Let’s say that four people working a 100 acre field with horse-drawn equipment are able to produce 100 bushels an acre.  Those 10,000 bushels are worth $5/bushel, or fifty thousand dollars.  It costs the four farmers $3.00 for seed, fertilizer, labor, and equipment.  So, the four farmers split $20,000.00.

Then, the first mechanized equipment becomes available.  Within a generation, one farmer is farming 1000 acres.  He is, with his tractors, planters, cultivators, and reapers, reducing his costs.  Rather than 40 farmers, there is one farmer.  There are not 80 horses to pull the tiny plows, but one tractor and one plow.  Costs have plummeted.  It now costs $1.00 to produce a bushel.

The government is faced with 39 unemployed farmers for every person still working in the fields.  So, it prints money (food stamps, heating assistance, welfare checks) to keep them alive.  As long as it costs less to provide that than the money saved, the process can continue for a long time.

If similar cost reductions take place in the production of all goods and services, deficit spending can reach levels that would have been thought impossible.

The process will last until too many people are able to attain the political power to get government jobs (where there is never efficiency and cost reduction) and the system collapses.

Before that happens, money is ruthlessly squeezed from providers of goods and services, all of whom have become wealthy in the process of cutting costs.  That distracts them from further efficiencies.  The government does not shrink proportionately, and the nation collapses.

Every time.

How long can deficit spending last?  As long as  government does not grow faster than cost reductions in goods and services.  Faith and freedom are needed.

In Catholic nations, with an appreciation of truth and a hatred of gluttony, the process can last a thousand years.  And, it did in Europe, from about 500 AD to 1500 AD.

Bossy people think there are two kinds of people outside themselves:  those below and those above.

It is the goal of those in government to be among those above, having larger numbers doing their bidding.  They take two things from those below, rights and assets.

Assets are taken by taxing income, property, and activities.  As vanity forces more people into governments, more must be taken.

After becoming corrupted, bossy people find that taxes may be levied on inefficient processes.  An ancient example of an ongoing process:  Rome owned Egypt.  Huge ships brought grain from Egypt to be distributed among many of Rome’s citizens.  Without it, there would be rioting.  It is logical to think that the Roman government would simply turn Egypt into a huge, state-run farm that would provide grain at the lowest possible cost.

Instead, Egyptian farms were allowed to be privately owned.  Their owners paid bribes to Senators to keep on owning their huge, productive farms.  The higher costs were passed on to Rome”s citizens.  They became poorer, but the Senators prospered.  That process begins with liking to boss and ends with loving to steal.

In our nation, a large nuclear reactor is the most efficient producer of power.  For less than two cents/kilowatt hour, electricity can be produced.  Hydroelectric dams are about as efficient.

Our government has not built a nuclear reactor for decades.  Hydroelectric dams are being torn down.

Egyptian food producers once paid bribes to Roman Senators who burdened their countrymen with excessive food costs.  Now, those who use windmills, foreign oil, and solar panels to produce more expensive electricity pay bribes to American Congresspeople to burden us, their countrymen, with higher electricity costs.

Some things never change.  Most people in Rome didn’t understand.  Most Americans understand, either.

Catholic Fundamentalism merely mentions this as a warning.  Those who use political position to bear false witness for personal gain lose their immortal souls to endless pain.

In the “Roaring Twenties”, Protestants began to abandon that position.  By the 1950s and 60s, a new generation of  Americans had, along with the schisms, increasingly accepted birth control and abortion.

In the fifties and sixties, the he connection between schism, sin, and death grew clearer.  In the early ’70s, abortion was legalized.

For a few years, the Pro-Life movement made some progress in stopping abortion, but it continued, largely unabated.  The Catholic Church did what it could, but many of Her other enemies had been weakening the Church’s political power in American cities.

Through WWII, the anti-socialist Catholic Church dominated big cities.  Large, prosperous parishes had their own school systems.  The Church operated hospitals and social services.   Some wanted to replace Catholic schools with public schools staffed with highly paid, unionized teachers.  Similarly, competitors for medical dollars wanted to get rid of Catholic hospitals.  Catholic social services provided unwanted competition for the state’s social workers.

Her enemies used “Progress!” to attack the urban Catholics.  Huge expressways began shattering parishes while large numbers of minorities were moved into Public Housing in urban areas.  Soon, white Catholics had to relocate to suburbs for safe living.  Usurious bankers provided mortgages.    Every hand was raised against The Church and Her people.

She was attacked so viciously by enemies on every front that it was impossible to defeat the abortionists.  What made it worse?  Pro-life people from every schism began competing organizations with different leadership, priorities, and funding.   The Pro-life movement was amateurish, uncoordinated, and easily stopped at every turn.

The schismatic nature of the pro-life movement made it impossible tor Pro-life people to coalesce around competing candidates and policies.  The unified culture of death made progress in every election cycle.  Now, we must recognize an unhappy truth:  it is the Christian schisms that allowed abortion to begin.  It is the Christian schisms that allow abortion to continue.

Since everything else has failed, we can see that the only way to stop the murder of innocents is for all Pro-life people to become Catholics.  Today’s reading included these passages from 2 Cor 6:1-10:

Yesterday’s Reading confirmed that those who do not obey these “least commandments”  end up being “least in The Kingdom of Heaven”.

How to obey “The Least Commandments”?  Receive the Sacraments.  “The Least Commandments are the words of Jesus that tell us to receive the Seven Sacraments of Baptism, Confession, Communion, Confirmation, Marriage, Anointing of the Sick, and Holy Orders.  Those who avoid any of them in their fulness will be “least in the Kingdom of Heaven” according to the passages that accompany Mt. 5:19.

Today’s Reading reinforces that, and lets us know that those who do not see and understand how to obey these “least Commandments”, to receive The Sacraments in His Church, have a veil over them:

2 Cor 3:15—4:1, 3-6

“In 1562, French Protestants came to the fine harbor of Port Royal and here decided to make the settlement. A small fort was built and called Fort Caroline in honor of King Charles of France. Twenty-six men were left to hold possession of the fort, and Ribault, expecting soon to return, set sail for France. When he arrived there he found civil war raging, and he could not return then to carry aid to the little fort.

Meanwhile things went badly indeed at Fort Caroline. The Indians had been friendly, but the soldiers had quarreled among themselves. When provisions became scarce and there was no sign of help, they mutinied and killed their captain. They said they would return home at all hazards, for they could not longer bear life in the wilderness.”

After the murderous mutineers killed their commanding officer, they made themselves a little boat. They planned to return to France by sailing it across the Atlantic.  Some in the mutinous crew had the ability to properly anticipate the amount of necessary provisions.

The calculations were as simple as:  “We will need one and a half pounds of food for each crew member for 45 days.”  We may assume that such obvious calculations were made.  We may also assume that mutineers would not stop reacting with extreme hostility toward anyone wanting to apply intelligent analysis to a problem.

“Nob0dy can tell us what to do.”, those who urged the accumulations of provisions before departure were told.

Too soon, the boatload of mutineers sailed for France.

A week or so after putting out to sea, they ran out of food.  They were starving.  Their tiny boat tossed on the endless ocean.  One of the mutineers volunteered to let his shipmates kill and eat him so that they might survive.  They did exactly that.

A day or two later, the surviving Huguenots were rescued by an English ship.  The world soon heard the whole, sordid story.   French Huguenots in America:  mutiny, murder, and cannibalism.  History was given a perfect example of how the results of spiritual disobedience were visited upon those who preferred self-will to obedience.

Obedient Spanish Catholics didn’t resort to mutiny when they didn’t get their own way.  French Huguenots, trying to find a place for their disobedient schism, did.  Obedient Catholics did not end up as mutinous cannibals.   Some observers rightly understood:

Spanish Catholics settled the new world as good Catholics.  French Huguenots settled in schism. They ended up as mutinous cannibals.  Catholics didn’t.

French Huguenots in America:  mutiny, murder, and cannibalism.

Since we usually think of protests as being against injustice, oppression, and tyranny, the word “protestant” may be taken, on a sub-conscious level, to have positive connotations.

As the wave of European schisms began flaking off from The Church in the 1500s, the early marketing gurus didn’t know what to call themselves.  They had a classic marketing problem.

Those in favor of schism could not totally separate themselves from The Roman Catholic Church.  That would alienate supporters who wanted to go to Heaven.  Those who could be led to leave The Church had to think they were being provided with the same, or better, chances of going to Heaven if they supported the schism of their time and place.

Those behind the schismatic movement were genuinely puzzled.  “What should we call ourselves?”  Various alternatives were considered.  “We cannot call ourselves ‘Lutheran’ because we are working in nations outside of Luther’s Germany.  We cannot call our movement ‘Calvinist’ because some are already identifying themselves as ‘Presbyterian’.  We need a name for the entirety of our schismatic movement to encompass every single schism.  What all-inclusive name will work best?  Our future depends on it.”

The word “schismatic” was suggested.  Though perfectly descriptive, it was not thought to have any attractiveness that overcame its negative connotations.  “Independents” was thought to be threatening to the various state groups.  They didn’t want too much “independence”.

Those who were pushing the overthrow of Catholic structures to provide land, buildings, movable property, and opportunities for themselves knew they needed a better name.

“What will we call ourselves?”, high-level schismatics asked.  “Reformers”?  There’s really not much to “reform” about The Church, with their vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience?  “Purists”?  That won’t work.  Without requiring our own hired clergy to take those same vows, we can’t very well call ourselves “Purists”.  We can’t do that.  The people who want jobs in our schism aren’t about to take such vows.  Not having those vows encourages our kind of people to want jobs in our clergy.”

Some suggested “Levelers”.  That was rejected.   “It’s too threatening to rich people.  They might be driven back to The Roman Catholic Church if their wealth is threatened.”

“I’ve got it!”, said one of the smarter schismatics.  “Let’s tell the fools that we are ‘Protestants’!  They will believe it.”

“What, exactly, are we protesting?”, asked the dimmer schismatics.

“What are we protesting?  Anything we want!  That’s the brilliance of it!  No matter what our opponents’ position is, we always have an excuse to be ‘protesting’.  Think of the job security!

“Wow!  No matter what position we face, we can ‘protest’.   People will have to pay us so we don’t start protesting against them!  And, we will provide generations of bitter people with a reason for being that exalts the very worst parts of their wretched natures!  We can generate cash flows for centuries!  Each national schism could have its own name.  Europe’s spiritual unity can be destroyed under the umbrella of Protestantism.”

No one asked what funding sources would benefit by that.

The brilliance of calling themselves “Protestants” sank in.  It was recognized as a perfect triumph of branding.  The name fit their personalities and purposes so well that none of the schismatics could think of a single reason to protest.

Ex. 34:11-161