Francis, are you Dealing in Life or in Death?

First of all, we know from Romans that through the sin of one man, death entered the world.

Evolution is a theory that basically says that through the cleansing virtue, so to speak, of multiple death (also known as "adaptive pressure of natural selection"), man entered the world.

Jews do not read Romans as Holy Scripture, unless they are Jews for Jesus. What Gould councils - he also parodied the partial independence of science and theology into "non-over-lapping magisteria" - may be relevant for Liberal Jews, but not for Christians, since we believe in Romans.

About one hundred years ago, a Bible Commission whose answers had doctrinal validity affirmed that one could investigate whether chapter one of Genesis used "day" for a longer period of time. Since then both the Orthodox Penitent Schema Monk Seraphim Rose and the Creation Ministries of Protestants have done the investigation by pointing at Romans. And Catholics have concurred, like Reverend Philip Lynch C.S.Sp. or like Robert Sungenis.

One cannot say that the licence to investigate amounts to a licence to prefer the heterodox solution.

But evolution is not alone to deal in death today. We have a psychiatry which is fulfilling the prophecy "and they will seek death and not find it" by degrading the adulthood of grown people in such a way as to make relevant the observation of Saint Augustine about childhood, and its humiliations: "who, if given the choice between death and going through childhood again, would not prefer death?" De Civitate Dei, a passage enumerating the miseries of life after the fall and before the final glory.

More than ten years ago, I asked Bishop Anders Arborelius of Stockholm to defend me against psychiatry. Not just against mental hospital, but against psychiatry. And precisely against, Swedish "mot", and not before, Swedish "inför".

I have been pretty well defended against mental hospital, most of the time since I came out after long delay, but not against what seem to me to be its manoeuvres to investigate my case by subtle or not so subtle espionnage, to submit me to a kind of therapy by showing me the failures they arrange, socially, and when we speak of arranging failures, also manoeuvres which they might have put as defending me against my mistakes. Or rather, what they would want - if I were listening to them - myself, and what they do expect that others anyway regard as my mistakes.

Jews say that death and the devil are the same. Or so I have heard. Christ describes them as a synagogue of Satan. Masada and the Goebbels family (and yes, Madame Goebbels was Jewish, married the Nazi with her rich father's blessing in 1931) seem to indicate they could be a synagogue of death.

Have they at any time asked you or Catholic priests or bishops closer to me, to investigate if I am a "true or a false prophet"? Because I have not been claiming to be a prophet at all, in my writings. I have written as reasoning with human reason, submitting it to the Faith. I have not written as claiming any revelations disclosing material that God would have given only me through some revelation.

They may have their customs according to which what I have claimed - like knowing Jesus from Nazareth is the true Messiah, which each and every Christian claims - amounts to a claim of being a prophet. If they try to apply such customs to me, and I have never been circumcised nor made a Bar Mitzvah, but I have been baptised, do tell them that their customs are not to be applied to the lives of Christian men.

I have been told by one man that poverty "can serve as initiation, a kind of wandering through the desert", but I have never asked, nor will I ever ask, to be initiated to their B'nai B'rith lodges.

When I was baptised sub conditione in 1993 (just in case the water had not touched my head back in 1984, but in fact the feeling of water touching the vortex differs from water touching the forehead, as I found out a few years ago), the priest told me he could not take me to the seminar, I needed either to convert or to find a good wife. Since then, my prayer has basically been to find that good wife. Some others, including that priest, possibly, and including possibly too yourself or your predecessors (whether the Papacy of John-Paul II and Benedict XVI was valid or not, whether yours is so or not, they appear as your predecessors), and possibly also your Orthodox partners in Ecumenic dialogue, have been praying for myself to rather convert to a non-matrimonial plan for my life.

If that is so, it collides with my prayer in 2004, on the way to Saint James of Galicia, where I asked God to give me a wife or death. After that, anyone praying for my celibate has been praying for my death. And anyone knowing of this prayer of mine, and praying for my celibacy, and praying death do not touch me, has been implicitly praying for the death of someone else.

There was a death right now, which under certain conditions should have shown me I should get to a monastery. Christine Allen, dead at a Catholic College in the US. Her death is the reason I ask you this question so bluntly.

Anyone praying that I may develop or evolve so that in the future some years hence I may be better suited than he thinks I am now to marry, is also praying that I do not get a wife now. Is also praying for death.

Anyone praying that I may develop or evolve as a writer or as a composer or into some other business, so that in the future some years from now I may be better suited to support a family, is also praying I do not get a wife, children and income now. Is also praying for death.

It is no sacrilege to ask money for texts that do not claim to be prophecy. It is not a sacrilege to hope for an income from musical compositions that were maybe made with the help of God, but not directly for the liturgic glory of God. And being an evolutionist (or a heliocentric) can hardly be a necessary qualification for being a colleague of Scarlatti or Corelli, who were pretty obviously neither evolutionist or heliocentric.

In France, recently, some pompous stupidity has been blown out about the Galileo affair, that Galileo was condemned for being too self assured, even if he could be right. One commentator added that Pope Urban VIII was heliocentric himself.

Of course not. If that had been so, Pope Urban VIII would have been condemned himself by the sentence of 1633. And maybe he might not have confirmed it. It is rather the reverse, he was a friend of the self assured Galileo in all other respects than sharing his heliocentrism. I do not know whether Galileo thought catenary curves were parabolas, as I found on one site, or that Galileo had himself discovered they were not, as James Grime said on a video from Cambridge, but I do know Galileo was not condemned for either of the two opposite and alternative positions in mathematics. He was condemned for two complementary and concurrent propositions, at least the latter of which is shared by "modern astronomy."

It is therefore absurd to try to treat as condemned (either in my person or in my work on the internet) an opponent of modern astronomical paradigm just because he happens to be self assured. The relevant sin of Galileo was not self assuredness, but doctrinal. It is doubly absurd if there has been no trial and in fact can be no trial, because Paul VI lifted the ban on publishing books (even with theological relevance) without episcopal approval. According to you validly. According to sedisvacantists, who publish books not approved y ordinary bishops, that would rather be providentially. And again there can be no trial if the reason why the Church Authorities accept in their subjects heliocentrism is that "it concerns science not theology", there can be no theological error in refusing to be heliocentric.

Even if you are not truly Pope, or even if being the Pope you will not be recognised by me for your ecumenicism, in the end, since I could be wrong, you can stop dealing in death when it comes to my situation. You can refuse to be solidaric with people wishing to correct me before they accept I get anything good. And I think this means, you might have to deal with André Vingt-Trois as with a schismatic, or as a persecutor of my person because of my Christian positions (if he has other things against me, he could in honesty have tried to get at me about that).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou Library
Day of von Dönitz' Capitulation in 1945
8-V-2013