lundi 25 octobre 2010

Debate with mainly a Christian who is a scientist, but not a Christian Scientist

me: "5.) Because I prefer the idea that a (insert god of choice) went ALLA-KADABRA-ALLAKAZAM!!!"

I do. If I can insert the one true god in Three Persons and replace alla-kadabra ... with "fiat lux" and stuff that is in the Bible. I definitely do.

JA: >>I definitely do.<<

Christianity does not conflict with evolution. Creationism conflicts with evolution.

me: Meaning you do not consider Creationism included in or implied by Christianity.

I do.

JA: Creationism is a philosophy. It has no scientific merit. It has no religious merit.

Creationism is not implied by Christianity.

Christians believe that God created the universe.

Christians who have an appreciation of science accept that the evidence the natural world is the evidence of Creation - and if the evidence of the natural world appears to conflict with the Creation account in the Bible then it is the interpretation of Genesis which is at fault - and needs to be reinterpreted in the light of the evidence of Creation itself (the natural world).

me: "if the evidence of the natural world appears to conflict with the Creation account in the Bible"

key word: appears

to whom and according to what hermeneutic principles?

JA: Scientific methodology has proved to be exceptionally robust - and is increasingly so.

The application of science is demonstration of the resilience of scientific research.
One cannot say that evolution is false and that other branches of science (the application of which our technology fundamentally depends on) are true because the investigative and deductive processes are essentially the same.

Creationists always ask for evidence in scripture that the Creation account in Genesis is not a scientific or literal history - they refuse to see that that is an irrelevance: the evidence of the non-scientific and non-literal nature of the Creation account in Genesis is in nature, not in scripture - and the reason is that Genesis is not a science book.

me: "Scientific methodology has proved to be exceptionally robust - and is increasingly so."

Not about evolutionism.

"The application of science is demonstration of the resilience of scientific research."

The applications that give evidence for "science" do not touch evolutionism, nor heliocentrism/geokinetism. No one has proven that geocentrics or creationists would be logically obliged to disbelieve in television, internet, bacteriology or gynaecology.

"One cannot say that evolution is false and that other branches of science (the application of which our technology fundamentally depends on) are true because the investigative and deductive processes are essentially the same."

1838 is discovered that very many stars do have a movement that circles in a year, same direction as sun, the biggest one angle being 0.76 seconds, and all others smaller, most stars still not having one recognisable angle (at least that was the case back in 1980, when the measurable angle parallaxes were for "tens of thousands of stars" among the hundreds of thousand known).

The methodology by which interpretation "stars stand still, mostly, and earth moves, and different observed movements are due to different distance" is preferred over "stars are moved by heavenly dancers" is not any technological one, except such as are applicable to dead matter alone, i e a denial of angelic hypothesis (the old scholastic one) in the principle of research rather than in application. Similarily for C14 datings exceeding Biblical chronology preference of interpretation "C14 was same proportion in athmosphere and present very much lower proportion is entirely due to old age" over interpretation "C14 was back close to creation lower proportion in atmosphere, which accounts for lower proportion now, even without exceeding Biblical chronology".

"Creationists always..."

Do not tell me what creationists always do, deal with what I do - in proving, asking, explaining, challenging.

"...ask for evidence in scripture that the Creation account in Genesis is not a scientific or literal history - they refuse to see that that is an irrelevance: the evidence of the non-scientific and non-literal nature of the Creation account in Genesis is in nature, not in scripture - and the reason is that Genesis is not a science book."

Genesis neither is nor purports to be a science book, however it was for most of its existence accepted by considerable communities as literal history. Which indirectly makes it scientifically relevant.

What you are saying is that Jews from Moses to Jesus and Christians from Jesus to Darwin and Spencer got it wrong. I say that is not compatible with Christianity.

@ CD saying "Hey if you got proof that evolution is false give me some ideas.I already have some maybe we can share some ideas"

Check this out: - a general checkout on chromosome numbers was suggested by Kent Hovind, but I use it in a different way. (Yes, it is my post, a composite of smaller posts on another of my blogs)

JA: >>Do not tell me what creationists always do, deal with what I do - in proving, asking, explaining, challenging.<<

If was you who brought up hermeneutic principals - as do many Creationists I have discussed these issues with.

I know about parallax - I have studied astronomy for over 40 years.
Carbon dating is only used for comparatively recent geology - other radiometric dating techniques are used, and used reliably, for older dating.

>>Which indirectly makes it scientifically relevant.<<

Wrong. SCripture has nothing to do with science.

Scripture is about interpersonal relationships - and the sole purpose of Genesis is to set the context for scripture.

In common with most (all?) Creationists you are clearly a "Genesis Christian" rather than a Gospel Christian.

>>What you are saying is that Jews from Moses to Jesus and Christians from Jesus to Darwin and Spencer got it wrong. I say that is not compatible with Christianity.<<

No. What I am saying is that the Bible is not about science. Genesis is not a history. Genesis sets the context for *your* personal relationship with God, and with your neighbour.

me: A Gospel Christian IS a Genesis Christian, since Gospels tell us Christ was a Genesis Hebrew.

Gospel is not limited to my personal relationship with God or man, though it includes that, it is reliable history as in Resurrection of Christ AND sayings of what He really said. And that includes historicity of Adam and Eve. He very specifically referred to Genesis History when talking about marriage.

Your Biblical hermeneutics are very clearly not those of the Catholic Church Fathers.
You avoided questions brought up about parallax (though you studied Astronomy for fourty years) and C14.

1) Can the movement currently interpreted as a parallax be interpreted as something other, like the dance of angels to honour God?

2) Are the older radiometric age datings you used to corroborate C14 as implying earth was too old for the doubt I brought up maybe subject to similar doubts as C14 itself?

I also go back to your previous answer, where you claimed there were no methodological difference between the science used in technology - as electronics, medicine - and the one used in heliocentrism and evolutionism. There is ONE clear difference:

Medicine students study bacteria that are there here before them and now while they are being studied, electricians study currents that are similarily circumscribed in time and space BUT evolution is about billions of years ago and heliocentrism is about 4 to 4 billion light years away. Except the kind of stuff that has also geocentric and creationist interpretations.

JA: Jesus's reference to the Old Testament was in respect of its teaching. Not its historicity. A teaching need not be historically accurate in order to convey the truth.

And the truth is that when Genesis talks about Adam, it is talking about you. When it talks about the serpent it is talking about sin acting on you.

The whole point of the Bible - and in particular of the Gospel, are the relationships. The whole point of the death and Resurrection of Jesus was God's desire for that relationship between God and man (specifically you, the reader) which man (specifically you, the reader) broke through his own fault be fixed. It is not Adam's sin, but yours for which Christ died. It does not matter that Adam never existed historically, but it is vitally important that you exist historically, and that Christ exists historically, to repair the relationship with God, which you broke.

me: "Jesus's reference to the Old Testament was in respect of its teaching. Not its historicity"

That is clearly NOT a limitation the Gospel brings out. Btw, I have updated the post you answered.

"The _whole_ point of the Bible - and in particular of the Gospel, are the relationships."

As excluding historicity? NO.

There are four senses*, not just one, and the fact that your favourite one is not the literal does not make your exegesis less lopsided.

prophetic as in OT pointing to Christ
moral - your fav
AND anagogic as in NT pointing to Heaven

dimanche 24 octobre 2010

"Is there anyone in this group from the UK who believes in creationism??"

Is there anyone in this group from the UK who believes in creationism??

Thread owner of this one claimed to be just curious.

First reply: Young Earth, doubtful. We have an education system that works, here.
I've met a few theistic evolutionists though.

Second reply: I'm afraid we do have creationists, they're just less arrogant

Third reply, by the one I opposed after: Creationism is a very American phenomenon unfortunately for us Americans. It's embarrassing. I hear Australia is infested as well. But the rest of the world, they are a huge minority.

Me: Sweden.

I know that "education system that works". I also knows that it works among other things by:

- teacher letting young earth creationists have part of his say once
- teacher then misunderstanding
- young earth creationist correcting teacher about misnuderstanding
- teacher saying the reply does not prove creationism true
- young earth creationist then trying to say that was not the purpose of his second say and trying to get beack but getting interrupted by teacher who declares there is no time for debates with creationism

Was that pupil. Am still creationist.

IIId replier: Well, Hans, there is only so much time for teaching. Might as well use that time discussing reality. BTW, was this a science class? If so then creationism is very inappropriate. Science is science. And creationism is not science. If it is a philosophy class, then it is all a huge waste of time anyway. And I am sure most kids in the room were more than a little uncomfortable with your display of schizophrenia. You are still schizophrenic.

A teacher misunderstanding creationism? I'm sure they understood completely in the definition but not in the reasoning.

me: "Might as well use that time discussing reality."

Precisely my point.

"BTW, was this a science class?"


"If so then creationism is very inappropriate. Science is science. And creationism is not science."

Neither is evolutionism.

"And I am sure most kids in the room were more than a little uncomfortable with your display of schizophrenia. You are still schizophrenic."

No. You are a big fat bully, but on internet it does not quite work that way. Even if there are big fat bullies in psychiatric wards who will bully patients about creationism.

"A teacher misunderstanding creationism? I'm sure they understood completely in the definition but not in the reasoning."

It was not they, it was one. My reasoning was not complex. Only not what "they" - as in he - had been taught to expect from a creationist.

IIId replier: Wow, christianity in purity, right here. He will delete this in embarrassment within 24 hours. I hope he doesn't. For all to see.

Me: I just played with the thought of deleting it and writing something you might get an ever greater choke from.

Meanwhile, your hate speech - doubly, against me [or friend] and against a religious group [creationists in previous posts, christians in this one of yours] - has been reported in both of your posts. So long as it is not deleted, it is however for display.

mercredi 20 octobre 2010

Quand on fait de la polémique, on risque d'irriter les gens.

Surtout quand ils ne peuvent pas légalement se plaindre.

le blog deretour:
19 oct. 2010 14:00 - 20 oct. 2010 13:00

Réponses à "aimerjesus"
19 juin 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite quelques musulmans?

Ordo Missae of Paul VI per se valid, probably
9 oct. 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite tradis ou au contraire ceux qui vuelent garder la communion en main?
De toute façon ceux qui ne croient pas l'eucharistie et la présence réelle.

Sir George Darwin corrected Galileo Galilei on tides
29 avr. 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite quelques maçons, qui aiment Galilée précisement à cause de sa rôle dans le procès et l'héliocentrisme?

Terre et Soleil - laquelle est stabile?
22 mars 2010
1 Page vue

Irrite quelques héliocentriques?

De retour + conditions d'utilisations ultérieures ...
27 mars 2008, 1 commentaire
3 Pages vues
Irritent quelques-uns qui voudraient que mes affaires soient négligées par ma faute?

Nativitas Beatæ Mariæ Virginis - Bonum Festum lect...
8 sept. 2010, 7 commentaires
3 Pages vues
Irrite quelques-uns qui ne respectent pas la Sainte Vierge?

Yesterday I missed a close on martyr's day (no, no...
17 oct. 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite quelques-uns qui n'aiment pas la critique de la Révolution?

Ste Brigitte de Vadstena - gratulerar på namnsdage...
8 oct. 2010
Irrite personne, on espère?

Il y a un anniversaire que j'aurais voulu célébrer...
7 oct. 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite personne, ou alors la concernée, mais dans ce cas elle me néglige pas comme elle le prétend.

Par gratitude envers quelqu'un de très hospitable ...
11 oct. 2010, 3 commentaires
1 Page vue
Irrite personne, on espère? Qui serait irrité par gratitude?
Ou ça irriterait peut-être quelques fanatiques de l'évolutionnisme?

"Un chapelet de nucléotides"
16 avr. 2010
1 Page vue
Encore, irrite personne, on espère? Ou des gens qui ne respectent pas la Sainte Vierge?

Où se trouvent encore ces lecteurs:
19 oct. 2010 15:00 – 20 oct. 2010 14:00
(notez une heure de décalage entre les statistiques)
Pays-Bas - 28

France - 4

États-Unis - 2

Canada - 1

Inde - 1 !

Russie - 1 !

le blog creation vs evolution:
France - 1

Pays-Bas - 1

19 oct. 2010 15:00 – 20 oct. 2010 14:00
Pas de statistique pour les messages concernés. !

le blog HGL's FB Writings:
St Luke concludes five more days of debate with sa...
18 oct. 2010
5 Pages vues
Irrite biensûr les héliocentriques.

Situation of Yaqui children recently deteriorated
4 mai 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite les tenants de l'école obligatoire laïque ou l'école obligatoire anglo-saxonne plus laïque que pour les traditions des Yaquis?

Blogs/bloggar/bloggi ...
19 mai 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite personne, j'espère?

Our Lady of the Rosary to today, debate between a ...
12 oct. 2010
1 Page vue
Pourrait aussi irriter des héliocentriques.

Was John Wesley charitable to Catholics?
30 avr. 2010
1 Page vue
Pourrait irriter protestants et anglophiles. Et biensûr cathophobes.

D'où "lou / la scoumouno"? De FSSPX, de ma paroiss...
6 oct. 2010
1 Page vue
Devrait irriter personne. Je suis dans une autre paroisse maintenant.

From Journalistic ethics of James O'Keefe to Psych...
6 oct. 2010
1 Page vue
Pourrait irriter les amis de la psychiatrie.

Someone posted a link to Fr. Corapi today
6 mai 2010, 2 commentaires
1 Page vue
Pourrait irriter les capitalistes.

Debate on communism (posted on day before and day ...
2 juin 2010
1 Page vue
Pourrait irriter les communistes. Et les radins.

Dante's De Monarchia is wrong
26 mai 2010, 3 commentaires
1 Page vue
Irrite laïcistes et d'autres gens totalitaires?

I have posted quotes on FB (sometimes with comment...
3 mai 2010
1 Page vue
Irritant pour les amis du malthusianisme?

svar om religionsfrihet, friskolor, tvångsomhänder... (c'est du suédois, ça!)
3 mai 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite l'élite actuelle de la Suède.

Freedom of Education (three FB groups)
3 mai 2010
1 Page vue
Devrait irriter les amis de l'école obligatoire, laïque, darwiniste et héliocentrique.
Et, autant, rejouir les amis de scolarisation à maison.

More quotes from FB notes
4 mai 2010, 1 commentaire
1 Page vue

Verse drama today (quotes from debate)
3 mai 2010
1 Page vue

horaires: 19 oct. 2010 15:00 – 20 oct. 2010 14:00
Participants, même horaire:

Pays-Bas - 31

États-Unis - 2

Espagne - 1

France - 1

Suède - 1

Et a-t-on été irrité? Quelques mois plus tard cette question peut se repondre. Il me semble que oui: la semaine dernière il y avait un blocage de blogger sur les bibliothèques municiaples de Paris, voir ma lettre ouverte: Quand les bibliothèques censorisent ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque publique d'Information du
Centre Georges Pompidou

samedi 16 octobre 2010

Même pas pour la beauté la plus parfaite sur terre on n'est pas obligé d'entendre des mensonges sans réagir

Chez les monastiques de Jérusalem la liturgie et la musique étaient encore plus belles qu'à St Nicolas du Chardonnet. Et j'étais assis auprès d'une femme ou demoiselle - j'aurais voulu savoir quel était le cas. Blonde, petite, en vêtements bleus, avec quelque chose rassemblant à une bague sur la droite, je ne savais vraiment pas si c'était une alliance entre fiancés ou autre chose. Quand même j'ai mis mes pieds dehors après avoir entendu le début de la prêche ce jour de Ste Thérèse d'Avila.

"La certitude que Dieu nous donne ..." serait pas du même ordre que celui qui aurait "inspiré d'actes d'intolérence voire même fanatisme". QUÉ PASAAAAAAA!!!! Les actes fanatiques seraient inspirés par la certitude religieuse chrétienne?

Non, ce n'avait pas été un doute qui aurait sauvé les innocents massacrés à Jérusalem les premiers jours après la prise de la ville par la première croisade. Ça aurait plutôt été une certitude plus forte que Dieu rémunère les souffrances subis par les croisés. Car le massacre là était une vendette, un acte de frustration profonde, ils avaient subi des épreuves terribles - traversé du désert en armure fait pour Europe y compte par exemple. Et il y en a quand même - les imbéciles de la loge ou de Miviludes par exemple - qui imaginent sauver le monde ou le pays ou la ville par le fait d'imposer aux croyants chrétiens comme aux "croyants" des faux religions des doutes intellectuels et des frustrations sur le chemin considéré comme vertueux, qu'il le soit ou pas.

Chez moi, quitter un sermon est un geste assez fort. Une fois ou deux j'ai quitté la messe à St Nicolas du Chardonnet par un sentiment de ne pas du tout être uni dans la charité aux autres paroissiens. mais pas pendant le sermon. Ou, possiblement pendant un seul sermon, celui où un vieux prêtre - mais pas le doyen, ni le curé - avait dit que les fruits de l'Esprit Saint ne soient pas des fruits qui poussent juste comme sur un arbre, qu'ils auraient besoin d'être cultivés par efforts humains. Accueillis, préparés, et c, oui, mais ça c'est autre chose, ça c'est ne pas attrister l'Esprit. Il y en a un qui peut cultiver la joie, il ne dépend nullement de nos efforts. Mais quand même, il n'ont pas dit des conneries tellement ouverts que ça, comme ce soir ci!

La certitude que Dieu donne resterait "soumise à l'erreur" ... s'il avait dit "parfois mélangée de l'erreur" il aurait dit vrai, mais il avait dit "soumise à l'erreur". Irrecevable. Une erreur intellectuelle peut en effet co-exister avec la certitude donné par Dieu, mais celui ou celle qui reçoit la certitude de Dieu ne sera aucunement vaincu ou dominé par ou soumis à l'erreur, ni en tant qu'individu, ni en tant qu'Église.

J'étais venu à une paroisse "normale" par le fait d'avoir accepté que le rite de Messe de Paul VI est valide. Moins d'une semaine après, je me trouve avec un rappel très fort que la diocèse de Paris a d'autres problèmes que ce qu'on avait pu douter sur la validité et sur la justesse et justice dans l'application de ce rite.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
dans un cyber
Ste Thérèse d'Avila
née au ciel la nuit vers le
15/5 octobre - limite pour le nouveau
calendrier de son temps - 1582 ou 1583

"Dieu est glorifié dans ses anges et dans ses saints."

mercredi 6 octobre 2010

Lutte internationale contre esclavage en prostitution pédo- ou hébé- ou autrement -phile, oui

Hans-Georg Lundahl · A few seconds ago

Mais pas contre "pédophilie" pèlemèle, comme on considère la question aujourd'hui y comprenant aussi jeunes mariages et autres choses hébéphiles entre consentants pubères de sexe différente.


Mon premier amour était comme les autres filles de quatorze obligée d'aller à une école mixte. Elle était bourgeoise, elle y rencontrait mon rival qui ne l'était pas.

Lui, il l'a séduit et il s'en est vanté devant moi. Quand on allait vers l'inscription militaire il m'a dit qu'il l'avait larguée, parce qu'il la trouvait stupide.

Si elle avait pu ne pas aller à l'école, ou si elle avait pu épouser et s'il avait du épouser l'autre partie dans une séduction

...V'la, je déteste l'obligation scolaire ET les interdits pour adolescents de se marier. Si ça vous décourage d'être mes amis ...?

"J'irais jamais à l'école"/Plan France - Droits des Filles/Lien

- Mariés à 15 ans, divorcé à 18 ans !

Moi: Qui ça?

- ceux qui se marient adolescents !

Moi: ... ah bon? J'ai lu un article en Suède sur un couple marié à 12 et encore en couple à l'age de 24, le temps où l'article a été fait.

- des musulmans ?

Moi: Non, des suédois. Quand aux musulmans, ils ne considèrent pas le mariage comme indissoluble. C'est pas tout à fait comparable.

- oui c'est vrai / - ha oui ? hé bien tant mieux, mais en réalité trop jeune pour se marier à 12 ans (je coordonne deux réponses pour séparer les séries)

Moi: N'insulte pas la législation Romaine, Catholique, encore aussi française jusqu'à la révolution s t p

- hoo, non non !

Moi: Oh oui. Vérifier chez Jérôme Carcopino pour Rome et chez St Thomas d'Aquin pour l'église avant le XX siècle. Les trois: 14 pour le marié, 12 pour la mariée, ages minimum.

- S'ils sont aptes dans leur corps

Moi: Ce qui est normalement le cas. Ces dates (ou quelques mois mais pas un an entier ou même demi après) sont les ages moyennes pour la puberté. Les extrèmes sont 9 (voir législation islamique) et 18 (voir la législation laïque).

D'où "lou / la scoumouno"? De FSSPX, de ma paroisse, de St Nicolas du Chardonnet?

Selon une croyance de Marseille, quand quelqu'un se voit persécuté par guigne, y compris peut-être malheur systématique dans l'exploitation des chances offerts, il y a quelque part une excommunication, en parler marseillais "scoumouno".

J'ai été à cette paroisse pendant un an. Durant cette période, tout ce que j'ai entrepris pour mon bien-être temporel, sauf l'immédait, a glissé quasiment d'entre mes doigts.

Psaume 126 Nisi Dominus ædificaverit domum a été la lumière de ma vie, et si Dieu refuse de me benir, est-ce à cause de l'Église? Comment, pourquoi?

Je n'ai jamais prétendu à être prophète et obligé à la gratuité totale pour mes paroles. Pour mes textes, pour mes partitions. J'ai reclamé le mélange de gratuité et d'expectation de revenu qu'a un hospitalero del Camino dans un gite marqué donativo ou qu'a un guitariste de la rue. Le même mélange à peu près que le chœur de St Nicolas a reclamé pendant son concert annuel, celui qui m'a inspiré d'un Uhrsatz le dépli en thèmes de Sonata Nemetodurica.

Maintes fois, j'ai remarqué que les choses n'ont pas donné la réussite expectable, humainement, selon les connaissances que j'avais de ma situation. Guigne? Scoumouno?

Maintes fois j'ai écrit au curé là-dessus, sans réponse directe. J'ai déjà épuisé ce qu'est prévu par le VII (ou VIII?) canon du Concile de Nicée, c'est à dire, quand - je vais utiliser une langue populaire - quand je me vois niqué dans mes affaires temporelles par mon évêque j'ai le droit seulement de me plaindre en privé, par écrit privé.

Ce lundi par contre, j'ai choisi d'être ouvert devant toute la paroisse, de réellement ôter toute présomption que je doive être considéré comme traitre à une obligation stricte de pauvreté évangélique. J'ai punaisé un écrit sur le panneau, une dame qui m'a vu et qui semblait choquée a eu ma réponse (à quelle que soit sa question sous-entendue) "vous pouvez notifier le curé."

Ce n'est pas pour avoir mes affaires traité avec une confidentialité qui est contraires à mes interêts comme moi je les entend que je me tourne à une paroisse, mais pour y vivre chétiennement, dignement, honorablement.

J'ai été trahi à la mauvaise fortune qui m'a guetté en Suède par la décision de père/M. l'abbé Grüen FSPX, de m'y laisser seul après mon baptême sous condition, en 1993. Et encore une fois par sa prétence en 1997 qu'il serait tenter Dieu de laisser la situation que j'avais à l'époque. Une situation beaucoup plus dangéreuse que l'actuelle, selon mes jugements respectifs. Une situation qui m'a conduit à une quasi ruine juridique.

On n'a pas juste besoin d'un prêtre pour supplémenter les déficits de jugements dont on souffre éventuellement, mais aussi pour vivre une vie sacrementelle. Si M. l'abbé a décidé que je me doive abstiner de quelque chose que je fais ou que je doive faire quelque chose qu'il trouve que j'eusse négligé, alors il pourrait me le dire ou écrire. S'il n'a aucune critique à me faire, pourquoi attend-il quasiment mon retour au confessionnel, comme celui d'un pécheur publique, avant de me parler? Mais s'il dit "si ses affaires ont été tellement dégradés par nous, vous mieux qu'il nous évite", c'est une hypocrisie. Ça fait fi du fait qu'on a besoin des prêtres, même si on n'a pas besoin de leur présomption de juger les choses mieux qu'un-même.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
dans la Pompidolienne
6/X/2010, St Bruno
et le jour anniversaire
de mon arrivée à
Santiago de Compostela

PS, la question linguistique est reglé, une ligne rap que je me rappelle (génuine ou en Arleston/Léo Loden?) contient les mots "finie la scoumoune". Merci.

From Journalistic ethics of James O'Keefe to Psychiatry (over Wallraff)

"As for O'Keefe dressing up as a pimp, yes, it is outrageous, but far less outrageous than the fact that so many ACORN employees were so anxious to work with him to help him establish and under-age prostitution ring"

James O'Keefe had a way of infiltrating ACORN. What if ACORN had a way of infiltrating under age prostitution rings?

The evil DONE by ACORN is more in the line of collaboration with the culture of death.

That is why I liked ACORN getting it for agreeing "yes, far too many black children are born, do donate for contraception and abortion."

I hope O'Keefe's videos about that may still do some good for stopping that in a wider perspective. But I am not sure that is all there is.

Since he is my friend, I will notify him what I said here.

He did imitate someone whose Chestertonian claim is greater, Günther Wallraff, infiltrator of German mental hospitals.

J. P.: See here's the issue---people are getting a whole bunch of ideas conflated at once. Hans, aren't you confusing the PP prank calls with the ACORN videos? ACORN is ostensbily grounded in this:

"The members of ACORN take on issues of relevance to their communities, whether those issues are discrimination, affordable housing, a quality education, or better public services. ACORN believes that low- to moderate-income people are the best advocates for their communities, and so ACORN's low- to moderate-income members act as leaders, spokespeople, and decision-makers within the organization."

By itself, you'd even have to say that this mission statement is noble and admirable. The question is are they using that as a mask for illicit campaigning and influence. As I said--O'Keefe did nothing to elucidate that question. And now we'll likely never know for sure.

The right has imputed that the upper management of ACORN are pro-Choice, which fits the partisan profile, but it's a reach to compare the ACORN videos to Gunther Wallraff even in the most charitable light. (Besides Wallraff's work has also raised questions in ethics for some people. Remember, according to Catholic tradition, nothing can be measured by the ends alone.)

I've said elsewhere that the prank calls to Planned Parenthood were much more acceptable, though I think any information gained in pranks is going to be open to assault by the opposition. What would be more useful is internal documents that state that as a organizational policy.

You could just as easily take pedophile priests and say they are representative of Catholic moral teaching on sex with minors.

I'm not saying that Planned Parenthood isn't grounded in eugenics--of course those who know their history know that they are, but as far as educating the public on that, the PP prank calls are insufficient but amusing supporting evidence of that philosophical orientation.

I think a whole bunch of issues and facts are getting jumbled here--the planned parenthood stunt (and the lucky charms one which was hilarious) are completely separate from ACORN.


OK, PP was not included in ACORN's agenda?

As for just war, it is true that not just killing but also some kinds of ruse are licit - but St Thomas actually states that lying is not one of them. Ambush is, if you get out of it before you start the killing.

Oops, it was even Lila Rose who did the PP prank?

J. M. : What's the difference between a ruse and a lie? I think the problem I'm having is that if you follow the logic of Aquinas on Just War regarding killing, how is it that killing is can be justified, but protecting a person's life through a lie cannot even be mitigated to a lesser sin? If I read the Catechism properly, circumstances DO matter in terms of removing culpability for a lie, even if they can never make a lie something "good".

Answer: Killing a bad man is an act of justice. Lying to him is not.

J.M. : But killing a bad man is not necessarily an act of justice, at least not according to the recent popes who seem to prefer that even very bad people not be executed if there is any other way possible to protect society from them. And isn't one of the rationales for accepting such killings that society has a right to defend itself? And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that lying can ever be made good, I'm simply saying that lying to protect a person from an evil aggressor does not seem as damaging as killing a person to protect someone from an evil aggressor. I mean, if you lied in such a situation you'd be operating under duress and with the intent of a) not killing the aggressor, and b) protecting the innocent party. Or are we saying it would actually be more moral to kill a person who was dragging away an innocent person than to tell them a lie to misdirect them?

Answer: "Recent Popes" may have been misled by psychiatrists about what is merciful and what is a reasonable hope of recovery. I think the then Bishop Ratzinger was, when he sheltered a priest having done what he knew to be sexual misconduct (he did maybe not know age of other party) and he also knew the traditional way was defrocking.

J. M. : Actually, I think then Cardinal Ratzinger intended on defrocking the priest in question, but the offending priest died before the process could be completed. As usual, the media completely misinterpreted the slowness of the wheels of justice at the Vatican as the Vatican "protecting" the offender rather than giving the accused due process.

Answer : No, you are talking about another story.

The one I talk about is when he was bishop [I think that was it, or maybe just priest]. He was not told what kind of offence it was and had nothing to do with the process.

He offered a room - shelter in the sense of couch-surfing - to a priest whose bishop was sending him to councelling rather than defrocking for a sexual misconduct the nature of which he did not know. What he DID know was the priest was getting to a psychologist or psychiatrist, to some kind of shrink.

Has he learned something from the mistake? (Even if not his own, mistakes in his knowledge are a matter he could licitly learn from).

a - he has not changed preference for long and painful rehabilitations over death penalty

b - he has on World Health Day 2006 pronounced one in five as suffering from a mental disorder or disease

c - he pardoned Susana Maiolo without making a process for what was objectively a sacrilege, though as against a celebrant only starting the procession very much less so than if she had done it during directly Eucharistic parts of Holy Mass: as if she was sure she was deluded.

What if she tried to make the Church make a process so she could make one against psychiatry? Then it was - to all appearances I know of - wasted on Benedict XVI. Or should one say Mr Ratzinger?

[Immediately added:]obviously - am I cursed by some priest or something? - "as if she was sure she was deluded" shall be "as if HE was sure she was deluded".

J. M. : From what I've read, BXVI, has evolved in his understanding of the nature of the sex abuse problem over the years. Like so many people in both the Church and the secular world, he followed the wisdom of secular experts about rehabilitating offenders, but over time he became convinced that was not working at all. Which just goes to show, sometimes the old ways really are the best ways. One in five seems rather high, but if you include mild depression, I guess you could get to that number. However, I seriously think if people availed themselves of the sacrament of reconciliation more often, even mild depression would be greatly reduced.

Is Susana Maiolo the one that jumped the rope and attacked him? I'm not quite sure I follow what you are saying about the Pope's pardon of her actions regarding "making a process".

Answer : My point is has he evolved WITH psychiatry in sex abuse problems or has he evolved ABOUT psychiatry?

She is the one who floored him. A thing that has certainly been done to her once in a while in those institutions.

If she had been put to trial according to Church law she could have explained that detail in her background. And asked his holiness - supposing him to be so, I have not lost hope yet - whether he was aware of that, and if he had found the sensation confortable, and if it was fair to her and other victims of psychiatry for him to tell priests they should continue telling her and others to bear their "mental suffering" as a cross instead of complaining about mental institutions as a crime.

But I fear, as long as he thinks it humane to oppose death penalty - despite Romans 13 - because he hopes psychiatry will do better, he is deaf to such appeals.

That is my great problem with him. That was my great problem with my Roumanian bishop. (Is he holding me excommunicate and is Rome giving back Orthodox ecclesiastic power so he can do it?) He preached about suffering in Easter 2008 and thought "mental illness" an item sufficiently important to mention, i e he too agrees with psychiatry.

J. M. : My understanding is that BXVI has lost his faith in the psychiatry's power to "cure" pedophilia. He now understands through experience with recidivism amongst offenders that this pathology is rarely cured through therapy. In fact, he was often at odds with JPII, because JPII had seen so many priests falsely accused of sexual abuse by Communists that he thought that most accusations were likely false. I think Pope Benedict came to terms with the reality of the situation before JPII.

I don't think speaking about mental illness as being a cross to bear necessarily is an endorsement of mental institutions, and I hope that not all mental institutions are criminal in their operation, although I do know that there are often abuses, and I'm sure BXVI would not approve of those.

I also don't think the reason he opposes the death penalty for killers is because he thinks these people can be cured, but rather to give them as much time as possible to repent and possibly be reconciled with God.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you Roumanian Orthodox by profession? And if you are, why do think that the Pope must give the Roumanian Church the authority to excommunicate you? Don't you believe the Roumanian Church has the authority to do that without the Pope's approval?

Answer: "My understanding is that BXVI has lost his faith in the psychiatry's power to "cure" pedophilia."

Yes. So has psychiatry. Does that prove him independent of psychiatry? No.

"I don't think speaking about mental illness as being a cross to bear necessarily is an endorsement of mental institutions, and I hope that not all mental institutions are criminal in their operation, although I do know that there are often abuses, and I'm sure BXVI would not approve of those."

By telling someone he or she is mentally ill, he is refusing to DISCOVER the abuses. So are you if you hope they are not all criminal. At least if you disapprove of Wallraff (who found out the German ones were a few decades ago, then he has done other stuff) - was that you?

In psychiatry among ten patients, it is not a question as many think of nine mentally ill and maybe the tenth one a mistake, it is a question of nine who are sane and maybe one who is mad. I am not saying the others are always morally all right - would you be after years of being treated with limitations of freedom and safety gadgets originally applied to madmen? I am saying they are NOT MAD.

See here:

Psychiatrists tend to be the same, they miss both sanity and danger in persons.

J.M. : Hans, my aunt was bipolar for most of her adult life, and when she would have one of her bouts with either mania or depression, I often feared that she would either hurt herself or get hurt, because she wasn't thinking clearly. She was only hospitalized once or twice due to her mental illness, but I assure you she wasn't just a unique thinker, or sad, or weird, she was like a different person than the one she was when she wasn't having problems. And although her treatments weren't perfect, they usually were able to bring her back to her normal state through medication. However, I do see your point that a lot of people are diagnosed as mentally ill when they are really just dealing with difficult circumstances in their life. Being depressed when your life has been turned upside down is a normal response, not an abnormal one.

I don't know anything about Wallraff', so I don't think I'm the one you're thinking of that disapproved of his work. And I certainly wouldn't sanction abuses once they were uncovered. It makes me sick to think that people who are mentally fragile would be abused when they already have more than their share of problems.

Answer: bipolar? nothing worse?

a hot bath with roses or other things can be "done to" a depressive person (including bipolar during depressive period) - which is why people in depression are fearly easy to treat and fairly well treated in such places

quite sure it was her thoughts as opposed to emotions that were "not clear"?

I have seen a person have a very strange and ironic humor during a week of sleeplessness about once or twice a year - but never harming either herself or others, whether hospitalised or not. It also passed after a week (usually when she got her menstruation) whether she was hospitalised or not.

[adding about me and Roumanian Orthodox profession:] In answer to questions missed above: I am a convert to Catholic Church, sedisvacantist under last years of J.P.-II, exceited about election of Ratzinger, then disappointed - over this very point of psychiatry! - and went to Roumanian Church, whose bishop for Western Europe disappointed me too, to be precise with his Easter Pastoral of 2008. A year ago I went back to FSSPX (Mgr Lefèbvre's inheritors).

If traditional Western theology holds, Orthodox bishops lack jurisdiction and so lack power to excommunicate anyone, let alone a Catholic. St Ignatius of Loyola wrote the Copt Patriarch of Alexandria had neither jurisdiction nor grace to give Ethiopians. Be it noted, his quarrel was not over hesychasm - he prayed hesychastically himself and taught others to do so, though not with the Jesus prayer - but over their rejection of Rome's authority.

If they have jurisdiction now, does it mean they always had it and I exposed myself or does it mean they got it back when Paul VI kissed Athenagoras?

@J. P., I forgot this part: "You could just as easily take pedophile priests and say they are representative of Catholic moral teaching on sex with minors."

Sex as in marital relation or sex as fornication especially stuprum, seducing a virgin? Fornicating by seducing a virgin is worse than doing it with someone who already has whether that virgin is 14 or 20.

Marital relations are another matter and licit whether newly wed the bride be 12 or 20.