The Abominable Sands

The recent furore over the Polish supreme court brought to mind the general question of  Denazification. One of the justifications offered by PiS  for the clean-out of the court is the fact that this process was not properly undertaken in the early nineteen nineties. If a general restoration were to occur in a given country what measures would be necessary? It seems essential (and many people privately agree) that on the Nuremberg principle abortionists should be prosecuted and, where appropriate, given the death sentence for their crimes. This would not exclude the possibility of commutations or pardons for those who have renounced ‘choice’ in favour of life. What is less often observed is that those who have advocated abortion need to be disqualified from holding public office and the advocacy of abortion, euthanasia etc. in future must be prosecuted as incitement to murder. The procuring of an abortion by a mother cannot coherently not be recognised as a criminal offence but given the social pressures and evidential difficulties this should not (unlike the surgical act itself) be prosecuted retrospectively. Those who have performed ‘sex-change’ operations should be prosecuted even retrospectively for GBH.

“No Greek or Latin word corresponds to the modern term homosexuality, and ancient Mediterranean societies did not in practice treat homosexuality as a meaningful category of personal or public life. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but they were not systematically distinguished or conceptualized as such, much less were they thought to represent a single, homogeneous phenomenon in contradistinction to sexual relations between persons of different sexes.”

Very interesting article in the Catholic Herald on Freemasonry, the huge success of its agenda, its prevalence within the church and the possibility that CIC 1374 now covers most western political parties.

Last Friday, German parliament voted in favor of same-sex “marriage” with 393 of 623 votes (out of a total of 630 delegates).  Civil unions for same-sex couples had been possible since 2001. Nevertheless, the green party, social democrats and liberals had been campaigning for “more” – with the slogan “Ehe für alle” – “marriage for all” (surely they do not mean everybody must marry? yet if they mean everybody may marry whomever they want, we have a long way still to go, as marriage of e.g. your own sister or son is not yet legal even now).

Legalization of same-sex marriage had been a declared aim of the current junior coalition partner, the social democrats, during the last election campaign already. Nevertheless, they did not really pursue this during the current legislative period – until the next election loomed. Even then, the CDU/CSU would have been able to hold out, had it not been for a fateful interview of Angela Merkel with – of all things – a women’s magazine.

When a gay member of the audience asked her about the CDU/CSU stance on gay marriage, now that all potential opposition partners have made the legalization of it a prerequisite for any future coalition, she first deplored the politization of this topic and then said:

I find it is not appropriate for marriage –  and same-sex couples live the same values of commitment, after all – I find it is not really appropriate, to approach this in a helter-skelter way. And therefore we will pay very close attention to this question, given the current situation we have in Germany,  but in a different way.

I know within the CDU – and I include myself – many people who have thought a lot about this topic, who have long said that the same values are lived there, but who nevertheless, somehow, maybe grew up with the feeling that man and woman, that simply is marriage as we know it; and the other thing is an equally valuable partnership; and of course, certainly, for those who are affiliated with a church quite a number of other issues play a role; and for this reason I want to lead this discussion into a direction where it is more a decision of conscience, rather than forcing something through by majority vote. And I would wish that in spite of the election campaign this discussion is led with great respect, and with consideration for those who have problems with such a decision.

[My translation and emphasis; a video of this part of the interview can be found here; beware: this is a site of LGBT activists…]

The social democrats promptly pounced on this (through either sincere conviction or simple stupidity) and scheduled the vote for the last day parliament sat before the election. The social democrats plus the opposition would have had the required majority entirely without the CDU, but Mrs. Merkel made it a free vote for the CDU/CSU – and lo and behold, one quarter of their delegates voted in favour, too (including the CDU delegate of my constituency).

So, at the very same day that I was claiming to an US-citizen that our lesser evil at current elections was less evil than theirs, Germany finally fully joined the club of shame.

Labour will continue to ensure a woman’s right to choose a safe, legal abortion – and we will work with the Assembly to extend that right to women in Northern Ireland.

– Labour Manifesto 2017

“If I was a young, devout Muslim man in some of our northern cities and I looked at what has become culture on a Friday and Saturday night, I would not want to integrate with it.” – Lord Tebbit

“The terrorists will never win — and our values, our country and our way of life will always prevail.” – Theresa May

“In many countries today, moral and ethical norms are being reconsidered; national traditions, differences in nation and culture are being erased.” – Vladimir Putin





Is the equal dignity of all men (homines) founded in nature or in grace? Both. Matter is the principle of individuation and the highest operations of the intellect do not occur through a material organ. The capacity of the intellect to make use of man’s lower faculties, such as the imagination, may be impeded by the imperfect subjection of the body’s matter to its form (the soul) which results from the loss of the preternatural gifts but this privation (a consequence of the Fall) afflicts all men. Moral (and therefore political) questions appertain to the will and intellect as such and thus there can be no pretext for the founding of civil rights and their variation upon supposed biological variation between ‘races’. Any attempt to do so is pagan and materialist.’ Sexism and Racism are false de jure and de facto. Imagine an orchestra of identical musicians with differing instruments. In bodily terms the musicians are identical but they have only ever played, studied and practiced with the individual instrument they play in the orchestra. Their habits and the development of their bodies are entirely framed by the instrument they have grown up with. Nevertheless, each is possessed of the same theoretical capacity and with a perfect instrument and ideal training  unlimited potential. In this fallen world no one is possessed of a perfect instrument and ideal training but it will not always be thus. In fact, in the order of grace everyone is possessed of a perfect instrument and ideal training for “to them that love God, all things work together unto good”. In an unfallen world the equality of all men would be an absolute. In this world (and all possible worlds) it is essentially preserved. Under grace this essential equality is transformed into differing eternal rewards determined by charity. “In the Evening of Life, We will be Judged on Love Alone.” Of course when God crowns our merits He crowns His own gifts but though founded upon grace and the principle of predilection that judgement is not unjust. God’s grace does not conflict with the freedom of man. When we have run the race to the finish it is the equality of our starting place that displays the justice of God. That starting place is nature.

St John the Baptist chapel

There has been no authoritative papal document on usury since 1745. Charles Edward Stuart was raising the Highlands for the King when the last Pope, with the zeal to take on this subject, sat upon the throne of Peter. When making war against the Pelagian fable of Implicitism, the complaint one so often hears is that Implicitism has been floating around for years, and the Popes have done nothing about it so it must be okay. One might think that in the new springtime of Pope Francis people might have given up on the doctrine of the divinely guided digestive grumblings of the Roman Pontiff, but alas no. It occurred to me the other day that the case of usury is very similar. It takes but the merest suggestion that the lending of money at interest might just be usury and a mortal sin to transform an apparently orthodox Catholic into a red faced raging gibbering Neo-con. I watched this metamorphosis take place before my eyes in a seedy European bar circa 2001. It was not a pleasant experience. The Neo-cons are all a bit bewildered at the moment. The Zenit-theology of the Kirchengeist has taken a beating since the last conclave. But the Neo-cons will still cite the absence of any pronouncement on usury in the last two hundred and fifty-six years as evidence that there is no problem anymore. But there it is in black and white in the Acts of the fifteenth ecumenical council:

If indeed someone has fallen into the error of presuming to affirm pertinaciously that the practice of usury is not sinful, we decree that he is to be punished as a heretic; and we strictly enjoin on local ordinaries and inquisitors of heresy to proceed against those they find suspect of such error as they would against those suspected of heresy.

But don’t worry folks, the moderns tells, us the fathers of Vienne don’t really mean it. ‘Usury’ actually means ‘bad usury,’ so long as you don’t practice ‘bad usury’ then don’t worry. Perhaps it is just that usury is such a rare practice nowadays that there has been no need for the Holy See to comment, unlike the dark days of the mid-eighteenth century, when vast international banking corporations bought the loyalties of heads of state and government, and demanded huge subsidies from the ordinary tax payer on the ground that they were too big to fail. Oh… hang on.

I am told by an old friend of her’s (anecdotal evidence alert) that Elizabeth Anscombe in 1967 was pretty convinced that the prohibition on contraception was going to go the way of usury. Terrified of the Catholic bourgeoisie, Paul VI would just let the matter drop, and the succeeding popes would be too terrified to raise the question again until everyone forgot there was ever a problem. Since the Revolution, the hierarchy has been (rightly) terrified of the left. Sheltering under the protective wing of the plutocracy, Popes and bishops have been very unenthusiastic about raising embarrassing questions that might render them unwelcome guests in the house of mammon. Leo XIII did mention the fact that the concentration of the hiring of labour and the conduct of trade in the hands of comparatively few, which he sought to remedy, resulted from a “rapacious usury … more than once condemned by the Church” but that has been just about it. I often think the verbosity of Papal social encyclicals comes from the fact that the Popes are going all round the houses trying to avoid stating straight-out what the real problem is: the lending of money at interest distorts market economies, so that capital automatically gravitates to capital, instead of gravitating to labour “so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the labouring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself.”

The rise of Implicitism has many things in common with the magisterial loss of nerve about usury. Usury precisely treats created goods as if they were fertile and life giving of themselves. It treats nature as if it were grace. Usury is not condemned because it would offend comfortable wealthy respectable people. Implicitism seeks to achieve the same goals. It conflates the natural and the supernatural orders, and facilitates a worldview in which nice respectable ‘good people’ go to heaven through their fulfilment of the natural law. A spot of semi-pelagian assistance from on high will of course be most gratefully received.

Although dear Lord I am a sinner,
I have done no major crime;
Now I’ll come to Evening Service
Whensoever I have the time.
So, Lord, reserve for me a crown,
And do not let my shares go down.

‘Blessed are the poor’ says the Gospel, the miserable peasants whom God favours with the preaching of the Gospel and the efficacious grace to receive it. Those who know they are sinners and cannot possibly merit the grace of God are its fit recipients. Those who cannot imagine that ‘good people like us,’ who have had the random misfortune not to receive a preacher might be damned on account of a few trivial sins, will wait in vain for the mercy of God. As Oscar Wilde said, the Catholic Church is strictly for saints and sinners only, for merely respectable people the ‘Church’ of England must suffice. Our Lord says that it will be worse for those places where He preached and was rejected, than for Sodom on the last day. That does not mean that the inhabitants of Sodom are saved (indeed, they are the only specific group expressly designated as damned Jude 1:7), He means their torments are less than those who squandered the grace of God.

Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida: for if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had long ago done penance in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you. And thou Capharnaum, shalt thou be exalted up to heaven? thou shalt go down even unto hell. For if in Sodom had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in thee, perhaps it had remained unto this day. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to the little ones. Yea, Father; for so hath it seemed good in thy sight.

It is because we do not want to face this prospect. We do not want to face the pure gratuity of God’s grace, we want salvation to be in our power, that we try to imagine that somewhere noble pagans are redeemed by their own efforts, fulfilling the law with merely moral assistance from on high. And there is another motive, fear of the absolute opposition that faith and grace, establishes between the Church and the world. There was some dreadful debate a few years ago where some foolish Catholics agreed to defend against a baying mob of ‘new atheists’ the proposition “the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world”. Madness! The Catholic Church (depending on which sense of Kosmos one is using) is either the only force for good in the world, or it is the world’s implacable enemy. “I have given them thy word, and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world; as I also am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from evil. They are not of the world, as I also am not of the world. Sanctify them in truth.”

Now I feel a little better,
What a treat to hear Thy Word,
Where the bones of leading statesmen
Have so often been interr’d.
And now, dear Lord, I cannot wait
Because I have a luncheon date.





« Previous PageNext Page »