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.

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.

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!"

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.