“A mixed bag, obfuscating since 1540”
Here’s Sam Sawyer, SJ (Society of Jesus a.k.a. “the Jesuits”) an associate editor writing in America Magazine, the priestly order’s house organ. He serves up the finest of “jesuitical reasoning” to pro-choice politicians, media, activists, and leftist Catholics in their pursuit of the pro-life people who made the now infamous video of the compassionate Dr. Nucatola of Planned Parenthood.
Sam’s thoughts are virtually certain to make their way into a brief that PP’s supporters will file in an effort to bring legal action down on the Center for Medical Progress.
” C.M.P.’s edited version of the video, not to mention the undercover sting operation itself, is in many respects deeply unfair. Nonetheless, we do not need to defend the video’s production in order to be—properly and appropriately—shocked that a physician can discuss how best to harvest fetal tissue without ever appearing to be troubled by the fact that the fetus is human.”
The above is an actual excerpt. If you take the time to read his full exposition you will wonder about his, tut tut, “properly and appropriately shocked” level. Read it here.
In light of Fr.Sam’s profundity we thought it a worthy exercise to imagine perhaps if Sam had an instructor also of the cloth, (SJ of course) imparting such wisdom back in the day, say circa 1938 . We came up with this droll little bit which makes as much ethical sense as Fr. Sam’s rambling apologia.
Dear Readers of America Amerika:
As you should all know with the letters S.J. after my name, I am loyal to the Church and I have even written about non-Aryans favorably. Some of my best friends have been non-Aryans. Therefore my sincerity and logic in calling into the question the sincerity of others who question the integrity of well-meaning individuals operating as best they can, for the good of all, under the law as best they can determine it, should not be questioned.
You are aware by now that parts of a surreptitiously made film-reel have been bandied about that unfairly sensationalize something that we are all a bit squeamish about, something we would not do ourselves, something we grant is against Church teachings (which I assure all that I am loyal to) but which we must implore readers to be absolutely objective about. It is my belief that the news reel footage sensationally impugns people unfairly
Logic tells us that the issue of the humanity of non-Aryans is irrelevant to the legal use of non-Aryan body parts subsequent to the host’s demise. Their harvesting from what the law terms a squatter, alien tissue, a parasite is regulated but we go too far when we use mere interpretations of such law to trip up well meaning people. Whether or not we agree with it, the policy of the country is to cleanse the gene pool, make more room for Aryans, and to recompense for resources expropriated by non-Aryans from the fatherland or would result if they were allowed legal status.
Once again for the record, I want to be very clear I am orthodox on the matter and think that the non-Aryans should be allowed to live.
Certain delicate related topics have been raised as regards resource utilization of the non-Aryan matter. Whether the use of certain demise and harvesting techniques violate the law or not is complicated. But it is important to keep in mind that honest God and Fuhrer fearing people do not see things our way. Tolerance is the watchword. Dedication to efficiency is commendable in and of itself. Adaptation to the law is supreme as well.
In order to remind readers of the essence of this, consider none other than our co-religionist, (Catholic and Democrat) thoroughly Aryan, Roger B. Taney who wrote with clarity about the rights of certain non-Aryans as follows in the famous American case called Dred Scott vs Sandford:
Persons of African descent “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect” and essentially that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery “bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it.”
His was a frank exposition of the state of the law. We may disagree but it reflected the law and deserved to be respected.
If I had not made it clear before, I am grateful to the fatherland that I am allowed to personally disagree with the non-Aryan policies and be assured that I do so out of scrupulousness to our ancient church tenants (whether they should be revised or certain accommodations allowed is a topic for another discussion).
So while I personally disagree with the final solution for the non-Aryan problem we must recognize it was somewhat of a compromise after all, what with trying to keep it out of the public eye in order to limit sensitivity, and should be fully respected. In the spirit of compromise some rules for our illustrious scientists to follow were created, which given the dedication of scientists to get the job done, are chafed at. But squeamishness over their everyday tasks should have no place in a rigorous analyses of what the law allows.
To suggest that something other than man-made law should be controlling instead is frankly contentious, an unnecessary dialectic to engage in as regards the matter at hand. Implying non-Aryans should be treated as Aryan is not productive for the aforementioned reasons. There is no need to go beyond the issue, which is the efficiency and economics of the disposition of what has been decided to be a resource.
Picturing the dialogue and process of acquiring the bones of non-Aryan resources so that they may be cleanly ground in order to sand the rails in order to facilitate the efficiency of running the trains on time should be looked at objectively.
Fr. Lies, SJ
We eagerly await Fr. Sam’s thoughtful, fair-minded, balanced “comments” regarding “Laudato Si” and the “information” it imparted on the matter of “climate change”. He will no doubt take his boss and fellow Jesuit, Pope Francis, to task for a truth- and fact-starved, biased presentation. Sam will also, undoubtedly express his deep concern that the encyclical portrayed both capitalists and climate change “deniers” as “demonic”.
Sam will most certainly abhor the Vatican’s refusal to allow anyone who may dissent from His Holiness’ conclusions to not even be heard.
DLH and R Mall
