Project site: https://www.kiwix.org/en/
Links to content for download (or I guess you're able to within the app?) https://wiki.kiwix.org/wiki/Content_in_all_languages
Explanation of labels on files: https://download.kiwix.org/zim/README
Overview of content they offer for download: all of wikipedia (without audio or video, 83GB), gutenberg's public domain works (40,000+, 65GB), 167 stackexchange forums, various wikimedia projects (related to wikipedia: wikisource, wikinews, wikivoyage, wikihow, wikiversity, wikiquotes), and some other random forums (ubuntu or appropedia come to mind as listed), and others
They also have TED talks and Khan Academy videos, but I don't see why you couldn't just use something like youtube-dl to download specific ones you want (and this reminds me that I guess you could probably freely download and share such videos online with creative commons licenses)
(As relates to this win, I'm sure there's lots of political or religious content and primary sources that might be invaluable for research as well as a backup for education in the event of a natural or manmade disaster)
In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
"No electricity, no food, no running water, no law. In a now legendary forum thread, a user named Selco tells preppers about his experiences and what he and his family did to stay alive."
Perhaps something of a modern classic forum post (if that's a thing), user "Selco" describes in detail how life was when the rule of law (ROL) broke down and he lived under a "different rule of law" (DROL):
(Personal note: I don't remember if there is any indecent language or themes or anything objectionable I should urge caution about to the reader, I do recall this being a very in depth look at what survival could look like in a variety of scenarios from natural disasters to manmade disasters that seemed to possess educational merit - perhaps search for more by "Selco" if this article doesn't cover all he wrote about)
https://lulz.com/surviving-a-year-of-shtf-in-90s-bosnia-war-selco-forum-thread-6265/
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3078.htm
Here's my attempt to summarize his beliefs (please correct it if it's wrong):
It is a sin for people to lend at interest - things like interest on credit card purchases, car loans, student loan, and mortgages, are considered to be sinful for the lender who lends and expects interest back on the loan, because they are not producing anything and so to take such interest is a kind of theft.
The thief who takes such gains at interest is bound to pay back what was stolen (but is in justice entitled to the principal or the thing or amount loaned if they lawfully possessed it).
The borrower does not sin if they take a loan at interest of necessity: a poor student who must take a student loan to get an education may do so without sin (although it might be worth asking the question if it is possible to fund education without having to take on such loans at interest).
It is lawful to be a landlord and make money from renting things since one owns those things and provides a tangible good or benefit.
It is lawful to make money from investments, since one is a part owner of such a company and such companies produce value.
Not covered in the text: it may be a sin to invest in companies who openly promote sin like "woke" companies, because of one's cooperation with the sin as a part owner of the company (saw another article mention "material" versus "proximate" cooperation in others' sins, does anyone have any input on this?)
Covered but mentioning it for emphasis: The Christian ideal seems to be the opposite of usury, which is to lend without expecting interest nor the principal (what was loaned) to be paid back: "But love ye your enemies: do good, and lend, hoping for nothing thereby: and your reward shall be great, and you shall be the sons of the Highest; for he is kind to the unthankful, and to the evil." (Luke 6:35) It would be lawful however to ask for what was loaned back though - one is not bound to lend without expecting anything back, but this is an ideal to strive towards beyond what is required in strict justice - this is "going the extra mile" morally.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Liberty_dollar_(private_currency)
The Liberty Dollar (ALD) was a private currency produced in the United States.
The currency was issued in minted metal rounds (i.e. coins), gold and silver certificates and electronic currency (eLD). ALD certificates are "warehouse receipts" for real gold and silver owned by the bearer. According to court documents there were about 250,000 holders of Liberty Dollar certificates.[1] The metal was warehoused at Sunshine Minting in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, prior to a November 2007 raid by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Secret Service.[2] Until July 2009, the Liberty Dollar was distributed by Liberty Services (formerly known as "National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Code" (NORFED), based in Evansville, Indiana. It was created by Bernard von NotHaus, the co-founder of the Royal Hawaiian Mint Company.[3]cy (eLD). ALD certificates are "warehouse receipts" for real gold and silver owned by the bearer. According to court documents there were about 250,000 holders of Liberty Dollar certificates.[1] The metal was warehoused at Sunshine Minting in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, prior to a November 2007 raid by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Secret Service.[2] Until July 2009, the Liberty Dollar was distributed by Liberty Services (formerly known as "National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Code" (NORFED), based in Evansville, Indiana. It was created by Bernard von NotHaus, the co-founder of the Royal Hawaiian Mint Company.[3]
(From Lat. gluttire, to swallow, to gulp down), the excessive indulgence in food and drink. The moral deformity discernible in this vice lies in its defiance of the order postulated by reason, which prescribes necessity as the measure of indulgence in eating and drinking. This deordination, according to the teaching of the Angelic Doctor, may happen in five ways which are set forth in the scholastic verse: "Prae-propere, laute, nimis, ardenter, studiose" or, according to the apt rendering of Father Joseph Rickably: too soon, too expensively, too much, too eagerly, too daintily. Clearly one who uses food or drink in such a way as to injure his health or impair the mental equipment needed for the discharge of his duties, is guilty of the sin of gluttony. It is incontrovertible that to eat or drink for the mere pleasure of the experience, and for that exclusively, is likewise to commit the sin of gluttony.
Wikipedia / Infogalactic Gluttony Entry
I thought this was a timely topic to reflect on given that some people eat too much around the holidays
Winter is coming and Collapse OS aims to soften the blow. It is a Forth (why Forth?) operating system and a collection of tools and documentation with a single purpose: preserve the ability to program microcontrollers through civilizational collapse. It is designed to:
- Run on minimal and improvised machines.
- Interface through improvised means (serial, keyboard, display).
- Edit text and binary contents.
- Compile assembler source for a wide range of MCUs and CPUs.
- Read and write from a wide range of storage devices.
- Assemble itself and deploy to another machine.
Additionally, the goal of this project is to be as self-contained as possible. With a copy of this project, a capable and creative person should be able to manage to build and install Collapse OS without external resources (i.e. internet) on a machine of her design, built from scavenged parts with low-tech tools.
Basically they were trying to get a bunch of people who like freedom to move to New Hampshire to make the state more free and to have a community of more pro-freedom people
So I think it's more like for libertarian minarchy (maybe ok with anarchy as well) than conservativism
https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_book-burning_incidents
Possible examples:
About the year 55 according to the New Testament book of Acts, early converts to Christianity in Ephesus who had previously practiced sorcery burned their scrolls: "And many of them who had followed curious arts, brought together their books, and burnt them before all; and counting the price of them, they found the money to be fifty thousand pieces of silver." (Acts 19:19)
The books of Nestorius, declared to be heresy, were burned under an edict of Theodosius II (435).[37][38]
The provincial synod held at Soissons (in France) in 1121 condemned the teachings of the famous theologian Peter Abelard as heresy; he was forced to burn his own book before being shut up inside the convent of St. Medard at Soissons.[51]
Martin Luther's German translation of the Bible was burned in Catholic-dominated parts of Germany in 1624, by order of the Pope – part of the exacerbation of Catholic-Protestant relations due to the Thirty Years' War, then in its early stages.[citation needed]
In 1731 Count Leopold Anton von Firmian – Archbishop of Salzburg as well as its temporal ruler – embarked on a savage persecution of the Lutherans living in the rural regions of Salzburg. As well expelling tens of thousands of Protestant Salzburgers, the Archbishop ordered the wholesale seizure and burning of all Protestant books and Bibles.[citation needed]
In 1787, an attempt by the Catholic authorities at Mainz to introduce vernacular hymn books encountered strong resistance from conservative Catholics, who refused to abandon the old Latin books and who seized and burned copies of the new German language books.[98]
I guess as relevant to this community I think that if people feel like a "doomer" at times, I think this can be a normal spiritual struggle rather than lacking faith so I thought it might be good for people to be aware of this concept of possible suffering of the soul:
https://infogalactic.com/info/Dark_Night_of_the_Soul
The term "dark night (of the soul)" is used in Roman Catholicism for a spiritual crisis in a journey towards union with God, like that described by Saint John of the Cross.
Saint Thérèse of Lisieux, a 19th-century French Carmelite, wrote of her own experience. Centering on doubts about the afterlife, she reportedly told her fellow nuns, "If you only knew what darkness I am plunged into."[1]
While this crisis is usually temporary in nature, it may last for extended periods. The "dark night" of Saint Paul of the Cross in the 18th century lasted 45 years, from which he ultimately recovered.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Spiritual_dryness
In Catholic spirituality, spiritual dryness or desolation is a lack of spiritual consolation in one's spiritual life. It is a form of spiritual crisis experienced subjectively as a sense of separation from God or lack of spiritual feeling, especially during contemplative prayer. Paradoxically, it is thought that spiritual dryness can lead to greater love of God.[1]
The Catholic Encyclopedia calls it a form of "passive purification," the fruit of which is "the purification of love, until the soul is so inflamed with love of God that it feels as if wounded and languishes with the desire to love Him still more intensely."[1]
The 17th-century Benedictine mystic Fr. Augustine Baker called it the "great desolation."[1]
Mystical Theology - State or Way (Purgative, Illuminative, Unitive): https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14254a.htm
https://infogalactic.com/info/Christmastide
In medieval era Christendom, Christmastide "lasted from the Nativity to the Purification."[33][34] To this day, the "Christian cultures in Western Europe and Latin America extend the season to forty days, ending on the Feast of the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple and the Purification of Mary on 2 February, a feast also known as Candlemas because of the blessing of candles on this day, inspired by the Song of Simeon, which proclaims Jesus as 'a light for revelation to the nations'."[35] Many Churches refer to the period after the traditional Twelve Days of Christmas and up to Candlemas, as Epiphanytide, also called the Epiphany season.[8][36]
The contemporary or ancient shorter season:
Christmastide begins very early on 25 December. Historically, the ending of Christmastide was 5 January.
Ever since after Halloween, I've been seeing people jump ahead to putting up Christmas decorations. Usually I would see people wait until after Thanksgiving, which roughly is around when Advent starts.
But is this being done backwards? The time leading up to Christmas is a time of darkness, waiting for the Savior (Jesus) to be born. So, some decorations might happen, but the spirit might be more solemn. Then, from Christmas to Epiphany, or to the Purification (February 2nd) is supposed to be a celebratory time, perhaps when Christmas lights should be out.
Then culturally we move to Valentine's Day and St. Patrick's Day celebrations, or liturgically prepare to go back to a state of sorrow and mourning, for the time of Lent leading up to the Crucifixion on Good Friday; then again, is the celebration of "Eastertide" which is another long period of time like Christmastide which ends on Pentecost.
Eastertide is the period of fifty days from Easter Sunday to Pentecost Sunday.[2]
https://infogalactic.com/info/Eastertide
Thus, if Christians were to observe this rhythm of the liturgical season more, it would also affect other aspects of the culture more (I have in mind sporting contests - if people are fasting, it would seem like Christian athletes would not be able to perform at their highest levels during those time periods, which might require a change in how Christians relate to the world of sports)
Overall, I thought that since I see people extending the Christmas season now in the opposite direction, if I might question if it should not be extended in the opposite direction, which could have effects on how people perceive the wintertime (could Christmastide celebrations in January, help to brighten the "dull of winter"?)
What do you think of the season of Christmastide and how Christians might approach it in modern times, in relation to how our culture seems to be celebrating the season of Christmas?
Oops! The Brontosaurus Never Even Existed: https://www.npr.org/2012/12/09/166665795/forget-extinct-the-brontosaurus-never-even-existed
Another Dinosaur That May Have Never Existed: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-biggest-dinosaur-in-history-may-never-have-existed/
I saw a blurb of people a few years ago claiming that dinosaurs never existed - one other problem they brought up is that a full skeleton of a dinosaur has never been found, which was only coincidentally found last year allegedly (after people were complaining about a full model not having been found): https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2020/08/28/150-years-after-its-discovery-the-first-complete-dinosaur-skeleton-ever-found-has-finally-been-studied-in-detail/
Some other issues brought up:
Dinosaur bones only apparently started being found in the 19th century coincidentally around the time the theory of evolution was being promoted
A lot of the models on display allegedly in museums are reconstructions and plasters, with the actual bones being kept archived
According to this link: https://www.quora.com/How-many-dinosaur-fossils-have-humans-found
"only about 3,000 full dinosaur skeletons or skulls in museums [in the U.S.], and only about 12,000 total discovered around the world."
linked from: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/08/will-we-ever-run-out-of-dinosaur-bones.html
Proposed types of dinosaurs: https://www.thoughtco.com/main-dinosaur-types-1091963
What do you think of dinosaurs and our current understanding of them?
A heads up in advance if anyone wants to meme about it or make plans
John of Salisbury in the 1100s in Policraticus:
While recognizing a prince's supreme temporal power, Salisbury argued that princes must be subordinate to the will of God and the Church.
"For myself, I am satisfied and persuaded that loyal shoulders should uphold the power of the ruler; and not only do I submit to his power patiently, but with pleasure, so long as it is exercised in subjection to God and follows His ordinances. But on the other hand if it resists and opposes the divine commandments, and wishes to make me share in its war against God; then with unrestrained voice I answer back that God must be preferred before any man on earth. Therefore inferiors should cleave and cohere to their superiors, and all the limbs should be in subjection to the head; but always and only on condition that religion is kept inviolate."
In Salisbury's mind, a tyrant sets a poor example for his people and could lead them from God. His example was the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate, who attempted to restore Rome's pagan religion. In this case, Salisbury argued that killing a regent, when all other resources were exhausted, was not only justifiable but necessary, and he called a tyrant an "image of depravity . . . [who] spring(s) from evil and should be cut down with the axe wherever he grows." This may be the first defense of tyrannicide to be written after Antiquity.
Perhaps due to my classical liberal or libertarian biases, I don't understand why they advocate for killing tyrants over simply declaring them as no longer king and acting as such, using whatever physical force to escort them off properties for trespassing if necessary, or even imprisoning such people. Salisbury said that such should be done "when all other resources were exhausted" - so perhaps this idea is an idea of complete last resort, maybe in a chaotic time of war or something. Or perhaps this was some of the bias of the medieval era which started to think that punishing heresy forcibly was a good thing. Perhaps they did advocate for using all other such means first.
Various Christian philosophers and theologians also wrote about tyrannicide. In Thomas Aquinas's commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, Aquinas gave a defense not only of disobedience to an unjust authority, using as an example Christian martyrs in the Roman Empire, but also of "one who liberates his country by killing a tyrant."[8] The Monarchomachs in particular developed a theory of tyrannicide, with Juan de Mariana describing their views in the 1598 work De rege et regis institutione,[9] in which he wrote, "[B]oth the philosophers and theologians agree, that the prince who seizes the state with force and arms, and with no legal right, no public, civic approval, may be killed by anyone and deprived of his life..."[5]
So perhaps they have in mind some kind of revolutionary who seizes power?
Thomas Aquinas also wrote of the right to resist tyrannical rule in the Summa Theologica. John of Salisbury advocated direct revolutionary assassination of unethical tyrannical rulers in his Policraticus. This theological notion was expanded in the Early Modern Period. The Jesuits, especially Robert Bellarmine and Juan de Mariana, were widely known and often feared for advocating resistance to tyranny and often tyrannicide—one of the implications of the natural law focus of the School of Salamanca.
Thomas Aquinas condoned extra-legal tyrannicide in the worst of circumstances:
When there is no recourse to a superior by whom judgment can be made about an invader, then he who slays a tyrant to liberate his fatherland is [to be] praised and receives a reward.
— Commentary on the Magister Sententiarum[4]
On the other hand, Aquinas forbade the overthrow of any morally, Christianly and spiritually legitimate king by his subjects. The only human power capable of deposing the king was the pope. The reasoning was that if a subject may overthrow his superior for some bad law, who was to be the judge of whether the law was bad? If the subject could so judge his own superior, then all lawful superior authority could lawfully be overthrown by the arbitrary judgement of an inferior, and thus all law was under constant threat. Towards the end of the Middle Ages, many philosophers, such as Nicholas of Cusa and Francisco Suarez, propounded similar theories.
I guess it would be a kind of self-defense in circumstances that threatened the survival of the society.
Otherwise, obedience to secular authorities, provided they aren't commanding people to sin, is often promoted.
The example of Jesus seemed to be one of overcoming tyrannical circumstances by peacefully enduring unjust actions, rather than seeking to violently overthrow them.
What is to be thought of some of these theories of tyrannicide?
https://images3.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED258/59aebc1e769e6.jpeg
Ok, so I was thinking about this, you may have seen the memes about mutualism (orange and black ball) where a person leaves their house and land to go to the store and since they have abandoned it for a few minutes, a "mutualist" can then go in to claim the property and house because it is not being "actively used". (Above link is an example)
If not, I think some mutualist (anarchists) believe that property only has validity so long as it is being used. Their concern is especially for someone who originally puts up a big fence on unclaimed land and then does nothing with it, while there are people nearby who want to make use of it and would do good with the land.
Capitalists and like ancaps in response argue this is a slippery slope to people just taking other people's property, like the aforementioned meme parody.
So I thought, what if as a compromise, that maybe the mutualists are correct that property has validity morally upon being used, but that it's not a good idea to recognize that process legally speaking.
In other words, unless you're making use of property, isn't it "superfluous wealth" that perhaps ought to be loaned or given to someone in need (in accordance with Christian thought)? There's no hard rule here on how much time is too much to not make use of such stuff, but I was wondering if you think it a useful principle or not.
So, not that the legal institutions or government should permit people to repossess such unused property, but perhaps one ought to think it more moral to voluntarily make use of such property actively or to give it away if they're not going to use it?
Overall, what do you think of the mutualist theory of property having legitimacy only when it is made use of?
https://infogalactic.com/info/Family_wage
A family wage is a wage that is sufficient to raise a family. This contrasts with a living wage, which is generally taken to mean a wage sufficient for a single individual to live on, but not necessarily sufficient to also support a family. As a stronger form of living wage, a family wage is likewise advocated by proponents of social justice. Family wage campaign was aiming to maintain the traditional family structure, as a concept connecting economics and family structure it is one of the examples of how economic structure of family, which is a subject of the field family economics, affects overall economy beyond the family.
The term "family wage jobs" has occasional contemporary use in American political rhetoric and is most associated with Catholic intellectuals, in the Catholic social teaching tradition
The debate about "living wages" vs. minimum wages ignores structuring jobs for the needs of the family and (typically male) breadwinners
So I was thinking about two different views of how much money workers should make
The one view, is, like say we're all friends and say 10 of us start up a company that makes $10 million (in monies that could be paid out, other operating costs aside), so we might end up (plus or minus) then paying each person $1 million each.
On the other hand, say one person left and we needed to hire another person who wasn't our friend to do one of the roles - we might just let people compete to offer the market rate and maybe pay them $100,000 to do the job.
Do either of these reflect the real value of labor, or is there some mix that seems moral or appropriate, or is it going to be completely random?
On the one hand, if the market rate is $100,000 for a job and you're paying $1 million dollars out, aren't you in a sense "overpaying" for the value of labor?
On the other hand, should the common laborer really be paid just the market rate while monies in some businesses just go to managers or CEOs or leadership, and are they really producing that amount of value?
Is the key to distributing more value to laborers to create businesses then that pay out this value like the first case, or does that overpay for labor and is not efficient?
Anyone have any thoughts on calibrating how labor should be compensated?
I don't even know how this would work, but basically as a libertarian I started as against borders because they are government-created boundaries
Then I recognized that without borders it seemed difficult to decide who was and wasn't a citizen and that wasn't fair, and that it seemed like certain people in government wanted to bring in more people to get them to vote to destroy freedom, so actually the libertarian position would be for borders to protect freedom
However, now with covid we also see borders being used to prevent people from moving - some people have been stuck in countries they attempted to live in temporarily or were on vacation at, or haven't been able to visit countries because of border restrictions
The libertarian (ancap) position on borders is that private borders are fine (like, on land that a person owns, they can choose who can "immigrate" to it or not, or like private cities can decide who is allowed to visit)
So are any conservatives against borders or what do you think of this issue in light of recent developments?
posted in c/Christianity, thought readers here might find some parts relevant too:
We highly esteem and love exceedingly the young and vigorous American nation, in which We plainly discern latent forces for the advancement alike of civilization and of Christianity.
Not long ago, when your whole nation, as was fitting, celebrated, with grateful recollection and every manifestation of joy, the completion of the fourth century since the discovery of America, We, too, commemorated together with you that most auspicious event, sharing in your rejoicings with equal good-will. Nor were We on that occasion content with offering prayers at a distance for your welfare and greatness. It was Our wish to be in some manner present with you in your festivities. Hence We cheerfully sent one who should represent Our person. Not without good reason did We take part in your celebration. For when America was, as yet, but a new-born babe, uttering in its cradle its first feeble cries, the Church took it to her bosom and motherly embrace.
Columbus, as We have elsewhere expressly shown, sought, as the primary fruit of his voyages and labors, to open a pathway for the Christian faith into new lands and new seas. Keeping this thought constantly in view, his first solicitude, wherever he disembarked, was to plant upon the shore the sacred emblem of the cross. Wherefore, like as the Ark of Noe, surmounting the overflowing waters, bore the seed of Israel together with the remnants of the human race, even thus did the barks launched by Columbus upon the ocean carry into regions beyond the seas as well the germs of mighty States as the principles of the Catholic religion.
The names newly given to so many of your towns and rivers and mountains and lakes teach and clearly witness how deeply your beginnings were marked with the footprints of the Catholic Church.
Nor, perchance did the fact which We now recall take place without some design of divine Providence. Precisely at the epoch when the American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic the ecclesiastical hierarchy was happily established amongst you; and at the very time when the popular suffrage placed the great Washington at the helm of the Republic, the first bishop was set by apostolic authority over the American Church. The well-known friendship and familiar intercourse which subsisted between these two men seems to be an evidence that the United States ought to be conjoined in concord and amity with the Catholic Church. And not without cause; for without morality the State cannot endure - a truth which that illustrious citizen of yours, whom We have just mentioned, with a keenness of insight worthy of his genius and statesmanship perceived and proclaimed.
But the best and strongest support of morality is religion. She, by her very nature, guards and defends all the principles on which duties are founded, and setting before us the motives most powerful to influence us, commands us to live virtuously and forbids us to transgress. Now what is the Church other than a legitimate society, founded by the will and ordinance of Jesus Christ for the preservation of morality and the defence of religion? For this reason have We repeatedly endeavored, from the summit of the pontifical dignity, to inculcate that the Church, whilst directly and immediately aiming at the salvation of souls and the beatitude which is to be attained in heaven, is yet, even in the order of temporal things, the fountain of blessings so numerous and great that they could not have been greater or more numerous had the original purpose of her institution been the pursuit of happiness during the life which is spent on earth.
An education cannot be deemed complete which takes no notice of modern sciences. It is obvious that in the existing keen competition of talents, and the widespread and, in itself, noble and praiseworthy passion for knowledge, Catholics ought to be not followers but leaders.
As regards civil affairs, experience has shown how important it is that the citizens should be upright and virtuous. In a free State, unless justice be generally cultivated, unless the people be repeatedly and diligently urged to observe the precepts and laws of the Gospel, liberty itself may be pernicious. Let those of the clergy, therefore, who are occupied with the instruction of the multitude, treat plainly this topic of the duties of citizens, so that all may understand and feel the necessity, in political life, of conscientiousness, self restraint, and integrity; for that cannot be lawful in public which is unlawful in private affairs.
Now, with regard to entering societies, extreme care should be taken not to be ensnared by error. And We wish to be understood as referring in a special manner to the working classes, who assuredly have the right to unite in associations for the promotion of their interests; a right acknowledged by the Church and unopposed by nature.
The scenes of violence and riot which you witnessed last year in your own country sufficiently admonish you that America too is threatened with the audacity and ferocity of the enemies of public order. The state of the times, therefore, bids Catholics to labor for the tranquillity of the commonwealth, and for this purpose to obey the laws, abhor violence, and seek no more than equity or justice permits.
Whole text: https://the-american-catholic.com/2009/02/22/pope-leo-xiii-on-america-and-george-washington/