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.

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.

January 27, 1859

Happy Birthday Your Majesty.

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.

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.

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.

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.