Qui fut Dom Gaston Aubourg - et qui sauva Bayeux?

Dom Aubourg était pour certains l'auteur du livre Entretien sur les Choses de Dieu, éd. NEL, il semble avoir aussi écrit:

Dom Aubourg. Le Vrai mystère de Jeanne d'Arc : Méditation
http://www.amazon.fr/Aubourg-Vrai-mystère-Jeanne-dArc/dp/B0018JN0GI

Mais passons à sa biographie, telle que je l'ai connue sur une conférence mardi le 16 octobre 2012 à Bayeux. Les informations que j'en donne correctement sont dues au conférencier, seuls mes erreurs de mémoire et mes à propos sont mon œuvre. Il vécut 1887-1967. Éduqué par une mère pieuse il va déjà au petit-seminaire (rappelons: un seminaire des probables futurs prêtres à l'âge de collège et lycée), ensuite au seminaire, il reçoit le sacerdoce à l'âge de 23 ans, dans la cathédrale de Bayeux. Il rejoint Solemnes. Il était très proche de St Thomas d'Aquin et de Sainte Thérèse de Lisieux.

Quand les lois de Jules Ferry contre les congrégations s'empirent dans l'application, il doit aller avec une communauté sur Isle of Wight (?), dont il retiendra un anglais parfait.

Au retour il doit quitter Solemnes quand le Pape Pie XI interdit l'Action Française, ce qu'il juge excessif. Pour éviter des tensions autour de ce fort charactère, il doit résider hors de Solemnes, à St Vigor juste dehors de Bayeux. Là se trouve le Couvent de la Charité, il y reçoit pendant la guerre des orphelins, des réfugiés d'Espagne, des enfants de Paris.

Après la guerre il aide son ami l'évêque de Bayeux et Lisieux, Mgr Picaud, de rebâtir les églises et monastères endommagés ou détruits pendant la guerre, dont une église ou chapelle - à Caen - en style moderne avec un architecte juif. Mgr Picaud devient évêque de Bayeux et Lisieux en 1931 et démissionne en 54, Dom Aubourg se retire aussi au même temps ou peu après, car il n'est pas si proche avec le prochain évêque.

Ceux qui l'ont connu à Bayeux témoignent qu'il avait le don de l'écoute. Aussi une dame de l'auditorium doit la connaissance de celui qui devint son mari à la présentation faite par Dom Aubourg. La plupart de ses écrits restent encore à publier, il était un écrivain prodigieux, mais très peu fut publié.

À ses côtés pendant la guerre se trouvent, d'abord biensûr Dom Picaud, et les sœurs de La Charité de St Vigor, dont il prenait en charge la direction spirituelle, donc surtout une Mère Yvonne-Aimée de Jésus, la Supérieure du Couvent, ensuite le très pieux maire de Bayeux, Élie Dodeman, en service de 1929 à 1945, l'a connu au moins aussi le préfet (sous-préfet?) de la Gendarmerie, Lieutenant Lepère, qui pendant la guerre "montrait une neutralité exemplaire"* mais qui après la guerre était torturé pendant l'épuration. Et tous les autres.

Parlant de "neutralité exemplaire", j'avais moi-même l'occasion de lire dans tout un autre contexte les articles du très bon Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique sur Insurrection Juste (qui peut commencer avec actes isolés de défense légitime contre des actes concrets de tyrannie: si celle-ci persiste on pourra alors amplifier), Légitimisme, Usurpation. Il parait que pendant une usurpation on peut collaborer avec des actes de régime parfaitement normaux, comme la punition des brigands. Principe à retenir pour ceux qui ont collaboré avec Napoléon - et pour ceux qui ont collaboré avec l'Occupation. Pourtant, que dire si les résistants pour financier leur but volent et le policier les attrape comme justement voleurs? Je ne sais pas, mais je redoute qu'une histoire comme ça ait pu jouer quand plus tard Lepère fut passé sous torture après la guerre. J'avais malheureusement pas demandé pendant la conférence. De toute façon, Lieutenant Lepère fut sur place pendant la libération, et il agissait dans le but de sauver les vies.*

Que se passe-t-il alors pendant la libération?

Mardi le 6 juin 1944 - connu comme D-Day - la ville a été consacré à la Très Sainte Vierge Marie par le maire Dodeman. "La population prie, les vœux et les promesses se multiplient, les Allemands déguerpissent dès le début du bombardement".(Il a dit "déguerpillen"t au lieu de "déguerpissent", ou alors il a dit "commencent à déguerpir" et je n'ai pas entendu "commencent à")* La gendarmérie de Ryes fut la première délivrée, il y a eu un mort, Lieutenant Lepère était au courant, et à part le fait que ça fut une mémoire douloureuse qu'il a raconté à François Leberre, je ne vois pas comment ça change les fait ou possibilités à propos le geste de Dom Aubourg.

Le conférencier se base, à part des informations non écrites, sur P. Émile de Vallée qui a fait un livre de témoignages, et sur Fr. Godefroi qui témoigne de battailles autour de l'abbaye de Juaye Mondaye jusqu'au 11 juillet.

Fait remarcable: les Allemands auraient pu tirer plus tôt sur les Britanniques pour rentrer en ville, mais ils y renoncent.

Autre fait remarcable: dans le contexte de la consécration de la ville, on avait donné la consigne de tous rester à maison, une seule ne l'a pas fait et elle fut la seule tuée. Un projetil d'obus au moins a aterri sans éclater.

Les Anglais arrivent, ils rencontrent Dom Aubourg (à Saint Vigor?), ils lui demandent s'il y avait des Allemands dans la ville. Il dit non, ce qui n'était pas tout à fait exacte. Les Anglais lui disent de passer le chemin avec eux, et s'il avait dit faux, c'était lui qui passe: ils le prennent donc en hôtage. Après une marche par la ville, les Anglais n'ayant trouvé aucun Allemand, ils le relachent et renoncent à bombarder la ville.

Il y a dans cette histoire des choses remarcables. Refugiés d'Espagne qui n'étaient pas dans des camps. Un bénédictin qui n'a pas exactement le goût des douze étapes de l'humilité quand il s'agit de défendre Maurras et les Cathos à ses côtés. Mais encore: que des alliés non-Communistes prennent un prêtre en hôtage me semble peu probable. Et que Lepère ait gardé la stricte neutralité, sans actes inimicales envers les partisans, alors il a du avoir de la chance. Sinon, ça a pu être une chose à répéter pendant les tortures de l'épuration - et après il aurait gardé la même histoire en rencontrant par exemple François Leberre quand celui-ci fut encore en service comme gendarme. Mais ce n'est pas impossible. Aussi un homme à Caen m'a dit que toute la Normandie fut bombardé ou toute la côte normande, sans exeption pour Bayeux.** Et si la ville n'a pas été bombardé du tout, d'où vient le projetil d'obus non éclaté? Pourtant, ce que le conférencier met en doute n'est rien de tout ça, mais autre chose.

En acceptant que les choses se soient passées ainsi, on peut se demander si le geste de Dom Aubourg aurait sauvé Bayeux. François Leberre et son ami "le général Bresse" (si ma mémoire ne me trompe pas) ont conclu que Bayeux allait de toute façon être une ville hospitalière, et que c'était déjà décidé bien avant les Anglais qui arrivent. Fort bien, mais même en acceptant une telle possibilité, voire probabilité, une telle décision demande aussi la collaboration des Allemands. S'ils auraient voulu faire de la résistance là, on aurait du casser le plan d'épargner Bayeux. Donc, soit on avait déjà conclu un tel accord avec des militaires allemands (rien d'impossible, ça a été fait déjà en juin 1944 aussi en Assise)*** soit on doit vérifier s'il y a encore d'Allemands. Même en supposant un accord déjà fait, il aurait fallu que les alliés vérifient que les Allemands le tiennent en évacuant Bayeux. Ce qui a été fait - selon le conférencier - avec Dom Aubourg comme témoin et comme hôtage.

On ne peut pas mettre en doute, que si la ville a été placée sous la protection spéciale de la Vierge, si elle a été épargné, on ne nie pas les mérites de Dom Aubourg, ni des Allemands ayant éventuellement quitté la ville pour la laisser comme ville hospitalière, en attribuant la ville sauvegardé à la protection de la Vierge.

Comme on ne nie pas les mérites, ni de l'évêque Nicolini (et son confidant Père Ruffino Nicacci, sauveteur des Juifs), ni ceux du commendant allemand Müller, en attribuant le maintien d'Assise à Saint François. Quand François Leberre évoque que Dom Aubourg et l'évêque Mgr Picaud auraient fait une œuvre très discrète de la résistance, je ne me pus pas empêcher de penser à Mgr Niccolini et Père Niccacci.

En ceci ma propre conclusion diffère de ce que François Leberre a conclu il y a une semaine à 20 h. dans l'espace Saint Patrice. Aussi un intervenant après la conférance a conclu en faveur de Dom Aubourg comme sauveur de la ville.

Bien, faites vos propres récherches à Bayeux, ceci ne sont pas les miens, je n'ai que transmi la conférence donnée. Avec mes doutes et remarques.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Le Havre
St Jean de Capistran
23/X/2012

*Tels les mots du conférencier, François Leberre - j'avais cru entendre François Auber, gendarme à la retraite, qui a connu Lieutenant Lepère et d'autres personnes impliqués aux événements.

**On peut vérifier indépendemment de moi et mieux que je ne le puis moi-même. Si Bayeux n'a pas été bombardé, Bayeux même ne doit pas avoir des frais de rebâtir les dégâts. Mais c'est vrai que Bayeux garde une vieille architecture, tandis que Le Havre, entièrement rebâti après la guerre, en a une très moderne.

***Wiki nous renseigne:

Pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, en février 1944, parmi les officiers allemands figure le médecin Valentin Müller[2] commandant militaire de la ville d'Assise qui la fait déclarer « ville hôpital » (Lazarettstadt) par sa hiérarchie et l'évêque Giuseppe Placido Nicolini, pour en évacuer les troupes et éviter les affrontements armés dans la ville. En juin 1944, il fait évacuer 2 000 blessés et le personnel hospitalier pour protéger la ville des bombardements alliés.

Medieval Matters for Richard Dawkins

Dawkins made a challenge, on knowing the past.
On Reading The Greatest Show by Dawkins - Parts of it!
Overlooked in Previous, about Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth
Medieval Matters for Richard Dawkins
Do evolutionists ever make unfalsifiable claims?
Two bishop Richards in dialogue (tongue in cheek)
Dawkins said Edgar Andrews had his book "well written" and that is one true word from him
Assortedretorts : ... on "Science Works" quote c/o Dawkins
... on Side issue to "Science Works"



Two branches of the Dawin family

Some time in the Middle Ages - I reconstruct this applying strictly the evolutionary principles of Ch. Darwin and R. Dawkins themselves - there must have been a family hailing to Dawin. I might not find it likely in absence of evidence myself (I have not come across them yet), but on evolutionary principles that does not deter me. Didn't Dawkins himself say that fossils are just a plus? I am content that Darwin, with an extra R, and Dawkins, with an extra K and an extra S, can be reconstructed as coming from a name without those extras: Dawin.

I even found Dawin:
Welcome to Dawin Standard Poodles
http://www.dawinpoodles.com/

Once upon a time, a Dawin had a cough, and when he presented himself it sounded like Daw-cough-in, and it stuck as Dawkin. And another Dawin snarled pretty often so someone once misheard his name as Da-rr-win. And since Darwin and Dawkin each sounded better than just Dawin, the new names had an advantage in sexual selection.

Of course, nobody seriously belives this. Dawin need really not have been there before Dawkins or Darwin after all and is most probably not their common ancestor. Who would deny that?

Not even Dawkins, I presume. And that is because he belives men are capable of quite arbitrarily inventing names some of which sound pretty alike. And if he must invent an evolutionary pedigree for DNA for apes such now as live and for men, it might simply be because he does not believe there is a God capable of arbitrarily making chimps like unto men, especially as babies.

I have not read the last two chapter of The Greatest Show on Earth, but as he alluded to them in previous chapters as including variety and geographical distribution of species as arguments for common ancestors, I think I have just spoofed his argumentation, or an essential aspect thereof. His arguments do work - within an atheist methodology.

In reality, I do not know whence comes the name Darwin.* I do know that Dawin probably and Dawkin certainly come from Dawe - basically Dave. Now Dawe and Dave do not sound very like each other in Modern English but did that back then: Dower and Dahver would be modern spelling of what it sounded like (in r-less dialects). The Flemish ending -kin means little, we also have Jankin/Jackin for Little John, so Dawkin means Little Dawe, and Dawkin's boys (sons) were obviously known as the Dawkins.

Edit: The Ring of Words : Tolkien and the Oxford English Dictionary refers on p. 32 to "his observation that, in addition for the Middle English diminutive -kin, the suffix -kins should be included because of its modern colloquial use 'in endearing forms of address' (an entry along these lines did indeed appear in the 1933 Supplement)."

Cathedrals

Dawkins alluded to them in the chapter where he spoke of DNA as a recipe rather than a building plan. And A Room With A View alludes to them in the "dialogue":

Tourist Guide:

The Cathedrals were built by faith.

Atheist Cynic (under his breath, heard by those nearest):

That means the workers were not paid.

It would seem he somewhat confounded Cathedrals with Pyramids - unless that is doing the Pharaos an unjustice. Hebrews were forced to work and whipped, but it does not say they had no pay. Egyptians were paid when it was them building. But in Medieval Europe, authorities did not command work forces by bureaucratic omnipotence.

Workers were paid, as long as the city of bishop or king or duke or whatever could afford it - and when they could no longer, and the Cathedral was not ready yet, off they went to the next man who could pay them. They were known as free masons, as francs maçons. Not to be counfounded with the sect Freemasons, which were founded in 1717 and a bit later got Anderson's Statutes. Masons because they were building. Free because they were free to leave and roam as soon as no longer paid (including Cathedral being ready) - or for other reasons.

There was another factor that delayed Church buildings too: buying the land for the building. No man was, as far as we know, forced to leave his estates for the building of Church, unlike modern times, when farmers have been required to abandon an entire village at Jaca in Spain for an electricity dam and probably many times over in Soviet Russia.

So, Cathedrals were being built, abandoned, resumed, sometimes 100 years later. The Cathedral of Cologne was not finished until the 19th C. Before the school of historical accuracy arose, this meant that team n (2, 3, whatever) would continue with their own stylistic ideals, with regards for the space the previous builders had given them, for structural purposes, you cannot build a central aisle twenty feet broad when previous builders left a space for the central aisle only sixteen feet broad, since its walls or pillars are built on top of pillars of inside the immediate side aisles: but with no regard at all for previous stylistic ideal.

This has given some the impression that there was no overall plan, when in reality each team of builders had its plan, not necessarily copied from previous team, but adapted to it.

In each team of builders there was a distribution of work so that say such and such pillars were constructed at such and such a distance, but each construction of a pillar going on till desired height more or less on its own, without the architect interfering. When pillars of any given aisle were ready, roof vaults would be built on top of it, with new orders from architect.

Each team had its routine, hence no necessity to interfere with subordinates all the time.

But the fact that one was often enough starting a Cathedral without knowing when it would be finished is both behind the tourist guide's comment on Cathedrals being built by faith and behind the lack of stylistic unity within single cathedrals.

Back to Modern:

In the book, Richard Dawkins refers to his dialogue with a Wendy. She asks why he is so upset about having everyone believe his theory. And he admits having been clumsy, but he should have tried to bring through that evolution is no theory but a fact.

Now, a history professor may well believe it is a fact and no mere theory that Richard III plotted the killing of his nephews. Or that the Upsala of Ynglingatal is the Upsala near Stockholm and not in Westrogothia near Gothenburg. But Wendy does point out to a strange kind of dogmatism.

A history professor would admit that those inculpating Richard III were serving the next dynasty. Or that there are minor Upsals in Westrogothia. He would not wnat to sack every history professor all over the world for defending the innocence of Richard III or the original closeness between Swedes and Geats.

But Richard Dawkins seriously wants to have dissent classed as treason to the profession of science teacher.

Just as house owners were not being forced to cede their property to Cathedral building, parents in the middle ages were not being forced to cede their children to a central authority claiming to know better than everyone else how they should be raised. But modernity has a knack of increasing state sanctioned pressures on individuals - and Dawkins seems to be defending that. Why?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bayeux
Sts Solène and
Marguerite-Marie Alacoque**
17th of October 2012

*Now I do: "surname attested from 12c., from O.E. deorwine, lit. "dear friend," probably used as a given name and also the source of the masc. proper name Derwin." (naming the sceptic Trumpkin "dear little friend" may on CSL's behalf well be an allusion at this etymology)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Darwin

**Neither of today's saints would have believed such intrusiveness against parents on part of the state. Hardly even St Solène of Chartres, who was killed before Christianity was legal in the Roman Empire.

Badness of Catholicism - or Madness of Protestantism?

the lawfulness of dissembling or concealing the faith
http://archive.org/stream/saintalphonsusli00liguuoft#page/70/mode/2up

The Protestant author makes heavy weather of the fact that God detests lies - missing the point that St Alphonsus totally forbade direct lies about the faith too. Deliberately? Out of stupidity? Or out of an instinctive anger? I do not know, but one of these it is.

He makes heavy weather about "He who denies me before men ... he who confesses me before men" but again never ever did St Alphonsus in the passages quoted recommend denial. He only said that the duty of confessing is not there in all circumstances, only when not confessing would be tantamount to denying.

If a darkskinned man (North African or Black) who could be a Muslim and who gives me alms in a friendly manner tells me "no problem, my brother" - does that each time oblige me to say - "you are wrong, I am not your brother, since you are a Muslim and I am a Christian, a Catholic"? Even when I am tired? Even when I do not know him? Even when I am not quite sure it is a Muslim?

Even if I when begging habitually hold up links to my blogs (perhaps had no paper for it that time or perhaps did) which very clearly "give me away" as a Catholic?

St Alphonsus also says you may in Heretic countries eat meat on a Friday if the object is to avoid bloody persecution, but not if the only risk you incur is ridicule. I have been less strict, accepting meat on Fridays in hospitality if I could any kind of hope the one giving it was unaware I was supposed to fast from meat that day. So, too me the standard of St Alphonsus seems pretty strict. Now, how many nowadays are prepared to confess a literal faith in a recent creation and in geocentrism - when the only risk incurred is so far ridicule? How many Protestants do confess the Earth to be the immobile centre of the Universe? How many of those who do not make it very clear that and how they still think the account of Joshua's miracle literally true?

In the previous chapter the "Rev" Blakeney similarily totally parodies the Catholic discipline about books, and about Bibles to laymen .. but first to the next chapter: Blakeney says the Catholic position of St Alphonsus is "It is Lawful to do Evil that Good may come of it". Now, this maxim is well known to be false, according to the text "just is the damnation of those that do evil that good may com of it". And of course St Alphonsus knew this text. And what he is discussing is not "doing evil" that a greater evil may be avoided or that a good may com of it. He is discussing cooperation with someone else's evildoing.

Blakeney's position is that servants must rather accept to be flogged than do usual services to their masters if the intent of such services is the same master's unchastity. Irish Catholic priests recommended submission to English rule. If Irish Catholics nevertheless rebelled, it is perhaps because they took a lesson from "Rev." Blakeney about "not cooperating in evil".

Now, St Alphonsus is pretty strict: merely being a servant is not a sufficent excuse for accompanying your master to harlots. You must also be afraid of flogging or beating or something if you refuse. To open the door of your house for a harlot coming home to your master may be excused or even lawful because you are his servant: the principle being that a servant opens doors for visitors. To open unlawfully someone else's doors to make your master visit someone for fornication or adultery is only excusable if otherwise you fear to suffer severe loss.

And Blakeney - "Rev" Blakeney - takes that permission and construes it to the equivalent of a permission of aiding one's master in assaulting the innocent: "the crime of assualt on a female" is his wording for exegesis. Which it is not, St Alphonsus does not mention raptus (rape, abduction), only stuprum (defloration). It may be that Blakeney here was misled by Classicism, insofar as Ancient Romans often used stuprum for "stuprum cum raptu", whereas to Scholastic Moralists stuprum and raptus are two different sins. A gallant person from the young fobs of Naples who had a servant was far more likely to seduce than to assault a lady. Noblesse oblige. St Alphons was talking about things he knew. About servants who under threats of beating had cooperated in such ventures (the fob being less considerate with insubordinate servants than with ladies his own rank, no doubt) and felt guilty about what they had been forced to cooperate in. And St Alphons knows that it is not in everyone to be a hero.

Blakeney here says that no human obedience may excuse any cooperation whatsoever in the sins of someone else. Elsewhere he is very strict on obedience and how Catholic dissimulation of the faith - see above - makes it difficult for rulers and fathers and presumably masters in prosperous Protestant England to get obeyed. He is basically saying a priest should shudder at every "disobedience" (including non-obedience of unjust orders) and at every "sin" (including material cooperation in someone else's sin) and leave to despair someone who is either not obeying or obeying by cooperating with someone doing something unjust. Only the Gospel, the All Powerful Gospel, not its human servants, can in any way helps someone driven to despair. God is all powerful, and can cure every disease, nevertheless we do use medicine according to natural understanding too. He can also convert every sinner into every kind of saint - but some kinds of holiness are more humble and less heroic than what Blakeney allows for. And that power of God does not mean we have no right to use human means about someone else's worst sins. Getting sompeone drunk so that he may not sack a Church or keep a country under Communist occupation springs to mind, and I am grateful Austrians around Vienna did that twice - with Swedes under Oxenstierna and with Russians 1955. According to the principle professed by "Rev" Blakeney, they ought to have stopped handing wine to the Swedes so they could have sacked Catholic Churches in Vienna the next day and also stopped giving the Communists wine risking they refused to sign the freedom to Austria.

Now, I wonder if Blakeney's reading of some texts is not as unsound as that of Skoptsy who read the texts about plucking out one's eyes and cutting off one's hands as recommending surgery - and then went on to do surgery. I do not think access to the Bible - all of the text without any guidance - is the birthright of Skoptsy and I do not think it is the birthright of "Rev" Blakeney either. Which brings us to his complaints about Catholics forbidding the Bible to laymen, except with special permission.

St Alphonsus is cited as citing Pope Innocent XI the 79th Condemned Proposition of Quesnel: It is useful and necessary in every time, in every place, and for every degree of persons, to study and to know the spirit, and piety, and mysteries of the Sacred Scriptures. Blakeney does not directly argue against Pope Innocent XI and St Alphonsus on that one. For a reason: he must have known himself that Quesnel was wrong. Horace would not have benefitted from reading Leviticus, I am sure, from what he said about "curti Iudaei". If Hercules and Theseus were possibly saved (though that is unsure), it would not seem for having read the Pentateuch either, but rather "in order to please God, it is first of all necessary to believe of him that He is and that He is a rewarder of those seeking Him", as St Peter wrote much later. But let us take the people who had the Pentateuch, did every class of Hebrew read it in the days of King David? Was someone neglecting to read it considered a sinner? Not so. The High Priest read it to the people (to the Qahal - excluding presumably women, children, and excluding certainly slaves and strangers and children of sinners up to some generation) every seven years once. That was what Moses the Godseer and Prophet had prescribed. And for a normal Hebrew to know what the Law commanded of him, he was not supposed to study, but to ask and obey a priest. If the Synagogue of Ezra changed the discipline under the danger of forgetting the law in exile, Christ took his disciples not only from it or not primarily from it, but from Fishermen and a Converted Sinner and a few more. This surely Blakeney knew: though he pandered to a prejudice echoing Quesnel (or echoed by Quesnel, as Quesnel wrote after Protestant Reformation), he could not directly defend it. But he attacked Catholic discipline with dishonesty. First the quote he gives from St Alphonsus:

But they incur excommunication who not only read books of Heretics prohibited as above, but even they who keep them in their possession. On which account he who has them is bound, as soon as he can, according to the precept of Pius IV, to deliver them either to the Inquisitors or to the Bishops. And in speaking concerning kingdoms where the Inquisition flourishes, P. Suarez, with others, says (Barb. dicast. apud Croix, lib. 7 n. 355)*, that he incurs censure who does not deliver up the book although he burns it.

Note that here we are not talking about Bibles read without permission, we are talking about "books of the Heretics" - including such Bibles as the Catholic Church considers as Counterfeits, meaning Tyndale or King James as opposed to Douai Reims (with Catholic Commentaries preferrably, if to be used by laymen). But of course not Bibles in the main, but rather heretic attacks on the Bible (from people like the two Sozzini who denied verbal inspiration or - earlier - Albigensians who rejected the Old Testament) or misinterpretations of the Bible (by people like Luther, Zwingli, Œcolampadius, Bucer, Calvin ...)

Then "Rev" Blakeney's idiotic (deliberately?) misconstruction thereof:

He states further, that others think that the man may be excused, provided he has BURNED THE BOOK! This is then the penalty for violating the Index. If, for example some one hungering and thirsting after righteaousness, should obtain a copy of the Bible, and read it without the permission of the Church, or when that permisison is denied, if he should read the words of everlasting life, which Jesus hath written in the Scriptures [sic!], and in which he speaks to his people ; if he should become such a character as that described in the first Psalm, a man that meditateth in the law of God, then he sins against the Church ; he falls under her ban ; the Inquisition, where it flourishes comes in, searches his house, has him apprehended on the suspicion of heresies, for reading the Bible ; he is put on the rack, and at length that man who "searched the Scriptures daily," is led as a Martyr to the stake. Rome ! Many such deeds hast thou perpetrated. In Spain the Reformation was extinguished by the Inquisition. Throughout our own beloved land did the fires of martyrdom burn.

Now, "violating the Index" is not one and the same sin, but different ones, according to whether one violates the Fourth Rule (which states that superiors decide whether a layman reads Scripture except the parts generally permitted to everyone) or whether it is a matter about forbidden books. Then, even in that case, keeping them is not a matter of the stake, but of simple excommunication. Then again, the Inquisition hardly ever searched for forbidden books except during epidemics of heresy. And the case when possession of Biblical material in Vernacular was definitely regarded as a confession of heresy was precisely, not Spain, but Blakeney's "own beloved land" where Lollards could be burnt on order of a Bishop who had found an Our Father in English on you (Coventry Martyrs of 1511): and in England the Bishops had no Inquisitors at their side. As to extinguishing the Reformation in Spain, yes, Inquisitors did contribute to that, but hardly on the mere charge of possessing a Spanish Bible. Rather by denying the Sacrifice of the Mass or even the Real Presence, not to mention the Free Will, which would stamp one as a Lutheran or Calvinist. And priests and preachers did contribute more than Inquisitors, I reckon, including Cardinal Nebrija and a century later the Jesuits (who could not be Inquisitors according to their rule: St Ignatius of Loyola had been three times a suspect and three times cleared by Inquisition).

The ludicrous part is that "Rev" Blakeney, believing the Book of Martyrs by Foxe, as if it were the Bible, which it is not, talks about Inquisition burning people when he writes in 1852. He does recuperate himself by adding "Many such deeds hast thou perpetrated" in the past tense, though his account of the Inquisition was hardly correctly historical. But his spontaneous words are as if the Inquisition was happening then in Catholic countries. Last burning of a Heretic was, as I have heard, in 1820.

It is also ludicrous that he presumes that a man who hungered or thirsted after righteousness and visibly improved himself on reading the Bible would even according to the Fourth rule of the Index be forbidden to read the Bible, which that same rule says can be given to those who read it with improved piety - in Latin or a Catholic translation, obviously, and if a layman with Catholic comments. Let us now read that fourth rule:

"Since it is manifest by experience, that if Holy Bibles are allowed everywhere, without difference, inthe vulgar tongue, more harm than good would arise from it, on account of the rashness of men. Let the judgement of the Bishop of Inquisitor be abided by in this matter, so that with the advice of the parisdh Priest if Confessor, they may grant the reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue, translated by Catholic authors, to those whom they shall have ascertained to be likely to derive no harm, but rather an increase of faith and piety from this sort of reading, which permission they must have in writing. But if any one shall presume to read or possess them without permission, he may not receive Absolution of his Sins unless he first deliver up the Bibles to the Ordinary." - (Index Can. Con. Trident. Paris. 1832.)

Is this unreasonable or impious? If you start out with the Unbiblical prejudice that everyone should read the Bible, yes. Otherwise, no. Nothing about burning at the stake is mentioned in this rule of the index any more than that about forbidden books. If possessing forbidden books meant excommunication (which does not mean to burn at the stake in most cases and never meant it in most cases historically, and never meant it in this case), possessing a Bible in vernacular without permission was even more lenient: it meant a refusal of absolution. It meant you did not get Absolution when you confessed and could not approach Holy Communion. And Christ did not say "whoever readeth my words hath eternal life" but he did say "whoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life" (St John's Gospel ch. 5). Therefore it is sufficiently clear from the Bible itself that one should prefer Communion to the Bible. But since the penalty for forbidden Bible possession is stated in the rule that Blakeney cites, he had really no business to go out of his way, cite the penalty for another offense, misconstrue it into something monstruous, just because the texts happen to include words like Inquisition and Inquisitor.

If Blakeney was not mad - and I do not think he could have kept up a life as Anglican clergyman if he had been - he certainly did partake of very mad prejudice against the Catholic Church: he goes mad against it and constantly misses the point in his eagerness to condemn. I am happy to say one century later many Protestants are not like that: but they still have a heritage from people like "Rev" Blakeney, insofar as they believe such fables about "Jesuitic morality makes ends hallow means", "Jesuitic morality justifies denying the faith", "forbidden Bibles" and a few more.

Just as Lutherans or Anglicans who believe in Freewill have a heritage from a Luther whose book "De Servo Arbitrio" starts with an outcry against Erasmus, who had written - like St Augustine - a book called "De Libero Arbitrio".

Hans-Georg Lundahl
St Wilfrid's Day
12-X-2012
from Médiatèque Musicale
Les Halles, Paris

PS: "Rev" Blakeney and such did harm. Later in the XIXth C. the Kingdom of two Sicilies (where St Alphonsus was Bishop) was sacked by Garibaldi's troupers, and after that soldiers refusing to become loyal subjects of Turin were put into camps in Lombardy, where some died. Yes, Protestantism has contributed to a hatred of Catholicism in which Catholics were put into Concentration Camps.

Lucrèce ne nia pas Énée ...

Nourricière Vénus, plaisir des dieux, des hommes,
Tige d’Enée, peuplant sous les astres célestes
La mer chargée de nefs, la terre aux mille fruits,
Grâce à qui est conçue, naît, voit briller le jour
Toute espèce vivante…[…]

Cité d'après Jacques Trémolet de Villiers. Il loue Lucrèce pour avoir balayé les fausses divinités de la Mythologie Grecque. Mais, comme je viens de dire dans le tître: il n'a pas balayé tout ce qu'on appelle maintenant "Mythologie Grecque". Il n'a pas en bon Romain pu nier l'existance d'Énée ou sa piété envers Anchise après la Troye prise (ou après la prise de Troye), ni sa victoire sur Turnus. Il a dans un autre endroit affirmé qu'avant la Guerre de Troye d'autres chanteurs ont chanté d'autres héros. Mais ceci peut rélativiser l'importance de la Guerre de Troye, ça ne nie pas son occurrence.

Il sousestime pourtant le diabolique dans les vieux divinités, et par là les occurrences réels quoique non divins du paranormal. Fut meilleur donc l'auteur qui écrivit:

Ei theoe ti drosin aeschron ouc eisin theoe.

Euripide il me semble. Hippolyte, serait-il par Euripide? Alors, c'est pas mal qu'un pape ou antipape mais surtout saint martyr s'appelle aussi Hippolyte. Car les mot sont alors dans la bouche du propre fils de Thésée. À différence du héro, le Chrétien n'a pas pu être tué par une action du démon, il a fallu des chevaux (comme pour le démon aussi) et des hommes pour les conduire à ce malfait. Car ceux qui balayaient vraiment les horreurs démoniaques ne furent pas les rationnalistes, mais les exorcistes. Comme St Front avec la Gratusse.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Audoux, Paris
St Denis de Paris
9-X-2012

PS, l'ontologie de Lucrèce est infantile en ceci qu'il attribue la conscience, notemment humaine, à des atomes plus subtils que les autres. Mais les matérialistes ont toujours une ontologie infantile. Chez lui au moins c'est évident au premier regard.

Tumnus and Orruns

Autumn is in Latin Autumnus. An Englishman would pronounce it like ... "Oh, Tumnus!" (I recall Susan saying that broad hint in Horse and His Boy).

Orruns reminds very clearly of Ul-Orruns = "Al-Orans" (of Arabia)

Who said CSL lacked imagination when it came to naming? If JRRT invented a language to construct his names in, CSL seldom missed a chance at some in-joke./HGL

Kant a Tort

Je suis trop fatigué pour m'initier à sa Critique de la Raison Pure. Mais ceci est déjà un mal, qu'il ne comprend pas bien les limites entre ce qu'il appelle analytique ou nécessairement vrai et ce qu'il appelle synthétique et empiriquement vrai.

Selon lui 7+5=12 ne serait pas analytique. On pourrait par analyse comprendre que ce sera un autre nombre, mais pas lequel.

Faux.

- Sept plus un font huit (analytique, définition de huit)
- Huit plus un font neuf (analytique, définition de neuf)
- Neuf plus un font dix (analytique, définition de dix)
- Dix plus un font onze (analytique, définition d'onze)
- Onze plus un font douze (analytique, définition de douze)

- Plus cinq fait plus quatre plus un (analytique, définition de plus cinq)
- Sept plus cinq fait donc sept plus un plus quatre, ce qui fait huit plus quatre (résultante de deux analytiques)
- Plus quatre fait plus trois plus un (analytique, définition de plus quatre)
- Huit plus quatre fait donc huit plus trois plus un ce qui fait neuf plus trois (résultante de deux analytiques)
- Plus trois fait plus deux plus un (analytique, définition de plus trois)
- Neuf plus quatre fait donc dix plus deux (résultante de deux analytiques)
- Ce qui fait dix plus un plus un (analyse de plus deux)
- Ce qui fait onze plus un (analyse de onze) ce qui fait douze (analyse de douze).

Alors, que 7+5=12 est bel et bien analytique, nécessaire, et non juste synthétique, empirique.

C'est bien de comprendre une distinction qui est nécessaire pour le raisonnement correcte, mais c'est encore mieux de le pouvoir aussi appliquer correctement.

On verra si je résume la lecture de Kant pour débusquer sa prochaine gaffe ou non, entre temps, au revoir:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibl. d'Italie, Paris
Fête des Anges Gardiens
et de St Leger
2-X-2012

Que les Anges Gardiens (le mien par exemple) et St Leger me gardent de me prendre trop lourdement.