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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.