We are Voting for Hitler!

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

Thanks for your opinion, but it evades what I asked.

I have put questions against both your claimed sources, neither of which have you addressed. Why not?

I have also pointed out that it is possible that a political party you claimed existed in 1904 didn't exist until 1906. This is important because Il Fermo Proposito was issued in 1905.

Are we to presume that, as you haven't condemned these points, you approve of them?

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

Every one knows that it takes time to create a political party,which means that a party that existed in 1906 also existed before 1906 .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

Thanks for your opinion, but it again evades what I asked.

I have put questions against both your claimed sources, neither of which have you addressed. Why not?

I have also pointed out that it is possible that a political party you claimed existed in 1904 didn't exist until 1906. This is important because Il Fermo Proposito was issued in 1905.

Are we to presume that, as you haven't condemned these points, you approve of them?

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. "Everyone knows....." is not an argument, it is just a personal assumption of yours.

[Sid Guttridge]

Double post

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,

Thanks for your opinion, but it again evades what I asked.

I have put questions against both your claimed sources, neither of which have you addressed. Why not?

I have also pointed out that it is possible that a political party you claimed existed in 1904 didn't exist until 1906. This is important because Il Fermo Proposito was issued in 1905.

Are we to presume that, as you haven't condemned these points, you approve of them?

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. "Everyone knows....." is not an argument, it is just a personal assumption of yours.

It is not an assumption, it is a fact : it takes time to create a political party . A lot of time .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

Still avoiding the substantive questions, I see.

Try again:

I have put questions against both your claimed sources, neither of which have you addressed. Why not?

I have also pointed out that it is possible that a political party you claimed existed in 1904 didn't exist until 1906. This is important because Il Fermo Proposito was issued in 1905.

Are we to presume that, as you haven't condemned these points, you approve of them?

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,



I have also pointed out that it is possible that a political party you claimed existed in 1904 didn't exist until 1906. This is important because Il Fermo Proposito was issued in 1905.



Cheers,

Sid.

See post 185 .

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,



The Dreyfus Affair was in France. What has it got to do with voting in Italy?

Cheers,

Sid.

Ask the author .
The author said that after the Dreyfus Affair and the separation of Church and State in France, the pope authorised Italian Catholics to participate in the Italian elections.And the author referred to Il Fermo Proposito.
Unless you can prove that the author is wrong, you must accept what he said .
See post 176 :

'' Il Fermo Proposito authorised bishops to dispense Catholics from the Non Expedit wherever church interest recommended it .''

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

At last!

1) Post 185 does not answer the question I asked. The problem you have is that if the Italian Catholic Electoral Union (UECI) was only founded in 1906, then it couldn't, as you earlier claimed, have won seats in the 1904 election. I asked you to clarify this and you have not done so. "it takes time to create a political party....." is just waffle. It tells us absolutely nothing about when the UECI was actually founded. If you don't know, just say so, and we can move on.

2) If Church and State after the Dreyfus Affair.The Separation Issue in France really does say "Il Fermo Proposito authorised bishops to dispense Catholics from the non expedit wherever church interest recommended it", then it is simply wrong. Article 18 of Il Fermo Proposito actually says, as you well know: "....it was universally forbidden in Italy for Catholics to participate in the legislative power."

What is more, it does not authorise bishops to make an exception. They have to "request such a dispensation" of the Pope. Read it again.

3) I also asked, "Divided Friends seems to be about Catholicism in the USA. Are you sure the reference to November 1904 elections doesn't refer to the US elections of that same month and year?" Are we to presume that, as you haven't condemned this possibility, you approve of it?

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

3 P 46 of Divided Friends :''Pius X had a different policy for Catholic presence in the politics of Italy .He relaxed the non expedit for the election of November 1904 .''
Divided Friends is NOT about the US ,Pius X did not intervene in US elections .
Divided Friends is available on the internet .
2 You are simply wrong .''it was universally forbidden in Italy for Catholics to participate in the legislative power '' means that this was so in the past, not that it is in 1905 , otherwise the pope would have said : it is universally forbidden .And, it were the bishops, not the pope who would decide, the pope would only sign .
1 The UECI existed already de facto in 1904 ,it got 0,52 % of the votes (8008) and 3 of its candidates were elected .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

You are still not reading what was actually in Article 18 of Il Fermo Proposito.

Here it is again,

"Most serious reasons, however, dissuade Us, Venerable Brethren, from departing from that norm which Our Predecessor, Leo XIII, of blessed memory, decreed during his Pontificate. According to his decree it was universally forbidden in Italy for Catholics to participate in the legislative power.

This is an unequivocal confirmation that Pius X was not departing from the position of Leo XIII that universally forbade Italian Catholics from voting.

He then goes on in rather more obscure phraseology to say:

"Other reasons equally grave, however, founded upon the supreme good of society which must be preserved at all costs demand that in particular cases a dispensation from the law be granted especially when you, Venerable Brethren, recognize the strict necessity of it for the good of souls and the interest of your churches, and you request such a dispensation."

This means that he was willing to consider exceptions, but these required dispensation from him. The bishops had no power to go it alone.

You post, "The UECI existed already de facto in 1904." Apparently not, but its predecessors certainly appear to have done so.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Latze]

Divided Friends is NOT about the US ,Pius X did not intervene in US elections .
Divided Friends is available on the internet .

I must admit that I do wonder why the author choose to title the book "Divided Friends: Portraits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis in the United States" then.

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,

You are still not reading what was actually in Article 18 of Il Fermo Proposito.

Here it is again,

"Most serious reasons, however, dissuade Us, Venerable Brethren, from departing from that norm which Our Predecessor, Leo XIII, of blessed memory, decreed during his Pontificate. According to his decree it was universally forbidden in Italy for Catholics to participate in the legislative power.

This is an unequivocal confirmation that Pius X was not departing from the position of Leo XIII that universally forbade Italian Catholics from voting.

He then goes on in rather more obscure phraseology to say:

"Other reasons equally grave, however, founded upon the supreme good of society which must be preserved at all costs demand that in particular cases a dispensation from the law be granted especially when you, Venerable Brethren, recognize the strict necessity of it for the good of souls and the interest of your churches, and you request such a dispensation."

This means that he was willing to consider exceptions, but these required dispensation from him. The bishops had no power to go it alone.

You post, "The UECI existed already de facto in 1904." Apparently not, but its predecessors certainly appear to have done so.

Cheers,

Sid.

NO : Pius X did not say that Catholics could not vote/be elected in national elections .Already in 1904 Catholics voted and were elected in national elections . Pius X remained silent in 1904, thus he would not say in 1905 that Catholics could not do what he allowed them to do a year before .
And what he said in the second part was not an obscure phraseology . He said :when Catholics recognize ( NOT : THE POPE) that a dispensation is needed and request one,they will have one . The dispensation would be granted automatically . And not by him . He did not say : I will give dispensation .
When in 1904 thousands of Catholics voted and 3 were elected,there is no proof that the pope gave them explicitly a dispensation .8008 Catholics voted in 1904: the pope did not give them a dispensation . Thus why would he give the 73015 Catholics who voted in 1909 a dispensation ? 18 Catholics were elected in 1909 : did they ask for a dispensation from the pope and did they get one from the pope ?
Are there occasions where dispensation was asked and was refused ?
From :
'' Enfranchisement and representation : Evidence from the Introduction of ''Quasi Universal ''Suffrage ''
P 7
''From the early 20 th Century ,local bishops could demand a dispensation from the Non Expedit . And dispensations were granted for the first time in 1904 . ''
There are no proofs of dispensations that were asked and were refused .
It was : you ask and I sign . Automatically .
'' In 1913 the Non Expedit was suspended in more than two thirds of electoral districts .''
This means that it was asked in more than two thirds of electoral districts . And dispensation would be granted in all electoral districts if it was asked for in all electoral districts .
Everything depended on the local circumstances,which the Vatican did not know : was there a danger for the election of a socialist ? Were there enough Catholic votes to prevent this ? Were the opponents of the socialists willing to accept the catholic votes ? Should the Catholics vote for the existing anti Catholic/anti Socialist parties or should they vote for a Catholic candidate ? Etc..
All depended on the local bishop : if he asked for dispensation, he would get dispensation . If he did not ask for dispensation, he would not have dispensation .
There were in 1909 508 electoral districts electing each one member of parliament .
It is obvious that the Vatican was unaware of the circumstances in these electoral districts .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

You post, "Pius X did not say that Catholics could not vote/be elected in national elections."

Yes he did, as I have quoted to you at least half a dozen times here: "Most serious reasons, however, dissuade Us, Venerable Brethren, from departing from that norm which Our Predecessor, Leo XIII, of blessed memory, decreed during his Pontificate. According to his decree it was universally forbidden in Italy for Catholics to participate in the legislative power."

You have completely abandoned all rational argument and regard for hard evidence put before your very eyes.

You aren't even disputing its accuracy.

You just pretend it isn't there.

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,

You post, "Pius X did not say that Catholics could not vote/be elected in national elections."

According to his decree it was universally forbidden in Italy for Catholics to participate in the legislative power.[/u][/i][/b]"



Cheers,

Sid.

What you cited is what Leo XIII said : Pius X said : according to the decree of Leo XIII it WAS universally forbidden in Italy for Catholics to participate in the legislative power .
Pius X said NOT : it is still universally forbidden in Italy for Catholics to participate in the legislative power .
It was no longer forbidden in 1904 for Catholics to participate in Italian elections, and in 1905 Pius X said openly what he ''silently'' allowed in 1904 : it was allowed for Catholics in Italy to participate in Italian elections . The only thing that was needed was a dispensation and that was a formality .
Divorce is not allowed in the Catholic Church, but every one knows that if you know some one who knows some one who knows some one who works at the Rota,your marriage will be easily dissolved .
How easily ?
That depends on the amount of money that you will give on the intermediaries .