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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.