The State of Europe

I recently read a couple of articles about the political climate in Europe. One article describes how the Swiss are increasingly becoming weary of foreigners in their nation, especially Muslims. The other article tells us that thirteen per cent of modern Germans would welcome a Führer (no, not a return of Hitler but rather a strong leader who can and will stop the Muslim tide from overtaking Germany). And then I found this video (insert hyperlink) of an Austrian MP criticizing Turkey for its inaction over the murder of a Catholic archbishop in Turkey at the hands of a Turkish Muslim. The common theme within these article and video is an increasing hostility among Europeans towards Islam, non-Western culture, and status quo of modern European tolerance.

I am not a fan, nor have I ever been a fan of the European Union. It is my opinion that the EU breaks down national sovereignty and destroys a sense of ethnic and cultural cohesiveness at the national level. It also makes it harder for the various monarchies of Europe (those that still exist that is) to reassert their sovereign power and overcome the anti-monarchical democratic trend spreading throughout Europe. The EU also makes it harder for former monarchies, in my opinion, to resurrect themselves.

Europe seems to be on the brink of continental wide bankruptcy. The Euro no longer seems to be as indestructible as it used to, and the people of Europe are beginning to wake up to what forty years of increasing tolerance to non Christian and non European thought and culture has done to their homelands. I hope that the theme common within these articles and video continue and multiply.

Willing Heirs?

A reader recently asked me (specifically about Germany) if the solution to the problem of non-reigning monarchies truly lies in the past, i.e. are current legitimate heirs willing to assume the thrones of their ancestors should the occasion arise. While I am loyal to the legitimate heir to the German Empire, HIRH Georg Friedrich von Preußen, I would not necessarily be opposed to someone else ascending the throne of a new German Empire if the restoration of the old one was impossible.

I find it most prudent to restore legitimate reigns with legitimate heirs, but far too often in Europe the "pretenders" to various thrones have little to no support from the populace, or even have no desire to work towards a restoration of the monarchy. If heirs do not work for a restoration of monarchy, and some charismatic figure should come along and do it himself, I see no reason to deny that individual the opportunity to found a new Christian monarchy in place of an old one.

A Royal Wedding

I would like to offer my congratulations to Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden and her new husband Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland on their recent marriage (the wedding took place on June 19). From an American monarchist, I offer the royal couple a happy and long marriage!

The Future King of England

I read about Prince Charles giving a speech about Islam last week. I have had a hard time finding anything but much abbreviated articles on the speech, but you can read a fairly good article from Father Zuhlsdorf's blog here.

Basically the Prince touts Islam as a religion that is one with nature, a religion that can help us save the planet. While I am concerned about how we treat the plante that God has entrusted us with, I do not see the heretical religion of Islam as the answer to our environmental problems, and I find it disturbing that the future King of England does. This is one more example of why I think the Prince of Wales will make an awful King of England. As a monarchist, I will show him respect and honor, but I am not looking forward to the day when his mother, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II dies.

Usury

Having two college degrees cost me a lot of money. I had to take out several student loans to finance my education. College tuition (and the related costs and fees) are quite expensive, but coupled with interest on those loans compounded daily the amount owed at the end of a college education becomes exorbitant. I am no expert on the Church's teaching regarding usury (mainly due to the fact that no priests or bishops seem to preach on this matter any longer, and I have found it extremely hard to find good, definitive infomation regarding this matter), but I know in my heart that it is wrong to penalize responsible new college graduates with student loans bloated beyond reasonableness with interest.

After paying my student loan payments, rent, and utilities, I have almost no money left from my monthly salary. If it were not for the fact that my wife is a full-time college student receiving financial aid (some of which we will have to start paying back in a year's time), we would not have enough money to buy groceries or gas. What is the solution to my situation, a situation that millions of other new college graduates face? I don't think the solution can be found in a government program, tax breaks, public service breaks, etc. I truly believe the only solution can be found in creating a new society guided by the econimic principles of the Catholic Church, a society in which usury is illegal. The older I get the more convinced I am that a truly Catholic monarchy must be established or re-established in order for justice to reign in the world.

Catholic Heritage

Something struck me today at Mass. Although I attend an FSSP chapel, sometimes time constraints necessitate my attendance at a diocesan affiliated Traditional Latin Mass held at a Novus Ordo parish. While the diocesan TLM has its regular attendees, it also has a certain percentage of drop-ins.

I observed three unrelated elderly women at today's Mass. One woman asked another "Is this a Spanish Mass?" The second woman responded that it was a high Mass, but I don't think she understood that it was a high Mass of the Extraordinary Form. The first woman took her place in a pew. During the early parts of the Mass the second woman got up and talked to a third elderly woman. While I could not understand what they were saying, I observed a prevailing sense of confusion in both the second and third women's demeanor. The second woman took a seat next to the third woman. Half way through the Mass both the second and third women were gone. The first woman, while obviously not knowing when to sit, stand, and kneel, at least made it through most of the Mass, leaving immediately after receiving Communion.

What struck me observing these three elderly women is something I have observed several times in the past--the greatest source of opposition towards the Traditional Latin Mass within the lay world comes from the elderly. They seem to have become so attached to the Novus Ordo Mass that they refuse to even try the Extraordinary Form. Indeed, the very Mass they once knew and loved in their youth has become a remnant of the past, all but forgotten--they have forgotten their own Catholic heritage. It is the young that are flocking to the TLM, and it is the young that shall perpetuate devotion to the Mass of the Ages.

Her Majesty's Displeasure

I read an article by the Telegraph recently describing the Queen's displeasure with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown over the situation in Afghanistan regarding the funding of British troops. Her Majesty's specific concern involves her troops' lack of proper equipment. While it is not within the scope of this posting to delve into matters of this particular war, I wanted to comment on the situation.

Queen Elizabeth is the head of the British Armed Forces, but in practice British troops seem to go wherever Parliament sends them. It is entirely the Queen's prerogative to make her positions known regarding her troops, but this happens rarely rather than often. I understand that there is an established relationship between the British monarch and Parliament and that modern monarchs seldom make public statements regarding their views on matters of state, but I do wish the Queen was in a position of more power and was able to publicly voice her opinions regularly. Even more I wish the Queen was in a position where she was able to say yea or nay to sending her troops abroad rather than rubber stamping Parliament's military wishes; if Her Majesty did not believe British involvement in a particular war was in the best interests of her nation, she should be able to deny the wishes of Parliament and keep her troops out of involvement.

Before I get any comments on how my wishes would provoke a constitutional crisis and do damage to the monarchy, let me say that I understand the tenuous situation Her Majesty is in with her Parliament; I simply wish and look for the day when the British monarch has the ability to properly exercise his or her constitutional powers.

Georg Friedrich von Peußen

I found this video of HIRH Georg Friedrich von Preußen, heir to the Kingdom of Prussia and the German Empire, on YouTube. It's a mix of Dutch, German, and English, but for all you English speakers out there HIRM speaks quite a bit of English during this interview. Enjoy!

Pope Anthony I?

In an interview with a gay magazine (reported on by The Times), former British Prime Minster Tony Blair apparently knows better than Pope Benedict XVI about sexual morality, specifically regarding homosexuality. The following is the report from The Times with my comments in red.

-----------------

From The Times
April 8, 2009

Tony Blair tells the Pope: you're wrong on homosexuality

Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

Tony Blair has challenged the “entrenched” attitudes of the Pope on homosexuality, and argued that it is time for him to “rethink” his views. [These supposed "views" of the pope aren't his views at all but rather the perennial teaching of the Church.]

Speaking to the gay magazine Attitude, the former Prime Minister, himself now a Roman Catholic, said that he wanted to urge religious figures everywhere to reinterpret their religious texts to see them as metaphorical, not literal, and suggested that in time this would make all religious groups accept gay people as equals. [Do you see how this could be led to an extreme? The religious texts referring to not murdering people could also be "reinterpreted." If we reinterpret the ban on homosexuality, what might also be reinterpreted? At what point do we stop reinterpreting?]

Asked about the Pope’s stance, Mr Blair blamed generational differences and said: “We need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith.” [What Mr. Blair is saying here is that our religious views should be in step with our culture's zeitgeist. He's being many things here (among them a heretic for wilfully denying Catholic moral doctrine), but one thing he isn't being is original--many have for years criticized the Church for being out of step with "the times."]

The Pope, who is 82, remains firmly opposed to any relaxation of the Church’s traditional stance on homosexuality, contraception or any other area of human sexuality. He has described homosexuality as a “tendency” towards an “intrinsic moral evil”. [The Pope cannot "relax" the Church's "traditional stance" on sexual morality. It's Church teaching, not his opinion!]

Mr Blair, who now travels the world on behalf of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, which aims to promote understanding of the main religions, left the Church of England for Rome soon after leaving office in 2007. [I remember well the news coverage of his conversion. His track record as Prime Minister brought many--myself included--to have doubts about his conversion and future adherence to the One True Faith, but I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he continues with questioning the Faith, I hope he leaves the Church to prevent scandal and comes back when he is ready and willing to submit to the Church in it's entirety.]

In the interview Mr Blair spoke of a “quiet revolution in thinking” and implied that he believed the Pope to be out of step with the public. [Once again, the Faith must not be based on popular opinions of the day but rather based on unchanging principles established by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, with the Supreme Pontiff as his representative on earth.]

“There are many good and great things the Catholic Church does, and there are many fantastic things this Pope stands for, [A common tactic of dissenting Catholics--praise the "good things" the Church does while criticizing the Church for having moral standards they consider to be too preachy, too condemnational, too harsh. "The way the Church acts," they think, "one would think the Church is trying to get us to Heaven or something. All I want to do is enjoy my life." Oh yeah, the Church is trying to get us to Heaven!] but I think what is interesting is that if you went into any Catholic Church, particularly a well attended one, on any Sunday here and did a poll of the congregation, you’d be surprised at how liberal-minded people were.” The faith of ordinary Catholics is rarely found “in those types of entrenched attitudes”, he said. [He is right--many Catholics do not accept Church teaching, and that's a major problem!]

He also thought that in Islam there would eventually be a change of heart. “I believe that, ultimately, people will find their way to a sensible reformation of attitudes.” [I think the Muslims would be offended by this remark.]

People’s thinking had changed fundamentally, he added. “Now, that doesn’t mean to say there’s not still a lot of homophobia and a lot of things to be done. But the fact that it is unacceptable for any mainstream political party to be anything other than on the side of equality and respect is, in a way, the biggest change. The items of individual legislation matter a lot, but I think it’s the general shift in climate that is perhaps the most important point." [So is he suggesting that religious teaching should be influenced by political legislation? That would be a nightmare come true.]

He said: “When people quote the passages in Leviticus condemning homosexuality, I say to them — if you read the whole of the Old Testament and took everything that was there in a literal way, as being what God and religion is about, you’d have some pretty tough policies across the whole of the piece.”

He continued: “What people often forget about, for example, Jesus or, indeed, the Prophet Muhammad, is that their whole raison d’être was to change the way that people thought traditionally.” [Seems to me that if Jesus wanted to change people's traditional thoughts on homosexuality He would have said something about it, and since it would have been such a radical move from previous sexual mores, the Evangelists would have recorded it, but alas, nothing of the sort exists in any of the four Gospels.]

No change in the Catholic Church’s stance is likely under the present leadership. [Or any other "leadership" for that matter.] The Church in England and Wales, which has been more liberal, is expected to move rightwards under the new Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, who has become increasingly conservative since becoming a bishop and archbishop.

While some converts become more conservative than those born to Roman Catholicism, the interview with Attitude’s Johann Hari shows that Mr Blair has allied himself firmly with the Church’s liberal wing. [I.e. the Church's internal enemies.]

Conventional wisdom was not necessarily wise, he said. “It can be wrong and it can be just a form of conservatism that hides behind a consensus. If you look back in time, through the suffragette movement, the fight against slavery, it’s amazing how the same arguments in favour of prejudice crop up again and again and again.”

He also claimed that the mood was changing in evangelical circles, which have been long been anti-gay — the source of the dispute that has taken the worldwide Anglican Communion to the brink of schism.

Referring to his contacts with evangelical groups in the US and elsewhere through the foundation, he said: “I think there is a generational shift that is happening. If you talk to the older generation, yes, you will still get a lot of pushback, and parts of the Bible quoted, and so on. But if you look at the younger generation of evangelicals, this is increasingly for them something that they wish to be out of — at least in terms of having their position confined to being anti-gay.” [Well I'm not an evangelical, but I am young (27 at the time of this writing), and if being "anti-gay" means opposing the homosexual lifestyle and holding to the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil and disordered, then yes, I am "anti-gay."]

-----------------

Mr. Blair seems to think he knows better than the Church, and presumes to lecture the Pope about morals. I have this word of advice for Tony: either submit to the Church and the Supreme Pontiff or do us all a favor and get out! You will be most welcome back when you are properly humble.