, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


No, not that one, folks.

As you dear readers might have noticed, over the past few weeks your humble blogger has been focusing, like a laser, on the POLITICAL sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium. Since the Presidential Election, the focus of this blog has been transitioning back to ECCLESIASTICAL matters. Yet as you also might have noticed, your humble blogger has not dropped the POLITICAL thread altogether. The reason being that it is a large part and parcel of all things ECCLESIASTICAL these days.

To be more precise, the POLITICAL bit of the Visibilium Omnium is the foundation of all things post-conciliar church and its latest mutation: FrancisChurch. 

One of the levels on which these two sub-sets of the Visibilium Omnium are intertwined is the area of FUNDING, i.e. MONEY.

To provide an OPTICAL depiction of this self evident truth, not to mention OBJECTIVE REALITY, your humble blogger has even defined a Principle – the 2nd, of the LEX ARMATICUS, in order to help you visualize this relationship. And the 2nd Principle of the LEX ARMATICUS states that:

Even neo-Modernists need to eat!

And as with all things that are OBJECTIVELY TRUE, they exits in and of themselves in the NATURAL REALM. And just like our discussion of the STATE OF NECESSITY (see here), which is another stand-alone THING ( albeit in a dematerialized form) that exists in NATURE, anything that exists in NATURE can be identified and defined using at least one of the two sources from which we obtain our FAITH, namely through the light of reason.

Therefore, one can posit that the 2nd Principle of the LEX ARMATICUS is a part and parcel of NATURE, or as we say NATURAL LAW. And since  we have POSITED that the 2nd Priciple is a stand alone entity existing in NATURE, other academic disciplines can also identify and define it, adding PROOF to the CORRECTNESS of our SUPPOSITION.

One such example of a independent PROOF as to the CORRECTNESS of our definition of the 2nd Principle comes by way of Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. According to Maslow, it is the physiological needs, i.e. the physical requirements for human survival, that are the most important. And naturally, any medium used to acquire the necessities to satisfy those needs, i.e. MONEY  would constitute an integral part of not only Maslow’s NEEDS, but likewise of our 2nd Principle.

Which brings us to the issue of MONEY, or rather the concept of MONEY. If we look up a straight forward definition, we can read as follows: (see here)

Money is any item or verifiable record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a particular country or socio-economic context, or is easily converted to such a form. The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, sometimes, a standard of deferred payment. Any item or verifiable record that fulfills these functions can be considered as money.

Pretty simple stuff, no?

However, the aspect of MONEY that interests us, in terms of this post is the aspect of MONEY as a representation of VALUE.

Here is a simple example. A farmer produces a bushel of wheat. He is willing to sell this wheat for 10 gallons of milk. Yet he has no dairy farmer in the vicinity.  With the advent of MONEY, he can exchange his product for a monetary sum that represents the VALUE that his wheat entails.

What is important to understand from the above example is that MONEY is a representation of VALUE. This representation of VALUE is what gives MONEY it’s VALUE. In other words, MONEY is nothing more than a representation of a VALUE that was created by the work of human hands, to use a favorite post-conciliar expression.

Which leads to the question of: when can VALUE be … well… VALUED? The simple answer is that VALUE can be OBSERVED when two individuals agree to exchange goods or services in a transaction that is free from any undue influence. In other words, VALUE is established when two individuals enter into an exchange under the SUBJECTIVE auspices of their free wills.

Or as Milton Freidman would say, when they are FREE TO CHOOSE.

This is critical to understand, since any encumbrance on the FREE WILL or its SUBJECTIVE VALUE aspect of the entered into transaction, distorts, i.e. CORRUPTS the TRUE VALUE of the goods and services that are the subject of the exchange.

One and by far the largest encumbrance to this establishment of VALUE that transpires in a FREE MARKET is the GOVERNMENT. Naturally, one can say that the GOVERNMENT “adds value” since it regulates the market, ensuring that the market is FREE. For this regulatory provision, a TAX is charged on the exchange, in order for the government to be in a position to regulate. In other words, government workers need to eat, just like our neo-Modernists.

Yet this TAX can never be a considered an object (dematerialized) that has VALUE since, by definition, its VALUE is not established in a FREE MARKET. A good example of this OBJECTIVE REALITY is that one government entity can charge a sales tax at one level while another at a different level. Yet the individuals entering into the transaction, for the most part, can not chose which regulator should have oversight over their transaction. They are stuck with the local regulator for the most part. Therefore, their attempt to establish VALUE through the market exchange mechanism is hindered, i.e. CORRUPTED.

So why did I go through this Economics 101 lesson and what are the ramifications for the post-conciliar FrancisChurch?

Here’s the why and what.

The Catholic Church, since its foundation has operated a very effective and rational funding model. It provided the means of SALVATION to the FAITHFUL on the basis that that SALVATION is earned through FAITH and WORKS. And according the the Catholic Precepts (absolute minimum actions required of Catholics regarding the Church), the 5th Precept stipulates the following: (see here)


  • You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church. “The fifth precept means that the faithful are obliged to assist with the material needs of the Church, each according to his own ability.”

Yet as we can see from the above defined 5th Precept, it has what can be termed a direct positive correlation between 1) the Church’s ability to fund itself and 2) the number of Pew Sitters doing the funding.

And as we know, the post-conciliar church and especially its turbo-charged version, the FrancisChurch, is short of Pew Sitters. In our paradigm, one can say that the VALUE that the post-conciliar church provides to the Pew Sitters is not commensurate with the VALUE that those Pew Sitters SUBJCETIVELY place on it, and therefore the reciprocating VALUE that the Pew Sitters would need to give-up in return.

Isn’t God’s creation brutal?

Therefore, the post-conciliar church has had to find a different funding mechanism.

And where did they find it?

Naturally, in a very non-productive yet very cash rich segment of society, i.e. the Government.

I will end here to today.

But before I do, a concluding thought.

Please recall that governments come and governments go. And even if governments don’t go, the leadership changes. Think 2016 US Presidential Election.

The Catholic Church on the other hand, has been in existence since its founding by Our Lord in Anno Domini 33. Over that span of time, one thing that the Catholic Church has always had is FAITHFUL. In other words: Pew Sitters.

Presently this is not the case. (see here)

What’s worse, it would appear that the FrancisBishop of Rome is doing everything in his power to chase away whatever Pew Sitters that haven’t left yet of their own accord. (see here and here)

It goes without saying that the post-conciliar church in general and the FrancisChurch in particular draws comfort from the fact that it has two rather sizeable and reliable sponsors: the US Catholic Church and the German “c”atholic church. Yet the bad news is that these two pillars of the post-conciliar church have been forced to adapt a new funding model that is heavily reliant, if not outright dependent on GOVERNMENT larges as opposed to the WORKS of the FAITHFUL, a funding model that has served the Bride of Christ since its founding.

The worst aspect of this new GOVERNMENT FUNDING MODEL is the fact that GOVERNMENT cannot produce anything of VALUE. Since this is the case, any quasi “works” that GOVERNMENT draws upon to provide FUNDING to the post-conciliar FrancisChurch is just as stable and sustainable and wrought with the same type of danger as… the mustard seed.

Just as a reminder, according to the Holy Gospel according to St. Luke 8:1-8 we can read the following: (see here)

And it came to pass afterwards, that he travelled through the cities and towns, preaching and evangelizing the kingdom of God; and the twelve with him:

And certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities; Mary who is called Magdalen, out of whom seven devils were gone forth,

And Joana the wife of Chusa, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others who ministered unto him of their substance.

And when a very great multitude was gathered together, and hastened out of the cities unto him, he spoke by a similitude.

The sower went out to sow his seed. And as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.

And other some fell upon a rock: and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it had no moisture.

And other some fell among thorns, and the thorns growing up with it, choked it.

And other some fell upon good ground; and being sprung up, yielded fruit a hundredfold. Saying these things, he cried out: He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

And what we are about to witness in the coming months and years is the CHOKING OF THE POST-CONCILIAR CHURCH.

I will pick up with this theme in the next post, so stayed tuned…