“Four
Legs Good – Two Legs Bad”
(George Orwell Animal Farm)
Doubtless the reader who has
read Orwell’s book will be familiar with this quotation which runs as a
refrain through the work. For those of you who have not, a little explanation is
necessary.
Animal Farm is an
allegorical novel which Orwell set forth as an analysis of totalitarian
government especially written with reference to the Communist revolution in
Russia. In the work the animals on a farm rebel against an unjust and cruel
human farmer with the intention of creating a utopia where all the animals will
be equal. The farm is quickly dominated by the pigs with two main rival leaders:
Napoleon who gradually assumes total control and Snowball who resists the
increasing dictatorial ways of Napoleon. The latter engineers the downfall of
Snowball and becomes absolute ruler. During those times when the animals
assemble to be given orders or explanations as to policy changes, those who
object to Napoleon’s reforms are silenced by the bleating of the sheep who
have been taught by Napoleon to say in unison repeatedly the quotation cited as
the title to this article: “Four legs good, two legs bad” until opposition
has ceased. The implication being that the sheep recite what they have been told
in an unthinking and uncritical manner.
Orwell’s motive is to
demonstrate that this way of acting: namely mouthing platitudes in an uncritical
way without analyzing the actual evidence in an impartial manner leads to the
binding of men and the loss of his intelligence.
Recently in a Traditional
Catholic e-mail list the question of my consecration was raised. In an effort to
forestall the next question: “why did you not approach a “Thuc” Bishop
?” (and a number of them offered to do the job) I announced that I had been
provided with evidence of what I perceive to be a compelling nature that there
exist serious reasons to question the validity of the Apostolic lineage
descending from Archbishop Peter Martin Ngo-Dinh-Thuc.
The response was immediate and
overwhelming: the verdict is already in – Thuc is valid case closed. (Bleated
to the strains of “Four legs good…”) What I actually said was that new evidence,
not previously available was given to me and that this had not been
covered by any article previously written up in defense of the Archbishop.
I said that I had been doing new
research and that at some future point in time I would make it available for all
to examine. There was absolutely nothing intentionally polemical in my post
(although subsequently re-reading it I can see why it could be read as such).
However, I did not say all
the “Thuc” bishops and priests are invalid – but I believe it to be
so based on evidence that no-one has yet seen. I ask that the jury await
their decision until I have had an opportunity to post the evidence. Then judge
as you may. The evidence must be presented in a coherent and scholarly way and
there is a slew of information available for your perusal. I will be posting the
evidence in stages and as I am able since I have a heavy pastoral
responsibility.
I have no intention of into
entering into sterile debates – just look at the evidence and construe as best
you may.
The question has also been posed as to why I, who previously opposed the Duarte-Costa succession should now have done a volte face. There is posted at the Church web site an article I wrote in December 2002 entitled “They Doubly Tear Down”. You can find it here:
http://www.olfatima.com/they_doubly_tear_down.htm
In that article I make the
following statement: