In Supremo Apostolatus

In 1839, Gregory XVI issued the apostolic letter In Supremo Apostolatus against the slave trade and chattel slavery, in which he wrote:

In the process of time, the fog of pagan superstition being more completely dissipated and the manners of barbarous people having been softened, thanks to Faith operating by Charity, it at last comes about that, since several centuries, there are no more slaves in the greater number of Christian nations. But - We say with profound sorrow - there were to be found afterwards among the Faithful men who, shamefully blinded by the desire of sordid gain, in lonely and distant countries, did not hesitate to reduce to slavery Indians, negroes and other wretched peoples, or else, by instituting or developing the trade in those who had been made slaves by others, to favour their unworthy practice. Certainly many Roman Pontiffs of glorious memory, Our Predecessors, did not fail, according to the duties of their charge, to blame severely this way of acting as dangerous for the spiritual welfare of those engaged in the traffic and a shame to the Christian name; they foresaw that as a result of this, the infidel peoples would be more and more strengthened in their hatred of the true Religion...

[W]e have judged that it belonged to Our pastoral solicitude to exert Ourselves to turn away the Faithful from the inhuman slave trade in Negroes and all other men...[D]esiring to remove such a shame from all the Christian nations, having fully reflected over the whole question and having taken the advice of many of Our Venerable Brothers the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, and walking in the footsteps of Our Predecessors, We warn and adjure earnestly in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil him of his possessions, reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour...
 
We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices above mentioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in this Apostolic Letter.

Jeanne d'Arc, 1429

On this date, April 29th, 1429, St. Joan of Arc (1412-1431) led the French force in relieving the city of Orléans, which had been under siege from the English since the previous October.

Having been counseled by St. Michael and other angels, as well as St. Margaret (a 4th century martyr), St. Catherine of Alexandria, and others, the Maid of Domremy acted out of an abundance of patriotic love to help her fellow Frenchmen. At first she balked - "I am a poor girl; I do not know how to ride or fight," she protested. Her Heavenly counselors told her, however, "It is God who commands it.”

Joan's divine mission was miraculously confirmed in the court of the Dauphine, after which she prophesied how Orléans would be delivered. The details of her remarks are recorded in a letter written by Sire de Rotslaer, in which he wrote that the Maid "would save Orléans and would compel the English to raise the siege, that she herself in a battle before Orléans would be wounded by a shaft but would not die of it, and that the King, in the course of the coming summer, would be crowned at Reims..."

Before entering upon her campaign, Joan summoned the King of England to withdraw his troops from French soil. The English commanders were furious at the audacity of the demand, but Joan by a rapid movement entered Orléans on April 30th. Her presence there at once worked wonders. By May 8th the English forts which encircled the city had all been captured, and the siege raised, though on the 7th the Last Crusader was wounded in the breast by an arrow.

George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation

Thanksgiving Proclamation
[New York, 3 October 1789]

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Byrne on Day

In this post last year I mentioned Carol Byrne's book that debunks the Dorothy Day-as-hero myth (hear that, Cardinal Dolan?). Strange though it seems, there are misguided souls who still want to see Day canonized.

Byrne recently gave an interview about her book and her research here.

Gilbert on the Pilgrims

"In America, they have a feast to celebrate the arrival of the Pilgrims. Here in England, we should have a feast to celebrate their departure."
- G.K. Chesterton

Hat tip: Paul

Lepanto: 7 October 1571

At the Battle of Lepanto off the west coast of Greece, the Holy League – a combined effort of papal, Spanish, Venetian, and Genoese fleets under Don John of Austria – gained victory over the Turkish fleet on this day in 1571.

The forces
The Turkish fleet had about 200 galleys and four dozen small ships with 32,000 soldiers, 50,000 sailors and oarsmen, and 750 guns.

The Christian fleet had slightly fewer vessels, 23,000 soldiers, 40,000 sailors and oarsmen, and 1,300 guns.

The outcome
Fighting commenced at dawn and lasted five hours.

Fifteen Turkish ships were sunk and 177 taken, 20,000-30,000 men disabled, and 12,000-15,000 Christian rowers -- slaves on the Turkish galleys -- were delivered.

The crusaders lost 17 ships and 7,500 men.

The Christian victory was significant: the Ottomans had not lost a major naval battle since the 15th century, and the engagement deprived them of control of the Mediterranean Sea; it reversed what had been centuries of unstoppable Moslem raids along Europe’s southern shores. Christians of the west grew in confidence that the Turks, previously unstoppable, could be beaten.

The Holy League immediately credited the outcome to the Blessed Virgin Mary. On the day of the battle, Pope St. Pius V saw the victory in a vision.

Today David Warren has a nice write-up of the event.

The Battle of Lepanto

Don't Ask Adams

Last week Martha sent out the following request:

I ran across someone who has the preposterous signature line shown below...I would like to compile a list of quotes from the Gospels which refute, would you like to help? Or would you recommend just forgetting about it?

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." ~John Adams

Yes, that's this John Adams.

=======

My reply to Martha went thus:

That Adams was a liberal and a harbinger of modernism there is, I think, little dispute.

Even so, liberals have been mis-quoting Adams as their messenger to attack Christianity for years now. The "quote" you named, for example, is spurious -- coddled together by different people over the years and made to look a bit different from the original.

Spurious Quotation #1
"The ‘divinity’ of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."

Attributed to Adams in Spirit (1988) by William Edelen. This is actually a paraphrase portions of two of Adams' diary entries:

"Mystery is made a convenient cover for absurdity." (13 February 1756)

"Where do we find a precept in the Gospel requiring Ecclesiastical Synods? Convocations? Councils? Decrees? Creeds? Confessions? Oaths? Subscriptions? and whole cart-loads of other trumpery that we find religion incumbered with in these days?" (18 February 1756)

Spurious Quotation #2

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

Attributed to Adams in Pathway to the Stars (2007) by Rev. Ernest A. Steadman. Another paraphrase of the entry for 13 February 1756.

I suppose one could debunk the spurious quotation, and then tackle the original (there are problems in both instances). Perhaps something like this:

"The 'popular sovereignty' of the governed is made a convenient cover for absurdity. What need does anyone have of Declarations, Protests, Oaths, Continental Congresses, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in the colonies."

=======

In the same vein, Helmut offered, "If the assumed logic from Adams is correct, what does that mean for the Pledge of Allegiance, the Star Spangled Banner, the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, Supreme Court rulings, the procedures of Congress and the inauguration of presidents and swearing in of elected officials..."

Thus armed, Martha sent these and similar pointers to the source of the offending signature line. The offender's response in turn was not surprising -- as Martha put it, he "jumped into the last ditch immediately (sneering) and told me to save my stereotyping for someone who cares."

How very Adams-like.

William Tyndale

William Tyndale was an English Franciscan priest turned Protestant reformer (sic) inspired by the continental heresies of Luther et al. He was an outspoken dreamer, of strict moral character if stubborn and proud, who had more than a touch of the firebrand in him.

He based his English translation of the Bible not simply on the Latin Vulgate, but on the Greek (provided by Erasmus), on the Hebrew, and on the translations of Martin Luther. Tyndale then used the recently-invented printing press to disseminate his flawed translation into English, which is credited by the Anglican political figures in England with leading to the spread of confusion and turmoil among the masses.

Tyndale was a scholar of no little ability. At the same time his translation of the Scriptures -- which later served as the chief foundation for the King James Version -- was marred by his perversion of many passages (i.e. due to the theological bias of the translator), all in the service of continental Protestantism. For example, he used “overseer” instead of “bishop,” “elder” instead of “priest,” “love” instead of “charity,” and “congregation” instead of “church” -- modifications that were less about rendering an accurate translation in the vernacular than undermining the Catholic position. His version of the Bible is credited with having about 2,000 inaccurate translations and errors. These numerous errors are the chief objection to Tyndale’s work -- that, and not that he rendered the Scriptures in the local tongue.

His polemical writings were also heavily accented with naïve political teachings, which earned him the wrath of the rulers of the day for their anti-establishment tenor. Tyndale was especially critical of his king’s severe taxes and ambitious build-up of naval power.

Tyndale’s translation was also banned by the Anglicans, who took his criticisms of their king very badly and would have seen Tyndale's writings burned and the man himself executed. His practice of including revolutionary notions in his Scriptural translations was deemed dangerous to public order. The political unrest he caused as much as the suppression of his writings is why he fled England for the continent.

Because his Scriptural translation was considered heretical by the Anglicans, Tyndale had earned the displeasure of his king, who was not known for his forbearance. Henry VIII subsequently asked the Emperor Charles V to have Tyndale arrested and returned to England. Tyndale was eventually taken into custody in Belgium (Flanders). He spent 500 days in prison, received a brief trial, and was executed for heresy. His dying words were, “Lord! Open the King of England's eyes.” It would seem that perhaps in William’s view at least, his chief quarrel lay not so much with the Catholic Church as with his own Anglican monarch.

At Tyndale’s trial, the main charges against him were as follows:
1) he maintained justification by faith alone and
2) belief that the Gospel alone could save,
3) professed that human tradition was not binding,
4) denied the freedom of the will and
5) the existence of purgatory, and
6) asserted that neither the Blessed Virgin Mary nor the saints pray for us in their own persons and
7) that neither the Blessed Virgin nor Mary the saints should ever be invoked.

You’ll note that "translating the Scriptures into the vernacular" is not among the reasons given for his condemnation.

Flanders was where Calvinistic Protestantism began to flourish in Belgium in the 16th century. Tyndale was a harbinger of religious and political unrest akin to what the Flemish were witnessing in Germany to the south. If one thinks the internecine wars instigated by Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli were a good and necessary thing, then one will naturally be inclined to see Tyndale as a martyr for the Protestant cause. If, however, one takes the Catholic view that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and their disciples were profoundly wrong, and that the consequence of embracing their errors was eternal damnation, then the spectacle of executing an unrepentant public heretic who blithely urged the populace to tread the broad path that leads to social unrest and personal perdition seems less surprising.

Regarding his trial, the custom would have been for an ecclesiastical court to read the charges against him, and then see if he acknowledged the errors. He would not have been tried by a civil court because he was a Franciscan priest -- he fell under Church jurisdiction.

If he repudiated the errors, then he could have been spared or sentenced with some penance or a fine. Given that Tyndale was a public and persistent heretic and a source of grave civil scandal, the penalty would have been severe.

If he persisted in professing the errors, then he would have been stripped of his clerical faculties and handed over to the state for punishment. In Tyndale's case, the punishment inflicted by the Belgium state for his offenses was death. The Flemish were still substantially Catholic at the time, and the pernicious errors of Luther were something they wanted to keep out at all costs.

Today William Tyndale is still lauded by the "Scripture Alone" crowd. My experience has been that folks of that camp won’t care about much else except how Tyndale provided a seemingly plausible argument for dismissing clerical authority and opening the way for recourse to relying on personal interpretations of the Bible (think "apostle of liberty" and "liberty of conscience"). Everything else is window dressing.

National Aviation Day

Today, August 19, is National Aviation Day in the U.S.

In 1939, FDR established this holiday – the birthday of Orville Wright – to promote interest in aviation.

The web site of the Engineers’ Club of Dayton, OH has a 6.5 minute video of snippets from some of the early flights by the Wright Brothers -- see http://www.daytoninnovationlegacy.org/

Marxists With Rosaries

Source

Below is the review I wrote recently on Amazon.com for The Catholic Worker Movement (1933-1980): A Critical Analysis.

If you're interested in the subject of Catholic views of economics, then avoid anything coming from Dorothy Day, Peter Maurin, or the CWM. What a horrible mess those people made!

=======

"The Catholic Worker Movement (1933-1980): A Critical Analysis" by Carol Byrne is a well-researched analysis of the writings and activities of the two founders of the Catholic Worker Movement, Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin.

I approached the book with the understanding that Day was a dupe for the Communists -- and it was a role she didn't particularly mind playing: she struck me as a mole with one good eye. She misidentified the source of many of the world's woes (liberal capitalism with its materialism yes, but not original sin, which would have implicated herself and her comrades as well) and so adopted incorrect remedies (liberation theology; agrarian reform; bolshevism -- materialist creeds all, a fact that she managed to reliably overlook in her efforts to overthrow capitalism). I gave Day credit for intending well, but not for having the wherewithal to completely overcome her radical Communist past. I read Byrne's offering to see how well that postulate held up under closer scrutiny.

The author provides numerous examples that illustrate how the truth was far sadder than I suspected. Byrne thoroughly demonstrates that Day maintained a radicalism steeped in Marxist thought: she was a Communist who became a Catholic, but rather than repudiate her old erroneous ideas, she set about to create a synthesis between the two contradictory creeds. It was an oil and water mix steeped in false pretenses, one in which the Catholic element lost out almost every time to Marxist angst.

To wit, Day and Maurin:
* were nurtured on a Socialist ideology,
* campaigned with active Communists and their travelers,
* unfailingly supported Communist teachings and activities,
* attended conferences organized by Communists in the USSR,
* promoted Communist writings and propaganda,
* advocated worker strikes that were started by Communist-infiltrated unions,
* denigrated cash given by capitalists but accepted it willingly from socialists,
* defended the use of violence and class warfare to achieve joint ownership of property and the forcible redistribution of wealth,
* maintained a posture of hatred for Western democracy and admiration for Leninist and Stalinist totalitarianism,
* weakened the West in its defense against Communist aggression in the name of pacifism,
* praised Garibaldi in Italy, Castro in Cuba, and Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam -- men who used armed force to brutalize and murder their enemies,
* refused guidance from orthodox Catholic clerics, and
* re-interpreted the Gospels and papal encyclicals to support their radicalism.

Hats off to Carol Byrne for providing the documentation needed to provide the correct context and background for a more complete understanding of the CWM.

St. Valentine's Day

Feast of St. Valentine

St. Valentine, whose relics are pictured below, was a Roman Catholic priest who, after having cured and instructed many persons, was beaten with clubs and beheaded in martyrdom for the Catholic Faith on February 14th, 270 A.D. That is why today is Saint Valentine's Day.

Relic of St. Valentine

The customs associated with Saint Valentine's Day had their origin in a popular belief in England and France during the Middle Ages that on February 14th -- half way through the second month of the year -- the birds began to pair. For this reason the day was looked upon as particularly suitable for writing romantic letters and sending tokens of affection between young people in love.

Conspiracy Junkies II

In this post I covered the topic of conspiracy junkies. In that entry I:
(1) showed how the claims of one Fred Leuchter regarding the Nazi's gas chambers were demolished;
(2) provided a reference to the solid science of a Popular Mechanics article demonstrating that the Twin Towers were brought down by airplanes;
(3) concluded with plausible explanations for why some people were inclined to pursue the chimera of conspiracy notions.

One reader of this blog wrote to say that "Firemen, military men, and others are not onboard with the official story of 911." No names or examples were provided. As phrased, the meaning of my critic's remark is that not a single fireman, military man, and other person is on board with the official story. Perhaps what was meant that some persons don't accept it? But how many? Who? Absent any examples or evidence comparable to what was provided by the other side of the discussion, the best response to a sweeping generalization is often a categorical denial. But I will add that the vast majority of firemen, military men, and others recognize that it was two airplanes that brought down the Twin Towers; the ones who think otherwise are few and far between, and their differing accounts can be readily explained by the chaos and confusion of the day.

My reader added, "As for what happened in Germany, well, let's just say we can't even question it so what are they hiding?" I'm reminded of a conversation I had some time ago with another Holocaust denier who said that what was needed was a thorough investigation of the matter. I pointed out that numerous reliable investigations had already been conducted, and that a thinking man would see that the findings were thorough, conclusive, and satisfied all reasonable doubts. The other chap said that we still needed more investigations. It seemed clear to me that facts were not the answer to such an attitude; about all one can do is tell them they're unreasonable and move along.

That is, unless they are in positions of influence and seek to publicize and win support for their calumny. In that case, I think lawsuits for defamation of character are entirely appropriate. After all, this is a matter of bearing false witness against the victims of Nazi atrocities, and a man is entitled to his good name.

At about this point my critics will sometimes talk about other atrocities that are given a free pass -- why do only the Jews get to complain about what was done to them?

For example, the Ottoman Turks inflicted genocide on the Armenian Christians, murdering upwards of a million innocent souls. Adolf Hitler, commenting on the silence surrounding this great crime, said that if nobody talked about the Armenians, nobody would talk about the Jews either. The Turks of today say that there was collateral damage inflicted on both sides during that time; world opinion has been slowly turning against them, but the denial of the genocide is still considered acceptable in many quarters.

Long-time readers will recall the numerous blog entries I've written about the 100+ million innocents murdered by the Soviet Russians, Maoist Chinese, and other Communists in the 20th century. Beware the useful idiots who say that socialism is a viable system and that certain tyrants just gave it a bad name! And the popular press has long looked the other way regarding the evidence of the outcome of what happens when the flawed notion of "separation of Church and state" is consistently applied. Secularists, not religionists, have caused the most suffering in human history, bar none -- another point where our "watchdog" media is a no-show.

And it was from Iraq that the neologism "genocide" was coined in 1943. The author was Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish lawyer from Poland. Lemkin was describing the systematic extermination of Assyrian Christians carried out in the 1930s by the Muslim governors of the new nation of Iraq that had been born after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Silence is the order of the day here as well. And yes, it is another injustice.

Should lawsuits be brought against all these entities? The answer, I think, is a prudential one: if you think you can win the case, then yes. Otherwise, you just have to walk away from it.

Just like you have to walk away from conspiracy junkies who won't permit themselves to be persuaded by credible evidence.

Conspiracy Junkies

A while back I was party to a 9/11 conspiracy discussion with a chap who had a Doctorate in Grassy Knoll Philosophy.

For the record, I'm of the camp who thinks that:
(1) The airplanes flown into the twin towers brought them down;
(2) The Pentagon was hit by a plane and not a missile;
(3) War planes did not shoot down the fourth plane in Pennsylvania.

Very official story of me, I know. And anyone who thinks I'm a news media groupie had better take another look at my posts on this blog over the past few years.

Anyway, as the exchanges with the individuals who were half a bubble off plum were winding down, I was reminded of another conspiracy discussion I'd been involved in.

Once I was dining with a friend's out of town guest who offered as a lunch-time conversation topic the idea that not everything we've heard about the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust can be trusted, and that the persons murdered were far fewer than is commonly believed. In support of this point he cited the work of one Fred Leuchter. Curiously, my fellow diner couldn't recall Leuchter's name; I had to provide that detail.

Which tips my hand: I'd already read up on Leuchter's activities, and I replied that the report had been thoroughly discredited as fraudulent. I added that Leuchter had collected his samples for the cyanide tests from reconstructed buildings and not the original gas chambers.

My rebuttal was greeted with a dull, pod-person stare and a slight nod; the matter was dropped without further comment, and we moved on to other subjects.

Backstory
The Leuchter report was written in 1988 for the legal defense in the Canadian trial of one Ernst Zündel, Holocaust Denier (or, as his ilk prefers, "Revisionist"). Leuchter himself was an opportunist and professional witness who would say just about anything his employer required of him -- in this instance, for the grand sum of $38,000.

For the Zündel case Leuchter traveled to Auschwitz-Birkenau and Lublin-Majdanek to conduct a study on the presence of cyanide in the death chambers. Leuchter spent four days at the death camps scraping and stealing bricks and cement fragments. He then had the samples tested for the presence of cyanide. When what Leuchter arbitrarily deemed was only insignificant traces of cyanide were found, he declared that no gas chambers had been used to exterminate the Nazi's inmates.

Leuchter was entirely uncredentialed for the task he attempted:
* He was a history major, not an engineer;
* He had no formal training in toxicology, biology, or chemistry;
* He fraudulently represented himself as an expert in gas chambers.

The methodology of Leuchter's study was gravely flawed on several points:
* His collection method diluted his samples, making it impossible to gather accurate data about the presence of cyanide;
* He did not advise the chemist who analyzed the material as to where it originated or how it was collected, which further compromised the tests;
* He was unaware that the chambers from which took his samples had been rebuilt using a good many bricks that were not in the original buildings, thus skewing his findings;
* He did not consult any of the large documentation archive readily available at Auschwitz.

For the record, subsequent tests using methods to account for the variables Leuchter ignored or was unaware of refuted his conclusions. The cyanide was there.

Leuchter's testimony as an expert witness was accepted by the court, but his accompanying Leuchter report was excluded because of his lack of engineering credentials -- thus, the court accepted the report only as evidentiary display and not as direct evidence. Leuchter testified to the veracity of his findings under oath in the trial, yet on cross-examination he failed to provide satisfactory answers about rudimentary matters touching on his supposed field of expertise.

After hearing Leuchter's testimony, the presiding judge dismissed the report as "ridiculous" and "preposterous." The court ruled unequivocally that Leuchter's testimony was without merit on the grounds that he had no expertise whatsoever. Leuchter had also failed to demonstrate any concern for the truth, even while under oath.

An aside: Zündel's case was thrown out because the law under which he was being prosecuted was deemed unconstitutional. Zündel promptly declared that the courts had ruled he was innocent of any wrongdoing. He was later deported to Germany, where he served prison time for inciting racial hatred.

Analysis
I suppose conspiracy theories superficially simplify things. A conspiracy notion might make for a false or bad remedy when dealing with subjects outside one's area of expertise, but it is a readily grasped remedy, particularly for the intellectually challenged.

It also brings closure, which can be reassuring: people endure prolonged turmoil and uncertainty only with great difficulty. And our age excels in producing prolonged turmoil and uncertainty.

There's also the appeal to pride in having an insider's knowledge that most other people are not privy to -- sort of a modern day gnosticism. What smugness there is in knowing what everyone else has missed!

Some people, of course, could just be confused.

Others, meanwhile, are simply bigots.

Whatever the root cause, the modus operandi of the conspiracists is to neglect chronology, treat rumor as history, and use citations fraudulently; hypothesis morphs into fact, authorities that don't bolster a thesis are maligned, and the absence of proof becomes evidence of a cover-up. Dogged repetition is key to winning the day.

For my part, I tend to simply avoid that crowd. If I encounter them and they persist, however, I have few qualms about setting the record in order. Aside from the fact that bearing false witness is a violation of Commandment #8, I don't want to be complicit in their assault on reality by remaining silent.

Wisconsin's Declaration of Defiance

From 1859, when the state of Wisconsin declared that a ruling by the SCOTUS was "without authority, void, and of no force..."

Wisconsin's Declaration of Defiance

Whereas, The Supreme Court of the United States has assumed appellate jurisdiction in the matter of the petition of Sherman M. Booth for a writ of habeas corpus, presented and prosecuted to final judgment in the Supreme Court of this State, and has, without process, or any of the forms recognized by law, assumed the power to reverse that judgment in a matter involving the personal liberty of the citizen, asserted by and adjusted to him by the regular course of judicial proceedings upon the great writ of liberty secured to the people of each State by the Constitution of the United States:

And, whereas, Such assumption of power and authority by the Supreme Court of the United States, to become the final arbiter of the liberty of the citizen, and to override and nullify the judgments of the state courts' declaration thereof, is in a direct conflict with that provision of the Constitution of the United States which secures to the people the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus: therefore,

Resolved, The Senate concurring, That we regard the action of the Supreme Court of the United States, in assuming jurisdiction in the case before mentioned, as an arbitrary act of power, unauthorized by the Constitution, and virtually superseding the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus and prostrating the rights and liberties of the people at the foot of unlimited power.

Resolved, That this assumption of jurisdiction by the federal judiciary, in the said case, and without process, is an act of undelegated power, and therefore without authority, void, and of no force.

Resolved, That the government, formed by the Constitution of the United States was not the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Resolved, That the principle and construction contended for by the party which now rules in the councils of the nation, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism, since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers; that the several states which formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a positive defiance of those sovereignties, of all Unauthorized acts done or attempted to be done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.

Giraffes and Unicorns

I suppose the rhinoceros was the seed that blossomed into the many unicorn rumors that turned out to be medieval urban myths.

One can hardly blame the folks of the time: a unicorn is a lot like a horse, only it has a single horn in its head. That isn't all that much unlike a cow or a deer or a gazelle, which have two horns. What's so odd about a single horn?

Now, a giraffe is truly odd. A horse-like creature covered in leopard's spots, thrice the height of a man, and whose neck is as long as its body? Really? Yet it turns out the unicorn was the tall tale and the giraffe was the true one.

Yet plenty of medieval folks knew that the unicorn and the basilisk and the siren and the lamia and the dragon were mythical and fabulous. To such poets and visionaries it was reasonable that as the unicorn was serviceable as a symbol. Thus, the legend came into being that because a unicorn permitted itself to be captured only in the lap of a pure virgin, it was a fit representation of the Incarnation.

These days the unicorn sees service in the handiwork of, among other things, new agers. In my view this is a sad turn of events for the noble creature. Unicorns are resilient creatures, however, so I'm sure it's just a matter of time before it leaps out of the odd constraints people fashion for it.

Latrocinium

Latrocinium is a Latin word meaning "robber council." The term has been applied to gatherings of Catholic bishops that were later questioned by ecclesiastical authorities and subsequently condemned for their errors, failures, and excesses.

One example was the false Council of Ephesus (449 AD), which supported the heresy of Eutyches and the Monophysites and trampled on Papal discipline and jurisdiction. Its failings were subsequently condemned and corrected by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (451 AD).

At the false council three delegates from Rome bore the Epistola Dogmatica, or dogmatic letter, of Pope Leo I, which explained the mystery of the Incarnation with special reference to the questions raised by the heretic Eutyches. The presiding patriarch allowed only the friends and partisans of Eutyches to have a voice at the council, however; the Pope's men were completely silenced. The outcome was that heresy was formally endorsed, and innocent and pious men were falsely condemned, deposed from their bishoprics, and exiled; one bishop even died in his exiled state. The Pope vigorously protested these crimes; emperors became involved; and a new council was convened that condemned the errors of the latrocinium.

In our own time we're living with the fruits of another corrupting event: the Second Vatican Council. Referencing the "spirit" of this modern council, the dogmatic decrees of 20 centuries of popes, councils, doctors, theologians, and saints have been summarily dismissed as being "not relevant to our times." A new religion -- the modern Catholic Church of the New Advent -- has been forcibly enacted from above by imperious "modern" Churchmen. The result has been widespread public apostasy and scandal; numerous sacrilegious Masses; abandonment of the religious state by priests, brothers, and sisters; closings of seminaries and parochial schools; a precipitous decline in Mass attendance by the faithful; and neglect of the obligations of the Catholic religion by the laity who divorce and remarry, practice contraception, and deny fundamental dogmas such as the True Presence and the Resurrection.

One prelate stood up to all this: the French Abp. Marcel Lefebvre. For his trouble His Excellency was falsely declared to be excommunicated because he clung to the same Catholic faith that produced 20 centuries of holy saints. One day the corrections of the modern abusive and soul-killing activities and declarations will come; some day the misdeeds of the modern tyrants will be reversed and their atrocious decrees will be corrected; eventually the rights of God will be vindicated and the hireling Churchmen who tried to put Man himself on God's throne will get their comeuppance for their crimes. The Resurrection always follows the Crucifixion; the last word is always Joy; God always wins.

Where's Henry?

Pentecost Sunday

Source

The Archbishop of Canterbury said that King Henry VIII might be in hell.

Given that the monarch in question sent his country unto schism by ushering the Protestant Reformation into England over the protests of his subjects (a great many of whom his majesty executed), I'd say that's not a bad bet to take.

“If Henry VIII is saved – an open question, perhaps – it will be at the prayers of [Catholic martyr] John Houghton," said the Archbishop, Dr. Rowan Williams.

Sic semper tyrannis

Thomism's "Monster Sacrè"

Here's an excerpt from an excellent 1932 essay by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. titled "The Consecration of the Human Race to the Immaculate Heart of Mary."

One of the great dangers of the present hour, obviously, is international Communism, a materialist movement that denies the existence of God, of the future life, that destroys the dignity of the human person, the family, and the country. It seeks to conquer Europe and dreams about a world-wide revolution which would be the end of Christianity and all religion, according to the program of the atheist league of those who deny God which Bolshevism is spreading in several countries.

In order to resist this Communist movement, in various places there is a nationalism arising, which, when it is not merely defensive but offensive, often surpasses just limits; it can elevate certain people who were bogged down in a completely egotistical individualism, but it can also bring down those who were living in a Christian spirit, a higher and more universal notion of the great spiritual needs of every human soul. Here and there exaggerated nationalism tends even to become a pagan adoration of the State, more or less deified. And in order to react against a form of materialist naturalism, some fall into another form of the same error, to the detriment of the life of souls, who can thus become so disoriented that they can no longer find the true path...

Above internationalism, which refuses to recognize the spirits and traditions of different peoples, and nationalism, which often forgets the higher aspirations of humanity, must rise the "supranationalism" of the Catholic, that is universal, Church, which must unite souls of different nations under the same light of the Gospel, in the same supernatural hope and the same love of God...

So exaggerated nationalism -- which is a decrepit form of patriotism -- is in fact "egotistical individualism." Some groups of radical political nationalists sprouting up in the western world are attempting to whitewash this failing by claiming they are attracted to the social, communal, and corporatist aspects of the Catholic Faith, of all things.

In truth theirs is a consideration of social concerns polluted by their weird racialist notions -- they take a normal and sane thing like affection for one's homeland and distort it by exaggeration and denature it with tribalism. Their reaction to liberalism and communism is not a healthy Catholic abhorrence, but a naturalistic over-reaction steeped in an egotism that blinds them to the true supernatural dimension of the issue. In their failure to apprehend the correct spiritual solution they indulge in another form of naturalism: they become narcissists who adore themselves. May the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts help us steer the safe path between the excesses of the Scylla of prideful modernist liberalism on the one hand and the Charybdis of the nationalist's egotistical individualism on the other!

I mention Garrigou-Lagrange's essay because it also serves as a corrective to a revisionist accusation against the Catholic Church: that the horrific deeds of the Nazis was a culmination of centuries of Christian antagonism towards Jews; I've read this notion from men such as Elie Wiesel, Charles Krauthammer, Frank Rich, and William Safire (RIP). They're all profoundly wrong: Hitler and Mussolini got most of their traction from railing against Russian communists. That wasn't merely a convenient cover: the Soviets were a genuine threat, everyone knew it, and the Germans and the Italians -- whose societies had already gone far down the path of rejecting the religious and social leadership of the Church -- reacted against it with an excess of nationalist sentiment.

The Catholic Church was the one institution who saw the whole affair clearly: it condemned both inherently perverse communism that dehumanized its victims and excessive nationalism that deified the state. Small wonder that the author of the work villifying Pope Pius XII was a Hitler Youth chump turned communist; even less wonder that an effeminate press acquiesced in a Soviet-backed media blitzkrieg to promote the third-rate play as a great social commentary and used it to calumniate the best friend the Jews had during the war.

Pax Christi

Christmas Truce

Christmas Eve

The time was Christmas Eve, 1914, and the place was Ypres, Belgium. German troops decorated the trees around their trenches with candles, then sang Stille Nacht. The Brits on the other side of the No Man's Land in between responded with English Christmas carols. When the artillery barrage stopped, the two sides exchanged Christmas greetings and small gifts of chocolate, whiskey, cigars; a few even swapped addresses. The fallen were retrieved from the battlefield and given proper burial. The matter was completely spontaneous.

Here's an account of the matter titled "Christmas in the Trenches."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9coPzDx6tA&feature

Venerable Pope Pius XII

Source

The Vatican announced that Pope Pius XII is to be declared Venerable, which is an honorific that both acknowledges the recipient's holiness and serves as a step on his journey toward beatification.

Venerable Pius XII

Pius was Supreme Pontiff from 1939-1958. He reigned during a period of great persecution against the Church, and he was a tireless opponent of totalitarian regimes such as communism and nazism. In 1950 he infallibly declared that the long-accepted teaching of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was dogmatically certain and true.

These days probably the most discussed period of his pontificate are the war years. Under the direction of Pope Pius, the Catholic Church saved nearly 900,000 European Jews. Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, the Chief Rabbis of Jerusalem, Rome, and Budapest, the World Jewish Congress, the American Jewish community, and numerous others praised Pius for his relief efforts and public denunciation of racial persecution -- in fact, work is afoot to have Yad Vashem name him as a "righteous gentile."

Pope Pius died of acute heart failure. His doctor said: "The Holy Father did not die because of any specific illness. He was completely exhausted. He was overworked beyond limit. His heart was healthy, his lungs were good. He could have lived another 20 years, had he spared himself." He died as he lived, not counting the cost, lovingly dedicated to shepherding the flock entrusted to his care.