprove what I say, you would have to find in those next 51 canons a Latin sentence which connects the noun ministerium with officium, or vice versa, with the Latin verb esse, to be. Because that is what predication is, the connection of two nouns with the verb to be. And since every definition is founded upon a predication, if you cannot find such a sentence, your argument that the two words mean the same thing HAS ABSOLUTELY NO FOUNDATION IN THE TEXT NOR IN LOGIC.
But perhaps Father really does not understand things of this kind. I wonder if he has ever read a treatise on Logic or on Grammar. He does cite my Scholastic Question, so he has read something about both.
Next after making several sweeping assertions without any proof, he accuses me of his own sin, saying that I make a sweeping assertion regarding the whole of Canon Law on the meaning of munus and ministerium. While it is true I make such an assertion in my Scholastic Question, that the assertion is global, and affirmative does not make it unfounded, since I had already studied the Code before making it, and since at the academic conference in October 2019, here at Rome, I demonstrated it textually and conclusively. But perhaps Father Harrison did not know that. (see here: https://fromrome.info/2019/10/31/munus-and-ministerium-a-canonical-study/). I therefore make a quite founded assertion. And if anyone reads that study he will see that ministerium never means munus in the Code of Canon law of 1983, and that canon 17 requires us to accept that as the teaching of the Magisterium on this debate.
Father Harrison attempts to refute that conclusion by saying that Canon Law does exactly what I say it never does. He quotes Book III, title 2 of the Code, but cites no canon. As I can find no canon there which says a ministerium is a munus, I do not know how to respond to Father Harrison’s implicit assertion that I am ignorant or a liar. His accusation is grave, and he should have cited his proof. What Father Harrison is arguing, is that since this section begins with the Title, De divini verbi ministerio, that all the occurrences of munus in this section are to be read as ministerium.
As I said before, a definition is founded upon a predication, which is a sentence in which two nouns are conjoined by the verb, to be, in one of its forms, in the present tense.
What Father Harrison has done is created a new unheard of definition of a definition. According to him, if a noun appears in a title of any text, any word in that text which he says means the same thing as the noun, means the same thing as that noun. This means, in the world of Father Harrison, everyone who has ever written dictionary, will now have to appeal to his infallible authority to determine which nouns mean the same thing as the nouns in the titles of every text. Father has a a lot of work a head of him, and I wish him a long life to fulfill it. But as for the reason of us who know that his argument is grasping for straw, we can see that such a rule of interpretation is simply a gratuitous assertion posing as infallible principle, to do that which no human has ever done in history.
The common sense way to read a text defies Father Harrison. Because, titles tell us the general topic of the text which follows, and in that text there can be many names and nouns for things related to the topic, not all of them are or have to be the definitions of the nouns in the title. To prove this, pick up any book and read the Title and then open it.
Father follows up this argument, by saying that the ministries of lector an acolyte are offices. I think he is thinking of the Code of 1917, in which both are minor orders. The offices of acolyte and lector were abolished in the new Code. They are now only ministries, which is why a woman can fulfill the duties of each, under certain circumstances. So his argument that the fulfillment of their duty is called ministeria in the Code does not mean that the Code holds them to be munera by definition. Father is also ignoring the meaning of words — he has been doing this the entire time — since every munus has a ministerium, we should expect that when the Code speaks of the ministry of the clergy to preach, that it will first refer to their munus of teaching. So his argument proves nothing at all. Nay, since as I said, that every office is a munus, does not prove that every munus is an office. So even if there are liturgical munera which are exercises as ministeria, that does not prove they are the same thing, because the title to authority which is an office is not the work done to fulfill the duty of that office, as every sane person can see. As I explained in my 7 part documentary (see here), munus is used to describe liturgical duties in the presence of a priest because the priest has a munus sanctificandi and he coopts minor orders to assist him in this duty at Mass, therefore the munera being exercised are not theirs, but his. That is why they exercise a ministry property speaking, but properly speaking have no munus. This is not difficult to understand.
His clear and correctly expressed intention, p. 15
Father Harrison then moves on to a discussion of substantial error in the act of resignation. His basic argument is that the Pope is not stupid, and I hold that he was stupid if he did anything other that validly resign the papal office, therefore he did validly resign. — This is another of those arguments that might come to you while shaving, but I recommend you leave it in the bathroom.
But more importantly, Father has misrepresented Canon 332, which in no part of it speaks of the necessity of having the proper intention as a condition of validity or as the definition of the essence of the act. This is because Canon Law regards things in the external forum. What the pope intended cannot be a source of the validity of the act, because since what he intended is secret and known to God alone, no act of resignation could ever be certain if we required intention as a cause of its validity. Also, intentions when judged by others are often misjudged. Thus Father Harrison is taking a criterion upon which he asserts his infallible authority to judge to close off consideration of the fact that a juridical act must be judged by external evidence alone, or else no certitude can be had about what it dos not does not mean.
Here we arrive at a fundamental point: that a papal resignation is invalid does not mean any grave fault upon anyone, per se. It can simply be an error in the Latin. However, the Code of Canon Law which Pope John Paul II published and which remains the law of the Church which alone judges the act of the man who is the pope, requires that the man who is the pope objectively signify that which the code requires him to signify in a papal renunciation. Lacking munus or any other word which canonically necessarily means munus, means the act is defective. What is the problem with such an approach. You would only argue against that if you benefit in some way from the error.
In the next 2 and one half pages, Father Harrison rails against those who argues that Benedict has acted for 7 years as one who has retained something of the papal authority. His position is that since there can be Bishops emeriti, there can be Popes emeriti. But as there is nothing in Canon law about a pope emeritus, here again, we must have recourse to Father Harrison’s infallible ability to interpret everything and conclude that he is completely unquestionable in his argument (I am being sarcastic). The most eminent canonists of Rome have argued from the first week of March, 2013, that there is no such status as a pope emeritus and that Benedict must stop wearing white, calling himself, the Pope, signing with his Papal Name, and the P.P., and giving Papal blessings. So evidently there are some who think differently than Father Harrison on this point.
In Summary
Father Brian Harrison has presented us with the argument of a priest, who names Pope Francis in the canon of the Mass, and who has developed a long litany of excuses for his own behavior. The principles of his argument are self contradictory, illogical, irrational, and in many cases involve principles of interpretation which he has invented for this argument. He has employed every tactic of the nominalist to prove his case, resorting to the most sordid forms of argumentation and logic. In such wise, he has given everyone who does not want to find the truth reasons not to think.
But, thankfully, in doing so, he has give all rational men a strong motive to doubt that anyone at all who holds that Pope Francis is the Pope, after investigating the evidence of history and the requirements of the law, is truly honest or rational.
Contrariwise, he has negatively proven that LOGIC, REASON, GRAMMAR, AND LAW ALL TESTIFY THAT BENEDICT IS THE POPE! Since to argue his case, he chose to attack all four of these. All Catholics therefore who understand that our Faith requires us to accept logic, reason, grammar and Church Law, thus can conclude that Father Harrison’s argument comes from the ancient serpent who wishes us to destroy our minds, our speech and live lawlessly. And that is the spirit of the man of Sin, whose time is rapidly approaching.
I therefore conclude, that Benedict XVI is the pope, since he remains such unless it can be proven he is no longer such. That is my duty as a Catholic. And I invite you to be dutiful Catholics.
Viva Papa Benedetto!
Watch my 7 part documentary proving that Benedict XVI is still the pope, which I published at Easter this year, at >
Which is the best definition of a dystopia?A dystopia (from Ancient Greek δυσ- “bad” and τόπος “place”; alternatively cacotopia or simply anti-utopia) is a community or society that is undesirable or frightening.
Manufacturing children using the genetic material of multiple parents is not a prospect to be celebrated. It is a dystopian technology, making children, as if they were consumer goods, and unmaking the family, as if it were not essential to the common good.
The New York Times recently ran an op-ed titled “The Poly-Parent Households are Coming.” It is notable for its celebratory approach to two future prospects: that human children might be created from manufactured gametes (sperm and egg) through a process called in vitro gametogenesis (IVG), which could include the genetic material of more than two “parents”; and the destabilization of the “traditional family structure,” for since once we no longer need that structure for the creation of children, “our need for that traditional family is likely to fade as well.”
The op-ed’s author, Debora L. Spar, is certainly correct to link the two possibilities. Such a radical decoupling of child-production from sexual reproduction will quite likely lead to the waning of two-parent, husband-and-wife, mother-and-father parenting as the paradigmatic form of family life to an even greater extent than has already happened. But it is worth probing the ethics of such a venture. I argue that Spar’s future scenario involves the making of what should never be made and the unmaking of something that should be protected as an invaluable human good and cultural achievement.
Making Babies
IVG, which creates male and female gametes from stem cells, irrespective of the sex of the cell donor, currently works only in mice. “But,” as Spar notes, “with very few exceptions, recent history suggests that advances in reproductive technologies nearly always jump eventually from the animal world to humans. If we can figure out how to make babies, and to configure their creation in more precise ways, we do it.”
One might see in this merely descriptive and predictive passage the seeds of a convergence of criticisms from both the bioethical right and left. The right will (rightly, to my mind) critique the proposal to “make babies.” Making is, after all, a way of approaching the material stuff of nature by exercising creative control over it so as to bring about a product.
How could such a venture be respectful of the personal reality of human beings? An artificer is always superior to his or her (or their) product, since they possess a sovereignty over both its nature and its existence, bringing about each in accordance with his or her (or their) desires. That is, it is up to the artificer whether the thing shall come into existence, and what it shall come into existence as. In early stages of a technology, such control is wanting to some degree, but it is always the guiding aspiration of the artificer.
This attitude is incompatible with the fundamental equality of persons. As free and rational by nature, neither who a person is, nor whether that person exists, should be subject to another’s choice. Our cultural agreement on this lies behind our rejection of slavery, which treats a person as property, and to some extent behind the rejection of capital punishment, which gives some persons warrant to decide whether to end the lives of others.
Does IVG treat a human being in such a way? The evidence that it would is written all over Spar’s essay, and for her clarity in this regard we should be grateful. Spar begins her piece with a description of Anna and Nicole, non-romantic friends, tired of waiting for husbands, who “decide to have a baby.” She describes the effects of earlier assisted reproductive technologies, such as in vitro fertilization and surrogacy, as shifting our attention from the biological grounds of reproduction of children “to the contractual terms that had initiated their birth.” Or again, to repeat, “If we can figure out how to make babies, and to configure their creation in more precise ways, we do it.”
Is not sexual reproduction itself a form of baby making, though, just not as efficient as contemporary assisted reproductive technologies? No. Spouses seeking a baby do not decide either to have a baby, or to have this baby, the one that will result from this bit of genetic material matched with that. Rather, in sexual union, two persons engage in a human act that brings about the conditions under which a human being might come into existence through subsequent processes entirely out of the couple’s control. The appropriate attitude toward this possibility is hope.
The resulting child, when conceived as a result of a loving marital act, hoped for by the spouses, and accepted as a gift and not demanded as a satisfaction, can be said, as Jennifer Roback Morse has said many times, to be loved into existence.
So much for the familiar rightward criticism. But some left-leaning bioethicists will also object, arguing that bringing a child to term who has been conceived through IVG would constitute an immoral form of human experimentation. Liberal bioethicists have not objected much to recent advances in reproductive technologies (including cloning) as such, but they have often objected that such techniques should not be used to bring a human child to term, since we could not know in advance what medical pathologies such a child might be subject to.
This concern will be exacerbated by precisely the possibilities Spar considers: male stem cells used to create oocytes, female stem cells to create sperm cells, multiple rounds of gametogenesis combined with IVF to create children with four (or more) genetic parents. The full consequences of such interventions, visited upon children without their consent, simply cannot be known in advance.
As different as the left- and right-leaning critiques are, they find common ground precisely in the left’s characterization of what is happening as an (unconsented to) experiment. For this description captures very well the attitude of mastery and manipulation that is at the heart of the right’s criticism of baby-making. In a sense, every act of making is an experiment, an assay upon matter to see whether it will do as one wishes, and become what one wants.
This experimental approach toward children is also apparent in Spar’s predictions of how new family structures, or anti-structures, will emerge as a result of IVG. She imagines threesomes and foursomes of any combination of sex, age, and relationship: friends, lovers, multi-generational family members. She acknowledges that poly-parenting “will never become the norm for most families,” but goes on to say: “once we start imagining, and then living in, a world of fluid parenting, it becomes increasingly likely that we will also undo or at least revise our centuries’ old conviction that procreative unions—like Noah’s animals—come only in pairs.”
Can one say with certainty that a world of fluid parenting will be good for the children of such parents? One cannot. Here again, Spar is envisioning a massive social experiment in which the lives of non-consenting children—already literally begun in a test tube—are further subject to treatment in which the guiding concern is not their own flourishing, but the satisfaction of desire of those variously related to them.
Unmaking the Family
This brings me to my second point. Spar proposes that IVG should be a step—a giant step—in the unmaking of the “traditional family.” But the virtues of the traditional family can be seen by comparing it with the likely outcomes of poly-parenting.
In the “traditional family”—as is made clear in the book What Is Marriage?—spouses are united in both a moral reality and a social institution, marriage, that has these three characteristic features: the union is exclusive, it is permanent, and it finds its fruition in the coming to be, rearing, educating, and loving of children.
As an institution, marriage is, unlike the persons of the marriage, something “made.” In this regard, it is similar to the law. The law is made for moral purposes, and when it is made well and inhabited by persons of good and upright will, those purposes are realized in a community: justice and peace. Likewise, marriage, when institutionally made well and inhabited by persons of good and upright will, realizes the same purposes in families. Children are raised and educated knowing that their parents love them, and that they can be stably relied upon, barring tragedy, to see their own flourishing as linked to the flourishing of their offspring. They are treated with justice and live in domestic peace.
Marriage so understood, in both its moral and its institutional reality, is created by God. But as a (mere) social fact seen in historical context, we should acknowledge marriage so understood to be a cultural achievement. It replaced familial arrangements in which men of means could take multiple wives or concubines—hardly adequate to the equality of persons—and in which children were treated as property of their fathers.
What would it be reasonable to suspect would be the impact on children of having parents—say three or four of them—who are bound only by ties of affection, or perhaps even only by pragmatic reasons, lacking the commitments of exclusivity and permanence, and connected to their children to variable genetic extents and by contractual arrangement?
In thinking about this question, we might consider the impact of no-fault divorce on children. Was the weakening of permanence in the institution of marriage on balance good for children? We might likewise consider the many households in which children of multiple fathers are raised by single parents or step-parents. Has the demise of exclusivity been on balance good for children? Spar’s reference to the Baby M surrogacy case (in which the legal parentage of a child conceived and gestated by a surrogate was in question) suggests, as subsequent surrogacy cases also have, that multiple parents of the same child do not always have the same interests and do not always find the “contractual terms that had initiated [the child’s] birth” sufficient for the resolution of conflict. One can easily imagine IVG leading to similar difficulties.
My point, which cannot be adequately pursued in the space of a short essay, is again that the “traditional family,” which Spar treats mockingly, should be thought of as a tremendous cultural accomplishment, not a matter of historical indifference.
When a society moves from lawlessness to law, inducements to unmake that essential institution should be resisted. The same is true of inducements to unmake the “traditional family.” The fact that these specific technologies would be dehumanizing of and disrespectful to the children who would be subject to them only makes their rejection a matter of even graver urgency. The “new normal” projected by Spar is dystopian, making and unmaking contrary to the common good.
Christopher O. Tollefsen is College of Arts and Sciences Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the University of South Carolina.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Dystopian is the exact opposite — it describes an imaginary society that is as dehumanizing and as unpleasant as possible. George Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” for example, describes dystopian society in which Napoleon, a pig, represents Joseph Stalin in a farmyard satire on Stalinist Russia and how power corrupts.
DEMOCRATIC / SOCIALIST DECAYBy: Hal MorrisAugust 18, 2020
So we have finally arrived at the final stage of the 2020 election process. Interestingly enough, during the first night of the Democratic / Socialist national convention nary, a word was uttered by the illustrious gathering of speakers about the ANTIFA and BLM goons running amok in our Democratic/Socialist run cities and states. Is it forgotten or deliberately omitted from the party line? I dare say that it’ll be the same for the rest of the convention and campaign. Perhaps this omission resulted because of the embarrassment of the Democratic/Socialist Party and their supporters, who are funneling money into the Black Lives Matter (BLM) organization. BLM’s leadership, is controlled by avowed Marxist revolutionaries who direct instigate and carry out the mayhem. The three top co-leaders Garza, Cullers, and Tometi, of a long time Communist terrorist, (Chesimard, alias, Assata Shakur) living in Cuba. Susan Rosenberg, a convicted murderer, sentenced to 58 years in prison, but pardoned by President Clinton after serving 15 years, is the vice-chair and on the board of directors of Thousand Currents, BLM’s financial arm. (Jerry Dunleavy, ‘Who Is Black Lives Matter, National Review, 7/28/2020.) The present BLM leadership team also includes a consultant, Angela Davis, a long time activist in the Communist party, nominated twice by the Communist Party, with Gus Hall as a candidate for vice president in 1980 and 1984. She received an acquittal of murder and abetting the attempted prison escape of her lover George Jackson. Here we are in 2020, and unless one is blind or willing to look in another direction, staring you in the face is a Communist, terrorist influence, and orientation of the leadership of the BLM movement. Bob Woodson, noted civil rights activist, spoke to Tucker Carlson on TV Monday night, stating, “Black lives Matter, that advertised itself as the champion of social justice for Blacks has really become a parasite…It has migrated from social justice to attack the nuclear family.” (Bob Woodson, Tucker Carlson Show, Fox News, 8/17/20.) According to Angelica Stabile of FoxNews, he went on to state, “race grievance vigilantes are destroying this nation. It was the family and our Christian faith that enabled us to survive slavery.” (Angelica Stabile, Fox News, 8/18/20.) So the question remains as to why the Democrat/Socialist Party and its candidates have not spoken out to condemn the violence and destruction. Gerry Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, says the riots and violence are a myth. Other party spokespeople are addressing the virtual convention asking us to visualize the country without police and prisons. Candidates Biden and Harris have already endorsed the defunding of police. The Democratic/Socialist Party is now lead by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Beto O’Rourk, Kamala Harris, and the loveable, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (AOC). Speaker of the House Pelosi and Senate Minority leader Schumer are figureheads and had little if any role in writing the Party platform. Politicians and media personnel are covertly expressing legitimate questions and concerns about Joe Biden’s mental competency for the Presidency. But, who cares, not the party? After forty years of running to get the nomination, Biden is, at best, front-man for Bernie Sanders’s wing of the party. Bernie being much too controversial to get the appointment. Moderation has left the Democratic/Socialist party. It probably never will emerge again. The party would like to move closer to extreme Socialism. Now we have a political party schooled in the Alinsky mold, that will do whatever it can to obtain its goals. Violence, looting, and burning cities are quite acceptable if it can defeat the Republican Party and Donald Trump. If the movement is successful, it will move this country toward a quicker Cuban or Venezuelan style of Communism, than one can imagine. New polls show that over 80 percent of Black Americans are against the abolishment or defunding of police. Lawlessness is rampant in significant urban areas. Rather than demanding more police presence in these areas, BLM moves ahead to its next phase of community indoctrination. Efforts to solidly infuse “Structural Racism” into our American culture, is underway through a massive re-education of the public. Students in many public schools now read as part of their curriculum Black literature aligned with Structural Racism. Liberal teachers teach only one point of view in English or History classes. American history now has adopted the 1619 curriculum, which exploits America as a racist, White Privilege country. Highlighting White privilege and portraying the country’s heritage as racist, is the cornerstone of Structural Racism. Designed to infuse guilt into the minds of complacent Whites and have them apologize to Blacks is preached. Re-distribution of the wealth of this country they say has been denied to Blacks by White racists. Pay reparations to today’s Blacks for the past sins of slavery in this country. Violence in Portland, Seattle, Los Angles, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Atlanta, Washington, Philadelphia, Baltimore, all states and cities governed where Democrat/Socialists prevail. No wonder there is silence. Or is it a myth as Gerry Nadler would like the country to believe? Is this the image we want to view our cities and countryside? Heaven forbid! Commenting on Structural Racism, the new BLM theme, Gerard Baker wrote an Op-Ed article in today’s WSJ that stated, “In this unusual summer of love, our new rulers–those tolerant folk who now control the physically decaying streets of major cities alongside the intellectually common rooms and newsrooms of many universities and media companies–have instructed Americans to work on developing race awareness.” Baker states,…” ascribing inequality to discrimination and oppression, rather than a complex array of factors (of which discrimination is surely one), the activists will do nothing to further their ideal of equality.” ( Gerard Baker, Op ED, WSJ, 8/18/20.) The introduction of race wars into Presidential elections by Democrats /Socialists isn’t a new strategy. Republican candidates for President, Regan, Bushs, McLain, Romney, and Trump, were no exception to being cited as racists by Democratic/Socialists. What is different today is the conspiracy of the media to support this racist dialogue covertly. Even more disgusting is the plot of blackmail violence and deceit. The encouragement of racial divides to gain votes regardless of the lasting damage it does to this country is unforgivable. So as the DNC convention Zoom’s it way into oblivion, we as conservatives must roll up our sleeves and increase efforts to get out our voters. We must combat the mega-donors like Soros and Bloomberg, spending millions of dollars on senate and congressional campaigns to defeat Republicans, moderates, and conservative candidates. To accomplish this, supporters need to assist in raising funds for both congressional and senate campaigns. To combat the lack of press and fair media coverage, we can write letters, articles, use social media, and vocally speak out and resist the threats against Trump. In combating, Structural Racism, we need to aggressively point out that not all White people were slaveholders or supporters. It was primarily White abolitionists that ended slavery and fought a Civil War to end slavery. As we matured, we took enormous steps to eliminate Jim Crow laws and segregation in schools and businesses. Today we are an enlightened country still moving forward in addressing the problems of our poor Black families living in poor urban neighborhoods. Even though some complain, progress has been slow but steady. In their zeal to defeat Trump, the complainers are complicit in the move towards the instability of race wars. Their movements encourage racial divides and cause a backlash that endangers the progress we have made. Whatever we do, we cannot lose hope or desire to protect our free enterprise economy, individual rights, and the legitimacy of American values. We are in a fight for the soul of America. If we lose this fight, America we know and love will vanish.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on So we have finally arrived at the final stage of the 2020 election process. Interestingly enough, during the first night of the Democratic / Socialist national convention nary, a word was uttered by the illustrious gathering of speakers about the ANTIFA and BLM goons running amok in our Democratic/Socialist run cities and states.
The Swamp Is Winning By: Dr. Peter Vincent Pry 18 August 2020 President Trump is rightfully proud of keeping campaign promises, but has failed spectacularly to keep one of the most important— “draining the swamp.” This failure may cost President Trump re-election and deprive America of his stellar leadership just when most needed to defend Freedom against enemies foreign and domestic. “The swamp” is shorthand for the permanent bureaucracy of Washington elites who for decades have been: subverting the Constitution and Founding principles of limited government by growing the regulatory state, driving the nation toward socialism, abusing their powers to advance personal and political agendas, and tend to be incompetent. Swamp creatures are usually Democrats but include RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) and establishment Republicans. The swamp’s latest victory is an Intelligence Community press release “Election Threat Update For The American Public” (Aug. 7, 2020) that declares Russia is actively working against the presidential candidacy of Joe Biden in favor of President Trump. Bearing the imprimatur of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the press release, far from being an objective intelligence assessment, smells like something from the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Absurdly misrepresenting Biden and the Obama administration as tough on Russia, it seeks to inoculate Biden from his corrupt activities in Ukraine, while miscasting President Trump as Russia’s Manchurian Candidate:”We assess that Russia is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden and what it sees as an anti-Russian ‘establishment.’ This is consistent with Moscow’s public criticism of him when he was Vice President for his role in the Obama Administration’s policies on Ukraine and its support for anti-Putin opposition inside Russia . . . Some Kremlin-linked actors are also seeking to boost President Trump’s candidacy on social media and Russian television.” The Intelligence Community press release also makes the all too obvious observation that China and Iran are against President Trump’s re-election, no doubt so the Intelligence Community can falsely posture as being “fair and balanced” and provide themselves with political cover. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post and other Left-stream media all predictably reported the “right” message, as blared in a headline of New York Magazine: “U.S. Intelligence Says Republicans Are Working With Russia To Reelect Trump” (Aug. 8, 2020). This article also accurately assesses the intended “spin” of the Intelligence Community press release:”Trump obviously tends to respond with rage at the suggestion that Russia wants him to win, let alone that he is accepting their assistance. So Evanina’s summary deliberately surrounds the revelations about Trump and Moscow with superficially balancing material . . . “ William Evanina, author of the Intelligence Community press release, is President Trump’s appointed Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC). Evanina, and whoever advised President Trump to hire him, should be fired. Evanina is part of the swamp and his betrayal of President Trump was entirely foreseeable: —Evanina’s stellar rise to the top of the federal national security bureaucracy began in 2009 when the Obama administration brought him to Washington to serve in the FBI’s national security branch. —Evanina is a protégé of General James Clapper, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence who authored the bogus 2016 National Intelligence Estimate falsely alleging Russia helped get President Trump elected. Clapper appointed Evanina to the NCSC in 2014. —Evanina is a darling of Senate Democrats who are trying to topple President Trump with false allegations he is “Putin’s puppet.” For example, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., who abused the Senate intelligence committee to endlessly perpetuate the Russia hoax, had high praise for Trump nominee Evanina, declaring, “This is great news for our country’s counterintelligence efforts.” —Evanina’s 2018 nomination by the Trump administration to serve as Director of the NCSC was put on hold for two years by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. Reportedly “Grassley questioned why Evanina’s name appeared in text messages between rogue FBI employees” who were trying to frame President Trump in the Russia hoax. —Just three months after Evanina’s confirmation as the first Director of NCSC on May 6, 2020, he issued the Aug. 7 Intelligence Community press release alleging that Russia is sabotaging Joe Biden’s presidential campaign and supporting President Trump. Evanina, who has a BA degree in Public Administration and an MA in Educational Leadership, despite service in the FBI since 1996, seems far from the best qualified candidate to lead counterintelligence or to comprehend the subversive operations and goals of Russia, China, and Iran in U.S. elections. Evanina’s allegation that Russia is backing President Trump for re-election in 2020 is transparently politically biased, disconnected from reality, and evidences ongoing efforts by the Intelligence Community to undermine President Trump’s legitimacy. Russia’s highest priority is to stop President Trump’s rebuilding U.S. nuclear and conventional forces and leadership toward a stronger NATO — long neglected by the Obama administration, none of which would be a priority under a future Biden Administration. Indeed, Biden’s radical “Green New Deal” and “Democratic Socialism” would wreck the U.S. economy and military simultaneously — accomplishing for Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran the destruction of America. The America of the Constitution may become the “Amerika” of Red Democrats because President Trump failed to “drain the swamp.” Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security. He served on the Congressional EMP Commission as chief of staff, the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA.
COVID-19 Confusionby Richard A. EpsteinAugust 17, 2020 A scientific study attracted national attention last week by taking the dramatic position that the “excess deaths” from COVID-19 exceeded those observed with the Spanish Flu of 1918, at least for New York City. The absurdity of the claim is symptomatic of the imperfect understanding of the pandemic by this nation’s elites. To be sure, the letter correctly notes that the state of healthcare today is far better and more advanced than that of a century ago given the widespread availability of such impressive treatments as “standard resuscitation, supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, kidney replacement therapy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.” Indeed, those technological advances indicate that the true severity of COVID-19 is even greater than the raw numbers suggest. With that said, the study is flawed in several key ways. The estimated number of total U.S. deaths from the Spanish Flu was 675,000 in a population of about 100 million people. Assuming there have been about 169,000 U.S. COVID-19 deaths in 2020 in a population of over 330 million people, the COVID-19 death rate is roughly one-twelfth of the Spanish Flu rate. That number could well increase before the pandemic runs its course. According to the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), the U.S. death toll of COVID-19 could reach 300,000 by December, at which point the ratio would be about 7.5 to 1. Why then is New York special? New York State has experienced over 32,000 COVID deaths, or about 20 percent of the nationwide total. Its population of 19.5 million constitutes about 6 percent of the U.S. population. The vast majority of those deaths were confined to New York City (over 23,500) and occurred before June 1. Nonetheless, the ostensible parallel is fatally flawed. In order to compare the two pandemics properly, the New York death rate from COVID-19 needs to be adjusted downward to account for several important variables. First, the study offers no explanation as to why the early New York numbers were so high. But the best explanation lies in the state and city’s clumsy institutional responses to the virus. Perhaps most notable among the bungled decisions was the deadly order that Governor Andrew Cuomo issued on March 25 requiring ill-equipped nursing homes to take in presumably recovered COVID patients, ostensibly to free up hospital beds for an anticipated onslaught of new COVID cases which never came. Any responsible estimate should subtract out the many, often concealed, COVID deaths from that unconscionable maneuver, both in New York and other states, like Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Second, with the Spanish Flu, there was an uncommonly high death rate for individuals between the ages of 20 and 40, which was at least in part due to “cytokine storms,” a severe immune response that could lay waste to healthy individuals in less than a day. High death rates were also recorded for children under 5 years of age, as well as those over 65. Notably, COVID appears most severe only in those over 65. As of August 12, the CDC reports that nearly 80% of all U.S. COVID deaths have been in patients over the age of 65 (118,548 out of 149,192). Third, persons with acute comorbidities—including cancer, diabetes and kidney failure—are often coded only as COVID fatalities, without regard to their underlying conditions. Finally, so-called “probables” are included in the COVID totals, when the “probable” symptoms are often consistent with ordinary flu or other diseases. Take these cases out and comparing the New York death rates in 1918 and 2020 will likely yield a different result from the study’s conclusion. The current of exaggeration gets even worse when we look beyond the study. A recent New York Times story touts that the full cost of COVID-19 not only includes the inflated death count of 169,000, but also about 35,000 additional deaths attributable to indirect effects. Unfortunately, the story gets the causal connection backwards—one of the many major blunders in New York City and elsewhere was to shut down all forms of elective medical treatments in order to make way for the wave of COVID-19 cases that never occurred. How many deaths did that decision yield? Surely a significant portion of these extra deaths are attributable to misguided public policies. This means that the net deaths attributable to the virus itself should be reduced, not increased, to properly account for the consequences of eliminating elective treatments and other hardships under New York’s lockdown. Serious social consequences flow from the misattribution of deaths to COVID-19. In New York and other states, a common response to the artificially high death tolls has been to reimpose heavy sanctions in order to stem a second wave. But recently it appears that new cases are in decline. Nor has any second wave occurred in the northeast states that early experienced what still remains the highest incidence of deaths. In places like New York, the trend has been sharply downward, which should ideally lead to a general relaxation of heavy sanctions. Everyone should of course wear masks in indoor public spaces, wash hands, avoid placing their hands on their face when out, stay out of high-density places, get lots of fresh air, and, if ill, take the tripartite treatment of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin or doxycycline, as recommended by Dr. Harvey Risch, to the evident consternation of his colleagues in the Yale School of Public Health. These various precautions significantly reduce COVID-19 costs, freeing up resources for other uses. Unfortunately, the same panicked responses that led to so much unnecessary suffering in the early stages of the pandemic continue to wreak havoc today. One prescription that seems to have gained favor is the demand for the wearing of masks in outdoor public places in order to slow down the spread of the virus. Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden insists that “[e]very single American should be wearing a mask when they’re outside for the next three months at a minimum,” claiming that this “will save 40,000 lives during that period.” In the same vein, the IHME claims that “if mask wearing in public increases to 95%, more than 66,000 lives could be saved,” which would cut fatalities in half. Right now, masks are already worn in the places where they are likely to do most good, where there is close and continuous contact between individuals, as in hair and nail salons. But is there any reason to think that wearing masks in public parks, where the contacts between individuals are fragmentary and fleeting at best, could produce dramatic results? It is worth asking about the trade-offs that come from the more widespread use of masks, as the Dutch government has recently done by citing the risks of wearing masks: First, masks offer people a false assurance of safety; even the best masks cannot filter out most viruses, especially when improperly worn; second, the reuse of dirty masks increases the likelihood of contamination; third, the inability to cleanly expel wastes may well reinfect persons with COVID-19 through the nose, throat, and eyes; and finally, the lack of fresh air can cause headaches and compromise the immune systems, especially for the elderly and ill who are most subject to the virus. The law of diminishing marginal returns applies to masks as it does to everything else. Next there is the touchy subject of quarantines. Many states, including both New York and Illinois, have imposed travel restrictions on individuals that come from states with high numbers of daily coronavirus cases. The usual sanction is an order to self-quarantine for a two-week period. In New York, both Columbia and Barnard College have, as a result of the order, abandoned on-campus instruction, given that many of their students come from out-of-state. In Chicago, the order applies to any state that registers 15 new COVID cases per day per 100,000 people. The Chicago order, like all these orders, is flawed: It does not apply to people who come to Chicago from other hotspots within Illinois, but it does apply to people who come from specific areas within states that have low COVID counts. Moreover, the order fails to exempt individuals who have tested COVID-negative just before entering Chicago because these people “can develop symptoms and become contagious up to 14 days from their last exposure.” At the same time, it fails to acknowledge that sick people are less likely to travel, and the rate of transmission for asymptomatic individuals seems to be lower than that for symptomatic people. Compliance with such orders effectively kills tourism, as well as a significant amount of business activity. Yet city officials in cities like New York and Chicago do not offer estimates of the potential harms that result from allowing free movement across state lines of people who test COVID-negative, nor do they give any sense of the expected losses, possibly in the millions of dollars, from their policies. In the effort to control COVID-19, we must remember that the dangers of over-deterrence have to be weighed against those of under-deterrence. Richard A. Epstein, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University Law School, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on In the effort to control COVID-19, we must remember that the dangers of over-deterrence have to be weighed against those of under-deterrence.
The US bishops’ one-sided ‘dialogue’ with Joe BidenBy Phil Lawler ( bio – articles – email ) | Aug 17, 2020Another presidential campaign is upon us, and so it’s time for another round of feisty debate on the time-worn topic: Should Joe Biden be allowed to receive Communion?That debate, as practiced by American Catholics, was not always about Biden specifically. There was John Kerry before him, and Geraldine Ferraro behind that, and the same question has been asked regarding Nancy Pelosi and the late Ted Kennedy and many other Catholic politicians. But Biden himself has been the main topic at least since 2008.That year, you may recall, Biden was candidate for the vice-presidency. When he visited Florida on the campaign trail, Bishop John Ricard of Pensacola issued an open letter reminding him that “all must examine their consciences as to their worthiness to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord. This examination includes fidelity to the moral teaching of the Church…” Lest Biden or any other reader fail to grasp the point, Bishop Ricard pointed to the senator’s “profound disconnection from your human and personal obligation to protect the weakest and most innocent among us: the child in the womb.”Notice that Bishop Ricard did not forbid Biden from receiving the Eucharist, much less instruct priests to turn him away from Communion. He merely asked the candidate—as the Catholic bishops of the US have asked all candidates, and as perennial Church teaching has asked all Catholics—to make an examination of conscience before approaching the Blessed Sacrament.But a few weeks later, when Biden was the vice-president-elect, another Florida prelate, Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, said plainly that pro-abortion politicians should not be barred from Communion. In a revealing blog post, Bishop Lynch said that he took that position because “one keeps open a dialogue with the Joe Bidens of the world.”And how has the dialogue worked out? Twelve years later Biden is just as firmly committed to legal, tax-subsidized abortion on demand. Yet the “profound disconnection” that Bishop Ricard spotted in 2008 is even more evident today. In the intervening years Biden has also embraced the cause of same-sex marriage—even officiating at one such union—vowed to rescind the legal protection extended by the Trump administration to the Little Sisters of the Poor, and now chosen a running-mate who views membership in the Knights of Columbus as subversive activity.The Catholic bishops who say that Biden should still be allowed to receive Communion—and they are, apparently, still the majority in the US bishops’ conference—argue that it is wrong to politicize the Eucharist. That is certainly true. But when the issue of Communion has been politicized—by a candidate who trumpets his Catholic faith, who runs advertisements about the inspiration he receives from that faith—how should prudent bishops react?Four years ago, during another presidential campaign season, I wrote:The canon lawyers see the need for disciplinary action. The loyal lay Catholics see the need. Even the Protestants recognize the need. The only people who don’t see the urgency of the situation (aside from those confused people who don’t object to legal abortion) are the bishops—who are, unfortunately, the only people in a position to enforce the discipline that is so very necessary.Why has Father James Martin been invited to address the Democratic convention at which Biden will be formally nominated? Is it because the Democratic leadership wants a blessing from a Catholic priest? No; it is because the Party wants a blessing from this particular Catholic priest, a Jesuit with an enthusiastic following among homosexual activists. Father Martin’s participation gives the Biden campaign a unique opportunity to push forward the gay agenda while simultaneously defending itself against well-earned charges of anti-Catholic bias.If the ultimate goal of ecclesiastical leadership is, always and everywhere, to “keep open a dialogue,” then Biden and his ilk will continue to exploit their ties to the Church whenever it suits their political needs, while scoffing at Catholic moral teaching when they find that posture more popular. On the other hand, if the goal of the bishops is to preserve the integrity of the faith and the sacraments…The debate over whether Joe Biden should receive Communion—whether Catholic politicians should face public discipline when they repudiate Church teaching—has droned on for more than a generation. The arguments are all on one side; the action (or rather inaction) all on the other. The American bishops have refused to accept the obvious implications of both canon law and their own public statements.At some point, the willingness of Church leaders to maintain ties with politicians who work actively against the faith becomes a source of scandal. I leave it to my readers to decide when that line is crossed, and scandal occurs. Is it when a candidate votes to send taxpayer dollars to subsidize abortuaries? When he pronounces two men as legal marital partners? When he prosecutes nuns for living their faith? Or is there nothing that a political candidate could do, that would prompt bishops to admit that he had separated himself from the Church?As it happens Bishop Lynch addressed just that question, in his blog post twelve years ago. “Does he give scandal?” the bishop asked, referring specifically to Biden. He answered his own question: “I would suggest that scandal is pretty hard to give in the Church at this time.”Sad to say, that statement may well be true. Expectations are so low, standards so relaxed, the demands on the faithful so paltry, that we have lost our capacity to be shocked by outrageous behavior. But if the faithful are no longer scandalized by wayward politicians, it is because the men charged with preserving the Church from scandal—the bishops—have dithered for so long.
Phil Lawler has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He has edited several Catholic magazines and written eight books. Founder of Catholic World News, he is the news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org. See full bio.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on TWELVE YEARS DO NOT SEEM TO MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE INTELLECTUAL AND SPIRITUAL GROWTH OF MANY Roman Catholic BISHOPS
A Sort-of Goodbye to Germany?
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.