Browse By

Amoris Laetitia and the illogical principle of universal contradiction: a trip down the Kasperian rabbit hole

Some time ago our friend Edward Pentin gave a little talk in the US about his experiences in Rome reporting on all the interesting doings surrounding Bergoglio’s pontificate, the Synods, Amoris Laetitia and their ultimate trajectory. The talk was produced by Mike Matt and co. as you can see, and it is well worth listening to in full.

There was one point Ed brought up that I wanted to pay particular attention to, that I think could be a kind of key to understanding what is going on. He talked about the men in the Vatican, and priest and bishops around the world, having so poor an intellectual formation that they are incapable of grasping the seriousness  – or really even the nature – of what is going on. Specifically, these are men who have had their intellects so deformed that they cannot understand what a logical contradiction is. 

…Such officials often see what’s being done but generally. Many are unconvinced it’s as bad as it’s made out partly, so I’ve been told, because they don’t have the right formation and so are not sensitive to the contradictions that once were obvious… Some, even those who are very learned, I’m told, don’t really grasp what’s happening while others can sense that something is amiss but they don’t know quite what.

Still others adapt and shift, as some say that Opus Dei is doing now… I’m also told that formation is given in such a way that a priest will be disposed to accept sheer contradictions and fluid presentations of concepts… I’ve heard that some are no longer even given the chance to develop a sense of precision about certain matters as it would be expected for those who should teach and judge souls.

… all this means that you end up with a mass of priests willing to agree with contradictions in a very trendy and modern way…They’ve been formed in the school of Hegel… They prepared a generation of people who think less although they have a lot of information…”

For quite a while now, I‘ve been writing about the strange Alice-in-Wonderland world of what I have called “the anti-rational principle,” the (I suppose) “post-modern” yearning for a universe without opposites, without contradictions, where a thing and not-a-thing can both be a thing, and therefore for the kind of reality you get to make up yourself out of your personal preferences. Years and years ago in the course of my work, I realised that people, quite literally, had become incapable of rational thought. I started to be aware that the people in charge of things in our civilisation do not know that a thing and its opposite both can’t be true.

This inability to grasp logical laws among our ruling elites became clear when I was doing the lobbying work for national legislation on embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. Ministers were proposing that a human embryo was both a human being and not a human being at the same time. If you wanted to use it to obtain human totipotent stem cells for experimental applications then of course it was a human being; wouldn’t be worth much if it weren’t right? But when we said that you can’t do that, because human beings can’t be used as experimental material without their consent…(somethingsomethingNurembergTrials…something…)

We were told we were being hysterical and outrageous and trying to stop the !Progress! of !!Science!! When we pointed out that it couldn’t be both a human and not a human, that you had to choose, they actually tried to introduce the idea of the Excluded Middle not being excluded. (It’s the second of the Three Laws of Rational Thought – that there’s no “third way” between a thing and its opposite.) They tried to invent a non-person-non-thing – a kind of magical, malleable, middling, quasi-real object that could, at will, be human for research purposes but not for purposes of legal protection. (Of course, this has already been established in the abortion laws of the world; an unborn child is a child if he is “wanted” but a “lump of cells” if not. Pregnancy is either a blessed state or a medical emergency on a par with cancer.)

A few years later, writing about the experience, I pointed to this inability to understand basic logical laws of reality as the crux of the whole problem. It was why the embryo researchers, the people who want human embryos for experimentation (and, by the way, the only people invited to give evidence at the parliamentary committee stage) refused to say whether these entities are indeed human beings, despite the plain scientific fact that if they were not human beings they would be no use for experimentation:

There are only two orders of creation in the universe: persons and things. By using the term “donor” to mean one who gives or donates an embryo, we are de facto defining an embryo as a thing that may be donated. If the embryo can be donated, it is a thing, not a person. A thing may be bought, sold, donated, dissected, experimented upon and destroyed at will. A person may not. If the embryo is a person, none of those things may be done to it.

This is the essential conflict of the debate: is the human embryo a person? The suggestion of most pieces of legislation is to attempt to propose an in-between state of existence, where the embryo is not exactly a person but yet has the potential to become one and thus is not quite considered a thing either.

This conundrum represents a meeting place of two philosophies where they clash and create an insoluble conflict. There can be no third category, no “non-person-non-thing”; the embryo is one or the other. Most legislation attempts to find a “balance” where only a decision between two opposing ideas is possible.

I quoted then-Canadian Health Minister, Anne McLellan, who said “It is not considered appropriate to treat in vitro embryos as property that are subject to ownership.” (emphasis added). The idea that it is not possible to simply invent a new category of reality – a person-not-a-person – that would allow this entity to be used for experiments while still granting it moral value, was something that these people were intellectually incapable of grasping.” They thought they were being “balanced.” That was the word we heard a lot during that unpleasant two years.

Fastforward ten years and we are seeing today exactly the same mental illness in Rome. There is a proposal for a “balance” between yes and no, a kind of third thing that is neither yes nor no. With Amoris Laetitia, we have, essentially, an attempt to codify into sacramental practice of the Church the idea that things and their opposites can both be true (and presumably not true, as the need arises) at the same time and in the same way. Amoris Laetitia – and the official papal endorsement of the most liberal interpretation of it in the Actae Apostolicae Sedis – an attempt to deny the logical principle of non-contradiction. They are, seriously, saying that the flat “No” from John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio can, if you squint hard enough, while clicking your heels together three times, become a “Yes” – and there is no contradiction.

What, in the larger sense, we are seeing is that this kind of mindset is now the ruling one in the Church. The majority of bishops either share it, or cannot understand it sufficiently to clearly correct it. We’ve seen it again and again. (Especially if you had the misfortune to have attended the press conferences for the Synods.) We have seen, astonishingly, a close papal associate – a Jesuit no less, and one who has charge of an official publication of the Holy See – actually state out loud, that if a pope says so, 2 + 2 can equal 5… and mean it! Antonio Spadaro’s red-faced blustering when this astounding statement came out on Twitter turned into something like unhinged apoplexy at the roar of laughter that was heard around the world. It was clear from his indignant responses – and his doubling down – that he had no concept at all – did not have the intellectual capacity to grasp – why everyone was laughing.

The reason was what Edward Pentin was talking about above. It is why Jorge Bergoglio shows no sign that he is capable of grasping that no one can understand what he’s saying; that he is, in fact, saying nothing comprehensible at all. It is noteworthy that this same gobbeldygook, anti-rational blithering can be heard from nearly everyone who has supported his agenda from the first day. I heard it in the press conferences at the Sala Stampa in Rome during the 1st Synod from Cardinal Marx. You can hear it and read it from Kasper every time he talks (about anything, really).  I would submit that in fact only people whose intellects have been deformed in this way can support Amoris Laetitia.

I called Ed Pentin after he got back from the US and thanked him for his talk. I said I was particularly interested in the bit about the poor intellectual formation of bishops and priests. He mentioned that the people he’d talked to had spoken about the fashion in seminaries for Hegel – the notion that “truth” can only be found by this dialectical pendulum swing between “extremes”. This is a key concept for the Bergoglians’ “thinking”. He holds, as these people all do, that it is not enough, for example, simply to take Christ at His word, or to believe the teachings of the Catholic Church. These have to be “developed’ through this “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” process to uncover the “real” truth “behind” them. This is why it is not enough simply to take the issue as concluded since John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio. (Well…that and the money. If the Germans can keep counting divorced and remarried Catholics as communicants, they keep getting the YUGE packets of dough from the Kirchensteuer… but that’s a rant for another day.)

This Hegelian mindset gives the not-very-bright both a comforting veneer of pseudo-intellectualism – a lot of incomprehensible gibbering that sounds “so profound no one can understand it” – and a shield against criticism. So, when they say things like, “The Pope doesn’t give binary answers to abstract questions,” they’re not being quite so brazenly dishonest as we might think. They believe that this is the sort of thing that makes sense. They really do believe that their doublethink and word salad is deep and meaningful – just too deep and int-el-leck-tool for us slack-jawed rubes to understand.

The other day, my thesis was demonstrated again in an interview article published by the UK’s Catholic Herald. Now, Stephen Walford is a man who has appeared out of nowhere as a voice for support of what we may perhaps now call the Argentine Solution. He was complaining about the people who argued with him on Twitter (of whom I am one, and our friend Steve Skojec is another.)

In that interview, between the whining about all us meanies being all mean to him on Twitter (to which I mostly say, “Well, dishing it out doesn’t seem to be a problem for you, Stephen…”) and his recitation of the usual Kasperian canards about hard cases of divorced and remarried people “in anguish,” he rather gave the game away:

At the beginning of this year, he emailed a pitch to Andrea Tornielli, editor of Vatican Insider, a website run by La Stampa, and then wrote a series of articles attacking papal critics. They were provocative: Walford accused the dubia cardinals of fuelling “satanic abuse” of the Pope. They were also unprecedented in their all-out defence of the principle of Communion for the remarried. To question Francis on the subject, he said, was to “call into question the teaching authority of previous popes and consequently the entire fabric of Catholicism”.

That struck some as extreme. After all, swathes of the Church, including many senior figures, explicitly reject Communion for the remarried and don’t accept that Francis has introduced it. But Walford says he always thought Amoris was clear – from the start he read footnote 351 as allowing Communion for the remarried in some cases. And since then, he says, Pope Francis has given various signals that that was what he meant.

But he thinks that the circumstances in which a remarried person would be admitted to Communion are “probably rare”. There has to be a “desire to get out of the situation”, he says. He imagines a person in anguish who wants to change the situation but “feels trapped” and can’t.

Walford thinks that Amoris Laetitia allows the divorced and civilly “remarried” to receive holy Communionif they really really feel “anguished’ enough about their situation… though of course, not “anguished” enough to actually stop having sexual relations with their paramour… We can’t expect heroism! We remember, of course, that certain members of the Bergoglian clique have said that it would in fact be sinful for such people to stop having sexual relations…that there is some kind of “moral duty” to continue to commit adultery, and that this is in some way for the good of the children…

But in the eyes of the Church  – or perhaps we must now say the pre-Bergoglian Church – these people are not in fact “remarried” at all. There’s no such thing. They are, in reality (when we still held that the Church was capable of identifying reality) living in an unrepented state of the mortal sin of adultery, and are thus barred from reception of Holy Communion. This isn’t some “rule” or even “ideal” of the Church that changes and alters with the social whims.

It is based first on the admonition from Scripture not to “eat and drink to condemnation”… “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” 1 Corinthians 11:29 (KJV) Secondly, and more importantly, it is based on the words of Christ in Scripture:

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

In case it was not enough to have Christ Himself telling us, we had it reiterated by John Paul II in Famliaris Consortio, in 1981

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”

Apparently even anticipating the garbled thought processes of the Walfords, Kaspers, Spadaros and Bergoglios of the world, John Paul II added quite pointedly that he wasn’t making it up, that it was, in fact, “the constant and universal practice” of the Church, and even added, “This practice, which is presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations.” So, no amount of “anguish” will change anything.

So, let’s just break this down. Mr. Walford insists that:

1. Amoris Laetitia does indeed say that some people in unrepented adulterous liaisons should be admitted to Holy Communion, because their feelings of “anguish” change things.

2. That this is the intention of the pope.

3. To question this intention – for any reason at all – is to “call into question the teaching authority of previous popes and consequently the entire fabric of Catholicism.” 

Except that the plain words of the previous pope but one, the canonised John Paul II, said exactly the opposite. Moreover, this canonised pope said that it is the “constant and universal practice” of the Church to do the exact opposite of what Walford and Pope Francis want, and that this is based on the words of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. 

So, according to Stephen, doing what the “previous pope” said to do, in keeping with what the Son of God said to do, is “to call into question the teaching authority of previous popes and consequently the entire fabric of Catholicism…” AND THERE’S NO CONTRADICTION HERE AT ALL.

That’s really Stephen’s unique genius in all this. Not only does he say that Francis is changing the rule to be the opposite of what it was under previous popes, he’s saying that to object to this change is to oppose the “teaching authority” of those same previous popes.  (Just pause a moment and let that one sink in a bit… Ok, now stop,  before you get woozy.)

Papal positivism isn’t for the faint of heart, it seems. To do it properly, to insist that this pope and only this pope must be obeyed, in spite of what all previous popes have said, in spite of everything the Church has ever taught, in spite of the words of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, requires not only that one ignore all these things but that to fail to ignore them is to oppose them.

Papal positivism requires the invention of an entirely new form of reality in which opposite things are the same and things that are the same are opposites. In the papal positivist’s mind, (if we can still call it that) there is no contradiction between Pope Francis’ “Yes” and John Paul II’s “No” and to refuse to accept this contradiction is to contradict John Paul II. It literally boggles the mind.

This is anti-rationality. This is what I’ve been talking about.

Two quotes spring to mind about it, the first from Avicenna, the Islamic philosopher:

“Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.”


“And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.”



24 thoughts on “Amoris Laetitia and the illogical principle of universal contradiction: a trip down the Kasperian rabbit hole”

  1. Romulus says:

    Probably right about the prayer and fasting, but I confess I’d like to try the beating and burning first.

  2. Evangeline says:

    Is it cognitive or moral confusion, the darkening of the intellect on the part of these clerics, or is it the intentional obfuscating of things they cannot actually defend but wish to implement anyways. Using lots of fancy-shmancy words, for a lot of rather inferior academics, is an attempt to veil the fact that one, in fact, knows nothing.

  3. Amateur Brain Surgeon says:

    This is the sort of Faith being taught in today’s seminaries.

    Scroll down to “Moving the Furniture>’ and the entries that follow.

    Lord have Mercy.

    How many putative Catholic Seminaries are not Catholic?

  4. Amateur Brain Surgeon says:

    He who holds the Ferula hisses like the Serpent.

    He is doing the work of the Devil, of that there can be no doubt.

  5. Hilary White says:

    Juan, Sure

  6. Juan says:

    Hillary, I could not find your email, but I want to ask for your permission to translate this article to Spanish and publish it somewhere. I find it outstanding, and right to the point. Think that many people might understand some things about what is going on. In Church and everywhere.
    From Argentina, kind regards

    Juan Campos

  7. Hilary White says:

    Lionel, you’re no longer welcome to post here. I can’t count the number of times I’ve told you not to use my blog as a platform for advertising yours, or not to leave tendentious posts just to kick up an argument and drive traffic to your site.

    You’re banned. I edited your post down to three words so there would be sufficient substance to post this reply. This will be the last post from you that appears on this site.

  8. Lionel Andrades says:

    What about the

  9. Janet Wilkie says:

    Hilary, I apologize for the change of topic, but have you seen the photo of the very buff, naked man in the Vatican’s current Nativity scene in St. Peter’s Square? did the story.

    You can find it online under the story title: A naked man steals the show in the Vatican’s new nativity scene rendition.

    He is supposed to represent one of the corporal acts of mercy. More Francis mercy distraction away from Christ, combined with in-your-face erotica.

  10. Heminarian says:

    Faith + ignorance of scholasticism = Modernism. I got that from Pope St Pius X (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 41).

    The Modernists’contempt for scholastic philosophy (by which Pius X chiefly means the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas) “has left them without the means of being able to recognize confusion of thought and to refute sophistry.”

    Things have gotten so bad that, as you, Hilary, point out with your usual style and grace, that a the close papal associate can say that in theology, 2 plus 2 can equal 5.

    Spadaro may be that confused in his thought. It’s also possible that he’s as sinister as the party leader O’Brien in _1984_. For when I remembered Orwell’s assertion in 1984, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows,” I went to look it up.

    The protagonist Winston writes that in his diary. Later he clings to the hope that “you could share in that future if you kept alive the mind as they kept alive the body, and passed on the secret doctrine that two plus two make four.”

    But later still Winston is tortured by O’Brien, who all the time holds up four fingers of his hand. That Spadaro should have used precisely _that_ particular proposition (“2 + 2 = 5”) to make his apologia for Pope Francis is — to me — a frightening coincidence.

    The fingers stood up before his eyes like pillars, enormous, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably four. “How many fingers, Winston?” “Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!” “How many fingers, Winston?” “Five! Five! Five!” “No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please?” “Four! Five! Four! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!” Abruptly he was sitting up with O’Brien’s arm round his shoulders. He had perhaps lost consciousness for a few seconds. The bonds that had held his body down were loosened. He felt very cold, he was shaking uncontrollably, his teeth were chattering, the tears were rolling down his cheeks. For a moment he clung to O’Brien like a baby, curiously comforted by the heavy arm round his shoulders. He had the feeling that O’Brien was his protector, that the pain was something that came from outside, from some other source, and that it was O’Brien who would save him from it.</BLOCKQUOTE

  11. Enclosed Garden says:

    Hillary, thank you for the intelligent and thought provoking articles you write all over the web. We are a blessed people when others take up the gauntlet to defend Holy Mother Church. Just wondering if you have read all the publications put out by Father Luigi Villa. It explains everything that is wrong with post Vatican II and the reasons why the church is truly suffering. It pains me to see people continue to write positive things about JP2, Benedict, and let’s not even mention Paul VI or John XXIII. If we all knew the truth behind these popes we wouldn’t be searching for answers, we would be praying more for the hand of God to strike and “make all things new” again.
    This site was the final eye opener for me and my husband of 40 years, 8 children and 21 grandchildren.
    May you be blessed during this Advent season as we await the coming again of the Christchild.

  12. Pingback: The Dictator Pope – keine Pflichtlektüre – Tradition und Glauben
  13. Trackback: The Dictator Pope – keine Pflichtlektüre – Tradition und Glauben
  14. Isabel says:

    I’m probably about 10 years older than Hilary, and I lived through the hideous transition from reason to nonsense, both in the academic world and in the Church. The Church sort of held out, at least officially if not in practice or preaching, until unreason burst its restraints with the arrival of Bergoglio and got its full credentials and was accepted as the now and future doctrine of the Church.

  15. Lynn says:

    Yes. When the modernists got hold of the council they not only uncrowned our Lord they dethroned the Angelic Doctor. Now here is a man that knew how to think but actual thinking was so anti Hegelian, so unmodern. Thus we have the contradiction that JP2 held
    that one could be a believer in both subjectivism and Thomism. How we personally experience God and Faith is as important as what we think about God and Faith. Supposedly there is no contradiction but of course there is one. The sense of “razing the bastions” has left the post Vatican 2 mind in a very serious muddle.

  16. Hilary White says:

    Well, that’s not “behind” papal positivism, that is papal positivism.

  17. Gerard says:

    Perhaps behind this – papal positivism – is the idea that a pope, has the power, by virtue of being pope to invent or create whatever teaching he likes. By holding papal office he is automatically correct in whatever he says, despite contradicting all that has preceded him.

    A successor may return to orthodoxy, but that would still be fine with the positivist.

    I thought this shabby approach was dealt with at the Vatican Council (I)?

  18. Benjamin Van Dyck says:


    The conditioning of the clergy that has been going on is a form of brainwashing that can be linked to MK Ultra, really. Do you not find it eerie how much insistence there is to work together with psychiatrists? The whole of society works that way at present; anyone who thinks, for example, that the geo-political puppeteers gave him television to help him or to facilitate the circulation of information is gravely, painfully ignorant. Scientists from Hitler’s Germany were used to develop the very tactics for brainwashing that are now applied to the multitudes, and the training of the clergy also has been infected by that, through the co-ordinated efforts of malicious elements within the ecclesiastical structures.

    As long as people will not understand that there is a group, a shadowy faction of intrigants who are both exceedingly evil and mad, that has been leading and developing the insanity inside the Church in a systematic and relentless way, they will not grasp what is going on and whom to designate as the main opponents to be exposed and combated.

    Consider the fact that a population cannot simply lose the common sense of affirming that two plus two is four by accident. It is a forced state of things, against which the still inherent human reason insurrects itself, which can only be acquired and upheld through forceful and constant mental conditioning.

  19. bosco49 says:

    Powerfully written. Thank you, Hilary.

    I have a quote for all of the Hegelian AL types:

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” – Joseph Goebbels

  20. JDebattista says:

    Not just St. John Paul II , but also Pope Benedict speaking with his typical clarity, profundity and gentleness about the divorced and remarried : ‘ As regards these people – as you have said – the Church loves them, but it is important they should see and feel this love. I see here a great task for a parish, a Catholic community, to do whatever is possible to help them to feel loved and accepted, to feel that they are not “excluded” even though they cannot receive absolution or the Eucharist; they should see that, in this state too, they are fully a part of the Church. Perhaps, even if it is not possible to receive absolution in Confession, they can nevertheless have ongoing contact with a priest, with a spiritual guide. This is very important, so that they see that they are accompanied and guided. Then it is also very important that they truly realize they are participating in the Eucharist if they enter into a real communion with the Body of Christ. Even without “corporal” reception of the sacrament, they can be spiritually united to Christ in his Body. Bringing them to understand this is important: so that they find a way to live the life of faith based upon the Word of God and the communion of the Church, and that they come to see their suffering as a gift to the Church, because it helps others by defending the stability of love and marriage. They need to realize that this suffering is not just a physical or psychological pain, but something that is experienced within the Church community for the sake of the great values of our faith. I am convinced that their suffering, if truly accepted from within, is a gift to the Church. They need to know this, to realize that this is their way of serving the Church, that they are in the heart of the Church. Thank you for your commitment.’ Bergoglio is definitely not in continuity with his two great predecessors as well as the perennial and universal teaching of the Church. His is a new Church, which some have dubbed as an anti Church.

  21. Michael Dowd says:

    Very good Hilary. Couple of points of my opinion:

    —The only logical reason Pope Francis would have gotten into this mess in the first place must have to do with the German tax. AL takes away the excuse for not paying the tax. All the weepy double talk about re-marriage without annulment was necessary because the Germans in question refused to get an annulment. Which, by the way, may have been another reason for simplifying the annulment process.

    —Since the advent of easy annulments after Vatican II the entire Catholic divorce/remarry business has become a travesty. Now being a “good” Catholic often means having the right documentation.

    —All of the Vatican adultery, divorce, remarriage, Communion pettifogging and double-talk makes sense when the ultimate goal is to keep the money machine humming. Illogic and contradiction are just useful tactics. Truth=Money.

  22. PeaceableKingdom says:

    Another egregious instance of contradiction: In a Church annulment, the Church states that a valid marriage was never contracted. Yet they turn around and say to the children, yes, you are legitimate (setting aside for the moment that the State considers them legitimate because the parents were simply divorced). So, how can the children be legitimate in the Church’s eyes if a valid marriage was never contracted? Well, the Church says, the parents BELIEVED they were married all that time, so ipso facto the children are legitimate. The Godless secular state doesn’t treat these children as shabbily as the Church does.

  23. TF says:

    As you’ve pointed out elsewhere, Miss Hilary, all that is left once rationality is discarded is raw power, and the will to weild it.

  24. Janet Wilkie says:

    In the mid 1970’s I took an undergraduate college course in curriculum development. A requirement was to develop a proposed course for a high school, and present it to the class and the professor. I chose to develop a course in logic, and presented it. My classmates laughed and made jeering, contemptuous, dismissive remarks. The professor offered no support. This was almost forty years ago. My classmates graduated, had their teaching careers, and retired a decade or two ago.

    Even in the 1970’s, logic was a matter for laughter.

Comments are closed.