Totalitarian Democracy vs the Freedom of the Catholic Monarchy

Posted on April 16, 2012 by
SJST

Join the Catholic and Royal Army of America on Facebook.
Read the Catholic and Royal Army of America’s Vision and Mission Statements.
“Athens alone, with a wiser policy and more far-seeing leadership, could have led the way to ordered liberty for all of Hellas; but she did not. After Pericles died in 429 B.C. her democracy produced no leader both competent and trustworthy, so that Athens herself became more and more anarchical even while imposing ever stricter control on her subjects in the name of preserving democracy.”
“In Athens, in 399 (B.C.), the year before Ezra’s final mission to Jerusalem, the great Socrates had been executed by the Athenian democracy…”
(Warren Carroll, The Founding of Christendom)
Some things never change, like, the failure of bottom-up Democracy and “rule by The People” to produce actual freedom and authentic cultural progress. It seems somewhat clear that we owe the magnificent intellectual achievements of ancient Greece (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, et.al.) to the Greek city states’ earlier military alliance that defeated the Persians (with special thanks to the Spartan “300″), for we have no idea how or even if the great philosophers could have flourished under that eastern empire. It seems likely that they would not have flourished at all, though that is pure speculation. But it is even less clear what we owe to Athenian Democracy. After all, the democratic environment that nurtured Socrates was the very one that murdered him, a sobering and uncomfortably close comparison to so-called “democracy” in America, or in that of the entire West for that matter. Mitigating our appreciation even more is the additional footnote that the Athenian democracy also issued death warrants for every male in the rebelling city of Mytilene along with the slavery of every remaining woman and child. “The People” are not always the nicest of rulers.
Like the citizens of Athens, we find that our modern democracies, arranged slightly differently, though still generally classically through the “Democratic Republic,” with its “Will of the People,” are just as whimsical and totalitarian. “The People” of Athens, who knew nothing of the true God, still refused to bow before their own god of Reason (re: the fate of our unfortunate friend, Socrates) and voted (democratically) to inflict the cruelest of penalties on its neighbor Mytilene who simply dared to desire her own freedom. In our blessed age where we have the benefit of both Divine Revelation and the foundational works of Western Reason (the aforementioned Greeks), “The People,” rather than benefiting from that treasury containing both faith and reason, now refuse to bow before either.

Those "People" again!

To reiterate, what is frighteningly clear in modern America is that the ruling “People” in protest and in demanding no outside interference with the worship of their un-holiest of trinities, “me, myself, and I,” refuse now to bow before either Faith or Reason (the Greeks might be excused from the former, though St. Paul mocks them in his letter to the Romans as being inexcusably blind to the Natural Law which is understood through Reason alone). The Person (who somehow amalgamates with others to become the larger, more frighteningly amoral People) now will not take direction from either God or from a reasoning process that first and foremost establishes Aristotle’s Law of Non-Contradiction, the latter being a notion as silly to the modern democratic, atheistic Person as is the former. In brief, The People care nothing for any restraint, either by God or by Reason (which are, of course, both the same. Here I am using God and Reason as differentiating between religious and secular thought.). The People want to do what The People want to do. They call this Freedom, and they will readily vote to execute every male who challenges them and to then take the women and children as slaves if they do not get their way. Here, I am not so much speaking of ancient Athens as I am modern America.
The cries go out in America to “bring the government back to The People.” This is precisely the problem, bringing the government back to The People. It is The (Same) People who are electing and then supporting the regimes that become dictatorial. This is the inherent contradiction in the “bottom-up” rule by The People. The People demand that they (and “they” first have to fight the most wretched political wars to decide which group’s views in the pluralistic cesspool will dominate) set the rules (established by the victor in the aforementioned pluralistic civil war). But the elected officials must then enforce the rules from above. This creates a never-ending series of flashpoints of mal-content with The People. The People are ever protesting and complaining that the rulers, in the way they enforce the “bottom up” rules from the top down, have “stolen” or otherwise mismanaged the Will of The People. So, The People elect new rulers and the cycle starts all over again. Not a single election goes by without The People saying that “it is time for change.” Recently, then candidate Obama even brought a certain politically macabre efficiency to the whole process by simply saying, “Change.” No need to explain. The People understood. And, with profound Aristotelian logical efficiency, The People got their democratically elected totalitarian. The Greeks would be proud.

Things turn quickly on The People, ironically, based on the very principle they so proudly wave on banners, that of Separation of Church and State. The ruse on The People is this: that once a politician is elected, he or she is not answerable to The People (as the latter supposes, which is why The People always get aggravated when they realize they have been duped) but the politician is, in fact, answerable to, get this, to no one. This is the cleverest of tricks by the ancient enemy, Satan himself, who alone is the mastermind of The People in rebellion against God and against authentic rule from the top down (re: Adam and Eve). We have proudly and purposely demanded that our elected leaders NOT be answerable to God. As we see in America, they certainly are not. In this respect our anti-God leaders are living out the American dream. The politician needs no particular moral compass so long as he or she can muster enough popular votes in the next election (or enough electoral college votes in America if running for President). Again, once in office, the politician answers to no one, certainly not The People as they have no recourse after the election, and certainly not to God, for that is proudly forbidden by The People. And then The People wonder.
The most obvious rebuttal here is that the politician is indeed answerable, if not to any one or to any God, then at least to Some-Thing that flies nobly above the cacophony of The People’s voices, that is, The Rule of Law in The Constitution. However, my arguments above remain even if we substitute The Constitution as a proxy for The People (which it is). The Constitution is neither moral in nature nor truly independent. It is itself subject to the amorphous, amoral, pluralistically warring whims of the Will of the People. So, whereas an elected leader must certainly obey certain “letter of the law” statutory requirements, that leader can change or ignore the spirit of the Constitution if enough “votes” or pluralistically powerful groups are on his or her side. This is certainly not always the case as a number of Supreme Court decisions no doubt demonstrate. Yet, how is it possible that American civil society has fled ever diligently to the Left over the years to the point where we literally have to go to the Supreme Court to ask for something once considered as basic as religious liberty? Contemporary American history is revealing here.
The Catholic King and Queen, on the other hand, is of “Divine Right,” a phrase which makes the blood run cold down the back of any good democratic republican revolutionary. However, it is precisely the Divine Right of the King and Queen which makes the Catholic Monarchy the better of the safeguards for The People’s freedom. This is because Divine Right does not mean “the Right to act Divine,” (which seems, ironically, and for the reasons outlined above, to be the exclusive claim of the democratically elected President of a Republic) but, quite to the contrary, it means “the right to rule comes from God, and therefore the King and Queen are always accountable to God.” The latter definition is completely different from the former. One does not even necessarily need a Constitution with a truly Catholic King or Queen (Christendom went for centuries under Catholic Kings without feeling the need for any Constitutions, The English Magna Carta being a notable exception pushed onto King John. Notice that the truly Catholic King St. Louis in France felt no such outcry against him by The People, or by the Barons of The People later that century). The royal ruler must answer at all times in judgment, decorum, attitude, language, and, most importantly, even in INTENT, in accord with the moral authority of the absolutely independent Catholic Church. The Church does not rule the temporal government of man. That is what the Catholic King and Queen are to do. The independent Church does, however, rule the faith and morals of those Kings and Queens.

Queen Isabel, The Catholic

As opposed to The Constitution, that proxy for The People, the Church cannot be moved by The Will of the People and cannot be manipulated by an elected politician. As opposed to the practice in the Republic of changing or even ignoring the spirit of the Constitution by gathering enough votes to support the maneuver, the Church cannot be so manipulated in matters of faith and morals. A leader who claims, or even who can prove, that “the majority” of the people demand changes in faith and morals (i.e., abortion, gay marriage, contraception) leaves the Church unmoved. For the Church is ruled by Jesus Christ, the King of Kings through the power of the Holy Spirit conferred on His chosen representatives on earth. Jesus Christ will never be over-ruled by “the majority.”
Yet, as mentioned in a previous essay, the Kingship of Christ is not one of restricting freedom (killing and homosexuality are not “freedoms”; they are immoral “licenses”). It is a Kingship which allows for the greatest of freedoms (see my essay “The Republic vs The Monarchy: The Will of the People vs The Will of God). Christ’s Kingship is not of this earth; yet, He nevertheless demands that we pray specifically for the Father’s Kingdom to come, His Will to be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Christ’s Kingdom is truly over the hearts of men and women (though Pius XI specifically warned against interpreting this as meaning that Christ therefore has no say in the civic affairs of mankind, for He surely does by virtue of His rule over the heart). Thus, the Catholic King and Queen represent not merely an earthly kingdom of Jesus Christ, but represent the bridge between the heavenly Kingdom and the free acts of men and women on earth as they choose for themselves how they shall live together in society.

King of Kings

There is no contradiction between the rule of Jesus Christ and the freedom of mankind. In fact, true freedom of men and women is based on the rule of Jesus Christ. In the right moral environment, men and women can be the most free. Local and state democracies can flourish under a Catholic Monarchy, and would better do so, as the moral environment would be, and would stay, more conducive. Democracy “from below” is not an evil when subjugated to the immutable moral authority and guidance of God the Father “from above” as known through His Church. The Will of the People, properly formed in God’s Law, is the conduit for social freedom, much the way the properly formed individual conscious is for the person. In the wrong moral environment (like that of modern America), men and women become enslaved to totalitarians through a malformed Will of the People, inclined toward evil.
Just ask the Greeks. They discovered this thousands of years ago. To say that we can follow their same path over and over again and get different results is, of course, a modern definition of insanity, but it would also make Plato roll in his grave, for he knew better. In addition, it likely violates Aristotle’s Rule of Non-Contradiction. On any account, to stay safe you might want to say it anyway. For if you consistently call out the contradictions inherent in The Rule of the People, you might just end up on the same side of “freedom loving” democrats as did Socrates. Worse yet, you might just get the Mytilene treatment.
Long live the Catholic Monarchy. As free men and women, let us peacefully opt in a free manner to bring about a more authentic and freeing form of government.
StM
Posted in Catholic and Royal Army of America, The Catholic and Royal Army of America | Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

The Republic vs The Monarchy: The Will of the People vs The Will of God

Posted on April 10, 2012 by
SJST

Join the Catholic and Royal Army of America on Facebook.
Read the Catholic and Royal Army of America’s Vision and Mission Statement
“In the Legislative Assembly, the more violent revolutionaries had congregated, at first simply by chance, on the higher benches to the left of the president’s chair, from which they became known as “the Left” or “the Mountain.” (The persistence to this day of the former term, along with its opposite, “The Right,” is a forceful reminder of how much the legacy of the French Revolution is still with us.) Perhaps in a feeble attempt to diffuse political labels and hatreds, when the National Convention met, the president’s chair had been set up on the opposite side of the Riding School, so the high benches where the radicals had set were now on his right. But they held resolutely to their benches, and so marked had the political connotation of the term “the Left” already become that it did not matter to anyone that the Left in the National Convention was now physically on the right. The deputies opposite them were the Girondins, who at first had been the radicals, and were quite uncomfortable with their new role as conservatives. Those in between, because their seats were lower down, were known as “the Plain.” As they skulked lower and lower with the passing months in an increasingly desperate effort to keep out of sight and trouble, some wits began calling them ‘the Marsh.’ “
- (Warren Carroll, The Guillotine and the Cross)
So shifted The Will of the People during the French Revolution. Rather, one might say, so shifted The Dictatorship of the People through the People’s representatives during the French Revolution. For “The People” were now free of their Monarch and were duly “represented” by supposed leaders proclaiming Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality! Those leaders of “the People” knew what “the People” needed and implemented their program through one of the most unmerciful dictatorial regimes in history. Poor Louis XVI could not have even imagined using his Monarchical powers to demonstrate such totalitarian control as did “the People” after they came to power. No wonder Lenin, more than a century later, so admired the French Revolutionaries. He was, as well, all about “the People.” You might recall that in both revolutions, the French and the Russian, the respective Monarchs (more or less with their families) had been executed in favor of more “free” “Republics.”

Marie Antoinette, the Most Christian Queen of France, before "the People."

What was once considered “revolutionary” (liberal) in the French scheme had somehow eventually come to be viewed now as “conservative.” The median continued to move leftward. Radical became more radical, while conservative became, well, more radical. Before long the Girondins, those formerly considered revolutionary, had to run for the hills for now being too conservative as those “further to the left” assumed more control of the apparatus that would eventually yield “The Reign of Terror.” This Reign (as distinct from the much kinder Reign of their former Catholic King) came complete with the almost non-stop, up and down rhythm of guillotines for the non-revolutionary “People,” including, and especially, those loyal to the Catholic Church and the “ancien régime.” The revolutionaries, having severed themselves from their Catholic King and Queen (Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette), or, more literally, having severed the heads of their Catholic King and Queen, had now set “the People” free. The Church with her Monarchs would no longer tell “the People” what is right and what is wrong. “The People” will be free to determine their own course.
Their freedom, however, was merely a freedom to drift into darkness in the same manner that a boat tied to an anchor for safe-keeping is “freed” during a storm to drift away, lost on the high seas to perish (in a shipwreck of “democratic” totalitarianism). For this is the historical record of “the People” every time they try to “free” themselves from God (as represented through His Church), be that in the vulgar and grotesque Sixties Revolution in America, the early 20th century Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the 18th century French Revolution, the 16th century Protestant Revolution, or even all the way back to the Adam and Eve Revolution at the dawn of mankind.

“Freedom,” by turning the authentic order of God on its head such that morality, i.e., determining what is right and what is wrong, is dictated by “the Will of the People” from below rather than by God from above, leads to anarchy and then to slavery. Such is the historical record, I will argue anyway. No wonder God told Adam and Eve that they were “free” to eat of any of the trees in the garden except for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. For, God, and God alone, establishes the authentic order for what is right and what is wrong. Only by setting ourselves firmly in that Divine Order do we then find our Freedom “to eat of the fruits of all the other trees in the Garden.” But don’t tell that to the hippies (who now control the American apparatus through the Obama administration, which is predictably preparing for a new “Reign of Terror” on religious people), or the communists, or the French Republicans, or the Protestants, or, for that matter, to Adam and Eve.
Therein is the issue and the subtle but distinct point of separation between the Catholic Monarchy and the Democratic Republic. Note that I am not saying, between the Catholic Monarchy and Democracy, for there is no reason that the Monarchy cannot hold dear to itself robust democracies at the state and local level. To frame the issue as “Monarchy vs. Democracy” as so many do, is to frame it poorly if not completely incorrectly. Democracy can exist in both models. The issue has to do not with “Monarchy vs. Democracy” but with “the Will of God vs. the Will of the People” as defined by the proper order of things. This is fundamentally important. As we have seen in our historical examples, missing the proper order of things can lead one to a life under tyranny, if one is not ultimately relieved from it all by the guillotine in the hands of “the People.”

The "Will of the People" toward those who desire the Will of God

The issue between the Monarchy and the Republic, then, is one of authentic order, not one of democratic freedom. This is the arch-issue that has plagued mankind in its rebellious spirit from the moment we began our walk in the Garden. God establishes what is right and what is wrong (“You may eat of any of the trees in the Garden, except for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”). Within that scheme, which comes to us from the Will of God above and not from The Will of the People below, we find our true democratic freedoms (you are free to eat of any of the trees, except…). The Catholic Monarchy most closely adheres to this authentic order by establishing God’s law (as known infallibly through His Church in matters of faith and morals) from the top down, which allows for the proper development of societal norms and a life-giving culture. Within those boundaries, we are free to joyfully exercise our “Will” in the rest of the Garden where God blesses us.
The Republic, on the other hand, with its Will of the People, decides, like the falling Adam and Eve, that it will eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Will of the People will become its own god. Abortion is fine because that is “the Will of the People.” Homosexuality is natural, glorious, and fun because defining it such is “the Will of the People.” Shutting down religious organizations or otherwise telling them how they must change their beliefs in order to accommodate “The Will of the People” is fine because that is, well, “the Will of the People.” Never mind God. According to the Will of the People in a Republic, God is whoever we wish (h)im to be and (h)e supports whatever we choose because that is the “Will of the People.” Thus, in the Republic, God obeys the Will of the People rather than the other way around. That, my friends, is not an authentic order. It is disorder. Is it any wonder that Republics tend to fall into disordered tyranny?
The Catholic Monarchy, though as subject to illicit and disordered tendencies in the individual Monarchs as in any human being, is, however, fundamentally and objectively structured to better secure the authentic order of freedom, that of God (through His authoritative teaching Church) deciding what is right and what is wrong, and then leaving us “in the garden” (rather than being escorted out) to enjoy our democratic freedoms (of all the trees, except…) within that framework. The Will of God must be first established as a higher authority than the Will of the People. There we will find true freedom.

This is the rub between the Monarchy and the Republic. There is where the Republic generally fails. It fails in fulfilling exactly its purpose for which it supposedly exists, that is, to make us “free.” Just ask the victims of the hippie generation, of the Bolshevik Revolution, of the French Republic, of the Protestant Revolution, and even of the Adam and Eve Revolution. (You might fairly retort that I should ask the victims of the inquisition about my Catholic Monarchical model; yet, I will answer that “inquisition” is clearly as much a secular tool as a religious one and that our historical examples demonstrate that it is far more dangerous in the hands of seculars than churchmen. The Spanish Inquisition killed a few thousand through its most violent ten years, while the French anti-Gods sent more than 40,000 to the chopping block in Paris alone. We’re not even going to mention Lenin).
I fondly remember my youthful days on the High Plains in the great state of Oklahoma. The dogmas of the Republic which were taught to me made absolute sense at the time. The reason they made sense is because “the People” in our area were generally the most solid, trustworthy, God-fearing, salt of the earth folk anywhere in the country. It was easy for me to believe that the Will of the People was effectively the same as the Will of God because most of these farmers, ranchers, small business owners, and teachers were, in fact, holding fast to the authentic order or things. However, I did not realize at that time how precarious, shifting, and amorphous was the general Will of the People. Naive, I realized that in the great Republic, where the Constitution was supposedly the safe-guard of the People, the Constitution was itself subject to the People, whatever “the People” might believe on any given day, but did not imagine that a new day would come about that revealed such an anti-God, secular Will of the People as we are witnessing today in America. Yes, that day has changed. It has changed in a big way. The Will of the People is thoroughly corrupted. The People are eating once again from that forbidden tree.
What was it again that Our Savior told us to pray? “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven…” In America, we have our own version: “The People’s Kingdom come, The People’s will be done, in heaven as on earth…”
Things are disordered in the Republic. It is time to restructure our government to a Catholic Monarchy such that we agree to leave that one tree alone. Then, and only then, will we be truly free to enjoy the fruits of all the other trees in the Garden.

StM
Posted in Catholic and Royal Army of America, The Catholic and Royal Army of America | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Ten reasons why we should establish a Catholic Monarchy for America

Posted on April 9, 2012 by
SJST

Join The Catholic and Royal Army of America on Facebook
Read the Vision and Mission Statements for the Catholic and Royal Army of America
The Catholic Monarchy is our only lasting hope of saving the United States of America.
The proposition above is not commonly (or, really, ever) heard in political discussions and media reporting. There are two reasons (perhaps more, but I will focus on two) for this: 1) The whole concept of America was founded on the principles of Democratic Republicanism whereby The Constitution would replace The Church as the balance of power between The People and The State, and 2) the elite financiers and liberal Revolutionaries currently under-mining the United States of America do not want you to think about it for fear that you will take hold of it and destroy their empire and all their Satanic Masonic plans with it. You would be free under the Monarchy, and they simply will not allow that to happen.
The first reason above is why I do not refer to “restoring” America, for “restoring” would imply that it is feasible to go back to a free, constitutionally-based Democratic Republic. I refer to “saving” America, for this is where we need to focus our energies. The viability of a Catholic Monarchy for the United States does not seem reasonable or realistic until one comes to terms with the near certainty that America has crossed a line in her Democratic Republicanism beyond which there is no return. If the Obama administration is confirmed in power for another term, we will then be able to say that it is an absolute certainty that America has crossed that line.
The viability of a Catholic Monarchy for the United States becomes even more thought provoking and realistically acceptable when one understands the nature of the Revolutionary movement mentioned in the second reason above. The Revolution, meaning THE Revolution by Satan against the most Holy Trinity, began before the dawn of time and has been the ear-mark of Satanic spiritual and temporal forces bent on destroying human beings since man began to walk the earth (you might recall the story of Adam and Eve, whereby God has told us that this is the case).
In modern (roughly the past 500 years) history though, this act of rebellion against God and His visible, institutional Church based in Rome has utilized very predictable spiritual warfare tactics through a handful of “Revolutions” (each “Revolution” proclaiming to “free” mankind, meaning, always, “free” mankind from God). These Revolutions against God are, in chronological order, the Protestant, French, and Bolshevik Revolutions, and, in America, the more recent “Sixties” Revolution. The outcome of the latter in America has been the blood-thirsty, Satanic secularism that seeks to destroy our country and our souls without mercy. It is this last agenda that is so dear to the hearts of the elite financiers, and, importantly, to the hearts of the Obama administration.

Therefore the line seems to have been crossed. The destructive Revolutionary virus as currently represented through the Obama administration is in full force in America. Why is it that I say we shall know from the confirmation in November of the current administration that we have then “most certainly” crossed that line? It will be because The People themselves, the very ones whom the Constitution establishes in power, will have spoken “their will.” It will demonstrate that the Will of the People is thoroughly corrupted by the Satanic spiritual forces of the Revolution. This leaves us with the predictable outcome, using the consistent progress and ultimate outcomes of the previous Revolutions as our guide, of a dictatorial tyranny in our future. The Will of the People will have shown itself as no more than The Dictatorship of The People, in much the same fashion as defined by Lenin in the Bolshevik Revolution and Robespierre in the French (the later “Lennon” in the Sixties was merely the voice proclaiming the death of the soul, “and no religion, too,” while the earlier Luther and Henry VIII were the initial sparks of the recent rampage).
To “save” America, then, since restoring her is not possible with such a corrupted Will of the People, we must appeal to a higher authority than The People. We must, as was so successfully (generally speaking) done for 1,000 years through the early and mid-Middle Ages (Feudal era), appeal to the Church as the ultimate authority for morality, social organization, and cultural identity, as the Church is immune by the power of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit from error in faith and morals. Not even Pope Alexander VI during the Renaissance nor child-abusing Priests of the modern era have been able to sour the teachings of the Church or to force Christ to re-assess His promise to be with His Bride to the end of time. The Will of God through His Church, and not The Will of the People, is the only sure Rock upon which to build a free, edifying, life-giving culture.

So, with the above in mind, and with love for America as our driving motivation, I present the reasons below that you should consider the Catholic Monarchy as the next, and most optimal, form of government for the United States:
1) What people call the “Christian” cultural roots of America was simply a carry-over of Middle Ages Catholic civilization, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers were “freeing” us from the old Monarchies whereby the Monarch was the right arm of the Church. “Restoring” America to her cultural roots, if you insist, is really to restore her to her Catholic inheritance. Why not admit the failure of The Constitution with The Will of The People to progress on the old Monarchical form and simply go back to the old Monarchical form? Time does not dictate progress. Just because we live centuries after the old Monarchies does not mean that we have made progress during that time. The past 500 years of “Revolutions” have been nothing more than a destructive re-action against the progress of the previous Catholic civilization. A speeding car heading for a cliff is “progressing” through time and space toward the cliff. As Chesterton pointed out, Thursday is not superior to Wednesday just because Thursday comes later in the week.
2) The Will of God is the first priority and the well-spring of a proper hierarchy of values. Once the Will of God is established as the societal and cultural norm, THEN, the Will of the People can democratically make authentic progress. The Will of God is known fully through the Catholic Church as decreed by Jesus Christ, Who is the only person ever to walk the face of the earth to rise from the dead to prove His claims. If ever you want to follow someone’s Church, it is the Church of Jesus Christ. Hinduism is rich in color but hideously depressive and satanic in theology and philosophy. Buddha spent his entire life trying to solve a Hindu-istic problem that does not even exist (the pain of reincarnation). Confucius developed a wonderful set of social norms to govern society (the closest in the East to Christian norms), but feared being too close to the afterlife. Mohammed is still dead and in the ground. The Church is the new Jewish Israel, the city of God in the new Jerusalem. If we are going to use any religion as a determinant of God’s will, it better be the one espoused by Jesus Christ through His Church.
3) The Catholic Monarchy, built on the feudal model whereby Christian Kings and Queens are under the moral authority of the Church and thereby checked in their totalitarian tendencies, and are suzerains over relatively independent territories, will be the safe guard for local democracies. The King and Queen will maintain the cultural and moral norms governing society and will be the face of the nation in international diplomacy. Democracies would flourish at the state and local level under the protection of the Monarch.
4) The Catholic Monarchy will be the protector and guarantor of religious freedom (“with due limits” as outlined in Vatican II and interpreted in accordance with the long line of Popes in the pre-conciliar Church, see Fr William Most).
5) The Catholic Monarchy will be the protector and guarantor of free speech and assembly (“with due limits” as mentioned above).
6) The Catholic Monarchy will be the protector and guarantor of the right to private ownership of property and against the multi-national corporations and the One World economy.
7) The Catholic Monarchy will be the protector and guarantor of free enterprise that dovetails with the right of private ownership (and therefore does not necessarily guarantee the right of a foreign owned or foreign minded multi-national to take property from the local population).
8) The Catholic Monarchy will promote, protect, and guarantee a life giving culture with edifying arts, entertainment, and language.
9) The Catholic Monarchy will be the protector and guarantor of the principles of subsidiarity that protect families and local social units from unreasonable encroachment by higher state and federal authorities.
10) A Divine Right Aristocracy of inheritance, whereby Kings and Queens are chosen by birth rather than by political pandering and the influence of money, will be the protector and guarantor of the Monarchical form. Even George Soros cannot influence God in creating a King or Queen. The only possible manipulation is through marriage.

Finally, how is it that the Catholic Monarchy will be the protector and guarantor of these rights and principles? It is because we will have a true separation of Church and State as it existed in the days of ancient Christendom. Separation of Church and State in the modern Republic is nothing more than a subjugation of Church to the State (therefore making the Church powerless and irrelevant). True separation of Church and State exists when one has an independent institutional Church with moral authority over a Monarch. Monarchs who desire totalitarian control will face a Church beyond their control. Ask Napoleon, Louis XIV, or any other King through the history of Christendom how difficult the Church can be on a totalitarian! Even they had to yield to a great degree before the independent Church. The Church is not oppressive on The People. The Church, with The People, is oppressive on totalitarian minded Monarchs.
Is not that how things should really be?
StM
Posted in Catholic and Royal Army of America, The Catholic and Royal Army of America | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

How an American man from Oklahoma found spiritual kinship with the Mystical Kingdom of France

Posted on April 5, 2012 by
SJST

One of the most prominent themes in all of my writings is that of our growth through time and space toward our Final Form that resides in the Mind of God. I often quote St. Thomas Aquinas who himself quoted Aristotle and integrated the latter’s profound philosophy of the four causes of creation, Formal, Material, Efficient, and Final, into the Christian framework.
Another of my prominent themes, a cousin to the first, is that of the Kingdom of God representing a beautiful landscape whereby we are all integrated in our almost infinite individual variety into one, magnificent panorama. That unity of the particulars into one beautiful Final Form called The Kingdom is that of the one unifying Principle, Jesus Christ, He Who is the Word through Whom all things were created. Thus, the two themes fit together in a manner that hopes to satisfy both our Intellect (Faith) and our Will (Love). Our Intellects (Faith) lead us to seek (Hope) the Principle End (Love) Who unites us as radically unique individuals into the one beautiful panorama of the landscape that metaphorically represents the Kingdom Of God, just as unique flowers, trees, meadows, rivers, and mountains are united into one breathtaking view in nature.
Those themes, how and for what purpose we are created with how we are integrated as individuals into the Whole, are precisely the points that explain how I, a man born in America and raised on the High Plains of the great state of Oklahoma, found his calling in life through a spiritual connection with the “mystical” Kingdom of France, and, more specifically, with the spirit of the devoutly Catholic and Royalists Chouans of Western France.

Just out of Guymon High School and before entering Princeton University in the Fall of 1977, I had the opportunity to travel to Brittany, France near the Normandy border for a six week cultural study along with a number of my friends from GHS. At the time I was simply a mainstream American, Protestant young man as were the majority of folk from Guymon. The mainstream, Protestant dominated culture of Guymon was the center of my world, though I was well aware of a larger world beyond the remote town’s borders (where there was even a place called France!).
Toward the end of our stay, we journeyed through Normandy to the island fortress of Mont Saint-Michel, the one pocket of resistance in the Hundred Years War that stayed true to St. Joan of Arc’s Charles VII, despite the fact that the bulk of Normandy had become English occupied land. There, before the chapel, I stood before a statue of St. Joan of Arc. “Who is that?” I asked Ms. Bowling, our French teacher (note that whereas I knew of this larger world where existed a place called “France,” my understanding of what was “under the hood” in that place was pretty limited!). “Ah, c’est Jeanne d’Arc!” (“It is Joan of Arc!”), she replied, or something close to that. I shrugged and walked away, thinking no more of it. How naive was I! I may not have thought more about the matter, but it appears that the aforementioned “Jeanne d’Arc” WAS thinking more about it. We had been introduced.

Approximately eight years later, at age 26, I married the lovely woman who remains my wife to this day. I was converted to the Catholic Church in the process (she is a cradle Catholic), and soon after was given the book, “True Devotion to Mary” by St. Louis de Montfort. St. Louis was an early 18th century priest who gave missions throughout the Vendée, Brittany, and Normandy. At nearly the same time, I was introduced to St Thérèse de Lisieux, affectionately known as “the Little Flower,” through reading her autobiography. St. Thérèse was a Carmelite nun from Normandy who lived and died in the late 19th century. France, St. Joan of Arc, St. Thérèse of Lisieux, St. Louis de Montfort, True Devotion to Mary, Normandy, Brittany…etc.
So, thinking about my most prominent themes referenced above, you might see a picture developing in my journey through space and time, much the way a Form takes recognizable shape when one connects the dots in a puzzle. In the midst of the apparently confusing mess of “dots” there rests an image representing the Final Form for one’s purpose in the Mind of God. One simply must slow down in life long enough to contemplate the puzzle.
Time went by (as it has a tendency to do). I later found myself in dire spiritual and physical trouble in the summer of 2006. Through the intercession of The Most Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joan of Arc, I was restored. On March 25th, 2008, I was making a renewal of my consecration to Mary according to St. Louis de Montfort while sitting in her chapel inside the Cathedral of St. Louis the King in St. Louis, MO. (Quite a few St. Louis’ in that last sentence!) A hint of French Royalty was now being shaped into the mix with the conglomeration made up of those other “dots.”

The following Christmas I received a family genealogy from my nephew that demonstrated that one our family’s major branches came from Normandy. At the time, I was writing the first of my books, Journey to Christendom – The Freedom Dance, under the inspiration of St. Joan of Arc. Through St. Joan a continuing interest in the French Monarchy grew in my soul. Shortly thereafter I discovered the story of the Wars of the Vendée whereby the courageous locals in Western France, only a mere lifetime away from the influence of St. Louis de Montfort, gave their lives to defend the Catholic Church, their way of life, and importantly, the 1,500 year old Monarchy that had defined France as the “Eldest daughter of the Church” over those 15 centuries.
Immediately the dots faded away, and I could see the Form, the picture of who I am and who I was meant to be. My journey began on the High Plains of Oklahoma in a small town called Guymon. However, my destiny was a place far away, in fact, further away in a sense than that “place called France” I had visited so many years before. This destiny was more than all that. It was, and is, to a place I call “mystical France.” This destiny represents my Final Form, or the purpose for which I was created in the Mind of God, and where I, as a uniquely formed individual, fit into that marvelous unified landscape.

This destiny is only one very tiny piece of the whole. However, I do not mind being small in the overall scheme of the panorama. I am, in this destiny, with St. Joan of Arc, St. Thérèse of Lisieux, and, through them, with the Mother of God in the Kingdom that is ruled by Jesus Christ. There is no more to desire than that. It is not prominence I seek, only alignment with my destiny, however small and unnoticeable that is.
As Catholics we do not believe that it is right to presume on our salvation. God is always true to His promises; yet, we, with our free will, are ever capable of devising our own ruin. This is particularly true for me. I pray, as all should, for the grace of final perseverance.
If, when you are in Heaven, you happen to make a journey to Mystical France, and if you see me in the land of my destiny with St. Joan and St. Thérèse, know that there is no happier person in the entire Kingdom. If, when you are in Heaven, you happen to make a journey to Mystical France, and you do not see me in the land of my destiny, know that there is no more foolish person in Hell.
Vive l’Église, la Reine, et le Roi des Rois.
StM
(Read more in my testimonial, “On How I became Catholic, and devoted to Sts Joan, Thérèse and the French Monarchy.”)

Posted in On my devotion to St. Joan and St. Thérèse, Restoring the French Monarchy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Selfish Parents – a profound essay on life and family from a contributing author to SJST

Posted on April 3, 2012 by
I am pleased to present the following essay from a contributing author. The subject matter is quite relevant to our time, and the essay itself is profound in its depth. Sarah Rollins comes from a large family and is herself the mother of a large family. What she has to say, with the questions she asks you, are sure to make you slow and think.
Well, why don’t I simply let her tell her own story! Enjoy.
StM

St. Thérèse with her large and very joyful family!

“Have you ever wished that you had never been born? That you never even existed? Have you ever felt like the whole world doesn’t even care about you? Or even something as benign as not being wanted around?
I come from a family of eight. My older sister is beautiful and musically talented. She shared this special gift with my dad. They used to sing together when he was alive. I never had the joy of doing that. My brother is a great musician too. My dad taught him how to play harp and guitar and he shared that bond with our father. But, I couldn’t play. My dad has been dead now for six years, but I can still remember him saying, “Before you were born mom and I used to……”
My family is close enough, but I must be honest with myself. If I had not been born my siblings would have had more in life. If I had not existed, then my parents could have afforded voice lessons for my sister or a tutor for my brother. My little sister would not have had to wear my old hand-me-downs and may have been more popular in school. It was I who introduced drugs to my brother. If I hadn’t existed, he might not ever have done them! Even as an adult, I have been a thorn in their side, and I am not sure if they haven’t wished that our family was smaller.
We moved around a lot because of financial problems- problems that may have been avoided if our family wasn’t quite so large. My parents sometimes fought over money and my dad had to work very hard to support us. He was often gone on the road, now I wonder if he wasn’t just trying to get away from all of us! Most of the time, he was exhausted when he came home. Perhaps, he wouldn’t have had to work so hard if I hadn’t ever existed.
My mother could have given more dedicated time and attention to her other children if I had not been born. But, she was divided, and I am sure my siblings were jealous at times. My mom worked hard too. She learned how to be economical, fix toilets and leaky pipes, and stretch meals for growing children. Perhaps, my siblings wouldn’t have had as many growing pains had they been given a better diet. But, because I was born, my mom was on a strict budget.
You disagree with me? Really? You say I am wanted, my family loves me and I am important to my spouse and children. Sure, I am happy now. But, it has recently been brought to my attention how selfish I am for having wanted to live. Today, children are “planned” out of existence.
Apparently, if you have too many you cannot give them enough love, attention, and of course material things. People say that if you have too many children that they will be unhappy growing up. I have heard it is actually selfish for parents to have more than a few children. I guess it is because those “selfish” parents just want to have children like property. They selfishly want many babies to make themselves feel good, never mind the outcome of the deprived children! They can’t possibly love them!
Well, I am alive because my mother didn’t think this way! I am alive not only because my mother didn’t kill me, but because she didn’t use contraceptives. I am alive and I am the happiest person on earth to be alive! When I wake up on a sunny morning to my children laughing in the sunshine of the window, I am happy to be alive! When my husband smiles at me I am happy to be alive! When my little brother says, “Hey sis!” I am happy to be alive! When my sister sings songs my daddy sang I am happy to be alive! When I see pictures of my nieces and nephews with their basketball team or horses I am happy just to be alive to see it! When my big brother gives me his monthly “checking on you” phone call I am happy just to be his little sister!
When I think of my dad who used to talk about the things he had to give up because he had so many kids, I am thankful to him, because, he gave them up and not me! He used to call me his “princess.” So, I was never jealous for not being called his “star” like my sister. When I look at my little brother, I can’t even tell you how happy I am that he exists! He looks like my dad – who I miss with all my heart! I love each of my siblings and am thankful for the experiences they have given me! Like counting stars on the trampoline, climbing trees and building forts, and tramping through irrigated fields just to see what was on the other side of the hill. I am happy to be alive. Does that make me selfish?
With nine children, I have carried them through hot summers, gone through labor nine times, my insides are prolapsed and my eyebrows are turning white. Every year I have had an infant with croup, a child with the flu, and a few trips to the emergency room. Yes! My children bring me joy, but they also bring sadness. I have cried, I have hurt, I have pulled my hair out during many a sleepless night! Would I give any of them back? Are you crazy!?
So you might ask my children – are they happy to be alive? Would they prefer I had not had so many kids? But, lets return to the original accusation, that of being selfish for wanting so many kids. Is it okay for children to be so selfish as to not want a sibling? Should we encourage this kind of thinking? I assure you, my children love their siblings and would not wish to lose any one of them!
So, who is the selfish one really? I am insulted that some people masquerade as if they are being charitable to NOT have many children so they can give their few children more attention and stuff, while at the same time insinuating that I am somehow selfish for giving all I have to as many children as God wants me to.
My dad was alive and now he isn’t. I miss him. I also miss the seven other siblings I would have today had they not died prematurely. I miss them because I know that they might have been. I wonder what it would have been like to have another sibling who loved me. Think for a minute of all the laughter that is missing from this world of “planned parenthood.” When a child commits suicide who can tell them that their life was valuable? Who today truly believes life is valuable? It is our degenerated society that has lost sight of the incredible value of human life that is at fault for the sadness in so many children who believe they were a “mistake” an “accident” their parents were good enough not to kill them, but not good enough to want them.”
 - Sarah Rollins
Posted in General Catholic | Tagged , , , , , ,

Savor a grand, marvelous telling of the story of Joan of Arc! Joan the Maid! Jeanne d’Arc! La Pucelle!

Posted on March 3, 2012 by
SJST

The story of Jeanne d’Arc resonates throughout the heavens when told from the heart of a true devotee. The choirs of angels sing and her holy brothers and sisters, the saints, rejoice with her. There is no more glorious tale in all the world save one! Let us, in the Church Militant, rejoice with the heavens as we read this account!
The following was communicated by the Director of the Confraternity of St. Joan of Arc and  is adapted from a lecture given in Paris on May 10, 2001, by Georges Bordonove, a distinguished historian and member of the Academie Française.
Let the story begin!
“How a saintly girl did more to restore chivalry than kings, nobles and knights…
A commonly voiced prophecy held that France would be lost by a woman but saved by a virgin from Lorraine. The woman was France’s queen, Isabelle of Bavaria. The virgin savior, the voices affirmed, was Joan, whom France’s true sovereign, Christ the King, would arm with His strength.
We need not speculate about Joan’s voices, as did her judges in Rouen. History demonstrates that Joan’s mission was supernatural, for there is no other plausible explanation for its triumph.

We need to simply recall that Joan’s crusade lasted but a year, followed by another year of imprisonment. Yet, in that brief span, against all odds, she freed France from its English occupiers.
Having accepted her mission, Joan had no doubt it would succeed. Still, she told no one — not even her mother. Her father, however, had dreamt of his daughter departing with soldiers and threatened to drown her to prevent such dishonor.
Thus, to leave Domremy safely, she was obliged to disguise her mission. She said she was going to help her uncle’s wife, who was with child. The uncle escorted Joan to Vaucouleurs, the last bastion in Lorraine under Charles’ control.
When Joan insisted that Captain Robert de Baudricourt take her to Chinon to save the king, he burst out laughing. He advised Joan’s uncle to spank her soundly and return her to her parents. Joan, however, stood her ground, gaining the sympathy of the people of Vaucouleurs, who began to believe in her mission. Among her new champions were two squires, John de Novelpont, and Bernard de Poulangy.
Church investigators record their dialogue thus:
“My friend, what dost thou here? Must then the king be chased from his kingdom and all of us become English?”
“I come here to talk to Robert de Baudricourt so that he either deigns take me, or have me taken, to the king,” Joan replies. “There is no solution but through me. And even then I would much rather slip away to be with my poor mother, since this is not my state. But go I must, for such is the will of my Lord.”
“But who is your lord?”
“The King of Heaven!”
Sign from God
At last, Baudricourt acceded to Joan’s wishes, providing her with a sword and a small escort under Poulangy’s command. They left Vaucouleurs on February 13, 1429. The odds were against them as they marched toward Chinon, for they had to cross more than 60 miles of enemy territory.
Nonetheless, Joan arrived at Chinon at noon, February 23. While she was welcomed by the people as an angel of salvation, Charles hesitated to receive her. His counselors advised the king that Joan was an ambitious adventuress, perhaps even a sorceress. Orleans was already regarded as lost, and its inhabitants were negotiating a surrender to the English.
On February 25, Charles received Joan at his château. Although the king disguised his rank, Joan, who had never seen him, found him among the lowliest members of his retinue and knelt before him.
“Gentle dauphin, my name is Joan the Virgin,” she proclaimed, “The King of Heaven tells thee through me that thou shalt be crowned in the city of Reims and that thou shalt be the lieutenant of the King of Heaven, who is the true King of France.”
Naturally, the earthly king required tangible proof. As Charles’ mother had denied his legitimacy to appease the English, he was uncertain of his status. A few days earlier, he had begged God to grant him a sign of his legitimacy. It was this intimate prayer that Joan revealed to Charles when they spoke alone. The king had received the sign he sought.
The king then sent Joan to Poitiers to be examined by a commission of theologians. When they too demanded a sign, she replied, “In the name of God, I have not come to Poitiers to give signs. Take me to Orleans and I will show you the signs for which I have been sent.”
Victory in Orleans
By scrounging his last cents and going even deeper into debt, Charles managed to put together an army. He entrusted its command to the Duke of Alencon, whose lieutenants were scarcely altar boys. Somehow the army seemed transformed by Joan’s presence: the soldiers stopped blaspheming, confessed their sins, and received Holy Communion. This alone was no small miracle.
Charles outfitted Joan with a suit of armor and a war horse. He provided her with an armed herald to act as her courier. For her standard, Joan had God the Creator emblazoned between two adoring angels bearing lilies. The standard bore the holy names of Jesus and Mary. There must be no doubt Who was leading France into battle.
On April 11, 1429, Joan departed for Orleans with the vanguard. Dunois, with his captains, came to greet her with what they deemed indispensable advice. “In God’s name,” Joan protested, “the Lord’s counsel is better than thine. I bring thee better succor than any soldier could provide, the succor of the King of Heaven.”
When a contrary wind kept supply barges from sailing forward, Joan dropped to her knees in prayer, and the wind shifted course, bringing badly needed food to the besieged city.
The English had surrounded Orleans with trenches and fortifications. Spurning the advice of her captains for the counsel of her voices, Joan decided to attack those redoubtable fortresses. In a few days she had conquered the most important strongholds and especially the Tourelles rampart, which guarded the sole bridge crossing the Loire.

On May 8, 1429, the English withdrew, and the siege of Orleans was lifted, just as Joan had foretold. On June 12, Joan retook Jargeau; on June 15, Meungsur-Loire; and on June 17, Beaugency. In Patay, the English under General Talbot suffered a devastating defeat, losing 6,000 men.
Joan never boasted of a single victory, for she attributed each of them to God. Above all, she remained true to herself — the simple and pious maid of Domremy, to which she longed to return.
Coronation of Charles
In the wake of the stunning victory at Patay the Duke of Alençon proposed to take advantage of the momentum to recapture Normandy, but Joan wanted to take Charles to Reims to fulfill her mission.
To reach Reims, they had to cross the territory of Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy.
Charles’ small army left Gien on June 25, 1429. Fulfilling Joan’s prediction, the Burgundian towns mysteriously opened their doors. The same took place in cities such as Troyes, Chalons-sur-Marne and, at last, Reims.
Charles VII is crowned in Reims
Charles was anointed in the cathedral of Reims on July 17 with Joan and her standard not far from his side. When she knelt before her sovereign at the conclusion of his coronation, Joan rejoiced, “Gentle king, God’s good pleasure, that I should lift the siege of Orleans, bring thee hither to this city of Reims to receive thy true and holy anointing, thus showing that thou art the true king to which the kingdom must belong, has now been fulfilled.”

Joan now wished to liberate Paris as she had Orleans. The early signs were encouraging. Chateau-Thierry, Soissons, Creil, Pont-Saint-Maxence, Senlis, Beauvais, and Compiegne expelled the English garrisons and opened their doors to King Charles. The campaign was turning into a triumphal march, yet the king showed little interest in advancing on Paris. Unbeknownst to Joan, Charles was secretly negotiating a peace treaty with the treacherous Philip the Good.
Betrayed by the king
The king allowed Joan to advance as far as Saint Denis, where she was wounded in a failed attempt to take the St. Honore gate. Charles then ordered her to withdraw. To keep Joan busy and out of the way, the king next sent her to lay siege to some insignificant fortresses held by a rogue knight.
Finally, Charles ennobled Joan and presented her with a magnificent coat of arms, much as corporate executives give gold watches to employees whom they force to retire.
Joan, however, was not to be bribed into betraying the trust that God — and countless countrymen — had placed in her. Charles now sought to hand over Compiegne to Burgundy, but the village desired to remain French and cried out to the virgin from Loraine in its hour of need.
Joan came at once with a small band of brave souls and was captured by the Burgundians during a sortie on May 12, 1430. The English were ecstatic as Joan was delivered into their hands.
Capture of the Maid at Compiegne
Christmas Eve found Joan in the hands of the Earl of Warwick, governor of Normandy. Joan, who once stood by her king in a magnificent cathedral, was now abandoned by him to a dank and dark cell. Her hands, once devoutly kissed by her countrymen, were bound in chains, as were her feet. At night, yet another chain fastened to a wooden beam kept her confined to bed.
The modest maiden was not afforded a moment’s privacy. Vile men of the lowest sort watched her every movement. They assailed her virginal chastity with vulgar insults and might have violated her person save for the grace of God and the protection provided by her soldier’s attire. By far the worse deprivation that Joan suffered, however, was the denial of the consolations of Mass and Holy Communion.
Bishop or pawn?
Bedford was a crafty politician. He wished to discredit Joan in the eyes of her countrymen — not to transform her into a martyr. Bedford’s plan was to have Joan condemned by an ecclesiastical court and thus turn the saint into a sorceress. To this end, he resorted to Bishop Pierre Cauchon, a traitorous Frenchman and counselor of King Henry.
Having been expelled from his own diocese held by the French, the bishop coveted the vacant see of Rouen, controlled by the English. Joan had braved enemy soldiers at the risk of her life, but now she faced a perfidious bishop with risks to her immortal soul. Her victories in Orleans and Patay were glorious indeed, but in Rouen, she would attain true grandeur.
Joan’s trial began on January 9, 1431. Bishop Cauchon sought above all to provide his English patrons with a confession — however fraudulent and coerced — that Joan’s voices were not real and that the angel who guided her was not God’s champion, the archangel Michael, but His enemy, the fallen angel Lucifer.
Bedford and Bishop Cauchon had planned everything — except Joan’s heroic resistance. They tried to trap her with duplicitous questions, to weary her spirits through unending examinations, but she parried every thrust, preceding each defense of truth with an assault on lies.
Thus Joan challenged Bishop Cauchon from the start: “You say that you are my judge. Be very mindful of what you shall do, for I truly am an envoy of God and you are placing yourself in great danger. I warn you of this so that, if Our Lord punishes you, I will have done my duty of having cautioned you.”
It was a warning the renegade bishop disregarded at grave peril to his own soul, as he desperately tried every possible trick, even sending a fake confessor into her cell.
The preliminary proceedings ended on March 17, 1431, with an act of 72 articles accusing Joan of bad faith. The trial resumed on March 27 with Joan affirming from the onset:
“I want to maintain the position I’ve always held during these proceedings. If I were judged and saw the executioner ready to light the fire, I would say and hold, even unto death, nothing different than I have so far.”
“Let God be served first!”
Unable to force a confession, Bishop Cauchon now sought to catch Joan in a doctrinally damning error. She was, after all, a simple Christian who knew nothing about theology. She must stop claiming she was sent by God and submit the matter to the judgment of theologians who alone could discern the nature of her supposed voices.
Three times, Joan was warned about the difference between the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant, but when her tormentors demanded she submit, Joan replied, “Let God be served first!”
Cast as unwillingness to submit to the Church, Joan’s resistance was the pretext needed to condemn her as a “heretic,” and she was sentenced to death.
On May 24, 1431, she was brought to St. Ouen’s cemetery. When Bishop Cauchon began to read her death sentence, Joan was overcome with the fear of dying, and she cried out that she would bow to the Church and recant.

The English were outraged at the thought that their prey might escape the stake, but their lackey Bishop Cauchon would not fail them. He had planned for this contingency and, while he modified Joan’s sentence to life imprisonment, as the law demanded, he made certain the revised sentence could never be carried out.
Although the law also required that Joan be confined to an ecclesiastical prison, Bishop Cauchon returned her to the tower in Bouvreuil. Far worse, knowing the threats to her chastity that Joan had suffered there and the dangers to her person and virginity, the bishop decreed that Joan must no longer wear “man’s clothing,” thus denying her the protection of a military uniform.
Joan resumed feminine dress as Bishop Cauchon had ordered, but when guards threatened her with sexual assault, she was compelled to return to her soldierly garb — conveniently left in her cell. The trap was sprung. As Bishop Cauchon chortled to Warwick, “All is well, we caught her!”
Joan was condemned to death as a “relapsed heretic.” On May 30, 1431, she was taken to Old Market Square, the place of her execution. Enveloped in flames, Joan cried out the name of Jesus six times before dying.

Out of the ashes
Warwick had Joan’s noble heart, which had remained intact, dumped into the Seine along with her ashes lest they be venerated as relics, but her captors’ dreams of victory disappeared as did Joan’s ashes under the waters.
King Charles returned to the battlefield, capturing Normandy, Paris, Guyenne, and finally Bordeaux. Joan’s sacrifice had instilled renewed courage.
When Charles entered Rouen, his first act was to convene an inquiry under papal writ to review Joan’s trial. More than 100 surviving witnesses were questioned during the proceedings, which ended with her unjust condemnation being declared null and void. In pages yellowed with age, the truth about this simple maid from Domremy, Joan’s simple truth, shines forth. Like a beacon on the horizon in the darkest night, it reminds us that what we believed was lost can yet be found.
And I know that, deep in our countryside, where the real soul of France lies dormant, there remain those who believe with Joan that the King of Heaven is the true king of France.”

Posted in Joan of Arc - General | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Nothing against George Weigel, but: Monarchy versus the Republic in the post Vatican II World

Posted on March 1, 2012 by
SJST

Nothing against George Weigel (which means I’m about to say something against George Weigel). I know and respect that he is a towering figure in the lay Catholic world who wrote the highly acclaimed biography on John Paul II. But he never ceases to aggravate me when he talks about faith and politics. His recent post on “The Catholic Diaspora and the Tragedy of Liberal Catholicism” is a case in point.
The impression I get from what I have heard on YouTube  (his response in this video is PROFOUNDLY disappointing from an intellectual standpoint for a man with his prestige in the Catholic world) and seen in writing from Mr. Weigel is that he seems to fall in line with those who see both the American system of government and Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom as being, together in one package, landmark achievements in the progress of modern man. The Declaration is seen as bringing about a new found preference for the Democratic Republic over the Monarchies of old. In this article he is at it again.
He seems to equate The Declaration on Religious Freedom (which declaration hinges on the use of the phrase “with due limits” to keep it from going into error with Pius XII, Leo XIII, Pius IX, and Gregory XVI, see Fr. William G Most, “Religious Liberty: What the Texts Demand”) with some sort of recognition that democracy (presumably meaning a Democratic Republic, since within a Monarchy you still have plenty of room for local and regional democratic rights; a Monarchy does not have to be absolute) is the natural temporal arm to Vatican II. In this paradigm, both Church and State have now “progressed” in freedom away from the regal temporal manifestation of the Faith found in ancient Christendom and toward a higher form where now both the (democratic republican) State and the (new) Church “get” the concept of freedom.
So, Kings and Queens are out. Democratic Republics are in. The Church having a moral obligation to enforce (“with due limits”) the Truth in the temporal realm for the advancement of an edifying and free society is out. Everybody keeps their religion to themselves when it comes to politics is in. This is the perception I get anyway. Mr. Weigel attempts to pre-empt the aggravated reaction from people like me by pointing out that the ideas in the Declaration were developed in the “pre-conciliar” Church, which is true. But that does not at all mean that his interpretation (as I perceive it, anyway) of that as being a preference for democratic Republics over Monarchies is fitting.
Yet, notwithstanding the very careful line one must walk when interpreting the Declaration on Religious Freedom so as to not go into error with the long line of Popes before Vatican II (re: Fr Most above), and allowing for an authentic interpretation of the Declaration that necessarily maintains consistency with the teachings of the past, separation of Church and State and religious freedom still cannot even remotely be associated strictly with a Democratic Republic. Separation of Church and State can be accomplished in more than one way.

In ancient Christendom, under the Catholic Kings and Princes, civilization had the ultimate separation of Church and State. The Catholic Princes, precisely because they were Catholic, were subject to the independent moral authority of the Church. The Church, being independent from the State, consistently fought the totalitarian tendencies of the Princes. This is one of the great advantages to having an institutional Church and not just some “spiritual but not religious,” ephemeral, belief system. Institutions can organize defenses. Independent institutions can apply pressure.
As for religious freedom, modern day Monaco is an example of a Catholic Monarchy which also allows for religious freedom. Spain is another. Even under the rule of the glorious Isabel of Castile, foundress of the Spanish Inquisition, there was some limited religious freedom, certainly “with due limits” (Isabel built synagogues out of respect for the Jews and was praised by at least one Jewish leader for her regal leadership in the matter. Several of the most trusted confidants in her court were Jewish. Her later expulsion of the Jews complicates my point but does not nullify it). Who says the American model is the only (or even the greatest) one?
A key point that often dawns on those studying the history of Western Civilization from the 4th century forward is that separation of Church and State and Religious Freedom are two separate principles, not one. Most in the modern world think of these two as one; that is, a society must have separation of Church and State as defined by the modern Republic in order to have freedom of religion. Balderdash.
The definition given us by the Republic is nothing more than a smoke screen to take Religion out of the public life of The People and to then make it relative and therefore irrelevant. Separation of Church and State in a Democratic Republic like the United States merely subjugates Church to State and makes the State the enemy of religion. That is the historical record of the United States and other republics such as France. The “Constitution” is supposed to replace the independent authority of the Church as the protector against totalitarianism and the guarantor of religious freedom, but we all know how that is working out in the United States.
Separation of Church and State under the Catholic Monarchies of Christendom was effective in mitigating totalitarianism precisely because the independent Church was not subjugated to the State and precisely because the Church was not, and is not ever, subject to “the Will of the People.” The Constitution fails in its protective role quite simply because the Constitution is itself, ultimately, subject to that “Will” (which is by its very nature amorphous, changing, and built on sand as opposed to the Rock of Dogmatic Truths revealed to us through Christ’s institutional Church). The supposed strength of the Republic is actually its weakness. Even the totalitarian-oriented King Louis XIV, the “Sun King,” had to ultimately yield to some degree before an independent, sovereign institutional Church as did the Revolutionary “Emperor” Napoleon. A separate, free, equally esteemed Church will fight Dictators of the State. That is the historical record of Christendom. A separate but subjugated Church has no (earthly) power to do so.
What Mr. Weigel fails to mention here, in this article, is that the mess we are in now regarding religious freedom is less about the Catholic Bishops’ loss of memory regarding their history in helping to bring about an alliance between Church and State for the establishment of religious freedom in America and more about the tragedy that they “Americanized” the local Catholic Church in that process. To put it quite bluntly, they lowered the Church to America rather than to raise America to the Church. Therein is the root cause of our troubles.
Tradition, including the T(t)raditions that brought pre-eminence to the aristocracy of the Church, which, as the seed of the Kingdom of God on earth, reflects the Divine Aristocracy of Heaven where Jesus Christ is “King of Kings” (and not a Divine Democratic Republic of Heaven, where Jesus Christ is “President of Presidents” until the next election) was trashed in deference to the Bishops’ (along with the Joe and Joline Catholic’s) infatuation with “Americanism.”  The Body of Christ began to take on the characteristics of a Church “by the People, of the People, and for the People” (which seems to be the interpretation many have of Vatican II’s call for the involvement of the laity). Instead of the liturgy elevating the American culture, the Bishops allowed the American culture to debase the Liturgy. Masses became (and still are) vulgarized (because our culture is vulgar). No, the mess we are in now comes not from the Bishops’ poor memory regarding their role in America, it comes from their poor memory regarding their role in the Church.

Weigel seems to me to be under the spell. That spell is that somehow, just somehow, we have to be able to say that both democratic America and the “new” Church, as opposed to just the Church, represent the ultimate progress of man. The spell says, more or less, that we have evolved to the pinnacle of progress with an American-istic Catholicism. We want to worship both our State and our Religion since we assume God blesses America, and Americanism is therefore somehow, in some vague way, equal to the Church. Weigel’s broad interpretation of Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom throws fuel to the fire. Running its course, one becomes just as much a heretic and schismatic for not obeying the tenants of Americanism as he is for not obeying those of the Church.
This is the new dream alliance between the Eternal and the temporal, just as in days of old that alliance was represented by the Monarchy as the right arm of the Church. Now, terrifyingly, we have the Church as the right arm of the democracies. Yet, the “progress” we see in this country is exactly the result of these forces in which Mr. Weigel exults. However, it is not the type that the spell would have us imagine. The progress we see here is merely that of the “Revolution” against God and all that is good and decent. Mr. Weigel’s spirit of cooperation between the Bishops and the Republic is no more than the spirit of anti-Christ that our Bishops in America have been duped into courting. It is the spirit that orchestrated the Bolshevik Revolution and before that the French and Protestant Revolutions.
This spirit is not one of freedom. Freedom can only be found through the uncompromised Body of Christ, His Church. Remember your role in the Church dear Bishops, and we will free our country. Though it will not be in the manner described by Mr. Weigel.
Vive le Roi.
StM

Posted in Catholic and Royal Army of America | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,