Christians are flooding into the counseling field.  Like evangelization through adoption (see Haiti), it’s an area ripe for the pickings evangelization.

I actually found this organization (website plus would-be author?), the Northwest Marriage Institute, while showing someone else one way to look up a grant series (by typing in only part of the grant# on the HHS database).   Doing this produces several to scan probably in the same grant series, as the numbering series is also similar.

In this field, the word “institute” is ALMOST as meaningless as the word “faith-based” (which is actually a made-up word to accommodate GWB’s version of a Family of prayer warriors and world-changers, or whatever else that idea was in 2001)

I was curious about what was the “institute” in the Northwest Marriage Institute, did a quick look-up (producing the typical not registered as state nonprofit // now inactive but somehow still getting HHS grants, like over $700K in 2011) indicator that this NOT faith-based operations are actually  faith-based in even the loosest sense of the term.  They are in the sense that — (this incidence) — it appears to be yet another case of the US simply paying pastors or church boards, almost directly.  But it’s not in that when someone (for once) protested religious use of federal funds, the institute simply switched tactics:  “We’ll take the “salt” out of our message, keep the grants a-coming!”  Seriously — that’s why I posted here.  Unbelievable….

We know there is sometimes medicare Fraud, in which either SS#s are re-used, or services proclaimed which never happened, or over-billing, etc.  That’s in the nature of what FRAUD is.

In the case of this group having been declared “inactive” in the year 2010 — yet its 2011 HHS grant nearly tripled (From about $250K to almost $750K) — plus the tax returns show — well, people incapable of correctly even reading a tax return), and I am starting to really believe that the purpose of the marriage/fatherhood grantees is to enable whoever is distributing and administering the grants to wash funds through the system without accounting for them.

In other words, theft of public funds on an unbelievably large scale IS no doubt occurring through this particular means.  I believe that so much of this is under the table (even the US Government GAO agrees that lots of it is just plain LOST), that perhaps the original purpose of the whole operation (Faith-based, I mean) was to set up a series of easy to start, easy to close up shop and hop to the next state, operations such that the IRS could not ever keep up — let alone taxpayers or normal people.

My first clue was the pond-(actually, continent-) skipping incorporation habits of a very boastful organization, California Healthy Marriages Coalition, which turns out to have hooked up with an HHS “Marriage” employee, Bill Coffin, for getting mutual back-patting in grants-getting.

But the truly comic relief is a little rare in the field (other than the reasoning behind the whole things is “comical” — in other words, it’s not reason, its the irrational personified.  Today, I have some:

SOMEONE SUED THEM IN FEDERAL COURT!

There’s a lot more than marriage that is fogged up in this case.   I just put it in for comic relief — although it’s in a series of 90FK Grants to promote Marriage and Fatherhood, an idea which is itself all fogged up in my opinion.

I have shown plenty of examples — there shouldn’t be doubt in readers’ minds (that is, if anyone actually reads through my posts!).  I had to laugh — except it just wasn’t funny, given the scope of this behavior — at yet another “marriage/fatherhood” grantee I happened upon, which instinct told might be another one of these, and “sho ’nuff” it was:  Northwest Marriage Institute.  I chose definitely a MINOR player in this field to exhibit after running into an article on atheist.com showing that, when push came to shove, it got grants as a faith-based group, got challenged in taking federal funds to push Biblical counseling — bet that doesn’t happen too often, but this was the American Northwest, Seattle area….

Poor thing, it was only incorporated in 2005, and when presented with a very HIGH Conflict, (and forgetting the record of the Faithful in Hebrews 11) — like a child with a handful of cookies in the jar, in order to extract itself something had to go.  Either the federal grants — or the gospel.  Grants or Gospel, Grants or Gospel, let’s see which one?

THE GRANTS:

Click on the Institute Name (which — in typical HHS fashion — is not the actual group’s name — why initials, why no spaces between the nouns?) to see that there are 8 awards in fairly typical fashion:   a Compassion Building Grant ($50K in 2005), the next year, grants practically quintupled ($246K) to begin the “Healthy Marriage Demonstration” series (90FK0041) which plugs along happily for a while, increasing to $275K after which it becomes “Pathways to Responsible Fatherhood” which must be worth more to our Administration because it then (new grant same series, 90FK0051) TRIPLES to about $750K.  Does this look like some group that incorporated just to get the faith-based grants and didn’t exist before on its own?  You betcha!   Faithfully, they received grants too, increasing 25-fold.  As the Bible says, it just takes a little faith, as a mustard seed, to move mountains.  Here, this little grant, only $50K (enough to feed and house how many needy?) was well-planted, and bore fruit.    2005-06-07-08-09-10 & 2011, it got grants, like clockwork.  Notice how many different forms the principal investigator name takes and that although some are Fatherhood/some Marriage, both are called CFA 93086. Same Diff:

Just to be clear what source this about $2 million is coming from, my search at USAspending.gov (which doesn’t show all of the above grants and reports less income), using the DUNS#, I see that this is coming from TANF#.  Search here (or select Prime Award, Advanced Search) key in DUNS# ONLY, hit Search).  The first award is categorized as coming from the “Immediate Office of the Secretary of HHS” and as CFDA 93647 (social services research and demo, and NOT as “Compassion Capital (93009 as HHS shows)  Unless this is two different grants (note date difference, too):

Federal Funding Amount

 $50,000

Non-Federal Funding Amount

 $2,630

Total Funding Amount

 $52,630

Obligation / Action Date

Moreover, as often happens between these two databases, USASpending shows a grant or two less than HHS; in this case no 2006 action was uploaded to USASpending.gov — which was the FIRST action (that’s unusual, eh?) Also, the graph under “timeline” shows all bars the same size, however we see that in 2011, it was triple the previous size, apprxoimately.

BUT — let’s get at least one thing straight.  With the exception of the $52,360 to help set up this “NW Marriage Institute” within 5 months of it having incorporated (and without it apparently having registered with Washington State) — all grants thereafter were from this funding source:

75-1552:Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Washington can get cold.  Let’s see what this group has to offer that is more important than food, clothing, housing and possibly transportation to/from child care or school, for families in the area, probably single-parent households:

Here is our “Principal Investigator” Dr. R.E. Whiddon, Jr. I’m inspired to confidence just looking at him:

Dr. Whiddon has earned a Ph.D. in Biblical Counseling, Trinity Theological Seminary,*** Indiana, 1996, and a D.Min. in Pastoral Ministry, Northwest Graduate School,* Seattle, 2001. He is a Licensed Clinical Pastoral Counselor, Certified Temperament Counselor,** Licensed Minister of Pastoral Counseling and has over thirty-three years of experience in ministry and counseling.

(Now, what’s the difference between “Licensed CLINICAL Pastoral Counselor” and “Licensed Minister of Pastoral Counseling” or are we stretching he credentials a little here?)

***Trinity Theological Seminary’s “About Us” shows a conglomerate theology which includes the Divinity of Christ and the Depravity of man.  Actually, it’s a conglomerate, missing major pieces, and inherently-contradictory set of confessions none of which call Jesus “Lord” (which the Bible consistently does).  Expect similar behaviors + evangelism (confusion loves company) to show up in handling of marriages and/or finances, “he that is faithful in that which is least,” (Jesus) and “It is required in stewards that a man be found faithful” (Paul).  Trinity, in accordance with its name, believes:

Articles of Faith:
Trinity is an evangelical Christian institution that affirms the articles of faith found in three historic creeds of the early Church: The Apostles’ Creed, The Nicene Creed, and The Athanasian Creed. In particular we affirm:

• The Inspiration and Authority of the Scriptures;
• The Existence of One God in Three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit;(1)
• The Creation of the Human Race in the Image of God;
• The Fall and Resultant Human Depravity;
• The Deity of Christ, His Incarnation, Atoning Death, and Resurrection;
• Salvation by the Grace of God Through Faith by the Power of the Holy Spirit;
• One Holy Christian Church, the Body of Christ;
• The Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the Consummation of All Things.
• The Gift of Everlasting Life in Heaven, With Christ, for all Who Have Trusted in Him for Salvation.
• [AND THOSE WHO DON’T? . . . . . . . . . . .]

*This school was hard to find — possibly because it’s (or similar one) is now called “Bakke Graduate University.”  Founded by two brothers in 1990 (per Wiki, what else?), another profile (possibly diff’t institution) shows 164 students (95% white, Gender–not shown; perhaps it goes without saying, all men?), and categorizes it as a specialized 4-year university in Redmond, WA.  Or perhaps his degree was from none of the above.

Does he have a wife & family?  What qualifies this person to be running marriage institutes at the expense of needy families?

**this certification apparently costs about $1,665 (see link) and possibly was available on-line (for example)

For a sample of his writing, we see a title “The current status of the practice of church discipline in the churches of Christ in America”   on file at Amridge University (affiliated with Churches of Christ) categorized as “controversial literature” which it should be (see related titles), particularly from the viewpoint of wife.  This appears to be his honors thesis from Trinity (see portions on affirmation of the depravity of man, etc.) It is an on-line university primarily, since 1969, in a rural (population 9,000) town.

THE PUBLIC FACE (WEBSITE):  Predictable graphics & Logo:

THE NORTHWEST (not “NW” as TAGGS has it) MARRIAGE INSTITUTE WEBSITE declares it’s a nonprofit, and has a typical website banner & verbiage, with pretty outrageous claims, see center motto:

The Northwest Marriage Institute is a non-profit organization in the State of Washington and recognized as a public charity according to Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code. We subsist on tax-deductible donations and grant funding. The Institute provides marriage and fatherhood workshops, to residents of the Vancouver/Portland metro area.

My First question when any group claims to be a Nonprofit (in this field) is, naturally — IS it?  So, show me the money.   Washington State shows me that it did exist as a corporation from 2/1/2005 (just in time to get that grant!) however on 6/28/2010 it became “inactive” (was to have filed by 2/28/2010 and didn’t apparently). Washington State Corporations must file annually, or biennially.  You can look too:  I just typed in “Northwest Marriage” which pulled up 3 results.  Is it registered in Washington State as a Charity?  You can look: (apparently not….).  Did it ever file its 990s with the IRS?

Yes, with interesting results — what happened to the $250,000 grant in 2009 (as it appears not to have acknowledged the $750K grant in 2011….)

Ah well, I’ve had enough of this for now.  Perhaps the essay, on “The Dorothy Option” will speak to the situation.  The image below is picked from the main page of where the article was posted. Basically, except I do not share the “Occupy” sentiment, I agree.  Good questions — and I ask them for single mothers who are figuring out which state to live in where their children have to grow up intact and out of the range of foster care, child protective services, and the high-conflict crowd, which are ravenous beasts, and never satiated with enough lives:

http://voxnova2.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/hungry.jpg

Catholic Citizenship and the “Dorothy Option”

by Mark Gordon

(Dorothy was a role model, I guess).

Whatever– for women in any country, it is an uphill battle.  Given its material wealth and reputation (now tarnishing) for freedom and an amazing set of founding documents — I feel the US is going to either give it up, or go down.  It pushes a slave-based economy (always, a caste system is needed, and war is also needed, for the global economy, or freedom might break loose on another continent).  The method of control is economy (threat of starvation) backed by force (faster death for nonconformity) is a real one, and some of us are already experienced dealing with those threats, long-term, and “in your face.”  Some of us did NOT come out of such situations to be told, “Get thee behind me, Woman,” and “Go back for some more, or we take your kids!”

What, precisely, do you think this child support system is in place for to start with?  Without some means of extortion, half the stuff wouldn’t be going on that I’ve blogged in.  The world truly would be a better place, at this point.

Truth is at a premium, always, and finding it is THE most important endeavor in life.    HOW many languages did those Bible translators speak?  And then we get garbled up versions of one of those languages, on-line, half-baked sound bytes? ???

Why is it so often easier to have a sensible conversation (as a person “of faith”) with an atheist than a church-attendee?  Possibly because the atheist takes Sunday mornings for exercise, and the free time weeknights, or weekends, perhaps, for exposure to some of the great ideas of mankind in grappling with the meaning of existence, or reads history (etc.), and what’s more, pays taxes — but not all the tithes to have a dumb-down version of a pittance of scripture explained to them, in the politically correct interpretation of the day.    They then go back to work with a clear conscience, perhaps.

It was the beauty and literature of the Bible that got my attention, originally, as well as its way of speaking to the current issues of life.  I missed the indoctrination and rebellion phases as a young person simply because no one was forcing it on me.  When I ran across some trinitarians who wanted to argue, I settled the question by reading through the gospels.  And a lot more.  End of story.  Not to mention this:  A MEDIATOR has to be in the middle, as in:

1First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the mana Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. 7For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

I think most people want to live a peaceful life — like apparently Joseph Priestley did after emigrating far from the people that destroyed his science lab because it was the wrong theology!  Well, it’s either fight, or leave.  Fight logically, fight without compromise, and fight for the right things, this means, you put your foot down on turning the US into a sharia-type nightmare, even if you think this requires a little sacrifice now for better situation later!

People need to understand the grants systems to understand where their taxes go.  They also need to understand the custody courts to understand why social services are being cut, but taxes are still high, as are commodities.  Not enough people do.

MEDIATORS must be neutral, and they are to represent not just one side of the equation.  They are not to take bribes.  In the wilderness, it’s said, Jesus Christ WAS tempted to take a bribe (the bribe being all the kingdoms of the world, and the tempter, the devil) — and didn’t.  He then qualified.

FAMILY COURT MEDIATORS are often court-appointed, which means county-paid.  They are not neutral in any sense of the word.  IN addition, they are supported by a grant series (Access/visitation) which says — on its face — it is interested in increased noncustodial parenting time.  Their purpose is to produce that time.  Ergo, their purpose is to affect the outcome of a custody hearing in a particular direction, and somehow justify this to others as “justice” when it’s not– it’s service.  They are serving their employers, who pay their salary most directly.

One God, and one mediator between Man & God.  How many in that phrase?

3 entitites.  Not 3-in-1, but three separate, and ONE in the middle.

Galatians (which Paul claimed to have by revelation, but I see plenty of rational argument based on its suppositions in here!):

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

The mediator referred to surely was Moses.  Was Moses divine?  Was he God?  NO!  He delivered the law, and spoke for God because (according to the record in OT) the people didn’t want to — too frightening.  THey said — YOU speak for us!  (remembering — 400 years of slavery preceded this moment, they were used to taking orders, unfamiliar with freedom yet, and unused to making their own decisions about their own destiny; hence the slavery mindset — YOU’re the expert, YOU translate from God to us.)

Thereafter (you can look it up on-line), a wonderful prophecy of Jesus Christ (so Christians will say, and I do) is right there in Deuteronomy 18:15 and referenced in Acts 3 also:

The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; 16According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. 17And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee (Moses), and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

He was qualified up one way and down the other as a mediator, and did not take bribes (which pervert judgment) and moreover, put his life on the line for the reconciliation.

And I think it really does matter whether or not this is understood — in the same chapter (describing the mediator) in Galatians, it goes on to say, which is the point anyhow (not all this sectarianism we see nowadays!):

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Some people don’t like that terminology, and so simply toss it in practice.  For which, I see:

Seems like as good a place as any to end this — I have attempted to illustrate two types of individuals and groups of people that both call themselves “Christians.”  One part is prone to hunting down, banning books, killing dissidents and discouraging literacy on even the articles of the faith.  This kind cannot look at a single sentence without dividing it into 3 invisible and mysteriously interlinked parts, and (see Rick Santorum Speech writer, the other day, on “family”) grammatically pay attention for even a single sentence (switching from third to second person).  In a theology where they’re all the same anyhow — what difference does it make, hey?

This is called “blurred vision” and “blurred boundaries”   Where the Bible says “all one in Christ Jesus,” men, certain men (and their women, standing by them) say — no, men take the upper seat, and you women sit down at the other end of the table.  Better yet, go serve us, and then we’ll settle things and let you know the results.  That was their culture, and that is THIS culture too.  Every slavery culture needs a caste system, and in this system, women are below almost all men (religiously speaking) if they come with head, hearts, and minds engaged.

Now let’s apply this in reverse.  The Bible states above clearly — there is one God, and He had a disagreement with Man.  Inbetween comes a “prophet, like unto me” (Moses — and Moses led the people out of captivity and was a prophet, a spokesperson in front of Pharaoh, also being acquainted with Pharaoh’s household, but REJECTING IT for justice, instead affirming his real parentage (not his adopted household), and standing with it.  (Contrast the US with its burgeoning foster care system….)

The people (in the writings) show as of a different character, and God, of a third.  1, 2, 3.

• SIMILARLY — the US Government DID at one time have 3 separate branches:  Executive, Legislative and Judicial.  1, 2, 3.  And the FIRST Bill of Rights states that Congress is not to legislate a religion.
• Where the Bible says 3, some say 1.  Where it says 1 — they say 3.

Now do we really want this mentality in charge of a unified federal government and its budget?  AND with an Office of Faith-Based Privilege and Pooh-Bahs who can’t account for what they already spent, can’t stay incorporated for long because they are not themselves subject to the same laws, while making new ones, and a new language (“parent coordination” “fatherhood.gov” etc.) for the rest of us?

I don’t think so.  Get the voting over with, and then get out your FOIAs (and calculators) and start asking uncomfortable questions of legislators on why they have authorized this baloney!

I forgot to finish the account on this Servetus, of the century 1500s.  Here’s a portion showing John Calvin’s reaction, and his eventual death, twice (once, in effigy) for probably being one danged nuisance to the status quo.  Do we appreciate how brave some of these people were?   Here, Servetus had to take on an alternate identity:

 http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/michaelservetus.html

His books were confiscated, and he was warned out of several Protestant towns. Meanwhile, in 1532, the Supreme Council of the Inquisition in Spain began proceedings to summon him, or to apprehend him if he would not appear before the tribunal. His brother, Juan, a priest, was sent to persuade him to return to Spain for questioning. He was terrified. He later wrote of this period, “I was sought up and down to be snatched to my death.” He fled to Paris and surfaced there with a new name, Michel de Villeneuve.

. . .During his twelve-year residence in Vienne, living as the inoffensive Doctor of Medicine, Michel de Villeneuve, Servetus was busy in his spare time preparing his major theological treatise, Christianismi Restitutio (The Restoration of Christianity). He also began, in 1546, a fateful secret correspondence with his old acquaintance, John Calvin.** By this time Calvin, author of Institutio Christianae Religionis (Institutions of Christian Religion), 1536, and pastor and chief reformer of Geneva, was the most prestigious figure in the Reform branch of Protestantism.

Parallel — people fleeing retaliatory abuse are often wishing to speak with friends, or deal with someone who actually knows them. I imagine Servetus wanted to discuss theology with someone who understood it.  This turned out to be a fatal mistake.

How important it is we know the true strength of various pillars that support us.  I’m talking institutions, associations, etc.

John Calvin

Calvin’s theology had included little mention of the trinitarian nature of the godhead until, in 1537, another reformer, Pierre Caroli, accused him of being an Arian.  Although cleared by a synod at Lausanne, Calvin was afterwards on his guard and determined to deal severely with deviations in this area of orthodoxy.

Can we see how the fear factor here quenched debate on the merits? . . . . . . .

The subject, associated with unpleasant memories, was distasteful to him. Servetus, surely aware of Calvin’s previous lack of clarity on the subject, bombarded him with letters insisting on unorthodox conceptions more radical than those he had presented a decade and more ago. Calvin replied with increasing impatience and asperity. Servetus sent Calvin a manuscript of his yet unpublished Restitutio. Calvin reciprocated by sending a copy of the Institutio. Servetus returned it with abusive annotations. On the day Calvin broke off the correspondence, he wrote to his colleague, Guillaume Farel, that should Servetus ever come to Geneva, “if my authority is of any avail I will not suffer him to get out alive.“

Servetus’ aggressive stance and “refusing to shut up” caused fear of retribution in his hearer.  It is hard to think clearly when there’s the fear factor (remember the times:  Inquisition . . . .. )

When Servetus published the Restitutio in early 1553 he sent an advance copy to Geneva. The printed text included thirty of his letters to Calvin. Soon afterward, at Calvin’s behest, the identity of “Villeneuve” was betrayed to the Catholic Inquisition in Vienne. After his arrest and interrogation Servetus managed to escape from the prison. On his way, perhaps, to northern Italy where, he believed, there were people receptive to his writings, he made his way across the border to Geneva. Recognized at a Geneva church service, he was arrested and tried for heresy by Protestant authorities.

His friend in Geneva was not really his friend.

The secular officials were unable to establish that Servetus was an immoral disturber of the public peace. Nevertheless, he made damaging theological statements in the course of a written debate with Calvin. The Council of Geneva, after receiving the advice of churches in four other Swiss cities, convicted Servetus of antitrinitarianism and opposition to child baptism. Calvin asked that Servetus be mercifully beheaded. The Council insisted he should be burned at the stake.

Spectators were impressed by the tenacity of Servetus’ faith. Perishing in the flames, he is said to have cried out, “O Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have pity on me!” Farel, who witnessed the execution, observed that Servetus, defiant to the last, might have been saved had he but called upon “Jesus, the Eternal Son.” A few months later Servetus was again executed, this time in effigy, by the Catholic Inquisition in France

This source (which is pointing out – John Calvin was a murderer, and some of his motives for this were to maintain power over “theocratic Geneva” describes how green wood was used to prolong the time (30 minutes), and a barrage of verbal abuse on the way to execution.  Talk about heartless!

from:  www.evangelicaloutreach.org/michael–servetus.htm

Let it be noted that the Calvinists of Geneva put half-green wood around the feet of Michael Servetus and a wreath strewn with sulfur on his head. It took over thirty minutes to render him lifeless in such a fire, while the people of Geneva stood around to watch Michael Servetus suffer and slowly die!

Perhaps this history gives us the general idea of how “mainstream” Christianity became “mainstream;” in part by killing off dissidents for an example (and confiscating their property too, burning books, threats, betrayal, etc.).   Through my personal experience, abuse + Bible + “it’s a family matter,” I have come to understand that “birds of a feather flock together”  and not to fly with this crowd.  The air is clearer outside.

However, as someone not from a traditional background (was raised a strange breed of church-attending atheists, and so not subject to much indoctrination), and shocked at how pervasive the mistreatment of women — “justified” by Bible (and being well-read enough in it to realize how little water the argument holds) — I do often need to speak to others a warning not to just brush this faction off.  It has deep historical roots, and despite all the very many truly nice, smart, and intelligent, productive, creative (etc.) people to be found — in the Catholic church, in particular — if it came to saving a neighbor’s life, or stopping child abuse by a colleague — would they really provide a safe haven and show outrage at the system that allowed it?   Will they, for the duration, subject themselves as potential targets for your sake, or the child’s sake?

I’m not of a stature to stand and judge (or a prophet!) but my sense is that in an(y) organization where submission, loyalty and tradition are valued, as well as community — who is really ready to be an outcast for the genuine faith, in the US, I mean?  I’m ont talking of the solitary monks or priests — I mean, on critical issues — such as the overt religious grants recipients in the fatherhood & marriage movement, for example?

• We are not to judge by allegiances and alliances, but does not mean, go to sleep spiritually, psychologically, historically or politically.  And under spiritually — one has to talk linguistically.  These are not mere matters of words — to those involved!  Who gives a hoot whether it’s Unitarian or Trinitarian?  Whether 3 in 1, or 1 divided into 3 equal consubstantial and co-eternal parts?
• With all due respect, plus some, to a many of my personal acquaintances, and (former) colleagues — it does make a difference when we have government by executive order and faith-based initiatives from a Prayer-Breakfast “Family” oriented Bush with connections to a worldwide moneylaundering cult who may — or may not — have stolen an election. A US Presidential election.
• If we had all parties who agreed that the Constitution counts MOST, so there’s a little peace in the land — or the potential for it, if the same people could DEAL with the need to make more slaves and profits —  it would not matter.  But that is not the current landscape.    That’s not even the current Supreme Court!

Suppose it was your child?  Many things matter that may seem unimportant at the time.

A little scientific contributions, inbetween arguing with Calvin, breaking out of prison and attempting to find a safe haven, from our 15th century Spaniard.  He is the same person who at least first published (whether or not he discovered) that the blood circulates through the lungs; there is a pulmonary function to them!  In this matter he was also a “dissident.”  Guess it’s habit-forming.

Servetus soon came to differ from Galen in the matter of pulmonary circulation. Galen had supposed aeration of the blood took place in the heart and assigned the lungs a fairly minor function. Servetus, by examining the wall of the heart and noting the size of the pulmonary artery, concluded that transformation of the blood, accomplished by the release of waste gases and the infusion of air, occurred in the lungs. It is not clear whether Servetus or a contemporary, unknown to Servetus, first made this discovery. Servetus was the first to publish. Although he only expressed the new knowledge as a lengthy metaphorical aside in his theological writing, he was the first person to record a modern understanding of pulmonary respiration.

What people who are well-exposed to this scripture can do in their spare time, before execution….

(Thanks to the “Dictionary of Unitarian & Universalist Biography” for the segments on Servetus when I needed a short enough narrative to illustrate the point)

Vocabulary quiz:

RE-LIGION — to Tie Back & Define (to the past).  Burdens populace, fear-motivation (for them, and sometimes, leaders) plus greed.  Slave/master relationship.

SPIRITUALITY — the word is related to the breath:  Inhale/exhale, inhale/exhale; IN with fresh, OUT with stale.  That’s how life is sustained.

Here’s another summary, its viewpoint is clear enough — and a longish excerpt relating to “Socinians” heresy to Servetus, above.  Notice how in the 1600s, it was less fashionable to burn them in public, rather, let them rot in prison was preferred:

English Dissenters — Socinians

Summary

Anti-Trinitarianism was practiced in sixteenth century Europe and was part of the Radical Reformation. It is a heresy of the Church which denies the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, three coequal Persons of One Nature. A number of heretical [i.e. non-official views] of the Trinity have appeared since the early Church.

One such form of anti-Trinitarianism theology was prominent in Sixteenth and Seventeenth century Europe was known as Socinianism. Socinianism is based of the works of Faustus Socinus.

Faustus Socinus (1539-1604) (or Fausto Paolo Sozzini)of Siena (Italy) preached a moderated form of the writings of Michael Servetus (1511-1553), an anti-Trinitarianism theologian, a prominent scientist and physician.

Socinus maintained that there was only God the Father, a single divine being. The Holy Ghost was not a person but a divine force, not God and not coequal to the Father. Jesus Christ was an exceptional man without sin, but not divine. Salvation required a holy life after the example of the man, Jesus Christ. The Scriptures were the only source of truth.

From 1578-79, Socinus attempted to moderate the radical theology of Ferenc David (1510-79) the Unitarian Bishop of Transylvania (Hungary). Upon moving to Krakow, Poland in 1579, Socinus soon found converts to his moderate form of Unitarian theology. He soon took charge of the Polish Brethren, or the Minor Reformed Church that had Anabaptist leanings. Socinus was forced to flee Cracow in 1598 . . .

Summary of the situation:

Anti-Trinitarianism was one of the few heresies that were pursued consistently and vigorously from King Henry VIII to Charles I. There were a number of individuals who suffered death as heretics for their divergent views of the Trinity and of Christ in the eyes of the English Church.

It was under King James I (1603-1625) that public burning of heretics was ended, rather that they would just rot in prison in private. James I had many heretical books burned including a Latin edition of the Racovian catechisme in 1614, a major Unitarian text.

Or The “Biddlerians:” (same source)

John Biddle (1615-1662) and the Biddlians

One of the most prominent figures in the development of English Socinianism in Stuart England was John Biddle (1615-1662) (or Bidle). Biddle is often referred to as the father of English Unitarianism.

Biddle came from a working background. He received some early financial support from Lord Berkeley. Biddle graduated from Magdalen College (Oxford), a B.A. in 1638, and received a M.A. in 1641. He was known for his independence of mind, and scholarship in Greek. Biddle was offered the mastership of the Crypt Free Grammar School at Gloucester in May 1641.

John Biddle was known as a biblical scholar, and became well known for his translations of the Scriptures. In the course of his own scholarly research he became interested in early Church dogma and textual criticism. These studies would led Biddle to reevaluate the current Church theology against his own research based on the earlier Greek and Latin texts of the Scriptures.

Unfortunately for Biddle, he was not discrete about his own research, or his own personal views. In 1644, he was questioned by the local authorities at Gloucester to answer charges brought against him for anti-Trinitarianism views, but he was released on bail. . . .

Biddle than wrote a manuscript entitled: XII Arguments drawn out of the Scriptures (1644) based on his own textual research. Copies of this manuscript fell into the wrong hands and it was traced back to Biddle. These were seized and burned. In 1645, he found himself in jail again, and probably out of a job. Biddle would find himself in and out of prison for most of the rest of his life.

The real crime was independence of thought and challenging authority.  Remember:  Printing press hadn’t been around THAT long . . . .

Parliament had proposed and passed legislation directed at Anti-Trinitarianism heresy punishable by death. The legislation was directed against the growing interest in Socinianism including John Best and John Biddle in particular. Fortunately for Biddle the enforcement of the new legislation lacked any teeth and it soon took a back-seat to the larger political considerations of 1649.

Biddle found solace from 1649-52 in Strattfordshire with friends away from London. Biddle’s translation of The Racovian catechisme (1652) was promptly seized and burned. Biddle was back in prison again.

Many religious prisoners were released under the Act of Oblivion (1651/52) which was passed by Oliver Cromwell. The new legislation provided John Biddle, his friends and others with a new found sense of religious freedom.

These two need balance, but when spirituality is institutionalized, you get religion, which leads back to bondage, and eventually one or another form of murder + martyrs.   I believe that Catholicism and Protestantism need to learn from each other, but have observed, that when they unite, it’s usually against a common enemy, and not with things actually in common.  This keeps the spotlight off their own hypcrisy and, at times, crimes.   And there is definite political motivation in going for the Jesus as God versus a more rational reading of the scriptures.    The excesses of both protestantism and catholicism (whatever those be) in England in the 1500s and 1600s, led to a very fruitful EXODUS.  I’m going to make a difficult point here.

Where did Oliver Cromwell (credited with starting the Irish slave trade and attempted extermination of the population) stand on this theological issue, if he did take theological stances?  Here’s one page of JSTOR on the matter; Here’s a glowing (too “glowing”) account from a “reformation” source..

For a change of pace, a “National Humanities” source, again, very brief summary of the situation:

The Puritans were a varied group of religious reformers who emerged within the Church of England during the middle of the sixteenth century. They shared a common Calvinist theology and common criticisms of the Anglican Church and English society and government. Their numbers and influence grew steadily, culminating in the English Civil War of the 1640s and the rule of Oliver Cromwell in the 1650s. With the restoration of the Stuart monarchy in 1660, Puritanism went into eclipse in England, largely because the movement was identified with the upheaval and radicalism of the Civil War and Cromwell’s tyrannical government, a virtual military dictatorship.

Can you imagine – civil war 1640s, Cromwell’s dictatorship 1650s, and it’s said he needed a guard to process to his funeral, and back to monarchy in the 1660s.  I’m sitting here setting some of the background of the Declaration of Independence, as history stands to repeat itself, this time with new technology available and in the country of the largest per capital jailor in the world, the USA.

But it persisted for much longer as a vital force in those parts of British North America colonized by two groups of Puritans who gradually cut their ties to the Church of England and formed separate denominations. One group, the Congregationalists, settled Plymouth in the 1620s and then Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, and Rhode Island in the 1630s. Another group, the Presbyterians, who quickly came to dominate the religious life of Scotland and later migrated in large numbers to northern Ireland, also settled many communities in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania during the late seventeenth century and throughout the eighteenth century.

Puritans in both Britain and British North America sought to cleanse the culture of what they regarded as corrupt, sinful practices.

{{cf.  Institute for American Values?? and it’s having secret meetings in Kansas recently, to push marriage as the antidote — and not the cause — of poverty, etc.}}

They believed that the civil government should strictly enforce public morality by prohibiting vices like drunkenness, gambling, ostentatious dress, swearing, and Sabbath-breaking. They also wished to purge churches of every vestige of Roman Catholic ritual and practice—the ruling hierarchies of bishops and cardinals, the elaborate ceremonies in which the clergy wore ornate vestments and repeated prayers from a prescribed liturgy. Accordingly, New England’s Congregational churches were self-governing bodies, answerable to no higher authority; mid-Atlantic Presbyterian churches enjoyed somewhat less autonomy because a hierarchy of “presbyteries” and “synods” made up of leading laymen and clergymen set policy for individual congregations. But both Congregationalist and Presbyterian worship services were simple, even austere, and dominated by long, learned sermons in which their clergy expounded passages from the Bible. Perhaps most important, membership in both churches was limited to the “visibly godly,” meaning those men and women who lead sober and upright lives. New England Congregationalists adopted even stricter standards for admission to their churches—the requirement that each person applying for membership testify publicly to his or her experience of “conversion.”

The key word being “membership.”  Good grief….

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/puritan.htm

Puritanism and Predestination

Christine Leigh Heyrman Department of History, University of Delaware

©National Humanities Center

Is this starting to sound familiar yet?  (See Iowa Caucuses…)

The Calvinist’ idea of democracy would spread in America minus the Calvinism. They had to end religious strife so the 13 Colonies could ban[d] together to fight the English Throne. At this time the Episcopal (Anglican) and Calvinist’ Churches were by far the largest while all others including the Baptists and Methodists were very small. (They would explode and dominate later on the American frontier.) . . .

The conflict between secular extremism and the so-called Religious Right (culture wars) versus the intentions of American Founders can only be understood by understanding Calvin and his influence. Neither extreme side today be they secular extremists nor Religious Right represent America of 1776. The American Revolution was based indirectly on both Calvinism and a reaction to it.

Understanding Calvin is to understand the absurdities that have plagued Christianity for the last 150 years. While Christian fundamentalists today reject most Calvinist theology, they demand what I’d call social Calvinism. While most reject Calvin’s “TULIP” they desire his theocracy. They see themselves as the elect chosen by God to rule over all others. Oddly the Calvinist style theological democracy is best illustrated today by the Islamic Republic of Iran, a police state.

What I’ve been pointing out here — that while these groups are great at hating those who differ, one common theme is the desire to DOMINATE.  I am flat-out telling you that this is the Trinitarian way; it cannot accept a human, crucified Jesus hero, who was a rebel and critic of the regimes — how could it?  It also is very intolerant of perceived heresy, to the point of murder.  

he most notorious episode in relation to Calvin was the Servetus murder. Calvin would oversee Dr. Servetus’ death for heresy.

the Servetus Murder

In the end Servetus got the last laugh in theology. The Socinians would greatly influence Unitarians, Deists, and John Locke. All would reject the Trinity and the negative, self-loathing theology of Augustinian Original Sin. It was very easy for man by force of will and choice (with guidance from, not fear of, God) could obtain salvation. Calvin’s theocratic democracy would be stripped of Augustine’s theology. Influenced by John Locke and the European Enlightenment, it would produce the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States.

Senator: Women should not vote

Bristol Herald Courier 9/29/01

The Associated Press

TOPEKA, Kan. – A female state senator says if women’s suffrage were being voted on today she would not support it, because the 19th Amendment was the start of a decades-long erosion of family values.

“I’m an old-fashioned woman, Senator. Kay O’Connor told The Kansas City Star. “Men should take care of women, and if men were taking care of women (today) “we wouldn’t have to vote.”

Delores F[u]rtado, co-president of the Johnson County League of Women Voters, had asked the 59 year-old Republican to the league’s “Celebrate the Right to Vote” luncheon, and O’Connor responded: “You probably wouldn’t want me there because of what I would have to say.”

Furtado said she was shocked by O’Connor’s view. As a state senator, Furtado said, “she is the beneficiary of a system she doesn’t support.”

O’Connor said she does vote. But she said she believes that if men had been protecting the best interests of women, then women would not be forced to cast ballots and serve in the Legislature. Instead, they could stay home, raise families and tend to domestic duties, she said.

The 19th amendment giving all U.S. women the right to vote was ratified in 1920. O’Connor said the amendment began a societal shift that eventually, encouraged women to trade homemaker roles for careers.

As to Cromwell (tolerance is asked for posting pieces and parts — I mean to flag the controversy and relate it to religious intolerance, with or without a monarch).  This is what he did to the Irish  From Conservaopaedia.com (pretty lengthy description of his life, seems more even in tone)

Drogheda

When Drogheda fell to the siege in September 1649, Cromwell’s troops massacred nearly 3,500 people.

Reminds me of 9/11.  Sorry . . . . The number of people who died….

Although this figure comprised around 2,700 royalist soldiers and all the men in the town bearing arms, a concerted propaganda campaign followed which ensured Cromwell was seen as a bloodthirsty tyrant in the national consciousness of Ireland. As recently as the 20th century Irish novelist James Joyce wrote in his novel Ulysses: “What about sanctimonious Cromwell and his ironsides that put the women and children of Drogheda to the sword with the bible text “God is love” pasted round the mouth of his cannon?“.

On September 10-11 his army stormed the town, and killed most of the surviving garrison, which had refused to surrender. Cromwell said that the killing at Drogheda had the goal of encouraging other garrisons to surrender and not fight to the death; indeed it induced some other Irish garrisons to surrender, such as Trim, Ross and Dundalk. In October the garrison at Wexford repulsed Cromwell’s army but was overcome; here again no quarter was given once the garrison refused to surrender, and this time the town was plundered. By the end of the year most of the eastern coast of Ireland was in Cromwell’s hands. Early in 1650 he marched his army inland, ravaging the land and slaughtering the populace regardless of age or sex.

Destroying the power of the Irish Catholics

In 1651 Cromwell’s government adopted a policy of destroying the power of those Irish Catholics who did not become Protestants; they were seen as less than human – dangerous barbarians and potential allies of the Royalists. All Irish landholdings (except in Connacht, which was deemed to be too “barren”) were confiscated, and most of the populace was driven into the wilds of Connacht to die of starvation and pestilence. The proportion of land owned by Catholics fell from 59% in 1641 to 20% in the span of two decades. The goal was to resettle the island with, in his view, more “Godly” Protestants, who were given the best lands, and given near complete control over the remaining Catholics. As a result, the Irish Catholics have hated Cromwell with a passion that continues to this day.

I believe I have posted before on the irish slave trade at this time, from HERE and HERE

Some of which may overlap, but here’s another recounting.  Today, there are different kinds of trafficking going on, and the situation of a woman being freed but her children not sure reminds me of what it’s like attempting to vacate a terrorist marriage, also based (in my case) on religion, and thereafter cause for much deliberation on how supposedly secular sources (like our government, family courts) can produce pretty much the same results, and for profit, too!  You tell me if you have an answer!

A few months later, in 1650, 25,000 Irish were sold to planters in St. Kitt. During the 1650s decade of Cromwell’s Reign of Terror, over 100,000 Irish children, generally from 10 to 14 years old, were taken from Catholic parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In fact, more Irish were sold as slaves to the American colonies and plantations from 1651 to 1660 than the total existing “free” population of the Americas!

But all did not go smoothly with Cromwell’s extermination plan, as Irish slaves revolted in Barbados in 1649. They were hanged, drawn and quartered and their heads were put on pikes, prominently displayed around Bridgetown as a warning to others. Cromwell then fought two quick wars against the Dutch in 1651, and thereafter monopolized the slave trade. Four years later he seized Jamaica from Spain, which then became the center of the English slave trade in the Caribbean.

On 14 August 1652, Cromwell began his Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland, ordering that the Irish were to be transported overseas, starting with 12,000 Irish prisoners sold to Barbados. The infamous “Connaught or Hell” proclamation was issued on 1 May 1654, where all Irish were ordered to be removed from their lands and relocated west of the Shannon or be transported to the West Indies. Those who have been to County Clare, a land of barren rock will understand what an impossible position such an order placed the Irish.

In memory of all those who have died and suffered

as a result of Slavery and the loss of liberty, wherever they came from, may they rest in peace“

Let’s not vote for, or settle for, things that accommodate slavery based on religious views, OK?  Let’s consider letting JUST a few (like up to 50-51%) of women hit the seats of Congress, and how not to require a person to be some sort of millionaire to get there.  Let’s consider the ERA (really!), and then see if for every independent woman, there wouldn’t be another bitter or abandoned woman ready to play #2 and do the dirty work towards biological mother for him (it happens!) Let’s establish some peace around here, and have a little more time for literacy among the rest of the population that isn’t planning the next global perfection (remind me to stop by the San Francisco Praesidio and see “Futures Without Violence” close up….), instead of trying to shove indoctrination down our throats and at our expense about what to believe about men & women.

OK?

And please read this, about the history of Carlism, with which I believe Opus Dei is associated.  I picked up that part of the Bourbon monarchy was opposition to female rulers (see above, John Knox, etc.)

http://opentabernacle.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/carlism-and-the-catholic-right-2/

Carlism is a political philosophy originally developed to help reestablish the Bourbon monarchy in Spain. First emerging as political force in the 1830s, it was primarily a reaction to the increasingly progressive rules of Charles III (1759-1788) and Charles IV (1788-1808), notably the latter’s pressure on the Church to sell its property for government revenue. Similar events continued to created tension between the monarchy and the Church.

As Spain became less theocratic forces such as the Carlists, among others, engaged sometime violent struggles to impose a Bourbon monarchy that would bind the church and state as one. Between the 1830s and the Spanish Civil, five separate Carlists made claims to the Spanish throne (the Carlist label is derived from followers of Don Carlos, son of Carlos IV who initially challenged the non-salic** ascendancy of Isabella II to the Spanish throne in 1833). Its efforts cumulated in the fascist-instigated Civil War lasting from 1936 through 1939.

While there are variations of this political philosophy two of its common hallmarks should stand out to those who are concerned about theocratic trends in the world. First, it sees ultra-orthodox Catholicism as the cornerstone of the state. Secondly, sovereignty is vested not with the people, but with a monarch, who in turn is answerable only to the Catholic Church.  Whether it be full-blown Carlists or those whose political vision is only influenced by it, these are the two commonly held themes that appear in their various pronouncements.

I found the part about “salic law” (new to me — to you?) interesting.  Among other things, it represents opposition to female inheritance or ascendancy to rulership.  Think about King Henry VIII, England, who was somehow not getting those Y chromosomes in place to produce a male heir, and the Anglican church in that context, huh?  It has immense significance.

Wikipedia on this:

Salic law (English pronunciation: /ˈsælɨk/ or /ˈseɪlɨk/; Latin: Lex Salica) or Salian Law was the major body of Frankish law in force governing all the Franks of Frankia under the rule of its kings during the Old Frankish Period, approximately equal to the early Middle Ages. The laws were maintained in written form in the Latin language by a committee empowered by the monarch. Dozens of manuscripts dated from the 8th century of a putative original recension in the 6th century and three surviving emendations as late as the 9th century have survived. Many more did not survive.^[1]

The best known tenet of Salic law is agnatic succession, the rule excluding females from the inheritance of a throne or fief. Indeed, “Salic law” has often been used simply as a synonym for agnatic succession. But the importance of Salic law extends beyond the rules of inheritance, as it is a direct ancestor of the systems of law in many parts of Europe today. . . .

In its use by hereditary monarchies since the 15th century, aiming at agnatic succession, the Salic law is regarded as excluding all females from the succession as well as prohibiting succession rights to transfer through any woman. At least two systems of hereditary succession are direct and full applications of the Salic Law: agnatic seniority and agnatic primogeniture.

 …From the Middle Ages, we have one practical system of succession in cognatic male primogeniture, which actually fulfills apparent stipulations of original Salic law: succession is allowed also through female lines, but excludes the females themselves in favour of their sons. For example, a grandfather, without sons, is succeeded by his grandson, a son of his daughter, when the daughter in question is still alive. Or an uncle, without his own children, is succeeded by his nephew, a son of his sister, when the sister in question is still alive.Strictly seen, this fulfills the Salic condition of “no land comes to a woman, but the land comes to the male sex”.

– – WOW.  I don’t know how to express this, but it seems to have been operational procedure in my own family line (who are not religious).  I did not expect this belief system to come from either a nonreligious or a supposedly well-educated sector of my own family line; i.e., marital status pre-empts character, performance, and other laws — operationally at least.   Listen:

General law

The law of Charlemagne was based on Salic Law, an influence as great as that of Greece and Rome. Through that connection, Salic law has had a formative influence on the tradition of statute law that has extended since then to modern times in Central Europe, especially in the German states, France,Belgium, the Netherlands, parts of Italy, Austria and Hungary, Romania, and the Balkans.

The Salic Law codified inheritance, crime, and murder. In a kingdom with many ethnic groups, each expected to be governed under its own law. The detailed laws established damages to be paid and fines levied in recompense of injuries to persons and damage to goods, e.g., slaves, theft, and unprovoked insults. One-third of the fine paid court costs. Judicial interpretation was by a jury of peers. These laws and their interpretations grant insight to Frankish society; Salic Law establishes that an individual person is legally unprotected by law if he or she does not belong to a family.

Practically speaking this is about how US law is operation, particularly in the family custody realm.  HOWEVER, technically speaking, in THEORY, we have INDIVIDUAL rights in this country (ha, ha, ha!)

The most formative (geo-)political aspect of Salic inheritance law for Europe’s history was its equal division of land amongst all living male children in opposition to primogeniture. This caused not only the break-up of the Carolingian Empire amongst Charlemagne’s grandsons (under the Treaty of Verdun), but many kingdoms during the medieval period

It seems to have degnerated into application whenever there was a need to rule out a certain monarch from taking the throne; accordingly salic law (no women) was in, out, or more rigidly interpreted (this is all still Wikipedia):

In 1328, at latest, the Salic Law needed a further interpretation to forbid not only inheritance by a woman, but inheritance through a female line, in order to bar the male Edward III of England, descendant of French kings through his mother Isabel of France, from the succession. When the Direct Capetian line ended, the law was contested by England, providing a putative motive for the Hundred Years’ War.

Are There American Carlists? Carlism has had varying influence on different members of the Catholic Right. Its truest adherents are found in groups such as Tradition, Family and Property and individuals such as Dr. Alexandra Wilhelmsen. Although not full-blown Carlists or even identifying themselves with the Carlist name, its influence is clearly present in the elitist writings of theoconservatives such as John Neuhaus, Robert H. Bork and to a lesser extent, George Weigel.

Carlism’s influence is also found in varying degrees among Opus Dei members and cooperators It’s founder, Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer was openly Carlist

The first component of the Carlist maxim, “God,” implied an acceptance of the traditional sacral view of society inherited from the Middle Ages and still quite prevalent in Spain throughout the nineteenth century. Carlists advocated a renewed commitment by all branches of the government to Christian beliefs and ethics. The “Dios” of their motto, stemming from a strong Catholic tradition strengthened during the struggle against Islam, carried four main themes: confessionality of the State, religious unity of the nation, close collaboration between Church and State, and independence of the Church.(ii)

These common attitudes of “struggle,” “religious unity” and “church independence”–something more progressive Catholics view as a lack of accountability–are infused into much of the leadership of the more extreme elements of the Catholic Right. They were clearly apparent forty years ago when L. Brent Bozzell roared, “The Catholic Church in America must forthrightly acknowledge that a state of war exists between herself and the American political order” or when Institute on Religion and Democracy Board member John Neuhaus openly questions the legitimacy of American government because of its pluralism and when Robert H. Bork in his book Slouching Towards Gomorrah bemoans Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence. Esoterically, what today’s Carlists or neo-Carlists are saying is that they want a society where even non-Catholics are bound by their subjective, but ultra-orthodox interpretations of Thomistic morality.

. . . The world is hostile to the Church,” he wrote in 1968, “because the world is secularist and the Church must sacramentalize the whole of existence. A sacral world is one with the Faith’s perpetual rejection of Manicheanism and of any dualism that sharpely(sic) divorces the sacred from the profane.” (iv) (emphasis added) Dr. Alexandra Wilhelmsen’s quote is telling for several reasons. First and foremost is her description of Franco’s Nationalist forces, with its Nazi and Fascist benefactors, as “liberators.” But it also illustrates the inconsistency in Carlist-inspired orthodoxy. For example, many in this school, from Donald D’Elia to Romano Guardini to Robert H. Bork–much like their more secular Straussian brethren–warn of Nazi-styled nihilism pervading modern society. Yet in idealizing Franco’s Spain they fail to recognize how both Hitler and Mussolini played vital roles in establishing a Falangist regime on the Iberian penninsula.

 

CLOSING PARAGRAPHS from The FreeRepublic site:

For those who would have Americans bow before monarchs, only the obvious need be stated: we abrogated such loyalties at Yorktown more than two hundred years ago. Similarly, for those who would make us subject to “benign” tyrants, history has demonstrated that there is no such thing. Tyrants by their very nature are far from benign. It is why we stood up to the likes of Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler and Stalin.

But we must once again return to admonition of Jesuit priest Wilfred Parsons: “‘The great tragedy of Spain was that in the nineteenth century the working masses apostatized from the Church, as Pope Plus X once remarked. And, it is well to remember, it was poverty, destitution and injustice which made them apostatize. They got to hate the Church because they hated the friends of the Church, who exploited them and whom the Church did nothing to rebuke or correct.”

Among those hated “friends of the Church” described by Parsons were the Carlists and other pompous plutocrats who place their exalted position on Earth well above the common good. And while many on the Catholic Right are not calling for a return to monarchy, they are influenced by the Carlism’s core notion: a nation answers not to the will of a pluralistic people, but to the will of Vatican law. It is at the heart of George Weigel’s recent declaration, “Europe’s crisis of civilizational morale teaches us that, while there are many lenses through which history can be read, theological lenses help us to see deeper, farther, and more truly.” (vi) When Weigel speaks of “consent” he is more concerned with religious authority than with vox populi.

Unfortunately, Carlism’s American heirs–George Weigel, Thomas Monaghan and John Neuhaus–all believe in a society not built upon the meritocracy of the common citizen, but of one that unjustly gives deference to birthright and privilege. If they were ever to succeed it would end the noble experiment of American democracy as generations have known it. Then the last best hope for mankind would take a giant step back into the Dark Ages.

And that is just what the Carlists want.

(phew — now this post is done!  FYI, they take sometimes a full day to pull together.  I don’t like just requoting the obvious; obviously, I like to report on what have found, and supplement by finding some more at the same time.  Current goal is 24 posts in 24 days (for January) and after that, another form of communication — or another form of life which isn’t all “advocacy” focused.