Theology

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Pope Francis plays to win. Friday massacre. Removes, Burke, Scola, Pell, Ouellet, Bagnasco, and Ranjith from CDW. <a href="https://t.co/7njhDvKcUj">https://t.co/7njhDvKcUj</a></p>— Michael B Dougherty&#55356;&#57155; (@michaelbd) <a href="https://twitter.com/michaelbd/status/792101292135092230">October 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Not a good development for those who care about orthodoxy.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Pope Francis plays to win. Friday massacre. Removes, Burke, Scola, Pell, Ouellet, Bagnasco, and Ranjith from CDW. <a href="https://t.co/7njhDvKcUj">https://t.co/7njhDvKcUj</a></p>— Michael B Dougherty�� (@michaelbd) <a href="https://twitter.com/michaelbd/status/792101292135092230">October 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Not a good development for those who care about orthodoxy.

Wow! So do you think that these people will alter the more orthodox liturgy for more secular liturgy? I guess... making more secular ideas liturgical in practice?
 
Last edited:

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Wow! So do you think that these people will alter the more orthodox liturgy for more secular liturgy? I guess... making more secular ideas liturgical in practice?

Cardinal Sarah, who still leads the Congregation for Divine Worship, is a rock of orthodoxy (and, God willing, Francis' successor as the next Pope). So I doubt we'll see any radical innovation soon. Though all of his allies have now been replaced, so it's very unlikely that Sarah will be able to make progress on any of the liturgical changes he favors either.

Bishop Conley recently spoke at Creighton. The full transcript is here, but I wanted to share the following snippet in particular:

I have said before that today’s America is becoming defined by a kind of utilitarian, technocratic gnosticism.

That sounds complicated, but the idea is simple, and I'll explain it:

The moral compass of our political and cultural leaders seems mostly governed by a set of false ideas: That we can define reality according to our preferences. That we can remake every human relationship according to the power of our wills. That we have the unconditional right to use technology or wealth to overcome the limitations of our humanity, or achieve whatever we think will make us happy.

In 1992, Justice Anthony Kennedy, an Irish-Catholic like Edward Creighton, wrote in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey that “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

The sexual revolution told us that freedom means defining the limits of reality for ourselves, instead of encountering, understanding, and accepting reality as it is.

Those ideas have roots in the philosophical enlightenment that begat modern democracy. And for that reason, Christianity has always existed in a kind of uneasy tension with modern democracy. But it took the sexual revolution, begun five decades ago, to tip the balance of that tension, and to pose new and serious challenges for Catholics, and for our nation.

To understand the America we live in, we need to understand that the sexual revolution was really an anthropological revolution. The advent of contraception, and legal protection for abortion, unmade the basic biological meaning of sexual intercourse. And when it did, it gave life and energy to the idea that human beings can unmake and refashion every part of what it means to be a person, a family, and a community.

In just a few decades, the sexual revolution has remade most of what America’s cultural and political leaders believe about morality. In a culture where life’s meaning is self-defined, and technological progress can unshackle human desires from the limitations of our bodies, moral choices seem irrelevant to many people. In place of asking what we ought to do, the only relevant question in a technocracy like ours is what we can do.

In his book Technopoly, Neil Postman says that overly technological cultures, “driven by the impulse to invent, have as their aim a grand reductionism in which human life must find its meaning in machinery and technique.”

Here is just one example: Two weeks ago, a Silicon Valley technology company announced that it had raised $200 million dollars to begin a new initiative: genetically sequencing lab-created embryos, in order to deliver children free from major and minor genetic defects, especially for older couples. This is the technology that can create babies formed to parents’ specifications, and it’s becoming available and affordable in America.

Cultural leaders say projects like this give freedom for parents to “have it all.” Political leaders rush to give them grants or tax breaks. But we don’t stop to take into account the meaning of what we’re doing. We don’t consider that projects like these create embryos in laboratories, and then leave them to die. We don’t consider the costs of remaking and reshaping human life itself according to our preferences.

In a technocracy, ethical concerns are levelled by technological ability. And those of us who dare to raise objections are seen as backward, or enemies of progress, and because of this we face very real consequences.

In 1994, Pope St. John Paul II said that this kind of “progress” leads to “a war of the powerful against the weak.” The America of today is living in that war. The enemies of progress are religious believers who raise concerns about human dignity and objective moral reality. The enemies of technocracy are those who speak for the weak in the face of the powerful. Religious liberty is threatened today mostly because when we speak for the vulnerable, or for the rights of conscience, we dare to call into question the tyranny of progress.

The victims of the war of the powerful against the weak are those who can’t contribute to progress, or efficiency, or profit. There is very little room in a culture like ours for people who represent inconvenience, who might stand in the way of maximizing the happiness of the powerful. In a technocratic culture like ours, there is very little room for the poor, the elderly, the disabled, or the unborn.

Moral decision-making is being reshaped by the technocratic revolution. And each one us is suffering the consequences.

This year, Washington, DC and Colorado are considering laws that will allow doctors to help sick patients end their lives. Euthanasia is already legal in three other states.

In the debate over euthanasia, one thing has been particularly troubling to me. People who are interested in assisted suicide don’t usually report being afraid of pain or suffering. They usually report being afraid of becoming a burden. They sometimes report being afraid of being abandoned.

No one should be afraid of burdening his family. But in the technocratic worldview, there is no greater sin than depending on the help of others.

The fruit of the sexual revolution is a worldview that reduces other people to objects—that sees them as a means to an end, or as obstacles to our happiness. The fruit of the sexual revolution is a culture that tells our grandparents they are burdens.

When we reduce other people to objects, we lose the relationships that give life meaning. We lose the ability to love. America today is becoming a very lonely place. True friendship is becoming a rare commodity. Each of us knows families who sit at the dinner table, each person staring at his own screen, not sure how to have real and meaningful conversations with one another. Pornography has become a public health crisis, in part because the intimacy required in real marital relationships is becoming too difficult, and is too easily replaced by isolated self-gratification.

The philosopher Matthew Crawford observes that when we aren’t careful, our technology can turn on us—instead of using tools to achieve our good, our tools can become the standard of goodness.

The America of today is a good and beautiful place. The people of our nation are good, and earnest, and admirable. But the technocratic revolution of our time, and especially the sexual revolution, has turned on us, and revealed deep social, political, and cultural problems that can only be resolved through Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
While I agree in theory, I don't think there's any such thing.

Please expound on that. I know you're disturbed by abortion and (I assume) the burgeoning campaign to legalize euthanasia. How else would you characterize that other than a war by the strong and powerful against the weak and powerless?
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Please expound on that. I know you're disturbed by abortion and (I assume) the burgeoning campaign to legalize euthanasia. How else would you characterize that other than a war by the strong and powerful against the weak and powerless?
I wasn't clear. Certainly there is a war by the strong and powerful against the weak and powerless.

I don't believe there's any such thing as "those who can’t contribute to progress, or efficiency, or profit." Every individual has worth, both in an inherent sense as well as a utility sense. The problem with our calculus is that dollars-and-cents have become the only metric that's ever considered when measuring or evaluating that utility. Enlightened self-interest is not the same as short-term profit maximization, and the disconnect between the two is why you and I disagree on the endgame of liberalism. You think people need to act altruistically, while I believe it's fine for people to act in their self-interest, they just need to be better at calculating what that means.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Cardinal Sarah, who still leads the Congregation for Divine Worship, is a rock of orthodoxy (and, God willing, Francis' successor as the next Pope). So I doubt we'll see any radical innovation soon. Though all of his allies have now been replaced, so it's very unlikely that Sarah will be able to make progress on any of the liturgical changes he favors either.

Bishop Conley recently spoke at Creighton. The full transcript is here, but I wanted to share the following snippet in particular:

This is really good stuff. And I must credit you massively for providing many articles like this that have really caused me to reevaluate long held stances I have held. One thing that stood out to me fairly quickly is the term "Anthropological revolution." As I like to frame my arguments based in anthropological concepts regarding society and morality this phrase struck me.

Searching for this term sent me to Conservapaedia which provided, not to my surprise, a rather long explanation about sexual revolution, abortion, anti-christian leftists etc... They limit this term in use to primarily western liberalism linked to Marxism.

Also, if you recall, we have discussed before in the Liberalism vs Conservatism thread, you and I discovered Locke's false anthropology as his basis for argument.

I say all this becasue for me, the results of pure anthropolgical studies offers a fairly coherent view of the history of humans with respect to their evolving societies. While studying many societies and their resulting cultures/beliefs it is very apparent that they can arrive at multiple types of societies of varying success with vastly differing origin stories, cultures, rites of passage, etc. Each culture also has a varying overriding morality that can be documented/described. I am always left wondering who is more right than the other or are they all right becasue that is what works for them, or are they all wrong becasue the true morality has not been discovered yet (I believe you have made that argument to me as well).

Our western liberal society is founded upon a false anthropology IMO. The history of this country is based upon its rock. Obviously its no wonder that people are still searching a stable foundation even though this country is supposed to be a one with Christian ideals, however if you look at anthropological histories of other cultures, it is by no means the only way be successful. To compound this, we have a culture dominated by amoral economy where people are a burden and one which many people have to choose against their elders or the costs of raising a child. Not to mention one of which is spreading to all corners of the globe. I am aware also of how the other cultures have adopted capitalism into the society. Between China, Europe, and others, I think capitalism or more so the economy really shapes our anthropology. I agree that technology is only hastening it.

I am wondering if we, as humans, and a global species are not more in need of a moral economy than anything else, as these economic pressures are very real and forced upon us by our self-imposed amoral economy.
 
Last edited:

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,821
Reaction score
16,085
Cardinal Sarah, who still leads the Congregation for Divine Worship, is a rock of orthodoxy (and, God willing, Francis' successor as the next Pope). So I doubt we'll see any radical innovation soon. Though all of his allies have now been replaced, so it's very unlikely that Sarah will be able to make progress on any of the liturgical changes he favors either.

Bishop Conley recently spoke at Creighton. The full transcript is here, but I wanted to share the following snippet in particular:

I'd like to see some data to back up that burden language.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
I don't believe there's any such thing as "those who can’t contribute to progress, or efficiency, or profit."

What then do the unborn, the elderly, the infirm and the mentally disabled all have in common?

Every individual has worth, both in an inherent sense as well as a utility sense. The problem with our calculus is that dollars-and-cents have become the only metric that's ever considered when measuring or evaluating that utility.

You profess that as a Catholic, but you won't find it anywhere in Mises, Hayek or Friedman.

Enlightened self-interest is not the same as short-term profit maximization, and the disconnect between the two is why you and I disagree on the endgame of liberalism.

The concept of "enlightened self-interest" is fundamentally incompatible with the radical self-abnegation that Jesus calls his followers to. One has to give way to the other, and all too often the demands of the Gospel are forced to take a backseat to the Invisible Hand. You can't be both an orthodox Catholic and a liberal.

You think people need to act altruistically, while I believe it's fine for people to act in their self-interest, they just need to be better at calculating what that means.

Altruism is the antonym of self-interested behavior. You keep trying to convince me that "enlightened self-interest" can somehow be redefined to encompass altruism. Seems just as Orwellian as anything we've seen out of the Left recently.

I am always left wondering who is more right than the other or are they all right becasue that is what works for them, or are they all wrong becasue the true morality has not been discovered yet (I believe you have made that argument to me as well).

Not necessarily "wrong"; they just lack the fullness of moral truth as revealed in the Christian tradition. For instance, the Eastern practice of ancestor worship bears some striking similarities to the Communion of the Saints. I don't think that's an accident.

I am wondering if we, as humans, and a global species are not more in need of a moral economy than anything else, as these economic pressures are very real and forced upon us by our self-imposed amoral economy.

The corrupt, exhausted liberal status quo that Clinton represents is on its way out. Politics that emphasize solidarity are likely going to dominate within our lifetimes. But it's an open question as to what that'll look it.
 
Last edited:
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Not necessarily "wrong"; they just lack the fullness of moral truth as revealed in the Christian tradition. For instance, the Eastern practice of ancestor worship bears some striking similarities to the Communion of the Saints. I don't think that's an accident.
Anthropologically speaking, as ancestor worship is common and predates Christianity in virtually all ancient societies is it not more accurate to say that Communion of the Saints is more a variation of a previously established ancestor worship practices than the common ancestor of such worship practices? Maybe you are not making that claim... maybe you are saying that all cultures have some form of that, in which the Catholic tradiiton is the more "revealed' and refined?

I don't think its and accident either but I think we are approaching it from different view points. I look it at much like a things that are a result of convergent evolution. Convergence in human and animal behavior is very similar to physical things such as the eye, the wing etc. or more environmental things such as altruism. Not saying I am completely making that argument but it is a fairly strong one IMO.

I should add that by altruism I mean Biological Altruism which I could argue is our everyday use of the term altruism but without our propensity to apply or find meaning in doing conscious actions for others.

I recently had a similar conversation with my priest about this and he also brought up that Catholicism is s more revealed truth.
 
Last edited:

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
What then do the unborn, the elderly, the infirm and the mentally disabled all have in common?
I'm not defending the way modern liberalism treats those people, but I don't think the reason is liberalism itself. Liberalism only works if it's built on a foundation of natural law. The reason the pro life message has failed is because the messengers continue to frame the debate in a Biblical context. Pro life arguments can be made quite eloquently without appeal to the Bible, which is what needs to happen if any progress is to be made on that front in a secular society.

You profess that as a Catholic, but you won't find it anywhere in Mises, Hayek or Friedman.
You won't find it contradicted, either.

The concept of "enlightened self-interest" is fundamentally incompatible with the radical self-abnegation that Jesus calls his followers to. One has to give way to the other, and all too often the demands of the Gospel are forced to take a backseat to the Invisible Hand. You can't be both an orthodox Catholic and a liberal.
That's bullshit. I'm a good father, a good husband, and a good employee. Sometimes two or all three of those things come into conflict and I have to prioritize, but the three are ultimately compatible because they generally apply to different spheres of my life.

Explain to me how one can adopt your notion of orthodox Catholicism and not advocate for a Catholic theocracy.

Altruism is the antonym of self-interested behavior. You keep trying to convince me that "enlightened self-interest" can somehow be redefined to encompass altruism. Seems just as Orwellian as anything we've seen out of the Left recently.
Do you sacrifice for your wife? Of course you do. The fact that it makes you happy (i.e. it's in your self-interest) does not contradict that it's an act of caritas.
 
Last edited:

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
So here's an interesting exercise. The Catholic Church's (now very counter-cultural) stance on marriage, sexuality and the dignity of the human person is well described in three papal encyclicals Casti connubii (1930), Humanae vitae (1968), and Familiaris consortio (1981). The earliest of those was written by Pope Pius XI in reaction to the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church, whereby the first major Christian denomination normalized contraception. It's prophetic in how well it anticipates what sorts of social ills will flow from such a decision.

In reaction to Castii connubii, Margaret Sanger (the Progressive foundress of Planned Parenthood) drafted this article, titled The Pope's Position on Birth Control:

One third of the women who come to the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau in New York are Catholics and the remainder are about equally divided between Protestants and Jews. This has been so for several years, and it indicates that, at least in one important locality, religious affiliation makes no difference one way or the other in the practice of birth control. However, the official teaching of the Catholic church, even though ignored by many of its members, is sometimes an obstacle to general approval of the birth-control movement by political leaders unwilling to oppose the authorities of that church.

My own position is that the Catholic doctrine is illogical, not in accord with science, and definitely against social welfare and race improvement. I hope to make this clear by analyzing the statements of Pope Pius IX in his encyclical letter “Of Chaste Marriage,” which was issued about a year ago.

Evidently the Pope was alarmed by the rapid advance of the birth-control movement, for he complains that an “utterly perverse” morality is “gradually gaining ground,” and “has begun to spread even among the faithful.” He therefore instructs the faithful how to regulate their conjugal life without the benefit of science and according to theories written by St. Augustine, also a bachelor, who died fifteen centuries ago. All through the encyclical the Pope lays stress on authority. He alludes to himself as one “whom the Father has appointed over His field,” and holds that the Catholic Church is the only authorized guardian and interpreter of a “divine law” applying to marriage. Some of these assertions may be questioned by theologians, but be that as it may, let us try to follow the Pope’s reasoning about conjugal matters.

To begin with, he admits that sexual desire is in itself something that can at least claim respectful consideration. This appears in the following passage:

“For in matrimony.... there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence, which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

Since “the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children,” we understand that when husband and wife experience the sexual urge, they may act in the natural way providing the aim is to make the woman pregnant. But would the Pope permit intercourse in cases where pregnancy is impossible, as, for instance, after a woman has passed beyond the age of child bearing? He says:

“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner, although on account of natural reasons, either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth.”

Thus even good Catholics are not always forbidden to perform the sexual act for other purposes than procreation. It is permitted in cases of barrenness, sterility, after the woman has already become pregnant, and after the menapause.

It would be interesting to know whether or not the Pope thinks that husband and wife under other circumstances than those above listed ought to limit their sexual life to a single act for each pregnancy, on the theory that the act is only for procreation. In other words, must a couple, during the child-bearing years, limit themselves to one act (assuming fruitfulness) and one child every year or two? Evidently the Pope has enough sense of humor not to tackle this phase of his moral problem. Common sense, however, tells us that here again the Catholics themselves doubtless permit a vast disproportion between the comparatively great number of “quietings of concupiscence” and the comparatively small number of resulting pregnancies. Furthermore, I believe it is a fact that the desire for a child frequently comes to men and women at moments when they feel no sexual longing, while, on the other hand, the spontaneous physical and emotional urge for intercourse is seldom accompanied by a specific desire for a child.

How many children should there be in a family? The Pope quotes the Biblical “Increase and multiply and fill the earth,” together with the endorsement of the good St. Augustine, who died a thousand years before America was discovered. It strikes me that St. Augustine, however, is not a true believer in the doctrine, for I understand that he had only one son (illegitimate) and that he said, “No fruitfulness of the flesh can be compared to holy virginity.” The Pope declares further:

But Christian parents must also understand that they are destined not only to propagate and preserve the human race on earth, indeed, not only to educate any kind of worshipers of the true God, but children who are to become members of the Church of Christ, to raise up fellow-citizens of the saints and member of God’s household, that the worshipers of God and our Savior may daily increase.

To repeat these two points in everyday language, the Pope commands married women to bear numerous children, (a) to fill the earth, and (b) to increase the membership in the Catholic Church.

Assuming that God does not want an increasing number of worshipers of the catholic faith, does he also want an increasing number of feeble-minded, insane, criminal, and diseased worshipers? That is unavoidable if the Pope is obeyed, because, as we shall see, he forbids every single method of birth control except continence, a method which the feeble-minded, insane, and criminal will not use.

Suppose that a couple want to have children, but only a few. Suppose that they wish to space the births so that one baby can get well started in life before the other one comes. Suppose that the mother’s physical condition makes it dangerous, and possibly fatal, for her to bear another child. Suppose that poverty makes limitation desirable. What can they do about it? Separate legally? No. But they can separate physically and spiritually by practicing continence.

A word about nature is needed here. Conception takes place through the combination of an ovum with a sperm. Sperms are microscopic seeds introduced from the man’s body by the million in a single sexual act. Nature herself wastes almost all of these millions of sperms. But if a single sperm joins up with an ovum, one of the microscopic seeds which are produced by the woman’s ovaries, the result is conception. From this beginning grows the embyro which in time becomes a child.

Remember that no new life begins unless there is conception. Keep the sperm away from the ovum and there will be no conception. The Pope approves the prevention of conception by keeping men and women apart, which means that he does not think it wrong for ova and sperms to grow and die by the millions without producing new life. The Pope even permits married couples to prevent sperms from meeting ova by refraining from intercourse. He calls this “virtuous continence,” and he adds, “which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent.”

Just think of that. If the husband does not consent to continence, the wife has to keep on getting pregnant unless she disobeys the Pope by using contraceptives. Incidentally, unless I am misinformed, American wives in certain States are not entitled to support from their husbands if they refuse conjugal intimacy. There have been many decisions to this effect, I believe.

I believe that continence is one of the surest ways of breaking up marriage. It is the denial of love, the frustration of nature. Furthermore, in many cases, according to medical science, continence in marriage is positively harmful to health if practiced for any length of time. It can bring on serious nervous derangement. Although it may be acceptable to certain individuals as a method of birth control, it cannot wisely be recommended for general use.

We come now to the subject of contraception. Contraception means keeping the sperms away from the ova during and after the sexual act and thus preventing conception. Various methods of contraception have been widely used all over the civilized world for a long time, but they are all condemned by the Pope. He says in the encyclical:

Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

In another paragraph he calls contraception a “sin against nature.” He even tries to frighten Catholics by declaring that God sometimes kills people for preventing conception. Reference is made to a Biblical story. The Pope says, “...when the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Judah, did this, and the Lord killed him for it.” The argument is entirely misleading. Read the story of Genesis XXXVIII, and you will see that God killed Onan because he refused to have a child by the widow of his brother, whom God had killed. If Onan had tried continence instead of another method he would have been slain just as promptly.

Before going farther I wish to quote the very Reverend W. R. Inge, Dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral, London, who has written that “the real alternative to birth control is abortion.” It is an alternative that I cannot too strongly condemn. Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious. I bring up the subject here only because some ill-informed persons have the notion that when we speak of birth control we include abortion as a method. We certainly do not. Abortion destroys the already fertilized ovum or the embryo; contraception, as I have carefully explained, prevents the fertilizing of the ovum by keeping the male cells away. Thus it prevents the beginning of life.

The contention that it is sin to have dominion over nature is simple nonsense. The Pope frustrates nature by getting shaved and having his hair cut, as well as by practicing continence. Whenever we catch a fish or shoot a wolf or a lamb, whenever we pull a weed or prune a tree, we frustrate nature. Disease germs are perfectly natural little fellows which must be frustrated before we can get well. Nature frustrates her own processes by the most astounding wastage, as we have already seen in the case of the sperms and ova, which she produces for the man and the woman by the million only to let them perish.

When the Pope speaks about nature he seems to forget that the human mind is also part of nature. The thoughts we think and the emotions we feel are the work of nature. He does not seem to realize that the enjoyment in sexual intercourse is largely psychical. It is a mental and spiritual as well as a physical enjoyment. The stronger the love and the finer the characters of the married pair, the greater is this psychical enjoyment during intercourse. To impose continence is to prevent the finest union of love, to frustrate mental and spiritual nature in its urge toward perfection. Contraception in no way interferes with the oneness which is most necessary--even though the Pope calls it a secondary end--to the preservation of married happiness.

But the Pope has no respect for the mental powers of the individual. He writes:

Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature... a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered and unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals of the holy Church of God, through its supreme pastor, the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ our Lord.

That is what the Pope says. Now let us see what Jesus says. St. Matthew quotes Him thus: “Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” St. Mark quotes the same statement. But did Jesus say that every wife had to bear children as fast as they would come? Did He ever advocate rearing large families as a duty toward God? Did he ever say anything against the limitation of offspring? Did He ever say anything that by any twist of argument can be interpreted to mean that He disapproved of contraception? If He did, why does not the Pope cite chapter and verse?

Having answered, point by point, those parts of the Pope’s encyclical which refer to birth control, I want to add that his attitude in general seems to be conditioned by a disapproval of human enjoyment and an apparent relishing of the theory that suffering is good for our souls. He speaks of himself as “looking with paternal eye...as from a watch-tower.” It is a tower set in splendor, surrounded by walls that shut out the world of broken homes, of sick and sorrow-laden mothers, poverty-stricken fathers, and pathetic, unwanted children. In that remote tower he sits comfortably, takes counsel from a pile of old books and from bachelor advisers, and then writes scolding sermons about the marriage problems of intelligent people. I wish he could come down into real life for a few weeks, walk the earth and mingle with the poor “ye have always with you.” He would hear true stories from Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish women which I should think would be enough to shake sense into the head of any man.

As for the Catholic political opposition to our proposed amendment of an obnoxious federal law, I contend that if the Catholic church cannot force its member to obey the Pope’s commands regarding birth control without the help of the United States government, that is a good omen for our cause. The birth control movement grows in strength and wisdom despite religious objections and legal handicaps. It advances because it supplies a human need, and it cannot stop, because that need never ceases.

No philanthropic cause today offers the benefactor a finer opportunity for service which will at the same time relieve individual suffering, promote social welfare, and tend to improve the race in America.

And just recently, Radix Journal (the Alt-Right thinktank founded by white nationalist Richard Spencer) just published an article titled "The Pro-Life Temptation":

Few issues divide our movement—whether we call it identitarianism, race-realism, or the “alt Right”—like abortion. To some, the practice is akin to murder, and its acceptance shows the degeneracy of the Left. To others, abortion—and contraception more generally—are eugenic practices, which are about the only things keeping our societies from falling into complete idiocracy.

I understand the pro-life temptation. The kinds of people who support abortion access most fervently are those who stand for the things we oppose: selfishness, atomization, the “liberation” of women, and leftist identity politics. In popular culture, legalized abortion is tied to “reproductive freedom,” which has liberated women from the horrible fate of being wives and mothers and allowed them to pursue more meaningful lives as cubicle drones.

Conversely, it is tempting to believe that abolishing legalized abortion would lead to a return to more traditional values, a higher birthrate, and healthier relations between the sexes. Many European leaders that we admire are moving their countries in a pro-life direction, perhaps because they have bought into this narrative.

Unfortunately, as our movement gains influence, it is important that we not fall prey to the pro-life temptation.

First off, the alt Right appreciates what is superior in man, in the Nietzschean sense. Most members of the alt Right applaud countries like Japan and South Korea for having low out-of-wedlock birth rates and not taking in Muslim or African refugees. We don’t simply say “who cares what they do, they’re not my tribe.” Rather, we recognize that such people have built impressive civilizations, and we believe that it is in the interest of humanity that these nations continue to exist, and not adopt the suicidal policies of the West.

Second, we on the alt Right have an appreciation of tribalism and identity. We realize that people are not just autonomous individuals. Life gains its meaning through connections to other members of our families, tribes, and nations.

Being pro-life flies in the face both of these principles.

THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT IS DYSGENIC

First of all, the pro-life position is clearly dysgenic. A 2011 study showed that in 2008, while 16 percent of women aged 15-44 lived below the poverty line, among women who had abortions, the number was 42 percent. Hispanic and African-American women made up a combined 31 percent of this age group, but almost 55 percent of those who chose to terminate a pregnancy. The reasons behind these patterns aren’t hard to figure out. In a world with reliable birth control, it is quite easy to avoid an unwanted pregnancy; the only ones who can’t are the least intelligent and responsible members of society: women who are disproportionately Black, Hispanic, and poor.

A natural experiment in Colorado shows what happens when a state makes contraception and abortion more freely available. Over the last decade, the state has moved to the Left, and in 2009 it began offering free or low-cost long-acting contraception to poorer women. The state provided intrauterine devices and implants that, unlike condoms or the pill, did not require that the user be responsible enough to plan ahead. Within a few years, the birth rate of low-income women plummeted. In states where Republican legislatures have enacted a pro-life agenda, the opposite has happened.

The idea that there are capable women out there who are aborting their babies as they delay marriage and climb the corporate ladder is a fantasy. When an intelligent, responsible woman does have an abortion, it is often because the baby has a disease or the pregnancy threatens her health, not because she or her boyfriend forget to use contraception. A study in Europe found that over 90 percent of mothers who were told that their babies were going to have Down’s syndrome did not continue the pregnancy. In 2011, it was estimated that there are now 30 percent fewer people with the disorder in the United States due to prenatal diagnosis. In the future, as such technologies improve, what the Left calls “reproductive freedom” will continue to be the justification for private-sector eugenics.

THE IDENTITARIAN CASE

Not only is the pro-life movement dysgenic, but its justifications rely on principles we generally reject. The alt Right is skeptical, to say the least, of concepts like “equality” and “human rights,” especially as bases for policy. The unborn fetus has no connection to anyone else in the community. If it is not even wanted by its own mother, criminalizing abortion means that the state must step in and say that the individual has rights as an individual, despite its lack of connection to any larger social group. This is no problem to those in the conservative movement, who decide right and wrong based on principles like “the right to life.” It is no coincidence that some of the most pro-life politicians are those most excited about adopting children from Africa and those in their movement are among the conservatives most likely to denounce the “racism” of their political opponents.

The mother-child bond is the strongest of human relationships, the one least subject to being altered by government policy or societal forces. While over the last decades, fathers have become more likely to walk out on their children and divorce rates have risen, there has been no similar rise in females abandoning their children. When the parent-child bond does not exist for a pregnant woman, society has no business stepping in. Those who want to do so, by banning abortion because it’s “racist” or adopting children from Africa, are the ultimate cuckservatives.

If there were to be a pro-life position that we could accept, it would be based on arguments about what is good for the community. The case would have to be made that abortion is what is decimating the White population and decreasing its quality. While it’s true that a blanket ban on abortion would probably increase the White population in there numbers, it would, no doubt, decrease the overall quality, as well and leave all races stupider, more criminally prone, and more diseased.

A BETTER WAY

For those of us who believe that the sexual revolution and women’s liberation have been disastrous for society, it is tempting to lash out at contraception and abortion. Yet the pro-life agenda would give us the worst of all worlds. Those whom we want to have children would continue to find a way to do what they wanted, while the birth rates among the worst members of society would explode. Childbearing among better classes would probably decrease even further under the strain of the inevitable increases in crime and redistributive policies that would follow.

It is as if pro-life identitarians want to force women be wives and mothers by leaving them no other choice: Just take away their access to abortion and contraception, and they’ll have to stay home and raise children or stop having sex at all! Yet this kind of thinking implicitly affirms the Left’s premise that, when given a choice, women will want to be barren careerists.

A better way is to make an honest case that feminism has been bad for women. There is no higher calling in life than continuing the species, and raising happy, healthy children who will be a benefit to society. The case that babies are more fulfilling than cubicles should not be hard to make, and has been self-evident to every society not infected with the virus of leftism. Indeed, data shows that as feminism has progressed across the Western world, women have become less happy. The program of the Left fails by its own standards.

Of course, we cannot return to healthier relations between the sexes over night. Doing so is a long-term project, one that would require non-feminized men who can be worthy partners for women fulfilling their destinies. No one wants to be a stay-at-home wife to a man who is needy, weak, or cowardly. Much of the campus unrest we see has been estrogen-driven, and to be honest, it is not surprising that young women, prone towards conformity and cheap sentimentality, buy into modern leftism. But to me, the saddest thing is that we’ve come to a point where 20-year-old “men” are unashamed to show their faces in public while proudly demanding “safe spaces.” Careers are more appealing than relationships and families only when men and women are discouraged from exhibiting the traits that make them attractive to the opposite sex.

Perhaps nothing is more important than advocating for a return to more natural relations between the sexes. But that does not mean we mindlessly oppose everything that the Left supports. In the popular imagination, the pro-life movement is associated with opposition to women’s liberation and the rest of the leftist agenda. In reality, its positions lead to dysgenics and are justified through appeals to the same universalist principles that are allowing mass Third World immigration and other forms of suicidal liberalism. The alt Right, for both our own principles and the greater good, must oppose the pro-life agenda.

Note the similarities between the Progressive and ethno-nationalist outlooks. Which of these three worldviews aligns most closely with your own beliefs about human dignity? I think we're rapidly approaching a point where the incoherent and exhausted liberal "middle" will no longer hold, and Westerners will have to start declaring for one of the positions above.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
So here's an interesting exercise. The Catholic Church's (now very counter-cultural) stance on marriage, sexuality and the dignity of the human person is well described in three papal encyclicals: Casti connubii (1930), Humanae vitae (1968), and Familiaris consortio (1981). The earliest of those was written by Pope Pius XI in reaction to the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church, whereby the first major Christian denomination normalized contraception. It's prophetic in how well it anticipates what sorts of social ills will flow from such a decision.

In reaction to Castii connubii, Margaret Sanger (the Progressive foundress of Planned Parenthood) drafted this article, titled The Pope's Position on Birth Control:

One third of the women who come to the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau in New York are Catholics and the remainder are about equally divided between Protestants and Jews. This has been so for several years, and it indicates that, at least in one important locality, religious affiliation makes no difference one way or the other in the practice of birth control. However, the official teaching of the Catholic church, even though ignored by many of its members, is sometimes an obstacle to general approval of the birth-control movement by political leaders unwilling to oppose the authorities of that church.

My own position is that the Catholic doctrine is illogical, not in accord with science, and definitely against social welfare and race improvement. I hope to make this clear by analyzing the statements of Pope Pius IX in his encyclical letter “Of Chaste Marriage,” which was issued about a year ago.

Evidently the Pope was alarmed by the rapid advance of the birth-control movement, for he complains that an “utterly perverse” morality is “gradually gaining ground,” and “has begun to spread even among the faithful.” He therefore instructs the faithful how to regulate their conjugal life without the benefit of science and according to theories written by St. Augustine, also a bachelor, who died fifteen centuries ago. All through the encyclical the Pope lays stress on authority. He alludes to himself as one “whom the Father has appointed over His field,” and holds that the Catholic Church is the only authorized guardian and interpreter of a “divine law” applying to marriage. Some of these assertions may be questioned by theologians, but be that as it may, let us try to follow the Pope’s reasoning about conjugal matters.

To begin with, he admits that sexual desire is in itself something that can at least claim respectful consideration. This appears in the following passage:

“For in matrimony.... there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence, which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

Since “the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children,” we understand that when husband and wife experience the sexual urge, they may act in the natural way providing the aim is to make the woman pregnant. But would the Pope permit intercourse in cases where pregnancy is impossible, as, for instance, after a woman has passed beyond the age of child bearing? He says:

“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner, although on account of natural reasons, either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth.”

Thus even good Catholics are not always forbidden to perform the sexual act for other purposes than procreation. It is permitted in cases of barrenness, sterility, after the woman has already become pregnant, and after the menapause.

It would be interesting to know whether or not the Pope thinks that husband and wife under other circumstances than those above listed ought to limit their sexual life to a single act for each pregnancy, on the theory that the act is only for procreation. In other words, must a couple, during the child-bearing years, limit themselves to one act (assuming fruitfulness) and one child every year or two? Evidently the Pope has enough sense of humor not to tackle this phase of his moral problem. Common sense, however, tells us that here again the Catholics themselves doubtless permit a vast disproportion between the comparatively great number of “quietings of concupiscence” and the comparatively small number of resulting pregnancies. Furthermore, I believe it is a fact that the desire for a child frequently comes to men and women at moments when they feel no sexual longing, while, on the other hand, the spontaneous physical and emotional urge for intercourse is seldom accompanied by a specific desire for a child.

How many children should there be in a family? The Pope quotes the Biblical “Increase and multiply and fill the earth,” together with the endorsement of the good St. Augustine, who died a thousand years before America was discovered. It strikes me that St. Augustine, however, is not a true believer in the doctrine, for I understand that he had only one son (illegitimate) and that he said, “No fruitfulness of the flesh can be compared to holy virginity.” The Pope declares further:

But Christian parents must also understand that they are destined not only to propagate and preserve the human race on earth, indeed, not only to educate any kind of worshipers of the true God, but children who are to become members of the Church of Christ, to raise up fellow-citizens of the saints and member of God’s household, that the worshipers of God and our Savior may daily increase.

To repeat these two points in everyday language, the Pope commands married women to bear numerous children, (a) to fill the earth, and (b) to increase the membership in the Catholic Church.

Assuming that God does not want an increasing number of worshipers of the catholic faith, does he also want an increasing number of feeble-minded, insane, criminal, and diseased worshipers? That is unavoidable if the Pope is obeyed, because, as we shall see, he forbids every single method of birth control except continence, a method which the feeble-minded, insane, and criminal will not use.

Suppose that a couple want to have children, but only a few. Suppose that they wish to space the births so that one baby can get well started in life before the other one comes. Suppose that the mother’s physical condition makes it dangerous, and possibly fatal, for her to bear another child. Suppose that poverty makes limitation desirable. What can they do about it? Separate legally? No. But they can separate physically and spiritually by practicing continence.

A word about nature is needed here. Conception takes place through the combination of an ovum with a sperm. Sperms are microscopic seeds introduced from the man’s body by the million in a single sexual act. Nature herself wastes almost all of these millions of sperms. But if a single sperm joins up with an ovum, one of the microscopic seeds which are produced by the woman’s ovaries, the result is conception. From this beginning grows the embyro which in time becomes a child.

Remember that no new life begins unless there is conception. Keep the sperm away from the ovum and there will be no conception. The Pope approves the prevention of conception by keeping men and women apart, which means that he does not think it wrong for ova and sperms to grow and die by the millions without producing new life. The Pope even permits married couples to prevent sperms from meeting ova by refraining from intercourse. He calls this “virtuous continence,” and he adds, “which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent.”

Just think of that. If the husband does not consent to continence, the wife has to keep on getting pregnant unless she disobeys the Pope by using contraceptives. Incidentally, unless I am misinformed, American wives in certain States are not entitled to support from their husbands if they refuse conjugal intimacy. There have been many decisions to this effect, I believe.

I believe that continence is one of the surest ways of breaking up marriage. It is the denial of love, the frustration of nature. Furthermore, in many cases, according to medical science, continence in marriage is positively harmful to health if practiced for any length of time. It can bring on serious nervous derangement. Although it may be acceptable to certain individuals as a method of birth control, it cannot wisely be recommended for general use.

We come now to the subject of contraception. Contraception means keeping the sperms away from the ova during and after the sexual act and thus preventing conception. Various methods of contraception have been widely used all over the civilized world for a long time, but they are all condemned by the Pope. He says in the encyclical:

Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

In another paragraph he calls contraception a “sin against nature.” He even tries to frighten Catholics by declaring that God sometimes kills people for preventing conception. Reference is made to a Biblical story. The Pope says, “...when the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Judah, did this, and the Lord killed him for it.” The argument is entirely misleading. Read the story of Genesis XXXVIII, and you will see that God killed Onan because he refused to have a child by the widow of his brother, whom God had killed. If Onan had tried continence instead of another method he would have been slain just as promptly.

Before going farther I wish to quote the very Reverend W. R. Inge, Dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral, London, who has written that “the real alternative to birth control is abortion.” It is an alternative that I cannot too strongly condemn. Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious. I bring up the subject here only because some ill-informed persons have the notion that when we speak of birth control we include abortion as a method. We certainly do not. Abortion destroys the already fertilized ovum or the embryo; contraception, as I have carefully explained, prevents the fertilizing of the ovum by keeping the male cells away. Thus it prevents the beginning of life.

The contention that it is sin to have dominion over nature is simple nonsense. The Pope frustrates nature by getting shaved and having his hair cut, as well as by practicing continence. Whenever we catch a fish or shoot a wolf or a lamb, whenever we pull a weed or prune a tree, we frustrate nature. Disease germs are perfectly natural little fellows which must be frustrated before we can get well. Nature frustrates her own processes by the most astounding wastage, as we have already seen in the case of the sperms and ova, which she produces for the man and the woman by the million only to let them perish.

When the Pope speaks about nature he seems to forget that the human mind is also part of nature. The thoughts we think and the emotions we feel are the work of nature. He does not seem to realize that the enjoyment in sexual intercourse is largely psychical. It is a mental and spiritual as well as a physical enjoyment. The stronger the love and the finer the characters of the married pair, the greater is this psychical enjoyment during intercourse. To impose continence is to prevent the finest union of love, to frustrate mental and spiritual nature in its urge toward perfection. Contraception in no way interferes with the oneness which is most necessary--even though the Pope calls it a secondary end--to the preservation of married happiness.

But the Pope has no respect for the mental powers of the individual. He writes:

Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature... a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered and unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals of the holy Church of God, through its supreme pastor, the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ our Lord.

That is what the Pope says. Now let us see what Jesus says. St. Matthew quotes Him thus: “Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” St. Mark quotes the same statement. But did Jesus say that every wife had to bear children as fast as they would come? Did He ever advocate rearing large families as a duty toward God? Did he ever say anything against the limitation of offspring? Did He ever say anything that by any twist of argument can be interpreted to mean that He disapproved of contraception? If He did, why does not the Pope cite chapter and verse?

Having answered, point by point, those parts of the Pope’s encyclical which refer to birth control, I want to add that his attitude in general seems to be conditioned by a disapproval of human enjoyment and an apparent relishing of the theory that suffering is good for our souls. He speaks of himself as “looking with paternal eye...as from a watch-tower.” It is a tower set in splendor, surrounded by walls that shut out the world of broken homes, of sick and sorrow-laden mothers, poverty-stricken fathers, and pathetic, unwanted children. In that remote tower he sits comfortably, takes counsel from a pile of old books and from bachelor advisers, and then writes scolding sermons about the marriage problems of intelligent people. I wish he could come down into real life for a few weeks, walk the earth and mingle with the poor “ye have always with you.” He would hear true stories from Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish women which I should think would be enough to shake sense into the head of any man.

As for the Catholic political opposition to our proposed amendment of an obnoxious federal law, I contend that if the Catholic church cannot force its member to obey the Pope’s commands regarding birth control without the help of the United States government, that is a good omen for our cause. The birth control movement grows in strength and wisdom despite religious objections and legal handicaps. It advances because it supplies a human need, and it cannot stop, because that need never ceases.

No philanthropic cause today offers the benefactor a finer opportunity for service which will at the same time relieve individual suffering, promote social welfare, and tend to improve the race in America.

And just recently, Radix Journal (the Alt-Right thinktank founded by white nationalist Richard Spencer) published an article titled "The Pro-Life Temptation":

Few issues divide our movement—whether we call it identitarianism, race-realism, or the “alt Right”—like abortion. To some, the practice is akin to murder, and its acceptance shows the degeneracy of the Left. To others, abortion—and contraception more generally—are eugenic practices, which are about the only things keeping our societies from falling into complete idiocracy.

I understand the pro-life temptation. The kinds of people who support abortion access most fervently are those who stand for the things we oppose: selfishness, atomization, the “liberation” of women, and leftist identity politics. In popular culture, legalized abortion is tied to “reproductive freedom,” which has liberated women from the horrible fate of being wives and mothers and allowed them to pursue more meaningful lives as cubicle drones.

Conversely, it is tempting to believe that abolishing legalized abortion would lead to a return to more traditional values, a higher birthrate, and healthier relations between the sexes. Many European leaders that we admire are moving their countries in a pro-life direction, perhaps because they have bought into this narrative.

Unfortunately, as our movement gains influence, it is important that we not fall prey to the pro-life temptation.

First off, the alt Right appreciates what is superior in man, in the Nietzschean sense. Most members of the alt Right applaud countries like Japan and South Korea for having low out-of-wedlock birth rates and not taking in Muslim or African refugees. We don’t simply say “who cares what they do, they’re not my tribe.” Rather, we recognize that such people have built impressive civilizations, and we believe that it is in the interest of humanity that these nations continue to exist, and not adopt the suicidal policies of the West.

Second, we on the alt Right have an appreciation of tribalism and identity. We realize that people are not just autonomous individuals. Life gains its meaning through connections to other members of our families, tribes, and nations.

Being pro-life flies in the face both of these principles.

THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT IS DYSGENIC

First of all, the pro-life position is clearly dysgenic. A 2011 study showed that in 2008, while 16 percent of women aged 15-44 lived below the poverty line, among women who had abortions, the number was 42 percent. Hispanic and African-American women made up a combined 31 percent of this age group, but almost 55 percent of those who chose to terminate a pregnancy. The reasons behind these patterns aren’t hard to figure out. In a world with reliable birth control, it is quite easy to avoid an unwanted pregnancy; the only ones who can’t are the least intelligent and responsible members of society: women who are disproportionately Black, Hispanic, and poor.

A natural experiment in Colorado shows what happens when a state makes contraception and abortion more freely available. Over the last decade, the state has moved to the Left, and in 2009 it began offering free or low-cost long-acting contraception to poorer women. The state provided intrauterine devices and implants that, unlike condoms or the pill, did not require that the user be responsible enough to plan ahead. Within a few years, the birth rate of low-income women plummeted. In states where Republican legislatures have enacted a pro-life agenda, the opposite has happened.

The idea that there are capable women out there who are aborting their babies as they delay marriage and climb the corporate ladder is a fantasy. When an intelligent, responsible woman does have an abortion, it is often because the baby has a disease or the pregnancy threatens her health, not because she or her boyfriend forget to use contraception. A study in Europe found that over 90 percent of mothers who were told that their babies were going to have Down’s syndrome did not continue the pregnancy. In 2011, it was estimated that there are now 30 percent fewer people with the disorder in the United States due to prenatal diagnosis. In the future, as such technologies improve, what the Left calls “reproductive freedom” will continue to be the justification for private-sector eugenics.

THE IDENTITARIAN CASE

Not only is the pro-life movement dysgenic, but its justifications rely on principles we generally reject. The alt Right is skeptical, to say the least, of concepts like “equality” and “human rights,” especially as bases for policy. The unborn fetus has no connection to anyone else in the community. If it is not even wanted by its own mother, criminalizing abortion means that the state must step in and say that the individual has rights as an individual, despite its lack of connection to any larger social group. This is no problem to those in the conservative movement, who decide right and wrong based on principles like “the right to life.” It is no coincidence that some of the most pro-life politicians are those most excited about adopting children from Africa and those in their movement are among the conservatives most likely to denounce the “racism” of their political opponents.

The mother-child bond is the strongest of human relationships, the one least subject to being altered by government policy or societal forces. While over the last decades, fathers have become more likely to walk out on their children and divorce rates have risen, there has been no similar rise in females abandoning their children. When the parent-child bond does not exist for a pregnant woman, society has no business stepping in. Those who want to do so, by banning abortion because it’s “racist” or adopting children from Africa, are the ultimate cuckservatives.

If there were to be a pro-life position that we could accept, it would be based on arguments about what is good for the community. The case would have to be made that abortion is what is decimating the White population and decreasing its quality. While it’s true that a blanket ban on abortion would probably increase the White population in there numbers, it would, no doubt, decrease the overall quality, as well and leave all races stupider, more criminally prone, and more diseased.

A BETTER WAY

For those of us who believe that the sexual revolution and women’s liberation have been disastrous for society, it is tempting to lash out at contraception and abortion. Yet the pro-life agenda would give us the worst of all worlds. Those whom we want to have children would continue to find a way to do what they wanted, while the birth rates among the worst members of society would explode. Childbearing among better classes would probably decrease even further under the strain of the inevitable increases in crime and redistributive policies that would follow.

It is as if pro-life identitarians want to force women be wives and mothers by leaving them no other choice: Just take away their access to abortion and contraception, and they’ll have to stay home and raise children or stop having sex at all! Yet this kind of thinking implicitly affirms the Left’s premise that, when given a choice, women will want to be barren careerists.

A better way is to make an honest case that feminism has been bad for women. There is no higher calling in life than continuing the species, and raising happy, healthy children who will be a benefit to society. The case that babies are more fulfilling than cubicles should not be hard to make, and has been self-evident to every society not infected with the virus of leftism. Indeed, data shows that as feminism has progressed across the Western world, women have become less happy. The program of the Left fails by its own standards.

Of course, we cannot return to healthier relations between the sexes over night. Doing so is a long-term project, one that would require non-feminized men who can be worthy partners for women fulfilling their destinies. No one wants to be a stay-at-home wife to a man who is needy, weak, or cowardly. Much of the campus unrest we see has been estrogen-driven, and to be honest, it is not surprising that young women, prone towards conformity and cheap sentimentality, buy into modern leftism. But to me, the saddest thing is that we’ve come to a point where 20-year-old “men” are unashamed to show their faces in public while proudly demanding “safe spaces.” Careers are more appealing than relationships and families only when men and women are discouraged from exhibiting the traits that make them attractive to the opposite sex.

Perhaps nothing is more important than advocating for a return to more natural relations between the sexes. But that does not mean we mindlessly oppose everything that the Left supports. In the popular imagination, the pro-life movement is associated with opposition to women’s liberation and the rest of the leftist agenda. In reality, its positions lead to dysgenics and are justified through appeals to the same universalist principles that are allowing mass Third World immigration and other forms of suicidal liberalism. The alt Right, for both our own principles and the greater good, must oppose the pro-life agenda.

Note the similarities between the Progressive and ethno-nationalist outlooks. Which of these three worldviews aligns most closely with your own beliefs about human dignity? I think we're rapidly approaching a point where the exhausted liberal "middle" will no longer hold, and Westerners will have to start declaring for one of the positions above.
 

Emcee77

latress on the men-jay
Messages
7,295
Reaction score
555
So here's an interesting exercise. The Catholic Church's (now very counter-cultural) stance on marriage, sexuality and the dignity of the human person is well described in three papal encyclicals: Casti connubii (1930), Humanae vitae (1968), and Familiaris consortio (1981). The earliest of those was written by Pope Pius XI in reaction to the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church, whereby the first major Christian denomination normalized contraception. It's prophetic in how well it anticipates what sorts of social ills will flow from such a decision.

In reaction to Castii connubii, Margaret Sanger (the Progressive foundress of Planned Parenthood) drafted this article, titled The Pope's Position on Birth Control:



And just recently, Radix Journal (the Alt-Right thinktank founded by white nationalist Richard Spencer) published an article titled "The Pro-Life Temptation":



Note the similarities between the Progressive and ethno-nationalist outlooks. Which of these three worldviews aligns most closely with your own beliefs about human dignity? I think we're rapidly approaching a point where the exhausted liberal "middle" will no longer hold, and Westerners will have to start declaring for one of the positions above.

What a great post. Fascinating food for thought.

What is your hypothesis, though? I'm not sure I follow what you mean by the "exhausted liberal middle"? I feel like none of the three views represents today's orthodox liberal pro-choice position. Are you saying holders of that position will be numerically overwhelmed? Or maybe you are saying there is no distinction between that position and the Sanger position, and holders of the pope's position will be overwhelmed by the other two? Or that holders of both orthodox moderate pro-life and pro-choice positions will be overwhelmed by the fringes of either side?
 
Last edited:

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
What a great post. Fascinating food for thought.

What is your hypothesis, though? I'm not sure I follow what you mean by the "exhausted liberal middle"? I feel like none of the three views represents today's orthodox liberal pro-choice position. Are you saying holders of that position will be numerically overwhelmed? Or maybe you are saying there is no distinction between that position and the Sanger position, and holders of the pope's position will be overwhelmed by the other two? Or that holders of both orthodox moderate pro-life and pro-choice positions will be overwhelmed by the fringes of either side?

A few things:
  • First, as I've argued here many times before, liberalism cannot protect society's weakest members. Only a philosophy that demands personal sacrifice from its citizens can do so; liberalism, which idolizes personal autonomy, is uniquely incapable of securing such goods.
  • Second, as Deneen has argued, liberalism is unsustainable on its own terms, so it will eventually pass away to be replaced with a different political philosophy that emphasizes solidarity.
  • Third, Tocqueville predicted that America would eventually come to embrace Catholicism, or turn decidedly against it. I think the similarities between the Progressive and white nationalist outlooks above, and their stark contrast with Catholic doctrine, indicates that his hypothesis will likely prove true.

Elizabeth Bruenig, a Catholic socialist I've long followed on Twitter, recently participated in a debate put on by the Yale Political Union titled "Religion has no place in government". She argues the negative position here:

This speech was given before the Yale Political Union on November 15th 2016. The resolution was “religion has no place in government,” and I was asked to argue the negative position. Dr. Ronald Lindsay, president of the Center for Inquiry, argued the affirmative position.

I first want to thank you all for inviting me here to discuss politics and religion, two of my favorite subjects, and perhaps incidentally, the two things you shouldn’t discuss in polite company. I like to think that’s part of why these topics retain such an air of tension and mystery — because it isn’t often we share our thoughts about them in conversation with our friends, colleagues and peers. And that’s a shame. Being that these two categories comprise many of the contours of our public and private lives, it’s worthwhile to give them thorough consideration, both apart and together. And so I’m happy to be here, and hope I can help bring some clarity to all of our thinking on the question of whether religion has a place in government.

First, I’d like to take a moment to thank Dr. Lindsay for joining us here. Dr. Lindsay has done so much in the way of thinking on these topics and has contributed a great deal to our shared understanding of them, and I so appreciate that contribution, and wanted to express my gratitude for him putting aside the time to talk with me here today.

That religion has no place in government is both a positive and normative statement, by which I mean it can be read both ways: as either a statement of fact, that there simply is no place for religion in government; or as a statement with moral intention, that there ought to be no place for religion in government.

These two readings are related but not the same. They are related both because whether something is so is no argument for its being so, and because, things that are nonetheless often carry moral inertia, and justify themselves by their being. So it’s worthwhile to consider the two propositions apart.

I’d like to begin by considering the definition of religion.

The etymology of the word is contested. By the time of Saint Augustine, roughly the fifth century, the Latin word religio was in use with regard to Christian practice; Augustine himself used the term from time to time, though in City of God he expressed dissatisfaction with it, writing: “The word ‘religio’ might seem to express more definitely the worship due to God alone…yet both the uneducated and best educated use the word to express….the observance of social relationships. (X.1)” Augustine approved of an etymology of religio common to Latin grammarians which attributed it to the root ligare, ‘to bind.’ (Consider our English ligament.) But other ancient sources, including Cicero in De Natura Deorum just as credibly connect religio with relegere, a Latin verb meaning to go over again and again, as in reading, thought, and so on. In this case religio would anchor itself not in a sense of being bound, but in a sense of having an overwhelming central concern.

This perhaps shines some light on how religious came to indicate in the Middle Ages clergy who belonged to orders as opposed to diocesan clergy who were attached to particular regions of church administration. There were therefore religious priests and secular priests — a very strange concept to modern ears! — because some had adopted the special concerns of specific groups, as Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites and so on, and some were only associated with geographical areas.

But everyone was, in the sense we now employ the term, religious.

With modernity religio assumed its present meaning, a “universal genus of which the various religions are species (Cavanaugh)”; this generic usage of religio was essentially unknown to the medieval and ancient worlds, where even religio Christiana was used not to designate everything related to Christianity, but only a distinction between the practice of the Christian faithful and the Roman pagans, who were said to have only superstitio, which was idolatry (Feil.)

In fact, some cultures — notably the ancient Greeks — had no expression to match our ‘religion’, and apparently didn’t need one. This background is helpful in that it reveals that the term itself is doing some rather hefty work, that is, relegating certain modes of thinking, certain behaviors, certain ideas, certain images and words to membership in a genus shared by other species which, upon further inspection, they might have precious little in common with. Religion is an inherently tendentious concept.

Our best scholars, in fact, can’t agree on what it might mean. “Religion is a belief in spiritual beings,” writes Edward Burnett Taylor, the first cultural anthropologist; “by religion,” writes George Frazer in The Golden Bough, “I understand a propitiation or conciliation of powers superior to man which are believed to be direct and control the course and nature of human life”; “religion is,” says William James in The Varieties of Religious Experience, “the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they consider the divine”; Emile Durkheim, an early sociologist, considers religion to be “a unified system of beliefs and practices related to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden — beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, and all those who adhere to them,”; Durkheim also says, in the very same The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, that religion is “the self-validation of a society by means of myth and ritual,”; for Paul Tillich, religion is “the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as preliminary, and a concern that in itself provides the answer to the question of the meaning of our existence,” and for modern sociologist Clifford Geertz, “[Religion is] a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, persuasive, and long lasting moods and motivations…. by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.”

Oftentimes you’ll hear, in popular culture, various things not typically called religions described as such to critique them; most recently, Harvard scholar Harvey Cox argued the market itself, and free market economics more generally, constitute a kind of religion. To which I say: sure, I guess. Religion is a loose and expansive term and not a very revealing one, I think; in fact, I tend to suspect it occludes more than it illuminates by likening fundamentally unlike themes and practices conceived of by radically different people in entirely different places and times.

So then: does religion have a place in government? Obviously it does, as a descriptive matter. Consider all its constituent parts: its symbols, words, virtues, experiences and, yes, its ethics — they’re all evident in our own government, from the mentions of God on our money to the silent prayers of politicians facing down crisis to the private mixture of moral considerations made by voters on their way to the booth. Governments are made up of people, and people incorporate the symbols and ethics of religion into their reasoning and interior lives whether or not they articulate especially religious reasons for the political choices they come to.

Further, and again as a descriptive matter, we’re surrounded by a thoroughgoing civil religion. Sociologist Robert Bellah writes:

“What we have, then, from the earliest years of the republic is a collection of beliefs, symbols, and rituals with respect to sacred things and institutionalized in a collectivity. This religion – there seems no other word for it – while not antithetical to and indeed sharing much in common with Christianity, was neither sectarian nor in any specific sense Christian.”

This civil religion is the reason stepping into a stately government building or listening to an impassioned presidential address can be a genuinely moving experience. It’s why burning a flag is anything more than the concern of a fire marshal, and why we can reckon our lives as much by national holidays and anniversaries as by liturgical calendars.

It’s why Abraham Lincoln said in an 1861 speech that he could “recollect thinking then, boy even though I was, that there must have been something more than common that those men struggled for; that something even more than National Independence; that something that held out a great promise to all the people of the world to all time to come; I am exceedingly anxious that this Union, the Constitution, and the liberties of the people shall be perpetuated in accordance with the original idea for which that struggle was made, and I shall be most happy indeed if I shall be an humble instrument in the hands of the Almighty, and of this, his almost chosen people, for perpetuating the object of that great struggle.”

The discovery of civil religion is one of those interesting consequences of the contemporary definition of ‘religion’ as a relatively broad category. There’s no construal of ‘religion’ in the modern sense that would include, say, both Daoism and Judaism but not the veneration of our American martyrs, from Kennedy to King, or the mythic creation story surrounding our founding. And this isn’t a unique fact of American public life.

Religions are often described in terms of experiences of the transcendent or transformative, or in terms of temporal practices or actions which refer to the eternal. And so, it seems, are states — as in Lincoln’s address. This is not just an indication of a particular American civil religion, but a general fact of modern nation states: They bear, as Hegel argued, a sacral quality. States call us, at times, to die for them — for the very idea of them — and it’s hard to imagine someone offering that sort of eternal sacrifice for a purely contractarian purpose. As Alasdair MacIntyre puts it:

“The modern nation-state, in whatever guise, is a dangerous and unmanageable institution, presenting itself on the one hand as a bureaucratic supplier of goods and services, which is always about to, but never actually does, give its clients value for money, and on the other as a repository of sacred values, which from time to time invites one to lay down one’s life on its behalf. As I have remarked elsewhere, it is like being asked to die for the telephone company.”

Which most of us would, I think, be loath to do. AT&T does not strike me as transcendent or transformative. But at my old college at Cambridge I remember a wall outside our chapel (and noticed this afternoon that you, too have such a wall on your beautiful campus — you, too, live with these ghosts, and love these dead) where the names of those alumni killed in the first World War were inscribed, and the inscription address announced that the monument should:
“call to remembrance those brothers of ours, who in the studies and playing-fields of the College, and in worship in this Chapel, learned those lessons of self-devotion which – at a call as Christian and English gentlemen they could not disobey – led them to surrender their lives and all that in life was beautiful and hopeful and dear.”

It seems to me that — as a descriptive matter — religion indeed has a place in government.


I have said this positive statement has a relation to the normative one. I’ll now turn to the idea that religion ought to have a place in government.

I don’t mean to argue for theocracy; I think it’s sufficient to maintain that the religious should, when engaging in political life, feel free to articulate publicly their religious motives and reasoning.

There are several reasons why. The first is that law both expresses and enforces certain moral truths which cannot be divorced from broader moral systems, and for the religious — those sharing communities of some overwhelming concern — it’s disingenuous nigh impossible to deliberate on what truths the law should express without citing their religious priors.

And this, secondly, allows their co-religionists to hold them responsible for their claims. The tendency of liberal societies to bifurcate religion and politics into two separate spheres — one private, one public — encourages religious participants in political deliberation to equivocate somewhat about their motives and beliefs, as it’s not really possible in that political context to interrogate them. Yet it should be. As long as the religious are going to participate in governance, it’s going to be better, not worse, to argue out the legitimacy of their claims on their own grounds, rather than accounting for all religiously motivated argumentation as both void and unassailable on the grounds of its privacy. Politics are already religious, as I have argued, and are intrinsically so; in that case, it’s better that we be clear and direct about our convictions than cloak them in a flimsy veil of privacy.

Thirdly, the language of religion often renders legible phenomena that are illegible to the rationalist lens of the modern nation state alone. Consider, for example, evil. In The Death of Satan, historian Andrew Delbanco writes in order to document the “incessant dialectic in American life between the dispossession of Satan under the pressure of modernity and the hunger to get him back” due to his conviction that “if evil, with all the insidious complexity which Augustine attributed to it, escapes the reach of our imagination, it will have established dominion over us all.” The Augustinian conception of evil as privation — a lack, a deficiency, a receding toward non-being — requires an ontology that acknowledges in being some good, and here again we have strayed into the stuff of religion. But this conception of evil is especially important, Delbanco argues, because by locating the source of evil in our own deficiencies, “it offers something the devil himself could never have intended: the miraculous paradox of demanding the best of ourselves.” A lesser explanation of evil couldn’t necessitate such an absolute offering up of one’s own humility and vulnerability, which is, incidentally, exactly the kind of participation that ensures the best of politics.

Lastly, when religion is entirely privatized and politics dominates the public realm totally, there is little with sufficient moral weight to check political hegemony. There is a reason totalitarians seek to swiftly snuff out religious dissenters, and there is also a reason that religions nonetheless endure. The likes of Martin Luther King Jr. and Dietrich Bonhoeffer were able to resist hegemonic — and unjust — political exercise not out of reserves of private religious virtue, but because they produced religious objections to the evils of their respective states and pressed these cases politically, in public. From this perspective it is easy to imagine why the modern nation-state might insist that religion be privatized and ejected from the public sphere; it should be equally easy to imagine why we should resist that effort.

And this doesn’t apply only to fringe cases where extreme resistance measures (as against fascist regimes or racist violence) would otherwise be excused even by garden variety liberals. Indeed, destructive ideologies exert hegemonic control over our everyday, ordinary lives, and in many cases seek to exclude religious reasoning much to their benefit. Eugene McCarraher argues, for example, that in contemporary society religion has been displaced by a kind of Mammon-worship precisely to facilitate the dominance of global capitalism: “Far from being ‘secular’ modes of economic and political rationality, the nation-state and the capitalist market are unmistakable forms of fetishism, sacral orders which captivate and mobilize our perverted celestial desires.” McCarraher cites the Freudian “money complex” and Marxist “commodity fetishism”, in which the value of objects is imagined to inhere in their material substance rather than in the relationships between persons; Marx himself observed that in this sense commodities are “very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties”

Since this is the case — that a perverse form of religion dominates our politics and political imagination — then it would be better, as well as orthodox (from my Augustinian perspective) to replace it with a positive, superior religious imagination. This is why in my political writing I argue for as much, and why I do so from an openly Christian position. Some of the most powerful religious forces in politics indeed belong to capital, an unfolding made possible largely by the liberal effort to vacate traditional religion from the ‘sphere’ of political economy in order to, among other things, obliterate formerly limited understandings of property and ownership and replace them with more absolute rights (Ellen Meiskins Wood.) Secularity has thus far done a pretty poor job of resisting this; in fact the rational liberals of the enlightenment are the root cause of it, and for that reason I would resist them not with their own devices, but with open, forthright and robust theology.

Thank you.
 

zelezo vlk

Well-known member
Messages
18,009
Reaction score
5,047
I've been following The Public Discourse lately and found this pretty insightful. I may just need to get this book.

Reason and the Existence of God | Public Discourse

In his famous 2006 address at the University of Regensburg, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of the importance of academic inquiry into the “reasonableness of faith.” The Pope noted that a former colleague had quipped that the university had two theological faculties, one Catholic, the other Protestant, devoted to something that did not exist: God. The Pope also observed that even—perhaps especially—in an age of radical skepticism, it was “necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith.”

In our culture, which embraces skepticism as the default position in matters philosophical, it may seem strange to speak of the reasonableness of faith or to claim that God’s existence can be demonstrated. We are presented with a choice between a secular reductionism that excludes any appeal to the supernatural and God, on the one hand, and a religious reductionism that rejects any role for reason as a criterion of truth in matters of faith, on the other hand.

Contemporary rejections of proofs for the existence of God fall into three broad categories: (1) various forms of positivism and scientism that hold that science disproves the existence of God; (2) philosophical arguments that challenge either the possibility of conclusive demonstrations of any kind, or, more specifically, the possibility of proofs for a transcendent cause; (3) theological objections to the possibility of rational demonstrations of God’s existence. Although the so-called “new atheism” associated with the natural sciences is the best known of the three, its arguments are by far the least sophisticated.

Matthew Levering’s new book, Proofs of God: Classical Arguments from Tertullian to Barth, concerns primarily the second and third categories. He offers a survey of the views of twenty-one thinkers on whether or not human reason can demonstrate the existence of God. Levering provides summaries of arguments, essentially in the Christian tradition, from three historical epochs: the Patristic and Medieval Eras, the Reformation and Enlightenment, and the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. With extensive footnotes, brief biographical entries, and a good bibliography, the book is, as Levering says, a “textbook” that can be consulted selectively.

Can There Be a Return to Traditional Metaphysics?

One of Levering’s goals is to contribute to a “metaphysical retrieval” of the traditional approach of philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas who think that reason is able to prove the existence of God. Since Levering deals with complex philosophical and theological questions, his book is most appropriate for those familiar with the history of philosophy and Christian theology.

Referring to Catholic teaching, Levering points to the famous text of the First Vatican Council (1870): “God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason.” Levering, citing the analysis of Thomas Joseph White, argues for the importance for believers of an inquiry into rational demonstrations of God’s existence: “Far from threatening to make divine revelation redundant, the demonstrability of God’s existence makes revelation all the more desirable and urgent.”

For those who believe that God exists, there are two dangers to be avoided: thinking that reason cannot prove the existence of God and thinking that proposed demonstrations for the existence of God somehow limit God to the categories of human understanding. Here, it is important to remember Thomas Aquinas’s famous distinction between knowing that something is and knowing what it is (i.e., its essence). For Thomas, reason can reach the conclusion that God is, but can only say things in a kind of negative way about who God is (that God is not like creatures and does not possess the characteristics that creatures possess). As Levering notes, what the traditional proofs of God show is that “a transcendent, infinite source of all finite things exists.”

The proofs that Levering defends depend upon a recognition of the radical contingency of finite things, on the principle of causality that allows us to reason from finite effects to an infinite, transcendent cause, and, more generally, on a realist epistemology that affirms that we are able to have knowledge of the world as it is. The challenges to these claims are especially evident in the thought of David Hume and Immanuel Kant, and Levering’s analysis of their philosophical positions is a key feature of the project he has undertaken. In many ways, recent thinkers such as Heidegger and Wittgenstein operate within a widely accepted Humean and Kantian view of knowledge and its limits. This philosophical heritage also informs the views of some Christian theologians who, accepting Hume’s critique of real causal interconnections, conclude that there are no proofs of God's existence.

Hume, Kant, and Modernity

The increasing interest in skepticism in early modern Europe—a reaction both to late medieval philosophical traditions associated with an overemphasis on divine will and to the controversies of the Reformation about the criteria for religious truth—provided the context for David Hume’s critique of any demonstration for the existence of God. His conclusion that God’s existence cannot be proven is part of Hume’s broader claim that we “can know only discrete facts but not universal necessities,” including any real causal dependence in nature. For Hume, we cannot be assured “from the existence or action of one object, that it was followed or preceded by any other existence or action.” Any assurance for our thinking would require that we are able to discover a necessary relationship between what we call causes and effects. As he says, simply noting that two events exhibit a relation of “contiguity and succession” is not sufficient to establish a necessary causal connection between them.

The criticism Hume makes is first of all an epistemological claim. As Levering observes, since “Hume eschews inquiry into being, he is only willing to consider how the idea of cause relates to the idea of effect. He is therefore unable to see how the two are co-implicated in one event.” In denying that the principle of causality describes a fundamental feature of reality, Hume rejects a key element of classical demonstrations for the existence of God. But the causality that Hume identifies as being only our way of describing individual experiences of contiguity and succession is not the conception of causality that informs the classical approach of thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas. Temporal succession and contiguity are not fundamental characteristics of cause and effect which, understood in the light of actuality and potentiality (the cause’s making actual that which is only potential), are features of a single reality. For Thomas, the principle of causality captures the metaphysical truth of real dependence in nature, real dependence in the order of being. Of course, to speak of the “order of being” or of “metaphysical truth” presupposes a philosophy that sees as its goal the grasping of what is true about the world: a truth that in its most profound sense concerns what it means for things to be. Ultimately, to engage Hume’s critique requires an analysis of the adequacy of his empiricist philosophy, of the primacy he gives to epistemological questions, and of his denial of a realist metaphysics. At least we can recognize that what Hume calls the principle of causality is not the principle that informs classical demonstrations for the existence of God.

For Hume, “we assume that effects have causes because this is what our experience accustoms us to infer.” Immanuel Kant offers a more sophisticated challenge to proofs of God. For Kant, “cause” is an a priori concept among other a priori concepts. It is a form of thought like “substance,” “possibility,” “necessity,” and the like. The human mind uses these pure concepts—which exist prior to our experiences of the world—synthetically to organize our various sense perceptions. These concepts, including causality itself, do not refer to the way things are. For Kant, our experience of finite, contingent things is insufficient to allow us to appeal to some kind of “transcendent causality” that accounts for their existence. Kant’s critique relies upon “the view that knowledge never arrives at actual beings but is merely the interplay of concepts.” There is in this view a shift in the meaning of metaphysical reflection: no longer does it concern the order of the real but rather the immanent operations of human reason.

Kant is famous for his criticism of what has been called the ontological argument for the existence of God: the argument that begins with the idea of God as that than which nothing greater can be thought (only an a priori concept of a highest being), and concludes that there must exist such a necessary being. Thomas Aquinas also rejects the validity of an argument from the idea of an infinitely perfect being. Thomas’s arguments begin with finite, contingent things and then argue to the reality of an absolutely Self-Sufficient Being. Although Thomas’s proofs of God are not threatened by Kant’s criticism of any ontological argument, they do depend upon a metaphysics, philosophy of nature, and epistemology that Kant thinks are false. A response to Kant must include a defense not only of the claim that we really know the existence and natures of what we experience but also the claim that our notion of causality can extend beyond the phenomena of immediate sense experience: that we can argue from finite effects to infinite cause.

Levering helps us to see that any retrieval of traditional metaphysics and proofs of God requires a response not only to Hume and Kant but also to Heidegger’s criticism of “onto-theology,” according to which “God” is only the highest being, and hence not a truly transcendent cause. One must respond as well to Wittgenstein’s claim that the question of God’s existence is nonsensical because “there is no possibility for our language to speak in any way about the transcendent.” Hence, as Levering observes, “the demonstrations of God’s existence are . . . cut off before they can begin, since without real knowledge of being (act/potency, analogous modes of being) there can be no sense to the principle of causality or the principle of non-contradiction.”

Resisting Fideism and Emotivism

If one believes that God exists, and one accepts the Kantian and Heideggerian critiques, there is a strong temptation to embrace a theological view that God’s existence is the subject only of revelation and faith. Another temptation is to base claims for God’s existence exclusively on some inner experience, as though human subjectivity offers the best road to respond to skepticism and to the challenges of modern philosophy. A retrieval and defense of Thomistic metaphysics would speak to the inadequacy of these theological conclusions.

Levering thinks that much of modern philosophical discourse misunderstands classical philosophy and that any retrieval of classical philosophy and its proofs for the existence of God needs to begin with a clear account of the metaphysical realism of thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas. A defense of this realism requires the recognition that a fundamental object of human knowledge is the being of the things we experience in the world. The first principles of our knowing cannot themselves be demonstrated; and rationality itself, not just demonstrations for the existence of God, depends upon them. The defense of philosophical realism—that there is an external world and we can come to know it—begins with dialectical discourse, since its principles are the starting points for all argumentation. An important task in such discourse is to make sure we are talking about the same thing in the same respect. Levering’s discussion of how terms such as “cause,” “substance,” and “being” do not mean the same thing in modern thought as they do in classical philosophy can serve as a way to begin to retrieve classical philosophy.

The metaphysical and epistemological presuppositions that inform various arguments that deny we can demonstrate the existence of God—just like the presuppositions that affirm that we can—are just that: presuppositions. Only after a careful exposition of these principles can we evaluate whether they are true. Whether there can be such an evaluation is itself a matter of contention that needs to be addressed. What is at issue, finally, is whether or not things actually exist; whether we encounter and come to know a world of existing beings, and what it means to speak of existing things precisely as existing. The contingency of finite beings is not fundamentally that they could be other than they are, but that they might not exist at all. The world of finite, contingent creatures is just that, a world of creatures, and to be a creature necessarily means to depend upon a continuing transcendent cause of existence.

In a dialectical mode, Levering puts the point starkly: “Can we really think of the being of a rock, for example, as only a conceptual predicate or property and not as actual (contingent) being? Surely not.” Saying this, of course, does not make it so, but Levering’s book shows us the road that needs to be taken and the dead ends that need to be avoided as we think deeply about what it means for things to be.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Pope Francis on Monday extended indefinitely to all Roman Catholic priests the power to forgive abortion, a right previously reserved for bishops or special confessors in most parts of the world.

Francis, who has made a more inclusive and forgiving Roman Catholic Church a characteristic of his papacy, made the announcement in a document known as an “apostolic letter” after Sunday’s close of the Church’s “Holy Year of Mercy”.

He said he wanted to “restate as firmly as I can that abortion is a grave sin, since it puts an end to an innocent life” but “there is no sin that God’s mercy cannot reach and wipe away when it finds a repentant heart seeking to be reconciled with (God)”.

Francis had already temporarily granted the power to all priests to give what is known as “sacramental absolution” for abortion during the Holy Year, from Dec. 8 to Nov. 20, but the solemn tone of his words in Monday’s letter suggested that the change would last for at least the rest of his papacy.

In Roman Catholic teaching, abortion is such a serious sin that those who procure or perform it bring automatic excommunication on themselves as they are knowingly committing a sin the Church considers grave.


POOL NEW / REUTERS
Pope Francis closes the Holy Door to mark the closing of the Catholic Jubilee year of mercy at the in Saint Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican November 20, 2016.
In the past, only a bishop or a designated special confessor could grant absolution for an abortion and lift excommunication.

Although bishops in some dioceses in developed countries such as the United States and Britain had already delegated this authority to parish priests, the old practice was still in effect in most of the world.

“Not only is this a change in Church policy, it changes Church law,” said Father James Bretzke, a professor of moral theology at Boston College.

“I think it’s very significant in the context of Pope Francis’ theme of his pontificate, which is going to go down as the pontificate of mercy; he sees mercy as absolutely the key.”

At a news conference at the Vatican, Archbishop Rino Fisichella, who oversaw Holy Year activities, said the new norms applied to all Roman Catholics involved in an abortion, including the woman and medical staff.

Fisichella rejected suggestions that some people could see the move as putting abortion on the same level as lesser sins.

“There is no type of laxness here,” he said, repeating the pope’s words that while abortion was very grave, there was no sin that could not be touched by God’s mercy.

In a document last year, Francis described the “existential and moral ordeal” faced by women who have terminated pregnancies and said he had “met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonizing and painful decision”.
From Huff Post
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
From Huff Post

Just to clarify here, since I haven't seen a single American news outlet get this right yet, but Catholic priests have had the power to forgive the sin of abortion since at least 1983:

Abortion has long sat in the middle of a three-street ecclesial intersection, namely, those of Sin, Crime, and Sanction. The meeting of any two of these factors would make for a perilous perch but the confluence of all three is fraught with opportunities for confusion. At the risk of serious over-simplification, let me sketch the basic situation and then address Pope Francis’ comments thereon.

1. Abortion has always been recognized as a sin and a grave sin at that. Like other grave sins the path to reconciliation is basically by sacramental Confession.

2. Like some (but not all) sins, abortion has long been treated as a crime under canon law. As is true of other crimes, however, a host of legal factors must be considered in determining whether one who has become involved in the sin of abortion is also guilty of the crime of abortion. Not all persons sinning in this regard are guilty of the crime.

3. The canonical sanction levied against those canonically guilty of the crime of abortion has long been excommunication (a surprisingly complex institute), and latae sententiae (or, automatic) excommunication at that (ironically, a complex procedure for incurring and living under certain censures). I have long held that the automatic character of certain sanctions in the Church does more juridic and pastoral harm than good these days, but I won’t debate that matter here.

This already-complex intersection of sin, crime, and sanction has, I am sorry to say (sorry, because I think the canon law on abortion is too complex to meet some urgent pastoral needs facing us), been further complicated by at least two factors: first, an easy-to-overlook procedural change in the abortion crime norm itself, namely from 1917 CIC 2350 to 1983 CIC 1398, whereby the former express limitation that only “ordinaries” could lift the excommunication for the crime of abortion was dropped, introducing confusion as to whether and if so how the sin of abortion (which was too casually identified with the crime) could also be absolved by priests; and second, due to another easy-to-overlook change in the abortion canon (matre non excepta), a powerful argument exists (to which I subscribe*) that excommunication for the crime of abortion cannot be automatically incurred by pregnant women (as opposed to abortionists themselves) if the penal law of the Church is applied according to its express terms. Thus, upon noting that there are zero examples of women being formally excommunicated for their abortion, this second factor, if correct (and I think it is) means that no women (again, as distinguished from blood-soaked abortionists) have been excommunicated for abortion at least since the 1983 Code went into effect.

Now, given the inherent complexity of the law itself in this area, the disputes about that law among qualified experts, and the pervasive ignorance of canon law among rank-and-file faithful brought about by 50 years of ecclesiastical antinomianism, no wonder people are confused about what Pope Francis’ recent statement means. I’m confused, if perhaps less so than some others.

Francis writes: “For this reason too, I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it.” Canon law is not mentioned and we must parse such implications as best we can.

A) I think the pope’s statement reflects a mistaken assumption, common among those who were trained under the 1917 Code, that priests with normal faculties for Confession still cannot absolve from the sin (let alone from the crime) of abortion. I and others, however, hold that all priests with faculties can absolve from this sin. The pope’s comments resolve this debate admirably (at least for the period of the Jubilee Year) as I happen to think it should be resolved.

B) The pope’s statement seems to assume that the sin of abortion and the crime of abortion are concomitant realities. I, however, and I’ll wager nearly all other experts, hold sin to be distinguishable from crime, and that this crime is rarely, if ever, committed by [pregnant] women (again, as opposed to abortionists). Now, nothing in the pope’s comments addresses the crime of abortion though maybe he intended to address the crime as well as the sin (I cannot imagine that Francis meant to leave women in peril of excommunication for their abortions—though I stress again that I do not think women are excommunicated for undergoing abortion). But, plainly, the pope’s text itself does not address the crime of abortion or its canonical consequences and so I see no change in canonical discipline in this regard. If, by the way, the pope’s text does address the crime of abortion, then it seems to allow abortionists to have their excommunications—sanctions much more likely to have been incurred under current canon law—addressed as well. Maybe Francis intends that outcome though he speaks exclusively of women suffering in this regard and not of abortion profiteers. Perhaps Rome will clarify this point.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Happy Feast of St. Nicholas:

St-Nicholas.jpg


Sucker punch an Arian and give gifts to poor children in his honor.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
A recent exchange in the Feminism thread reminded me to share about this, so here are two recent articles in mainstream publications about demonic possession. The first is by Richard Gallagher in WaPo titled "As a psychiatrist, I diagnose mental illness. Also, I help spot demonic possession.":

In the late 1980s, I was introduced to a self-styled Satanic high priestess. She called herself a witch and dressed the part, with flowing dark clothes and black eye shadow around to her temples. In our many discussions, she acknowledged worshipping Satan as his “queen.”

I’m a man of science and a lover of history; after studying the classics at Princeton, I trained in psychiatry at Yale and in psychoanalysis at Columbia. That background is why a Catholic priest had asked my professional opinion, which I offered pro bono, about whether this woman was suffering from a mental disorder. This was at the height of the national panic about Satanism. (In a case that helped induce the hysteria, Virginia McMartin and others had recently been charged with alleged Satanic ritual abuse at a Los Angeles preschool; the charges were later dropped.) So I was inclined to skepticism. But my subject’s behavior exceeded what I could explain with my training. She could tell some people their secret weaknesses, such as undue pride. She knew how individuals she’d never known had died, including my mother and her fatal case of ovarian cancer. Six people later vouched to me that, during her exorcisms, they heard her speaking multiple languages, including Latin, completely unfamiliar to her outside of her trances. This was not psychosis; it was what I can only describe as paranormal ability. I concluded that she was possessed. Much later, she permitted me to tell her story.

The priest who had asked for my opinion of this bizarre case was the most experienced exorcist in the country at the time, an erudite and sensible man. I had told him that, even as a practicing Catholic, I wasn’t likely to go in for a lot of hocus-pocus. “Well,” he replied, “unless we thought you were not easily fooled, we would hardly have wanted you to assist us.”

So began an unlikely partnership. For the past two-and-a-half decades and over several hundred consultations, I’ve helped clergy from multiple denominations and faiths to filter episodes of mental illness — which represent the overwhelming majority of cases — from, literally, the devil’s work. It’s an unlikely role for an academic physician, but I don’t see these two aspects of my career in conflict. The same habits that shape what I do as a professor and psychiatrist — open-mindedness, respect for evidence and compassion for suffering people — led me to aid in the work of discerning attacks by what I believe are evil spirits and, just as critically, differentiating these extremely rare events from medical conditions.

Is it possible to be a sophisticated psychiatrist and believe that evil spirits are, however seldom, assailing humans? Most of my scientific colleagues and friends say no, because of their frequent contact with patients who are deluded about demons, their general skepticism of the supernatural, and their commitment to employ only standard, peer-reviewed treatments that do not potentially mislead (a definite risk) or harm vulnerable patients. But careful observation of the evidence presented to me in my career has led me to believe that certain extremely uncommon cases can be explained no other way.

The Vatican does not track global or countrywide exorcism, but in my experience and according to the priests I meet, demand is rising. The United States is home to about 50 “stable” exorcists — those who have been designated by bishops to combat demonic activity on a semi-regular basis — up from just 12 a decade ago, according to the Rev. Vincent Lampert, an Indianapolis-based priest-exorcist who is active in the International Association of Exorcists. (He receives about 20 inquiries per week, double the number from when his bishop appointed him in 2005.) The Catholic Church has responded by offering greater resources for clergy members who wish to address the problem. In 2010, for instance, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops organized a meeting in Baltimore for interested clergy. In 2014, Pope Francis formally recognized the IAE, 400 members of which are to convene in Rome this October. Members believe in such strange cases because they are constantly called upon to help. (I served for a time as a scientific adviser on the group’s governing board.)

Unfortunately, not all clergy involved in this complex field are as cautious as the priest who first approached me. In some circles, there is a tendency to become overly preoccupied with putative demonic explanations and to see the devil everywhere. Fundamentalist misdiagnoses and absurd or even dangerous “treatments,” such as beating victims, have sometimes occurred, especially in developing countries. This is perhaps why exorcism has a negative connotation in some quarters. People with psychological problems should receive psychological treatment.

But I believe I’ve seen the real thing. Assaults upon individuals are classified either as “demonic possessions” or as the slightly more common but less intense attacks usually called “oppressions.” A possessed individual may suddenly, in a type of trance, voice statements of astonishing venom and contempt for religion, while understanding and speaking various foreign languages previously unknown to them. The subject might also exhibit enormous strength or even the extraordinarily rare phenomenon of levitation. (I have not witnessed a levitation myself, but half a dozen people I work with vow that they’ve seen it in the course of their exorcisms.) He or she might demonstrate “hidden knowledge” of all sorts of things — like how a stranger’s loved ones died, what secret sins she has committed, even where people are at a given moment. These are skills that cannot be explained except by special psychic or preternatural ability.

I have personally encountered these rationally inexplicable features, along with other paranormal phenomena. My vantage is unusual: As a consulting doctor, I think I have seen more cases of possession than any other physician in the world.

Most of the people I evaluate in this role suffer from the more prosaic problems of a medical disorder. Anyone even faintly familiar with mental illnesses knows that individuals who think they are being attacked by malign spirits are generally experiencing nothing of the sort. Practitioners see psychotic patients all the time who claim to see or hear demons; histrionic or highly suggestible individuals, such as those suffering from dissociative identity syndromes; and patients with personality disorders who are prone to misinterpret destructive feelings, in what exorcists sometimes call a “pseudo-possession,” via the defense mechanism of an externalizing projection. But what am I supposed to make of patients who unexpectedly start speaking perfect Latin?

I approach each situation with an initial skepticism. I technically do not make my own “diagnosis” of possession but inform the clergy that the symptoms in question have no conceivable medical cause.

I am aware of the way many psychiatrists view this sort of work. While the American Psychiatric Association has no official opinion on these affairs, the field (like society at large) is full of unpersuadable skeptics and occasionally doctrinaire materialists who are often oddly vitriolic in their opposition to all things spiritual. My job is to assist people seeking help, not to convince doctors who are not subject to suasion. Yet I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the number of psychiatrists and other mental health practitioners nowadays who are open to entertaining such hypotheses. Many believe exactly what I do, though they may be reluctant to speak out.

As a man of reason, I’ve had to rationalize the seemingly irrational. Questions about how a scientifically trained physician can believe “such outdated and unscientific nonsense,” as I’ve been asked, have a simple answer. I honestly weigh the evidence. I have been told simplistically that levitation defies the laws of gravity, and, well, of course it does! We are not dealing here with purely material reality, but with the spiritual realm. One cannot force these creatures to undergo lab studies or submit to scientific manipulation; they will also hardly allow themselves to be easily recorded by video equipment, as skeptics sometimes demand. (The official Catholic Catechism holds that demons are sentient and possess their own wills; as they are fallen angels, they are also craftier than humans. That’s how they sow confusion and seed doubt, after all.) Nor does the church wish to compromise a sufferer’s privacy, any more than doctors want to compromise a patient’s confidentiality.

Ignorance and superstition have often surrounded stories of demonic possession in various cultures, and surely many alleged episodes can be explained by fraud, chicanery or mental pathology. But anthropologists agree that nearly all cultures have believed in spirits, and the vast majority of societies (including our own) have recorded dramatic stories of spirit possession. Despite varying interpretations, multiple depictions of the same phenomena in astonishingly consistent ways offer cumulative evidence of their credibility.

As a psychoanalyst, a blanket rejection of the possibility of demonic attacks seems less logical, and often wishful in nature, than a careful appraisal of the facts. As I see it, the evidence for possession is like the evidence for George Washington’s crossing of the Delaware. In both cases, written historical accounts with numerous sound witnesses testify to their accuracy.

In the end, however, it was not an academic or dogmatic view that propelled me into this line of work. I was asked to consult about people in pain. I have always thought that, if requested to help a tortured person, a physician should not arbitrarily refuse to get involved. Those who dismiss these cases unwittingly prevent patients from receiving the help they desperately require, either by failing to recommend them for psychiatric treatment (which most clearly need) or by not informing their spiritual ministers that something beyond a mental or other illness seems to be the issue. For any person of science or faith, it should be impossible to turn one’s back on a tormented soul.

The second is by William Friedkin in Vanity Faire titled "The Devil and Fr. Amorth: Witnessing 'the Vatican Exorcist' at Work":

We have a clergy today who no longer believe in the devil, in exorcism, in the exceptional Evil the devil can instill or even in the power that Jesus bestowed to cast out demons. —FATHER GABRIELE AMORTH

Sunday morning, May 1 of this year, was Father Amorth’s 91st birthday, but he had no plans to celebrate. He awoke just after dawn, said his usual morning prayers and one to Joseph of Cupertino, a 17th-century saint, and another to the late Father Candido Amantini, his mentor. Clutching a walking aid, he shuffled from his cell-like room to the dining room on the third floor of the Paulist Fathers residence, south of Rome’s historic center.

After his usual breakfast of caffè latte and biscotti, Father Amorth returned to his room, which had a tall window, a hospital bed, two chairs, and a wooden desk cluttered with pictures of the Virgin Mary and Padre Pio, a priest-mystic who experienced stigmata—bleeding wounds, corresponding to those inflicted on Jesus Christ on the Cross. For the next six hours, Father Amorth reviewed the mail requesting his services from around the world. Each letter contained tragic questions and appeals from people who knew Amorth only by name and reputation. He answered the letters, writing with a fountain pen, licking the envelopes and stamps himself. At two P.M., he knelt again to pray, then arose with difficulty, took up his walking aid, and made his way to an elevator, which took him to the first floor, where the small room dedicated to his work was located. The hallway was empty and dark. Whispering voices and footsteps could be heard, as from a tomb.

His old adversary was waiting.

At exactly three P.M. he began to conduct the ritual of exorcism. The possessed woman, Rosa, was in her late 30s, tall and slender, with raven-black hair. She was as dark and attractive as an Italian movie star—Sophia Loren or Silvana Mangano, with a quiet demeanor. She had a college degree but couldn’t work because of the fits and behavioral changes that came over her, most severely on the Christian holidays, such as Palm Sunday, Ash Wednesday, Easter, and Pentecost. This was her ninth exorcism with Father Amorth. As with traditional psychiatry, the patient is usually not “cured” after the first session. Father Amorth had been exorcising one man for 16 years.

Rosa arrived with her mother and father and her boyfriend, Giuliano. Her parents were in their late 50s, her father tall, white-haired, with an aristocratic bearing, her mother short, a bit plump, friendly. Giuliano was over six feet, with the build of a heavyweight boxer and short close-cropped hair. He was warm and considerate of Rosa, but I sensed a strangeness about him.

With them was Roberto (Rosa, Giuliano, and Roberto are all pseudonyms), about 50, an insurance agent in Rome. In 2012, his sister, in her 30s, was suffering from depression. One day, Roberto saw her on the floor, convulsively twisting her body and growling like a wolf. When this continued for several days Roberto took her to a psychiatrist, who was unable to help her and suggested she see Father Amorth. She required four exorcisms before she was healed.

It was Roberto who noticed Rosa at Mass, acting disturbed and disoriented the way his sister had. He brought her to Father Amorth in August of 2015.

Now, for Rosa’s ninth exorcism, Father Amorth shuffled into the small, high-ceilinged room with five burly men. Four were middle-aged priests. The fifth, Alessandro, stocky and strong with short red curly hair, was Father Amorth’s personal assistant of seven years. For this exorcism Father Amorth had granted me permission to attend and film it.

Father Amorth thumbed his nose at the demon within Rosa, and the exorcism began. Rosa’s motivation was not a death drive. She had come to this room for the past nine months to be set free of something that had been visited upon her.

Father Amorth insisted that anyone who came to him first seek the help of traditional medicine and psychiatry. “Out of a hundred people who seek my help,” he explained, “one or two at the most may be possessed.”

Rosa had no apparent medical symptoms. It was Father Amorth’s belief that her affliction stemmed from a curse brought against her by her brother’s girlfriend, said to be a witch. The brother and his girlfriend were members of a powerful demonic cult, Father Amorth believed.

I sat two feet away from Rosa as her torment became visible. Her family stood against a wall to my right. Father Amorth invited everyone to join him in saying the Lord’s Prayer and Hail Mary. Then he invoked Saint Joseph, Padre Pio, Father Amantini, and the Blessed Virgin, asking for their protection.

Rosa’s head began to nod involuntarily. Her eyes rolled back, and she fell into a deep trance. Father Amorth spoke in Latin in a loud, clear voice, using the Roman ritual of Paul V, from 1614. He asked the Lord to set her free from demonic infestation. “EXORCIZO DEO IMMUNDISSIMUS SPIRITUS.” (I exorcize, O God, this unclean spirit.)

Rosa’s body began to throb, and she cried out, before falling back into a trance. Father Amorth placed his right hand over her heart. “INFER TIBI LIBERA.” (Set yourself free.)

She lost consciousness. “TIME SATANA INIMICI FIDEM.” (Be afraid of Satan and the enemies of faith.)

Without warning, Rosa began to thrash violently. The five male helpers had all they could do to hold her down. A foam formed at her lips.

“RECEDE IN NOMINI PATRIS!” (Leave in the name of the Father.) Rosa’s features slowly altered into a mask of despair, as her body continued to writhe. She was trying to rise and, clearly, to attack.

“SANCTISSIMO DOMINE MIGRA.” (Let him go, O God Almighty.) Rosa did not speak or understand Latin, but she thrust forward and screamed in Father Amorth’s face: “MAI!!” (Never!!)

A low buzzing sound began, like a swarm of bees, as the others in the room prayed quietly. “SPIRITO DEL SIGNORE. SPIRITO, SPIRITO SANCTO SANCTISSIMA TRINITA.” (God’s spirit, Holy Spirit, Holy Trinity. . . . Look after Rosa, O Lord, destroy this evil force so that Rosa might be well and do good for others. Keep evil away from her.)

Then Father Amorth called out the satanic cults, the superstition, the black magic that had possessed her. She reacted, growling, and screamed “MAAAAAAIIIIII!!!” The scream filled the room.

Another voice from deep within her shouted in his face: “DON’T TOUCH HER! DON’T EVER TOUCH HER!!” Her eyes were still closed. Father Amorth yelled, “CEDE! CEDE!” (Surrender!)

She reacted violently: “IO SONO SATANA.” (I am Satan.)

“TODAY SATAN RULES THE WORLD. . . . AND YES, SATAN IS IN THE VATICAN,” FATHER AMORTH TOLD ME.
The buzzing continued. Rosa grew more defiant and agitated. The room was cold, but everyone was sweating.

Except Rosa.

“RECEDE ERGO NUNC!” (Leave her now.)

“MAAAAAAAIIIIIII!”

“Answer me!”

“NO!!” “SATANA! SATANA!”

“How many demons are you?”

“Eighty legions!”

“IN NOMINE DEO QUANDO TU EXIS?” (In the name of God, when are you leaving?)

“MAAAAAAI!!!” And then, “SHE IS MINE! SHE BELONGS TO ME!”

“She belongs to Jesus Christ!”

“WE ARE AN ARMY!!!!”

“Requie creatue Dei” (Rest, creature of God), Father Amorth said quietly.

Rosa slowly awoke and sat up. She was disheveled and had no memory of what had happened. One of the priests led her into a corner as her mother received a blessing from Father Amorth. Suddenly Rosa began to rage again, cursing and screaming, while one man held her firmly by the neck and another held her legs. Gradually she returned to a normal state and, in fact, seemed beatific to me.

Father Amorth smiled, as the mood in the room changed.

Everyone sang “Happy Birthday” to him, in Italian.

Everyone but Rosa.

“Many things happened over the years that made me believe I was possessed,” Rosa told me afterward. “There is a time when you can’t bear or postpone it anymore. After two years, I had to do something.”

I asked her if she had been treated by physicians or psychoanalysts. “It was useless to go to doctors,” she replied. “My problem is caused by evil spirits.” She had also been to see other priests, “but Father Amorth is the only one who helps me.”

I asked Rosa if she felt better after the exorcism. “Each time, it feels like I’m becoming free. I can feel the Devil suffering inside me,” she said.

Father Amorth was born Gabriele Amorth, the son of a lawyer, in the town of Modena, in the north of Italy. In his teens, during the Second World War, he joined the Italian Resistance, and then he became Giulio Andreotti’s deputy in the youth wing of the Christian Democratic Party, a Roman Catholic centrist party. He left that position and was ordained in 1951. In 1986 he was assigned by the vicar of Rome to assist Father Candido Amantini, then the chief exorcist in Rome. When Father Amantini died, in 1992, Father Amorth was named his successor. In the years that followed he has variously been referred to as “the Vatican Exorcist,” “Rome’s chief exorcist,” and “the Dean of Exorcists.” He has performed thousands of exorcisms successfully, and in 1990, he founded and led the International Association of Exorcists. Currently there are 4 exorcists in Rome and some 300 around the world within the Catholic Church, Father Amorth said, many of them trained by him.

I had been curious to meet Father Amorth for many years. In the early 1970s, when I directed the film The Exorcist, I had not witnessed an exorcism. Maybe this would be an opportunity to complete the circle, to see how close we who worked on the film came to reality or to discover that what we created was sheer invention.

I am an agnostic. I believe the power of God and the human soul are unknowable. I don’t associate the teachings of Jesus with the politics of the Roman Catholic Church. The authors of the New Testament—none of whom, it is now generally believed by historians, actually knew Jesus—were creating a religion, not writing history.[Whiskeyjack: Not actually true.]

I had no particular interest in the spiritual or the supernatural when the writer Bill Blatty asked me to direct the film of his novel, The Exorcist. Six years before, I had told him one of his scripts was terrible. As a result, he believed I was the only director who would tell him the truth. We didn’t know each other well at the time, and I had no credits that would suggest I could manage a difficult film such as The Exorcist. Then my film The French Connection opened successfully and the studio came on board.

Blatty had started writing his novel 20 years after hearing about a case of possession involving a 14-year-old boy in Cottage City, Maryland. The case had been chronicled at great length in 1949 by The Washington Post, which quoted Catholic sources saying that the boy had been possessed and was successfully exorcised. The reporter, Bill Brinkley, was given extraordinary access to the Washington, D.C., diocese. But Blatty, then an undergraduate at Georgetown University, couldn’t get anyone involved to divulge the facts of the case, so he wrote it as fiction and out of his own deep faith.

Blatty and I wanted the film to be as realistic as possible, with the flavor of a documentary. We had a technical adviser for the exorcism scenes, Rev. John Nicola, assistant director of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington. He was considered an expert on the ritual, though he had never seen or performed one himself—few people, including priests, have.

More than any film I’ve directed, The Exorcist inspired me to the point of obsession each day as I made it. I rejected all constraints, creative and financial. The studio, Warner Bros., thought I had taken leave of my senses. I may have. I made the film believing in the reality of exorcism and never, to this day, thought of it as a horror film.

THE SCIENCE OF EVIL

Last April, I was in Lucca, Italy, to receive the Puccini Prize for my work in opera. On an impulse, I e-mailed a friend in Rome, Andrea Monda, who is a religious scholar. I asked him if he thought Father Amorth would meet with me. Word came back shortly: “FATHER AMORTH CAN SEE YOU AT 9 AM ON APRIL 5 AT THE SOCIETÀ SAN PAOLO IN HIS RESIDENCE.”

Through Andrea, I was able to hire a translator/assistant, a talented young man named Francesco Zippel, and a few days after Easter, the holiest day on the Christian calendar, Francesco and I met with Father Amorth in his residence, in the room that’s dedicated to his work.

He was short, bald, and frail. His face was heavily lined, his voice and movements were weak, but his mind was razor-sharp and his manner jovial. We shook hands warmly. He smiled and said, “The Devil has made me famous all over the world.”

He had agreed to meet with me because he admired my movie. In his book An Exorcist Tells His Story, published in 1990, he wrote:

It is thanks to the movies that we find a renewed interest in Exorcisms. Vatican Radio, on February 2, 1975, interviewed William Friedkin, the director of the movie, The Exorcist. . . . The director stated that he wanted to tell the facts of an episode, narrated in a book, that had actually happened in 1949. When a Jesuit priest was asked [on the same program] if The Exorcist was just one of many horror movies or something altogether different, he emphatically maintained that it was the latter. He cited the great impact the movie had made on audiences throughout the world.
“Father, you write of dialogues you’ve had with Satan. Have you ever seen him?” I asked Father Amorth.

“Satan is pure spirit. He often appears as something else, to mislead. He appeared to Padre Pio as Jesus, to frighten him. He sometimes appears as a raging animal. The ritual of exorcism is not practiced by an ordinary priest. An exorcist requires specific training and must be thought to have a personal sanctity. He can be exposed to dangerous behavior and personal threat. His prayers often cause a violent response as he attempts to shine a beam of light into the darkness.”

“You’ve said publicly that you believe, referring to the current Church scandals, that Satan is in the Vatican. Do you still believe this?”

“Yes. Today Satan rules the world. The masses no longer believe in God. And, yes, Satan is in the Vatican.”

Belief in possession by spirits appears as early as 3100 B.C., in the Sumerian culture of ancient Mesopotamia, now parts of Syria, Iraq, and Kuwait. In the New Testament, demons are cast out by Jesus. Exorcisms were common in the Middle Ages. Perhaps every society needs explanations for things that cannot be explained. As Hamlet said to Horatio, “There are more things in heaven and earth . . . than are dream’t of in your philosophie.”

I wanted to get credible scientific opinion about what I had witnessed. A skeptic’s explanation for the “possession phenomenon” is “unconscious fraud,” wherein a suggestible person is aware of the behavior that’s expected of him or her and performs it out of social compliance, as a child does when a parent shows approval.

I showed the video of Rosa’s exorcism to two of the world’s leading neurosurgeons and researchers in California and to a group of prominent psychiatrists in New York.

Dr. Neil Martin is chief of neurosurgery at the UCLA Medical Center. He has performed more than 5,000 brain surgeries and is regularly cited as in the top 1 percent of his specialty. On August 3, I showed him the video of Rosa’s exorcism. This is his response: “Absolutely amazing. There’s a major force at work within her somehow. I don’t know the underlying origin of it. She’s not separated from the environment. She’s not in a catatonic state. She’s responding to the priest and is aware of the context. The energy she shows is amazing. The priest on the right is struggling to control her. He’s holding her down, as are the others, and the sweat is dripping off his face at a time when she’s not sweating. This doesn’t seem to be hallucinations. She appears to be engaged in the process but resisting. You can see she has no ability to pull herself back.”

I asked Dr. Martin if this was some kind of brain disorder. “It doesn’t look like schizophrenia or epilepsy,” he said. “It could be delirium, an agitated disconnection from normal behavior. But the powerful verbalization we’re hearing, that’s not what you get with delirium. With delirium you see the struggling, maybe the yelling, but this guttural voice seems like it’s coming from someplace else. I’ve done thousands of surgeries, on brain tumors, traumatic brain injuries, ruptured brain aneurysms, infections affecting the brain, and I haven’t seen this kind of consequence from any of those disorders. This goes beyond anything I’ve ever experienced—that’s for certain.”

I also showed the video to Dr. Itzhak Fried, a neurosurgeon and clinical specialist in epilepsy surgery, seizure disorder, and the study of human memory. He is based at both UCLA and the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. This was his conclusion: “It looks like something authentic. She is like a caged animal. I don’t think there’s a loss of consciousness or contact, because she’s in contact with the people. She appears to respond to the people who talk to her. It’s a striking change in behavior. I believe everything originates in the brain. So which part of the brain could serve this type of behavior? The limbic system, which has to do with emotional processing of stimuli, and the temporal lobe. I don’t see this as epilepsy. It’s not necessarily a lesion. It’s a physiological state. It seems to be associated with religious things. In the temporal lobe there’s something called hyper-religiosity. You probably won’t have this in somebody who has no religious background. Can I characterize it? Maybe. Can I treat it? No.”

I asked Dr. Fried if he believed in God, and he took a long pause before answering: “I do believe there is a limit to human understanding. Beyond this limit, I’m willing to recognize an entity called God.”

The reaction of the neurosurgeons took me by surprise. I had expected they would quickly dismiss Rosa’s symptoms as madness or unintentional fraud or suggest that she might be cured by brain surgery. They did not.

They wouldn’t come out and say, “Of course this woman is possessed by Satan,” but they seemed baffled as to how to define her ailment, and both agreed it was not something they would attempt to cure with surgery.

I was eager to pursue another path, one devoted to the treatment and prevention of mental disorder. I took the video to a group of some of the leading psychiatrists in the country, all in residence at Columbia University: Jeffrey Lieberman, director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute; Michael B. First, professor of clinical psychiatry; Roberto Lewis-Fernández, president-elect of the World Association of Cultural Psychiatry; and Ryan Lawrence, M.D., assistant professor of clinical psychiatry.

After showing the Columbia psychiatrists the video on a 36-inch screen, they had an open discussion about it for an hour and a half. Here are some of the highlights synthesized from that discussion:

LIEBERMAN: To be perfectly blunt, this is unconvincing as to anything that could be supernatural or excused from the laws of nature as we know them.

ME: Do you think it’s fraud?

ALL: No, no, it’s something real.

FIRST: It fits recognized psychiatric syndromes that have been defined. It’s classic. I would say she fits into the pattern that we call Dissociative Trance and Possession Disorder. There is no obvious known psychopathology. Exorcism as a therapeutic technique could work.

LIEBERMAN: Given our scientific and medical backgrounds, do we countenance the possibility of there being something that’s spiritual or supernatural in nature that takes the form of disturbed behavior?

LEWIS-FERNÁNDEZ: The person is expressing a pathology that is understood as possession. Our field of psychiatry can understand it as possession just on the virtue of what she’s presenting, without having to take any kind of stance on whether there actually are demons, spirits. [Dr. Lewis-Fernández worked on adding the word “possession” to “Dissociative Identity Disorder” in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, relied upon by clinicians, researchers, and the legal system.]

LAWRENCE: I have a patient now in my unit who’s similar to this in some ways. She says she’s possessed by the Devil. She speaks in a bizarre voice. She has a history of trauma. What we’re doing for her is we’re treating her with medication, giving her psychotherapy, creating a safe environment. She gets better. We don’t take a position of “Is this really Satan bothering you or are you just being bothered by your illness?”

LIEBERMAN: I’ve never believed in ghosts or that stuff, but I’ve had a couple of cases, one in particular that really just gave me pause. This was a young girl, in her 20s, from a Catholic family in Brooklyn, and she was referred to me with schizophrenia, and she definitely had bizarre and psychotic-like behavior, disorganized thinking, disturbed attention, hallucinations, but it wasn’t classic schizophrenic phenomenology. And she responded to nothing,” he added with emphasis. “Usually you get some response. But there was no response. We started to do family therapy. All of a sudden, some strange things started happening, accidents, hearing things. I wasn’t thinking anything of it, but this unfolded over months. One night, I went to see her and then conferred with a colleague, and afterwards I went home, and there was a kind of a blue light in the house, and all of a sudden I had this piercing pain in my head, and I called my colleague, and she had the same thing, and this was really weird. The girl’s family was prone to superstition, and they may have mentioned demon possession or something like that, but I obviously didn’t believe it, but when this happened I just got completely freaked out. It wasn’t a psychiatric disorder—you want to call it a spiritual possession, but somehow, like in The Exorcist, we were the enemy. This was basically a battle between the doctors and whatever it was that afflicted the individual.

ME: Do you completely disregard the idea of possession?

LIEBERMAN: No. There was no way I could explain what happened. Intellectually, I might have said it’s possible, but this was an example that added credence.

ME: If a patient doesn’t believe in psychiatry, has some resistance to it, is it likely to work?

LIEBERMAN: If you’re saying you need to believe in religious systems for something like exorcism to work, the answer is yes. In sum, this isn’t demon possession, but treating Rosa’s symptoms as demon possession may not be the worst thing.

FIRST: I think all of us would agree there are things we can’t explain.

I went to these doctors to try to get a rational, scientific explanation for what I had experienced. I thought they’d say, “This is some sort of psychosomatic disorder having nothing to do with possession.” That’s not what I came away with. Forty-five years after I directed The Exorcist, there’s more acceptance of the possibility of possession than there was when I made the film.

Rosa’s 10th exorcism was set for the Fourth of July. I was determined to record it and follow this story to its end, however long it might take and to whatever conclusion. I arrived in Rome on the third only to learn that Rosa had canceled her appointment with Father Amorth. When Francesco talked to her on the phone she told him she didn’t feel up to it. She would reschedule when she felt better. Francesco asked her if, since I had come to Rome, we could film some background footage with her, to show what appeared to be her otherwise normal life with her family, friends, and her boyfriend, Giuliano.

She agreed, and we set a time to meet in Rome on July 5. The day before, I visited Father Amorth again at his residence. He emphasized that he believed Rosa was one of those rare victims of demonic possession, that her infestation was made worse by the curse from her brother and his girlfriend.

Father Amorth told me that even when Rosa appears normal she experiences mental suffering. “After her ninth exorcism, there was some improvement, but she is not liberated. Perhaps it won’t be me who is successful with her,” he said softly. “There’s someone who plants the seed and someone else who harvests. And Jesus reminds us it is He who sets people free, not the exorcists.”

After two hours he seemed to tire. We hugged, he gave me his blessing, and I left. I turned back once to see him smiling and waving.

Rosa canceled our meeting, only to call back and reschedule. She said she’d meet us in Rome, then called back a few minutes later sounding angry and frustrated to beg off. Then late in the evening she called to apologize. She claimed she had forgotten the date of our meeting, but told Francesco she was looking forward to seeing me again. She asked if we could meet her in Alatri, a small town close to where she lived, 90 miles southeast of Rome.

We set out for Alatri around 11:30 in the morning. Rosa said she’d meet us at 1:30 in the public park on top of the town in front of the basilica. The drive took two hours on the A24 and A1 motorways. We passed flat fields dotted with bundles of rolled hay.

Alatri is a historic village, perched on a hill, overlooking red-tiled rooftops and distant mountains. The village dates from the second millennium B.C. and is surrounded by massive, polygonal Etruscan walls, pieced together without mortar, like a giant jigsaw puzzle. The narrow alleyways and cobblestone streets are lined with small houses, many of them adorned with oil paintings of the saints, under glass. This is a religious town in an old-world way. We had to walk to the top of the hill to the acropolis. Within it is the cathedral, considered a sacred place. We were to meet her in the park in front of the 12th-century basilica.

1:30. Rosa hadn’t arrived.

1:45. The heat was infernal and there was no shade. The temperature was over 100 degrees, with no humidity. We went into the basilica. The wood-paneled interior was in the shape of a cross with three aisles and a raised transept across the nave. It was dark, cavernous, and empty.

2:00. We went back outside. A half-dozen young boys lazily kicked a soccer ball around. There was no other movement.

Francesco called Rosa on her cell phone. She answered quickly, sounding angry. “Where are you?” she screamed.

“We’re at the park,” Francesco answered. “Where are you?”

“I’m where I told you I’d be, at Santa Maria Maggiore, the church in the town square.”

Drenched in sweat, we walked back down the steep road a quarter of a mile. The limestone church of Santa Maria Maggiore dominates the public square. Completed in the fifth century, it was built over the ruins of a temple to Venus. A four-story bell tower adjoins the pointed façade. Two smaller arched doorways flank a large center door under a rose window. We entered the door on the right, at the base of the bell tower.

For the next 15 minutes we were trapped in a living nightmare. Just within the entrance, Rosa, her mother, and Giuliano were sitting on dirty, plastic thrift-shop chairs. Her mother was crying. Giuliano stood over Rosa, holding her tightly to her chair, one hand around her neck and shoulders, the other around her waist. She was growling and screaming, struggling to break free. But this was not Rosa. It was a monstrous, ugly, despairing creature with a gravelly voice filled with anger and anguish. It was the voice of the damned. She was far worse than during the exorcism, but there was no priest to control her behavior. The church was otherwise empty but for this tableau of horror.

Francesco and I watched in stunned silence as Rosa slid around the floor, pulling Giuliano and the chair with her. For a moment, she stared at me with a malevolent grin I will never forget. Then came a sad, painful moan as she collapsed into a trance. Then a terrifying roar that burst from her whole body. RAAAAARRRRGGGGGHHH!!

The color drained from her face. Her disheveled hair flew wildly in all directions. Foamy spittle formed on her pale lips. She made a shrill wailing sound, over which her mother yelled at me, in Italian, “Give us back the film!”

To which Rosa shouted, “NO! NO! NON VOGLIO.” (I don’t want it.)

She collapsed again, with a tearful, exhausted expression.

Giuliano (clutching her tightly): “YOUR FILM MUST NEVER BE SEEN!”

Francesco, riveted, breathing with difficulty, translated everything quickly.

Rosa: “SI! SI IO VOGLIO.” (Yes! I want it seen.)

Mother: “What will happen to my son if the film is shown?”

It struck me as odd that she was concerned more about her son than about her daughter, who was under his curse. Rosa shouted furiously again.

I tried to appear calm, but I was terrified. I said, “I’m not going to give you the film.”

Giuliano: “I KNOW WHY YOU WANT TO SHOW THIS. TO MAKE A FAMOUS FILM ABOUT SATAN. YOU DON’T CARE IF SHOWING IT WILL RUIN ROSA’S LIFE!”

Rosa’s attempts to break free from Giuliano’s grip were directed toward her mother, not me or Francesco. Her leaps and thrusts became more violent.

I told Francesco to tell them there was no film. It was a video, on a little card. I thought they would have no idea what I was talking about, but Giuliano smiled and said, “Oh, it’s an SD card. You must bring it here and we will burn it.”

“I’ll never give you the video,” I said, raising my voice. “I made it to show the work of Father Amorth.”

Mother: “We will get lawyers, and we will sue you and Father Amorth.”

Rosa: “IO SONO SATANA!!!” (I am Satan!)

Giuliano: “She is possessed by Satan. If you show it, it will be used by Satan’s followers.”

Rosa (writhing and kicking): “NO! NO! I WANT IT TO BE SEEN. I WANT IT TO BE SEEN.”

Giuliano: “If you don’t give it back to us, we will kill you! Satan will kill you! We will find your family, and we will kill you all!”

It was the first time anyone had threatened my life. Rosa had fallen back into a trance. I looked directly at the mother and Giuliano: “I’m not going to bullshit you. I will never give you the video.”

I turned to Francesco: “Let’s go. We’re done here.”

And I walked out into the scorching white heat. Francesco followed a few moments later, and I could hear the screaming inside before the heavy wooden door slammed shut.

We said little as we drove back to Rome, the fear and the sweat clinging to us.

Rosa disappeared from Father Amorth’s radar. She didn’t return calls or messages or schedule another exorcism with him. It was believed that Giuliano and her brother now had control over her. It would be flippant to say I didn’t take their threat seriously. The memory of what happened in Alatri hovers in my consciousness to this day.

I held to the hope that Rosa would eventually re-unite with Father Amorth and that he would free her of her demons, but in late July Father Amorth had difficulty breathing. He had to cancel his appointments and was admitted to a hospital, where he was diagnosed with a pulmonary condition and pneumonia. On Friday, September 16, at 7:37 P.M., he died.

When I heard the news I was devastated, as were all who loved him. But I thought he’d be O.K. I remembered something he had said to me: “Do you know why the Devil is afraid of me? Because I’m uglier than he is.”

The funeral was held at Santa Maria Regina Degli Apostoli alla Montagnola. It was a cloudy morning, but the sun appeared as the Requiem Mass began, at three P.M. A thousand people filled the church and stood outside. Roberto, Alessandro, and Francesco were there, as were many of the patients Father Amorth had liberated. All the mourners approached the coffin and kissed it. Rosa was nowhere to be seen.

Before dying, Father Amorth had told Roberto, “When I get to the Good Place I will continue to fight the Devil even harder.”

Venafro is another hillside town of fewer than 12,000 people, in southeastern Italy, near Alatri. There, according to Roberto, a clergyman recently performed an exorcism on Rosa. In the middle of the ritual, the clergyman called on the spirit of Father Amorth for intercession. Rosa began to writhe and screamed, “DON’T! DON’T CALL HIM!”

Father Amorth and Rosa’s work is not yet finished.

So I regret to inform everyone that the Devil is real. Though his existence does help explain a lot of current events.
 

no.1IrishFan

Well-known member
Messages
6,279
Reaction score
421
How do you feel about other religions, such as Hinduism, who also believe in demonic possesion? From all accounts, they seem to have the ability to exorcise evil spirits as well, while not believing that the power to do so comes from the judeo Christian god.

Sorry if this has already been answered, haven't been following this thread much lately.
 
Last edited:
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
A recent exchange in the Feminism thread reminded me to share about this, so here are two recent articles in mainstream publications about demonic possession.

. . .


So I regret to inform everyone that the Devil is real. Though his existence does help explain a lot of current events.

I reject that assertion directly, unequivocally, without reservation.

After studying documents in what we would call 'The Bible' we can see Satan's creation and development as a literary device, over a period of 800 or a thousand years.

We are who we are, and always have been.

Then came Manichaeism, or the Manichean Dichotomy, good versus evil, and all that. Ironically, that early form of Gnostic thought infected Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity. Which is the answer to an earlier question.

Christianity started with two creation stories, as still evidenced in Genesis today. Much of the mainline writings that were brought forward into the books we recognize in the New Testament today, have no agreement of what was taking place in the heavens. Because of course, we weren't there! But it wasn't like people who believe in a corporeal hell and devil of today describe. Why?

The difference is that a Gnostic, other than Christian belief, hijacked that particular part of Christian Dogma!

That is why there is such a distinct difference between Old Testament writings before the Second Temple Period, and New Testament writings after.

I am really good with what I have learned and experienced in Christianity, without the spheres of thoughts outside Christianity that have bled in, and influenced things.

I believe in God. I do not believe in any iteration of Good versus Evil. I do not believe in the Devil, or a fire and brimstone hell. It is all a story.

I do not believe in supernatural interjection in this world. I do believe that with imagination and love, we can project ourselves past some of the limits of this world to see beyond.

Why do we need a devil?

I can only think of a few reasons. First it allows us to abdicate our responsibilities for our own actions. Second, it is a great way of rallying our tribe together against others. Feel that your people aren't united enough? How is that for a bad guy, and we can make any group in our way his confederates, really justifying our actions, and of course making things seamless; who can dispute it? Finally, it fits the bill for the kind of emotional leverage needed to keep a broad group of people in line. Fear is the name, and there isn't anything more fearful than a creature that can steal your essence!

Nope. I haven't seen one documented case of demonic existence, through possession or appearance as a vision, or a being.

But I have seen a whole lot of people that have performed actions so horrific that I would like to believe in a devil. It is much more uncomfortable knowing that these things were done by my fellow man!
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,965
Reaction score
6,453
How awful the Jesuits are? Good Lord.......

There are over 50 canonized Jesuit saints.
They have been leaders in scientific research and attempts to smoothly heal differences between Religion and Science since the 17th century (Pope Francis himself has a chemistry degree.)
Their stories speckle our intellectual history (it was a Jesuit scientist who wrote the book that inspired Enrico Fermi to pursue physics --- without Fermi we might all be goose-stepping today.)

Broad-brush labeling is not a good thing and almost always is a subtraction from understanding and an indication of some kind of unhelpful prejudice/closemindedness. We shouldn't do that.
 
Top