People forget what things mean, specifically words and phrases

And while it would be good form to lightheartedly go through a number of fun but insignificant examples, that's what Chesterton would have done, I'm too tired to think of them and will get to the point.

I happen to like Liz Wheeler, who's interviewing Jimmy Akin (a likeable person with some very good takes in theology leading to his conversion and some very bad one in the case of the nature of inerrancy). So, I look her up. 35, has a husband, has two children, started podcasting in 2020.

AND:

In January 2023, following football player Damar Hamlin's in-game collapse, Wheeler promoted a conspiracy theory that the COVID-19 vaccine was responsible for a "surge" in athlete deaths and injuries.

Can you spot what's wrong, what phrase is being misused?

Conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory means a result (usually considered unpleasant or dangerous or both by the conspiracy theorist) that is in mainstream media (including public schools as much as big newspapers) attributed to well informed decisions, chance interaction, small players, is in reality the result of some big players conspiring. If Arizona Cardinals lost a match, and someone Catholic, football fanatic and living in Phoenix said "Rockefeller has Calvinist roots, so he conspired to bribe the umpire to let the team with Catholic symbolism lose" that would be a conspiracy theory. If I replied that the match was in 2013 and a symbol of the college of cardinals losing it and so an actual judgement by God, that would not be a conspiracy theory. It may be as ridiculous as a conspiracy theory. But it is not a conspiracy theory. Because it doesn't involve an actual conspiracy about the Arizona Cardinals.

So, "Mussolini caused the death of Matteotti" is a conspiracy theory. "King Victor Emmanuel III caused the death of Matteotti" is a conspiracy theory. The latter is the one favoured by Matteotti's son, by the way, and no, Matteotti's son, like his father, is a socialist, not a Fascist. But why is it a conspiracy theory? Well, because X who "caused the death" did so by hiring some less in the limelight person to do the dirty job for him. Amerigo Dumini is no doubt less in the limelight than Il Duce. He's also less in the limelight than King Victor Emmanuel III. Il Duce could have a motive insofar as Matteotti had denounced elections. King Victor Emmanuel III could have a motive insofar as Matteotti wanted transparency on a petrol deal. When Amerigo Dumini's judges in, I think 1947, had more reasons to smear Mussolini than to smear the King who died that year sentenced him (for the second time) for the murder of Matteotti, they stated that the order was given him by Mussolini.

I would like to know what was written with notaries in Texas, or if Amerigo Dumini was bluffing, back after his release.

Freed in 1927, Amerigo Dumini left for Italian Somaliland, having been awarded a large state pension (5,000 lire). Apparently, he was still viewed as troublesome, since he was detained and interned on the Tremiti Islands. Meanwhile, he warned General Emilio De Bono that he had filed a manuscript detailing Matteotti's murder with notaries in Texas. This claim led to his release and an increase in pension to as much as 50,000 lire. He left for Italian Libya, where his pension was further increased by 2,500 lire (together with a single payment of 125,000 lire).

Well, this at least would involve either of the conspiracy theories being true, since the paying of the pension would imply that someone very important in Italy (Mussolini and Victor Emmanuel III, as Prime Minister and as King, both fit that bill) wanted the papers in Texas not to be disclosed. I wonder if they ever were, and if the judgement in 1947 was based on them, or on any statement by Dumini.

But either of these things, "Mussolini caused the death of Matteotti" and "King Victor Emmanuel III caused the death of Matteotti", is a conspiracy theory, not just because it goes beyond the obvious cause, Dumini. BUT. Because it also does so by means of a supposed criminal conspiracy.

Now, what about the statement "the COVID-19 vaccine was responsible for a "surge" in athlete deaths and injuries"? Is that a conspiracy theory? No. The COVID-19 vaccine is not supposed to be a person. Is not supposed to enter a criminal conspiracy. It is therefore very literally not a conspiracy theory. It is a medical theory. And, when it comes to personal caution, I think it's the kind of medical theory each and every person has the right to entertain and to advice others on. It's not an advice for a specific treatment, it's not medical advice that only medical practitioners can give. But right or wrong, legal or illegal, it is definitely not a conspiracy theory. People should start to remember what words mean.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Easter Octave Friday
25.IV.2025

Does The Spanish Princess Misrepresent Margaret Tudor, Queen of Scots?

My daughter is like a commodity #movie #music #the Spanish princess
Many Sheldon | 104 k views
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_jFmbg1cb9Y

This is arguably a clip from The Spanish Princess. I look it up, yes, Georgie Henley is playing Margaret Tudor in The Spanish Princess, so, I look up Margaret Tudor to find out ...

First. She was born in 1489, on the 28th of November. She married by procuration in 1502 and in real life in 1503, her first husband being James IV of Scotland. As they were married on the 8th of August, she wasn't yet 14. So, for some modern minds, an ideal candidate to illustrate the idea that royal marriages were arranged and in practise forced marriages. Or indeed that girls marrying around 14 had arranged and in practise forced marriages.

Second, no. She was not shellshocked to find out that she was marrying the Scottish King in her teens. Her father had played around with this since she was 6 or somewhat earlier. In 1497, when she was 8, a truce was made with Scotland. Any raids around the border either ceased or ceaesed to be endorsed by the Scottish King. By the time she was twelve, when the marriage by procuration was concluded, she had known about the plan for long and England and Scotland had had a truce longer and better respected than that between Gaza and the Knesset.

Third, no again. This is what ticked me off. 1502 (I didn't know the exact year, but knew it was before the Deformation), England and Scotland were Catholic countries. Unlike a Jewish girl younger than 12 years and one day, a Catholic girl couldn't get married by the word of her father. She had a say. Yes, even if she were a teen. Or just twelve. It may seem outlandish to some modern parents to allow a twelve year old girl to take major decisions in her life, they would be imposed by dad and mum, and if for some reason marriage was there, they would conclude that marriage too was imposed, as in the daughter really having no say. Well, no. Sum of Theology, Supplement to the Third Part, Question 47, Article 3, I'm citing the authority and the explanation only first:

Article 3. Whether compulsory consent invalidates a marriage?

...

On the contrary, A Decretal says (cap. Cum locum, De sponsal. et matrim.): "Since there is no room for consent where fear or compulsion enters in, it follows that where a person's consent is required, every pretext for compulsion must be set aside." Now mutual contract is necessary in marriage. Therefore, etc.

Further, Matrimony signifies the union of Christ with the Church, which union is according to the liberty of love. Therefore it cannot be the result of compulsory consent.

I answer that, The marriage bond is everlasting. Hence whatever is inconsistent with its perpetuity invalidates marriage. Now the fear which compels a constant man deprives the contract of its perpetuity, since its complete rescission can be demanded. Wherefore this compulsion by fear which influences a constant man, invalidates marriage, but not the other compulsion. Now a constant man is reckoned a virtuous man who, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 4), is a measure in all human actions.

However, some say that if there be consent although compulsory, the marriage is valid in conscience and in God's sight, but not in the eyes of the Church, who presumes that there was no inward consent on account of the fear. But this is of no account, because the Church should not presume a person to sin until it be proved; and he sinned if he said that he consented whereas he did not consent. Wherefore the Church presumes that he did consent, but judges this compulsory consent to be insufficient for a valid marriage.

I would further say, this is one of the things that Sts. Lucy and Barbara died for. In the Pagan Roman world, in theory also the marriage was contracted freely, but this was not quite respected. Indeed, the patron saint of Margaret Tudor, in whose Church she was baptised, was also a martyr for opposing an unwanted marriage, though in her case the adoptive parent was set aside by the Roman prefect.

St. Margaret Virgin and martyr; also called MARINA; belonged to Pisidian Antioch in Asia Minor, where her father was a pagan priest. Her mother dying soon after her birth, Margaret was nursed by a pious woman five or six leagues from Antioch. Having embraced Christianity and consecrated her virginity to God, she was disowned by her father and adopted by her nurse.

While she was one day engaged in watching the flocks of her mistress, a lustful Roman prefect named Olybrius caught sight of her, and attracted by her great beauty sought to make her his concubine or wife.

...

The Greek Church honors her under the name Marine on 13 July; the Latin, as Margaret on 20 July. ...

So, no. If Margaret Tudor had said "no, I won't" (or "just like that?") she would NOT have been met with "you knew that one day a husband would be chosen for you" ... the person seemingly mother of Margaret* is also off. Margaret's real mother was Elisabeth of York, and she died when Margaret was still married by procuration, in England, namely at age 37. A woman of 37 doesn't look that wrinkled. Even if one late pregnancy too many was what killed her (she died in puerperal fever, i e infection after childbirth, when her last daughter was 7 days old).

This may be the key why the marriage may have been consumed some time later, she was still in mourning after her mother had died. I am no expert on the case, I do not have the books written about her, but it sometimes happened that marriages concluded early in the age of the bride were delayed in consummation, and wikipedia notes the first child of Margaret as Queen consort of Scotland was born in 1507. However, it could also be, it took time for her to get pregnant, but if not, recall, her mother had died before she left England and she suffered from nosebleeds for a while.

Did Margaret ever want to divorce? Yes, but that was her second husband, as she was a widow. Part of it was, there was a rumour that James IV hadn't really died at Flodden, so she doubted she was really a widow. If she hadn't been, I suppose he was killed, that would have made her second marriage invalid.

So, the scene in The Spanish Princess seems to have been written, while the parents aren't absolute monsters, only about as monstrous as some parents to teens these days, by people who had watched too much Game of Thrones. It's not a documentary, not even about the War of the Roses. And while the moral dissonance from what are now conceived as human values, and rightly so as far as horror from forced marriage is concerned, is far less than in Game of Thrones, it's still an extra layer of unnecessary moral distance.

Before I end, there is one more part of the Aquinas article I want to share. Objection 2 and its answer:

Objection 2. Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 1), that which is done on account of mixed violence is more voluntary than involuntary. Now consent cannot be compelled except by mixed violence. Therefore it is not entirely involuntary, and consequently the marriage is valid.

...

Reply to Objection 2. Not any kind of voluntariness suffices for marriage: it must be completely voluntary, because it has to be perpetual; and consequently it is invalidated by violence of a mixed nature.

Annulments due to lack of consent happened, and were somewhat scandalous. The parents of Margaret Tudor would not have wanted to risk that.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Maundy Thursday
17.IV.2025

* It seems this was not Elisabeth of York, but someone who spoke to "the Spanish Princess" (Catherine of Aragon) as regent after the death of Elisabeth of York. My bad. It would be Lady Margaret Beaufort, the most important lady after Elisabeth of York died. However, as she died at only 66, I don't think even so she would be that wrinkled. It's not as if "51 then was" (overall) "like 75 now" as someone said, it's more like women dying younger because of untreated breast cancer and things.

How Do We Know History?

Creation vs. Evolution: Forrest Valkai Debunked Will Spencer, or So He Thought · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: How Do We Know History?

It's one of these topics where a Christian and an Atheist (or for that matter very vague Theist) are not likely to agree.

Here an ex-Christian is giving his point of view:

Do Apologists Prove Anything? Why Christian Arguments Fail? The Bible Is NOT Reliable As History.
DEBUNKING CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM | 24 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD5_5QpCBd0

5:34 — 5:50 sth

"they are not doing historical research, they are taking the Biblical story as true to begin with, accepting the supernatural myth as true to begin with, and then trying to manipulate the actual historical facts to make them fit their world view, which is based on non-facts"

History is an art of finding (or keeping) a reliable source, and drawing facts out of it. Or more reliable sources.

Reliable being to some degree subjective in evaluation, this means, not all will agree on what sources are reliable.

But here we have a man taking "the actual historic facts" as sourced in any material outside the Bible and outside the supernatural, and more specifically summaries by modern historians or archaeologists.

If one knew from a philosophical or religious viewpoint that the Bible were wrong, one would not have the right to presume the Bible reliable on all, but it would not automatically presume the Bible unreliable on history.

Now, one actually doesn't know the Bible wrong from a religious or philosophical viewpoint even in theology. But even if one were on the edge, even if one were not sure about the Bible being right, two things should stand out:

• one would have to consider the Bible on an a priori equal footing with other ancient texts
• one would have to consider the evidence for miracles on an equal footing with evidence for other events.

And if one wanted to go further, consider how much of the Biblical miracles are proof of how much of the Christian theology. But that's another enquiry beyond the strictly historic one.

However. Charles Hurst does not agree. He's a very vague Theist. To him, the historic facts are what we, the public get from "legitimate historians" who have for rather long now (since Prussia, a power steeped in Scepticism, a culture where Voltaire left his mark on Sanssouci) "held" the miraculous and the Bible "at bay". As if they were harmful things. They have in other words "defended" their Historian's craft from "undue" influence from the Bible or from acceptance of miracles.

Part of the background is a philosophy steeped in Kant. To him, as to Hume, empiric historic facts do not support supernatural claims. This is purely a decision a priori, a decision, not an observation. It probably started with wanting to avoid becoming Catholic on hearing of Catholic miracles in the present (Hume was part time in France). Both Hume and Kant were Protestants, the Anglican and the Calvinist or possibly Lutheran.

Those people set the tone for what's "academically correct" and Charles Hurst thinks it's logically correct to follow that prejudice.

I do not. I would not take that tone even for Pagan sources.

History is about sources, texts, written, oral, or even oral and later written down. They are usually narrative. Non-narrative texts and non-textual artefacts give back-ground. They are not the main source of certitude, they provide a filter. But that source of "a filter" should not be confused with the filter from a non-Christian world view. So, he says that after seeing archaeological facts about Jericho, Tim Mahoney and David Rohl "make up facts" (beyond those of archaeology) "to fit the square peg in the round hole" (of the Bible being true). Well, what Charles Hurst calls "make up facts" is what is more usually referred to a making hypotheses. And when it comes to the purpose, to show the Bible being true, that involves treating the Bible as at least a historical source. Which one should anyway. If its statement fit the other sources of information about Jericho, that's more usually referred to as a confirmation. But to a man like Charles Hurst, when confirmations go the direction of confirming the Bible, one would need extreme confirmation bias to accept that confirmation.

You see, everyone has some kind of confirmation bias, including the most anti-Biblical scholar. I simply disagree it is of the more extreme or useless kind when accepting the Bible or Christianity or miracles.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Abbess St. Fare of Faremoutiers
3.IV.2025

Eboriaci, in territorio Meldensi, sanctae Burgundofarae, etiam Farae nomine appellatae, Abbatissae et Virginis.