Tags
Catholic Church in Poland, Cavalcade of the Three Kings, Chapel of the Holy Trinity, chastity belts, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, Father Anthony Cekada, Fox News, Francis Effect, FrancisChurch - In Liquidation, Frankfurt School, FSSP, Genderism, George Soros, Germany, Giardia lamblia, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Havana, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Holy Year of Mercy, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Humanism, Isospora belli, Jacque Derrida, James O'Keefe, Jesuits, Jesus Christ, Joseph Ratzinger, Jozef Pilsudski, Keynes, Keynesian Economics, Kirill I, Krakow, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Mexico City, Microsporidia, Miracle on the Vistula, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Nassim Taleb, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, Net Neutrality, new springtime, New York Times, Nigel Farage, Pagan Christians, pathological, Poland, Polish Bolshevik War 1920, Pontifical High Mass, Pope Pius VI, President Andrzej Duda, Project Veritas, r/K Selection Theory, Raymond Burke, Republic of Poland, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "c"atholicZombie, s "theological structuring", s ABC News, s ABERRO AGENDA, s aberro-sex agenda, s AIDS, s Ambiguity, s Anal Cancer, s anorectal traum, s Archbishop of Warsaw- Praga, s Associated Press, s Austria, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s Big Gender, s Bio-History, s Boris Johnson, s BREXIT, s Card. Muller, s Cardinal Burke, s Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, s cardinal Walter Kasper, s Catholic Church, s Pope Francis, Saul Alinsky, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, St Thomas Aquinas, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Syphilis25, Tags anal fissures, Tags Black Lives Matter, Team Bergoglio, The Remnant, The Scholasticum, theological deconstructionism, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Work of Human Hands, Zombie, ZombieBishop, ZombieChurch
Quick post today. The subject matter is the LEX ARMATICUS.
A secondary consideration today is to introduce my loyal readers to Curt Doolittle (h/t Cold Standing). Curt describes himself as “a philosopher of Natural Law, in the Western Aristocratic tradition”. He works at the Propertarian Institute and the link to his website I have placed in the right hand margin and can be found at propertarianism.com (see here).
Before we go on, a word to my readers. Over the last 6 months, I have introduced a wide range of secular personalities on this blog. The reason behind this is due to the work that they are producing, runs parallel to the mission of this blog. As my loyal readers know, the mission of this blog is chronicling the “Restoration of all thing in Christ”. And as we know, the Restoration can not be limited to just the Ecclesiastical sphere of our human existence. The reason being: God created the UNIVERSE, so when we say “the Restoration of all things…”, we literally have to mean “the Restoration of A.L.L. things…”.
Yes?
To help understand this quite obvious if not always apparent aspect of our daily existence, your humble blogger has defined a general principle, namely the LEX ARMATICUS. The foundational principle of the LEX ARMATICUS is defined as:
Those individuals and institutions that comply to the et Invisibilium, will remain a part of the Visibisium Omnium. Those that do not, will be consigned to the trash heap of history.
Where the following definitions hold:
Visibisium Omnium – all the material “things” that we can identify with our senses (touch, sight, feel, smell, taste)
et Invisibilium – all the non-material laws and processes that regulate the visibilium omnium (e.g. the laws of physics – classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, laws of mathematics, rules of logic, etc.)
Or to put is another way, the LEX ARMATICUS is nothing more than a restatement of NATRUAL LAW.
And now we have come full circle, since Curt Doolittle is a “philosopher of Natural Law, in the Western Aristocratic tradition”.
Below is a post that appeared on the Propertarianism website that provides a quite elegant and concise definition thread and history of Natural Law and its place in Western thought.
I have also inserted text explaining the overlooked school of the Scholastic rationalists (see here) after ‘The Christians — A Utopian Supernatural Law’ entry. Unfortunately Curt did not provide this information, information which would have provided a more accurate picture of Catholic “rationalists”, an often ignored if not misunderstood school of philosophical thought. It was in fact the Catholic rationalists of this period that are responsible for the development of such things as higher learning (the university), the scientific method, the subjective theory of value, etc. and are the forerunners to the secular rationalists of the post Enlightenment era.
In the Catholic Church, the influence of the Scholastic rationalists was brought to an end with the the neo-Modernist revolution at Vatican II. This is explained in the seminal essay written by Dr. John Lamont (see here) which I am continuously referencing on this blog.
And as I have explained in a previous post (see here), it is not the neo-Modernists that brought about the suppression of “rationalism” not only in the Catholic Church, but in society in general, as much as the post-Modernists.
This diagnosis of the general state of Western Civilization is now being observed, identified and understood by not only the Catholics (A.K.A. Traditionalists), such as the Society of St. Pius X and the SSPX breakaway communities in the Ecclesia Dei Commission, but by the secular thinkers as well.
And to tie this all together, this is the reason why I am continuously referencing people like Stefan Molyneux, Dr. Jordan Peterson, Dr. Duke Pesta and others, who exhibit this understanding and are speaking out about it.
So when you, dear reader are reading or watching the products of the work done by these individuals, please notice the general themes and underlying concepts and ideas, while overlooking the occasional anti-Catholic or anti-religious slights. To understand what these people are saying provides us with an insight into a large swath of what the general Western population is listening to and thinking. Coincidentally, the large swath is the same people that voted for Brexit and got Mr. Donald J. Trump elected as the 45th President of the United States of America.
PS Now after you reading the below, go back and watch the Molyneux video that I have embedded at the top of this post.
And after watching it, tell me that he is not a neo-Scholastic rationalist?
And now to the Natural Law post… (see here)
*****
What Do We Meany by Natural Law?
A Little History of Natural Law – From The Good, to the Moral, to the Rational, to the Scientific.
What is Law?
Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884). Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed.
Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician.
Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence
Natural Law evolved as a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.
The Greeks – Living In Correspondence with The Natural World
The Greeks — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physis, φúσις) and “law,” “custom,” or “convention” (nomos, νóμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8).
The Stoics — A Rational and Purposeful Law
The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory.
The Christians — A Utopian Supernatural Law
Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man’s Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD)
Scholastic rationalism – (The revolt against abject mysticism)
Scholasticism sprang from the study of dialectic in the schools. The most decisive battle of Scholasticism was that which it waged in the twelfth century against the mystics who condemned the use of dialectic. The distinguishing mark of Scholasticism in the age of its highest development is its use of the dialectical method. It is, therefore, a matter, once more, for surprise, to find Scholasticism accused of undue subservience to authority and of the neglect of reason. Rationalism is a word which has various meanings. It is sometimes used to designate a system which, refusing to acknowledge the authority of revelation, tests all truth by the standard of reason. (Ed note: what is known as ‘scientism” presently) In this sense, the Scholastics were not Rationalists. The Rationalism of Scholasticism consists in the conviction that reason is to be used in the elucidation of spiritual truth and in defense of the dogmas of Faith. It is opposed to mysticism, which distrusted reason and placed emphasis on intuition and contemplation. In this milder meaning of the term, all the Scholastics were convinced Rationalists, the only difference being that some, like Abelard and Roscelin, were too ardent in their advocacy of the use of reason, and went so far as to maintain that reason can prove even the supernatural mysteries of Faith, while others, like St. Thomas, moderated the claims of reason, set limits to its power of proving spiritual truth, and maintained that the mysteries of faith could not be discovered and cannot be proved by unaided reason.
The whole Scholastic movement, therefore, is a Rationalistic movement in the second sense of the term Rationalism. The Scholastics used their reason; they applied dialectic to the study of nature, of human nature and of supernatural truth. Far from depreciating reason, they went as far as man can go — some modern critics think they went too far — in the application of reason to the discussion of the dogmas of Faith. They acknowledged the authority of revelation, as all Christian philosophers are obliged to do. They admitted the force of human authority when the conditions of its valid application were verified. But in theology, the authority of revelation did not coerce their reason and in philosophy and in natural science they taught very emphatically that the argument from authority is the weakest of all arguments. They did not subordinate reason to authority in any unworthy sense of that phrase. It was an opponent of the Scholastic movement who styled philosophy “the handmaid of theology”, a designation which, however, some of the Schoolmen accepted to mean that to philosophy belongs the honourable task of carrying the light which is to guide the footsteps of theology. One need not go so far as to say, with Barthélemy Saint Hilaire, that “Scholasticism, in its general result, is the first revolt of the modern spirit against authority.” Nevertheless, one is compelled by the facts of history to admit that there is more truth in that description than in the superficial judgment of the historians who describe Scholasticism as the subordination of reason to authority.
The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016) – A Rational Natural Law – From Property
(Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German,
The 20th Century Thinkers – The Reduction of Social Science to Property Rights
(Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German)
21st Century Thinkers – The Science of Cooperation (In Markets)
(Doolittle)
The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights, and where such law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs – costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation. Impediments to cooperation. Where cooperation creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy.
In other words, natural law, evolved from empirical common law, as the formal category(property), logic (construction), empiricism(from observation), and science (continuous improvement) of human cooperation.
In this view, ethics, morality, economics, law, politics constitute the science of cooperation: social science. Everything else is justification, advocacy, literature, and propaganda.
The Deus Ex Machina Blog 
So the difficulty facing the church is this: we can see gods writing in the universe: the laws of nature, and in the actions of man: Natural Law. If church doctrine is incompatible with Natural Law then it is false – the frailty of men of God, interpreting the words of god as best they could. But there is not much to correct. The church developed natural law itself. There is nothing in the words of Jesus Christ, or the Common Law of Europa that is incompatible with Natural Law. There is however, a great deal of Jewish, Babylonian, and Egyptian writing in the bible that is incompatible with natural law. Much of the Tanakh and nearly all of Jewish Law – even that reformed by Mendelssohn is incompatible with Natural Law – it is poly-ethical – and we have seen Jews punished by history for it. And very little of the Koran – so much so that it might be the work of an anti-Christ. For it prevents man from ascent through mandatory ignorance. And we have seen the result in the death of every civilization touched by it. Communism is the worse religion as it is predicated on violations of natural law, and a series of great lies, where most ancient religions are merely ‘imprecise’ because of the limits of ancient knowledge and of ancient languages. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Shintoism are prisoners of the limits of primitive human thought and language more than they are incompatible with Natural Law. At present the false pope is not practicing Christianity, nor is he seeking to restore the other half of the church: the aristocracy; nor is he practicing Natural Law, but Communism. He is a False Pope. He is too weak to be an anti-christ. But he is a false pope. So this is why I have little faith in the future of the church. They are trying to make money through donations not to teach the Word and Meaning of God. And as we have seen with the communists, the jews, and the muslims – civilizations pay heavily for failing to teach and learn the meaning of the words of God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
FWIW: There is a great difference between understanding the words of Men of God as they write and speak them, and understanding the words of God as he wrote them with the universe. Gods words are perfect, they are consistent, they are comprehensible with enough effort. But they are not simple. Once we understand God’s words, we must then understand God’s meaning. Understanding God’s meaning has been the struggle for men. And men have always been poor interpreters and translators of the divine. Today we understand Gods language better than ever before. But we understand God’s meaning perhaps less than before. And there are those who intentionally lie and deceive, precisely because Gods words are so difficult for man to interpret and translate. We live in a world constructed largely of lies on the one hand. And on the other, I am not sure we will like the meaning of the words of God once we understand them better. Why? Because god made man and woman, young and old, weak and strong, beautiful and not, rich and poor, ill and hale, dim and wise, ignorant and educated. He created a word that is only plentiful if we exist in small numbers. He created a universe which is vast, but that is dangerous to man. He gave us the ability to reason, but not wisdom and character. He gave us the ability to cooperate, but to be selfish. He gave us kindness and care, or the ability to punish and kill. So he gave us tools. But he requires that we cooperate in vast numbers, if we are to earn our way to sit beside him. The One Law he gave us to do so is Natural Law. That which we call ‘reciprocity’. But unless we save all of us, we may not save any of us. And it is this uncomfortable truth we must face: God allowed us to fail. And only together can we succeed. And this is the meaning of the existence of Natural Law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent addition to history of Natural Law. I would add that the treatment of people in the new world horrified the Spanish theologians so much that they invested heavily in updating and expanding natural law.
A couple of points.
1) I was raised a catholic, and identify with the pre-vatican ii church. I consider vatican ii a disaster. I consider the chair of st peter empty. I consider the current pope a false pope.
2) I write for an audience in the language that they can understand. It does not mean I cannot write for different audiences, in their languages – languages that they will understand. The problem in talking to traditionalists is one that is common, and we just saw in the debate between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris: the difference between conflationary, and coherent truth that combines the good, spirit, literature, and meaning, with the true regardless of existential limits, – and deflationary, descriptive truth within existential limits and free of judgements spirit, literature, and goodness. However, I must explain the importance of that difference.
2) My understanding is that the spiritual experience is necessary and that the church provided it. That this experience can be provided to many by Ritual(Repetition), by Action-Discipline (Stoicism), by Disconnected Mental Discipline(Mindfulness) and by Prayer and Contemplation (language). That the church and temple experience is necessary for the experience and training in sacredness (emotional security). That the literary experience is necessary for our envisioning of possibilities(Intellectual security). That the scientific experience is necessary for the cooperation of men in transforming the universe for our use (practical security). And that the juridical experience is necessary for the resolution of our disputes – (security of life, property, family and society). And that the military experience is necessary for all security – particularly for men. And that in the west, we developed all of these languages and traditions to provide for all those needs.
3) I specialize in Action: the practical (scientific), Juridical (Life and Property), and Military (civilization itself). I do not specialize Experience: in the spiritual, the sacred, or the literary. There are reasons for this division of specialization. They are good reasons: competition keeps us free of corruption of spirit, sacred, and literary that we have seen in some civilizations, and the corruption of science, justice, and violence in other civilizations …. and that we have seen in christian civilization since the lies of Boaz, Freud, Marx, and Frankfurt, and the lies of the French and the Postmodernists who tried to recreate a pseudo-scientific religion, were industrialized by mainstream media for the profit of business, finance, academy, politician and bureaucracy at the expense of soul, individual, family, civilization, law, and religion so carefully constructed by the church over millennia. So I work at deconflating the experiential and the actionable because the conflation of the experiential and the actionable, the good and the true, the ideal and the possible, were the means by which our church and our civilization was undermined – by intent, and continues to this day.
This is a more technical way of saying that faith teaches the golden rule, and law the silver rule.
4) There are many degrees of decidability. Between one feeling and another. Between a preference and another. Between one parable and another. Between that which is reasonable (Understandable) and another. Between that which is rational (non contradictory) and another. Between that which is more correspondent with reality and that which is less so. Between that which is existentially possible (operational) and that which is not. Between that which is economically possible (tolerable) and that which is not. Between that which is voluntary and that which is not. Between that which produces beneficial unintended consequences, and that which does not.
But principally, we divide these methods into Spiritual, Mythical, literary, traditional, moral, reasonable, rational, logical, empirical, and scientific. When we have a great deal of information we may use the scientific. When we are highly uncertain, we rely on the moral, traditional literary, mythical, and spiritual. The more information we possess the more reason (calculation), the less we possess the more intuition (spirit).
We can identify an attempt at deception when a question may be answered by use of a method of decidability of greater precision because we have the information necessary to use that method of greater precision. Or when one attempts to use a method of more precise decidability, yet we lack the information to apply that method of decidability. We can create frauds either way.
But we are mere mortals, we vary in ability, in education, in experience, and in mastery.
This is a more technical way of saying that the world of the spirit belongs to God (Faith and Religion), and the world of action belongs to Caesar (Science and Law).
5) So I teach ‘convergence’ -and that is, that we must – as humans – practice the spiritual, literary, conflationary, and meaningful to cooperate, and we must practice the actionable, descriptive, deflationary, and ‘true’ to resolve conflicts.
And so I leave the ‘good’ for those who conflate, and I practice the ‘true’ for those of us, who, unfortunately, must resolve conflicts between people – provide restitution if possible, punishment if not, and death if necessary. And it is this convergence and competition that keeps the faith and the law uncorrupted. And it is the conflation of faith and law that corrupts both.
This is a more technical way of saying that some of you wish to sit in safety at the right and hand of god, to do what might be done to create good: inform and advice. Some of us sit at the left and of god, to do what must be done: judge and punish, to end and prevent bad. Between possible goods and certain bads, we prevent each other’s corruption and do what Christendom has done best: build a world that the rest is in envy of.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
LikeLike
Ha! I was right. I knew there was a Catholic, even if lapsed, mind at work in your writing. I can smell the sacraments from 1000’s of miles away. In a previous response to me you intimated only a family connection not actual incorporation into the church militant.
Thanks for responding. Lots of great points. Really like the distinguishing of experience and action.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Really like the distinguishing of experience and action.”
Yes, something very Pius X-esque!
It is as if ones reading “part II” of Pascendi Domini Gregiis. 🙂
LikeLike
The Cardinals chose John Paul – a smart Pope, of profound character, profund wisdom, and of balanced judgement. People loved him but it did not reform the future of the church. The Cardinals chose Benedict, a conservative intellectual pope. But it did not reform the future of the church. The Cardinals have chosen Francis – a non-intellectual, anti-intellectual, leftist Pope. And I suspect that he will also fail to reform the future of the church.
I had expected that the church, like the monarchies, was just trying to endure the 20th century so that this era of ‘fashion’ would exhaust itself, and we could return to business as usual, with the church, the burghers, and the aristocracy dividing the job of governing, the masses, the economy/judicial and legislative/military classes.
But my belief is that the church failed to reform with Vatican ii by expanding the liturgy beyond even what the protestants and universalists had offered, and merely tried to make a softer church. The academy broke from the church, becuase the church could not reform enough to accomodate science. The economy broke with the church because tit could not accomotdate competition. The aristocracy broke from the church because it could not accomodate war. And the state, the academy, and the financial sector defeated the church without firing a single shot – just letting the church commit voluntary suicide was enough.
The church could have reformed, and integrated the academy, the law, and the military. But it found itself left outside, and with no means of funding, and no property and no production.
So the church is left with a few traditionalists, and a vast legion of third world underclasses.
Myth and Soul, History and Tradition, economy and polity, politics and war.
A church that once practiced all, has ended up practicing none.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Myth and Soul, History and Tradition, economy and polity, politics and war.
A church that once practiced all, has ended up practicing none.”
All of this is a step in the right direction. The Church had no business becoming as worldly as it did beginning with the time of Constantine as it filled the leadership vacuum following the demise of the Roman Empire. As the failing, worldly Church diminishes, a smaller more spiritual one is emerging focusing on living the Gospel and preparing for eternal life.
LikeLike
I put a link on his article to the section you indicated.
Let’s see what he says about that.
LikeLike
Thks.
LikeLike
Done. Thx. 😉
LikeLike
Very good to see Mr. Doolittle mentioned. Thanks for the h/t.
I am deeply engaged with his work right now. Truth is a subject that appears with great frequency in his work. A Catholic is on sure ground with the Truth as the Truth is none other than Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Whom we are called to come to know, love, and serve.
Mr. Doolittle’s glaring problem is that, while he pretends to the august title of philosopher, he actually demonstrates, and this is an all too common fault, incompetence as a philosopher in that he irrationally privileges philosophical certainty over natural certainty. This is a problem because the divine revelation deposited with the Catholic Church for safe keeping is rendered in natural certainty. This is why he and Stephan Molyneux are atheists. The disorder is in the will not the intellect. They could know the truth about the existence of God if, and only if, they wanted. They don’t want to and the way that they fool themselves is to insist that proof be given for the existence of God.
This stumps most people, myself included, until the trick is exposed.
God is the First Principle of first Principles. First principles are givens. God is a given. He and first principles can not be explained by a higher proof. They are evident. That which is evident does not need proof. Philosophical reflexion provides philosophical certainty, aka proof.
Do you see the problem?
To insist on proof is to insist both on what can be given and what need not be expected in the first place.
I know that you like videos, but here is the book that will help you to navigate Curt Doolittle’s works and still stay Catholic. Like all good Catholic books by our dear and learned priests, it is practical scholasticism, in this case for adults, where the Baltimore and Penny Catechisms are practical scholasticism for children.
https://archive.org/details/naturalreligion00hettgoog
If you or anyone is going to make the very worthwhile, but not insignificant, investment to read this work, please take the time to really understand the introduction before proceeding to the rest of the work.
All that said, Curt’s work is a gold mine of ideas very suggestive of the way forward for rebuilding Catholic society. If one is familiar with E. Michael Jones’s videos (hint hint, look’em up) and books, especially The Slaughter of Cities, then it can seen that the roll out of the corrosive program of social engineering was tested out on American Catholic society and then applied to the rest of the population.
Curt’s ideas, those that he holds that are Catholic and these are many, can be extracted and employed to rebuild Catholic society in advance of the wider restoration of society outside the Church.
Well, that is what I am working on.
LikeLike
Arg!
Correction:
To insist on proof is to insist both on what can NOT be given and what need not be expected in the first place.
LikeLike
Thanks S. Armaticus for broadening our view of the Faith in all it’s myriad manifestations. Let us keep our minds open as you advocate.
LikeLike
Like I mentioned in another post, what is needed is a solid Dominican who can enter into this “market space” and fill in the gaps of these secular philosophers.
The two guys who are the closest at present (from what I can gauge) are Vox Day and Duke Pesta.
LikeLike
I am interested in who in the Dominican Order we should listen to. Is there anyone around like Garrigou-Lagrange? I support the Dominicans of the Eastern Province (St. Joseph) but am concerned about how badly Anthony Esolen has been treated at Providence College which they manage. Recently they told me they would do something about the problems at Providence. Hope so.
LikeLike
Supposedly there is a strong group in the Eastern Province, one of who is Fr Thomas Joseph White OP, associate professor at the Dominican House of Studies (Washington DC).
Does that name ring a bell?
LikeLike
Thanks, I have read some of his stuff. I wonder how critical he is of Vatican II and the damage it has done? For political reasons such thoughts probably have to be kept subdued.
LikeLike