The outlook of one of the Pope’s closest friends and advisers is of interest, so a little more about Rocco Buttiglione’s views, as set forth at Zenit and in a speech he gave at a conference, seems in order. So far as I can tell, the basis of his position is that modernity and in particular liberalism can be wholly accepted consistent with Catholic orthodoxy (one might call it a Catholic “neocon” position). In particular, he apparently believes that:
- Particular culture is unnecessary for social order, at least its formal public aspects, which can apparently be founded on reason alone: “multiculturalism is all right if grounded on the natural law, where we all have rights and duties.”
- In some respects, Catholic morals are also quite irrelevant to the legal order. When questioned in connection with his candidacy for EU justice commissioner he didn’t feel obligated to disclose his religious views on homosexuality: “I did not say that homosexuality is a sin, as many newspapers picked up. I said ‘I may think’ … this has no impact whatsoever on politics …”
- Other aspects of Catholic morals are nonetheless relevant to public life: while “[homosexuality] falls in the private sphere and morals, and does not concern the state … abortion, concerns politics and law.” It’s not clear how he draws the distinction between the “natural law” that is public and the “morals” that are private, or whether he rejects the classic Catholic view that sexual morality is a matter of natural law. It’s also a mystery to me how something as all-pervasive as the present-day European state, and as concerned with reforming all aspects of human life including the position of the sexes, can have no view whatever on what’s good and bad in connection with something as basic to human connections as sex.
- Unlike homosexuality, discrimination is very much a political and legal concern: “in politics we may not speak of sin, we should speak of non-discrimination, and I am solidly opposed to discrimination against homosexuals and of any type of discrimination.” He does not say though whether his opposition to discrimination extends to the usual view that eradicating it in all its forms is a fundamental overriding state concern. If so, it would make sense to penalize people like him who publicly say that it “may be” a sin, or at least avoid conferring high public honors on them.
- Although there is apparently an absolute private sphere with which government and law can have no proper concern whatever, which sphere includes sexual relations, and although all types of discrimination are bad, “family policy” is necessary to “reconstruct the alliance between the child and the mother.” In particular, the family should be distinguished from “gay marriage”: “the problem is … the ignoring of the difference between this reality [the family] which has a social function and other forms of living together which I respect, but which do not have a social function, and I don’t see why the state has to sustain them, or why it has to give them a social relevance.”
- More generally, any non-totalitarian liberalism requires “values” that are produced in the sphere of “culture,” which includes the Church, and the state should have a “positive attitude” toward that. It’s not clear whether those “values” include “private morals” such as standards of conduct relating to sex. It’s hard to see how they could include such “private morals,” since a “positive attitude” suggests concern, and it seems that the only aspect of homosexuality with which the state is appropriately concerned is the need to do away with discrimination.
- And finally, the reason it’s important to have a reference to the Judaeo-Christian roots of Europe in the European constitution is that they are in fact part of the roots of Europe, and if you don’t confront your roots, positively or negatively, you’ll live in a superficial way.
I find all this odd but generally in keeping with the current top-level attitude in the Church toward the EU, the UN, the international human rights movement and whatnot. I can’t help but think that these views reflect more an attempt to “keep a seat at the table” when things have been going against you for a long time than a position that’s coherent and will work in the long run. It strikes me that they emphasize the “suaviter in modo” far too much, to the extent of suppressing the “fortiter in re” and even the “rem” itself. Why go to such lengths for the sake of making nice with a constellation of thought that seems certain to fall apart anyway?
Natural Law
The concession the Church supposedly adheres to is at best a transient uttering by a deceived leader: the Church does not hold the natural law to be paramount. Important Catholics sometimes use such a premise. Natural law is always and everywhere trumped by the Holy Spirit, Jesus, the Magisterium, and the Bible.
The closeness of this misguided person to the Pope is at best troubling.
Natural law
I think the Church tends to view morality as a matter of natural law and doctrine as including things knowable by reason but then completed by things known by revelation. Grace completes nature, but it’s consistent with nature and nature already tells us a lot. (Compare Romans 1:18 ff.) Also, I can understand how someone might say that it’s only the things knowable by reason that you can really push for in the case of non-Catholics. The odd thing about Buttiglione to my mind is that he seems to minimize what can be known by natural law.
Rem tene, verba sequentur.
I presume the EU is based on
I presume the EU is based on upon fundamentalist liberalism, which recognizes no “natural law.” This makes sense, because a “natural law” is inherently (and arbitrarily) discriminatory.
Any position founded on natural law is therefore highly suspect.
Within Christianity, natural law gains its authority from Christian cosmology, which posits a benevolent Creator and His expression within and throughout nature (“grace completes nature”; Does that derive from Aquinas?).
In the absence of Christian cosmology, I find it difficult to imagine a metaphysical basis for natural law, unless based upon some sentimental romanticism (a la Nietzche).
Consider however the “naturalists,” such as evolutionary biologists and geneticists, who not only observe and record differences (between races and sexes, for example), but accord them a certain aspect of unchangeability. Are they not also on a collision course with fundamentalist liberalism?
There goes my little respect for the man.
And I thought the man had some spine(despite his flaws). But then again its time that Catholics realize that Liberalism and the faith are incompatible. Its the same with these advocates of “Liberation Theology”(or rather the perversion of it) by those who see Catholicism and Marxism as compatible(tell that to the Catholics who suffered under the Soviet boot).
Im particularly displeased in his belief that particular culture does not matter. This contradicts Catholic doctrine and even John Paul II during his visit to Chile condemned the lack of respect for particular cultures that multiculturalism implies, and urged Chileans to defend their national heritage. The Pope(for all his theological faults) has always defended Catholicism as the basis for the development of a true national identity. After all, the Pope himself is a staunch Polish nationalist and saw the faith the spiritual foundation of his own nation.
Btw, there was an article in the Economist when this whole issue first broke about relations between the Church and the EU and how some of the biggest advocates for the EU have been Catholic. I find this rather disturbing since its obvious that the EU is anti-Christian(of course it claims to be secularist, yet has no problems embracing Islam).
*sigh* Oh well, this further proves my inner conviction of how low the Church has fallen both theologically and even politically. We really we need another Chesterbelloc!
John Paul II against multiculturalism and for national identity?
“I’m particularly displeased [with Buttiglione’s] belief that particular culture does not matter. This contradicts Catholic doctrine and even John Paul II during his visit to Chile condemned the lack of respect for particular cultures that multiculturalism implies, and urged Chileans to defend their national heritage. The Pope (for all his theological faults) has always defended Catholicism as the basis for the development of a true national identity. After all, the Pope himself is a staunch Polish nationalist and saw the faith the spiritual foundation of his own nation.” —Perun
Perun, do you have references that discuss the subject of the Vatican’s or the Pope’s recognition of the validity of particular national identity and its preservation?
“[…] some of the biggest advocates for the EU have been Catholic. I find this rather disturbing since it’s obvious that the EU is anti-Christian (of course it claims to be secularist, yet has no problems embracing Islam).” —Perun
It’s also anti-nation, another thing that goes along with certain Catholics being pro-E.U.: a great many influential Catholics have no problem whatsoever with nations being done-away with (something which a certain cosmopolite, anti-Christian segment of the Jews gets blamed for in some discussions but which Catholics probably are contributing more to actually bringing about. Just look at the Pope, the entire Vatican establishment, Catholic politicians like Giscard, Chirac, Mary Robinson, and so on).
________________________
Long live Flanders!
Perun, do you have references
Perun, do you have references that discuss the subject of the Vatican’s or the Pope’s recognition of the validity of particular national identity and its preservation?
Here’s an excerpt from his speech during his trip to Chile:
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4528
Let us hope that the Chilean people’s efforts to be integrated into the global world will not lead to their losing their cultural identity, not letting everything be reduced to an economic exchange, but that it will allow you to take everywhere the best values of your wonderful country, linked strongly to its Catholic tradition. This will enrich the multicultural ambience that becomes more widespread with attitudes of mutual respect and will encourage a dialogue that enthusiastically seeks the truth, avoiding the superficiality and relativism that promote indifference and ruin social coexistence.
This is just one example of his views on the issue.
It’s also anti-nation, another thing that goes along with certain Catholics being pro-E.U.: a great many influential Catholics have no problem whatsoever with nations being done-away wit
Adrian Hastings addressed this issue in his book The Construction of Nationhood and the role religion plays in nationalism. There are basically two schools of thought within traditional Christian political doctrine: those favoring nation-states(on the model of the Israelites) and those favoring a world empire modelled on Rome. Charlamenge’s empire was built on the latter doctrine. Now those favoring the world-empire believe that nations can and should exist within the empire. In fact the Christian empire should be decentralist in nature(as opposed to the centralization of the EU), so its very easy for national identities to exist. This was the case in the Austro-Hungarian empire. But it favors cultural but not political nationalism. So its not as clear-cut as many try to say it is. Pius X himself said that if Catholicism ever turned against the naion, it would cease to be a divine religion.
Just look at the Pope,
The Pope is himself a Polish nationalist.
Catholic politicians like Giscard, Chirac, Mary Robinson, and so on)
Im not aware of any of these people being Catholic. As for Chirac, I do believe he actually gave a speech to the German parliament about how the EU was not going to replace the nation-states and how there will be a “union of European states” not a “united states of Europe”.
The Catholic Church must clarify the legitimacy of nationalism
“Let us hope that the Chilean people’s efforts to be integrated into the global world will not lead to their losing their cultural identity […]. This will enrich the multicultural ambience that becomes more widespread with attitudes of mutual respect and will encourage a dialogue that enthusiastically seeks the truth, avoiding the superficiality and relativism that promote indifference and ruin social coexistence.” —from the Pope’s speech
That this excerpt is incoherent on the subject of the preservation of national identity would scarcely seem necessary to point out: is the Vatican false-liberal who wrote this verbal mish-mash for the Pope endorsing multiculturalism or isn’t he? He refuses to say. I think it’s obvious he’s doing exactly that: putting into a senile pope’s mouth his own personal false-liberal endorsement of multiculti and in so doing placing multi-culti higher in importance than particular cultures (which of course is part of multiculti’s definition). The unprincipled Vatican false-liberal who wrote this speech obviously is applauding the spread of multi-culturalism in it.
“There are basically two schools of thought within traditional Christian political doctrine: those favoring nation-states (on the model of the Israelites) and those favoring a world empire modeled on Rome. Charlemagne’s empire was built on the latter doctrine. Now, those favoring the world-empire believe that nations can and should exist within the empire. In fact the Christian empire should be decentralist in nature (as opposed to the centralization of the EU), so it’s very easy for national identities to exist. This was the case in the Austro-Hungarian empire. But it favors cultural but not political nationalism. So its not as clear-cut as many try to say it is. Pius X himself said that if Catholicism ever turned against the nation, it would cease to be a divine religion.”
So, you are saying there is no settled, official Catholic view on the subject of the nation-state. If you are right, this is a lacune of potentially epoch-making gravity given the times we live in, one which urgently needs to be addressed by Catholic theologians and the Catholic hierarchy. Unfortunately, false-liberals seem to hold sway currently in the Vatican Court.
“The Pope is himself a Polish nationalist.”
Yes he certainly is, as all the world knows, and were he not already mentally enfeebled by a combination of advanced age, Parkinson’s and probably other diseases, and the side-effects of the doubtless numerous powerful medications he certainly takes (at least some of them in high doses, judging by the stage of Parkinson’s disease he manifests), I imagine he would have something clear to say in affirmation of the legitimacy of Catholics’ acting in accord with nationalism, politically if they are politicians and in the voting booth if they are ordinary citizens. Given the Pope’s state of health it looks as if we’ll have to await the next pope to clarify that.
“I’m not aware of [Giscard, Chirac, or Mary Robinson] being Catholic.”
I meant culturally Catholic, of Catholic heritage, education, and family, members of Catholic nations who were, all three of them, certainly educated as Catholics in childhood, whether or not they are believing, practicing Catholics today (which, for all we know, all three of them are, incidentally). If I referred to Saddam Hussein as “a Moslem” in a discussion like this, I’d hope no one would dispute that and say, “I’m not aware he’s a Moslem—I’ve read he’s a non-believing, non-practicing secularist.” That would be beside the obvious point having to do with his cultural/civilizational heritage.
“As for Chirac, I do believe he actually gave a speech to the German parliament about how the EU was not going to replace the nation-states and how there will be a ‘union of European states’ not a ‘united states of Europe.’ “
Oh, did he? That sounds like Ted Kennedy’s promise that the 1965 Immigration Holocaust bill “would end up increasing immigration by no more than 3,000 per year.” But anyway, let’s take a look at Chirac’s concern for his own nation-state, France, as reflected in the following statements of his and, underneath those, the opinion some ordinary Frenchmen have formed of him:
“Europe’s roots are as much Moslem as Christian.” (“Les racines de l’Europe sont autant musulmanes que chrétiennes.”) (said by Chirac to Philipe De Villiers, septembre 2002)
“France is a Moslem power.” (“La France est une puissance musulmane.”) (the French newspaper Le Monde, 1/17/1985)
“Every day I open mosques in Paris but I keep quiet about it.” (“J’ouvre tous les jours des mosquées à Paris sans le dire.”) (French TV news commentary show, Journal du dimanche, 1/18/1989)
“In this regard, Islam, a more recent religion in our country, enjoys equal status among the great religions present on our soil. […] We still have lots to do in order that Moslems have the use of holy places permitting them to practice their religion in dignity and tranquility.” (“A cet égard, l’islam, religion plus récente sur notre territoire, a toute sa place parmi les grandes religions présentes sur notre sol […] il reste encore beaucoup à faire pour que les musulmans puissent disposer de lieux de culte leur permettant de pratiquer leur religion dans la dignité et la tranquilité.”) (December 17, 2003)
“Islam is part of French culture and identity from now on.” (“L’islam fait désormais partie de la culture et de l’identité de la France.”) (January 29, 2002)
“We have no idea what the situation will be in 2015, whether demographically speaking or from the point of view of growth. Those are only claims. Surely we will have tasks before us, but those tasks will not be undertaken until we know definitely what the situation will be.” (“Nous n`avons aucune idée de ce que sera la situation en 2015, d`une part, sur le plan de la démographie et, d`autre part, sur le plan de la croissance. Cela ce sont que des affirmations. Il y aura certainement des efforts à faire, mais il n`est pas question de les engager avant que nous sachions réellement quelle sera la situation.”) (14 juillet 2003)
As the commenter at the web-site says following this Chirac quote, if the French government considers the demographic near-future of France unknown, what is it doing permitting the arrival of millions more of North-Africans into the country? Isn’t stanching the flow one step Chirac ought to be taking right now, just in case a worst-case scenario lie otherwise in store for France in 2015? And as for the future demographic/cultural situation in France being “unknown,” what about this “Letter to Our American Friends” (which I ran across while looking up the Chirac quotes)? It poignantly describes the demographic/cultural situation in France as it exists right now (it was written last month). If the situation right now is as described in that letter, what does Chirac have to wait for, before stanching the flood of immigrants from the Maghreb?
Then Chirac gives this as his explanation for refusing to debate Le Pen in the second round of televised debates in the 2002 election:
“Confronted with intolerance and hate, no transaction is possible, no compromise is possible, no debate is possible.” (“Face à l’intolérance et à la haine, il n’y a pas de transaction possible, pas de compromission possible, pas de débat possible.”)
(Gee, Jacques, I wonder what’ll be possible once the growing Moslem population in your country grows a little bigger? Compromise? Transaction? Debate? Fat chance!)
And the web-site goes on:
“It was in the fall of 2002—exactly one year after the Islamist attacks of September 11th, 2001—that Chirac sent a long message of peace and support to the Islamic world as part of his decision to treble the amount of space in the Louvre devoted to Islam—even more than that: henceforth there’ll be a special Islamic section (decree of August, 2003) equal in importance to ‘Egyptian Antiquities,’ ‘Oriental Antiquities,’ ‘Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Antiquities,’ ‘Painting,’ ‘Sculpture,’ ‘Art Objects,’ and ‘Graphic Arts,’ the aim being, said Chirac, ‘to remind Frenchmen and the world of the essential contribution of Islamic civilizations to our culture.’
“Wouldn’t it have been better had Chirac reminded Frenchmen that their country is the eldest daughter of the Church, that they have a glorious past, that their country has been pillaged in the name of theories which ruin her today? Yes, in the middle of a war on Islamic terrorism, with the population of France at from 10% to 15% Moslem, Chirac chooses cowardice, compromise, and the glorfication of those who preach today the Islamization of France.
“Fifty million euros! It is projected to cost fifty million euros to remodel the locales of the Louvre for an anticipated grand opening in 2009, but it is expected to end up costing way more: that’s how much French taxpayers will have to pay, in order to be ‘reminded how much they owe to Islam.’ While our churches are in dire need of repair, and are subjected to the veritable pillaging of their artworks at the hands of criminals whose true identity it is always forbidden to divulge, Chirac has chosen his priorities, and they will be Islam first.
“Our Head of State explained, ‘This new division of the Louvre Museum will have as its charge the recounting to visitors of the more than ten centuries of creation and talent developed from Spain to India, there where throve the brilliant Moslem Courts. It will remind Frenchmen and the world of the essential contribution of Moslem civilizations to our culture.’ The Louvre has no special division devoted to Christianity but henceforth will have one devoted to Islam! Where do Chirac’s priorities lie? Do they lie with France, its culture, its history, its national unity? Or do they lie with creating a society compartmentalized into separate communities, and buying ‘social peace’ by making ever bigger concessions? Until when? Until they who had come in order to assimilate end up instead imposing their ways and customs on us, with the approval and encouragement of Chiraquism. There’s only one word to describe this sort of politics: Treason against the nation.
“Get rid of Chirac! Judge him! The worst of politicians, the one who never bore France in his heart, the one who never governed as a conservative despite claiming that label, the one who allowed the ruination of France in the name of his humanitarian image, deserves only to be judged for his treason to the nation.”
There, Perun, is your Chirac who is so concerned about the survival of nation-state. (Just not his own, I guess …)
________________________
Long live Flanders!
That this excerpt is incohere
That this excerpt is incoherent on the subject of the preservation of national identity would scarcely seem necessary to point out: is the Vatican false-liberal who wrote this verbal mish-mash for the Pope endorsing multiculturalism or isn’t he? He refuses to say. I think it’s obvious he’s doing exactly that: putting into a senile pope’s mouth his own personal false-liberal endorsement of multiculti and in so doing placing multi-culti higher in importance than particular cultures (which of course is part of multiculti’s definition). The unprincipled Vatican false-liberal who wrote this speech obviously is applauding the spread of multi-culturalism in it.
It’s apparently clear that you failed to read the first sentence in the excerpt which clearly states:
Let us hope that the Chilean people’s efforts to be integrated into the global world will not lead to their losing their cultural identity
I hope that you’ll actually read it this time around. Im no fan of the Pope or the current Vatican regime, but I will defend it from unfair and untrue criticisms. Even the current Catechism of the Church declares the absolute virtue and necessity of patriotism. It was criticise “idolaltry of the nation” but nowhere does it state that national feeling is negative or un-Catholic.
So, you are saying there is no settled, official Catholic view on the subject of the nation-state.
Yes, if concerning the existance of the nation-state as a political entity. However if we speak about the actual existance of nations and ethnicities, it is beyond dispute that Christianity has always acknowledged their existance and that they play an important role in God’s plans for humanity. Christ acknowledged the existance of the Israelite nation, but within the framework of the Roman Empire. A nation can still exist without a nation-state, there are thousands of examples of this both current and historically.
If you are right, this is a lacune of potentially epoch-making gravity given the times we live in, one which urgently needs to be addressed by Catholic theologians and the Catholic hierarchy.
The issue has been addressed and has been addressed since the very beginning. The existance of nations is not in dispute. What is in dispute on whether those nations should live in their own individual states(on the model of the Israelites) or whether they should live within the framework of an empire(on the model of Rome).
Here’s an early example of such analysis:
“Regino of Prum writing in his Chronicon about the year 900, set out what may be called the normative Christian view of human society as follows: ‘Just as different peoples(diversae nations populorum) differ between themselves in descent, manners, language and laws(genere, moribus, lingua, legibus) so the holy and universal church throughout the world, although joined in the unity of the faith nevertheless varies its ecclesiastical customs among them.’ Here the unity and universality of the church is not in question; it inevitably limits the degree of specifically religious diversity acceptable between nations but it takes the existence and differences of the latter for granted and does not rule out a diversity of ecclesiastical custom reflecting national differences.
Within the unity of Christian faith, the full diversity of nations, customs and languages comes simply to be taken for granted. No one reading the New Testament as a primary guide to the way the world is could have much doubt of that.â€
—Adrian Hastings The Construction of Nationhood pg.195<
Unfortunately, false-liberals seem to hold sway currently in the Vatican Court.
Yet even they in the end defend the very existance of nations. The extreme liberal Catholic Adrian Hastings even wrote a book about this(which I just quoted above) declaring that the nation and nationalism are both characteristically Christian things.
Heres even a statement by the Catholic Association for International Peace on the issue:
“Men have always lived in groups. Apparently it is a part of God’s plan that they should. And one of the things which have enabled them to live in groups has been the loyalty —the patriotism—which God has implanted in their very nature. This loyalty—this patriotism—this love of country’—involves a triple affection. It embraces an affection for familiar places, an affection for familiar persons, and an affection for familiar ideas. One’s ‘country’ connotes all of these: the land itself, the persons on it, and the traditions associated with it. One’s ‘native land’—the terra patria, la patrie, das Vaterland—is an extension of hearth and home. It is the soil that has given life to one’s forefathers and holds their tombs, and which in turn nurtures one’s children and grandchildren. It is a link between generations, between families and friends, between common experience of the past and that of the present and future.”
There are plenty of things wrong with the Catholic church and even its views on social doctrine. Can the church do more in the national issue? Certainly yes. But to claim the Liberal establishment is entirely against the nation is wrong. It maybe misguided in its teachings on the question of nations, but nowhere does it deny that nations do exist and they play a role in God’s plans.
I meant culturally Catholic, of Catholic heritage, education, and family, members of Catholic nations who were, all three of them, certainly educated as Catholics in childhood, whether or not they are believing, practicing Catholics today (which, for all we know, all three of them are, incidentally). If I referred to Saddam Hussein as “a Moslem” in a discussion like this, I’d hope no one would dispute that and say, “I’m not aware he’s a Moslem—I’ve read he’s a non-believing, non-practicing secularist.” That would be beside the obvious point having to do with his cultural/civilizational heritage.
Actually Saddam being a secularist has much to do with his cultural/civilizational heritage. Saddam is an Arab nationalist in the same league that Nasser was. Now Arab nationalism is heavily secularist, and it is for a good reason. Islam is staunchly anti-nationalist, the nation has no place in Islamic thinking. Plus Arab nationalism largely thrives in countries with a large Christian minority. If anybody wants to dispute Christianity’s relations to nationalism, look at the Middle East. Christians were heavily involved in Arab nationalist movements and often were top leaders. Saddam’s own vice-president Tariq Aziz was Catholic. Similar things can be said about Chirac. Your attempts to protray him as a “cultural Catholic” or Saddam as a “cultural Muslim” is built on simplistic interpretations of the facts and contexts involving this issue.
Oh, did he? That sounds like Ted Kennedy’s promise that the 1965 Immigration Holocaust bill “would end up increasing immigration by no more than 3,000 per year.” But anyway, let’s take a look at Chirac’s concern for his own nation-state, France, as reflected in the following statements of his and, underneath those, the opinion some ordinary Frenchmen have formed of him….There, Perun, is your Chirac who is so concerned about the survival of nation-state. (Just not his own, I guess …)
Its sad you spent all that time only to knock down a strawman. I dont endorse Chirac nor have I claimed hes a geniune nationalist. Yet on at least that one occasion he defended the integrity of the nation-state.
These “anti-discrimination” fanatics can’t have it both ways
“[…] ‘in politics we may not speak of sin, we should speak of non-discrimination, and I am solidly opposed to discrimination against homosexuals and of any type of discrimination.’ He does not say though whether his opposition to discrimination extends to the usual view that eradicating it in all its forms is a fundamental overriding state concern. If so, it would make sense to penalize people like him who publicly say that it ‘may be’ a sin, or at least avoid conferring high public honors on them.” —from the log entry (emphasis added)
It would also make sense to penalize his close friend the Pope for upholding an organization that discriminates against the Moslems, Jews, Greek Orthodox, Protestants, and atheists: Why can’t a Jew, Moslem, Greek, Protestant, or atheist become Pope (while remaining, of course, Moslem, Jewish, Orthodox, Protestant, or atheist)? Doesn’t that “discrimination” have to be stamped out too, and don’t the upholders of that retrograde relic from the dark age( * )—the dregs, like the Pope, who still haven’t “gotten” the anti-discrimination message of the New Age we’re in—have to be forcibly re-educated—punished even, both because of their guilt and to set an example—pour encourager les autres —?
___
( * = the age that prededed the 1970ish leftist totalitarian take-over of the Western World, which New Age of course continues unchallenged still thirty-five long, agonizing years later)
________________________
Long live Flanders!