Letter from Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

(Part I of III)

When We received you in audience on last September 11 at Castel Gandolfo, We let you freely express your position and your desires, even though the various aspects of your case were already well known to Us personally. The memory that We still have of your zeal for the faith and the apostolate, as well as of the good you have accomplished in the past at the service of the church, made Us and still makes Us hope that you will once again become an edifying subject in full ecclesial communion. After the particularly serious actions that you have performed, We have once more asked you to reflect before God concerning your duty.

We have waited a month. The attitude to which your words and acts publicly testify does not seem to have changed. It is true that We have before Us your letter of September 16, in which you affirm: “A common point unites us: the ardent desire to see the cessation of all the abuses that disfigure the church. How I wish to collaborate in this salutary work, with Your Holiness and under Your authority, so that the church may recover her true countenance.”

How must these few words to which your response is limited—and which in themselves are positive—be interpreted? You speak as if you have forgotten your scandalous words and gestures against ecclesial communion—words and gestures that you have never retracted! You do not manifest repentance, even for the cause of your suspension a divinis. You do not explicitly express your acceptance of the authority of the Second Vatican Council and of the Holy See—and this constitutes the basis of the problem—and you continue in those personal works of yours which the legitimate authority has expressly ordered you to suspend. Ambiguity results from the duplicity of your language. On Our part, as We promised you, We are herewith sending you the conclusion of Our reflections.

1. In practice you put yourself forward as the defender and spokesman of the faithful and of priests “torn apart by what is happening in the church,” thus giving the sad impression that the Catholic faith and the essential values of tradition are not sufficiently respected and lived in a portion of the people of God, at least in certain countries. But in your interpretations of the facts and in the particular role that you assign yourself, as well as in the way in which you accomplish this role, there is something that misleads the people of God and deceives souls of good will who are justly desirous of fidelity and of spiritual and apostolic progress.

Deviations in the faith or in sacramental practice are certainly very grave, wherever they occur. For a long period of time they have been the object of Our full doctrinal and pastoral attention. Certainly one must not forget the positive signs of spiritual renewal or of increased responsibility in a good number of Catholics, or the complexity of the cause of the crisis: the immense change in today’s world affects believers at the edge of their being, and renders ever more necessary apostolic concern for those “who are far away.”

But it remains true that some priests and members of the faithful mask with the name “conciliar” those personal interpretations and erroneous practices that are injurious, even scandalous, and at times sacrilegious. But these abuses cannot be attributed either to the Council itself or to the reforms that have legitimately issued therefrom, but rather to a lack of authentic fidelity in their regard. You want to convince the faithful that the proximate cause of the crisis is more than a wrong interpretation of the Council and that it flows from the Council itself.

Moreover, you act as if you had a particular role in this regard. But the mission of discerning and remedying the abuses is first of all Ours; it is the mission of all the bishops who work together with Us. Indeed We do not cease to raise our Voice against these excesses: Our discourse to the consistory of last May 21 repeated this in clear terms. More than anyone else We hear the suffering of distressed Christians, and We respond to the cry of the faithful longing for faith and the spiritual life. This is not the place to remind you, brother, of all the acts of Our pontificate that testify to Our constant concern to ensure for the church fidelity to the true tradition, and to enable her with God’s grace to face the present and future.

Finally, your behavior is contradictory. You want, so you say, to remedy the abuses that disfigure the church; you regret that authority in the church is not sufficiently respected; you wish to safeguard authentic faith, esteem for the ministerial priesthood and fervor for the eucharist in its sacrificial and sacramental fullness. Such zeal would, in itself, merit our encouragement, since it is a question of exigencies which, together with evangelization and the unity of Christians, remain at the heart of Our preoccupations and of Our mission.

But how can you at the same time, in order to fulfill this role, claim that you are obliged to act contrary to the recent Council in opposition to your brethren in the episcopate, to distrust the Holy See itself—which you call the “Rome of the neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendency”—and to set yourself up in open disobedience to Us? If you truly want to work “under Our authority,” as you affirm in your last private letter, it is immediately necessary to put an end to these ambiguities and contradictions.

2. Let us come now to the more precise requests which you formulated during the audience of September 11. You would like to see recognized the right to celebrate Mass in various places of worship according to the Tridentine rite. You wish also to continue to train candidates for the priesthood according to your criteria, “as before the Council,” in seminaries apart, as at Ecône. But behind these questions and other similar ones, which We shall examine later on in detail, it is truly necessary to see the intricacy of the problem: and the problem is theological. For these questions have become concrete ways of expressing an ecclesiology that is warped in essential points.

What is indeed at issue is the question—which must truly be called fundamental—of your clearly proclaimed refusal to recognize in its whole, the authority of the Second Vatican Council and that of the pope. This refusal is accompanied by an action that is oriented towards propagating and organizing what must indeed, unfortunately, be called a rebellion. This is the essential issue, and it is truly untenable.

Is it necessary to remind you that you are Our brother in the episcopate and moreover—a fact that obliges you to remain even more closely united to the See of Peter—that you have been named an assistant at the papal throne? Christ has given the supreme authority in his Church to Peter and to the apostolic college, that is, to the Pope and to the college of bishops una cum Capite.

In regard to the pope, every Catholic admits that the words of Jesus to Peter determine also the charge of Peter’s legitimate successors: “…whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” (Mt 16:19); “…feed my sheep” (Jn 21:17); “…confirm your brethren” (Lk 22:32). And the First Vatican Council specified in these terms the assent due to the sovereign pontiff: “The pastors of every rank and of every rite and the faithful, each separately and all together, are bound by the duty or hierarchical subordination and of true obedience, not only in questions of faith and morals, but also in those that touch upon the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world. Thus, by preserving the unity of communion and of profession of faith with the Roman pontiff, the church is a single flock under one pastor. Such is the doctrine of Catholic truth, from which no one can separate himself without danger for his faith and his salvation” (Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 3, DZ 3060).

Concerning bishops united with the sovereign pontiff, their power with regard to the universal church is solemnly exercised in the ecumenical councils, according to the words of Jesus to the body of the apostles: “…whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Mt 18:18). And now in your conduct you refuse to recognize, as must be done, these two ways in which supreme authority is exercised.

Each bishop is indeed an authentic teacher for preaching to the people entrusted to him that faith which must guide their thoughts and conduct and dispel the errors that menace the flock. But, by their nature, “the charges of teaching and governing…cannot be exercised except in hierarchical communion with the head of the college and with its members” (Constitution Lumen Gentium, 21; cf. also 25). A fortiori, a single bishop without a canonical mission does not have in actu expedito ad agendum, the faculty of deciding in general what the rule of faith is or of determining what tradition is. In practice you are claiming that you alone are the judge of what tradition embraces.

You say that you are subject to the Church and faithful to tradition by the sole fact that you obey certain norms of the past that were decreed by the predecessor of him to whom God has today conferred the powers given to Peter. That is to say, on this point also, the concept of “tradition” that you invoke is distorted.

To be continued...

Briefly...

I have no intention for the foreseeable future to involve myself in discussions pertaining to a common incendiary August issue until those who regularly virtue signal on it respond honestly and completely to the ethical challenge issued in the link below.

Here is just a few small samples, click on the aforementioned link below for more...

The kernel or germ of this ethical challenge can be found in the very first thread Imo ever published on this subject about fifteen years ago. It was an offhand comment on my part at the time and I certainly have in mind a more developed version of it at this time...

...

At some point, the addict needs to seek treatment for their addiction or it will do them in. Likewise, those who return to this subject again and again need some kind of treatment for both rational as well as spiritual reasons. So to aid in that manner, an ethical challenge will be extended to those with the guts to take it up...

...

To set up the intention of this posting, it is necessary to encapsulate in a syllabus format, various facts on the subject...I will not undertake anew the defense of any of these points as they have been often written on and more than adequately sustained by your host in years past. It is not my fault that they have been regularly ignored by the (at best) vincibly ignorant but that is neither here nor there...[Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa August 16, 2020)]

Points to Ponder:

Such persons expend all their effort in seeking spiritual pleasure and consolation; they never tire therefore, of reading books; and they begin, now one meditation, now another, in their pursuit of this pleasure which they desire to experience in the things of God. But God, very justly, wisely and lovingly, denies it to them, for otherwise this spiritual gluttony and inordinate appetite would breed in numerable evils. It is, therefore, very fitting that they should enter into the dark night, whereof we shall speak, that they may be purged from this childishness.

These persons who are thus inclined to such pleasures have another very great imperfection, which is that they are very weak and remiss in journeying upon the hard road of the Cross; for the soul that is given to sweetness naturally has its face set against all self-denial, which is devoid of sweetness. [St. John of the Cross: Excerpt from The Dark Night of the Soul on Spiritual Gluttony, Book I (circa ante-1582)]

 Latin Mass Hysteria 

Points to Ponder: 

(From the Archives)

[Vladimir] Soloviev was one day a guest at a monastary and had talked very late with a pious monk. Wishing to return to his cell, he went into the corridor onto which opened cell doors all exactly similar, and all shut. In the dark, he could not identify the door of his own cell. Impossible, on the other hand, in this dark, to return to the cell of the monk he had just left. Nor did he wish to disturb anyone at night during the strict monastic silence. So the philosopher resigned himself to spending the night walking slowly, absorbed in his thoughts, up and down the corridor of the monastery suddenly become inhospitable, mysterious. The night was long and tiring. But finally, it was over. And the first rays of dawn allowed the philosopher to identify without difficulty the door to his cell, in front of which he had passed so many times without recognition. And Soloviev commented "It is often like this for those who seek truth. They pass quite close to her during their vigils without seeing her until a ray of sunlight..." Had I a single critical remark to make, I would say that the philosophers who I have known believe they opened the door in their youth, and by no means resign themselves to wait for the light. [Pope Paul VI to Jean Guitton: Taken From Dialogues of Paul VI with Jean Guitton by Jean Guitton (c. 1966)]

I will have my own response on Traditionis Custodes ready for publication soon but in the meantime, here is Pope Francis responding to his critics.

Bill Maher is on point here and not just about the Olympics.

Prayers for the eternal repose of Fr Angel Sotelo.

Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei. 🙏🏻❤️🕊

Points to Ponder:

These persons likewise find it irksome when they are commanded to do that wherein they take no pleasure. Because they aim at spiritual sweetness and consolation, they are too weak to have the fortitude and bear the trials of perfection. They resemble those who are softly nurtured and who run fretfully away from everything that is hard, and take offense at the Cross, wherein consist the delights of the spirit.

The more spiritual a thing is, the more irksome they find it, for, as they seek to go about spiritual matters with complete freedom and according to the inclination of their will, it causes them great sorrow and repugnance to enter upon the narrow way, which, says Christ, is the way of life. (St. Matthew vii, 14.) [St. John of the Cross: Excerpt from The Dark Night of the Soul on Spiritual Gluttony, Book I (circa ante-1582)]

Points to Ponder:

These persons, in communicating, strive with every nerve to obtain some kind of sensible sweetness and pleasure, instead of humbly doing reverence and giving praise within themselves to God. And in such wise do they devote themselves to this that, when they have received no pleasure or sweetness in the senses, they think that they have accomplished nothing at all.

This is to judge God very unworthily; they have not realized that the least of the benefits which come from this Most Holy Sacrament is that which concerns the senses; and that the invisible part of the grace that it bestows is much greater; for, in order that they may look at it with the eyes of faith, God oftentimes withholds from them these other consolations and sweetnesses of sense.

...

And many of these would have God will that which they themselves will, and are fretful at having to will that which He wills, and find it repugnant to accommodate their will to that of God. Hence it happens to them that oftentimes they think that that wherein they find not their own will and pleasure is not the will of God; and that, on the other hand, when they themselves find satisfaction, God is satisfied.

Thus they measure God by themselves and not themselves by God, acting quite contrarily to that which He Himself taught in the Gospel, saying: That he who should lose his will for His sake, the same should gain it; and he who should desire to gain it, the same should lose it. (St. Matthew xvi, 25.) [St. John of the Cross: Excerpts from The Dark Night of the Soul on Spiritual Gluttony, Book I (circa ante-1582)]

Points to Ponder:

You will find that many of these persons are very insistent with their spiritual masters to be granted that which they desire, extracting it from them almost by force; if they be refused it they become as peevish as children and go about in great displeasure, thinking that they are not serving God when they are not allowed to do that which they would.

For they go about clinging to their own will and pleasure, which they treat as though it came from God; and immediately their directors take it from them, and try to subject them to the will of God, they become peevish, grow faint-hearted and fall away. These persons think that their own satisfaction and pleasure are the satisfaction and service of God. [St. John of the Cross: Excerpt from The Dark Night of the Soul on Spiritual Gluttony, Book I (circa ante-1582)]

O God, Shepherd and Ruler of all Thy faithful, look mercifully upon Thy servant Francis, whom Thou hast chosen as shepherd to preside over Thy Church: grant him, we beseech Thee, that, by word and example, he may edify those over whom he hath charge, so that together with the flock committed to him, he may attain everlasting life. Through Christ, our Lord. Amen.

Briefly...

Having noted last week that I had many thoughts on the motu proprio, I have been pondering how to respond to it. I have also seen no shortage of public and private takes which frankly are disturbing to no small degree. I have began sketching out a response for this site which hopefully will be done and published at some point next week.

Excerpt from Pope Leo XIII on Obedience to Church Authority:

By certain indications it is not difficult to conclude that among Catholics – doubtless as a result of current evils – there are some who, far from satisfied with the condition of “subject” which is theirs in the Church, think themselves able to take some part in her government, or at least, think they are allowed to examine and judge after their own fashion the acts of authority. A misplaced opinion, certainly. If it were to prevail, it would do very grave harm to the Church of God, in which, by the manifest will of her Divine Founder, there are to be distinguished in the most absolute fashion two parties: the teaching and the taught, the Shepherd and the flock, among whom there is one who is the head and the Supreme Shepherd of all.

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government. On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path.

And to fail in this most holy duty it is not necessary to perform an action in open opposition whether to the Bishops or to the Head of the Church; it is enough for this opposition to be operating indirectly, all the more dangerous because it is the more hidden. Thus, a soul fails in this sacred duty when, at the same time that a jealous zeal for the power and the prerogatives of the Sovereign Pontiff is displayed, the Bishops united to him are not given their due respect, or sufficient account is not taken of their authority, or their actions and intentions are interpreted in a captious manner, without waiting for the judgment of the Apostolic See.

Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. He has the charge of the universal welfare of the Church, to which is subordinate any particular need, and all others who are subject to this order must second the action of the supreme director and serve the end which he has in view. [Pope Leo XIII's Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua (circa June 17, 1885) Acta Sanctae Sedis 18 (1885): pp. 3-9 as translated by Mother Eileen O'Gorman, RSCJ (circa 1962)] 

Statement Regarding “Traditionis Custodes” 

The FSSP has one of the very few reasonable responses to this situation that I have seen thus far.

Points to Ponder:

[T]he Modernists express astonishment when they are reprimanded or punished. What is imputed to them as a fault they regard as a sacred duty. Being in intimate contact with consciences they know better than anybody else, and certainly better than the ecclesiastical authority, what needs exist—nay, they embody them, so to speak, in themselves. Having a voice and a pen they use both publicly, for this is their duty. Let authority rebuke them as much as it pleases—they have their own conscience on their side and an intimate experience which tells them with certainty that what they deserve is not blame but praise. [Pope St. Pius X: Encyclical Letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis § 27 (circa September 8, 1907)]

Axios: Anyone else notice Dems running away from their party?

Points to Ponder:

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child. We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known. And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity. [1 Cor xiii,11-13]

THE POPE’S MOTU PROPRIO: WHAT NEXT?

In light of recent events and to guide my reflections on an upcoming matter I previously mentioned would be forthcoming, I want to at this time reiterate anew the Profession of Faith first posted to the Miscellaneous site back in late 2002 (and linked to this site as well) not long after I started this present site. Without further ado...

Profession Of Faith

Points to Ponder:

Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her...But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20)." [Pope St. Pius X: Allocution of May 10, 1909]

Briefly...

I have a number of thoughts on the motu proprio promulgated today. I also anticipate that some of what I will say will make not a few folks unhappy. Nonetheless, having read both pertinent texts, I want to ponder over the matter a bit before saying much publicly. 

To be read in conjunction with the newly published Motu Proprio Traditiones Custodes is the following Letter to Bishops whereby Pope Francis explains his reasons for making the modifications that he did.

Apostolic Letter Traditionis Custodes Issued Motu Proprio By The Supreme Pontiff Francis

Points to Ponder:

An ecclesiastic, even the Roman Pontiff, can legitimately be corrected, and even accused, by subjects and lay persons. [Pope Gregory XI, Errors of John Wycliffe, n. 19, Condemned in the Letter Super Periculosis to the Bishops of Canterbury and London, May 22, 1377; Denzinger 1139]

Pre-Snap Reads 7/11: Has the Seahawks defense improved this offseason?

Democrats Start to Panic After They Realize They've Screwed up in Florida

It is never wise to try and be soft on Cuba and communism in Florida.

Points to Ponder:

[W]hen you confess, you come forth. For what does ‘come forth’ mean if not emerging from what is hidden, to be made manifest. But for you to confess is God’s doing; he calls you with an urgent voice, by an extraordinary grace. And just as the dead man came out still bound, so you go to confession still guilty. In order that his sins be loosed, the Lord said this to his ministers: ‘Unbind him and let him go’. What you will loose on earth will be loosed also in heaven. [St Augustine, *In Ioann. Evang.*, 49, 24]

Reality Takes a Holiday, as Kamala Claims Credit for Getting People Back to Work 

With the posting of this link, I am adding a new sub tag for posts involving this absolute embarrassment of a human being.

There has been an update to the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous page whereby a recently enunciated term was defined. 

Points to Ponder:

If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie. [Justice Antonin Scalia (circa June 26, 2015)]

Poll: Majority believe US Government and media tried to cover up Wuhan lab leak theory

This is good news to see because it shows that the attempts of the combined mainstream media, social media, and the government (aka the government media complex) to attempt to suppress this hypothesis have failed and failed badly. To wit:

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters think it’s likely that U.S. government officials actively tried to cover-up the possibility that the coronavirus was created in a Wuhan, China, Laboratory. A Scott Rasmussen national survey found that 26% consider it unlikely and 17% are not sure.

That total includes 35% who say it’s Very Likely and 11% who think it’s Not at All Likely.

Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans consider a cover-up to be at least somewhat likely. Independent voters, by a 52% to 22% margin, tend to agree. Democrats are more evenly divided: 45% believe U.S. government officials actively engaged in a cover-up while 39% disagree.

I am not about to go into this again as I recently did in so HERE. Suffice to say, I was heartened by this thread today because sometimes you wonder just how much the attempts of the government media complex to try and cover this up and shame anyone who dared to not accept the officially sanctioned story were succeeding. The evidence of the latter would seem to be on the side of "not very well."

Biden Goes Over the Slide With Incredibly Offensive Comment Plus More Confusion

You would figure no politician who spent close to 50 years in DC would confuse the Tuskegee Airmen with the Tuskegee Experiment. However, in Mr. Biden's case, you would be wrong.

Points to Ponder:

By not paying me reverence in the persons of my ministers, they have lost respect for the latter and persecuted them because of the many sins and faults they saw in them. If in truth the reverence they had for them had been for my sake, they would not have cut it off on account of any sin in them. For no sin can lessen the power of this sacrament, and therefore their reverence should not lessen either. When it does, it is against me they sin. [St. Catherine of Siena: From Her Dialogues With God the Father]

Mailchimp suspends the Babylon Bee for "harmful information"

Why #FreeBritney Matters

A.U.D.I.T. of Elections: Is the Dam Breaking?

Points to Ponder:

[N]o one has excuse to say, “I am doing no harm, nor am I rebelling against holy Church. I am simply acting against the sins of evil pastors.” Such persons are deluded, blinded as they are by their own selfishness…. It is me they assault, just as it was me they reverenced. To me redounds every assault they make on my ministers: derision, slander, disgrace, abuse. Whatever is done to them I count as done to me. [St. Catherine of Siena: From Her Dialogues With God the Father]

More on Wars Fought Without A Formal Declaration, Implied Powers, Early Supreme Court Precedents, Etc.

This is a draft from social media mostly composed on December 12, 2011.

This is written to in some respect complement two previous notes written which pertain to the subject of declaring war and the Constitutional issues contained therein.{1} My previous words will be in italics.

Having noted those things at the outset, it is interesting to note in a brief ado how so many writings in this medium are either written or republished{2} to address issues that come up in the standard stream of status line conversations and the like. The one you are reading now was occasioned by implication when I spotted the following typical misunderstanding of the Constitution as it pertains to the subject of war late last week. Without further ado...

‎Well, let's look at the facts. Are we "at war"? The congressional authorization allows operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, in response to terrorism.  

Never mind the questionable Constitutionality of that, as the Constitution only contemplates formal declarations of war,

My initial response was somewhat curt and read as follows:

No it does not. Few things annoy me more than so-called "Constitutionalists" who evince such ignorance of what the Founders intended and not a few completely misunderstand what is constitutionally permissible where war is concerned under the Constitution. 

On the Constitutional Standing of Wars Fought Without A Formal Declaration of War (circa December 26, 2007)

Not that the Founders themselves who wrote the Constitution would have any idea (and demonstrate through their actions in governing) what their own creation actually allowed or did not of course ;)

#######

I received the following response from the party the latter text was addressed to earlier today:

Shawn, with the exception of the Barbary Wars, which were authorized under the Constitution's "Piracy" clause, I believe I am correct in saying that the wars mentioned in your article which preceded 1812 were all on US soil.

Now it is not often that I am given an answer that completely surprises me but this one achieved that. Here is the problem with what was asked above in a nutshell: the reference to US soil is ambiguous. If we are talking about what currently exists as part of the United States then sure, that would be true but we cannot approach this matter anachronistically. Having noted that, let us consider all the wars I noted in the Ron Paul note{3} that preceded the War of 1812 as per your question starting with The Chicamunga Wars (1776-1794).

The Chicamunga Wars (1776-1794) were a series of wars technically spanning back to the end of the French and Indian War (1755-1763) but where the United States is concerned they are dated from 1776 when the colonies declared their independence from Great Britain. They were fought both in areas which were not part of the colonies though some of the battles and raids were fought in the western parts of some of the colonies.{4} But most of the fighting was west of the Appalachians, an area that the British in agreeing to the Treaty of Paris of 1763{5} in had ruled was off limits to colonial expansion. So if we were to access this matter technically and comtemporary to the time in question, the answer as to whether these wars were fought on US soil would be "yes and no." But either way, the parts of these wars that spilled over into the administration of President George Washington (1789-1797){6} were in no cases whatsoever fought under a formal declaration of war.

With the Northwest Indian Wars (1785-1795), they were fought in part because the Indians of various tribes and nations in those territories contested the claims to the land that the United States made. For that reason, to call the wars fought on that soil US soil is extremely anachronistic to no small degree. As with the Chicamunga Wars, the parts of these wars under the administration of President George Washington{7} were not fought under a formal declaration of war. So to answer your question with something that recognizes the state of thing at that time, the answer to your question would be "no" as those territories were not settled jurisdiction-wise between not only the Indian nations but also with Great Britain{8} at the time of the conflicts in question.

The Quasi-War with France under the administration of President John Adams was fought almost entirely on water so the answer where that one is concerned is a resounding no. And finally, the Battle of Tippecanoe (1811) could be answered with a "yes" to your inquiry because it was fought in the Indiana Territory after a pair of treaties were signed in 1795{9} which settled the jurisdiction questions of that area. So with all the wars noted prior to 1812, virtually none of them were fought on US soil if we judge the latter by what it was in its day rather than what it has become.{10} Having looked briefly at the wars you mentioned, let us now consider the First Barbary War along with the nature and purpose of the war powers in the Constitution of the United States.

You had stated that the Barbary Wars were were authorized under the Constitution's "Piracy" clause. Of course if this was so, then you need to ask yourself why this did not occur to the Founders who were operating government at the time? But anyway, let us touch on the First Barbary War now and see if what happened corresponds to what you have claimed. Among the first in President Jefferson's State of the Union address on December 8, 1801{11}, he apprised the congress of certain defensive measures he had taken:

I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean, with assurances to that power of our sincere desire to remain in peace, but with orders to protect our commerce against the threatened attack. The measure was seasonable and salutary. The Bey had already declared war. His cruisers were out. Two had arrived at Gibraltar. Our commerce in the Mediterranean was blockaded and that of the Atlantic in peril. 

The arrival of our squadron dispelled the danger. One of the Tripolitan cruisers having fallen in with and engaged the small schooner Enterprise, commanded by Lieutenant Sterret, which had gone as a tender to our larger vessels, was captured, after a heavy slaughter of her men, without the loss of a single 1 on our part. The bravery exhibited by our citizens on that element will, I trust, be a testimony to the world that it is not the want of that virtue which makes us seek their peace, but a conscientious desire to direct the energies of our nation to the multiplication of the human race, and not to its destruction.

He then went on to mention that he had gone as far as he could without congressional authorization of further action:

Unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense, the vessel, being disabled from committing further hostilities, was liberated with its crew. 

The Legislature will doubtless consider whether, by authorizing measures of offense also, they will place our force on an equal footing with that of its adversaries. I communicate all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstances of weight.

Notice how President Jefferson mentioned "authorizing measures of offense" and not specifically "a declaration of war"? And if you look at the entire text of his State of the Union address, there is never a mention of pirates anywhere in the text. The reason is this was not a matter of a stray ship or two but instead an actual state or nation we were dealing with here{12} and the piracy clause is not something that dealt with nations. Furthermore, the piracy clause was offensive in nature insofar that it allowed for not only defining piracy but also punishing it which involves an active or offensive element. But if you read Presdient Jefferson's State of the Union, he took merely defensive actions. Therefore, President Jefferson did not have recourse to the Constitution's "Piracy" clause or feel that he was authorized to act under it in this instance. It stands therefore to look at if the Congress authorized any offensive action under the Constitution's "Piracy" clause since we all know they issued no formal declaration of war. Here is the relevant text of the Congress' authorization of President Jefferson to take offensive measures against the regency of Tripoli and its Bey.

The declaration of war feature is for the United States to initiate war. However, if there is an attack on the United States by another nation or group that has declared war on us{13}, a formal declaration is not required. That said though, since The First Barbary War it has been customary to issue authorizations to use force and even at times lesser statues for much more limited military engagements. Hamilton explained the way out of Jefferson's dilemma as I noted here and will cite at the present time:

An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President's powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bey of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war. Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed. Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify . . ." But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton's view. [LINK]

It was not long after Congress voted on what we would call today an "authorization to use force" to give President Jefferson the sanction to take offensive measures against the Dey. The aforementioned measure included authorizing President Jefferson to instruct armed American vessel commanders to seize the vessels of the Dey as well as all his goods and also "to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."

In other words, Congress circa March of 1802 recognized a state of war existed between the Pasha of Tripoli and the United States and accepted Hamilton's rationale on what the Constitution allowed for in the implementation of the war contained therein. Later on August 11, 1801, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Talbot vs. Seeman{14} and in the ruling stated the following:

"The whole powers of war being by the Constitution of the United States vested in Congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this inquiry. It is not denied, nor in the course of the argument has it been denied, that Congress may authorize general hostilities, in which case the general laws of war apply to our situation, or partial hostilities, in which case the laws of war, so far as they actually apply to our situation, must be noticed."

Notice the delineation that Marshall makes between "general hostilities"{15} or "partial hostilities."{16} 

And while Hamilton's exposition{17} was the most influential explanations on this matter -in part because of Marshall's reforms of the Supreme Court decision process synthesizing the opinion writing process to make it more focused, they hardly innovated the concept. Indeed the pre-Marshall Supreme Court on August 15, 1800 with regards to another matter from the Quasi-War with France handed down a ruling in Bas vs. Tingy which set the first markers in place for this matter judicially.

In reviewing the above link, you can read all four Justices who ruled in favour of the lower court on the matter and interestingly enough, Justice Bushrod Washington{18} who was involved in Bas vs. Tingy was the justice who handed down the circuit ruling in Talbot vs. Seeman which at that point was on appeal to the supreme court.

In summary, there is ample cogent evidence from the early days of the Republic to refute the position of the so-called "Constitutional Conservatives" that a war requires a formal Declaration of War by Congress to thereby by considered constitutional. 

Notes:

{1} The notes were published both to Rerum Novarum and then later to Facebook. The first note in its Facebook version was published on January 13, 2009 with the title On Ron Paul and Wars Fought Without a Formal Declaration. It had previously been published to this site on December 26, 2007 with the title On the Constitutional Standing of Wars Undertaken Without a Formal "Declaration of War". The second note in its Facebook version was published on November 14, 2009 with the title Clarifying a Previous Facebook Note Posting on a Constitutional Issue. It was previously published to this site on March 7, 2009 under the title Clarification of a Previous Posting In Lieu of a Recent Posting.

{2} Often subjects repeat themselves later on in different print communication mediums and in those cases, if either time is not on my side to write anew on a subject or something previously written addresses the matter to at least a macro extent, oftentimes I will republish such a writing either from other writing mediums or within the various notes that have been posted to Facebook in my time here.

{3} See the first link of footnote one.

{4} Such as a bit of western Virginia and parts of North Carolina and Georgia.

{5} This was the treaty signed between Great Britain, France, and Spain in Paris formally ending the French and Indian War.

{6} That also goes for the parts of the war fought under the old Articles of Confederation (1777-1788) whereby the Continental Congresses at no time called for any formal declaration of war in any of these instances whatsoever.

{7} See footnote six.

{8} The British had not conceded the territories outside of the original colonies and they still had a claim of sorts on the Northwest Territory areas themselves. And though I am loathe to quote anything frok Wikipedia, on this matter they have a very succinct paragraph that explains it well so I will go against my ordinary inclinations and reference them at this time. To wit:

The Ohio territory was subject to overlapping and conflicting claims by the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Virginia, in addition to those by the Shawnee, Mingo, Lenape and other actual inhabitants, who were no longer considered tributary to the Six Nations. While the British had suffered a major defeat at the Battle of Yorktown (1781), there had been no decisive defeat for their Indian allies in the Northwest Territories. In addition, the Indian tribes in the Old Northwest were not parties to the treaty. Many leaders, especially Little Turtle and Blue Jacket, refused to recognize United States claims to the area northwest of the Ohio River. The British remained in possession of their Great Lakes forts, through which they continued to supply Indian allies with trade items and weapons in exchange for furs. Some in the British government wished to maintain a neutral Indian territory between Canada and the United States, but most agreed that immediate withdrawal was not possible without sparking a new Indian war.[2] The lingering British presence was not formally ended until their withdrawal from the Great Lakes forts pursuant to the Jay Treaty negotiated in 1794, and it would continue informally afterward until the War of 1812. [Wikipedia: Excerpt from their article The Northwest Territory]

{9} I refer here to The Jay Treaty (ratified by the Senate on June 24, 1795) and Treaty of Greenville (signed on August 3, 1795) which ended Northwest Territory jurisdictional questions with regards to the British and the participants in the Northwest Indian War respectively.

{10} The Quasi-War  being fought almost excluslvely on the ocean excepted of course.

{11} President Thomas Jefferson: State of the Union Address (circa December 8, 1801)

{12} Tripolitania was roughly one fifth of what is present day Libya.

{13} As the Dey of Tripoli did in the weeks after Jefferson's inauguration.

{14} A controversy from the previous Quasi-War with France under President John Adams circa 1798 under which no formal declaration of war was declared.

{15} Which is basically total war either initiated by the United States or responding to a threat where the nature is total and thus and requiring a formal declaration.

{16} Which is less than total war often initiated by other nations or peoples and does not require a formal declaration.

{17} Followed by that of Chief Justice Marshall's.

{18} A nephew of George Washington.

Progressives Are Livid at Kyrsten Sinema Because She Understands Long-Term Consequences

Senator Krysten Sinema is seemingly one of the very few Democrats in either chamber of Congress who realizes that the same filibuster the Democrats want to quash in the majority is what they will want when in the minority. 

Church implosion right on schedule

This is a very interesting article. However, as the title alone might lead to some confusion, here is a snippet that highlights what is meant by the article's title. To wit:

...Francis seems to be deliberately hastening its inevitable collapse by implementing the principles and methods outlined in Evangelii gaudium (EG), his vision and blueprint for Church renewal and reform.

Let's be clear, we're not talking about the demise of the Catholic Church.

God is not dead and the Holy Spirit will never leave Christ's faithful people. This we all believe.

No, it's about the crumbling of the present governing and organizational structure, which continues to mirror certain features of the Roman Empire more than it reflects the organizational model of ecclesial life that is found in the New Testament or was experienced in the first couple of centuries of the Christian Church.

Francis is effectively laying the foundation for the deconstruction of the current model by patiently planting the seeds for the Church's structural conversion by baptizing and employing four, key sociological principles (EG 222-237):

- Time is greater than space

- Unity prevails over conflict

- Realities are more important than ideas

- The whole is greater than the parts

Ultimately the pope's goal is to make the structures and mentality of the Church more reflective of the Gospel and person of Jesus Christ and to liberate it from a codified system of rules and philosophical ideas still deeply wedded to the culture of the ancient Greco-Roman world...

Points to Ponder:

The reverence you pay to [priests] is not actually paid to them but to me, in virtue of the blood I have entrusted to their ministry. If this were not so, you should pay them as much reverence as to anyone else, and no more. It is this ministry of theirs that dictates that you should reverence them and come to them, not for what they are in themselves but for the power I have entrusted to them, if you would receive the sacraments of the Church…

So the reverence belongs not to the ministers, but to me and to this glorious blood made one thing with me because of the union of divinity with humanity. And just as the reverence is done to me, so also is the irreverence, for I have already told you that you must not reverence them for themselves, but for the authority I have entrusted to them. Therefore you must not sin against them, because if you do, you are really sinning not against them but against me. This I have forbidden, and I have said that it is my will that no one should touch them. [St. Catherine of Siena: From Her Dialogues With God the Father]

Remember Donald Trump-touted hydroxychloroquine? Study in India backs it as Covid-19 cure

I wanted to get hydroxychloroquine for my father in law Frank Barone as a last ditch effort to try and save him and was unable to. Why? Because those who cared more about playing politics got in the way. 

It bears endless repetition but something is not true or false based on who said it but instead on objective criteria. What that means is that even a complete jabronie can be right at times and persons who have real integrity will recognize this. But those playing politics do not. And among them were those who were much less concerned about truth on this vital matter than in "beating Trump." They had a hand in Frank Barone's death and I will neither forget nor forgive this.

They can all go to hell!

Pope Francis rejects Cardinal Marx' resignation: 'Continue as Archbishop of Munich'

I cannot say I agree with this position; nonetheless, it seems Pope Francis wants Cardinal Marx to stay in his post and help fix what he had a hand in messing up. 

Today is the 20th anniversary of the passing of my father Richard Dunn McElhinney. If readers could offer some prayers for the eternal repose of his soul, I would appreciate it.

Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him...May his soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Points to Ponder:

Perhaps the single best example of the common lack of high standards in question of honesty is our tendency to think in labels. Terms like "existentialism", "pragmatism", and "empiricism", "liberalism" and "conservatism" are, more often than not, so many excuses for not considering individual ideas on their merits and for not exposing one's self to the bite of thought. For less educated people, words like "Jew", and "Catholic", "Democrat", "Republican" and "Communist" do much the same job. These labels have some uses that are perfectly legitimate, but frequently they function as an aid to thoughtlessness and permit people to appear to think when they are merely talking. [Walter Kaufmann]

Cardinal Marx offers Pope Francis his resignation, citing ‘responsibility for the catastrophe of sexual abuse’

This is a step in the right direction.

Points to Ponder:

The test of your fairness is how fair you are to those who are not. [Author Unknown]

Perseverance is necessary for prayer, pope says

Seahawks odds-on favorites to trade for Julio Jones

Points to Ponder:

Where has the enemy not sown weeds? Where has he not found wheat and not strewn it with weeds? Has he sown only among lay people and not among the clergy or among bishops? Has he sown only among married men and not among the chaste professed? Has he sown only among married women and not among nuns? Has he sown only in the homes of lay people, and not in congregations of monks? The enemy has strewn seed everywhere, sowed everywhere–where has he left seed not mixed with weeds?

But, thank God, the one who has deigned to separate cannot err–your charity is not hidden from him. Weeds are found in the loftiest, most exalted harvest, even in the professed life weeds are found, and you say, “Even there wicked people are found, even in that congregation there are wicked people!” But the wicked will not reign forever with the good. Why are you surprised that you have found bad people in a holy place? Don’t you know that in paradise the first sin was disobedience, and an angel fell because of it? Did that stain heaven? Adam fell, and did that stain paradise? One of the sons of Noah fell, and did that stain the home of the just one? Judas fell, and did that stain the choir of Apostles?

Sometimes by human judgment some are thought to be wheat who in fact are weeds, and some are thought weeds who in fact are wheat. And because these things are hidden, the Apostle says: “Do not judge before the time, until the Lord comes and casts light on things hidden in darkness, and he will reveal the thoughts of the heart, and then there will be praise for each one from God” (1 Cor 4:5). Human praise passes: sometimes a person praises a bad man and doesn’t know it; sometimes he accuses a holy man, and doesn’t know it. May God forgive those who do not know, and come to the aid of those who are toiling. [St. Augustine of Hippo: Ser 73A, 1.5,3]

The Bismarck was sunk 80 years ago yesterday. Here is a tale of the tape between the Bismarck class battleships and the Iowa class battleships in a hypothetical matchup:

Nazi Germany's Battleship Bismarck vs. America's Iowa Class: Who Wins?

Points to Ponder:

It is very helpful to confess with a certain regularity. It is true our sins are always the same; but we clean our homes, our rooms, at least once a week even if the dirt is always the same, in order to live in cleanliness, in order to start again. Otherwise, the dirt might not be seen, but it builds up. [Pope Benedict XVI]

Today is the 80th anniversary of the mighty German battleship Bismarck sinking the British ship The Hood.

Today would have been the 49th anniversary of the birth of my childhood best friend Chris DiSomma who passed on back in 2005. Here are a couple links which reference older material from this site on him:

Chris DiSomma: A Birthday Commemoration Posting (circa May 23, 2018)

Remembering Chris DiSomma: A Simple Man (circa November 23, 2019)

If readers could offer some prayers for the eternal repose of his soul, I would appreciate it.

Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him...May his soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

In light of the recent attacks on the state of Israel by Hamas and the continuing issues with Hezbollah and the Palestinians, I want to take a moment to remind readers of some of what I have said in the past regarding this geopolitical situation on this site. My overall view is the same and can be aptly summarized in this phrasing from social media posted ten years ago yesterday:

If a group seeking more land cannot run what they already have without screwing it up royally, then they are incapable of handling greater land responsibility and should be refused!

This is in a nutshell what I referred to in the thread link above as The McElhinney Gaza Scholastic Postulate. And it explains why I view the Middle East situation as I do, especially in light of the recent Abraham Accords which gives even less reason to care a whit about groups who have already wasted far too many people's time and energies on their irrational idiocies. But I digress.

Today is the 19th anniversary of the passing of my uncle David Kanski. If readers could offer some prayers for the eternal repose of his soul, I would appreciate it.

Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him...May his soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Points to Ponder:

History in its completion and incompletions is written by the winners while the losers invent conspiracy theories in 'rebuttal'. [Me]

Supreme Court Rejects Home Searches to Seize Firearms by Police Under "Community Caretaker" Doctrine

This 9-0 ruling by the high court is encouraging.

Points to Ponder:

The moment you give up your principles, and your values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period. [Oriana Fallaci]

Pope Francis' process for investigating accused Catholic bishops clearly requires reform

I agree that lay experts are needed at every level on this because there needs to be a check on the clergy. Furthermore  lay expert involvement should be more than just recommended but instead mandated. Otherwise many bishops will simply ignore the recommendation.

Seahawks 2021 NFL schedule official release: Dates, game times, networks, more

Canon Law - Strict Interpretation Helps Avoid Harshness

A lot of apologist sources like to utilize canon law to push their agendas rather than seek to properly understand the principles of proper interpretation. For this reason, the above article written by a titan in the canon law world can be of aid in correctly understanding how various canons{1} are to correctly be applied.

Note:

{1} There is one typo which got missed before publication. Namely, the reference in the article to Canon 925 is actually intended to reference Canon 915. 

Here Is Why the Democrats Are Totally Panicked About the Arizona Audit

Queen’s speech: voters will need photo ID for general elections

To be blunt, only a complete moron has a problem with voters in an election having to provide photo ID. 

Democratic Death Watch: 'Biden’s agenda is pretty much dangling by a thread'

Vatican warns US bishops over get-tough Communion proposals

My father in law Frank Barone passed away a year ago this morning. If those who read these words would say a prayer for him, it would be most appreciated.

Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him...May his soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Points to Ponder:

A feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever may be its theory, must be, in practice, a bad government. [Alexander Hamilton]

Pete Carroll and John Schneider are not who they once were

One year ago, I prayed this prayer for my father in law Frank Barone who was in the hospital. As today would have been his wedding anniversary to my mother on law Raffaelina Barone, I repost it anew at this time and request prayers for the eternal repose of their souls...

Do not go gentle into that good night,

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,

Because their words had forked no lightning they

Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright

Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,

And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,

Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight

Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,

Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.

Do not go gentle into that good night.

Rage, rage against the dying of the light [Dylan Thomas (published 1951)]

It's empty now, no friendly face
And nothing lives within
I look around and I find no trace
To tell me what has been

So far I've come to find there's no one here
No life and fear
I came for nothing, they have gone
And nobody's home

I am contemplating a name change for this site. Whether it will be as an add-on to the current name or sonething different altogether, on that I do not currently know. But something will be changing, it is only a question of when on that front, not if.

I came to learn, perhaps to teach
But I can tell somehow
The world that I was sent to reach
Has got no future now

All things change and this site even in its nearly nineteen years of existence{1} has undergone numerous changes in layout, topics covered, etc. 

The one constant is that this site has served as a kind of journal of sorts where subjects of interest to me were published here. I referred to written projects once as writing photographs and this site in its older materials does serve as a kind of writing photo album. As with picture albums, there are non flattering shots in the book along with the more favouring ones but that is life. And life has a way of going on and in directions one does not expect. I have certainly had probably more than my share of that over the years. But I look at several things differently now than when this site began. 

Across the galaxy to spread the word
And no one heard
I came for nothing, I'm alone
And nobody's home

Muhammed Ali once said "a man who looks at the world at fifty the way he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of their life." I have certainly avoided that and thank God I am not like those who have not if which there are sadly, many.{2}

A requiem was never sung, no elegy was read
No monument was carved in stone in memory of the dead
For those who made this place do not remain
They feel no pain
A stranger fate was never known

This site started as a part of a community that basically does not exist anymore. Whatever one thinks of that or wishes, it is what it is. And for that reason, one must operate in accordance with what is and not on the basis of what one wishes. 

Notes:

{1} We debuted on August 22, 2002 and were in operation until an indefinite suspension in operations on December 19, 2009. We then resumed operations on April 4 2017 to the present day.

{2} To the degree I have avoided this is due to grace and I therefore cannot claim the credit.

Insomnia 3: Beyond Thunderdome!

As the rain tapdances on the roof and I lay wide awake, today's shipwreck is the SS America. Built in 1939 and launched in 1940 by United States Lines, the 723 foot 11 deck luxury liner had a brief stint before being commandeered by the military in 1941 after Pearl Harbor. Renamed the USS Westpoint, the ship served in many roles until discharged in 1946 when it resumed the name SS America under United Stated Lines and its luxury liner status. For a brief period, the SS America was the queen of the American fleet until 1952 when the much larger and faster SS United States was launched. 

The SS America remained in service cruising the transatlantic routes from 1946 until 1964 when it was bought by Chandris Group who renamed it the SS Australis. It then ran the circuit from Southampton, England to Australia from 1964-1977 when it was sold to Venture Cruise Lines in 1978 where it was renamed the SS America but attempts to relaunch the ship were an abysmal failure. Chandris Group reacquired the ship in 1978 renaming it the SS Italis where after a few renovations, it was chartered in 1979 for three 14 day cruises out of Genoa and Barcelona to Egypt, Israel, and the eastern Mediterranean. After those cruises, it was laid up in Piraeus, Greece in September of 1979. 

From there, the ship was bought by Intercommerce Corporation in 1980 and renamed the SS Noga underwent a dizzying array of name changes and plans for use while the ship was laid up in port. (Including converting it to a prison ship to be anchored in Beruit.) It was then bought by Silver Moon Ferries who got nowhere with it except to change one side of the ship to Alferdoss and after a busted bilge pump had to move the ship to avoid it sinking while it could be repaired. Once fixed, it was taken back to its original mooring place in Piraeus. The ship was then sold for scrap in the late 1980s but after they barely got started, the scrappers defaulted on their loans so they pulled out. So the now-named Alferdoss or Noga (no one knows which!) remained until 1993 when it was bought a final time.

Now the plans were ambitious: refit her to become a five-star hotel ship off Phuket, in Thailand. Despite years of drydock neglect, the hull was found to be in remarkably solid condition so her propellers were removed, the remaining funnel painted red, and she was renamed American Star. She left Greece under tow in late December 1993 but bad weather forced a return to dock. After things calmed down, American Star left Greece under tow. It was estimated that the tow would take 100 days but not long after, the tugboat and liner ran into an Atlantic storm and the tow lines broke. Six crew members were sent aboard the American Star to reattach the tow lines while two additional tugs assisted. The crew members were rescued by helicopter on January 17, 1994 while the ship was left adrift.

On January 18, American Star ran aground at Playa de Garcey, off the west coast of Fuerteventura in the Canary Islands. While the owners were furiously deciding what to do, the ships bow got wedged in a sandbar. Two days of pounding sea broke the hull in half and the ship was declared a total loss. The stern collapsed to port and sank in 1996 while the now section remained intact and deteriorating. 

The port side collapsed in November of 2005 which caused the remaining hull to break up and nearly collapse the ship to port side. In April 2007, the starboard side collapsed and the remaining wreck broke in half and sank at sea. A very small section of the bow and keel are visible now at low tide but after thirteen years of pounding waves, the remaining wreck of the once great SS America is no more.

Points to Ponder:

A renegade apologist can do grave damage to the Catholic Church and Her reputation. [Dr. Art Sippo (circa 2006)]

Briefly...

I have two principles which have long guided how I view economic matters of commerce and trade. The first is simple: Buy quality wherever that quality comes from. The second is a bit more complex: When you cannot for logistics or other reasons make a product yourself, do business with those countries who are your friends first and give them preference over more neutral nations which should get preference over those nations which have proven to not be trustworthy.

BREAKING: Sources Confirm Shock G Of Digital Underground Dead At 57 

"All right! Stop whatcha doin' 

'Cause I'm about to ruin 

The image and the style that ya used to 

I look funny 

But yo I'm makin' money, see 

So yo world I hope you're ready for me 

Now gather round 

I'm the new fool in town 

And my sound's laid down by the Underground 

I drink up all the Hennessey ya got on ya shelf 

So just let me introduce myself..."  

#RestInPeace "Humpty Hump"!

Points to Ponder: 

(On Banking and Investments) 

Does not the social function of the bank consist in making it possible for the individual to render his money fruitful, even if only in small degree, instead of dissipating it, or leaving it sleep without any profit, either to himself or to others? That is why the services that a bank can render are so numerous: to facilitate and encourage savings; to preserve savings for the future, at the same time rendering them productive in the present; to enable savings to share in useful enterprises that could not be launched without them; to make as simple and easy as possible the regulation of accounts, exchanges, commerce between the State and private organisms and, in a word, the entire economic life of the people. [Pope Pius XII: Address to Italian Bankers (circa April 25, 1950)]

Briefly...

On the Chauvin verdict, I thought second degree manslaughter was most likely, third degree murder feasible, and second degree murder would be unlikely. I was wrong on the latter, Chauvin was found guilty on all counts.

Insomnia 2: Electric Boogaloo!

Here is another of the shipwrecks, the Ozlem. Built in 1969 and originally named the Christina I, it was a tanker which went through a few owners and name changes (including the Charles Cruz) until it was wrecked near the Georgian coastal town of Batumi in 2005 where it has remained and slowly decomposed ever since. 

I had a bit of insomnia this morning so I was awake looking at pictures of shipwrecks. This is the SS Maheno beached at Frasier Island off the coast of Australia in 1935. A former luxury liner, it was converted into a hospital ship and served during the Gallipoli campaign in 1915. 

Points to Ponder:

I can relate to so much of this and have for quite some time. But 2020 sharpened my perceptions if you will. Without further ado...

It’s all dead to me. Celebrities. Sports. Concerts. Bars. Travel. None of it matters anymore. During 14 days to stop the spread, which turned into 7 weeks of lockdown, I would have done ANYTHING to go to a concert.

But now? I count it as loss. It means nothing to me anymore. The people I once idolized are puppets. The politicians I once applauded are imbedded in their own interests and have sold us out. The companies I once shopped with are colluding against us.

The celebrities I once looked up to I know [I] can’t look at. It’s all gone. 2020 changed me. And I don’t miss any of it. I only wish I had ditched all of these false idols sooner.

The truth is is that I’d give up any of these things sooner if I had truly understood. But now I do. And it set me free. I’ll walk the narrow road with my eyes fixed on the finish line. None of what is here matters. The earth and everything here is temporary.

There is life after death. So I count this all as loss. 2020 was the year that separated the wheat from the chaff. There are still people straddling the line, soon they will have to choose where they stand too.

"Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it." 1 Corinthians 9:24

If disagreeing with what is happening causes me to lose my seat at the table and to lose my status in society, I’m willing to sit alone. [Nina Leone]

Four Questions For Distributist/Distributivist Apologists...

This is the text of an unfinished Facebook note primarily composed on April 12, 2012. As it seemed appropriate to revisit the subject, the thread below was finished in roughly the form originally envisioned for publication at this time.

As one who has over the years interacted may times (and often in depth) with distributist/distributivist (D/D) apologists, inevitably you hear these sorts of responses such as I have heard earlier this year from a couple advocates when writing yet another lengthy critique of D/D philosophy:

Shawn, you know nothing of distributism to make such claims.

Shawn, I don't think you know what Distributism is.

Now this is what D/D love to say when their economic weltanschauung is challenged in any detail. So before I get to the four questions I have, here is how some D/D apologists describe their own system on one of their advocacy sites:

While in a socialist society none are owners, and in a capitalist society only a few are owners, in a Distributist society most are owners of productive property. This is the defining characteristic of Distributism: the widescale distribution of productive property throughout society, such that ownership of it is the norm, rather than the exception. Such distribution is the best way of ensuring that the economic rights of man are respected; that men can pursue their livelihoods with the greatest possible independence; and that society can exist as a single harmonious whole, without the vicissitudes of class hatreds and constant economic unrest which plague all of our current systems.{1}

Notice that the describe the way their society looks but not how they actually get there and therein lies the rub!

For this is the same problem the atheist has in accounting for how existing systems came into being in the absence of creation by some higher Intelligence. In like manner, D/D sorts have to explain exactly how their system that they envision becomes a reality instead of merely fantasizing about what they think it would look like. That is the core problem that both of those sorts of advocates have for their respective systems when you take it down to brass tacks.

So I will ask now (albeit in shorter form) essentially what I always have asked D/D but boiled down to four question that they need to answer before I can invest any serious effort or energy into such a hypothesis. Without further ado...

• Tell me how you get Distribution without some kind of "Distributor."

If this cannot be done, then the proposed system could not be implemented at all and that would make all the advocacies for it nothing but pious nonsense.

Of course if we assume that the D/D recognizes that some sort of "Distributor" (however it is constituted) is needed to make their system work in reality instead of just some nostalgia driven fantasy land, that brings us to this question:

• Who is empowered to be the "Distributor" and how (and by what authority) are they so empowered?

Once this question is answered, then there is the issue of how those who took issue with the proposed system would be treated as we can assume such a radical overhaul of the existing order would prompt no small degree of opposition. Ergo:

• What would be recommended to be done with those who have land and other resources that they claim is theirs and who tell the "Distributor" and their advocates{2} to take their ideas for attempting to coerce public behaviour (and/or said property from them) and blow it out their collective pie holes? 

That is a reasonable question to ask because the system they are advocating would in a number of cases do just that and if they are going to complain about being compared to socialists and the latter's redistributist schemes, they will have to explain that in some detail and in a fashion that is logically coherent and not purely arbitrary. And finally, there is the issue that so many of those who advocate for this system happen to be those who would not have to or actually do not live in it themselves:

• When are we going to see those who advocate for this "glorious lifestyle" actually practice what they preach? 

For those who endeavour to try to advocate for this sort of system or otherwise push it onto others can start by divesting themselves of all the trappings of the economic system they despise, get a farm plot in the middle of BFE, and eke out some subsistence living in all the splendour of the Middle Ages they so longingly wish they were a part of.{3} I am not talking about doing this as some part time thing or jovial little experiment{4} but instead to actually live the life they preach that everyone should be living.

That means:

• Do not buy food from the market, grow/raise it all yourself. 

• Do not buy clothes and shoes, make them all yourself. 

• Etc.{5}

This sort of thing in the overwhelming majority of cases can only be lionized by those who have never had to live it but those of who would advocate for such a system or bemoan the current system or misrepresent it egregously{6} to push their pet notions{7}, how about they go about making a living via the one they claim everyone should be living in.{8} For until I start seeing D/D moving en masse to buy farms and making a lot of (if not all of) their own stuff, do not be surprised if such apologists are summarily (and properly) dismissed as unworthy of consideration in the arena of ideas.

Notes:

{1} Donald P. Goodman: Excerpt from An Introduction to Distributism (circa August 9, 2011)

{2} Who basically try to invent fancy ways to steal it from them under the guise of some "higher morality" or whatever.

{3} And any who actually do try to do this at the very least have my respect for endeavouring to practice what they preach. (If nothing else, they deserve credit for walking the talk unlike most of their comrades who talk in a similar fashion and do not back their words up with deeds.)

{4} For example, my time on a cousins farm one vacation.

{5} I suppose in some aspects they could argue that a kind of collective could be established wherein those who are either better equipped resource-wise or in some fashion more proficient in some areas than others could form reciprocal arrangements with like-minded folks with different skills and better function societally that way. However, as that notion is simply much too close to David Ricardo's Enlightenment era theory of comparative advantage and therefore any who would smear or demean economic theories or principles from the Enlightenment era would be best to leave such things out of their calculations lest they "pollute" their "pristine civilizational model." Or to be blunter: make the damn shit yourselves!

{6} To note five postings from 2007 on the subject:

Revisiting "Distributivism" (circa May 25, 2007)

"The Empire Distributivist Strikes Back" Dept. (circa May 27, 2007)

On Fundamental Rights, Private Property, and Authentic Dialogue (circa May 31, 2007)

On the "Phantom Menace" of Distributivism (circa September 8, 2007)

"From the Mailbag" on Distributivism and Economic Systems in General (circa September 10, 2007)

{7} For example, the historically ignorant who preach the idiotic idea that capitalism started either in the Enlightenment period or in the post-reformation when in reality its earliest developments preceded both of those periods.

{8} Whether they want to or not!

My mother in law Raffaelina Barone passed away a year ago this evening. If those who read these words would say a prayer for her and her family, it would be appreciated.

Eternal rest grant unto her soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon her...May her soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen

Points to Ponder: 

(Circa January 9, 2007)

He who tells the people revolutionary legends, he who amuses them with sensational stories, is as criminal as the geographer who would draw up false charts for navigators. [Ralph E. Luker]

They worship cigars at a historic Tampa church building

Points to Ponder:

We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green. [GK Chesterton (circa 1926)]

As today is Easter Sunday{1}, it seems fitting to revisit some material posted to this site last year. It was originally composed for a Facebook post years ago after being used in a comments thread discussion with self-proclaimed "Bible Christians." As will be evident in a moment, these folks were not that familiar either with their Bible or with the traditions and practices of the Apostolic Churches from the very beginning. Without further ado...

Texts on the Sacrament of Penance (circa October 12, 2020)

Note:

{1} In the west anyway.