Saddam Hangs

So the Butcher of Baghdad is dead. He certainly deserves it. But was his execution necessary or even prudent? As I watched news coverage leading up to his hanging, I was reminded of a great line from J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. After Frodo says that Gollum deserves death, Gandalf responds:

Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it.

Did Saddam deserve death? Absolutely, but by what authority was he executed? What are the possible repercussions of his execution? Is not the possibility of increased violence a reason not to execute him? What about possible repentance and conversion? Unlikely, but possible. As a Catholic, I hold true to the Church's teaching that capital punishment is a legitimate punishment, but alternative, bloodless means may be better suited. Did he deserve death? Yes, but we cannot possibly see what might have happened had he been allowed to live.

Hodie Christus natus est: hodie Salvator apparuit.--

This day Christ is born, this day the Savior hath appeared.

(Antiphon of the Magnificat Christmas Day, Second Vespers)

May you and all your loved ones have a most happy and holy Christmas, remembering the true reason for this season: the Birth of our Lord.

Just Plain Sick

Senator Tim Johnson (D - South Dakota) underwent surgery last night to treat serious and life-threatening bleeding in the brain. The man is quite literally fighting for his life. So what do the American media do in response? They have a veritable orgy of "what if" speculative reports on what would happen to the Democratic control of the U.S. Senate if "the seat is vacated" (in other words, if he dies). The man could possibly be on his death bed and political junkies the nation over care only about how this affects the Senate. To sum it up: this is just plain sick. But I suppose I should not have expected anything less from our amoral and heartless news media.

Qui pro Vobis et pro Multis

For ye and for many

The words of the consecration during the canon of the Mass have caused tension between Traditional and post Vatican II Catholics (as a disclaimer, I remind readers that I am a Traditional Catholic in union with Rome, I attend a Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter apostolate parish, and hold Vatican II to be both legitimate as well as licit, free from heresy, although entirely pastoral and having nothing to do with doctrine, and hold the Novus Ordo Mass to be both valid and licit, containing all the efficacy of the Sacrament).

A portion of the words at the consecration of the Precious Blood of our Lord in the Traditional Latin Mass (henceforth TLM) were as follows: qui pro vobis et pro multis (for ye and for many). After the reforms of Vatican II and the publishing of the Novus Ordo missal of Paul VI (henceforth NO), the same portion of the consecration are as follows: qui pro vobis et pro multis. Do you notice any similarity with the TLM? The words are the same. But somehow when these Latin words are translated into the vernacular, they are translated as follows: for you and for all. This translation does not take place just in the English translation, but in divers other languages as well.

What's the problem with this translation? First of all, the vernacular translation simply does not match up with the official and current Latin text of the NO. The Latin word multis does not mean in any context all, but rather many, a great amount, plentiful, etc. It is simply a matter of incorrect translation.

Secondly, the issue goes deeper into the theological. This portion of the words at consecration deal with Christ telling his apostles at the Last Supper that the chalice He gives is the chalice of the new and everlasting testament (covenant), which shall be shed for you (the apostles) and for many unto the forgiveness of sins. Christ Himself is giving His most Precious Blood so that we men can be forgiven of our sins. The Blood at Mass is the Blood shed on the cross. But Christ did not die for all men. His passion and death gave the offering of salvation to all men, but not all men would accept it. Some men, even despite of Christ's sacrifice, still go to Hell. This chalice given for "you and for many" does not assure the salvation of all men indiscriminately. The Church does not, nor has ever taught that our salvation is universal, i.e. all men are saved regardless of their acceptance or rejection of Christ and His Church.

The translation of qui pro vobis et pro multis as for you and for all can be used (in fact has been used by some) to try and "prove" the existence of universal salvation despite the perennial teaching of the Church. This mistranslation is yet one more tool of the liberals that plague the Church use to advance their liberal, heretical agenda.

Recently, word has come from the Vatican about the Holy Father's wishes for the words of the NO in the vernacular to be properly translated according to the original and official Latin. I hope that, in the interests of orthodox theology, the Holy Father does indeed enforce the correct translation of the NO.

The Queen

I saw The Queen (directed by Peter Frears) last week. I thought I'd share my thoughts about the movie. (Some modest spoilers are included in this review)

Firstly, I must say that I genuinely enjoyed this movie. It was well written, and well acted.

I was a little concerned that it would turn into an anti-monarchist movie, but I do not think it was.

It starts out with the election of the young Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair. He is portrayed as a young and dashing politician, largely unfamiliar with his own country's protocols when dealing with the monarch. He wants to present himself as "the great modernizer," bringing "a breath of fresh air into old institutions." He comes across as a bit of an anti-monarchist. His wife, Cherie Blair, certainly appears to be anti-monarchist, speaking of the Queen "up there on her 40,000 acres" and not paying taxes on her immense income.

When the former Princess of Wales, Diana, dies in a Paris car accident, the royal family is plunged into a crisis it is ill prepared to face. The populace, along with the Prime Minister, wants the Queen to buck tradition to show respect for Diana, while the royal family (with the exception of Charles) wants to hold steady to royal tradition. This crisis ends with a showdown between Blair and Elizabeth, whereby Blair all but demands the Queen give in.

I enjoyed watching the transformation of Blair as "the great modernizer" to a man who comes to support the Queen, even getting into a shouting match with a member of his own staff over Diana, a woman "who threw everything that family gave to her in their faces" (a bit of a paraphrase from memory).

Perhaps the most endearing aspect of the movie is that it shows Elizabeth as a human being, a woman who by her very nature is unused to public displays of emotion, and a part of an institution that by its very nature is slow to change in a culture that demands it. She is a woman whose greatest desire is to serve her people and God to the best of her abilities. A woman who is the Sovereign of a nation, yet overshadowed by her son's ex-wife.

I heartily recommend this movie to all monarchists.

The People Have Spoken...

...And the Republicans have lost. Rather than gloat (and what is there to gloat about when we have Democrats leading this nation?), all I have to say is that I hope the Republicans learn their lesson.

This Monarchist's Vote

Some monarchists do not believe in the principal of popular elections, and thus do not vote. Other monarchists vote, for a wide range of reasons. This monarchist does vote. Let me tell you about my vote this year.

Washington state now votes entirely by mail-in ballots, so I actually voted about two weeks ago. How did I vote? I for one do not mind people asking me for whom or how I vote. There were several state and local measures and initiatives that I voted on. I however did not vote for a single political candidate this election. In the primary election, the Republican candidate for senate who actually has a real and substantive pro-life position did not win the primary (no surprise there). The Republican candidate for senate that did win (Mike McGavick) has the same "pro-life" views that Bush has ("We must change the hearts and minds of Americans rather than overturn Roe v. Wade" and "Abortion should be an option"). Which means that he really isn't pro-life. It's a stick he throws at his conservative base, and he knows that since his opponent has an even more liberal view of abortion (on demand), his base will vote for him. All other candidates didn't even address the abortion issue.

So this is the situation I face. We have an immoral, unjust war in Iraq (supported by both parties), a biased, Zionist foreign policy in the Middle-East (overwhelmingly supported by both parties), abortion on demand (the Democrats support it, the Republicans won't do anything about it), and increasing demand for government supported embryonic stem cell research (the Democrats support it, and with the Republicans lack of a pro-life past we can't trust them). So what should we do? The Democratic party is out of the question. The Republican party has failed us pro-lifers, and the only way we can make them pay is to not vote for them. In this case, you can make your voice heard by remaining silent. Get out there and vote, but only for local and state measures and initiatives. Don't vote Republican, and don't vote Democrat. Use your right to vote by not voting for either party. To quote Richard Pryor in the movie Brewster's Millions vote for "None of the Above!"

Last Sunday in October:

The Feast of the Kingship of Our Lord

Collect of the Mass of this day:

Almighty everlasting God, who in Thy beloved Son,

King of the whole world, hast willed to restore

all things anew, grant in Thy mercy that all the

families of nations, rent asunder by the wound of sin,

may be subjected to to His most gentle rule. Who liveth.

"Arrogance and Stupidity"

Alberto Fernandez, the director of the press and public diplomacy office in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs for the United States State Department was recently interviewed (Oct. 21, 2006) on the Arab network Al-Jazeera. In the interview he stated: "We tried to do our best [in Iraq], but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq," (see article here).

Apparently Mr. Fernandez has apologized for his comments, stating that he seriously misspoke and these comments do not represent his views nor that of the State Department (gathered from various news channels and articles I have seen/read). I think he was right the first time; America was arrogant and stupid to invade Iraq. My guess is that he came under pressure from his neo-con bosses. Unless Americans, especially politicians, are willing to admit we were wrong to invade Iraq, I don't see how we can ever overcome this sad chapter in our history.

Nuclear North Korea

The Communist government of North Korea announced that it successfully carried out a test of a nuclear weapon on October 9, 2006 (01:36 UTC). I must confess that I was glued to the TV last night watching news reports of this story. This incident concerns me, as it does most governments in the world. The fact that it appears that North Korea now has "the bomb" scares me, and I wish it never had happened. But I nonetheless thought I'd comment on the situation from a larger perspective.

According to some news reports I heard last night, the reasoning behind the North Koreans' desire to have nuclear weapons is fear of U.S. aggression. Some member of the North Korean government was supposed to have said (I'm going from memory and paraphrasing here) that if Saddam Hussein had the bomb, he'd still be in power. Is this true? I think so. The U.S. invaded Iraq based on either lies or faulty intelligence (I lean toward the lies option), with the hope of taking out Saddam before he attacks us. If Saddam had nuclear weapons, the U.S. would have risked nuclear war by invading Iraq. No one, not even the U.S. wants an all-out nuclear war, so we would not have invaded Iraq under this hypothetical.

Now that North Korea apparently has nuclear weapons, the U.S. will be much more hesitant to show any overtly aggressive behavior towards North Korea because of the treat of a nuclear attack. Kim Jong-il can remain in power with confidence. Were his actions justified? Morally, no, they were not. All nations have a duty to avoid nuclear proliferation due to the possible (and horrible) consequences. From a strictly political standpoint, one can understand the concerns of Kim Jong-il. The U.S. under the Bush administration has a history of unjust aggression against those it considers its enemies, and one could argue that Kim Jong-il was only trying to make sure the U.S. won't invade North Korea.

One could also argue this point: Why shouldn't North Korea have the bomb? The U.S., Britain, and Israel all have it. Why shouldn't North Korea have it? "North Korea is part of the Axis of Evil and can't be trusted with nuclear weapons," a neo-con might respond. I agree, as a Communist government that is horribly repressive, North Korea is an evil government. But why should the U.S., Britain, and Israel have the bomb? "We, along with our allies, can be trusted with the bomb, because we stand for freedom," says the neo-con. In the history of mankind, only one government has used nuclear weapons against people: the United States. And even more than that, the U.S. used the bomb against civilians. It seems to me that even we can't be trusted with the bomb. Why do we have an inherent right to nuclear weapons? It isn't a God-given right, I can tell you that.

(As a disclaimer, I do not support the North Korean government in any way, and I hereby condemn their recent nuclear weapons test, along with all nuclear weapons proliferation.)

Why The Republicans Deserve to Lose

The allegations that Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) engaged in inappropriate e-mails and instant messages with a former under-age congressional page is certainly disturbing. What is more disturbing is that the former page is male. A homosexual Republican? Yes, you got that right. Not only is the whole affair embarrassing, but to make it worse, Foley sought to dodge responsibility by blaming his behavior on alcoholism, being molested as a teenager by a "clergyman," and that he's gay. None of these reasons are excuses for what he did. He's apparently a drunk (despite no one knowing about it in the past), but being drunk doesn't make you hit on teenage boys. He was molested by a clergyman, but that also isn't an excuse. If my mother was murdered, that doesn't give me an excuse to turn to murder to deal with my personal tragedy. He's gay. Being gay is supposed to be okay in America in 2006, so he can't quite use that as an excuse either, or can he?

If we look at the abuse scandal that rocked the Catholic Church a few years back, the vast majority of the sexual abuse occurred between priests and teenage boys. Despite what the law say (and no, I am not trying to give the predator-priests a pass) teenagers are not children. If I had consensual sex with a 16 year old girl, it does not make me a pedophile, in fact it doesn't even make me a criminal (the age of consent in my state is 16). But looking again at the predator-priests we will see that most of them are homosexuals who have a preference for teenage boys. Is there a connection between being an active homosexual man and attraction to teenage boys? I'm no scientist, nor am I trying to make some wide sweeping scientific statement, but perhaps there is. But I digress.

Foley dodged responsibility by checking himself into rehab. It was a pathetic attempt to garner sympathy from the American people, as well as an attempt to get out of the unwelcome attention for a while.

So why do the Republicans deserve to lose in November? The Foley incident has brought several things into the open about the Republican party. First, apparently there are several other closeted gays in the Republican party who are known to be gay by their fellow Republicans but who won't expose them for the imposters that they are. Secondly, Foley's indiscretions (including allegedly showing up at the congressional pages' dorm drunk) were exposed up to years ago, and it seems that the Republican leadership in the House did nothing about it. Another strike against them. And for strike three?

I've said it before, but the Republicans have played the pro-life base for dupes. They aren't committed at overturning Roe v. Wade, they just use it to drive out their conservative base. The Republicans have become so out of touch with their supporters and become so arrogant in their own security of power, they have forgotten who put them in that position of power. If pro-lifers and those who support traditional religious values will abandon the Republican party, perhaps all those Republicans in Washington will remember what they used to stand for and re-embrace those values. If not, it will be the status quo for decades. Either way, I predict big losses for Republicans next month.

Prospects for Restoration, etc.

As a monarchist, I look forward to the day when monarchy is the common form of government around the world, especially in the West. With that in mind, are there any prospects for the restoration of a non-reigning or exiled monarchy? Or for that matter, are there any prospects of currently reigning monarchies regaining strong royal powers? I would say that the prospects for restoration/regaining are not good. I cannot think of any royal European family that faces a good chance at being restored or regaining strong royal powers--with the exception of the Prince of Liechtenstein, who has already received increased royal powers due to a national referendum passed by the people in 2004 (with a margin of 64% in support of the increased executive powers of the prince).

What can monarchists look forward to then? I believe that in order for monarchy to retake its proper place in Western society, it must be done through our current political structures. That means it must be done democratically. Short of some terrible and devastating war or natural disaster which destroys our current political structures, I do not see any other way for monarchy to experience a resurrection. I believe what we need is a charismatic and influential politician to gain power and support and change the laws of his nation, thus declaring himself a monarch or returning strong royal powers to an existing royal family.

The idea of a "commoner" declaring himself monarch is anathema to many monarchists, but I must disagree with this point of view. The trap many monarchists fall into is a "cult of the blood." This "cult" is one in which supporters of a monarchy or royal family develop a pseudo-religious piety to those who are of "noble" or "royal" blood. Those within this "cult" consider any who are outside of "the blood" to be unfit for rule. The problem with this point of view is that it gives too much credence to fabricated notions of "good, better, best" in relation to one's ancestry. The blood of HM Queen Elizabeth II is of no more worth than an "untouchable" in the slums of Calcutta, India. In the eyes of God, from Whom all authority is derived, one man's blood is no better than another; He loves all without partiality (For there is no respect of persons with God--Romans, 2:11).

Being the Germanophile that I am, I would love nothing more than to see his successor, HIRM Georg Friedrich von Preußen take the throne as King of Prussia and German Kaiser. But if a charismatic politician were able to achieve the support of the German people and declare himself Kaiser, I would support him. To me, the ideal of monarchy is more important than loyalty to a royal family, which is nothing more than a political tool used by that family to ensure stability.

Benedict and Islam

The Islamic response to the Holy Father's address in Regensberg on September 12, 2006 has been totally blown out of proportion. Firstly, let's look at the line in dispute in the original German: "'Zeig mir doch, was Mohammed Neues gebracht hat, und da wirst du nur Schlechtes und Inhumanes finden wie dies, daß er vorgeschrieben hat, den Glauben, den er predigte, durch das Schwert zu verbreiten'" (read the original German version here). Now let's look at the English translation (again, from the Vatican itself): "'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached'" (read the English version here).

Now let us pay close attention to the original German. The word "Schlechtes" is translated in the English translation as "evil." The problem with this is that "Schlechtes" translates into English as "bad." "Evil" in German is either "böse" or "übel" depending on the context. If you will carefully read the original German, you will not find either "böse" or "übel."

Be that as it may, even if the Holy Father did come out and explicitly say that Islam is evil, would that justify the Muslim reaction to him? Calling for his assassination, buring him in effigy, proclaiming that the Vatican is allied with America and Israel to destroy Islam, the murder of a nun in Somalia? I do not think so. The Muslims who are in the streets calling for the death of the Pope are the very ones who are proving that Islam is not the peaceful religion the secularists, modernists, and the Bush Administration would lead us to believe.

Seattle Catholic

Seattle Catholic, a great source for news and opinions from a Conservative/Traditional Catholic perspective has shut down. As a result, I am taking off it's link from my blog. You can still access the site's archive for the foreseeable future. http://www.seattlecatholic.com/

Monarchy Forum

A few months ago I was informed of a new monarchy forum on the web. It's a place where monarchists of all persuasions can discuss all things monarchy, and even a few things unrelated to monarchy. In any event, it's a great site. I've decided to post its URL on my blog. This forum is a part of Theodore's Royalty and Monarchy site (http://www.royaltymonarchy.com/). The URL direct to the forum is: http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/mb/royalcello. I post under the name "darthkorbus." I've also posted a permanent link on my blog to this site. Hope to see you there!

Out of the Mouths of Babes

I have spent a significant portion of my adult life around children. Most of the time, the things that children say and do are necessarily childish. But every now and then a child will say something that is very adult in its significance, or a child will say something or perceive something in a way that we adults do not because of our own arrogance and self importance. The letter President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sent on May 8, 2006 to U.S. President George Bush reminded me that the ignorant and childish can see things the learned and enlightened fail to see (this letter can be found in its entirety here).

Ahmadinejad, as a Muslim, is a child in regards to his understanding of God. Islam is heresy, containing some elements of the Truth mixed in with many lies, deceptions, and purposeful misinterpretations. But just because he is a Muslim does not mean Ahmadinejad cannot teach us Christians a thing or two.

Ahmadinejad writes “Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God, feel obliged to respect human rights, present liberalism as a civilization model… but at the same time, have countries attacked. [sic]” What he is referring to is the invasion of Iraq. As a Christian leader, one can be a follower of Christ and have countries attacked, as long as such an attack conforms to the Catholic Church’s just war doctrine (I must note here that the invasion of Iraq did not conform to the Church’s just war doctrine, as we were told by Pope John Paul II, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, and Pio Cardinal Laghi). Let us continue with the letter:

Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women – as occupation troops – put in harms way, taken away from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments; while some are killed and their bodies handed to their families.

On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with.

Ahmedinejad has a very good point here. On the supposition that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. and the “Coalition of the Willing” invaded Iraq. But there were no WMDs. So our entire justification for war proved unfounded in fact. What happened then? Our justification transformed into invading Iraq because Saddam Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda. This too has proven groundless in fact; there is no evidence of pre-war, post-9/11 collaboration or support between Saddam and al-Qaeda. So what is our justification now? Saddam was a brutal tyrant, and by invading Iraq we freed the Iraqi people from his dictatorship, all while spreading freedom and democracy. Justifying a deed based on the outcome of that deed is faulty justification. The ends do not justify the means. We went to war for a reason, a reason that turned out to be false and groundless.

But what about the fact that Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant? Surely the world is better off without him in power. Here is what Ahmadinejad has to say about that:

Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal; nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the imposed war on Iran, Saddam was supported but the West.

Sounds to me like Ahmadinejad is right on target: our war was not waged to topple Saddam, but to find and destroy WMDs. Even he can see the faulty logic that the Bush Administration and neo-conservatives use to justify the war in Iraq. He also points out that we supported Saddam when it was politically expedient for us to do so. Perhaps we should be more forward thinking when we start our international political maneuvering.

Perhaps the most moving and profound part of Ahmadinejad’s letter is this: “Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems.” I do not think I could agree with him more. Who would have ever thought that a Muslim “extremist” from Iran could have so much to teach us “enlightened” Christians? I think all monarchists owe him a debt of gratitude for his letter.

Yesterday's Post

I've been thinking about the situation with illegal aliens in this nation and my post yesterday. Perhaps I've been approaching this from the wrong perspective. Do I think that the presence of illegal aliens who refuse to assimilate to the American way of life fragment and divide our culture and society? Yes, I do. Most of the illegal aliens here are Hispanics, which I have said before means that most are Catholic. Perhaps the presence and refusal of Catholic illegal aliens here in this nation will change our nation for the better. Will the Hispanic illegal aliens convert our nation to the true faith? Perhaps so. So instead of saying as I did before "Deport them all" I should be saying "Welcome to America."

"A Day Without Immigrants"...If Only



Today was the “big day” of illegal alien protests, with the intention of shutting down the American economy. Did it work? No, it did not. To be sure, some areas of the country and some specific industries were affected (i.e. southern California and the produce industry), but by and large it looks as if most Americans experienced life as usual today. What does a monarchist (or specifically this monarchist) think of the illegal alien problem this country now faces?

First of all, it would be my wish for the majority of the world (at least the West) to adopt an immigration and economic policy similar to that which existed in Europe before the First World War. During this time, people and goods could travel from one end of the European continent to the other (ending at the start of the Ottoman Empire) without much governmental restrictions. As long as a man had the money and language skills necessary, he could travel from, say England to Germany, without as much as a passport. This would be great for Americans who are tired of living in this country and would make it possible for them to emigrate to better nations (let’s just pretend for the sake of argument that Europe wasn’t full of welfare-states just like ours and the move to Europe would increase the standard of living rather than be the same or worse). As good as the immigration policies of the 19th century were, there are certain societal and political realities existent now that were not then (i.e. terrorism, welfare-statism, etc.). So now that we are in the 21st century, how should we deal with the immigration problem in America?

First and foremost, a government must have borders, and thus it must have immigration policies. The current immigration laws in America are such that a man can enter and stay in the U.S. only with the permission of the government. If such a man overstays his welcome (visa) or comes here without permission, he is here illegally. We could argue about the morality of such laws, but to do so would be to ignore the present problem. We have millions of illegal (I stress once more, ILLEGAL) aliens in this nation. They are a drain on the American taxpayer (immigrants, legal or otherwise, are more likely to receive government support in the form of welfare, food stamps, etc.), and are likely not to learn the English language or adopt the American culture. This creates a second culture within the nation, further fragmenting our already fragmented and divided culture. The presence of these millions of illegal aliens drives down our wages (illegal aliens are more willing to work for less than citizens are). It seems to me that illegal aliens create more problems than they benefit this nation.

Now let me return to the morality of America’s immigration laws (even though I appeared to disregard it above). The U.S. bishops with Roger Cardinal Mahoney at the forefront (as Cardinal-Archbishop of Los Angeles) fully support the illegal immigrants (perhaps even amnesty). This would tend to make one think that America’s immigration laws are immoral and unjust, requiring Catholics (and all men of conscience) to oppose these unjust and immoral laws. But let us take a step backwards and look at the motives of the bishops. The leadership (political as well as spiritual) of America’s Catholic bishops is abysmal. Rarely do these supposed shepherds shepherd their flocks along the paths to Heaven. Most are unwilling to stand up for the truth against powerful interest groups and lobbies (i.e. homosexuals, feminists, the Democratic Party), and thus most bishops have little if not no credibility (but I must add that we Catholics are still bound to obey them to a certain extent in spiritual and moral matters, as long as they teach the Truth as revealed by the Magisterium). It is my belief that the U.S. bishops are behind the illegal immigrants because they are thinking of one thing and one thing only—money. The vast majority of illegal aliens present in this nation are Hispanic. Hispanic = Catholic = more people in the pews = more money. Therefore illegal aliens = money. As sad as this is, I believe that this is the underlying motive behind the U.S. bishops’ support and solidarity with the illegal aliens.

So exactly what do I propose in this situation? My gut tells me to deport all of the illegal aliens present (or at least as many as possible) and then positively and certainly secure our borders. My head tells me that our nation is shot politically, culturally, socially, and morally as it is and our present immigration problem has little relevance. America is doomed to fail, so perhaps the illegal aliens will only help speed up the process. Maybe I should be grateful to them.

Elizabeth II

Elizabeth II, Queen of England, recently (April 21) celebrated her 80th birthday. I thought it might be appropriate to write about her today.

I must admit that I have mixed feelings about the English royal family. As a monarchist, I have natural feelings of respect and admiration for Elizabeth. As an American, I think that we should never have rebelled against Britain, and would rather have Elizabeth as our queen than George (W. Bush that is) as our president. On the other hand, I am a Catholic, and the English royal line has had a very bad history since Henry VIII created heresy and schism by divorcing his wife (Catherine of Aragon), breaking from the Holy Catholic Church, ignoring the supremacy of the Supreme Pontiff of Rome, and declaring himself the supreme head of the Church of England. Even today it is illegal for the monarch to convert to Catholicism (I commend the Prince of Wales for his support of a bill that would have repealed this antiquated and unjust law in Britain, and I condemn the House of Lords for voting it down).

I also have ill feelings towards the English royal line and English society as a whole for historical reasons (even though I have English blood, among others, running through my veins). English society itself has a certain latent anti-Catholicism, most apparent in its view of history. The English have traditionally revered Elizabeth I and abhorred Mary I. They portray Mary as vicious, bloody, and murderous for her treatment of Protestants during her reign while she attempted to restore Catholicism to her nation, but say little if nothing of the terrible acts of both Mary’s father and half-sister (Henry VIII and Elizabeth I). Thousands of Catholics were persecuted and murdered during their reigns (many being innocent priests, monks, and nuns who had the “audacity” to remain Catholic after the king made it illegal), Church property was confiscated and used for purposes of the state, and those Catholics who weren’t killed had to worship in hiding and secret. But the British don’t like to talk about the crimes of Henry and Elizabeth, just about the crimes of Mary.

There is also the fact that Britain waged war against Germany, my fatherland by adoption. I have written earlier about Kaiser Wilhelm II not being the monster many make him out to be (a common attitude even today in Britain), yet it was the British kings Edward VII and George V who worked against the efforts of the Kaiser at maintaining peace. Germany may have started the war, but this was at a time when the Kaiser had lost control of his ministers and generals, but I digress.

I have often tried to imagine myself living in Britain (I must admit, I have a rather schizophrenic relationship with the British, sometimes loathing them, sometimes loving them). It would be glorious to have Elizabeth II as my queen, a woman I could look up to who embodied everything that is British society and culture. It would grieve me so, however, to know the fact that she is my queen yet degraded to the office of official puppet, for that is what she is, a puppet of parliament. It would also hurt to know that she is hated by many of her subjects. She should be the one who makes and executes the laws in Britain, not a bunch of bureaucrats in the House of Commons. Let her take her rightful place in British society and government. Let her be adored by her subjects.

As I said, I have mixed feelings about the English royal line, and British society as a whole. But I find myself coming to no other conclusion than this: better to be ruled by a Protestant queen than by some bureaucrat from Texas. God Save the Queen!!

Easter Sunday

"Surrexit: non est hic..." (St. Mark, 16:6).

Good Friday

"Greater love than this no man hath..." (John 15:13).

Patriotism

The subject of patriotism has been on my mind lately. America seems to be the land of patriots and patriotism. Popular slogans such as “God bless America,” “united we stand,” “support our troops,” and “in God we trust” can be seen on bumper stickers all across the nation. What should be made of all this?

Firstly, let me say that I am not against patriotism in principle, provided that patriotism is well deserved. It can be a very good thing to be proud of one’s nation. I myself used to be a very patriotic man. It was only when I became a monarchist that my patriotism began to wane. But should American monarchists be patriotic? Should Catholics (indeed all Christians) be patriotic about America?

America was founded by men who rejected the notion of monarchy, who were practicing Freemasons and Deists. They spoke much about an ambiguous “Creator” in words which could be applied to almost any supernatural creator, real or otherwise. Some were fairly hostile towards organized religion (e.g. Jefferson, Franklin). It seems to me that an invention of men of this caliber is not one that should be esteemed and honored to a quasi-religious level. I often hear so-called “conservatives” such as Sean Hannity make statements like “America is the greatest nation God has given to man.” An odd statement when one considers the fact that Hannity is a Catholic. Can an institution founded by men (Freemasons and un-churched men at that) be divinely ordained? I think not.

Much is made of the fact that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave, to borrow a line from our national anthem. Are Americans truly free? It seems to me that we are a nation of slaves, slaves to sin. Pornography is everywhere, divorce is more commonplace than permanent marriages, homosexual lifestyles are accepted and celebrated to the point that heterosexual lifestyles are considered abnormal, sex has become an act of pure pleasure and completely removed from the bonds of marriage and its procreative purpose is nearly entirely forgotten. An of course we must not forget the tragedy of abortion, the willful and malicious murder of an innocent human person. Are the thousands of murdered unborn children free? If they could answer, they would do so with a resounding “NO!!!”

Abortion is the worst crime ever known to man, an even greater crime than the holocaust. The victims of the holocaust had to ability to fight back. Unborn children cannot; unborn children cannot even cry out in pain as they are being murdered. Crying is a form of fighting, a form of defiance. The Jews in the holocaust could do this, but unborn children cannot.

Any nation that allows the murder of the most innocent of its victims is unworthy of patriotism, of respect, of honor. The American flag used to be beautiful to me. Now it means little to me, save as a reminder of what this nation has become. The red stripes represent not the blood of the men who died defending this nation, but of our children who we have murdered. God bless American indeed. I cannot see any reason why God should bless America. I do however see many reasons why God should curse America. Monarchist or not, every God fearing man should not waste his time honoring a nation so drenched in the blood of its own children.

The State of Democracy


I have felt leery at voicing some of my opinions publicly in the past, but recent events have allowed me greater freedom. I have recently been honorably discharged from military service. Although never told to keep my opinions to myself, and without any knowledge of any formal rule against expressing such views, I feel more at ease now at expressing my views about the U.S. government.

The War in Iraq—
When the U.S. invaded Iraq, I wholeheartedly (and perhaps even enthusiastically) supported the invasion. This was before I in enlisted in the military, but I did have the intention of enlisting. I thought that the words of caution—to put it mildly—of the late John Paul II were misguided, perhaps caused by his old age and Parkinson’s disease. To put it bluntly, I summarily disregarded the Holy Father’s opposition to the war.

As time passed, and no weapons of mass destruction turned up and the reasons President Bush gave for the war and continued military presence changed, I began to have doubts about the war. At first I thought that Bush simply acted on faulty intelligence, but considered the world a better place at having one less tyrant. Now I’m not sure why we invaded Iraq. Was it faulty intelligence, was it for oil, or even perhaps a personal vendetta against the man who tried to kill the President’s father when he was president? I have no idea. Do you?

What scares me is the current justification for the war by the Bush administration and Republican supporters of the war: spreading freedom and democracy around the world. First of all, were the 40 million babies murdered through abortion since Roe v. Wade free? What about their freedom? Is democracy the cure for all of mankind’s ills? Rather, I believe that democracy is the cause of many of mankind’s ills. It scares me to think that, as the strongest and most powerful nation on earth, America sees its divine destiny to spread the lies and evils of American “freedom” and democracy around the world. What is the answer to the “red white and blue tide”?

The Answer—
I believe that the answer to the evils that have been brought as the results of “freedom” and democracy is a powerful and strong monarchy to rival the power and influence of the democratic governments of the world. How can such a monarchy be born in the 21st century? One possibility is to take an existing monarchy and greatly increase its power, strength, and influence. The problem with that is there aren’t any currently reigning monarchies where this is feasible. The world’s current monarchs either don’t have enough power and popular support, or they simply don’t rule over large enough nations. Another possibility is to bring back an exiled monarchy. The problem with this option is that there aren’t any exiled monarchies with enough popular support to warrant a return. Another option is revolution. The problem with this option is that revolutions are almost always bloody, and nowhere does there exist enough popular support to found a new monarchy. Do you see a pattern here? (Hint: popular support). The problem is that nowhere in the world is there enough popular support to warrant a powerful and strong monarchy to exist (by powerful I mean on the international level, not powerful in the case of monarchical powers wielded by the monarch, as is the case in kingdom of Tonga).

The only solution I can think of is for monarchists around the world to join their efforts to either change the hearts and minds of others (how long have pro-lifers been trying to change the hearts and minds of pro-abortionists?), or to join together and found a new nation with a strong monarch. The former does not seem likely to work well, and the latter seems too idealistic. Where does this leave us monarchists? Feeling rather depressed. Do you have any ideas? If you do, please e-mail me and let me know (click on “View my complete profile” at the right and then on “e-mail” under “Contact”).

Kaiser Wilhelm II

January 27, 1859—the birthday of His Imperial and Royal Majesty Wilhelm II, King of Prussia and German Emperor. The Kaiser is perhaps one of my most revered historical figures. A Protestant monarch responsible for the First World War? How can a staunch Catholic revere this monster? Allow me to explain.

Yes, the Kaiser was a Protestant—a Lutheran to be exact—but I look past that. To me, he embodies everything that is proud and noble about the German culture—at least the way German culture used to be. He may have been a Protestant, but was a much greater friend to Catholics than Otto von Bismarck (who often receives a much more generous interpretation in historical circles). Wilhelm scaled back the anti-Catholic measures enacted by Bismarck, met with the pope several times, and even had a secret respect and admiration for the Church (due to its pomp and regal ceremonies). But what about the war, the Great War?

Contrary to popular belief, the Kaiser was not the war-monger he has been portrayed. There is a saying—where it originated I have no idea—that history is written by the victors. This is largely true. Germany lost the war and Britain and America won (for the English speaking world). So it is only natural that the British and Americans would portray the defeated Germans in a poor light. What happened may only be natural, but is unfaithful to historical fact. Germany may have started the war—but all of Europe knew for decades before that the continent was on the brink of war, and considered war inevitable. The only question was where and when the war would take place. The Kaiser may have been a blow-hard, speaking without thinking, but when it came down to it he always chose peace in the end. Members of his General Staff knew this, and saw him as a stumbling block to German strength in a situation where the Empire was being choked to death by her enemies. When the Kaiser tried to keep the balance of power in Europe and work with his royal cousins, it was often King George in England and Czar Nicholas in Russia that defeated his efforts at keeping the peace.

Had Germany won the war, history would look more kindly upon him. I challenge you the visitor to my blog to do some research on Wilhelm (see especially The Last Kaiser by Giles MacDonogh and Europe’s Last Summer by David Fromkin). You may just learn something. R.I.P Wilhelm II, König von Preußen und Deutscher Kaiser.

John Paul II

Recently I watched the second part of CBS’ miniseries Pope John Paul II. I had watched the first installment in December when it first aired, but it wasn’t until just last week that I watched the second installment, which I had taped. I was not prepared for the effect it had upon me. I am not an emotional man, and seldom display sorrow, even more seldom cry. But watching this reverent and respectful rendition of our late Pontiff made me weep (thankfully I watched it alone, so no one had to see me).

I wasn’t so much moved by the tv show, but more moved by the show to realize how deep the hurt of his death still was to me. At 24, he was the only pope I had ever known. He had his faults, I disagreed with his administration in his latter days, but he was a good man and a good pope. I miss him deeply. Requiescat in Pace, Ioannes Paulus II.