Just Plain Sick

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

Qui pro Vobis et pro Multis

For ye and for many

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Queen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I heartily recommend this movie to all monarchists.

The People Have Spoken...

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

This Monarchist's Vote

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

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

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

Last Sunday in October:

The Feast of the Kingship of Our Lord

Collect of the Mass of this day:

Almighty everlasting God, who in Thy beloved Son,

King of the whole world, hast willed to restore

all things anew, grant in Thy mercy that all the

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

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

"Arrogance and Stupidity"

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

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

Nuclear North Korea

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

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

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

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

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

Why The Republicans Deserve to Lose

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

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

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

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

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