The Altar and Throne Monarchy Site

2012-01-02T18:10:00.000-08:00

A New Constitution for Hungary

I was alerted to the new Hungarian constitution by the blog Rorate Caeli (see their article here, including a link to the entire Hungarian constitution in English). Among the changes are: invoking God's blessing upon the Hungarian people; stating pride in king St. Stephen; recognizing Christianity as the foundation of their nation; dropping the word "republic" from the nation's official name; recognizing the dignity of life at conception; and protecting marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. While I have not read the entire constitution, these few changes are welcome indeed. I hope the tens of thousands of people reported by the media as protesting in the streets go home soon, sit down and read their new constitution and learn from it. A step towards the restoration of a Hungarian monarchy? Who knows.

2011-09-06T19:49:00.000-07:00

Europe's Crumbling Economy

I heard an interesting commentary the other day whilst driving home from work on NPR. The commentator was remarking at how America was transfixed by Hurricane Irene, despite the fact that in the realm of hurricanes it did relatively little damage. I have to say I watched a little bit of the media coverage myself--it was weird to see Times Square totally empty. The commentator went on to decry the fact that we will have 24 hour coverage of a natural event, but little to no coverage of a human event: the European debt crisis. America was glued to its collective television sets when European leaders are making one bad decision after another. If they don't do something, the commentator said, the state of Europe will be far worse than any Hurricane Irene.

I have to admit that as I listened to this report I found myself saying aloud "I wish" to the commentator's dire predictions that the Euro-zone would collapse. If the Euro-zone collapses, will it be bad? Yes, yes it will. If the Euro fails as a viable currency, will it mean terrible (even more terrible?) economic conditions for the European people? Yes, perhaps. If the Euro fails, will it effect the world at large? Yes, perhaps. But will the European people be better off without the European Union, without the Euro as their currency? Yes, most definitely yes! Why? The European Union and the Euro has effected to strip the European peoples from their individual national sovereignty, identities, and to some degree even their cultures. Only if the E.U. fails will Europe be able to redeem itself culturally and morally.

So as the E.U. continues to pressure debt-strapped nations within the Euro-zone to enlarge their austerity measures and as the citizens in individual nations continue to protest (as is the case in Spain the day of this writing), a paradigm shift is taking place: individuals are moving further away from a continental-centralized-supranational government to what is traditionally thought of as the old Europe. And here is the heart of the matter: only within an old Europe can monarchy be restored as the government of choice among nations. So the sooner the E.U. collapses from its own debt, the better I say!

2011-08-29T20:53:00.000-07:00

Another Royal Wedding!

And this time it's a German one. On Saturday August 27, HIRH Georg Friedrich von Preußen married Princess Sophie von Isenburg. I wish them a long and happy marriage with many gracious children. I also hope that this wedding will have effected a greater interest in the abdicated monarchy among the German people. It is high time the Germans bring back their Kaiser!

2011-08-14T19:19:00.000-07:00

Rules of Succession

I have been thinking lately about the various rules of succession, both historically and presently within monarchies. Some monarchies allow only legitimate male heirs to ascend the throne, while others allow legitimate females as well. Some of the monarchies that allow female heirs do so only if there is no male heir, while others dictate that the eldest child regardless of gender ascend the throne. The common thread among the different rules of succession is succession by blood, but what about adoption?

I must confess that I have been thinking about adoption and succession for a very selfish reason: my wife and I have been unable to conceive and are in the process of adopting a baby. What if I were born a royal and unable to have a biological child? There are certainly enough historical examples of childless royals to make one think about the possibility of adopted heirs. Perhaps many succession disputes (even armed disputes) could have been avoided had a royal couple been allowed to adopt a child and name that child the heir to the throne. It was done in ancient Rome (although the emperor usually adopted a nephew and named him heir), so there is some historical precedent.

I am not one to pay attention to gossip magazines or the tabloids, but when I am in the check-out stand at the grocery store it is hard not to notice them (especially due the the fact that I am an Archie comics fan, and the great Archie Double Digest is often sold right next to the tabloids). I have noticed several tabloids since the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge got married alluding to the royal couple having fertility problems. All these rumours may be false, but it does make one think about the topic of royal succession.

So I ask you, my readers, what do you think about royal succession by adoption?

2011-04-30T10:45:00.000-07:00

Congratulations!

I would like to wish the their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge a very happy and life-long marriage! May God bless them with many wonderful children, and may God bless them and guide them throughout their marriage and eventual reign.

2010-12-20T12:57:00.000-08:00

The State of Europe

I recently read a couple of articles about the political climate in Europe. One article describes how the Swiss are increasingly becoming weary of foreigners in their nation, especially Muslims. The other article tells us that thirteen per cent of modern Germans would welcome a Führer (no, not a return of Hitler but rather a strong leader who can and will stop the Muslim tide from overtaking Germany). And then I found this video (insert hyperlink) of an Austrian MP criticizing Turkey for its inaction over the murder of a Catholic archbishop in Turkey at the hands of a Turkish Muslim. The common theme within these article and video is an increasing hostility among Europeans towards Islam, non-Western culture, and status quo of modern European tolerance.

I am not a fan, nor have I ever been a fan of the European Union. It is my opinion that the EU breaks down national sovereignty and destroys a sense of ethnic and cultural cohesiveness at the national level. It also makes it harder for the various monarchies of Europe (those that still exist that is) to reassert their sovereign power and overcome the anti-monarchical democratic trend spreading throughout Europe. The EU also makes it harder for former monarchies, in my opinion, to resurrect themselves.

Europe seems to be on the brink of continental wide bankruptcy. The Euro no longer seems to be as indestructible as it used to, and the people of Europe are beginning to wake up to what forty years of increasing tolerance to non Christian and non European thought and culture has done to their homelands. I hope that the theme common within these articles and video continue and multiply.

2010-09-16T13:32:00.000-07:00

Willing Heirs?

A reader recently asked me (specifically about Germany) if the solution to the problem of non-reigning monarchies truly lies in the past, i.e. are current legitimate heirs willing to assume the thrones of their ancestors should the occasion arise. While I am loyal to the legitimate heir to the German Empire, HIRH Georg Friedrich von Preußen, I would not necessarily be opposed to someone else ascending the throne of a new German Empire if the restoration of the old one was impossible.

I find it most prudent to restore legitimate reigns with legitimate heirs, but far too often in Europe the "pretenders" to various thrones have little to no support from the populace, or even have no desire to work towards a restoration of the monarchy. If heirs do not work for a restoration of monarchy, and some charismatic figure should come along and do it himself, I see no reason to deny that individual the opportunity to found a new Christian monarchy in place of an old one.

2010-06-22T12:34:00.000-07:00

A Royal Wedding

I would like to offer my congratulations to Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden and her new husband Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland on their recent marriage (the wedding took place on June 19). From an American monarchist, I offer the royal couple a happy and long marriage!

2010-06-13T21:46:00.000-07:00

The Future King of England

I read about Prince Charles giving a speech about Islam last week. I have had a hard time finding anything but much abbreviated articles on the speech, but you can read a fairly good article from Father Zuhlsdorf's blog here.

Basically the Prince touts Islam as a religion that is one with nature, a religion that can help us save the planet. While I am concerned about how we treat the plante that God has entrusted us with, I do not see the heretical religion of Islam as the answer to our environmental problems, and I find it disturbing that the future King of England does. This is one more example of why I think the Prince of Wales will make an awful King of England. As a monarchist, I will show him respect and honor, but I am not looking forward to the day when his mother, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II dies.

2010-01-31T20:27:00.000-08:00

Usury

Having two college degrees cost me a lot of money. I had to take out several student loans to finance my education. College tuition (and the related costs and fees) are quite expensive, but coupled with interest on those loans compounded daily the amount owed at the end of a college education becomes exorbitant. I am no expert on the Church's teaching regarding usury (mainly due to the fact that no priests or bishops seem to preach on this matter any longer, and I have found it extremely hard to find good, definitive infomation regarding this matter), but I know in my heart that it is wrong to penalize responsible new college graduates with student loans bloated beyond reasonableness with interest.

After paying my student loan payments, rent, and utilities, I have almost no money left from my monthly salary. If it were not for the fact that my wife is a full-time college student receiving financial aid (some of which we will have to start paying back in a year's time), we would not have enough money to buy groceries or gas. What is the solution to my situation, a situation that millions of other new college graduates face? I don't think the solution can be found in a government program, tax breaks, public service breaks, etc. I truly believe the only solution can be found in creating a new society guided by the econimic principles of the Catholic Church, a society in which usury is illegal. The older I get the more convinced I am that a truly Catholic monarchy must be established or re-established in order for justice to reign in the world.

2009-11-01T15:05:00.000-08:00

Catholic Heritage

Something struck me today at Mass. Although I attend an FSSP chapel, sometimes time constraints necessitate my attendance at a diocesan affiliated Traditional Latin Mass held at a Novus Ordo parish. While the diocesan TLM has its regular attendees, it also has a certain percentage of drop-ins.

I observed three unrelated elderly women at today's Mass. One woman asked another "Is this a Spanish Mass?" The second woman responded that it was a high Mass, but I don't think she understood that it was a high Mass of the Extraordinary Form. The first woman took her place in a pew. During the early parts of the Mass the second woman got up and talked to a third elderly woman. While I could not understand what they were saying, I observed a prevailing sense of confusion in both the second and third women's demeanor. The second woman took a seat next to the third woman. Half way through the Mass both the second and third women were gone. The first woman, while obviously not knowing when to sit, stand, and kneel, at least made it through most of the Mass, leaving immediately after receiving Communion.

What struck me observing these three elderly women is something I have observed several times in the past--the greatest source of opposition towards the Traditional Latin Mass within the lay world comes from the elderly. They seem to have become so attached to the Novus Ordo Mass that they refuse to even try the Extraordinary Form. Indeed, the very Mass they once knew and loved in their youth has become a remnant of the past, all but forgotten--they have forgotten their own Catholic heritage. It is the young that are flocking to the TLM, and it is the young that shall perpetuate devotion to the Mass of the Ages.

2009-09-13T14:03:00.000-07:00

Her Majesty's Displeasure

I read an article by the Telegraph recently describing the Queen's displeasure with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown over the situation in Afghanistan regarding the funding of British troops. Her Majesty's specific concern involves her troops' lack of proper equipment. While it is not within the scope of this posting to delve into matters of this particular war, I wanted to comment on the situation.

Queen Elizabeth is the head of the British Armed Forces, but in practice British troops seem to go wherever Parliament sends them. It is entirely the Queen's prerogative to make her positions known regarding her troops, but this happens rarely rather than often. I understand that there is an established relationship between the British monarch and Parliament and that modern monarchs seldom make public statements regarding their views on matters of state, but I do wish the Queen was in a position of more power and was able to publicly voice her opinions regularly. Even more I wish the Queen was in a position where she was able to say yea or nay to sending her troops abroad rather than rubber stamping Parliament's military wishes; if Her Majesty did not believe British involvement in a particular war was in the best interests of her nation, she should be able to deny the wishes of Parliament and keep her troops out of involvement.

Before I get any comments on how my wishes would provoke a constitutional crisis and do damage to the monarchy, let me say that I understand the tenuous situation Her Majesty is in with her Parliament; I simply wish and look for the day when the British monarch has the ability to properly exercise his or her constitutional powers.

2009-07-20T20:57:00.000-07:00

Georg Friedrich von Peußen

I found this video of HIRH Georg Friedrich von Preußen, heir to the Kingdom of Prussia and the German Empire, on YouTube. It's a mix of Dutch, German, and English, but for all you English speakers out there HIRM speaks quite a bit of English during this interview. Enjoy!

2009-04-08T19:37:00.000-07:00

Pope Anthony I?

In an interview with a gay magazine (reported on by The Times), former British Prime Minster Tony Blair apparently knows better than Pope Benedict XVI about sexual morality, specifically regarding homosexuality. The following is the report from The Times with my comments in red.

-----------------

From The Times
April 8, 2009

Tony Blair tells the Pope: you're wrong on homosexuality

Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

Tony Blair has challenged the “entrenched” attitudes of the Pope on homosexuality, and argued that it is time for him to “rethink” his views. [These supposed "views" of the pope aren't his views at all but rather the perennial teaching of the Church.]

Speaking to the gay magazine Attitude, the former Prime Minister, himself now a Roman Catholic, said that he wanted to urge religious figures everywhere to reinterpret their religious texts to see them as metaphorical, not literal, and suggested that in time this would make all religious groups accept gay people as equals. [Do you see how this could be led to an extreme? The religious texts referring to not murdering people could also be "reinterpreted." If we reinterpret the ban on homosexuality, what might also be reinterpreted? At what point do we stop reinterpreting?]

Asked about the Pope’s stance, Mr Blair blamed generational differences and said: “We need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith.” [What Mr. Blair is saying here is that our religious views should be in step with our culture's zeitgeist. He's being many things here (among them a heretic for wilfully denying Catholic moral doctrine), but one thing he isn't being is original--many have for years criticized the Church for being out of step with "the times."]

The Pope, who is 82, remains firmly opposed to any relaxation of the Church’s traditional stance on homosexuality, contraception or any other area of human sexuality. He has described homosexuality as a “tendency” towards an “intrinsic moral evil”. [The Pope cannot "relax" the Church's "traditional stance" on sexual morality. It's Church teaching, not his opinion!]

Mr Blair, who now travels the world on behalf of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, which aims to promote understanding of the main religions, left the Church of England for Rome soon after leaving office in 2007. [I remember well the news coverage of his conversion. His track record as Prime Minister brought many--myself included--to have doubts about his conversion and future adherence to the One True Faith, but I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he continues with questioning the Faith, I hope he leaves the Church to prevent scandal and comes back when he is ready and willing to submit to the Church in it's entirety.]

In the interview Mr Blair spoke of a “quiet revolution in thinking” and implied that he believed the Pope to be out of step with the public. [Once again, the Faith must not be based on popular opinions of the day but rather based on unchanging principles established by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, with the Supreme Pontiff as his representative on earth.]

“There are many good and great things the Catholic Church does, and there are many fantastic things this Pope stands for, [A common tactic of dissenting Catholics--praise the "good things" the Church does while criticizing the Church for having moral standards they consider to be too preachy, too condemnational, too harsh. "The way the Church acts," they think, "one would think the Church is trying to get us to Heaven or something. All I want to do is enjoy my life." Oh yeah, the Church is trying to get us to Heaven!] but I think what is interesting is that if you went into any Catholic Church, particularly a well attended one, on any Sunday here and did a poll of the congregation, you’d be surprised at how liberal-minded people were.” The faith of ordinary Catholics is rarely found “in those types of entrenched attitudes”, he said. [He is right--many Catholics do not accept Church teaching, and that's a major problem!]

He also thought that in Islam there would eventually be a change of heart. “I believe that, ultimately, people will find their way to a sensible reformation of attitudes.” [I think the Muslims would be offended by this remark.]

People’s thinking had changed fundamentally, he added. “Now, that doesn’t mean to say there’s not still a lot of homophobia and a lot of things to be done. But the fact that it is unacceptable for any mainstream political party to be anything other than on the side of equality and respect is, in a way, the biggest change. The items of individual legislation matter a lot, but I think it’s the general shift in climate that is perhaps the most important point." [So is he suggesting that religious teaching should be influenced by political legislation? That would be a nightmare come true.]

He said: “When people quote the passages in Leviticus condemning homosexuality, I say to them — if you read the whole of the Old Testament and took everything that was there in a literal way, as being what God and religion is about, you’d have some pretty tough policies across the whole of the piece.”

He continued: “What people often forget about, for example, Jesus or, indeed, the Prophet Muhammad, is that their whole raison d’être was to change the way that people thought traditionally.” [Seems to me that if Jesus wanted to change people's traditional thoughts on homosexuality He would have said something about it, and since it would have been such a radical move from previous sexual mores, the Evangelists would have recorded it, but alas, nothing of the sort exists in any of the four Gospels.]

No change in the Catholic Church’s stance is likely under the present leadership. [Or any other "leadership" for that matter.] The Church in England and Wales, which has been more liberal, is expected to move rightwards under the new Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, who has become increasingly conservative since becoming a bishop and archbishop.

While some converts become more conservative than those born to Roman Catholicism, the interview with Attitude’s Johann Hari shows that Mr Blair has allied himself firmly with the Church’s liberal wing. [I.e. the Church's internal enemies.]

Conventional wisdom was not necessarily wise, he said. “It can be wrong and it can be just a form of conservatism that hides behind a consensus. If you look back in time, through the suffragette movement, the fight against slavery, it’s amazing how the same arguments in favour of prejudice crop up again and again and again.”

He also claimed that the mood was changing in evangelical circles, which have been long been anti-gay — the source of the dispute that has taken the worldwide Anglican Communion to the brink of schism.

Referring to his contacts with evangelical groups in the US and elsewhere through the foundation, he said: “I think there is a generational shift that is happening. If you talk to the older generation, yes, you will still get a lot of pushback, and parts of the Bible quoted, and so on. But if you look at the younger generation of evangelicals, this is increasingly for them something that they wish to be out of — at least in terms of having their position confined to being anti-gay.” [Well I'm not an evangelical, but I am young (27 at the time of this writing), and if being "anti-gay" means opposing the homosexual lifestyle and holding to the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil and disordered, then yes, I am "anti-gay."]

-----------------

Mr. Blair seems to think he knows better than the Church, and presumes to lecture the Pope about morals. I have this word of advice for Tony: either submit to the Church and the Supreme Pontiff or do us all a favor and get out! You will be most welcome back when you are properly humble.

2009-02-28T15:56:00.000-08:00

A Roman Catholic Lord Spiritual?

According to an article from The Times, Cormac Cardinal Murpy-O'Connor may be the first Roman Catholic Lord Spiritual to sit in the British House of Lords since Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church and founded the Church of England. Current canon law of the Catholic Church forbids clerics to hold political office, but apparently the Holy See is going to offer the Cardinal a dispensation from this rule. While Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor may not be the world's best cardinal, having a Roman Catholic prelate in the House of Lords just may help to bring the United Kingdom back to its Christian roots and help prevent many of the immoral and secularist laws that have become increasingly all too common in Britain (and the rest of the West as well). I await with baited breath the results of this intriguing political story.

2009-02-13T14:41:00.000-08:00

A Jewish Voice of Reason

Since the Holy Father lifted the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops (one of whom is a holocaust denier) for having been ordained illicitly, cries of anti-Semitism against the Church have been loud and strong, especially from the Jewish community. This Rabbi, Yehuda Levin, however, is a voice of reason.

Left Wing of the Catholic Church Destroying the Faith Says Orthodox Rabbi

By Hilary White, Rome correspondent

ROME, February 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The dissident, leftist movement in the Catholic Church over the last forty years has severely undermined the teaching of the Catholic Church on the moral teachings on life and family, a prominent US Orthodox rabbi told LifeSiteNews.com. Rabbi Yehuda Levin, the head of a group of 800 Orthodox rabbis in the US and Canada, also dismissed the accusations that the Holy See had not sufficiently distanced itself from the comments made by Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) on the Holocaust.

"I support this move" to reconcile the traditionalist faction in the Church, he said, "because I understand the big picture, which is that the Catholic Church has a problem. There is a strong left wing of the Church that is doing immeasurable harm to the faith."

Rabbi Levin said that he understands "perfectly" why the reconciliation is vital to the fight against abortion and the homosexualist movement.

"I understand that it is very important to fill the pews of the Catholic Church not with cultural Catholics and left-wingers who are helping to destroy the Catholic Church and corrupt the values of the Catholic Church." This corruption, he said, "has a trickle-down effect to every single religious community in the world."

"What's the Pope doing? He's trying to bring the traditionalists back in because they have a lot of very important things to contribute the commonweal of Catholicism.

"Now, if in the process, he inadvertently includes someone who is prominent in the traditionalist movement who happens to say very strange things about the Holocaust, is that a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater and start to condemn Pope Benedict? Absolutely not."

During a visit to Rome at the end of January, Rabbi Levin told LifeSiteNews.com that he believes the media furore over the lifting of the excommunications of the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X is a red herring. He called "ridiculous" the accusations that in doing so Pope Benedict VXI or the Catholic Church are anti-Semitic and described as "very strong" the statements distancing the Holy See and the Pope from Williamson's comments.

Rabbi Levin was in Rome holding meetings with high level Vatican officials to propose what he called a "new stream of thinking" for the Church's inter-religious dialogue, one based on commonly held moral teachings, particularly on the right to life and the sanctity of natural marriage."

"The most important issue," he said, is the work the Church is doing "to save babies from abortion, and save children's minds, and young people's minds, helping them to know right and wrong on the life and family issues."

"That's where ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue has to go."

Although numbers are difficult to determine, it is estimated that the Society of St. Pius X has over a million followers worldwide. The traditionalist movement in the Catholic Church is noted for doctrinal orthodoxy and enthusiasm not only for old-fashioned devotional practices, but for the Church's moral teachings and opposition to post-modern secularist sexual mores. Liberals in the Church, particularly in Europe, have bitterly opposed all overtures to the SSPX and other traditionalists, particularly the Pope's recent permission to revive the traditional Latin Mass.

The Vatican announced in early January that, as part of ongoing efforts to reconcile the breakaway group, the 1988 decree of excommunication against the Society had been rescinded. Later that month, a Swedish television station aired an interview, recorded in November 2008, in which Bishop Richard Williamson, one of the four leaders of the Society, said that he did not believe that six million Jews were killed in the Nazi death camps during World War II.

At that time, the media erupted with protests and accusations that the Catholic Church, and especially Pope Benedict XVI, are anti-Semitic.

Rabbi Levin particularly defended Pope Benedict, saying he is the genius behind the moves of the late Pope John Paul II to reconcile the Church with the Jewish community.

"Anyone who understands and follows Vatican history knows that in the last three decades, one of the moral and intellectual underpinnings of the papacy of Pope John Paul II, was Cardinal Ratzinger.

"And therefore, a lot of the things that Pope John Paul did vis-à-vis the Holocaust, he [Benedict] might have done himself, whether it was visiting Auschwitz or visiting and speaking in the synagogues or asking forgiveness. A lot of this had direct input from Cardinal Ratzinger. Whoever doesn't understand this doesn't realise that this man, Pope Benedict XVI, has a decades-long track record of anti-Nazism and sympathy for the Jews."

2009-02-05T14:31:00.000-08:00

A Bishop With Guts

I found this interview today from Life Site News. Archbishop Raymond Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, speaks on the duty of bishops to deny Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians. An excellent piece from a bishop who has guts.

Vatican Official: Bishops Have no Choice But to Refuse Communion to Pro-Abort Politicians
By Hilary White

ROME, January 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Archbishop Raymond Burke, in an exclusive interview last week, told LifeSiteNews.com that the issue of pro-abortion politicians continuing to receive Holy Communion is still one of major concern and that it is the duty of bishops to ensure that they are refused.

He told LifeSiteNews.com, "I don't understand the continual debate that goes on about it. There's not a question that a Catholic who publicly, and after admonition, supports pro-abortion legislation is not to receive Holy Communion and is not to be given Holy Communion."

"The Church's law is very clear," said Archbishop Burke, who was appointed last year by Pope Benedict XVI as the head of the Church's highest court, the Apostolic Signatura. "The person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [Canon Law] doesn't say that the bishop shall decide this. It's an absolute."

Among the US bishops directly to address the issue, Archbishop Burke was one of around a dozen who vigorously supported a directive of the Vatican that said pro-abortion Catholic politicians "must be refused" Holy Communion if they attempt to receive at Mass. Others have refused to abide by the Vatican instruction and the Church's own Code of Canon Law, saying they would rather focus on "education" of such politicians.

Archbishop Burke called "nonsense" the accusation, regularly made by some bishops, that refusing Holy Communion "makes the Communion rail a [political] battle ground". In fact, he said, the precise opposite is true. The politician who insists on being seen receiving Holy Communion, despite his opposition to the Church's central teachings, is using that reception for political leverage.

In 2004, when self-proclaimed Catholic and candidate for the Democrat party, Sen. John Kerry, was frequently photographed receiving Holy Communion despite his vigorous support of abortion, the US Bishops Conference issued a document which said only that it is up to individual bishops whether to implement the Church's code of Canon Law and refuse Communion. The issue has remained prominent with the appointment of Joe Biden, another pro-abortion Catholic politician, as Vice President of the United States of America.

Archbishop Burke recalled previous experiences with Kerry, pointing to the several occasions when the senator was pictured in Time magazine receiving Communion from Papal representatives at various public events. Burke said that it is clear that Kerry was using his reception of Holy Communion to send a message.

"He wants to not only receive Holy Communion from a bishop but from the papal representative. I think that's what his point was. Get it in Time magazine, so people read it and say to themselves, 'He must be in good standing'."

"What are they doing? They're using the Eucharist as a political tool."

In refusing, far from politicising the Eucharist, the Church is returning the matter to its religious reality. The most important reasons to refuse, he said, are pastoral and religious in nature.

"The Holy Eucharist, the most sacred reality of our life in the Church, has to be protected against sacrilege. At the same time, individuals have to be protected for the sake of their own salvation from committing one of the gravest sins, namely to receive Holy Communion unworthily."

Archbishop Burke also dismissed the commonly proffered excuse that such politicians need more "education". Speaking from his own direct experience, he said that Catholic politicians who are informed by their pastors or bishops that their positions in support of pro-abortion legislation makes it impossible for them to receive Holy Communion, "I've always found that they don't come forward."

"When you talk to these people, they know," he said. "They know what they're doing is very wrong. They have to answer to God for that, but why through our pastoral negligence add on to that, that they have to answer to God for who knows how many unworthy receptions of Holy Communion?"

Archbishop Burke said that the issue had been debated enough. He rejected the idea that the matter should be left to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, saying the Conference has no authority in the matter. "This is a law of the universal Church and it should be applied."

"I think this argument too is being used by people who don't want to confront the issue, this whole 'wait 'til the Conference decides'...well the Conference has been discussing this since at least 2004. And nothing happens."

When asked what the solution was, he responded, "Individual bishops and priests simply have to do their duty. They have to confront politicians, Catholic politicians, who are sinning gravely and publicly in this regard. And that's their duty.

"And if they carry it out, not only can they not be reproached for that, but they should be praised for confronting this situation."

2009-02-03T18:17:00.000-08:00

His Hour of Need

The Holy Father is being persecuted both in the press and within the Church by liberal elements in both due to the lifting of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops (specifically due to one bishop's comments regarding the Holocaust). I could go on at length about the sad actions of many, but I would simply like say this: pray for His Holiness!

Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Benedicto.

Dominus conservet eum, et vivificet eum,

et beatum faciat eum in terra,

et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum eius.

2008-12-19T21:55:00.000-08:00

A Blueprint for a Monarchy in America

A reader recently sent me a constitution he drew up for a monarchy that would be applicable for the United States, where no one religion stands in the majority. I found his hypothetical constitution intriguing, and was impressed by the depth he went into. While I do not necessarily endorse his proposal in its entirety, I did want to post it for my readers to look over and to comment upon it. (Note: the author of this constitution wished to remain anonymous due to "the current political situation.")

The People

Recognized Churches Must Adhere to the Following Precepts:

Belief in a single God, the Father Almighty, who is eternal and unchanging, the sole creator and master of the universe
Belief in Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, who is co-eternal with the Father, partaking fully in both the human and divine essence
Profession of the Trinity: belief that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit exist as three separate and distinct persons while sharing a single essence
Belief that salvation comes only through the redemptive sacrifice of Christ
Belief in the literal existence of Heaven and Hell
Belief in the Revealed Truth of Scripture
Promotion of Proper Morality: condemnation of abortion, euthanasia, fornication, polygamy, homosexuality, bestiality and artificial birth control
Rejection of Modern Heresies: condemnation of Marxism, racism and/or ethnocentricism, dispensationalism, relativism, pantheism, and pacifism
Recognition that the mandate to rule comes from God, not popular acclamation
Possession of 10 million adherents within imperial domains

Subjects

While the constitution allows for complete freedom of religion for all inhabitants of the imperial domains, not all religions are equal in the eyes of the state. Subjects are those people who do not belong to Recognized Churches; they are divided into those with religion (Moral Theists) and those without it (Heathens), both groups are free to practice their belief systems in privacy and without interference from imperial authorities. Moral Theists may vote for and hold the office of Tribune of Subjects, an officer who represents them in the Senate. Both Moral Theists and Heathens are barred from all other elections and elected offices, the military officer corps, teaching positions at government schools and the practice of law.

Those Without Religion (Heathens)
Atheists
Those Apathetic to Religion
Pagans, Muslims, Wiccans, New Age Spiritualists, Satanists
Reformed/Progressive Jews
Heretics: Pseudo-Christians not conforming to any one the first nine precepts

Those With Religion (Moral Theists)
Monotheists/Deists: must conform to seventh, eighth, and ninth precepts
Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Zoroastrians
Theravadin and Mahayana Buddhists
Orthodox/Traditional Jews
Independent Christians: Christian sects with less than 10 million adherents
Citizens

Citizens are those people who belong to Recognized Churches; the constitution recognizes two classes of citizens: plebeians and patricians. Though all inhabitants of the imperial domains stand equal before the law, the extent to which one can participate in political life is determined partly by one’s social standing. Citizens, however, possess rights that Subjects do not: these include the freedom of assembly, the right to imperial petition, freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Children born to Citizen Families attain citizenship with a proclamation of faith and featly on their 18th birthday in the presence of the County Magistrate; those who decline to make this statement are demoted to Heathen Status.

Plebeians

Plebeians, or commoners, are citizens who hold no official titles; they are divided into two classes: Proletarians and Equestrians. Citizenship is a gift, not a right, and is awarded to those who conform to certain moral standards. As such, Plebeians may be stripped of their status by judgment of the Country Magistrate should they engage in manifest public sin.

Proletarians

Proletarians are Plebeians who hold taxable assets whose net worth is less than $500,000; they are barred from all elected offices and may only vote for one official: the Tribune of Plebeians, who must be a member of the Equestrian class.

Equestrians

Equestrians are Plebeians who hold taxable assets whose net worth is more than $500,000; they may vote in any election and hold any elected office. One may be born to the Equestrian class if one’s father is also an Equestrian but this status may be lost if they fail to accumulate $300,000 worth of taxable assets before their 35th birthday. All officers in the military automatically attain Equestrian status upon their commission which cannot be lost regardless of the value of their assets.

Patricians

Patricians, or nobles, are Catholic citizens whose families have been endowed with titles and estates by the Emperor or higher orders of nobility; they are divided into three classes: Dominates, Magnates and the Imperial Family. Both the imperial and provincial governments include appointed offices which are reserved exclusively for Patricians. To be born into the Patrician class, one’s father or grandfather must also have been a Patrician; one’s status as a Dominate or Magnate is inherited from their father or grandfather as well. As with Plebeians, one can also lose Patrician status if they engage in manifest public sin; this demotion results in automatic Heathen status with the loss of all endowed property and inheritance rights.

Dominates (Lords)

Dominates, or lesser lords, are Patricians who have been ennobled by individual Magnates; these appointments must be ratified by the provincial Council of Magnates. Certain positions at the provincial and imperial levels of government are reserved exclusively for Dominates; among these are those of Censor, Legate and Lictor. Dominate status may be revoked, along with all hereditary titles and property rites, should the individual be found guilty of manifest public sin by the regional Council of Magnates.

Magnates (Great Lords)

Magnates, or great lords, are Patricians who have been ennobled by the Emperor in recognition of their extraordinary achievements or exemplary service to the state. Certain positions at the imperial level of government are reserved exclusively for Magnates; they alone are permitted to assume the offices of Aedile, Dux, Quaestor, Senator and Princeps Senatus. All senior Magnates in a province also belong to the Council of Magnates, responsible for electing Senators to represent them in the Comitia Magnus; the leader of this body is given the honorary title of Dux. Magnate status may be revoked, along with all hereditary titles and property rites, should the individual be found guilty of manifest public sin by judgment of the Emperor.

Imperial Family

The Imperial Family consists of the Emperor, his wife, his children and grandchildren, his siblings and their spouses, and their children and grandchildren. These people possess Magnate status at birth and may be appointed to any position normally reserved for members of that class. Upon his ascension to the throne, the Emperor designates his own successor from among his sons, brothers, nephews, uncles or male cousins over the age of 25; a new successor may be chosen at any time when circumstances demand it. This choice must be verified by the Council of Duxi and the consent of the Papal Tribune.

The Government

The imperial government operates at five levels: municipalities, counties, provinces, eparchies, and the imperial government; with the exception of eparchies, at every level there are both elected and appointed offices open to members of the Plebeian or Patrician class. Any official may be removed from office should he be found guilty of manifest public sin, which could also result in the loss of his citizen status; the court which tries him is dependent on the status of his elected or appointed office. With the exception of Tribunes, only Equestrians and Patricians may vote in elections or hold elected offices; the particulars are listed below.

Municipal Offices

Mayor

The Mayor acts as the municipal executive and may be a member of the Equestrian or Patrician class; terms of service, executive powers, age restrictions, and election particulars are determined by individual provinces and municipalities.

Municipal Councilor

Municipal Councilors act as advisors to the Mayor and may be members of the Equestrian or Patrician class; terms of service, councilor powers, numbers, age restrictions and election particulars are determined by individual provinces and municipalities.

Prefect

The Prefect acts as the municipal judge and may be a member of the Equestrian or Patrician class; he is appointed by the county Magistrate and has the power to appoint further municipal judges beneath him if necessity demands it. The Prefect serves for a term of five years and may be reappointed indefinitely though the associate judges he creates may be dismissed at any time. Prefects must be at least 35 years of age at the time of their first appointment.

County Offices

Magistrate

The Magistrate acts as both the county executive and judge and may be a member of the Equestrian or Patrician class. He is responsible for appointing municipal Prefects, approving mayoral appointments, overseeing public services and facilities and hearing appeals from municipal courts, deciding which cases will be heard by higher courts. The Magistrate is appointed by the Governor with the approval of the Censor and serves for a term of five years; he must be at least 35 years of age at the time of his first appointment and may be reappointed indefinitely. Other powers and duties are determined by individual provinces.

Provincial Offices

Governor

The Governor acts as the provincial executive and may be a member of the Equestrian or Patrician class; he is elected by popular vote and must have held county or municipal offices prior to his election as Governor. His primary duties are to appoint county Magistrates and oversee public facilities and services. Other terms of service, powers, age restrictions and election particulars are determined by individual provinces.

Provincial Councilors

Provincial Councilors act as provincial legislative officials and belong to a body called the Provincial Council; they may be members of the Equestrian or Patrician class and are elected by popular vote in proportion to the population of individual counties within the state. The powers of the Provincial Council, numbers of councilors, age restrictions and election particulars are determined by individual provinces.

Praetor

Praetors act as the provincial judges and may be a member of the Equestrian or Patrician class; they are appointed by the Censor to a ten year term and must have held county or municipal offices prior to their appointment to Praetor. Three Praetors sit on the High Court of each province and are responsible for hearing appeals from lower courts.

Censor

The Censor acts as the eparchial representative in each province and must be a member of the Dominate class; he is appointed to a life term by the Viceroy and is subject to no age restrictions. Censors have the power to appoint Praetors and Dominate Triumviri and veto any law passed by the Provincial Council or any decree from the Governor; their decisions may be appealed to and overturned by the Viceroy.

Eparchial Offices

Viceroy

The Viceroy acts as the imperial representative in each eparchy; he must be a member of the Magnate class and is appointed by the Emperor with the approval of the Senate. The Viceroy holds the position for life and has the power overturn the decision of any Censor in his eparchy and recommend cases for the Legate Court to hear. He presides over meetings of the Provincial Councils within his eparchy and has the responsibility of appointing Legates and Censors.

Legate

Legates act as eparchial judges and must be members of the Dominate class; they are appointed by the Viceroy and serve for life. The five Legates serving on each eparchial Supreme Court are subject to no age restrictions and have the responsibility of hearing appeals from lower courts; they are not obligated to accept every case.

Dux

The Dux is the mostly honorary position held by the leader of each of the eparchial Councils of Magnates according to their own parliamentary rules. The position is held for life; each Dux is also a de facto member of the Council of Duxi, responsible for electing the Princeps Senatus, approving Quaestor appointments and determining imperial succession.

Imperial Offices

Quaestor

Seven Quaestors, or judges, are appointed by the Emperor to officiate on the Imperial Court; all seven must be chosen from among the Magnate class and are subject to no age restrictions. It is their duty to hear appeals from lower courts, though they are not obligated to hear every case; Quaestor appointments, however, must be ratified by the Papal Tribune and the Council of Duxi. Quaestors serve for life and the longest-serving member of the Imperial Court is granted the honorary rank of Quaestor Magnus; at official functions, the Quaestor Magnus carries the Hand of Justice, symbolizing the triumph of law over chaos and the subservience of human law to the divine order.

Triumvir

Three Triumviri represent each province in the Comitia Minor; of these three representatives, two must be Equestrians and one must be a Dominate. All Triumviri must be at least 25 years of age. Equestrian Triumviri are elected by a majority vote of the provincial legislature with the approval of the Viceroy while Dominate Triumviri are appointed by the Censor of each province; they occupy their office for a term of five years and may be reelected or reappointed indefinitely.

Lictor

Elected by the Dominate Triumviri of the Comitia Minor; those holding the rank of Lictor must be Dominates themselves and at least 35 years of age. In this largely ceremonial role, the Lictor presides over all meetings of the Comitia Minor and carries the Fasces of State, symbolizing imperial power, at all official functions.

Senator

Two Senators are elected by each Council of Magnates according to their own parliamentary rules. Those holding the rank of Senator must be Magnates themselves and at least 35 years of age. Senators are barred from holding any other governmental office and serve in the Comitia Major for life.

Princeps Senatus

Elected by the Council of Duxi according to their own parliamentary rules; the one holding this office must be a Magnate himself and a Dux. The Princeps Senatus is subject to no age restrictions and holds the title for life. It is his duty to preside over all meetings of the Comitia Major and to cast the deciding vote in the event of a tie. At official functions, the Princeps Senatus is granted the honor of carrying the Sword of State, representing the duty of government to protect its people.

Tribune of Subjects

Elected by a popular vote of Moral Theists over the age of 18; the one holding this office must be a Moral Theist himself and be at least 35 years of age. To attain the position, candidates for this office must gain a simple majority of votes; in the event that one of the candidates fails to achieve a majority, another election will be held between the two leading contenders. The Tribune of Subjects serves a term of five years and may be reelected indefinitely; he has the power to veto any legislation he feels is detrimental to his constituents, but this veto can be overridden by a two-thirds majority vote in the Comitia Major or by imperial proclamation.

Tribune of Plebeians

Elected by a popular vote of all Plebeians, both Proletarians and Equestrians, over the age of 18; the one holding this office must be an Equestrian himself and at least 35 years of age. To attain the position, candidates for this office must gain a simple majority of votes; in the event that one of the candidates fails to achieve a majority, another election will be held between the two leading contenders. The Tribune of Plebeians serves a term of five years and may be reelected indefinitely; he has the power to veto any legislation he feels is detrimental to his constituents, but this veto can be overridden by a four-fifths majority vote in the Comitia Major or by imperial proclamation.

Papal Tribune

The Papal Tribune is appointed by the Supreme Pontiff and holds the position for life; the one holding this office must be a Catholic clergyman holding the rank of bishop. The Papal Tribune has the power to veto any legislation that betrays the principles of Christian morality; this veto is final and may only be overturned by imperial decree.

Imperator (Emperor)

The Emperor acts as the chief executive; his succession must be ratified by the previous Emperor, the Council of Duxi, and the Papal Tribune. It is his responsibility to defend the rule of law and Christian Civilization from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Though his power to declare war, appoint certain officials, and use state monies is abrogated by the Senate or the nobility, the Emperor may overrule the decision of any court, create new Magnates and preside over all meetings of the full Senate.

The author of this also gave these additional disclaimers:

I have divided the people living in any hypothetical imperial realm into subjects and citizens, based on their religious creed. Basically anyone adhering to the seventh, eighth and ninth precepts is considered a moral theist, as are Christian groups which conform to all the other nine precepts but have less than 10 million members. Only state-recognized churches receive tax-free status; by requiring 10 million members for this I hope to force the myriad of independent Protestant churches to combine into larger organizations with a more strict emphasis on doctrinal orthodoxy. Catholics of course get preeminent status in the government. As you can see, people may lose their citizen status or office should they be found guilty of manifest public sin.

Upon their 18th birthday, young people from citizen families will be required to take an oath in which they adhere to the first nine precepts; those converting to one of the Recognized Churches can apply for citizenship and, after a period of political and spiritual instruction, will be administered the same oath. Young people from citizen families who refuse to take the oath will be demoted to heathen status, as are people who leave one of the Recognized Churches; this may be appealed only after 10 years and the testimony of credible witnesses attesting to that person's conversion.

The government operates on five levels: municipalities, counties, provinces, eparchies, and the imperial government. The day to day governance is mostly conducted at the municipal/county/province level by elected officials. The eparchies are mostly judicial units consisting of several provinces designed to provide direct imperial oversight of lower offices. This system tries to allow people to run their own affairs as much as possible with limited interference but nonetheless has safeguards to ensure that new laws passed do not conflict with Christian morality. Hence the division between citizens and subjects/nobles and commoners. You'll also notice a distinction between Proletarians and Equestrians based on wealth; I do not hate the poor, but I do recognize that people without wealth and education tend to support destructive policies, hence the reason they are banned from all but one election.

The Imperial Senate is the legislative body of the Empire and is divided into an upper house (Comitia Major) and a lower house (Comitia Minor). The latter is at least 1/3 noble at all times, limiting the power of commoners to make direct policy at the highest level of government. The Tribunes exist to ensure that the people's voice is at least heard, but they can still be overruled by the Comitia Major. Basically the Comitia Major has the powers we Americans would associate with the Senate while the Comitia Minor is comperable to the House of Representatives.

Officially the Emperor's powers are comparable to that of a US President insofar as his ablility to declare war, raise taxes, and appoint certain officials is concerned; but he is capable of exerting far more influence over the government should he have the backing of the Church or other circumstances demand it.

2008-12-09T15:54:00.000-08:00

A Monarch of Conscience

Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg recently made it known that he would refuse to sign into law a law passed by his parliament that would legalize euthanasia due to "reasons of conscience." This move may result in His Royal Highness losing some of his powers and popularity, but in the end he is doing what he must: put his Catholic faith before his throne. The Grand Duke is doing what is just and right, even if his people refuse to acknowledge it. His Royal Highness' actions are a model for all monarchs. (Read more about this event here.)

2008-11-08T00:23:00.000-08:00

Comments

I've recently had a slew of comments from an anonymous poster. I've resorted to deleting these comments from my blog and changing my settings so that all comments must be approved by me before being posted. I hate to do this, but one person can ruin it for everyone.

I don't mind opposing views being posted on my blog, but when a person insults me, bullies me, and questions my faith, I draw the line in the sand. If you disagree with me and want to say so, by all means do, but do it in an intellectual, respectful, and charitable manner. If you are incapable of this, don't bother wasting your time or mine, for your comments will be deleted!

2008-11-03T18:06:00.000-08:00

Musings On Election Eve

On this, the eve of the 2008 U.S. general election, I thought I would offer my views. What is a monarchist to do in the world's "greatest" democracy?

Americans have but two choices before them: Barack Obama or John McCain. Yes, yes, I know there are other candidates running for president, but everyone knows that only the candidates put before us by the two major political parties have any chance of winning. For Catholics we have an abortion-on-demand proponent with a "Catholic" heretic as a running mate, or a war-mongering neo-con whose "pro-life" voting history is spotty at best. So what's a Catholic to do (no less a Catholic monarchist)?

Personally I'm voting for the Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin for president. He has absolutely no chance of winning, but at least I can vote for him and maintain my self respect. He is not only 100% pro-life on abortion and other life issues, but also is against the Iraq War and same-sex marriage. But why throw my vote away and let the really pro-abortion candidate possibly win? I remind you that one can never commit an evil so that good may come from it (i.e. vote for the lesser of two evils).

Whether McCain or Obama wins tomorrow, this monarchist will go to bed in the same position he was before: in a world that values so much that he abhors.

2008-10-25T13:13:00.000-07:00

The Financial Crisis

When the $700 billion bailout package was before the U.S. Congress, I was very much opposed to its passage. My view was that banks got greedy in lending outrageous sums of money in the form of mortgages to people who couldn't afford them in the first place. The banks were dying, and should be left to die. But as time went on and I read more about the financial crisis, I think the bailout may just have been a good thing.

In keeping with the Catholic Church's teaching that usury (the charging of interest on loans) is sinful, I believe that profit should be taken out of banking. Part of the bailout involved the government buying shares in bank stocks, thus making the federal government part owners in some of our largest national banks. This I think to be a good thing. In my perfect monarchy, there would exist a state bank owned wholly by the crown. Usury would have no place in the lending of money (a small amount of interest could be charged to cover the expenses of bank employees as well as to compensate for inflation). The bailout plan is a far cry from the royal bank I dream of, but at least it will get government involvement in banking and hopefully prevent greediness to the degree we have recently seen.

2008-09-16T21:49:00.000-07:00

Evolving Views

I gave an overview of what I thought was the perfect monarchy in my post My Ideal Monarchy. I stated in the post that my views were subject to change based on age and/or wisdom, and I would like to amend part of my hypothetical monarchy.

I stated that the high council that would act as an advisory board to the king would be elected. I think it best for members of the council to be nobles, passing their seats on the council to their sons (an hereditary council).

Now I would like to speak on a rather more important matter, at least in my view. I stated that the monarchy would be a Catholic monarchy, and that I hold to. But what I no longer believe is that the king and members of the royal family must marry Catholics or face being stripped of their royal prerogatives. As long as the king or any other member of the royal family maintain his Catholic identity and raise all children from a mixed marriage as Catholic, no punitive measures should be taken. If the Holy Catholic Church does not forbid mixed marriages, who am I (or in this case who is the hypothetical monarchy) to forbid what the Church permits?

My views on marriage have changed because I fell in love with a non-Catholic girl. I cannot imagine my life without her, and if I were king and faced with the choice of the crown and her I would gladly pick her. Some things are more important than the crown, in this case love. Edward VIII of England knew that, and now so do I.

2008-07-14T13:11:00.000-07:00

SP One Year Later

Last Monday, July 7th marked the on-year anniversary of the Holy Father's Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. With that in mind, I thought I'd make a long over due post on some liturgical experiences I've had recently.

After a late afternoon school function a few weeks ago I was looking for a place to get my daily prayers said. I was on a bit of a deadline (I had a date with my girlfriend), so I couldn't leisurely take my time. I went to the chapel in the priests' residence at my Alma mater but couldn't get all my prayers said due to a funeral. The near-by church was locked, so I went to the student chapel on campus. What I found disturbed me. People were in the chapel talking and visiting very loudly--which immensely annoyed me due to the fact that we were in the presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament--a band complete with guitars and drums, and an overhead projector and screen with the "hymns" displayed so people could sing along, which they did complete with upraised arms and swinging bodies. But I made do because it was the only place I had to pray. So I proceeded to pray my breviary, which wasn't particularly easy in my surroundings. In the middle of my praying of Vespers a priest in the Roman collar and jeans walked up to me and asked "Who's this guy praying up a storm?" I introduced myself and said I was just looking for a place to pray. He responded that I had found the right place. He informed me when I asked what was going on that the monthly "charismatic Mass and fellowship" was going on. When I found out who he was (he was known to me as the charismatic renewal priest of the diocese who happens to reside in the next-diocese-over--the same next-diocese-over where I attend an FSSP chapel), I informed him that I attend the FSSP chapel. His demeanor changed when he found that out, but it's a bit hard to describe in words just how. He didn't treat me like a second class citizen as some Novus Ordo priests would but rather treated me in a more formal manner, like the fact that I was a Traditionalist demanded a greater sense of formality than the others present. He invited me to stay if I wished, but said that I "might be a bit frazzled" (i.e. by the way Mass would be celebrated). I thanked him, and went back to my prayers. He proceeded to great others present, complete with large hugs. It goes without saying that I did not stay.

The other weekend I was out of town and wasn't able to get to the near-by Latin Mass for personal reasons, so I had to go to the local NO Mass. I knew I would be in for a show, but prayed I could just concentrate on the sacrificial nature of the Mass, not the liturgical shenanigans I would shortly view. We were greeted by the band (which just happened to stand next to the raised sanctuary in a particularly ugly church--nothing particularly Catholic about it), and were asked to say good morning to those around us. I stood rigidly and tried to ignore those around me until I was forced to acknowledge them by outstretched hands. The Mass itself was uninspiring with an altar girl, a "feel good" sermon that lacked anything touching real spirituality, numerous lay extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, and a very annoying old woman who went to the tabernacle (which happened to be stuck in an alcove at the backside of the church) both before and during the Mass with no genuflections, just a slight head bow. When asked how Mass was I said "My mother taught me that if I didn't have anything nice to say, not to say anything at all." I broke that admonition, and told all about my experience. I told the story of a parishioner at my chapel who's mother at one point had to work Sunday mornings and was not able to attend the TLM. She thus had to attend an NO Mass and said that she felt like she needed to go to confession after Mass because it made her so angry to see all the liturgical abuses. I felt much the same after my NO experience.

With these experiences in mind, might the Church need the TLM to mitigate all the liturgical chaos that happens nowadays? Just yesterday I was not able to attend my chapel for Mass due to personal reasons, but instead went to a much under-advertised TLM offered in an NO parish in my domiciled diocese. My diocese has for years been led by a bishop who resolutely refused permission for the indult Mass. It was so refreshing to have recourse to a beautifully celebrated TLM in the liturgical desert that is my home diocese, complete with cassock-wearing priest and transitional deacons! A portent of change perhaps?

One year later after SP much has been done, yet much has still to be done. Pray for our Holy Father Benedict XVI and for the success of Summorum Pontificum!

2008-05-25T21:38:00.000-07:00

On Being a Monarchist

I thought I would post an entry on being a monarchist, or rather on letting others know that I am a monarchist. Monarchists are such a rare breed here in America and hearing the experiences of another would perhaps have helped me admit to myself that I was a monarchist, that it was okay to think the way I did and that I didn't have to fear others' reactions.

When I first felt my faith in this Republic failing and my interest in monarchy as a more viable form of government, I was still in the military. I was deathly afraid to let anyone know lest I be persecuted by my fellow soldiers at the least, and at the worst be discharged (in retrospect my fears at the worst were rather unfounded but nonetheless truly felt). I let a few select friends and classmates know of my monarchist leanings, and of course found the blogosphere as an outlet for my beliefs. As time passed--and I was eventually discharged from the military due to a line-of-duty injury I incurred during a drill weekend--I began to let more people know of my beliefs.

As more time passed, I found that no one thought I was a freak, a lunatic, or crazy. In fact, to this day when I tell people that I am a monarchist the most common response is "What's that?" Most Americans simply don't know anything about monarchy as a working form of government. I explain my exact beliefs. They think it's unusual, different, interesting, even eccentric (but I must admit I can be rather eccentric at times), but no one has taken offense at my beliefs. Even with this blog (with the exception of a few uncharitable--and down-right jerk lunatics) I have not come across anyone who intellectually disagrees with me that does not respect my beliefs--they may disagree with my views, but they respect me for taking the time and effort to express those beliefs.

I don't know if any other monarchists here in America or any where else that monarchy is treated in a less-than-enthusiastic manner have experienced the same fears of expressing monarchist beliefs, but if so take courage. Letting the world know you are a monarchist isn't nearly as hard as it may seem (but I do advise you to be prudent in what you say and to whom you say it lest it hurt your current or future employment options). Don't be afraid to be yourself. If monarchy is to see a resurgence in this world, monarchists like you and I must be willing to let the world know that we are out there!

2008-05-03T21:03:00.000-07:00

Monarchy and Modern Europe

A reader recently suggested that I write a post on the prospects of a European-wide monarchy. I can't say that I see the prospects of one either likely or a positive thing for Europe.

Whether we monarchists like it or not (and this monarchist definitely does not like it!) Europe exists under the bureaucracy of the European Union, that democratic behemoth that seeks to spread it's flag over ever increasing territories. I don't see the prospects of the current ruling monarchies of Europe as rosy under the EU as it is: any monarchy that is a member nation of the EU will likely see further stripping of monarchical powers, more so than is already present. Under such conditions, how would one monarchy hope to gain power (real or otherwise) over the entire continent?

If a continental-wide monarchy were to exist, either the present monarchies would either have to be abolished or would see much of their already limited powers passed on to the European monarch. In addition, in those countries where the monarchy enjoys a modicum of popularity (such as the United Kingdom), the people would have to either give up their monarch or see him become even more of a figurehead than he already is. Can you imagine the British giving up their Queen for some continental monarch? I certainly cannot.

Many Catholic monarchists want to see the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire, stretching its fingers of power across the entire European continent. I must remind my readers that I am not an Austrian monarchist, but a German monarchist. I advocate the restoration of the German Empire (the Kaiserreich), not the HRE. While I would certainly like to see the restoration of the Austrian Empire in some form, I would not want this to include Germany proper. I, along with many German monarchists, would not want to see the Fatherland once again under the finger of an Austrian. The Hohenzollerns fought too hard in the past to thrust off the heavy hand of Austrian dominance to accept it once again.

In summary, while I certainly advocate the return of monarchy as the dominant form of government in Europe, I would not want such a return to include a European-wide monarchy. Let us monarchists set our goals along more small and reasonable lines.

2008-04-15T13:26:00.000-07:00

Welcome Your Holiness!

The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI started his visit to the United States today. It makes this Catholic feel a great deal of pride and security knowing that the Supreme Pontiff walks upon the same soil as I do. I hope his visit is a safe one and spiritually edifying for his flock.

Even before his arrival a few minutes ago (at the time of this writing), the protesters came out of the woodwork. I've read the articles and seen the news reports of those protesting the Holy Father's arrival for one reason (or should I say agenda?) or another. Some protest because of the pedophile scandal that has plagued the Church. Others protest over doctrinal issues--some "ninja nun" (as my chaplain would say) was bitching about the Church's doctrine on male only priesthood. Some protest because they don't have any thing better to do. But to you, my readers (especially my Catholic readers), I encourage you to look beyond the protesters, shut your ears to the inane political commentary proffered by the news anchors, and listen to the words of the Vicar of Christ. When Peter speaks, we listen.

2008-03-30T18:54:00.000-07:00

Religion and Politics in the United Kingdom

There is a proposal before the British Parliament to abolish the Act of Settlement of 1701 that prevents any Catholic from ascending the throne or marrying a Catholic (read the article here). The topic of the Act of Settlement comes up often in monarchist circles, especially in those with a large number of Catholics.

At face value the Act of Settlement is an anti-Catholic law that restricts the rights of individuals who are in the line of royal succession to either convert to the one true Faith or from marrying a member of the one true Faith. It is a law based in political realities that are not now extant (i.e. the very influential nature of the Church in the political world), and at face vale seems rather bigoted and antiquated. It is, however, not that clear cut.

As I stated in my post on my ideal monarchy, my idea of a Catholic monarchy would be Catholic only, i.e. only Catholics would be able to ascend the throne, and no monarch or heir to the throne would be able to marry a non-Catholic. But I go even further than that. I make the stipulation that any member of the royal family who leaves the Catholic Church or marries a non-Catholic would be stripped of all royal titles and privileges. This is, admittedly, a biased piece of "law" against all non-Catholics. My reasoning for this is that I want a Catholic monarchy in perpetuity, not a monarchy that could lose it's Catholic identity due to the heretical influences of a non-Catholic monarch or non-Catholic in-law within the royal family. So while I do not agree with the anti-Catholic restrictions in the Act of Settlement, I certainly understand why those restrictions are there. The British monarchy is--unfortunately--a Protestant one, and it is entirely understandable that the powers that be within Britain want to keep it that way.

It is uncertain whether or not this proposal will go anywhere in Parliament. If I remember correctly, a similar proposal was before Parliament a few years ago and failed. There are also varying political implications with the abolition of the Act of Settlement (as described in the aforementioned article) that may complicate its repeal. Regardless of what happens the reality remains thus: if any heir to the British Crown sincerely wants to convert to Catholicism or marry a Catholic, he must make the decision whether his faith or lover means more to him than his crown. If such were or ever becomes the case in the British royal family, I hope that that member would choose his faith over his crown.

2008-02-11T21:55:00.000-08:00

Election 2008

The clock ticks ever closer to the Presidential Election of 2008. The candidates have debated, they have slung accusations and claims at one another (both within and without the respective parties), millions of dollars have been spent, and many have already thrown in the towel and called it quits. So where do I stand, you ask? Some think that a monarchist would have no interest in a democratic election. Others think that, while I may have an interest, I would not take part in a process of government in which I have no belief. So, here's what I've got to say.

First of all, for a country that values democracy so much, we have a very undemocratic way of electing our presidents. I'm not talking about the Electoral College (although that too is a very undemocratic body, as the members of the College are allowed to ignore the will of their constituencies and vote as they please), but I'm talking about the primary process. Firstly, let's face it: only the rich can run for office. In order to get your party's nomination, you have to run a very aggressive campaign filled with television, radio, and print advertisements. You have to have money to travel to the fifty states to give speeches. Secondly, the media to a great degree determines which candidates are the front runners. If the media doesn't think a candidate has a chance, they simply don't cover that candidate in their coverage, or even worse dissallow that candidate from televised debates. Do you know that Alan Keyes is running under the Republican ticket? I didn't until quite recently--he's never talked about on the news and as been forbidden from the big debates on TV. Then factor in the fact that each state has different caucus/primary schedules. The result is that people in those states with later caucuses/primaries don't have the chance to vote for several candidates simply becuase by the time they get to vote said candidates have already dropped out. To some it up, if we truly believe in democracy and egalitarianism in this country, then why don't we have a truly democratic and egalitarian way of electing our leaders?

Now on to my own views regarding the candidates. I won't vote for any Democrat, since each and every one is a hands-down supporter of abortion. But the Republicans aren't much better. The Republican candidates are either pro-abortion to one degree or another, or claim to be pro-life but say that they woud "leave it up to the states" to decide if Roe v. Wade would be the law in their respective states. That's neo-con code for "I'll do nothing to stop abortion." Abortion is the worst, most terrible crime ever known to man. I don't care if Roe v. Wade is overturned by illegal or unconstitutional means. Heck, I don't even care if it's overturned by a military coup (as long as said coup is bloodless), I just want innocent babies to live! I'll have nothing to do with any candidate who supports it under any circumstance, and you know what? No self respecting Catholic should either. I will not choose the "lesser of two evils" by choosing a candidate who "would do less damage to the pro-life cause" than the opponent. We as Catholics can never do evil so that good may come from it. Since it's evil to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, I will not vote for the one who I think will do the least damage to unborn babies. I'd rather stay home with my conscious intact.

So in conclusion, if I had to make my decision now (which, by the way, Washington state doesn't vote until the 19th of this month), I'd have to say that I will vote, in the words of Richard Pryor's candidate in the movie Brewster's Millions, for "None of the Above!"

2007-12-28T15:47:00.000-08:00

The End of an Era

The Nepalese Parliament has voted to abolish the Nepalese monarchy in an effort to appease the demands of Maoist forces within Nepal (see the article here). It's so terribly discouraging that a nation with a monarchy would bow down to the demands of godless Communists in abolishing a monarchy that has existed since 1769. When I first learned of this story, I felt absolutely discouraged as a monarchist. But I must persevere, as we all must. We can never see the return of monarchy as the standard form of government the world over if we give in to set-backs like this one. We must all fight a good fight, we must finish our course, we must keep the faith (cf. 2 Timothy 4:7).

2007-12-23T17:48:00.000-08:00

Christmas in Merry Olde America

I have been thinking a lot lately about the assaults against Christmas present here in America, although these same assaults are also present to one extent or another in most "Christian" countries.

What exactly is Christmas? It is the day the Christian world celebrates the Virgin Birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity; God Himself came down from heaven and became a man to save us men. So how do we Christians celebrate this holy and venerable day? By forgetting every reason we started celebrating this day in the first place.

Christmas has become a day of scandalous consumerism. The day we celebrate our Lord's birth has become a day for our capitalist societies to figuratively rape our economies--with, I might add, our complete and express permission. Giving gifts in honor of God's greatest gift to mankind is a noble and honorable act, but this practice has reached such extremes that for children--those usually best able to love and have faith in a God we cannot see--think of Christmas in terms entirely dependent upon their gift reception; Christmas is all about "gimme, gimme, gimme." In order to give, millions of people spend exorbitant amounts--often going in debt to do so--to obtain these gifts.

Then there is Santa Claus. Our present day picture of Santa Claus was invented in the 19th century by the American political cartoonist Thomas Nast. Some of our present legends of Santa are in fact loosely based upon the real St. Nicholas, Bishop and Confessor of the Church (died 343), but the real St. Nicholas never flew a sleigh led by flying reindeer through the sky delivering presents to good little boys and girls. What we have is the perversion of the memory of a venerable saint into a way for our consumerist society to make a buck.

My family thinks I'm a horrible person by planning on raising my future children (God willing) without a belief in Santa Claus. My theory is that firstly, Santa is a lie. Within Catholic moral theology, a lie, no matter for what the reason, is always objectively sinful. It's not a very good way to raise children under the pretense of a lie and expect them (once they learn of this lie, as all children do given time and age) to refrain from telling lies themselves. Secondly, as I stated earlier, children far too often think of Christmas simply within terms of getting presents. The belief in a supernatural/mythical figure who gives them presents on Christmas perpetuates this gift-centered view of Christmas. It is my opinion that in order for children to have a proper view of the seriousness and holiness of the day, they must be raised without the burdensome and objectively false belief in Santa.

Christmas is not a day to give gifts, it is not a day for families, it is not a day to experience a break from our work or studies. It is a day to commemorate the birth of our Lord. While Christmas experiences many assaults in our modern day, the holiness and spiritual reality of the day cannot be drowned out. Let us hold fast to the real meaning of Christmas: the day that the God who "...so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in Him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting" sent His Son into the world. May the peace of the Christ Child be with you and yours this Christmastide.

2007-12-20T16:45:00.000-08:00

Dying Spain

I was watching DW-TV the other night (DW-TV is a German international news channel) and saw a report on the dwindling birth rate of modern Spaniards. While Spain is certainly not alone in Europe when it comes to low birth rates, the situation in Spain is especially severe. The government plans on giving couples €2,500 for each child born. What exactly brought about the situation whereby the Spanish government has to effectively bribe couples to have children?

The problem lies within modern Spanish culture (this problem is not just present in Spanish culture, but European culture at large). Spain is aborting and contracepting itself into oblivion. Spanish couples are choosing to ignore one of the two characteristics of marriage: procreation (the other being an institution designed to help each spouse help the other spouse get to heaven). One couple interviewed in the DW report especially caught my attention. This couple had no children, despite being visibly in their late forties (at the very least). The wife talked all about how expensive children are, but also pointed out the fact that children make it very hard to do what one wants to do in life--in other words children put a damper on one's social life. The husband said that he found children to be an unbearable burden and saw absolutely no reason to ever have children. I found myself thinking: "Hey buddy, you were a child once too. Good thing your parents didn't think that you were an 'unbearable burden.' "

The problem is this: married couples in Spain, Europe at large, America, and pretty much everywhere in the "Christian" world are selfish--they care for nothing but their own narcissistic interests. They do not realize that children are a blessing from God, not a curse to be avoided. All children should be loved, cared for, and cherished. If you are not willing to have children, then don't get married and pervert the nature of marriage.

I don't have children of my own, but I look forward to the day (God willing) when I find a wife of my own and start a (large!) family. I realize how important children are to the world: without children, the human race will die out.

2007-12-14T16:41:00.000-08:00

Baseball's Tarnished Image

With finals over I now have a little free time on my hands (well, perhaps more than a little), and I thought it was high time I made a post. This time I'd like to write (briefly) on a subject matter I've never covered before: baseball.

The Mitchell Report on the use of anabolic steroids and human growth hormones in Major League Baseball was released on December 13, 2007. The report names 89 Major League players alleged to have used performance enhancing drugs to improve their baseball skills. Among such players are Barry Bonds (surprised?), Roger Clemens, Miguel Tejada, and Jason Giambi (who has admitted to using steroids). The report, which is over 400 pages long, casts a dark shadow on the integrity of the great and noble sport of baseball.

It is my opinion that those players who are found to have used any performance enhancing drugs at any time during their careers should have their official records stricken, and all awards and honors stripped. If one cheats to achieve his greatness, he really isn't great at all.

2007-11-05T15:28:00.000-08:00

Pakistan in Crisis

On November 3, President Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in his country. He arrested Pakistan's Supreme Court judges and suspended Pakistan's constitution. A very brief synopsis of the events which led to this action are in order.

Musharraf was re-elected in Pakistan's presidential election in October. As he was running for president he was also the acting head of Pakistan's military. The Pakistani Supreme Court declared that it would decide if Musharraf was constitutionally able to run for president due to his position as head of the Pakistani military, opening up the possibility for another election in January of next year.

When one puts aside the various reasons Musharraf gave for suspending the constitution and for declaring a state of emergency (the full text of his speech can be found here), one has to admire Musharraf's efforts at power-grabbing; he saw a threat to his power and sought to eliminate that threat. The Machiavellian in me is screaming with pride for this man, but what really bothers me is the international reaction to Musharraf's actions, especially America's reaction.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice responded to the events in Pakistan as follows: "The U.S. has made very clear that it does not support extra-constitutional measures as they would take Pakistan away from the path of democracy and civilian rule." White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe stated that: "President Musharraf needs to stand by his pledges to have free and fair elections in January and step down as chief of army staff before retaking the presidential oath of office" (original quotes can be found here).

Who is the United States to dictate to other nations what it's leaders can and cannot do? Who gave us the authority to dictate to other nations that they must adopt democratic forms of government? Daveed Gartenstein-Ross of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies stated today on MSNBC's political-news program Tucker that it is better for the U.S. to have pro-Western leaders through non-democratic processes than anti-Western leaders through democratic processes. I think this statement is very telling: those within political circles and intelligentsia in America, the very proponents of the unending value of American style freedom and democracy, don't really care about democracy; these same leaders only care about having pro-American leaders controlling world governments. It isn't about democracy people, it's about having a world that bows down to the whims of the United States. A friend of mine said the other day that "America's dream is the world's nightmare." I think she was right.

2007-10-23T16:09:00.001-07:00

Our Beloved Kaiser

I found this video of the Kaiser the other day while searching on YouTube. What is remarkable about this video is that he is speaking in English, and the audio quality is so great (apparently this clip came from an interview during his exile sometime after the Great War). I once heard a very poor quality audio clip of the Kaiser speaking German, but it was very hard to understand. This clip makes his seem a little more real to me. I hope that you enjoy it as much as I did.

2007-09-29T13:18:00.000-07:00

The Poor Old Ostrich

I was perusing YouTube the other night and came across this video from Blackadder. I remember my Modern Britain professor showing us this episode during class (he was a big Blackadder fan). I thought I would embed this video here; it's funny, yes, but it also has a glimmer of truth in it. The point Blackadder (Rowan Atkinson) makes about British and German imperialism is quite true. I wonder how many Britons actually had these thoughts back then.

2007-09-22T15:11:00.000-07:00

Patriotism In Germany

The above picture portrays the stereotypical German woman patriotically singing the German national anthem at a World Cup competition. What is different with this picture than in any other nation where its people express their love for their country? The fact that many Germans feel somehow dirty showing their love of their country. This becomes especially true when singing the national anthem, Das Deutschlandlied.

Das Deutschlandlied, or the Germany Song, was written by August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben in 1841 and put to the tune of the Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser by Josef Hayden. Das Deutschlandlied became popular during the Imperial period in Germany, especially during the First World War; it was often sung by soldiers marching off to war. The opening lines Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, über alles in der Welt (Germany, Germany above all, above all in the world) has often been misinterpreted by non-Germans, and even by some Germans themselves. This is exacerbated by the Nazi Party's past use of Das Deutschlandlied. Even when the Nazis used the song, the Germans did not mean that Germany was above everything else in the world, but that the Germans placed their nation above other concerns, such as regional identification (i.e. Bavarians, Prussians, etc.).

While one can certainly understand why modern Germans are hesitant to sing their national anthem (which, by the way, consists of only the third stanza of Das Deutschlandlied), it is time for the Germans to start taking pride in their heritage, time for the Germans to be proud of what they have accomplished since their Nazi past (even though they have not yet restored the monarchy). Time to let those immortal words ring loud and clear. (Below I have embedded a video I found on YouTube of the anthem being sung against images from Germany).

(Note: This post has been renamed from its original title of "Nationalism in Germany" to better reflect my intent.)

2007-08-31T16:45:00.000-07:00

Ten Years Later

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the death of Diana Spencer, the ex-Princess of Wales. When she died I was only 16 and not a monarchist. I do however remember thinking that people were overreacting to her death. When Mother Teresa of Calcutta died shortly thereafter, I was deeply angered how her death was overshadowed by Diana; when people did happen to talk about Mother Teresa, they would compare her to Diana. An ex-princess and adulteress is comparable to a living saint?

Now ten years later and a monarchist, my views of Diana have not changed much. The British people, and indeed the whole world, entered into a kind of mass hysteria at her death. She was supposedly the "people's princess," yet more than any other member of the British royal family--to steal a line from the movie The Queen--seemed bent on destroying what the royal family had; that family gave everything to her and she threw it back in their faces. Diana was always an awkward Princess of Wales; she never knew how to function properly within a thousand-yer-old institution. Would Charles have been better off had he never married Diana? I personally think so.

Diana Spencer was a human being, and her death a tragedy. But she was also not a good Princess of Wales, always seeking the spotlight, always drawing attention away from her Sovereign and mother-in-law the Queen. The royal wedding may have been a fairy tale come true, but the marriage was not. Ten years later it's time to let the dead rest, and leave the past in the past.

2007-08-03T16:43:00.000-07:00

Ich Habe Es Nicht Gewollt

This month marks the 93rd anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War. The Great War, as some still call it, was one of unparalleled destruction and led to great changes in the political sphere in Europe as it was known. The borders of countries were re-drawn, monarchs were deposed, and republicanism was figuratively shoved down the throats of millions of citizens.

One of the great lies of the Great War was that it was conjured up by an aggressive Germany with its warmongering and blood-thirsty monarch Kaiser Wilhelm II. While a complex and thorough analysis of the causes of the war is not possible within this medium, suffice it to say that the European community had known for decades before 1914 that war was coming, some thinking it was inevitable; it was only a matter of where and when war would break out. Despite this mentality, the Kaiser was the only leader who sought to keep the peace after Serbia met Austria-Hungary's demands, and once war did break out was the only leader seriously committed to bringing about a peaceful solution.

There is a maxim: history is written by the victors. Great Britain and the United States won the First World War and thus got to write the history of the war. Certain inconvenient truths were left out of popular renderings of the war, especially about the Kaiser. And so I end with the caption of the beautiful painting of the Kaiser posted above: Ich habe es nicht gewollt--I did not want this.

2007-07-21T15:30:00.000-07:00

"It's Good to be the Pope"

Mel Brook's portrayal of King Louis XVI in the movie History of the World, Part I frequently commented "It's good to be the king." So, can His Holiness apply this line to himself: "It's good to be the Pope?" My contention is that it is not "good to be the Pope;" the Holy Father is surrounded by enemies, both within and without the Church.

It is now two weeks removed from the publication of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum granting larger use of the Traditional Latin Mass according to the 1962 Missal of Blessed Pope John XXIII. The response has been mixed. Traditionalists like myself are enthusiastically grateful, and the SSPX is hopeful. The response of the world's bishops has been mixed. Some state that they will set the standards for the use of the Traditional Latin Mass (henceforth TLM) by making sure their priests are "sufficiently well versed" in the Latin language before they can say the TLM--I must point out that all priests are required by Canon Law to be sufficiently well versed in Latin anyway, but that our bishops have failed in their duties to enforce the study of Latin in their seminaries.

Then there was this response from Bishop Luca Brandolini of Sora-Aquino-Pontecorvo: "I can't fight back the tears. This is the saddest moment in my life as a man, priest and bishop. It's a day of mourning, not just for me but for the many people who worked for the Second Vatican Council. A reform for which many people worked, with great sacrifice and only inspired by the desire to renew the Church, has now been cancelled." I can't seem to understand this opposition to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as it was celebrated for centuries. Priests can now say Mass in a different form, a form that was common for centuries. When Paul VI issued liturgical reforms in the 1970s, he did not invalidate the TLM. Mass is Mass, and when said validly by a validly ordained priest, the second Person of the Holy Trinity makes Himself physically present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the bread and wine; they cease to be bread and wine and become Jesus Christ Himself. Why would a priest re-creating the sacrifice on Calvary be cause for a bishop to "fight back the tears?" He is afraid that the Second Vatican Council has been cancelled by the actions of Benedict. Why I ask? I think the good bishop may be a victim of a mentality all too common in the post Vatican II era: living under the notion that one can forget almost 2000 years of Church history and operate under the idea that nothing that really mattered happened before Vatican II. For many within the Church Vatican II has become a sort of an idol. Not to say that this setting up of idols does not exist within traditionalist circles, but this Vatican II "worship" seems to be a major source of confusion and strife within the Church today.

Catholics like Bishop Brandolini weren't the only ones displeased with Summorum Pontificum; certain Jewish groups were also "disturbed." The Anti-Defamation League views the Holy Father's actions granting larger use of the TLM--specifically including the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews--as "a theological setback in the religious life of Catholics and a body blow to Catholic-Jewish relations, after 40 years of progress between the Church and the Jewish people." This is the text of the Good Friday prayer for the Jews according the the Missal of John XXIII:

Let us pray also for the Jews: that our God and Lord may remove the veil from their hearts; that they also may acknowledge Our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us pray. Almighty and Eternal God, Who dost not exclude from Thy mercy even the Jews: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of Thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same Lord Jesus Christ, Who livest and reignest with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, through all endless ages. Amen.

John XXIII in his Missal removed the Latin word perfidis (meaning faithless) in reference to the Jews. Now it seems that the ADL is offended that Catholics are praying for their conversion, that their "blindness" would be removed. It is the perennial teaching of the Church that God wills the salvation of all men. It is our duty as Catholics to pray for the conversion of all men, and so we do in the TLM Good Friday prayers, not only for the Jews but for schismatics, heretics, and pagans.

The Holy Father faces opposition to his beneficent actions regarding the TLM both within and without the Church. His enemies seem to surround him. Let me once again invoke prayers for our good Pope:

Orémus pro beatíssimo Papa nostro Benedicto. Dóminus consérvet eum, et vivíficet eum, et beátum fáciat eum in terra, et non tradat eum in ánimam inimicórum ejus.--Let us pray for our most blessed Pope Benedict. The Lord preserve him and keep him alive, that he may be blessed upon earth ; and deliver not thou him into the will of his enemies.

2007-07-08T22:11:00.000-07:00

Summorum Pontificum

The Holy Father published the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum given Motu Proprio yesterday. This Apostolic Letter gives priests of the Latin Rite the permission to say the Traditional Latin Mass according to the Missal published by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962 without needing permission from their local bishop. It also lays down generous stipulations for the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass with the lay faithful who request it (the official Latin edition is available here; the unofficial English translation is available from Rorate Caeli here).

I have refrained from commenting on this matter; stories of the Letter's publishing have been circulating in the media and on the Internet for over a year. Now that it has been officially published, I wanted to comment on it. While I am not qualified to interpret the content of the Letter in depth, I do want to express my gratitude to the Holy Father for his faithful and generous care of his Traditional flock. I do predict that this will be a great boon to the Traditional cause. I have had my doubts about Benedict's papacy so far, but he has come through for Traditionalists with this Letter. Obviously he knows what he is doing.

2007-07-03T20:46:00.000-07:00

The Fourth of July

As a monarchist I always feel conflicted on the Fourth of July, the day we Americans celebrate our independence from Great Britain. I feel conflicted because I do not believe we--I say we as if I had any say in the matter--should ever have declared independence from Britain. The colonists didn't have it so bad, and besides, the war of Rebellion (also known as the Revolutionary War) was not then nor could be now justified under the Catholic just war doctrine.

With that said, the 4th is a popular holiday here in America. It's a time for friends and family, barbecues, and fireworks. Who doesn't like these things? So I usually find myself partaking in certain parts of the holiday while maintaining a spirit of disapproval of why we are celebrating. So if you're an American monarchist and you find yourself in a Fourth of July celebration, make a toast to King George III and his successor Elizabeth II--our ancestors never knew they had it so good.

2007-06-13T20:42:00.000-07:00

The Novus Ordo Mentality

The father of a long time friend died late last month, and I attended his "memorial" service shortly thereafter. My friend's father was Catholic, and so naturally his service was a Catholic one. It wasn't a Mass, but I thought I knew what I was going to experience due to my previous experiences at Novus Ordo Masses (for new readers, I converted to Catholicism 11 years ago in a Novus Ordo parish and made the move 4 years ago to an indult Latin Mass community). It turns out I wasn't prepared for what I was about to experience.

When I showed up at the small church, I remarked just how loud it was. Everyone was sitting in the pews visiting loudly--and by loudly I mean very loudly. It reminded me of the noise level in a school gymnasium before an assembly or basketball game. Churches are a place of prayer and worship, not socialization. I was so struck by people's lack of respect for the house of God, and for God Himself present in the tabernacle.

As I went to my pew, I genuflected, made the sign of the cross, and knelt in prayer. I observed no other person doing the same. Here we were at the memorial service of a dead man, and no one prayed privately for the repose of his soul.

The service was full of the cliched Novus Ordo "hymns" such as "Be Not Afraid," "We Will Run and not Grow Weary," and the classic funeral song "On Eagle's Wings." No Gregorian chant, in fact no Latin at all. The priest's vestments were white--no black at this service. The prayers were such that it seemed as if it was beyond doubt that this dead man was indeed in Heaven--I thought only the Pope could canonize people?

Then I was thrown a curveball--instead of the priest giving the sermon, a nun (of course without habit, or anything at all indicating she was indeed a nun) got up and gave the sermon. It was at this point that I got up to leave, but I must admit my motives were not entirely based on my disgust at a nun giving a sermon--I really had to use the restroom.

The service ended eventually--short for a Catholic ceremony but not short enough for this Traditionalist. As the attendees left the church, again no one genuflected as he left. I think I was also the only one to bless himself with holy water on his way out.

The service was so poor, so lacking in reverance, so liturgically abusive (the nun giving the sermon) that instead of thinking about my good friend's dead father, all I could think about was the service getting over. When the Church's ceremonies fail to lift up the heart's of the faithful, to give them a glimpse of Heaven, it is time to re-evaluate those same ceremonies--long past time.

2007-05-23T13:23:00.000-07:00

The Gideons

The Gideons were on my school campus the other day passing out Bibles. I have to admit that I've always admired the Gideons, even though they are Protestants. They have touched the lives of countless people by passing out free copies of the New Testament/Psalms/Proverbs to strangers. Go to any hotel room or hospital room and you'll likely find a Gideon Bible. Even in Catholic hospitals the Bibles in each room are most likely from the Gideons. They have such a remarkable presence. It got me thinking that it is too bad there are no Catholic fraternal organizations that do the kind of work the Gideons do. If there are, these Catholic fraternal organizations certainly do not have the presence that the Gideons have. It's unfortunate, but sometimes Protestants are better Catholics than we Catholics. As far as spreading the "Good News," the Gideons have done a better job recently than we have.

2007-05-14T17:43:00.000-07:00

Her Majesty the Queen

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the United States is over, and I find myself compelled to write a post on her. I would like to focus on Her Majesty herself, not her visit in particular.

Regular readers of my blog know that I have a very schizophrenic relationship with the British. Sometimes I love them, other times I hate them. I admire their history and cultural traditions, and greatly respect their monarchy, but I cannot help but despise them for their anti-Catholic and anti-German history. I suppose I am very much like Kaiser Wilhelm II in my relationship with the British: I'm partially British myself (like the Kaiser), I look-up to them, but grow so angry at them for their arrogance in world affairs throughout history.

With that being said, I find myself in love with the Queen more than ever. She was covered very favorably in the American press during her visit, and I found myself wishing I was among the many in the crowds who flocked to catch a ten second glimpse of her. I was jealous of President Bush, a man who--I can only assume--cares nothing for monarchy or monarchs, because of the time he got to spend with the Queen.

Even though it came out a couple of weeks ago, I bought a copy of The Queen on Friday. I have written about this movie before, but after having watched it again I find my respect and admiration for Her Majesty to have increased. What is it about this 81-year-old woman that I find so irresistible?

The Queen is dignified, graceful, poised, dutiful. She is the physical embodiment of all that is Britain; the Queen is Britannia and Britannia is the Queen. The British people have someone to look-up to, someone who transcends party politics. We Americans have nothing like that. I hope my British readers realize just how fortunate they are.

Despite 200 plus years of separation from England, the conduct of Americans during Her Majesty's recent visit prove that we are still fascinated by royalty. I think that says something about Her Majesty's power, and indeed the power of a monarchy in general.

Again I ask the question: What is it about this 81-year-old woman that I find so irresistible? I'd like to offer a quote from the movie The Queen: "At the end of the day, Labour ministers always go gaga over the queen." Although I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Labour Party, I am guilty as charged. God save the Queen!

2007-04-27T14:10:00.000-07:00

My Ideal Monarchy

OK, I know that some of my readers have remarked on the fact that I have not updated in a while, and others are patiently awaiting the next. After a hiatus of over a year I returned to school earlier this month, so anyone who has been to college knows that sometimes we college students just don't have a lot of free time (in my case it's a mix of lack of free time and procrastination). So, here we go.

I have been asked both directly and indirectly what type of monarchy I would like to see, so I thought that I would write on my ideal type of monarchy. My ideal monarchy is a hypothetical one, never before having existed exactly like my ideal but borrowing aspects from pre-existing monarchies. Note: as I am still quite a young monarchist and my views are still evolving, some of the particulars of my views are subject to change based on wisdom and/or age.

My ideal monarchy would mix a constitutional monarchy and an absolutist monarchy. The kingdom would have a constitution declaring the form of government, the rules for succession, standards for holding the office of king, and some general laws that cannot be changed.

Let's start with the form of government. The government would consist of the king and a high council, along with a system of courts made up of judges appointed by the king. The king would have nearly absolute legislative, executive, and judicial powers. The only limits on his power would be the power to declare war (he would need the approval of the high council--some sort of majority would suffice, such as a 2/3 majority approval--as well as approval from the Church as to the war's morality under the Catholic Just War doctrine) and the inability to change or violate a law set forth in the constitution. He would also have the power to override any ruling made by one of his judges (think of the king as the Supreme Court). The judges would be in place to see the king's justice served, and the king would be the ultimate arbiter of justice within his realm.

The government would also have a high council. This council would be made up of a small number of Catholic men only (some symbolic number such as seven or twelve comes to mind--I personally think seven better for the smaller number). This council would primarily act as an advisory council to the king, giving him advice on all maters pertaining to the government. The men on this council would be appointed for life by the king. Each member of the council would be given the noble title of Lord (so as to distinguish them from inherited titles such as duke and count). Each lord would serve for life or until he wishes to retire. The king would "inherit" the lords of his predecessor; he would not have the power to dismiss any lord on the council but would have the power to appoint new lords once an opening becomes available. The council would have the power to approve a declaration of war (as stated above with something like a 2/3 majority). The council would also have the power to veto any law made by the king which was declared by competent Church authorities to be immoral, or violating the rights and freedoms of the Church.

Now let's move on to the rules for succession. The monarchy would be an hereditary monarchy along the male line only. This would be within the tradition of the continental European monarchies which were male-only. Although St. Thomas Aquinas thought that women, while being unfit for spiritual rule are fit for temporal rule, I prefer a male-only reigning monarchy. Because a monarchy mirrors the "government" of heaven as well as the human family, I deem it most prudent to exclude women from ascending the throne. Since men are the head of their households just as Christ is head of the Church, I think it makes the most sense for the reigning monarch to be a man. If the king does not have any legitimate male heirs, the crown would pass on his death to his closest male kin (brother, male cousin, nephew). If he had a grandson at the time of his death, the crown would pass to the grandson. If the king has no close male kin, the high council would rule until one of the king's daughters produced a male heir. The council would also rule in regency in the case of a successor being under the age of majority (based on Catholic Canon Law of marriage, currently at 16 for men). Any child of the king (male or female) who leaves the Catholic faith would be stripped of all royal titles and any issue from such a child married outside the Catholic Church would be declared unfit for either royal title or succession.

The constitution would also have standards for the office of king. The throne, as stated above, can only be succeeded by a man. This man must also necessarily be a Catholic in good standing with the Church. Indeed, an heir can be declared unfit for succession if he is not a good Catholic, and any king who becomes an obstinate heretic or unrepentant public sinner can and must be removed from office. Similarly the king can and must be removed from office upon any excommunication from competent Church authorities, unless the king were to repent and be fully accepted back into the Church. The king must also work very closely with the Church in regards to issues of morality. He must have a religious advisor (a priest or bishop), appointed by the pope or the local bishop. This last rule would be to ensure the Church's influence over the monarchy.

Lastly, the constitution would set forth certain laws which would be unchangeable. Some laws would pertain to the sanctity of human life from conception until natural death. These laws would make abortion, contraception, euthanasia, human cloning, etc. illegal in perpetuity, as well as any other medical procedure or technology that violates the sanctity of human life. Other laws would be set forth to protect the rights and freedoms of the Catholic Church, overriding any law that infringed upon the rights thereof. There would also be constitutional laws requiring the king to enforce censorship of the media, making pornography illegal, as well as slander, libel, detraction, and anything else deemed to be harmful to society. The constitution would also declare Catholicism to be the official state religion, but participation in and union with the Church would not be mandatory for citizens within the kingdom. The king would, however, have the duty to suppress any religion deemed harmful to society (e.g. Satanism, Wicca, paganism, Islam, etc.).

Thus is my ideal monarchy. Will my views change in the future? Perhaps they will; I may change a detail here and there, but I think the foundation within this vision will essentially remain constant.

2007-03-19T17:11:00.000-07:00

Four Years Later

Tomorrow, March 20 marks the fourth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. To mark this event, I have embedded a video of Marlene Dietrich singing the famous song Where Have All the Flowers Gone? written by Pete Seeger. I thought this to be especially appropriate for this unjust and immoral war in which so many have died.

2007-03-18T18:05:00.000-07:00

Prospects for a Catholic Monarchy

in the Modern World

As regular readers (or even the occasional reader) of my blog know, I am a traditional Catholic monarchist, and support the restoration of traditional monarchies in Europe or the establishment of entirely new monarchies where none have existed or it is impractical to restore a defunct monarchy. But what are the prospects for a monarchy in the modern world, in particular a Catholic monarchy? I have asked myself this question many times, and although it is not an impossible task, it is a daunting one.

One reason for the daunting nature of this task is modern conceptions of human rights. How the modern world now defines human rights in many ways is in direct contradiction to what many of us monarchists would like to see.

Point one: the modern definition of democracy as a human right. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights' website has this to say about democracy: "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly in 1948, elaborated on this original commitment to democracy by proclaiming that 'the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government' and guaranteeing to everyone the rights that are essential for effective political participation. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the Assembly in 1966, conferred binding legal status on the right of individuals to participate in the processes that constitute the conduct of public affairs, and further strengthened the protection accorded to participatory rights and freedoms" (quote found here). Many Catholic monarchists (although by no means all) subscribe to the Catholic version of absolutist monarchy, whereby the monarchy has near absolute governmental powers. How can such a monarchy be established in the face of such world-wide approval of popular participation in government? My personal view is that when a government gives the people the right to participate in government, such a government naturally evolves into immorality; when the people get to define what is lawful and what is not, the natural sinful nature of man tends to kick in and what is immoral is eventually defined as a right (i.e. pornography, homosexual marriage, abortion, etc.). When a Catholic monarch (guided by the Church) has near absolute governmental powers he determines what is lawful and what is not, regardless of the "will of the people." The king is the father of his people, and he must do what is right for his children even if they don't like it. With democracy ingrained upon the minds of the world's population as a human right, to form a system of government which is the direct antithesis of democracy is most assuredly an uphill struggle.

Point two: the modern definition of "reproductive rights of women" as a human right. On the website of the Division for the Advancement of Women of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, I found the following declarations from the Forth World Conference on Women (Beijing, China - 1995): "17. The explicit recognition and reaffirmation of the right of all women to control all aspects of their health, in particular their own fertility, is basic to their empowerment;" and "30. Ensure equal access to and equal treatment of women and men in education and health care and enhance women's sexual and reproductive health as well as education;" (full declaration found here). If women have the human right to control all aspects of their fertility, they have the right to use contraception and the right to have an abortion. One of the functions of a Catholic monarchy is to uphold the Church's teachings within secular law; the Church defines what is moral and immoral and the king upholds this in the secular sphere (to a point; I do not believe, for example, that fornication should be illegal, but fully believe it to be a mortal sin). It follows that a Catholic monarch must uphold the Church's teachings on the dignity of human life and make all forms of abortion and contraception illegal within his realm. Just like democracy, with contraception and abortion ingrained into the minds of the world's population as a human right, the formation of a Catholic monarchy where such murderous practices are illegal would face international opposition.

In conclusion, the formation of a Catholic monarchy--either the restoration of a defunct monarchy or the establishment of a new one--within the modern world is a daunting task. I must point out that while a difficult task, it is not an impossible one. "With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible" (St. Matthew, 19:26).

2007-03-09T19:01:00.000-08:00

Sean Hannity's Catholicism

While eating dinner literally minutes ago, I was channel surfing the news shows (as there is nothing else on at this time of the day) and saw on Fox News' Hannity and Colmes that a priest would be on the show urging Sean Hannity to repent. As I have been a critic of Hannity for a while now I thought I'd actually watch the segment (I usually can't stand to watch or listen to Hannity because of his unwavering neo-conservative views--even when they contradict his faith, i.e. the Iraq War and abortion).

The priest-guest on the program was Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, president of Human Life International. He was invited on the show in response to an article he wrote about some of Sean's comments last week apologizing for accidentally eating meat on Friday (Hannity forgot it was Friday and stopped eating when he realized his mistake). The article can be found on Human Life International's website here. Fr. Euteneuer criticizes Hannity for his rejecting the Church's teaching on contraception. I would add the additional criticism that Hannity also does not accept the Church's teaching on abortion (he stated once that he supports abortion in cases of rape and incest because those women did not choose to become pregnant, while a woman who had sex of her own volition has the responsibility to face up to her choices and have the baby). Obviously Hannity didn't like to be criticized, and sought to fight with the priest on his TV show. Hannity tried to shift attention to the Church hierarchy covering up the sex scandals (what has this to do with Hannity's rejection of Church teaching on contraception?). Fr. Euteneuer, during the course of the program called Hannity a heretic, and when asked if he would deny Hannity Communion in his parish, Euteneuer responded: "Yes."

Fr. Euteneuer is absolutely correct in his assessment of Sean Hannity. He is a public figure who proclaims to be a devout Catholic yet rejects some of the Church's most important teachings regarding human life (contraception, abortion, Just War). Hannity is not a Catholic in good standing with the Church just like John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy. Whether a public figure is politically liberal or conservative, if that person is a Catholic and does not accept the teachings of the Catholic Church in their totality and even goes so far as to publicly reject those teachings, that person is a public sinner and should be denied all sacraments until sacramental confession takes place along with a public repudiation of previous statements rejecting Church teaching.

Within the Church, we used to have a word for public figures who publicly reject Church teaching, a word that's not used very often but should be brought back in full force, a word which Fr. Euteneuer used with Sean Hannity: heretic. If only the Church had more priests like Fr. Euteneuer who would publicly step up and use that word and deny Communion to public sinners like Sean Hannity, the Church would be in a much better state.

2007-02-23T19:41:00.000-08:00

Prince Harry in Harm's Way

Prince Henry (Harry) of Wales--the third person in line to the British throne--will soon be heading to Iraq with his military unit. If you have read my previous posts about the Iraqi War, you know my beliefs on this matter (if you haven't, I'm against the war and support a full troop withdrawal). The purpose of this post is not to debate the war itself, but the British governmental system that is sending a member--and an important one at that--of the Royal Family to serve in this war.

One of the powers the Queen of England currently retains is the power to declare war and emergency. While I am not privy to the Queen's personal feelings about the Iraqi War, I do know that the war is not the Queen's but the Prime Minister's. Prime Minister Tony Blair chose to act against the opinion of the majority of British people and back U.S. President George Bush in the war. The war has become so unpopular in Britain that Blair is leaving office early due in part to his commitment to the war. While it is the right of the Queen to declare war, the Prime Minister has taken that right upon himself de facto if not de jure. The British monarchy has become so emasculated by Parliament that it serves little purpose in governmental affairs save those which are ceremonial. As was stated by a reporter for the BBC in a recent report, the British Royal Family will now have a much more personal stake in the war than any of the elected members who committed that nation to the war in the first place. I truly hope the British monarchy will once again regain its rightful governmental powers.

2007-02-08T19:03:00.000-08:00

Party Politics

The majority of the American public is opposed to the war in Iraq. The majority of the American public opposes President Bush's proposal to drastically increase the number of troops in Iraq. The American people voted the Democrats into majority power in both the House of Representatives and the Senate with a mandate to end the war (or at least to stop the way the war is currently being prosecuted). So what has changed about the war? Nothing, unless you consider more or our servicemen dying in a foreign land.

Most Representatives and Senators publicly either oppose the war or oppose Bush's troop increase (or is that escalation? surge? Such bandying of words tends to make it hard for me to remember what words I am supposed to use). But of course not much has happened. Several "resolutions" have been back and forth in our government, opposing the troop increase, making a non-binding statement about our lawmakers disapproval about what is increasingly becoming "Bush's War", even proposals to de-fund the war have been considered. So why has nothing happened?

The truth is that our lawmakers are doing what they do best: play politics. No lawmaker wants to appear to in any way disparage "the troops" (a large voting block with a large voting block that has an almost quasi-religious devotion to the military), so they don't want to de-fund the war so as to appear to be unsupportive of our military in harm's way. But do our lawmakers really truly care about our troops? I think not. They are debating, discussing, arguing, considering, and proposing while our men die in Iraq. If our lawmakers truly cared for our troops, they'd cut off all funds for the war and demand a complete and immediate withdrawal. The bitter truth is that our lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats are more concerned with their own political careers than with the lives of our servicemen. They are playing party politics.

Perhaps if we had a monarch who is above party politics we would not be in the tragic position we find ourselves in.

2007-01-27T00:01:00.000-08:00

January 27, 1859

Happy Birthday Your Majesty.

2007-01-17T15:12:00.000-08:00

Why I am a German Monarchist

As a traditional Catholic, I've gotten some flack in the past for my Germanophile views. It is usually assumed that as a traditional Catholic, I'd be an Austrophile and support the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire. While I admire the Austrian monarchy and would love to see the HRE restored, I am at heart a Germanophile. It is not Austrian blood that flows through my veins, but German blood (and for the record, no I am not a Nazi). The Holy Roman Empire was disbanded in 1806 by Emperor Francis II (Francis I of Austria), and 65 years later the German Empire was formed with the Hohenzollerns ruling as emperors. It is this Empire that I admire above all others, and it is this Empire that I truly wish to see restored.

So why would I, a Catholic, favor a Protestant dynasty over a Catholic one (the Hohenzollerns were Lutherans, the Habsburgs Catholic)? For one, the Hohenzollerns were German, the Habsburgs were Austrians--although many would not make a distinction between the two, I do. I am of partial German ancestry, I studied in Germany, I love the German culture, and it seems natural that I would take more of an interest in German history and monarchs over Austrian ones. But why do I love Germany so much? For the same reason I prefer blue-eyed women over brown-eyed women: I just do. I cannot explain why I like blue-eyed women more than brown-eyed women, and neither can I explain why I inherently prefer Germany over other cultures; I just do. As far as religion goes, I would ask a traditional Catholic monarchist why he admires the British monarchy. Starting with Henry VIII, England has a rather horrid track record of persecution of the one true Faith. How could a Catholic admire the successor of such a terrible dynasty of hatred and persecution? The truth is that Elizabeth II is no more culpable for the sins of her fathers than was Wilhelm II culpable for the Kulturkampf instigated by Bismarck.

I love Germany and the Imperial German monarchy for the same reason I love blue eyes: that is my inherent attraction. But as a monarchist, I admire and respect all monarchies regardless of their varied histories. Because all authority emanates from God, when a man shows respect to a monarch, he shows respect to God Himself.

2006-12-30T19:16:00.000-08:00

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.

2006-12-24T20:04:00.000-08:00

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.

2006-12-14T19:01:00.000-08:00

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.

2006-11-24T17:23:00.000-08:00

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.

2006-11-13T18:50:00.000-08:00

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.

2006-11-08T19:35:00.000-08:00

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.

2006-11-06T18:09:00.000-08:00

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!"

2006-10-29T17:08:00.000-08:00

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.

2006-10-23T18:00:00.000-07:00

"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.

2006-10-09T22:29:00.000-07:00

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.)

2006-10-04T21:14:00.001-07:00

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.

2006-09-28T02:48:00.000-07:00

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.

2006-09-18T18:21:00.000-07:00

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.

2006-08-15T14:57:00.000-07:00

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/

2006-07-27T19:46:00.000-07:00

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!

2006-05-28T21:25:00.000-07:00

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.

2006-05-02T22:35:00.000-07:00

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."

2006-05-01T20:08:00.000-07:00

"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.

2006-04-25T21:30:00.000-07:00

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!!

2006-04-16T00:01:00.000-07:00

Easter Sunday

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

2006-04-14T00:01:00.000-07:00

Good Friday

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

2006-04-04T01:43:00.000-07:00

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.

2006-02-14T00:52:00.000-08:00

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”).

2006-01-25T21:39:00.000-08:00

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.

2006-01-15T21:55:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-12-12T16:14:00.000-08:00

Abortion, Feminism, and The Law

I was watching a forensic science/law show the other day. A man was convicted of beating his pregnant wife, which eventually led to the death of his unborn child. He was charged and convicted with not only the assault of his wife, but also the murder of his unborn child. This got me thinking.

In America, it is perfectly legal for a woman to murder her unborn child at any time during her pregnancy, even just before natural childbirth. If a man beats a woman and it leads to the death of that child (or in the case of Scott Peterson the murder of his wife and his unborn child) the man can be charged with the murder of that child. Should he be? Of course he should. Murder is murder. But what about the woman who “chooses” to end her pregnancy, should she be charged with murder? I think that she should, murder is murder, but not in this country. Could this double standard in the law be due to feminism in our culture? A different standard for men and women? I think that this just might be the case.

2005-11-28T17:36:00.000-08:00

No More Pink Palaces

Tomorrow’s the big day. The Vatican is set to release its much anticipated document, approved by the Holy Father, barring all active gay men and those men who support the gay culture from entering the Church’s seminaries. These restrictions would not necessarily bar those men who have had same-sex attractions, but was during a time in their lives which is in the past and they have reformed and lived truly chaste lives for the past three years (at least according to all the reports that I’ve read in the blogosphere). Great news, huh? You might find yourself saying “It’s about time!”

Chew on this: these restrictions depend on the Church’s bishops to enforce. After all, many if not most seminaries in the Church are diocesan seminaries (correct me if I’m wrong on this one). Knowing the infamous job performance of American bishops, do you expect our bishops to enforce these restrictions? I’m not holding my breath. This document is a great first step, but the job won’t be done until our terrible bishops—some of whom I suspect either support the gay culture or are gay themselves—are dealt with. What this means is that those bishops who do not obey the Holy Father are severely reprimanded, up to and including removal from their sees and even the possible excommunication or two. We’ll just have to wait and see.

2005-10-25T21:23:00.000-07:00

The Language of Gender

Wow, it's been a long time since my last post. I've been really busy with school--I still am, so this one will be short.

This really bothers me, and I see it all the time. "The child lost their ball." What's wrong with this sentence? The child is singular, and their is plural. A singular subject does not match with a plural pronoun. Most people do this without thinking, but what's the real reason behind it? The feminist powers that be have taken out the traditional "he" from our language and replaced it with "them." The above sentence should read "The child lost his ball." Is the child really a boy? It doesn't matter. When speaking in the hypothetical, always refer to the hypothetical person as a he. Why? That's how our language works. Don't like it? Get over yourself.

2005-09-29T19:48:00.000-07:00

Multiculturalism

Does multiculturalism bother you? You may not be the only one, and maybe it's not only just a minor annoyance. Perhaps it's far more insidious than we think. Check out this article written by a Catholic Monarchist and papal knight Charles A. Coulombe. I may not agree with it in its entirety, but it's a good read. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4287

2005-09-21T23:31:00.000-07:00

Our Holy Father

It's been a while since the election of our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI, but I thought that I should make a post on him. I was familiar with Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger before he was elected to the Papacy, but looking back I wish I was more familiar with him. The only writing of his that I ever actually read was Dominus Iesus, but whenever I heard or read an excerpt from one of his writings I always thought "This man is a genius!! He knows exactly how I feel!"

When our late Holy Father Pope John Paul II died, my first pick for the new pope was Ratzinger. I always prefaced this when someone asked me who I was rooting for by saying that the Holy Ghost doesn't consult me when He raises up the man He has chosen to be the next pope--but nonetheless I was hoping Ratzinger would be elected Pope. When those great words rang out from the balcony of St. Peters "Habemus Papam!" and were followed with Ratzinger's name, it was all I could do to contain myself (I was in a public setting at the time).

I had great hopes at Benedict's accession to the papal throne, and I still do. He knows that the present state of the Novus Ordo Mass as it is commonly celebrated--especially in America and Europe--is a mess. He has celebrated the Traditional Latin Mass several times over the past 15 years, has relationship with the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (albeit a superficial one, but supportive at that), it is reported that as of today he will issue a document banning gays from the priesthood. It is also rumored that he will lift the restrictions presently upon the Traditional Latin Mass, making it possible for any priest in the Latin Rite to say the Traditional Latin Mass without needing the permission of the local Ordinary. But of course there is always room for improvement.

I had hoped, as a monarchist, that Benedict would have had a traditional coronation Mass. What he got instead was a fairly simple "installation Mass." There was no papal tiara, no Sedia Gestatoria (the throne upon which the popes of yesteryear where carried around so the people could see them). He even took the papal tiara out of his coat of arms. We must remember that after being a spiritual monarch, the Pope is also the sovereign of the Holy See (aka Vatican City State). If he would have taken advantage of his royal status, he would have brought so much interest, respect, and love for monarchy in general. Bring back the papal tiara, the Sedia Gestatoria, the coronation of Catholic monarchs by the pope, bring it all back. If we as a civilization are to restore monarchy to its proper place in the world, it should most certainly start with the papacy.

I had great expectations with the election of Josef Cardinal Ratzinger as pope and I still do. I am proud of him and to call him Holy Father. May God protect him and grant unto him a long and glorious reign. Long live the Pope! Long live Benedict!

2005-09-07T19:21:00.000-07:00

Wrath of God?

I'm kind of reaching out on a limb talking about this topic at this time, but what the heck. As Catholics we shouldn't be afraid of anything, right?? I'd like to talk about natural disasters, which of course at this time includes Hurricane Katrina. I of course offer my prayers for all the victims, both living and dead, of Katrina, but I think that this topic should be brought up.

I've often thought this year about all the natural disasters we've had. It seems like we've had one hurricane or tropical storm after another. In my area of the world, we've experienced a water shortage--albeit a rather minor league one--since early this spring. Has anyone ever thought that perhaps all the weather related problems we've been suffering just might be the actual--not allegorical--wrath of God? Now God is of course slow to anger and rich in mercy, but He only has so much patience. Let's face it people, America is a sinful, hedonistic, evil country. We abort or unborn by the millions each year (a sin which in my opinion is worse than the holocaust--at least the victims of the holocaust had voices to cry out with), we use contraceptives like they were multivitamins, we use our fetuses for scientific experimentation, we fornicate, co-habitate, and commit adultery left and right, and we've tolerated and accepted the homosexual lifestyle to the point that as we speak, the idiots in the California state government have voted to allow gay marriage (the "honorable" Governor Schwarzenegger has not committed one way or the other as far as approving or vetoing it). What would you say, are we the model of Christian moral living? No!

But what about all the innocent victims of Katrina? As is the case with all sin, the innocent often suffer just as much or more than the guilty--it all goes back to Adam and Eve. They sinned, and pain and suffering entered the world. So what's the solution? Embracing Christ and His Church. Will it end the pain and suffering? No, but it certainly makes it more than pointless.

2005-08-25T21:50:00.000-07:00

College Days

Yet again, it's been quite a while since my last post. I'll try from now on to post on a more frequent basis. This post, I'd like to focus on something totally unrelated to either Catholicism or monarchy: college. I'm currently in a college level program (to keep a semblance of anonymity--in other words, to protect my own butt from any negative action relating to school because of my views-- I'll not say what kind or where) at a college in Washington state. Here's what I've got to say.

I cannot stand college. In America in the 21st century, it's hard to get a good-paying career without at least a bachelor's degree--but with the proliferation of students in college getting four year degrees a bachelor's degree doesn't amount to a whole lot these days. Because of this, many young people need (or feel the need) to go to college. So you spend four or more years getting a degree in a field you have no idea if you will ever--or can--use in the real world. Many students spend their first 2-3 years just trying to decide on a major. At the end of four or five years, you've racked up anywhere from a few thousand to tens of thousands of dollars in student loans. For what? A degree that you can't use and make it hard to find a career-track job. So then what do you do? Go back to school for a graduate degree. More money and time for another degree. But what if you find out that you don't like that field either?

Then there's the issue of college textbooks. Call me a conspiracy-theorist, but I believe that college professors must have some sort of financial agreement with textbook publishers. Just about any given textbook has already gone through several editions by the time you buy it, and then at the end of the semester you try to sell it but find that none of the campus or online book sellers will buy it because the book will have a new edition for the next session. So now you're left with an $80 book that you have no use for and will only collect dust on your bookshelf. Might as well throw the book away, or better yet, burn it--it'll make you feel better.

Then there's the professors. Most are extremely liberal, if not outright Communists. They like to preach the modern religion of diversity and multiculturalism, but all that amounts to is a philosophy of "all things are relative" except traditional Christian (especially Catholic) values and beliefs. Multiculturalism means accept, celebrate, and value all cultures as long as they're not of European origin--to them European means white and white means bad. I'm definitely no white supremacist, but I'm not ashamed to be white. Far too many college professors--let's admit it, most professors are white--are ashamed to be white. From white man's burden to white man's guilt. Not much progress, huh? Then there's the arrogance factor: college professors are better than you. Why? Because they have three characters in front of their names: Dr. Why spending six or more years in college makes a person better than others I'll never know.

Sometimes I look at life in the past and envy those who are long dead. Sure, their lives were far less comfortable than ours today, but does comfort make a life better? I'd answer with an emphatic NO! Before the modern age, people entered their "profession" at an early age. Many required a lot of physical activity (lower rates of obesity and hear disease). They got to be outside a lot (I love the woods, mountains, rivers, lakes). The average man didn't have to go into debt up to his proverbial eyeballs (with scandalously high interest rates) for school, house, car, boat, lake-place, etc. Life was simpler, not easier, and perhaps more fulfilling and meaningful. The average man was concerned with saving his own soul and providing for his family. The modern man worries about the mortgage, insurance, children's college funds, his 401K plan, the cost of gas, the war in Iraq, his teenage daughter getting pregnant, his teenage son getting someone else pregnant, his other teenager using drugs or alcohol, school violence, etc., etc., und so weiter, und so weiter. Life in the distant past may not have been easier, but it was a whole lot simpler. Well, that's my vent for the day. Thank you for helping me keep my sanity!!

2005-08-02T21:27:00.000-07:00

Greetings!!
I know it’s been a while since I posted last. Sorry for that. Today’s post I would like to focus on religion. As I mentioned, I attend a Latin Mass parish. Actually it’s a Latin Mass community within a parish—we share, or rather they share with us, the parish with the Novus Ordo crowd. Why do I prefer the Latin Mass? My reasons are many.

I am a convert to the Catholic faith. I entered the Church when I was 14 in a Novus Ordo parish. I stayed there for a few years, but was tired of the liberal trend growing in the parish. The last straw was when the priest had a layman come up during Mass and give the sermon. I then moved to another parish in town, where liturgically speaking it was more conservative—although the parish had a “pastoral associate”, a woman, who claimed that she personally felt to desire to become a priestess but did believe in the ordination of women. While I attended this parish, I went to the neighboring diocese about once a month to attend a Latin Mass—our bishop repeatedly refused to allow the Latin Mass in his diocese, for reasons that changed based upon to whom he was speaking. After about two years of this, I moved permanently to the Latin Mass parish.

Since I’m only 24, I don’t love the Latin Mass for its nostalgia—I was born decades after Vatican II. I chose the Latin Mass because I felt a greater sense of heaven when I attended it. The Mass was said reverently, uniformly from one priest to the next—not differing from one priest to the next—the people were dressed and acted more reverently than in the Novus Ordo Mass. Perhaps the most that drew me to the Latin Mass was that it was authentically Catholic. I was tired of the touchy-feely Catholic Masses I was accustomed to that appeared more Protestant than Catholic. Protestant services are okay for Protestants, but we’re not Protestants, we’re Catholics!! The music (guitars, pianos, drums), the vestments (drab, ugly, multicolored, even rainbow—does that mean the priest is gay?), even the altar (nothing more than a table brought close to the middle of the church to give the feeling of community) seemed to me to be nothing more than a Protestant service with authentic Sacraments thrown in to keep in Catholic.

Then there’s the emphasis on the Mass itself. Liberal Catholics will tell you that the Mass is a community meal. We in the “faith community” gather together for fellowship to praise the resurrected Lord. Sorry folks, but that’s not what the Mass is all about. The Mass is an un-bloody reenactment of our Lord’s crucifixion. We do not gather together for fellowship and community, but we gather to assist the priest as he offers up Jesus Christ, physically present on the altar, as an offering for our sins and the sins of the world. Oh yeah, liberal Catholics don’t like to talk about sin, if they even believe that sin exists.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not a heretic or schismatic. I accept the Novus Ordo Mass as sacramentally valid and perfectly licit, but I do find that it can be quite irreverent, at least how it is said most places in America. Watch our new Holy Father say Mass in Rome—now that’s a reverent Novus Ordo Mass. But I still long for the day when the traditional Latin Mass is restored in all of its glory to the entire Latin Rite. I hope and pray that this day will not be long off.

2005-07-08T17:28:00.000-07:00

I thought that I should go a little bit into my views. As I said in the previous post, I am a Guelph monarchist. I will always see the Supreme Pontiff, whoever that may be, as the ultimate source of temporal power. The pope is not only the leader of the Catholic Church, he is also the Sovereign of Vatican City State. He holds not only spiritual powers of leadership, but also temporal ones. All Catholic monarchs should subject themselves in a special way to the Pontiff. This is the definition of what it is to be a Guelph, to sumbit oneself to the pope above all else.

Now on to temporal powers. I am an American, and have known nothing but republican democracy. America once had a king--George III of England--but the Americans chose to revolt and form their own government based on Deist and Freemason principles. So why do I, as a born-and-raised American, prefer monarchy? It was a slow process; I came to the realization over time and cannot give any one point when I considered myself to be a monarchist. The last step in the process would probably be when I found the website of an American monarchist--I'll make a link on my blog to his site once I get the ok from him. I think his site made me feel that it was ok to feel the way I did about government, and that I wasn't alone in my beliefs.

So why do I oppose democracy? I find republicanism--the form of government we have, which is a democratic republic, because we elect representitives to our government to make the decisions for us in respect to law--as inefficient. Turn on C-SPAN or C-SPAN2 and you can get a glimpse at how our government works. Not a whole lot happens. Lots of roll calls, long speeches to "Mr. Speaker," and a vote every once in a while. Look at the nominees President Bush has made to federal bench courts, UN ambassador post, and upcoming the Supreme Court nominees. The Democrats stymie and frustrate the voting process by delaying it for as long as they can. Why? Because they dont' agree with--in the case of court nominees--the nominees opposition to abortion, or their general political conservatism. The minority turns out to do most of the decision making by preventing the decision making process from happening. This doesn't happen in a monarchy with strong royal powers. Now I'm not advocating an absolute monarchy--the monarch's powers can be checked by a constitution and a parliament of limited power--but a monarch with strong royal powers can make decisions without political parties frustrating the law-making process.

Look at abortion. I naturally oppose abortion at all times and under all circumstances. How can we outlaw abortion in America? Well, for starters, don't vote for Democrats. Second, about we can do is vote for pro-life Republicans in the House and Senate, and vote for a pro-life Republican president. Then we hope and pray that these Republicans will make moves at the federal level to outlaw abortion, and that there will be enough votes in the House and Senate to pass legistlation to outlaw abortion, and that the President will sign that legislation into law. Then we hope that those same Republicans were able to appoint enough conservatives to the judiciary. If not, liberal judges will be able to rule the pro-life laws as "unconstitutional." Sure does leave a whole lot to hoping and praying. Hoping and praying is good, but "the Lord helps those who help themselves." Perhaps it's time to leave behind out democratic system and form "a more perfect order." That more perfect order is a Catholic monarchy. Well, I think that's it for now. More to come!!

2005-07-07T16:39:00.000-07:00

Greetings!!

This is my first post, indeed, it's my first attempt at blogging and web-publishing in general. I hope it proves worthwhile!

Let me introduce myself. My name is Nick. I'm 24 years old and live in Washington state. I am a traditional Catholic, faithful to Rome. I attend a Latin Mass parish, and thank God for having one within reasonable driving distance from my home. In addition to being a traditional Catholic, I am also a monarchist. This means that I prefer a Christian--preferably a Catholic monarchy--to all other forms of government. I am a Guelph, which means I support the Pope over the Emperor (the monarch, president, prime minister, government, throw in any term you want), but I have a particular interest and love for Imperial Germany. I will go in depth regarding many of my views in the future, so come back often!! Thanks for stopping by!!