I have a hand written poem by Louis Dantin. I am sure it is the original draft because there are many changes where he has drawn a line through parts of it and rewrote a word or line. You can still read his original thoughts. There are several titles to this original draft of La Femme Ideale.

There is another original poem titled Stance Paienne typed and signed by Louis Dantin.

I found these poems in the personal folder of Leon Loranger I acquired from an estate sale.

This manuscript has information about Paul Claudel’s reception and influence in North America written by father Leon Loranger OMI. (I think part of it is the class he taught at Universite Laval en juillet 1939) One of Loranger’s many achievements is a title conferred on him by the government of France Knight of the Legion of Honor. He lectured at many universities and churches on this subject. The manuscript is around 150 pages long written in French. I have biography information on Leon Loranger obtained from the Vatican by Douglas Speakhart archivist OMI Washington D.C.

It is a leather folder with the initials L.L. (Leon Loranger) on the cover. On the inside is says A Mon Cher AMI Leon (underneath) Albert Florence 30 Juin 1932.

The first folder shows the growth and development of St. Jean Baptiste Province of Lowell. OMI (Oblat of Mary Immaculate) of St. Peter’s parish in Plattsburgh, St. Joeph’s and Notre Dame de Lourdes in Lowell and parishes in Aurroru, Egg Harbor and Fond-du-Lac, Wisconsin over 2 million Catholics. Leon Loranger was director from 1934-1946.

It is titled:

Les Franco-Americains En Nouvelle-Angleterre

au point de vue catholique

Etude de statistique

~ 38 pages long.

The second folder is titled:

III

Les Realisations

C

Le Soulier de Satin

I

~ 15 pages long.

The third folder is titled:

III

Les Realisations

C

Le Soulier de Satin

II

~ 10 pages long.

The fourth folder is titled:

III

Les Realisations

B

Les Poesies

~ 16 pages long.

The fifth folder is titled:

Leon Loranger,O.M.I.

Paul Claudel

1;Homme et 1;Oeuvre.

Cours professe

a 1;Universite Laval

en juillet 1939

~ 24pages long.

The sixth folder is titled:

III

Les Realisations

A

Le Theatre

~ 20 pages long,

The seventh folder is titled:

II

L; Art Poetique

~ 22 pages long.

Best regards,

Steven Simmons

Dino, this is the point where I need to advise you of the scandalous reality that I am a Protestant. :) So when you explain that “The principle ‘an unjust law is no law at all’ comes from St. Augustine, and has pretty much been adopted as Church teaching through the ages,” this does not convey the same aura of authority to me that it would to a Roman Catholic. Both as an adherent to the Reformed tradition and as someone with a sincere affection for the Roman Catholic Church, I am eager to learn about and learn from Rome’s positions, which I almost always find to be well thought-through (even when I disagree with them, as a function of different premises).

All that said, “an unjust law is no law at all” strikes me as the sort of ringing slogan that sounds great until you try to put it into practice. It proves too much; it proves more than St. Thomas advocates.

Now on to St. Thomas’s careful analysis. I agree completely with what you have quoted from the Summa. I do not draw the same conclusions from it that you do, however.

I think it’s important to draw a clear distinction between what St. Thomas says to the administrator of the law and what he says to the citizen. To the adminsistrator: “By no reason of law, or favor of equity, is it allowable for us to interpret harshly, and render burdensome, those useful measures which have been enacted for the welfare of man.” By contrast, to the citizen: “if the observance of the law according to the letter does not involve any sudden risk needing instant remedy, it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful to the state: those alone can do this who are in authority, and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws. If, however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority, the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law.”

It is extremely rare that paying one’s taxes involves a peril so sudden as not allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority. This is especially so under US federal income tax law, which permits any taxpayer to file with the IRS a claim for refund within 3 years after paying his taxes and, if this claim for refund is denied by the IRS, to puruse such claim in federal district court.

My particular quibble is with the idea that “burdensome” is the right standard for a taxpayer who decides not to pay what the law demands. I’ve dealt with a lot of taxpayers during my 20 years of law practice, and a very substantial percentage of them have thought their taxes “burdensome.” To return to St. Thomas, “burdernsome” is what the administrator should avoid in applying the law; it is not the standard that the Doctor offers to those charged with observing the law. Given especially our fallen tendency toward greed, to offer dispensation for anyone who does not pay his taxes because he believes them burdensome is to open the door very wide indeed — wider than either St. Paul or St. Thomas would advocate, if I have understood them correctly.

The principle “an unjust law is no law at all” comes from St. Augustine, and has pretty much been adopted as Church teaching through the ages, from what I can tell. So you’ve got some tough sledding ahead if you’re going to argue that.

You make a good point about anarchy. St. Thomas provides an extremely balanced view (of course) in the Prima Secundae of the Summa Theologica, particularly question 96, article 6:

“As stated above (4), every law is directed to the common weal of men, and derives the force and nature of law accordingly. Hence the jurist says [Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff., tit. 3, De Leg. et Senat.]: “By no reason of law, or favor of equity, is it allowable for us to interpret harshly, and render burdensome, those useful measures which have been enacted for the welfare of man.” Now it happens often that the observance of some point of law conduces to the common weal in the majority of instances, and yet, in some cases, is very hurtful. Since then the lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens most frequently, by directing his attention to the common good. Wherefore if a case arise wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed. For instance, suppose that in a besieged city it be an established law that the gates of the city are to be kept closed, this is good for public welfare as a general rule: but, it were to happen that the enemy are in pursuit of certain citizens, who are defenders of the city, it would be a great loss to the city, if the gates were not opened to them: and so in that case the gates ought to be opened, contrary to the letter of the law, in order to maintain the common weal, which the lawgiver had in view.

Nevertheless it must be noted, that if the observance of the law according to the letter does not involve any sudden risk needing instant remedy, it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful to the state: those alone can do this who are in authority, and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws. If, however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority, the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law.”

http://snipurl.com/1p0o8

So I suppose I would have to argue that the key to the tax evasion question is the bit about “instant remedy” and “necessity” in the second paragraph. If one’s taxes are burdensome, clearly one cannot wait for an appeal to the competent authorities, and one would not commit any sin in evading taxes. However, in cases where the taxes are not burdensome, yet are nevertheless unjust, one ought to make a case to the authorities.

I don’t see anything there that contradicts St. Paul.

The notion that “an unjust law is no law at all” is an invitation to anarchy. Do you really want everyone to obey only the laws that he considers just?

More importantly, it’s worthwhile to revisit Romans 13:1-7:

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. (NIV)

Not a particularly pleasant set of instructions to obey, especially in situations in which there is much that the governing authorities do that is morally questionable (to put it mildly). But there it is.

Even when there is moral culpability, tax evasion seems to be a mere venial sin, from what I can tell, unless the amount being effectively stolen from the common good is large.

A Christian should (indeed, must) disobey human laws that command what God forbids or forbid what God commands. God’s law requires a Christian to support the Church financially. (I’m deliberately avoiding an argument over whether the tithe is required.) Scripture also says that anyone who does not provide for his family has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 1 Tim. 5:8. In light of these two commands, there is seemingly some level at which excessive taxation can rightly be resisted.

But, because “render unto Caesar” does not carry an explicit exception, and God’s word should always be interpreted based on the principle that it is internally consistent in its moral imperatives, I think it takes pretty extreme taxation for the argument above to carry much weight. Just by way of historical background, the top US individual marginal income tax rate has been as high as 91% — that’s not a typo, it really was 91% — but that was only on very high incomes, and it was at a point where federal income tax law had a lot of genuine loopholes, which everyone understood were present in the law and were legitimate ways to reduce tax liability.