Thursday, August 29, 2019

Chesterton and Belloc were NOT Socialists: A Takedown of Timothy Gordon

"Chesterton and Belloc had strong ties to FABIAN SOCIALISM, which the Church condemned time and again." - Timothy Gordon

Chesterton quotes to the contrary:

Apparently, some people have credulously believed Mr. Gordon's accusations about Chesterton's alleged Socialism. Below, I'll be providing quotes by Chesterton to help Mr. Gordon understand how GK renounced and repudiated Socialism all throughout his career. Cheers!

"If Socialism means anything, it seems to mean Modernism; in the sociological as distinct from the theological sense. In both senses, it is generally a euphemism for muddle-headedness."

"I consider that in man there is a natural desire to own, and that Socialism, since it fails to gratify that desire, will be intolerable to the mass of men." 

"Collectivism is not a word to wake men up. Liberty is. If you want the workingman to fight for progress you must offer him the thing for which he fights best, his own honour and his own home."  

"The advantage of Socialism would be that, if the State were supreme everywhere, it could see everybody had enough money & comfort. The disadvantage of Socialism would be that if the State were supreme everywhere, it might easily become a tyrant, as it's been again & again." 

"Socialism, like teetotalism, is a desperate remedy; that is, it is only a defensible remedy if it is the only remedy. I do not believe it is the only remedy."

"What it is worthwhile to point out, first & last, is that Socialism is a tyranny; that it is inevitably, even avowedly and almost justifiably, a tyranny. It is the pretense that government can prevent all injustice by being directly responsible for anything that happens."

"If the collective economic power is not strong enough to tyrannize, it is not strong enough to do anything that a Socialist wants it to do. If it has not power enough to commit injustice it has not power enough to prevent injustice."

"I believe there are some people who say that they want Socialism, but do not want bureaucracy. Such persons I leave in simple despair."

"Some people look forward to a splendid transformation of the general human soul. That is a good argument for accepting Socialism — and when one comes to think of it, an even better reason for doing without it."

"Socialism is not polygamous, is not Catholic, and is not democratic. Socialism is simply the proposal that the Government, instead of taxing all property equally or unequally, should secure all property, and distribute it equally or unequally."

"Socialism would not touch co-operation with a barge-pole. Co-operation is a term we use for the voluntary and mostly temporary help between independent agents...Co-operation is a thing almost peculiar to places where many people have private property."

"The Socialist isn't wrong because he realizes things have been lawlessly scattered. The Socialist is wrong because he wants to sweep up all the scattered things into one monstrous heap in the marketplace instead of putting them back in their proper places all over the town"

"The very word Socialist has come very near to meaning merely Sentimentalist. It means a man not bold and logical enough to call himself a Communist."       

"The nearest men will ever get to Internationalism is Imperialism; just as the nearest they will ever get to the Socialist State is the Servile State."

"I sometimes fancy every Socialist is a Fabian at heart; or even a Prussian at heart. The Fabian faith is that a worker always has a right to employment. It does not even ask if he ever has a right to unemployment."

"I fancy that even slave-owners only regarded slavery as a necessary evil. But Socialists do not regard property as a necessary evil; indeed, they regard it as the very reverse of a necessary evil. They regard it as an impossible good." 

"Distributism may be a dream, but it is not a sleep, or a cause of sleep, like the word Socialism." 

"Socialism is the very reverse of social."

"There is no freedom for a man except in some sort of private ownership of things like water and fire. If he owned his own well his water could never be cut off, and while he sits by his own fire his pipe can never be put out. That is the real meaning of property, and the real argument against Socialism; probably the only argument against Socialism."      

"The Marxian Socialist says that mental states come only from material conditions. To which I reply that his material conditions are bad by his own account, and therefore his mental conclusions are wrong by his own argument."

"What Nietzsche said of Christianity, what was emphatically not true of Christianity, actually is true of Marxian materialism. It is a slave morality; a protest against particular authorities made by the spirit of slavery, and not by the spirit of liberty."  

"Marxian materialism, by its own moral theory, works for enlightenment rather than emancipation. Its enlightenment is not meant to make men free, but to make them realize the impossibility of freedom."

"In short, there cannot admittedly be political equality in the Socialist State, even if there is economic equality. Even if we have abolished aristocracy and plutocracy, there can still be bureaucracy; and perhaps a particularly bullying bureaucracy."

"The Socialist critic commonly proceeds directly to denounce Capitalism without defining property. This is very much as if a man set out to denounce Mormonism without having heard of marriage."

"Socialists assume that private property was never anything but a sort of crude capitalistic luxury; and they are very much startled when they collide with the peasant and find the strongest sense of property is not found in the world of luxury, but in the world of poverty."

"A Socialist State cannot allow opposition, because a Socialist State cannot ALLOW anything. It is the whole point of it that it produces everything, possesses everything, and is directly responsible for everything."

"My objection to a Socialist State is that it would do hurt to certain dignities of human nature which must not be destroyed; that it would certainly rob the peasant; that it would probably persecute the priest; that it would make democracy a dream & government a nightmare."

"What the Socialist does not understand is that there is a field of operations which must be independent, because it is incommunicable. A peasant will not report to a County Council exactly what he going to do with his own house or field, any more than an artist will report exactly what he is going to do with his unfinished story or statue."    

"Socialism means that the ordinary man cannot be trusted with private property, because he will waste it or grab too much of it."

"I do not condemn Communism because it is violent and revolutionary. I condemn Communism because it is false. I condemn it because it is an erroneous ethical theory of the normal life of man."

"If Communism were brought about by invisible gradations like the growth of an ancient tree, it would still be false. If it were lawfully established by the King, Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled it would still be false."

"I think Trade Unionism and even Socialism, left to themselves, very likely go to sleep or sing the world to sleep. I think nothing but Distributism is in the least likely to wake it up."   

"The worst that can be said of Communism is that it is a possibility. And perhaps the best that can be said for it is that it is an impossibility."

"What the peasant has is exactly what the Individualist never has and the Socialist never has: common sense."

"The Marxian talks as if the only object of saving people from sufferings inflicted by “the blind forces of capitalism” was that those people should have material consumption and material security. It is not; it is that they should have life, and have it more abundantly." 

"The evil should not be called Bolshevism but Marxism; or perhaps a particular policy founded on the materialism of Marx."

"We do not primarily resist Communism because we could not have free soup served out to everybody in a large fish-kettle and a long ladle; but because we could not have at the same time free soup and free souls."

"Mr. Bernard Shaw [as a Socialist] proposes to distribute wealth. We [Distributists] propose to distribute power."

"Socialism is as workable a scheme as any other mere scheme that is only meant, in this narrow sense, to work. Socialism is not impossible. Only intolerable. It is intolerable for a reason the Roman poet put in two words: INSTANS TYRANNUS."

"It is not true, as all Socialism assumes it to be true, that the State is the only thing that has moral authority. Even more ultimate & moral than the State, in our view, are 3 things: the Family, the Church, & the sane & normal human conscience, which is the voice of God."

"Nothing has any authority except the State; not even the Soul. That is the heresy of Socialism."       

"It is our [the Distributists] whole thesis that, on the day when the State absorbs all normal private property, the State will be a thief….That is the real quarrel between the Distributist and the Communist." 

"It is the whole nightmare simplification of Communism to turn humanity into a huge centipede, which can only walk one way; which 'moveth all together, if it move at all.'" 

"Communism has not saved Russia; but if it did, it would not save it by letting the workers own the State. Its whole point is exactly the contrary; it would do it by making the State own the workers...exactly as the State owned its own special slaves in Pagan antiquity." 

"There is now a false idealism of turning Government into God, by a vague notion that it gives everything to everybody; to the denial of the liberty give by God, which is called life."

"Social idealism is often actually Satanic; in the quite cold and rational sense that it claims to be the Creator." 

"We all know that the Socialists, or at least the more solid sort of Socialists who have since hardened into Communists, found their scientific basis in something that was called the Economic Theory of History. I could best sum up my own view of it by saying that I hold the flatly contrary theory; which might fairly be called the Historical Theory of Economics." 

"The true, full and final argument against Communism is that private property is much more important than private enterprise. A pickpocket represents private enterprise, but we should hardly say that he supports private property."

Dear Mr. Timothy Gordon, please take a gander at these anti-Socialist, anti-Communist, anti-Fabian, anti-Marxist Chesterton quotes (which flatly contradict your accusations), and then, please, calmly reconsider your opinion on the Socialism of Distributism. —Editor

Belloc Quotes to the contrary: 

"It is not an accident that Communism should produce wholesale massacre, arson, torture, and the destruction of all lovely things. A perverse theory produces perverse acts. The story has been told over and over again but it can never be told too often."

"I say that men attempting to achieve Collectivism or Socialism as the remedy for the evils of the Capitalist State find themselves drifting not towards a Collectivist State at all, but towards a Servile State." 

"Socialism cannot possibly succeed, because it is founded upon nonsense. Its fundamental doctrine — the doctrine that men do not desire to own and do not normally own and are not more thoroughly men when they own — is a contradiction of basic human experience."

"The short-cut to the relief of humanity from Industrial Capitalism is Socialism, that is, the denial of Private Property, especially in the means of production. So the short-cut out of an unhappy marriage is divorce. So the short-cut out of an unhappy life is suicide."

"The attitude of the Socialist, or, as he's logically become, the Communist, with his well-worn argument of inevitability, is rooted in a wrong conception of what men are, supported by a wrong conception of the historical process reached by putting events in the wrong order."

"Communism, even as a theory, denies the most elementary right of mankind: the right of choice, the right of ordering one's own life." 

"Communism is wicked in its action because IT IS EVIL IN ITS MOTIVE & DRIVING POWER. Behind the whole thing is hatred of human traditions, chief of which is the tradition of worship of God, and of revealed morals & natural religion, which are the best inheritance of mankind." 

"Communism, I say, began with massacre! That must be carefully remembered. IT BEGAN WITH MASSACRE. Massacre was not an unfortunate outburst, the result of its establishment; it was the preliminary and most heartfelt spontaneous expression of its spirit." 

"Communism BEGAN with massacre in Russia, in Hungary, and quite recently in Spain. The 2nd point is this: the massacre was not primarily nor mainly a massacre of those who exploited the proletariat. It was mainly, as a beginning, a massacre of men & women devoted to religion."

"But Communism did not only begin everywhere with massacre, it does not only begin everywhere by drawing up a list of victims to be murdered wholesale & without trial, it CONTINUES the habit; it lives by terror & by mass-killing. It reposes upon the terror of blind violence."

"The connection between the Communist theory and vast indiscriminate bloodshed, torture, burning and the rest, is this: that Communism proposes an imposition by force of something repulsive to the spirit of man."

"To take up a remedy for a disease, which remedy is worse than the disease itself, is mere folly. To settle your anger at an injustice by committing a murder is a moral insanity. To fly to Communism as a cure for Capitalism is an action of that kind."

"Communism is a false remedy to the evils Capitalism has brought upon us. We've seen it's a false remedy; but there are two other things about it all important for us to understand. The first is that it's evil—not a mere economic theory, but a moral theory & wicked one."

"The one barrier to the spread of Socialism (Communism) over Christendom from its Russian centres has been the Catholic Church." 

"The Socialist ideal, in conflict with and yet informing the body of Capitalism, produces a third thing very different from the Socialist ideal — to wit, the Servile State."

Source: Tweet Thread

Saturday, August 17, 2019

Jim Goad is to Prudence what Ben Shapiro is to Empathy

I asked him for an interview/conversation and grandpa proved he's off his meds.

He somehow believes he’s actually accomplished something with his six figure book deals. 
 >I’m a martyr, don’t talk to me about....bla bla bla.

Starts here
muh consequences
the end (kinda)

Note. I’m not saying I’ve accomplished something equal to or more than Mr. Goad. I’m just not as delusional to think I can be by being a dissident. Screw politics. It’s a hill I’m not willing to die on.

Well, that’s that. The face-full courageous hero has no money. And this is supposed to convince me to follow in his footsteps? No thanks. Me likes luxury. *eats dinner.

He wanted it.

This is not an attack on Jim Goad. It's so people don't ruin their lives in order to prove how courageous they are. I actually like him and some of the conversations he's had.


Tuesday, August 13, 2019

Can a Married Man be Ordained to the Priesthood if His Wife Consents?

Thou art a priest forever

This question was occasioned by a verse in the Summa of St. Thomas that reads as a summary, the part underlined being of particular importance below:
“The fact that a true marriage exists does not necessarily bar a man from sacred orders. If the wife dies, or if she freely consents to release her husband permanently from the marital obligation, the husband can be ordained; he receives with his ordination to subdeaconship the obligation of perfect and perpetual celibacy.” Tour of the Summa, Msgr Glenn, p. 426
So the obvious question is: is this something that the church allows? Two things must be cleared up first, there is a difference between 1) clergy being able to marry and 2) married men being able to be ordained. These are not the same; one is allowed by the church, the other is not. An objection may occur here to the effect: “but cannot the church release one from the obligation to clerical celibacy in order to marry?" Yes, and the Church can release one from the obligation of the marriage bond in order to be ordained. In neither case can the Church remove the effects of the sacrament. If a priest is allowed to marry, he forfeits the rights of the clergy, but is still a priest. If a married man is allowed to be ordained while his wife lives, the marriage bond is not severed. Also, the obvious difference is the Church allows married men to become priests and retain the use of the marriage right; she never allows men already ordained to marry and retain the use of the clerical right. Further Reading: Cardinal Stickler, The Case for Clerical Celibacy

That tangent aside, I will attempt to prove the following thesis:
The Church allows married men to become priests even if their wife lives, if the wife freely consents, since the marriage bond is not an impediment of divine law, but of Church law. In normal times a dispensation from the Holy See is commonly taught as being needed, however in these times of sedevacante, one has not the possibility of appealing the Vatican, and therefore, such an ordination is still possible, licitly and validly, if all the proper precautions are taken.
First, the dogmatic teaching of the Church on Marriage and Orders.
Orders defined:
"Is the Sacrament of the New Law through which spiritual power is given over and grace is conferred for performing or confecting the Eucharist and for rightly attending to other ecclesiastical duties."  Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology, Vol 2. 350-1
Marriage defined:
as an Act: "the legitimate compact between a man and a woman, conferring on themselves the mutual, perpetual, and exclusive right both to acts which are of themselves proper for the generation of children and of participation in a common life." Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology, Vol 2. 365-6
as a State: "the marital union of man and of woman, retaining the companionship of an undivided life....consists in a bond which is of itself permanent". Ibid.
The Ministers, Matter and Form of each Sacrament:  Jone Moral Theology, pg. 448
Orders: Minister – "The Ordinary minister is a consecrated bishop." Matter - " the first imposition of hands of the bishops..." Form – "...consists of the words of the Preface..." (Sacramentum Ordinis)


Minister - The matter is much more convoluted, I will quote at length: Sacrae Theologiae Summa, pg 190
208. The ministers of the sacrament of matrimony are the contracting parties, since they are the ones who apply the form to the matter. The priests is required by the Church as a qualified witness, and one that is necessary. Therefore, for the baptized a civil marriage is invalid, because Christ, raising matrimony to the dignity of a sacrament, committed every matrimonial contract to the Church, and it is her right to attach conditions to it for the sake of validity. But the Church requires that a priest be present as a witness to the contract; to do that he must have the necessary jurisdiction, either on his own right or delegated. However, in a case in which no priest is present for a long time, the Church accepts as sufficient and competent witness some official who, according to the civil law, in (sic) required for a valid matrimonial contract.....Pius XII said: In matrimony “the spouses are the ministers of grace for each other” Footnote 36: In some sense the priests can be said to be the minister of matrimony, surely not the minister of the matrimonial contract or of the sacrament or matrimony, but of the solemnity of marriage.
Commentary: It is clear that the minister(s) of the sacrament are the couple.
Form - "the proximate matter is the giving of this right (conjugal) to the other; the form is the receiving of this right from the other." Outlines of Moral Theology, Connell, pg 225
Summary of Ministers: the minister of marriage is the couple themselves, the minister of orders is the ordaining bishop. This part of the sacrament is most important for our discussion, so I summarize it here.

Second, impediments to orders. (Impediments to marriage abound, but they do not concern us here, since this question presupposes a valid marriage.) {All canons are from the 1917 code}

Canon 983-991. lists them in two categories: 1) irregularities and 2) simple impediments. Two types of irregularities exist, those by defect and those by delict (crime).

Examples: irregularities by defect – illegitimacy, public or occult, unless legitimatized by marriage or by solemn profession, bigamists, epileptics, judges who pass a death sentence. (Canon 984).
Note} All traditional priests would agree that since divorce and marriage is so common, illegitimacy no longer holds as a defect requiring dispensation, because the possibility of scandalizing Catholics by ordaining a bastard child is no longer relevant due to cultural shifts. As with slaves (see below).
Irregularities by delict (crime) – apostates, those who perpetrate voluntary homicide, clerics who perform surgery if death arises therefrom. (Canon 985).

Simple Impediments: neophytes, slaves strictly speaking, men having wives. (Canon 987).
Irregularities are defined as
“...a perpetual disqualification capable of directly and primarily forbidding the receiving of ecclesiastical orders and, as an effect of this, the use of the latter, established by positive law.....This definition indicates that an irregularity does not invalidate the receptions of orders; that it can cease only by dispensation; that it is indivisible and excludes the disqualified person from every order in the hierarchy....; not a penalty.” An irregularity does not prevent the exercise of jurisdiction."
As opposed to impediments:
“In contrast to irregularities, the impediments are temporary, but for the time that they impede the reception or the exercise of orders, their effect is the same as that of irregularities.” The Sacred Canons, Abbo/Hannan, Vol. 2 pg. 119
“Irregularities pertain to the lawful, not valid reception of orders”. Legislation on the Sacraments, Ayrinhac, pg. 358
An example will suffice to explain: if I eat an apple off my neighbor's tree without asking, this is a valid act of eating, for I am truly eating, but it is illicit, and therefore sinful, because I lack the permission to eat it. If I eat my own apples off my own tree, I eat validly and licitly. Applied to the sacraments, if I receive orders without the requisite study for instance, I receive validly but illicitly; however, if I submit to the process as approved by the Church completely, I receive orders validly and licitly.

It is truly possible that a man receive valid orders, that is, that he be truly a priests, that he sinned in doing so. For instance, the Orthodox Eastern Schismatics, sin when they confect the sacraments.

In summary:
“An irregularity is a permanent obstacle to holy orders, or to the exercise of orders already received. A simple impediment, on the other hand, is a temporary obstacle. Hence, irregularities can removed only be dispensation, whereas an impediment can cease of itself.”
“Irregularities arising from defect are those which have their source in some defect in the candidate, which while not incriminating in nature, yet impedes or lessens one's usefulness in the sacred ministry. What these defects are we shall see directly. It must be noted that a dispensation from such irregularity is reserved to the Holy See.”
“Irregularities ex delicto arise from certain specified crimes of such enormous nature that discredit to the clerical state in general would result if a man guilty of one of these crimes were promoted to orders, or permitted to continue the exercise of the sacred ministry. Irregularities from crime may be public or occult depending upon whether the crime itself is public or occult. From public irregularities ex delicto the Holy See alone dispense. From occult irregularities, even outside urgent cases, the bishop,....may dispense. In urgent cases of occult irregularities ex delicto any confessor may dispense but only to the extent of permitting the exercise of orders already received....” Manual of Canon Law, Ramstein, pg 433-4
So now that the definitions and the impediments have been mentioned, let's look at two in particular.
Canon 984.1 – Irregular by defect – illegitimate ones.
Canon 987.2 – Simply impeded – men having wives.
But our focus is the latter, so what does the Church teach?
“But if the wife consents to his studying for the priesthood, a dispensation from the Holy See can be requested.” Manual of Canon Law, Ramstein, pg 433-4
“Whatever releases a man from the bond of matrimony release him from this impediment. A dispensation from the impediment may be granted by the Holy See if the wife gives free consent and provides adequate assurance that she will leave him in peace, especially if she herself seeks a dispensation for admission into a religious novitiate.” The Sacred Canons, Abbo/Hannan, Vol. 2 pg. 136
The consent of the wife must be freely given, and she must, moreover, herself enter the religious state, if she is not yet advanced in years, and make profession there, to enable the husband to receive higher orders....But if she is of advanced age, say past fifty, she may remain in the world, provided she takes the simple vow of chastity, and provided also the husband is not suspected of incontinency. The Holy Office refused to dispense a man of thirty-six who appeared to have all the necessary qualifications for the clerical state because his wife could not enter the religious state, there being no convent in that country....if the decision is favorable, the wife must make a simple vow of chastity. Canon Law Commentary, Charles Augustine, Vol. 4, pg. 498
So it seems the question is in the affirmative: it is possible for a married man to be validly and licitly ordained to the priesthood if his wife consents, provided all the necessary conditions and precautions are met. However, this leaves us the last problem to solve: a dispensation from the Holy See seems to be required, or mentioned as being required. But there is no Holy See practically speaking in which to appeal to, what to do?
Special note on this question during sedevacante.
Pope Pius XII

I will develop the argument as follows: marriage is conferred by the spouses, and it is an impediment to orders by positive Church law, not divine law. This is clear from the praxis of the Easterns. Thereby, just as the spouses can dispense themselves mutually from partaking of the marriage right (Josephine marriage), so can they perhaps dispense themselves from the impediments of the religious state or the priesthood. The questions of irregularities and impediments, as has been proved, is not a question of the validly of orders. A married man who attempts ordination without his wife's consent would be ordained validly, it seems. Yet this would be a sacrilege, a mortal sin and a crime against canon law.
The law of Epikeya is king in these times of universal mayhem. Below is an explanation:
"By epikeya is meant a benign interpretation of the mind of the lawgiver to the effect that he does not intend the law to bind under the present difficult circumstances, e.g. to abandon a person who is seriously ill in order to attend Sunday Mass.
"Although both epikeya and dispensation differ in this respect that the first interprets while the second suspends the law, they agree, on the other hand, in this that both rest upon the principle of natural equity. For equity has been defined to mean: the correction of that wherein the law by reason of its universality is found deficient.
In the use of epikeya three rules will be found helpful:
1) Epikeia is restricted in its effects to the internal forum, namely, to render licit what would otherwise be sinful; but its effects cannot reach the external forum, e.g. to remove a deriment marriage impediment.
2) Epikeia cannot the invoked if the superior with dispensing faculties can be approached without grave inconvenience. The reason is that epikeia is an extraordinary, while a dispensation is an ordinary method of seeking relief. But it is unlawful to have recourse to extraordinary means when ordinary means are at hand.
3) Epikeia can neither be invoked if a declaration of exemption can be had from the confessor. The reason is that human nature inclines us too readily to seek exemptions where none in reality exist. Manual of Canon Law, Ramstein, pg 122
Yet what regards the internal forum vs the external forum?

“preaching the gospel, administration of sacraments, conducting of public worship, granting dispensations in occult cases......public impediments are removed in the external forum. This simply means that public record of the act should be kept.” Manual of Canon Law, Ramstein, pg 163
Occult simply means not known publicly. Since marriage is a public act of the Church, it would seem that such a dispensation to ordination would be a public matter. Yet, the matter does not involve a dispensation from marriage, since no human can dispense from marriage, it regards a dispensation from the Church's own law.
Let's assume that marriage is a public impediment: it simply means a public record of the nature of the impediment should be kept, along with a dispensation. However, if occult, no such problem presents itself. So it seems that this impediment can be dispensed by traditional priests using epikeya.
What God hath joined....
A few examples, it is forbidden without jurisdiction: to hear confessions, preach, say mass, confect the sacraments outside danger of death, consecrate bishops without a papal mandate, found schools, convents, religious orders, seminaries, receive vows, or study the theology part of seminary studies except in a school founded for that purposes by the competent authority, all subject to the Code.

But traditional priests undertake all these activities routinely, in light of the supreme law of the Church: the salvation of souls.
And so in these times of the Great Apostasy, the sacraments are needed by the faithful more than ever, and in such light, it would seem eminently reasonable that the Church would dispense in certain rare cases, men who meet the qualifications to be ordained, with the exception of being married, assuming the proper precautions were taken, taking into account each case individually, avoiding scandal. {I don't see any other possible conclusion.}
Note to avoid scandal: this article was written by layman formally unversed in canon law, theology or sacramental discipline. It does not purport to settle any issues in anyway, as it cannot. The course of action to take if a concrete case presented itself would be to consult a priest with such knowledge, and to be guided by Holy Prudence. Opposing view points on this are welcome; sources to the contrary are helpful and appreciated. THIS ARTICLE SHOULD NOT BE SEEN AS AN ATTACK ON CLERICAL CELIBACY, WHICH THE AUTHOR(S) OF THIS BLOG THOROUGHLY CONDEMN!