Durendal

Louis XVI

2012-01-24T14:29:00.000-05:00

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

Last week was the anniversary of the murder of the last reigning King of France, Louis XVI. As such, many bloggers a pro-monarchist or counterrevolutionary sympathies commemorated this event with posts on this king. Unfortunately, some of them, in their enthusiasm perhaps, went too far in their praise of the man in my view. Such biased writing cannot but harm the credibility of monarchists on the whole, it seems to me: we must admit the failings of our heros and not try to portray them all as impeccable.

The article that, more than any other, inspired me to write this post was on the Mad Monarchist's blog, wherein the claim was made that "... had it not been for the outbreak of the Revolution, King Louis XVI might have gone down in history as one of the greatest Kings of France in secular as well as spiritual terms." With respect, I must disagree and say that this goes much to far in praise of the man.

The simple fact is, that while Louis XVI was no incompetent, his involvement in the American Revolution was a colossal blunder which bankrupted the French State and providing one of the major contributing causes of the very revolution that caused his downfall. This alone disqualifies him from "great" in my view, but the more glaring problems with his reign lie in the manner in which he dealt with the Revolution. And certainly, a man's actual accomplishments and no "what ifs" must be considered when discussing his greatness.

On the whole, Louis XVI was weak when it came to dealing with the Revolution. He temporized, he made wholly improper concessions, and only tried to flee and rally allies to his side too late. Now, I am admittedly painting with rather broad strokes here, but I confess to a certain lack of time (as readers may guess from the overall dearth of posts at Durendal) and am going from memory. But again, if one were to pick one act that disqualifies him from "greatness" it would be the donning of a red phrygian cap and toasting to the sans-coulottes and "the nation" in some ill-advised attempt at currying favour from those out for his blood.

I do not say he was a bad king. I just say that he was not great. I do not say he was a bad man. Indeed, it seems he was a good and pious man. He cannot be considered in the same league as St. Louis IX.

Posted on the Feast of St. Timothy, Bishop & Martyr, a.D. MMXII

Simple Mustard Dipping Sauce

2011-12-27T06:00:00.000-05:00

by B.L. Wainscott

Christmas Day is over, and thus for the secular world, Christmas. But for those who might do more feasting, and roast another bird, this simple dipping sauce will enhance your enjoyment of the bird, I think. Even a well cooked turkey tends to be dry, and dipping your turkey into this sauce will mask the dryness of it, giving it a flavour.

Ingredients (Serves 8)

8 dipping bowls each filled with mustard of your choice (Dijon, spicy brown, honey, etc.)
Worcestershire Sauce

Directions

Fill each bowl with plenty of mustard to make sure the person has enough. Better too much than too little remember when serving!
Add a few drops of Worcestershire sauce to taste. Better to add a little and then more as you see fit than too much, stir and remember always taste! Never serve without tasting. Again, remember to stir well.
Eat by dipping a piece of turkey into the sauce and enjoying! This works on other things as well, such as duck, goose, and chicken, but because turkey always is so dry and can be a bit boring, enhance it with this. Simple, yet elegantly presented, this is a pretty addition to any feast.

Wine

Great with wine, you should choose a wine that matches the mustard you are going to use, such as a spicier and more peppier wine for spicy mustard, etc.

POSTED ON the third day within the Octave of the Nativity, a.D MMXI

Christmas Appetizer or Side Dish - Poached egg on toast with pork and mushrooms.

2011-12-24T02:36:00.005-05:00

by B.L. Wainscott

I wish I had a picture for this, and will after Christmas. It is an idea I have for Christmas Dinner this year, so perhaps I can add a picture after I make it. In any case so that you might try it this year.

Ingredients (serves 8)
8 eggs
1-2 loaf of artisan bread sliced into half inch or inch slices (depending on your preference)
A small ammount of olive oil seasoned with salt and pepper in a bowl. Just enough to baste the bread.
8 slices of thick bacon
4 slices of ham or enough for one a piece of ham to go on each piece of bread
16 white button mushrooms coarsely chopped or other such mushrooms. If you choose shitake, you might make 24 due to their smaller size.
Cheese of your choice (optional)

Preparation

This is not a hard dish to make, but it can be intimidating, one because it contains poached eggs, and two because it involves doing other things at the same time. Be sure to read the recipe over and understand it before proceeding. A little time management will help, and if you want to cook the eggs ahead of time, follow the normal method for poached eggs except take them out of the water about a minute before they are done, shock them immediately in cold water, and heat them back in warm water later. You should not crowd the eggs in a pan, and might cook them in batches or use multiple pans. Obviously if you are serving less divide, or more multiply accordingly. Since this is a holiday recipe I wrote the proportions out for more, but proportion according to your needs.

1. Prepare the bacon and ham. The ham may be precooked, so be sure to see, and if so, add towards the end merely to heat through. Lay aside on a warm platter and cover loosely.
2. In the same pan you cooked you cooked the bacon and ham, cook the mushrooms until they are done. Lay aside on the warm platter and cover loosely.
3. This is a good time to poach your eggs (or warm them back up) and toast your bread. Season your egg with pepper, but do not use salt, as this adversely affects the process. You may season according to taste though, such as with paprika. To toast your bread set the broiler on high in your oven and toast until golden, basting the bread with the olive oil. This will not take long, so be careful not to burn. Remember you will be managing the poached eggs at the same time. For how to poach an egg, there are many methods, and I recommend a Google search to find the easiest method for you. Just make sure you understand it before undertaking the task, for it takes a little mastery, most of all timing, not allowing the egg to spread, and heat.
4. With the toast and eggs done, now arrange your dish by placing a piece of ham atop the bread, then cutting a slice of bacon in half, place the halved slice on top of the ham parallel, the mushrooms on top and finally top with the poached egg. Season to taste. You may add cheese if you wish. If all the mushrooms do not fit on that is okay.
5. Enjoy! Merry Christmas!

Posted on the Vigil of the Nativity, a.D. MMXI

Poem by Myself - Reflections While Looking on Taylor Swift

2011-12-22T19:36:00.008-05:00

by B.L. Wainscott

We at Durndal have general principles, but like all men when have individual beliefs, opinions, and tastes. However, what I want to say is not so much this as place a disclaimer on this post: that I am by no means endorsing the artist Taylor Swift in praising her beauty. It cannot be denied, even if one denies the beauty of her music, her own physical beauty. For though to a certain degree one person may say she is not as pretty as another or prettier than another, as a matter of opinion, no one can call her ugly. Beauty, as the relativists and modern artists would maintain is not in the eyes of the beholder. Beauty, physically, requires the presence of what has been called the Golden Ratio, which is seen in the famous "Mona Lisa" (above) of Lenonardo Da Vinci, as well as his wonderful and anatomical "Vitruvian Man", here:

And indeed Miss Swift, whatever the beauty of her art, is beautiful herself because she can easily be measured by this ratio, and appreciated by the most untrained eye, for no one need study a philosophy of beauty when it comes down to it; she is, simply put, beautiful. Blonde, fair skin, blue eyes, a well proportioned snub nose, nice lips, and equal proportions, tall at an inch shy of six feet, thin in proportion with her height, her curly hair a crowning feature of hers for which she is know, we cannot but praise her beauty. As for her art, I give the disclaimer that Durendal in no way endorses it, though we make not judgement on the mortal souls of those who listen to it. Certainly they are not damned, whatever criticisms there may be. I myself think she certainly has a wonderful voice, which I think even those who not like her music may admit since it is merely an objective quality which might have been applied to a different style had she chosen, like opera.

Thus without further adieu here is my reading of my poem of reflections while looking on Taylor Swift. The poem is at once simply romantic, slightly erotic, and metaphysical, but when I say this I mean in the same sense as the Songs of Songs, that is with restraint and reverence. For remember we are humans, not angels, composite of body and spirit, and though the Divine is often transdescendal through the Divine Mysteries, he is also immanent through human nature which is mirrored after Him, and which through its smallest acts, seeks him as the last end. Therefore it is that Thomas Aquinas says that our human acts participate in the Beatific Vision, and thus it is, to cite Dante and his love for Beatrice again, that Dante loved Beatrice, because by his love he participated in the Beatific Vision. Dante was not a mere spiritual angel, but relied on the physical food of female beauty, but combined with the spiritual virtue of his own spiritual nature. So I present a poem which while it is inspired by Taylor Swift, in the end gives glory to God as you will see and has a much higher aspect. The poem proceeded naturally, and I went from mere human beauty to praising the Divine:

POSTED ON the Thursday within the Fourth Week of Advent, a.D MMXI

To Helen - By Edgar Allan Poe

2011-12-20T10:56:00.003-05:00

by B.L. Wainscott

I would like to give our readers my humble reading of Edgar Allan Poe's wonderful poem To Helen which includes music and images. I hope you will enjoy since we at Durendal value the arts as important to the development of the soul, and a great part of Christian society.

POSTED ON the Tuesday in the Fourth Week of Advent, a.D MMIX

Aesthetics of the Third Reich

2011-11-25T00:53:00.000-05:00

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

Let me start this post with the mandatory disclaimer: the Nazis were evil on many levels, and notwithstanding their opposition to communism, were in fact very modern people: they were pro-abortion, pro-contraception, pro-euthanasia, pro-animal rights, statist, anti-Christian. In fact, but for their attitude towards the Jews, they'd be right at home with today's leftist governments of Europe and North America. As such, we at Durendal, therefore, do not admire or promote or adhere to Nationalist Socialism in any way. That said, they knew how to dress. This is recognizing an obvious fact, not admiring a liberal ideology.

The Germans in general, but the Nazis in particular, knew the importance of what was called, when I was in the army, the "L.C.F." or "Look Cool Factor". Which is a theory based on the premise that soldiers who look good will feel more confident and proud, and will therefore fight better. They will also be more intimidating to their enemies. In the Canadian army, my comrades would attempt to increase the L.C.F. of their uniforms by wearing particular sunglasses, by adding certain items to their webgear, and applying effective yet unique patterns of camouflage paint to the face almost like war paint. I know that I did all of these as well as wearing my beret in the field (rather than the hideous floppy field cap) and my regiment's traditional lanyard. I firmly believe in this theory. Not just in the military sphere, but in every day life, which is one reason why I advocate dressing in a counterrevolutionary manner.

The Nazis took this to the next level. They had professional clothing designers create uniforms for the Reich that inspired national pride, paid tribute to tradition, and inspired awe in adversaries. I don't think any other modern military has so purposefully done this. The result was the most unique, recognizable, varied and inspiring set of uniforms in history.

It may be natural for Catholics, especially, to be attracted to the aesthetics of Nazism. This is, because, it seems to me that the Germans ripped a lot of their best ideas off of the Roman Empire and Germany's glorious Catholic pre-Lutheran past as the Holy Roman Empire. The very name "Third Reich" that Hitler dubbed his regime as shows this, as the Holy Roman Empire was "the First Reich". The Nazis essentially robbed Catholicism to attain their fantastic look. Let us now review some of the things that made these uniforms great and, where possible, the probable Catholic inspiration:

The cut of German uniforms was important; when one looks at them, there is no frumpiness or bagginess (as one tends to find in modern combat uniforms) to be found. They are all straight angles and crispness, almost more like a suit than a combat uniform. They were both functional and aesthetically pleasing, even in the midst of combat. The use of things like visored caps and riding-style boots aren't particularly Catholic, but they do look good (in my opinion). The riding boots could be said to be a hearkening back to a more honourable time when horses ruled the battlefield rather than tanks. Looking good while fighting has a sense of chivalry (based on Catholicism) as well.

The helmet of WWII German soldiers is perhaps the most recognizable military item ever, and one with exceedingly high "L.C.F.". The similarities when comparing a Roman and German helmet side-by-side seem quite obvious. Some could argue that this is pure functionality, but no one else had helmets that so closely resembled the Roman ones. Note especially the extension at the back to protect the neck.

Perhaps more obvious still, and certainly more intentional and conscious I think, are the similarities between the Roman standard and the Nazi German one. Take away the swastika and you basically have identical aquila banners.

The practice of wearing full decorations in battle was a great morale-builder and intimidator of opponents. The Christian origin of these decorations is obvious.

Consider especially the Ritterkreuz (Knight's Cross). Firstly, it is a Maltese Cross, which gets its very name from the Knights of Malta. This eight-pointed star was used by many in the Holy Crusades. Secondly, the very term "knight" harkens back to a Christian age of chivalry, the Age of Faith, the Middle Ages.

Some anti-Catholic Protestants, lacking in historical knowledge, claim a link between Nazi Germany and the Catholic Church and use the Christian symbols used by the Nazis and some photographs of Catholic clerics giving the Nazi salute to say National Socialism was a creature of the Church. This is absurd as the Nazis in fact hated the Church (ask Fr. Maximilian Kolbe, for example), although they tolerated some of its adherents in order to receive their assistance to fight that which they saw as a greater/common enemy, communism (cf. The LVF and División Azul; and I will perhaps return yet again to that complicated episode of WWII in the future).

My post does not support such Protestant delusion at all. I reiterate: the Nazis were much more modern and liberal than anything else. They did not use Christian symbols because they were Christians themselves (I speak of the card-carrying National Socialists here) but because they stole these things from our patrimony for their own use -- there was no cooperation here. Why did they steal them? Well, partly because rather than totally abandon Germany's Christian heritage they sought to corrupt it to their own ends.

Posted on the Feast of St. Catherine of Alexandria, Virgin and Martyr, a.D. MMXI

Dr. White Interview 20-minute Clip

2011-11-19T09:00:00.000-05:00

Below is an excerpt of the True Restoration interview with Dr. White I reviewed last week:

|More

Durendal Reviews: The Rite

2011-11-16T01:39:00.000-05:00

by Brandon Lee Wainscott

Title: The Rite
Producer: Warner Bros.
Director and Writer: Mikael Hafsrom, Director; Michael Petroni and Matt Baglio, Writers
Starring: Anthony Hopkins, Colin O'Donoghue, Alice Braga
Excellence: 3.5 stars (out of 4)
Summary in a Sentence: A reminding and accurate depiction of demonic possession starting the talented Anthony Hopkins.
Who should view: Only adults, but among that anyone from skeptics to traditionalist Catholics who will walk away with a true belief in possession and realise that is not "spinning heads and pea soup" but often much more subtle, and indeed much more common

Of my favourite secular movies, I must confess are the Hannibal series of movies with the talented British actor, Anthony Hopkins, and I think that for any of us, because of these movies, it is hard to picture Hopkins as anyone other than Hannibal the Canniabal. But The Rite is a wonderful movie in which we find Hopkins, still charmingly sophisticated, as a very orthodox Catholic priest and exorcist in Rome, who takes a skeptical seminarian under his wing to convince him that the devil and demonic possesion do exist.

This movie is, while not depicting traditional Catholicism, very orthodox in its depiction. There is neither a skeptical nor an exaggerated depiction of possession in this movie, as we find in the nevertheless great movie The Exorcist (1973). For example, in the movie when Hopkin's character has just performed an exorcism on a posessed woman the young skeptical priest asks, "Is that all?" Charmingly, the priest answers, "Yes, what did you expect? Spinning heads and pea soup?" In this example the movie shows that possession can last for years and is not simply cast out in one exorcism nessecarily. Of course since I do not know enough about posession or exorcism to speak on the subject I will say no more, but I do think this at least has some validity. The movie is certainly much less melodramatic than one would expect out of a Hollywood movie, where today's emotionalism is quick to produce a thriller rather than an accurate depiction. This movie, I think very accurate, and I praise the writers for this.

The real plot is the skeptical seminarian being shown his pride through clear example. In the final exorcism he is faced to perform, without revealing the movie, let me say that it very beautifully depicts Catholic belief. The devil says to the young priest, "Do you believe in me now?" as he has him backed against a wall. Finally the priest says beautifully, "Yes....yes, I believe." The pride of the devil is satisfied until the priest grows brave and says, "But I also believe in God the Father Almight, Creator of heaven and earth." He says the devil shall be cast into hell with all his angels. This beautiful profession of faith was quite amazing coming from a mainstream American movie. Indeed, by it the devil, made proud by being believed in was angered and defeated by profession of the true God. This is a movie every traditionalist must see, and I think the writers did their research and thus gave us a realistic depiction of the subject. And I think, contary to what the atheists want, most men, do believe in God and the devil, even if they are not Christians. They at least believe in a creator. It is only a certain demonic elite that wish us to believe that we religious are the only irrational believers in a Creator, ghosts, angels, devils, and all those paranormal things.

I think the movie, in the end, is edifying and is to believers a reminder of how real posession is. The movie shows that, as exorcists have confessed, how much more common it is than people are want to think, while also showing how the Church, like always, has always first subjected to person to psychiatric examination, looking first for the natural cause. I hope it will also lead those of good will to the faith and away from their unbelief or lukewarm view of God, because I think this movie has the ability to do so. It is a very powerful movie, showing posession in a very dramatic manner, again without being melodramatic. The movie is therefore both entertaining, thrilling, having a wonderful and human plot while allowing the excellent matter of demonic posession to be excellently addressed and shown. An excellent film which I give 3.5 out of starts, lost half a point only because it is set in orthodox Novus Ordo Catholicism.

Posted on the Feast of St. Gertrude, Abbess, Virgin, a.D. MMXI

Announcing the Launch of "Swords and Space"

2011-11-14T14:00:00.000-05:00

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

Readers may have noticed a new blog being linked on Durendal's sidebar. This is a new project that I have undertaken to showcase and promote my endeavours in the fiction field (specifically, fantasy and science fiction). I invite any of our readers who enjoy these genres, and would like to see something written in the field from a Catholic perspective, to visit: www.swordsandspace.com

Posted on the Feast of St. Josaphat, Bishop & Martyr, a.D. MMXI

Durendal Reviews: Dr. David Allen White's Last Interview

2011-11-12T09:00:00.000-05:00

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

Stephen Heiner has recently released a slew of five new interviews at True Restoration Video Interviews, including one with Dr. David Allen White which according to Dr. White is the last interview he intends to give. I've long been a fan of Dr. White's excellent lectures, and had the opportunity in June of this year to meet with him. In person he is even more friendly than his lectures portray and truly the epitome of a Catholic gentleman. It is therefore with no hesitation that I plunked down the $7.99 to download the video and watch it (although it would be more fiscally responsible to shell-out for the yearly subscription, I think).

Firstly, Mr. Heiner has recently "upgraded" to an HD camera operated by a professional crew, and the improvement in film quality is immediately obvious. Sound and image quality are both excellent, certainly everything one could hope for. The video also allows one to "fast forward" to the next question or rewind to a previous one which makes the video easy to navigate if you want to re-watch a particular answer. So technically, this interview is of superior quality to previous True Restoration interviews.

Of course, the content is the real selling point of the interview and, as one could expect given then interviewee, is an engaging and fascinating interview. Stephen starts straight out of the gate with a "controversial" question asking Dr. White about his take on the whole "Swedish Television" débâcle with Bp. Williamson. The whole discourse that followed was insightful, but of particular interest to me was the comment that in two decades of collaboration and friendship, Bp. Williamson had mentioned in passing the question perhaps twice -- "he didn't speak of it" were Dr. White's words. The doctor then looked at the debate over how many died in the Gulag Archipelago and the lack of punitive measures in that discussion and concluded that the Holocaust is "not just a historical question", and "connected to greater religious issues".

Dr. White's comments on teaching were of great interest coming from a lifelong educator. He in fact argued for the abolition of classrooms, except for the occasional lecture. See the interview to learn why he thinks this way. In discussing further the role of a teacher and the great reward of seeing some good fruit come through his work by way of some of his cadets who ended up becoming Catholic, "a teacher must be like the sower of the seeds in the Gospel".

Dr. White next brought up the importance of the public life versus the private life and how the obliteration of this distinction is one of the great evils of our modern age.

Other topics covered included dogmas of modern world, the importance of the humanities, the classic and modern concept/purpose of education, the "battered, empty, soul-dead, and endebted" plight of the young, modern materialism versus a supernatural understanding of life and how we know people have souls, how we are all Protestants now, Campos, and Malachi Martin (who Dr. White knew personally which was news to me). There was much more than this -- the interview is simply jam-packed with great stuff.

There was a fascinating and broad-ranging discussion of the effects of the Second World War that we are still living with which I cannot justly summarize, but this 20-minute segment, in the middle of the interview, alone was worth the price of admission.

The interview, as a whole, had about it the feel and tone of a friendly conversation through which many many important and edifying things were brought out. It was punctuated by instances of humour, anecdotes, heartfelt exchanges, and even some ranting. The total interview is about 1 hr 45 minutes and every bit of it is worth watching and re-watching. It is simply fantastic -- one the best interviews Stephen Heiner has done. Dare I say it, I think it may even be his best, better than the Bp. Williamson interviews. And it's the last time Dr. White will speak in such a format (he says in the interview he's now said all he has to say). Buy it immediately, or better yet, get the 12 month subscription because there are many other excellent videos available there: http://www.truerestorationpress.com/videos/

We will be posting a 15-minute excerpt of the interview here in the near future, so "stay tuned".

St. Martin I, Pope & Martyr, a.D. MMXI

Because Words Have Meaning

2011-11-11T13:23:00.002-05:00

By M.D. Amesse

Let us put an end to Christophobia—and by that I mean the term. It is, if possible, less accurate than “homophobia” and more distasteful than the term “homosexual”.

Christophobia is a word that signifies the very opposite of what means. Blasphemers do not fear (Greek: phobos) Our Lord Jesus Christ nor are those committing sacrilege God fearing. Now, I am sure the fellow that coined the word was proud of himself, patted himself on the back for his back-atcha-witticism, but now, perhaps, he is realising that he shall have to bear the shame should it find its way into the lexicon.

It is worse than simply creating a self contradictory word. As a friend of mine pointed out, it is a product of our liberal culture of victimhood. And he is right; it does conjure up the image of spineless liberals whining because they don’t feel validated by society. Is that why the French Catholics are on the streets of Paris protesting a blasphemous play? I think we can do better than playing the part of the victimised group. Attacks on Our Lord, His saints, and His Church are not, first and foremost, about us. They are offenses against God. We have plenty of words for the behaviour of our enemies: impiety, blasphemy, sacrilege, and irreligion come to mind. These words tell us that their crime is, first and foremost, against God and His Holy Church.

The enemies of Christ shall tremble before His august throne on the Day of Dread, but for now, let us acknowledge their crimes with words that denote the gravity of their offence. Let us refuse to adopt the slogans of limp-wristed civil rights activists and militantly oppose those who deny the rights of God.

All Souls Day MMXI

2011-11-02T12:51:00.003-04:00

“I come on behalf of God. Why am I up in the pulpit today, my dear brethren? What am I going to say to you? Ah! I come on behalf of God Himself. I come on behalf of your poor parents, to awaken in you that love and gratitude which you owe them. I come to bring before your minds again all those kindnesses and all the love which they gave you while they were on earth. I come to tell you that they suffer in Purgatory, that they weep, and that they demand with urgent cries the help of your prayers and your good works. I seem to hear them crying from the depths of those fires which devour them: 'Tell our loved ones, tell our children, tell all our relatives how great the evils are which they are making us suffer. We throw ourselves at their feet to implore the help of their prayers. Ah! Tell them that since we have been separated from them, we have been here burning in the flames!'” –Saint John Vianney

Catholic Priests and Religious are "Social Parasites"?

2011-11-01T09:37:00.000-04:00

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

Several months ago, I published an article entitled "Marriage is Overrated" which received some attention from certain discussion boards. One commentator at "Fisheaters" in particular, going by the screen name "Vetus Ordo" wrote, in reference to claim that 1/4 of people are called to be priests or religious, that " ... we would have a huge bunch of social parasites. An economic nightmare."[i]

I found this claim rather extraordinary coming from a Catholic, althemoreso that no one on Fisheaters voiced opposition or disagreement. I had, obviously quite wrongly, thought that such rhetoric was reserved to the Protestants and that Catholics took it as "read" that priests and religious are anything but parasites. Interesting that the commentator used the phrase "social parasite" -- was this intended to suggest that suggest that the clergy add nothing to the social life of a community and only suck the life from it?

For a parasite is, according to my Apple's "Dictionary",

(1) an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense. (2) derogatory a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.

Let us assume that it can be fairly said that priests and religious rely on the faithful. Can we say that, in terms of the social life of a community, that they "give nothing in return"? In terms of the priests, can one truly say that baptising our children, offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, presiding at weddings, and otherwise tending to the spiritual welfare of the people, nothing? Certainly no Catholic would claim such a thing -- I shall assume then that Mr. "Vetus Ordo" meant that priests and religious are economic parasites only, and hence the claim that if 1/4 of the population were to devote their lives to Christ in this way, it would result in an "economic nightmare" because they give back nothing financially while relying on or even exploiting the faithful for any monetary income.

Allow me, then, to break down the definition of "parasite" into its two parts and see if either accusation "sticks".

First: do priests and religious "habitually rely on or exploit others" or "live in or on a host (the faithful)"?

It is certainly true that the Church relies, in large part, upon the support of the faithful. And, indeed, it is even one of the Seven Precepts of the Church that the faithful must "contribute to the support of the Church". But does it follow that the priests and religious exploit the faithful or "live on" the faithful as a parasite does?

Certainly, when one considers religious, the answer must be no. On the contrary, when one looks at history, many monasteries (certainly in the Middle Ages) were fairly self-sufficient and even supported the faithful such that in some instances one might say the faithful lived on the monasteries. During the 5th - 10th centuries Benedictine monasteries were extremely important to the continued life of society and agriculture was one area that they excelled, clearing and cultivating large tracts of land. [ii] It was certainly common that monasteries would have grounds upon which they would grow at least some of their own food and the larger monasteries engaged in trade with their neighbours. At all times monasteries have provided food and clothing to the poor to at least some degree. Not only Monks, but nuns produced food and drink for the monastery. Nuns would also partake of embroidery, spinning, weaving, and illuminating manuscripts. [iii]

Priests may indeed rely more heavily upon the support of the faithful for their existence, as is proper to their position. So I think the defence of priests against the charge of "parasitism" may fall more heavily on the second factor. However, it should be recalled that in the Middle Ages, the only time that humanity came close to 1/4 of the population being religious or cleric, the great majority (probably as much as 9/10ths) of vocations were as lay brothers or sisters. As such, I would argue that if we got closer to the sorts of numbers I mentioned in "Why Marriage is Overrated", the greatest increase in numbers would be monastic.

Second: do priests and religious give nothing economically in return?

This has already been partially answered in my description of why religious brothers and sisters do not "habitually rely on or exploit" the faithful. I would add to this that many a monastery in fact produces goods that "give" to the economy since they can be bought/sold. Take, for example, the famous Trappist beers of Belgium such as Chimay. Illuminated manuscripts might not be as popular today as they were in the Middle Ages, but I imagine they would still sell, as would other well-known monk/nun products as cheese, chocolate, bread etc. Monks and nuns have always been involved in caring for orphans and teaching in schools -- both activities that contribute to the economic life of a community by preparing the young to pursue their own jobs and not live as beggars or on welfare.

Turning to the priest: one might argue that he produces no consumable good, and therefore gives nothing economically in return. However, this is to have an extremely one-dimensional and materialistic view of economics. The priest offers great spiritual and intellectual services. For one, in a time period where a greater proportion of the faithful go into religious life, more priests are freed to take positions as university professors and educators rather than rushing from one Mass centre to another. Certainly, it is not "nothing" to give the young the intellectual tools with which to pursue careers of their own?

Further, one must consider how good spiritual health of a population can benefit an economy. I would argue that part of the reason for the financial woes of our age is the mass turning-away from God. Whereas a people who have priests to guide them and forgive them their sins will be more economically viable since, as Our Lord teaches us "Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you." (Matthew VI, xxxiii)

Given all of the foregoing, I suggest that even if 1/4 of the population were living and priests or religious, it would be -- far from an economic nighmare -- a stable economic situation and likely one that features a stronger economy than that which we are now "enjoying" in a climate when even among trads the percentage of vocations may be counted on one hand.

Posted on the Feast of All Saints, a.D. MMXI

[i] See http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3441011.0.html
[ii] See Woods, Dr. Thomas E., Jr., How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Regnery Publishing, Washington, DC: 2005, specifically, Chapter Three: How the Monks Saved Civilization
[iii] See the Rule of St. Benedict, for example Chapters 36 and 37 which order due care for the sick, the old, and the young; Chapter 48 which emphasises the importance of manual labour; Chapter 50 and 51 which deal with monks working in the fields.

Short Update on the Catholic Protest in France

2011-10-31T12:40:00.001-04:00

...Ladies and Gentlemen, dear spectators, you are going to watch blaspemy today, and we are here to make reparation for the sin you are comitting!

M. L'Abbé Beauvais, S.S.P.X priest of St-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet, as quoted by France24

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

Following on last week's post ... According to an account of Satuday's protest in Paris reported on contre-info.com, there were nearly 5,000 protesters present who first took part in a long procession which was rerouted by police so that it would be far away from the theatre. They dispersed after energetic speaches from the leader of Civitas and Fr. de Cacqueray, district superior of the S.S.P.X in France.

Several hundred protesters then made their way in small groups to the vicinity of the theatre where they were able to move the police back 50 metres to get closer before the latter decided to employ tear gas and batons. Apparently one priest present brandished a crucifix and demanded "do you want to gas Him, too?" In response to this violent treatment, the Catholics knelt and prayed the rosary.

That same evening, the TV station "France 5" broadcast a live debate between François Xavier-Peron of Civitas, Jérôme Triomphe of AGRIF (L'Alliance Générale contre le Racisme et pour le respect de l'Identité Française et chrétienne -- which seems to be a sort of Catholic Anti Defamation League) "versus" Fr. La Morandais and Jean-Michel Ribes the director of the theatre in question. For French speakers, it's a good debate with the liberal Fr. La Morandais, of course, making frequent use of the word "fascisme" and refusing to shake the young mens' hands at the end (who is the intolerant one?):

If nothing else, these brave protests have helped to inform people as the "integralists" have received media coverage. Certainly Our Lord and Our Lady are pleased with their effors. It seems that donations to assist individuals involved with legal fees may be sent here: soutienauxmilitants.com

Posted on the Vigil of All Saints, a.D. MMXI

French Catholics in Action

2011-10-27T14:37:00.005-04:00

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

While much of the Catholic press seems to be focussing on the scandal in Assisi, there is in Paris, France, right now, a more extraordinary event occurring. While Assisi III/IV is a vile affront to the First Commandment, it is really more "business as usual" and besides, as far as I can see, their weren't any Catholics present at the assembly ...

On the other hand, in Paris, Catholic youth, many of them from the S.S.P.X-affiliated Civitas Institute, are heroically opposing a blasphemous play by Romeo Castelluci where an old man who has to have his excrement cleaned up by his son in front of an enormous portrait of Our Lord Jesus Christ, on which the exrement is then thrown. There is also reportedly a scene where children throw hand-grenades at the same portrait proclaiming "you are not our shepherd!"

In the face of this, young Catholics are coming out in force to pray on the sidewalk and protest this outrage. This is truly inspiring, and humbling, Catholic action. It started with a dozen or so members of "Renouveau Francais" who bought tickets and disrupted the blasphemy by climbing onto the stage. They were beaten by riot police and arrested for their troubles.

Below is a clip from French television yesterday evening, featuring priests from St.-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet ...

As I've been able to peice-together the events with my very rusty French, it seems that after the initial actions of Renouveau Francais, the arestees were replaced the next night (25 October) by about 140 Catholics including the trads and members of L'Action Français. Reportedly, there were more than 300 on the 26th (cf. the clip embedded above) and I have not yet been able to find out how many were present tonight. Fr. de Caqueray in his communiqué of 26 October, reported that the police response was to "[arrest] by the busload". Below is another video showing the police doing just that:

Of course, as the mainstream media tells us "French authorities on Saturday said they would press charges against Christian fundamentalists who disrupted the showing of [the] controversial play ..." Well, it is nothing unusual for the media to brand true followers of Christ as "fundamentalists". God bless these brave defenders of Christ! Despite the threat of beatings and arrest at the hands of the police, the numbers have increased each night to protest this outrage.

I wish I could join them! This is truly an inspiration. Shamefacedly, many of us must likely confess that similar (perhaps less vile) productions have been put on in places we live with no one to oppose them. Indeed, I don't think we can say that such protests that are so large and successful as to force the liberal media to report in it has happened before. This is an important act in the war to renew Christendom.

Update posted here: http://rencesvals.blogspot.com/2011/10/short-update-on-catholic-protest-in.html

Posted on the Vigil of Sts. Simon & Jude, Apostles, a.D. MMXI

St. Crispin and other "de-Canonisations"

2011-10-25T11:40:00.000-04:00

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

Today is the feast of St. Crispin, a date that according to Shakespeare, would "from now (1415) to the ending of the world" mark the remembrance of the English victory at Agincourt. Yet Henry V and Shakespeare did not reckon with the Vatican II Church! St. Crispin was removed from the calendar in 1969 as part of the "updating" process that destroyed nearly all in its wake. Many other saints were likewise removed, but much more troubling, several saints were effectively "de-canonised" (but for the fact that canonisations are infallible according to most theologians and therefore people cannot be de-canonised). Here are a few examples:

St. Simon of Trent - popular child martyr ritually murdered by Jews on the 24th of March 1475 - In 1965 Archbishop Alessandro Gotardi of the Diocese of Trent declared the murderers innocent. As a result of the decree of the Archbishop, the Vatican Congregation of Rites forbade the veneration of relics or the saying of masses in Simon’s name. This instance of de-canonising a pre-Vatican II saint is particularly troubling because there are not even claims that the saint in question did not exist or denials of the miracles attributed to him -- it was purely a political move. Since it is politically incorrect to venerate a child who was ritually murdered by Jews (notwithstanding a new trial conducted 110 years after St. Simon's death that upheld the verdict, and notwithstanding that even some Jewish scholars admit the verdict may be valid -- cf. http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A_010_BloodyPassovers.htm) he had to be removed. But appeasing non-Catholics is hardly a proper reason for calling into question the indefectibility of the Church (see below). And, incidentally, St. Simon of Trent is not a "pre-Congregation" saint, since the same pope who confirmed his canonisation was the one who instituted the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints in 1588 (St. Simon was canonised that same year).

St. William of Norwich - another Catholic child (this one English) ritually murdered by Jews (+1144), who has since had his cult suppressed, although at least in this case (unlike St. Simon) there does not appear to have been a popular cultus.

St. Ursula - one of the most famous and miraculous saints "de-canonised" by the Vatican II heresiarchs, she was one of a group of 11,000 virgins massacred by the Huns near Cologne circa 383. Despite the fact that she has always had a very lively cultus, including numerous churches and streets named after her, her cult was suppressed in 1969 (Wikipedia disputes this, but numerous other Novus Ordo sites I checked confirm the suppression).

St. Catherine of Alexandria - Great martyress of the early Church, one of the most widely-revered saints of the Middle Ages, one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers - removed from the liturgical calendar in 1969 over doubts concerning her "historicity"-- I am waiting for them to de-canonise St. Joan of Arc since La Pucelle must have been hallucinating when she spoke with St. Catherine!

Now, I believe that this is a very grave matter because the Vatican II hierarchs implicitly say that the pre-Vatican II Church defected by commending these individuals to the universal Church for veneration. As St. Thomas Aquinas states: "Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error." As such, even pre-Congregation canonisations are part of the infallible Ordinary Magisterium.

Yet the Modernists claim that the Church did err on this point when they suppress these cults. Arguments of historical ambiguity are really irrelevant here because it is through tradition and the confirmation by miracles that saints like Ursula and Catherine of Alexandria were added to the calendar. St. Simon of Trent was added by decree of Pope Sixtus V triggering the infallibility of the papacy and the Church's Extraordinary Magisterium. Objectively, this is heresy and one of the more clear-cut (if less "celebrated") examples of it in the conciliar church.

One also cannot help but note the cultural significance to removing saints who played a significant role in certain nations' or localities' cultural history. Making Henry V a liar by removing the saints he invokes? And what of the basilica in Cologne named after St. Ursula?

Posted on the Feast of St. Crispin and Crispinian, Martyrs, a.D. MMXI

Facebook Part I: Getting Out and Getting Some Sun

2011-10-24T08:15:00.000-04:00

by B.L. Wainscott

As many of you may know, or may not, I have temporarily deactivated my Facebook account. It is a common thing for people to do since for many Facebook becomes addicting, and I thought the same for me--it was harmful for my spiritual life at the present. And since I am looking to make progress, I thought I would, for the time being deactivate it.

Because in today's world our neighbour is not just another Catholic like he was before the Council, internet networking does have its value; for the so-called Catholics today are just like the rest of the word, heathen, save in the character on his soul which no heresy or sin can remove. Because of this, internet networking does have its advantages in providing friendships that would not otherwise be possible--unless perhaps we lived in somewhere like St. Mary's, KS. But even so these friendships must be reconised for a certain sense of unreality they have, intimate indeed as they may be; for distance does not define intimacy. But again, we should all know the dangers of placing too much attention to the idea of relationships on the internet and losing touch with reality or physical social skills. Or simply spending too much time on there, especially on social networking sites like Facebook period.

In fact, speaking of that subject more widely, the day after I disabled my Facebook I spent the day at the local Trappist monastary, which, though Novus Ordo, and even liberal, is very peaceful because it is situated among the rolling hills and knobs of central Kentucky in what is called "the holy land of Kentucky", a land where within three counties there are a number of motherhouses, three I believe, a monastery, a Catholic college, numerous historic Catholic churches including a basilica which was once the cathedral. In any case, I spent my day in peace at this Abbey, far from man's noise among the rolling hills and knobs and even was inspired to write this poem when I thought that part of what makes the world so insanely evil today I think lies in Tolkien's dislike of the Industrial Revolution and automobile as it became more popular in his time, a time when it was just making its advent. The poem I will share is in its rough form, so forgive any faults, and is as follows:

A world that's more beautiful is more good

and the bad in man today oft is this:

The noise of countless cars like screams from hell

the smog its smoke, the sprawl cancerous vice,

that eats beauty with greed and gluttony,

Man lives in a sunless world without trees,

without grass and rolling hills and the breeze

which is some song from heaven. But alas,

we have a well paved road, and one which leads

straight to hell. 666, Highway to Hell!

I had been reading the introduction to a work of quotes from the desert fathers who were the beginnings of the monastic way of life, even though they hardly meant to be. For what did they desire but to escape the noise of the world and commune with God in the desert in silence? As this introduction said,

They did not talk, not because they hated conversation, but because they wanted to listen intently to the voice of God in silence...they did avoid company because it bored them, but as one of them said, "I cannot be with you and with God."

Silence is something we have forgotten, I think, in a noisy world, and how often do we allow ourselves to get out of the walls of our isolated home and take a hike or get some sun? We go from our paper pushing jobs to the walls of home in what other than the walls of car? Thus we have little contact with nature and we become mechanical creatures, and I think for this reason it is no wonder man commits such atrocities today. I think that in nature there is always a certain goodness found, like that found by the desert fathers, and like that which Tolkien saw being destroyed by the automobile and encroaching sprawl of industrialism. We also allow ourselves to be taken in by the world of Facebook while outside the sun revolves around us so beautifully (yes, revolves around us). The birds chirp sweetly and the breeze whispers a certain mystery of what is spoken in heaven. Maybe this is poetic, but it is true. Our ancestors, and since we at Durendal always point to the golden age, the Middle Ages, let me point out especially medieval man lived much closer to nature. It was not until the Industrial Revolution, the obvious result of Protestant materialism, that society began declining into what may be called a plastic, metal, and now "techo" society. Bishop Williamson, in an excellent sermon which I shall post here, alludes to this, and I ask our reader to take the time to watch this sermon of less than an hour when they have a time:

Facebook is one of these technological tools people rely on for their lives, spending hours on it while the sun shines outside. I have been guilty of this, which is why I can write on it. But one does begin to feel cluttered by it, for when man finally is a man and denies his will, as a saint must (deny yourself is the saying of the saint), and he goes out into the sun like I did Wednesday he see what simple but amazing beauty he was missing for the dark world of Facebook. I took some pictures yesterday when I went out there again, and though it was rainy, it was still beautiful, the knobs even having a misty look to them. I will provide this pictures below and leave our readers with that, and ask them, as they use Facebook to consider its dangers and faults, though I do not ask them to do away with it, only to spend less time on it or take a break and get some sun, especially since winter is approaching and for us northerners, we had better enjoy the warmth why we can:

POSTED on the Feast of St. Raphael the Archangel, a.D. MMXI

Durendal Reviews Jose L. Piedra

2011-10-21T14:20:00.000-04:00

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

Name: Jose L. Piedra
Type: Cigar (Cuban)
Brand/Blender: Jose L. Piedra
Rating: 4 stars
Summary: An inexpensive, medium flavoured cigar with a pleasant bouquet; perfect for hosting guests who are casual smokers or as an "every day" cigar.

The immediate draw of the Jose L. Piedra brand of cigars is the great price -- it is a popular brand for domestic consumption in Cuba and in Canada is one of the cheapest Cuban cigars available. A box of five cazadores can be purchased for about $20 locally (I shop at Walper Tobacco Shop in Kitchener -- the oldest tobacco shop in Canada) which, when one considers all the taxes involved, is really a very very good price. All the other Cuban brands start at about $10 per cigar.

With the price range in mind, one cannot expect this to be the best smoke ever, but the Jose L. Piedra delivers much more "bang for your buck" than other Cubans I've tried. It is much better than many more expensive brands I've tried. The smoking time for a cazadore is about 45-65 minutes making it great for a friendly gathering or leisurely stroll.

I've read other reviews online claiming that the Jose L. Piedra cazadores' appearance with spots, big veins, and strange coloration -- I myself have never noticed this to be the case with the cazadores I have purchased. The flavour is sweet with a noticeable earthy tobacco taste but not too strong, which makes it good for the uninitiated. It has an authentic Cuban taste which I cannot describe to those who have never had a Cuban cigar (there IS a difference between Cubans and others). It has an easy draw. The smoke has a very pleasant aroma to it, which as in previous tobacco reviews, I consider an important consideration as a basic courtesy to non-smokers.

They store quite well and do well in my "poor man's humidor" which is a plastic container with a moisture packet inside. I will invest in a proper humidor eventually. They certainly do not decline in quality and I would say even get a bit better over time. In sum, I give it 4/5 stars because it provides excellent value relative to cost -- it deserves 4 as an everyday cigar or one that can be easily offered to friends and house guests who are inexperienced, casual smokers. It is my "go-to" cigar when having a gathering of menfolk at my place.

Posted on the Feast of St. Hilarius, Abbott, a.D. MMXI

Building a Counterrevolutionary Wardrobe

2011-10-19T16:05:00.000-04:00

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

Clothing and manner of dress has been a reocurring topic on Durendal, and we've even gone so far as to suggest a "dress code" for Catholic men. I would like to now offer some suggestions on how to attain that standard of dress.

Firstly, I believe that one should transition into dressing in a counterrevolutionary fashion slowly, and therefore build up his wardrobe accordingly. Certainly, from a financial perspective, it would be extremely difficult and likely imprudent to spend thousands of dollars at once to fully equip one's self. But moreover, I think that making to extreme of a change quickly -- going straight from the ubiquitous jeans-and-t-shirt to a jacket and tie puts one in great danger of failing despite good intentions.

If one rushes into it, the Devil will more easily whisper in one's ear, "Look, you really are going a bit far. This "Tradition" of yours is both asking too much and it is faintly ridiculous ..." (some might argue that the standard of dress we advocate at Durendal is "faintly ridiculous" regardless of how quickly one attempts to adopt this, but I believe previous articles have already dealt with that -- in today's article I will focus on the how rather than further defence).

Therefore, my recommendation is to conduct the following transition initially:

1. T-shirt to polo shirt
2. Sweatshirt to sweater
3. Jeans to khakis/chinos
4. Running shoes to casual leather shoes
5. White athletic socks to coloured socks
6. Baseball cap to combed hair

These small changes will immediately contribute to a better frame of mind and "way of being", show greater respect for those around you, make you feel more like a man while at the same time being more modestly attired, and strike a blow against liberalism as manifested in the cult of comfort and egalitarianism. And they will do so subtly and in a way that should not make one feel awkward or artificial at all since this is all perfectly acceptable clothing even in casual encounters among "mainstream" (i.e. pagan) society. Thank God, some of these transitions are already "cool" such as the movement from omnipresent running shoes to casual leather shoes.

These things are all readily and easily available and relatively inexpensive. Most certainly, no item listed is significantly more expensive than it's sloppy/lazy/liberal counterpart. Also, while finding modest and appropriate dresses/skirts is a murderous enterprise, it is very easy for men to shop for these items. One need not go to brand names -- for example, Old Navy makes fine day-to-day polo shirts and khakis.

For khakis/chinos I recommend a relaxed or classic fit with pleated front. It looks better, is more modest, and more comfortable since they're not tight especially around the hips.

To make the transition, I suggest a simple process: as a pair of jeans wears out, replace it with khakis instead of more jeans, and follow the same procedure for each article (although t-shirts do not generally wear out nearly as quick as the other items, so these should be gradually phased out as you can afford to add a polo shirt here-and-there).

From here, one can then start slowly adding button-down shirts, and one good jacket to start. I recommend something dark that will go with many different shirt/pant combinations -- a black or navy blue blazer would probably be a good bet. Something a touch more casual, like a brown or even tweed jacket is good for more informal occasions. Wear these when you are going out. A flat cap can be added to wear with a jacket when out and these are another "retro" item that's making a swifter comeback than other hats, so one will not feel out of place in the least.

Once one has gotten used to this manner of dress, he can then easily start to transition into the more "strict" regimen recommended and followed by the authors at Durendal -- a mode of dress that, as with women who never ever wear pants, will start to draw attention to one's self and some commentary. Although the "fire" will come from fellow traditionalist Catholics, whereas the general population, in my experience, tends to have a very positive reaction. The vast majority of the comments I receive are along the lines of "where can I get a hat like that" or complements.

Further reading:

The Art of Manliness' Guide to Sweaters
The Art of Manliness' Guide to Footwear
The Art of Manliness' Guide to Socks
How to Match a Tie with a Dress Shirt and Suit
Art of Manliness - all "Dress and Grooming" posts

Posted on the Feast of St. Peter of Alacantara, a.D. MMXI

Announcement Re: N. Wansbutter and Bp. Williamson

2011-10-15T12:12:00.001-04:00

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

Readers have inquired as to why I stepped-down as as editor of Bp. Williamson's "Eleison Comments" a couple of weeks ago. It is with no little amount of regret that I made this move to step away after roughly 18 highly rewarding months helping, in my own small way, Bp. Williamson to fulfill his duty as a Catholic bishop to preach and defend the faith.

The reason my involvement in Eleison Comments is stopped now, is due to both my and Stephen Heiner's desire to give the Bishop some [public] space to protect His Lordship and so that we can feel more free to speak ourselves. We are both opinionated men who like to share those opinions but do not want Bp. Williamson "tarred with the same brush". It seems that despite Stephen's previous attempts to distance himself, the method inwhich Eleison Comments has been distributed continued to give rise to the misapprehension that either he or I speak in some capacity for, or on behalf of, Bp. Williamson.

Thus, Bp. Williamson is now solely responsible for his weekly newsletter which may now be accesed at http://www.dinoscopus.org/. For my part, I hope that this will mark a return to greater productivity here at Durendal, now that I have one less duty to attend to each week.

Posted on the Feast of St. Teresa of Avila, Virgin, a.D. MMXI

Canada: A Pleasant Surprise Today

2011-08-16T12:13:00.005-04:00

Our Conservative government believes that an important element of Canada's military heritage was lost when the three former services were required to relinquish their historic titles. Today, I'm honoured to announce that the three elements of the Canadian Forces will have their historic names restored
- Canadian Defence Minister Peter McKay

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

Today I was rather pleasantly surprised to learn, initially from a colleague at work who, as I, was once an infantry officer in the service of Her Majesty the Queen, that the Canadian government has decided to restore the three branches of the "Canadian Forces" to their traditional names. As such, after Mr. Peter McKay's announcement today, Maritime Command, Air Command and Land Force Command will be called the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Army respectively.

The republicans and the socialists (as represented by the Official Opposition, the so-called "New Democratic Party") are spitting mad about this "backwards step" reflecting a "1950s mentality". Their impotent fury alone is enough to make one glad of this unexpected move. But, of course, it is a good move for much more than that -- it is a shocking but most heartily welcome return to Canada's roots and her heritage. Since the 1960s, the Liberal Party has been smashing that heritage with a wrecking ball not unlike how the Novus Ordo prelates have eradicated Catholic culture in the Church. So this move is a 180 degree turn from what has been done in Canada the last 50 years -- hitherto, any change has been one of novelty, never of a return to tradition.

I do not believe it is an insignifant move, either (an apparently the communists agree with me). The obliteration of Canada's cultural and social heritage started with a small move, as well, that being the adoption of the hideous modern flag (the "Maple Leaf") in 1965, replacing the British Union Jack and the Canadian Red Ensign which were both steeped in history and symbolism. But as I'm sure any American could understand, the change of a flag proved to be important in changing the psyche of the the nation. Many changes followed the flag, including the one which has just been undone, when the branches of our military were renamed in 1968.

The Minister of Defence told the press that this return to tradition was undertaken in order to "correct a [sic] historical mistake". I certainly agree with him on that score. I have no inkling whatsoever, however, why they chose to correct this mistake. This came completely "out of the blue" as there were no rumblings whatsoever of this. The ruling "Conservative Party" model themselves after American neo-con Republicans as far as I can tell, and they've never before voiced any monarchist sentiments. Yet the Canadian media has for years attempted to villainise them, going so far as to calling them "fascists", and accusing them of trying to reshape Canada in their own image by revising the materials for the citizenship course to focus more on (Shock! Horror!) Canada's history.

Maybe they are more legitimately conservative than I have given them credit for and they are, in fact, making subtle, incremental moves "back" in a traditional direction?

Posted on the Feast of St. Joachim, Father of the Blessed Virgin Mary, a.D. MMXI

Chivalry and the Man of La Mancha

2011-07-29T00:03:00.002-04:00

"Without doubt there is an important lesson to be derived from the whole of Don Quixote, the lesson which teaches the necessity of prudence and good sense and moderation, of guarding the imagination from excess of exercise and the feeling from over-excitement. But this is a lesson to be gently hinted to men of virtue, not to be proclaimed to the profane amidst the mockery of the world." -- Kenelm Digby, Maxims of Christian Chivalry

By M.D. Amesse

We all know that Miguel de Cervantes wrote Don Quixote in order to destroy the idea of chivalry, right? Well, not exactly, for poor Cervantes knew a thing or two about chivalry and adventure. He knew of prudence and imprudence. He had fought in a duel, was wounded in the Battle of Lepanto, and was captured by Moslem pirates and imprisoned, from whence he made numerous escape attempts. One could go on, for his life, not unlike the Man of La Mancha’s, had many twists and turns.

So what was it then? Why did he set out to attack chivalry? I can tell you that it was not chivalry (properly understood) that he was lampooning. In order to understand what Cervantes was attacking it is important to understand the nature of literature of his age and what passed as chivalric literature. It was this literature that Cervantes was satirizing and Don Quixote is enamored with. As Cervantes tells us, Don Quixote “became so absorbed in his books that he spent his nights from sunset to sunrise, and his days from dawn to dark, poring over them; and what with little sleep and much reading his brains got so dry that he lost his wits.”

When one reads the style used in much of the “light” literature of the period, one can see why, after inordinate amount of reading and little sleep, Don Quixote loses his grip on reality and can see windmills as giants. The prose fiction of the time tended to read like poetry. It was highly metaphorical and frequently employed similes. Let me give an example.

The banks of either river seemed arms of the loving earth that fain would embrace, and the river a wanton nymph which would slip from it; either side of the bank being fringed with beautiful trees, which resisted the sun’s darts from overmuch piercing the natural coldness of the river. There was among the rest a goodly cypress, who, boughing her fair head over the water, it seemed she looked into it, and dressed her green locks by the running river. (Sir Philip Sidney’s The Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia, 1590)

I should add that this break with reality was intentional. It would have been a novel idea that prose fiction should be unpoetical. Sidney explained that the writer makes “things either better than Nature bringeth forth, or quite anew, forms such as never were in Nature” (Apology for Poetry, 1580). Cervantes, on the other hand, broke from this. His work is, according to Dr. David Allen White, the first realistic, modern novel. Here the dust of the road was the dust of the road.

Now, I have no problem with poetical writing, but I should add that these new chivalric tales were poorly written. They were no longer the great songs of deeds. The new chivalric literature was infected with courtly love, and it is no coincidence that the protagonist is challenged by a lowly goat herder for consecrating his deeds to his lady, rather than to God as was common in the days of true chivalry. What pushed out the old chivalric tales was unequal to the task of justly replacing them. “They,” writes Ian Watt, in his essay Elizabethan Light Reading, “were translated, adapted, and imitated by hacks of little education or literary skill.” Furthermore, the “popularity of the Spanish romances in particular also reflects a taste for endless and inane adventures, recounted with very little literary skill, and it serves as a useful corrective to the delusion of the universality of good literary taste among the Elizabethans.” Watts also goes on to say that good morality was wanting in these Spanish tales.

So Don Quixote loses his grip on reality as a result of reading bad literature, but that is not all. There is another side to the book which is often lost. Don Quixote, despite being insane, is often right. He is, despite his flaws, a noble and good man. His high ideals, by in large, are not held in contempt by Cervantes. It is the disconnection of his ideals from reality that supplies the comic force behind the adventures. What folly is chivalry without right judgment! And it is this that Cervantes demonstrates, men never have to fear that they are too chivalrous or heroic; they only have to fear that their actions are not in accordance with Divine Providence and reason.

From Chartres to "Golden" Arches

2011-07-25T12:30:00.009-04:00

I was once an avid reader of the Remnant, for this newspaper was instrumental in my coming to tradition. It was painful to see the change that came over it, the capitulation of its editor, and the nauseating attempts to appear more mainstream. While I hesitated to let my subscription expire, I let it go early in 2009.

Yet, they should be commended for what they do right, and, to be honest, I am not aware of a traditional Catholic newspaper or magazine that hasn't altered course to appear more "respectable" over the last few years--it is quite inexplicable! The Remnant will still, occasionally, put something out that reminds me of the old days. For example, their old militancy is often apparent in their critiques of Austro-libertarianism, and here they give no quarter to the Austrian Heresy and its advocates.

When the purported traditional Catholic Jeffery Tucker, of the odious Ludwig von Mises Institute, raised up McDonald's as the model of human progress, I should have known that Mr. Christopher Ferrara would beat me with a response (does he ever sleep?). I am very thankful that he did, for his piece The Apotheosis of McDonald's surpasses anything I could have written.

Fair is Foul, and Foul is Fair.

2011-07-22T13:15:00.011-04:00

"It is obvious that men and women whose minds are dominated by numbers, natural sciences and technology, are not truly civilized." –Fr. Calmel

By M.D. Amesse

The Muse has not been willing, but Durendal has fallen silent, so readers beware.

This morning, the image of a former professor came to mind. He was dressed--as any self-respecting modern professors would dress--in a polo shirt and khaki shorts. Yet, to the studied eye or keen ear, the eco-friendly sandals and the "surfer-dude" accent marked this particular professor as holding a position in the Biology department. As for his character, I can say little, but he was a friendly liberal (as they often are) hyper with enthusiasm—that modern educator’s substitute for knowledge. He had just enough grasp on reality to make his way to campus; he did not, for example, drive East, when he should have driven West, for he knew not everything was relative. Yet, in everything else, he could have asked, with a certain Roman governour, "what is truth?". In short, he was everything I loathe in a teacher.

The first class he spoke of empiricism, the scientific method, and how, under these two, the great advancement of humankind, of tolerance, and the progress of civilisation took place. I could tell we were not going to see eye to eye, and when he conceded early in the talks that he could make no sense of philosophy, especially metaphysics, I knew the class was going to get rocky, for the first three hours were dedicated to “thinking scientifically,” which is code for materialistically.

And so, this first class was dedicated to indoctrination, and I imagined it to be a modern aping of the Inquisition. For three hours we were made to answer numerous questions about our beliefs and “superstitions.” Our faith was to be challenged—and destroyed.

When over half of the class believed in the Great Deluge, his temper began to flair; the sappy, happy, exterior began to crumble. When just under half of the class doubted the dogma of evolution (and I denied it), I thought the man would have a stroke. A large purple vein appeared on his forehead, and he became very red. He slammed the table with his fist like a brute. He began yelling, spit flying from his lips. But I think I pushed him over the edge, for his fragile grip on self-control was dashed when I supported the burning of (true) witches. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy,” said I, replacing "Horatio" with the professor’s name. I thought then that he would swallow his tongue. The class ended, mercifully for all.

I cannot help but think that I should have been less flippant and gave a better example, but I kept my sanity, which is often the best one can do in modern universities. I did manage to give a piece of advice. I told him to read Brideshead Revisited.

More Thoughts on July 4th

2011-07-07T15:09:00.003-04:00

The following quotations are from the American paleo-conservative Chilton Williamson, Jr., of Chronicles Magazine. His thought is rare amongst American conservatives, and I thought I would share a few of them with Durendal readers. – M.D. Amesse

“Visiting London for the first time after nearly a half-century, I felt more deeply the fate of Britain than I do that of my own country—perhaps because she is our mother, racially, culturally, and politically.”

“The United States has no glorious culture, no history comparable with that of Great Britain and the great Western European nations. Rooted in the thin acidic topsoil of the Enlightenment, and at a deeper level in the even thinner and more acid subsoil of Puritanism; deprived of an hereditary aristocracy for which a more or less barbaric plutocracy has necessarily substituted; mentally and socially crippled by bumpkin preachers at the bottom of the religious structure and by otiose transcendentalist divines at its top; retarded by its frontier culture; corrupted by the worship of money, science, and technique and by the false religions of Progress and Democracy—high culture at the European level was never to be a part of America’s destiny. “

“Deprived of an authoritative aristocracy to direct its government, uphold a coherent social structure, fight its wars, and maintain high standards in learning and in the arts, Western civilization has approached near collapse, as the enfranchised rude republican of the 19th century has devolved steadily into the "empowered" mass man of the 20th and 2lst, to the point where, today, democratic society exists only in the anthropological sense. The devastation is systemic, endemic, and all-pervasive, embracing government and public life, the professions, the arts, manners, morals, and religion.”

Posted on the feast of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, Bishop and confessor, a.D. MMXI

Requiescat in pace: Otto von Habsburg

2011-07-04T14:07:00.007-04:00

Respice etiam ad devotissimum imperatorem nostrum Ottonem cujus tu, Deus, desiderii vota praenoscens, ineffabili pietatis et misericordiae tuae munere, tranquillum perpetuae pacis accommoda, et coelestem victoriam cum omni populo suo.

Look also upon our most devout Emperor Otto, the desires of whose longing you, O God, know beforehand, and by the inexpressible grace of your kindness and mercy grant him the tranquillity of lasting peace and heavenly victory with all his people.

Prayer for the Holy Roman Emperor at the end of the pre-1955 Exsultet of Holy Saturday

Today, at the age of 98, Otto von Habsburg, heir to the last Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, Bl. Emperor Karl I, died in his sleep at his home in Pöcking bei Starnberg, in southern Germany. A peaceful death, but not one without bitterness to monarchists and those who hunger and thirst for justice, since this "home" was in fact a place of exile since the 1950s (although it's true he was legally allowed back in the 1960s, the hostility he received from those who should have been his loyal subjects amounted to a de facto exile in my view).

It is interesting that he should pass on the day that is celebrated as a sort of "high holy day" of the American state religion, when one considers the role that the United States of America played in the death of his father and his empire: as a member of the "Allied Powers" the U.S. had been firstly instrumental in the defeat of Austria-Hungary in WWI, had also insisted on its dissolution (cf. Woodrow Wilson's re-drawing of the maps of Europe to "make the world safe for democracy"), and finally saw to it that he was exile to the remote Atlantic island of Madeira (where he died).

The writers at Durendal certainly do not agree with everything the Archduke did. Certainly his abdication was a mistake (as he himself later admitted) and his involvement in the "Three Faiths Forum" highly scandalous. Yet it is still fitting to observe his passing as the heir to a 700 year-old Catholic dynasty. May God grant him peace.

Otto with his parents, Bl. Karl and Zita of Bourbon-Parma
as King and Queen of Hungary,
31 December 1916

Posted on the Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a.D. MMXI

Godric’s Treason: Disloyalty at Maldon

2011-06-28T10:25:00.017-04:00

Byrhtnoth, Earl of Essex

By M.D. Amesse

If we want to understand a people then we must study their arts. Studying the literature of early Catholic Anglo-Saxon dispels a great many myths. Chivalry is said to have flowered in France, but even in the Old English poetry of the Anglo-Saxons we find a rough chivalric code that bound churl, thane, ealdorman (earl), and king. The unity of society was held together by personal oaths and duties, not by nationalism. The extent of this primitive code is impressive, with numerous religious and secular facets, but the focus here must be narrowed. I will focus in this post on The Battle Maldon only, through it pains me to limit the scope, for the literary examples of this theme could be multiplied. In Maldon, we see that the king’s subjects were expected to be loyal to him in the face of death, and, in his turn, the king and ealdormen were expected to have the good of their people in mind and not waste the lives of his warriors in unjust wars. Tolkien successfully dealt with Byrhtnoth’s vainglory and abuse of loyalty in his essay “Ofermod,” but I desire to discuss the disloyalty of his men, Godric specifically, and how it led to the destruction of the English defenders at the battle.

Since Maldon is primarily a historical poem, it will be profitable to consider the background. The poem survives only as a fragment of 325 lines without beginning, end, or original title. The poem was written shortly after the battle. Prior to the battle, the Viking Danes (as they are called) had been pillaging, raiding, and conquering English territory for more than two centuries. At the end of the 10th century, in the reign of King Aethelred the Unready, the Vikings had savaged several English villages in their quest for slaves and treasure. Byrhtnoth, the ealdorman of Essex, was charged with the eastern defence. When the Danes, coming off a series of deadly raids, sailed through the estuary and camped at Northey Island, in 991, it was the earl’s sworn duty to meet them on the coast of England and drive them off. It should be noted that Northey Island and the coast of Essex are separated by a narrow causeway which is difficult, but not impossible, to cross on foot. The attackers from the island would be bottlenecked, unable to advance more than three abreast, and English archers and a shield wall would then make quick work of the slowly advancing Danes (Altman 3). The leader of the Viking host appealed to Byrhtnoth for ground, so as to make a fair fight of it. What motivated the ealdorman to accept the request is a matter for debate, but he did accept and allow the Viking force to cross. In fairness, we should recall that the strength of the Viking raiders was their ability to attack a defenceless village and move on before the English forces could arrive (Howe 18). It was, in part, this vain scrambling which gave King Aethelred the title “the Unready.” Here were the elusive Danish raiders, and they wanted to fight. Would they have sailed off, to strike elsewhere, had Byrhtnoth refused? What is clear, the Maldon poet castigated him for accepting the terms, but as Steve Howe put it, “Had Byrhtnoth’s gamble paid off, the poet would have had a very different song to sing” (Howe 20). Whatever his reasons for permitting them to advance, once across the causeway, the Danes broke the English shield wall, routed the English defenders, and killed Byrhtnoth’s loyal men. The ealdorman shared their fate, and his body, absent its head, was recovered and buried in Ely Abbey.

At the beginning of the Maldon poem, we find the ealdorman Byrhtnoth rallying his men. No more has Byrhtnoth lifted the moral of his men when the Danes send a messenger to the defenders of Essex. For a tribute the “slaughter wolves” will sail off and leave them in peace (Glenn 25-40). This was a lucrative business for the Northmen, for they were frequently paid for peace which never lasted. What follows is typical banter, between opposing sides, known as the flyt. Each side would boost their courage and prowess, while insulting the opposing side. The lines read, “Byrhtnoth spoke, lifted shield, / shook slender ash-spear, with words spoke, / angry and one-minded gave him answer: / "Hear you, seafarer, what this folk says? / Spears will they give you, ash-spears as tribute, / poisonous point, old sword-- / an armor-tax useless to you in war. / Seamen's messenger, bear word back again; / tell your people much loathlier tale: / that here stands a good earl with his war-band, / who will defend this homeland, /Aethelred's land, land of my prince, / folk and fold. At battle, now, / heathen must fall. Too shameful it seems / that you, unfought, should go to ship / bearing our wealth, now that thus far/ you have come into our land. / Not so softly shall you carry off riches: / point must, and edge, reconcile us first, / grim battle-play, before we give tribute” (Glenn 42-58).

This speech makes manifest the differences between Byrhtnoth and Godric. While the thane and churl are loyal to their lord Byrhtnoth, Byrhtnoth has his loyalties for which he too must be willing to die. This loyalty, and the loyalty of the ealdorman’s faithful men, is juxtaposed with the faithlessness of Godric and his brothers.

Although the Maldon poet has much criticism for the ealdorman’s fateful decision to accept the Danes’ request to cross the causeway unmolested (89-90), the poet is not silent regarding the disloyalty of some of Byrhtnoth’s men. We are told that these men are the same that had made boastful mead hall speeches that “at the time of stress would not endure” (Killings, 201-202). The ungrateful Godric, a nobleman made wealthy by Byrhtnoth’s liberality, abandons him (187) in noble “trappings of which he was not fit” (Killings, 188) and takes many of the defenders with him. Offa “shook ash-wood: / ‘Indeed, you, Aelfwine, have all thegns / exhorted at need. Now that our lord lies, / earl on earth, to all of us need is / that each of us embolden the other, / warrior to war, the while he weapon may / have yet and hold, hard blade, / spear and good sword. Us Godric has, / Odda's craven son, betrayed altogether. / When he on horse rode, on proud steed,/ too many men thought that it was our lord. / Therefore here on field the folk was divided, / shield-defense broken. Fail his beginning!” (Glenn 230-242). This premature flight causes panic in the already crumbling ranks, and what was a likely defeat becomes assured. Many of the defenders, innocently enough, mistake Godric for Byrhtnoth and follow his retreat. The lines crumble, Byrhtnoth is beheaded, and the loyal men are slain. Those that remain are horribly routed. Godric’s disloyalty sealed their fate.

As “traditional” Catholics we have known betrayal and desertion by those who have led us and by our own family and peers. Take heart, for disloyalty is a common theme in heroic literature. Lancelot was lusty, and Ganelon was vengeful, and Godric’s motivation is cowardice. The desire to save one’s life is natural and good, but the poet is wont to point out what human reason tells us; animal reactions can lead to devastating consequences. While the disloyal men managed to save themselves for a time, it was at too great of a cost. As C.S. Lewis remarked, “the successful traitor...can still eat, drink, sleep, scratch and copulate,” but “cannot have friendship or love or self-respect” (Lewis 108). If we presume Godric, like Byrhtnoth, was a real man, his days might have been spent as Lewis has suggested. At any rate, we know that he has spent more than a thousand years as the foil in Maldon. Such is the fate of cowards.

Posted on the vigil of Sts. Peter and Paul, a.D. MMXI

Altman, Chris. "Making Use of the Terrain: Byrhtnoð’s Strategy." ANQ. 20.1 (2007): 3. Print
Howe, Steve. "Perspectives" Military History. December 2005: 20. Print.
Glenn, Jonathan, A. "The Battle of Maldon." University of Central Arkansas. 20 Nov. 2010 .
"The Battle of Maldon - Full Text." Welcome to English at Oxford Faculty of English. 14 Nov. 2010 .
Lewis, C. S. The Abolition of Man: or Reflections on education with special reference to the teaching of English in the upper forms of schools. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1974.

Durendal Reviews "The Kids of Carcassonne"

2011-06-25T10:17:00.000-04:00

Name: The Kids of Carcassonne
Game Designer: Marco Teubner
Publisher: Hans im Glück
Rating: 3.5 stars
Summary: Based on the adult board game "Carcasonne", this excellent simplified version is easy enough for young children to grasp, yet interesting enough to keep the attention of parents or older siblings; an excellent introduction to board games for young ones.

We at Durendal highly recommend board games as a good (indoor) entertainment for the family (cf. http://rencesvals.blogspot.com/2009/03/leisure-revisited-boardgames-part-i.html). I believe it is good to get children involved in such games at an early age and "The Kids of Carcasonne" is a wonderful game to that end. The box says that the game is for ages 4+. My three year-old is able to play, but our four year-old clearly grasps the concepts better and plays with some strategy whereas the younger one just matches up the tiles.

The game is based on the highly popular adult board game "Carcasonne". It consists of several "landscape tiles" with images of roads, buildings, and rivers on them, and children wearing the player colours running on the roads. Each player has a collection of coloured playing pieces that look like small people carved in wood. The players in turn draw a landscape tile and place it; in normal/adult Carcasonne, these the roads will not always or easily match with another piece but in this simplified version each tile has a road exiting each of the four sides meaning that they always match.

Amongst other features, the tiles show children in the player colors on the roads. Whenever a road is "finished", every player places one of his pieces on each appropriate picture. Roads are finished when they are closed at each end by a building or dead-end. The first player who manages to place all of his pieces wins the game.

There are four colours (red, blue, green, and yellow) so you can only play with four people, which is not ideal for large Catholic families in one sense, but on the other hand, keeps it simple which is important for young children. Also, playing time is only about 15-20 minutes so children can easily rotate who plays and do several games in an hour. As mentioned in the summary, unlike some other childrens' board games I've tried, this one is actually interesting for adults to play which is important when teaching the children how to play and also to give you another reason to spend time with your children which is incredibly important (children spell love T-I-M-E, after all).

"The Kids of Carcasonne" is fairly fast-paced, making it a good fit for young minds that haven't developed a long attention span yet. It is entertaining and an excellent way to spent 20 minutes to an hour with your children. It is somewhat competitive and one of them will win the game, but it is not too competitive since all the tiles match up eliminating the intensity of the adult version. It also has a pleasant mediæval theme and children like looking at the castles and the little children in mediæval garb chasing sheep and chickens about. I highly recommend it to any parent with young children around 4-5 years of age. Older children will probably enjoy it as well, but desire more complexity ere long.

As with most, if not all, of the boardgames you will see recommended by Durendal, this board game is not available at the "big" stores like Wal-Mart or Toys 'R' Us, but is readily available on the internet or at local specialty games stores.

Posted on the Feast of St. William, Abbott, a.D. MMXI

Mediaeval Myths: The Inquisition

2011-06-23T09:13:00.001-04:00

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

The commonly-held view concerning the inquisition, this once great institution of the Church, can be summed up by Umberto Eco’s portrayal in The Name of the Rose, where an insane Bernardo of Sienna orders a convent of monks tortured until they make false confessions of witchcraft and then orders them burned at the stake -- all for no apparent reason. [i]

We should mention first that the Inquisition was not some monolithic, all present institution like a mediæval “Gestapo” as many would have us believe. In fact, formal inquisitions did not operate at all in most mediæval countries and of the three major inquisitions instituted, only two were in operation during the Middle Ages. The first was the inquisition operating in southern France starting in a.D. 1184 directed against the Cathar heresy (called my most modern scholars the “Mediæval Inquisition”). As that heresy died out, so did the inquisition. The Spanish Inquisition was started in the mid 15th century, near the very end of the Middle Ages, while the Roman Inquisition was founded in 1542 and not formally dissolved until it was morphed into the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith after Vatican II. We say that they were “great”, however, because of the invaluable protection of the Faith and souls they secured.

We should say before delving deeper into the myths, that the Inquisition was not perfect. Nor was it free of abuses. Every institution inhabited by humans contains those who have bad intentions, who abuse their power, or are overzealous. The Inquisition was no exception, but on the whole its tribunals were fair and the inquisitors honest and lenient. We should also note that the Inquisition was never directed at non-Catholics, but always dealt with Catholics (or those who publicly held themselves out as Catholics) who were harming souls by teaching heresy or practising the black arts.

The Spanish Inquisition

Most of the myths regarding the “Inquisition” centre on the Spanish Inquisition, which was supposedly horrifically brutal. This Inquisition was founded at the behest of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella the Catholic of Spain to root out false converts to the faith, who had pretended to convert to Catholicism for the purpose of infiltrating and undermining the Spanish government and to destroy souls.

On June 9th, 1995, the B.B.C., of all organisations, aired The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition as part of their Ancient Mysteries series that dispelled many of the most pernicious myths. A synopsis of the main points used to be on BBC’s website, but this has unfortunately been removed. Fortunately, E.W.T.N. retained many of the main discoveries of the Spanish scholars made using computerized searches through actual records left by the officers of the Inquisition. These showed, inter alia, that the courts of the Spanish Inquisition were in fact more lenient and fair than civil courts elsewhere in Europe. Furthermore, it demonstrated that four in five Spaniards were not even subject to the Inquisition because they lived in rural areas, whereas the inquisitors operated in cities and because of their lack of automobiles, could not easily move into the country.[ii]
'
But since the Spanish Inquisition is so infamous, it bears further examination. Its most notorious Grand Inquisitor, Fray Tomas de Torquemada, did employ torture, as did all courts of the time, ecclesiastical or civil. But to put this in context, historian William Walsh estimates that the torture used was no worse than that routinely employed by American police in the 1930s.[iii] Fray Torquemada was Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition from 1483 to 1498. During that time 100,000 people were tried by the Inquisition’s various tribunals. Of those, fewer than 2% were executed. In Barcelona, for example, from 1488 to 1498, "one prisoner out of 20 was put to death" (for a total of 23 executions).[iv] Only unrepentant heretics (often repeat offenders) were put to death. The manner of execution was burning at the stake, a terrible punishment for the most terrible crime of murdering souls.

Witch-hunting

One of the functions of the Inquisition was, indeed, the rooting out and bringing to trial of witches, sorcerers, and other practitioners of black magic. However, we should not apologise for this as the “conservatives” do, but, rather, recognise the dangers of black magic to souls and even physical well-being. Consider the case of Lady Alice Kyteler who murdered three of her husbands and was only discovered (and tried as a witch) when the fourth husband, while already dying of a mysterious disease, happened upon a collection of powders and ointments, as well as a wafer of sacramental bread with the devil’s name stamped on it.[v]

Yet we would still be wrong to conjure in our minds the image that most have of witch-hunts -- those in the style of the Protestant witch-hunting craze of Salem, Massachusetts. Such irrational delirium has nothing in common with the inquisition, nor with Catholicism. And Salem is not the only example of this, for Protestant Swiss cantons around the time of the Protestant Revolt burned more witches than the archdiocese of Paris, which was fifty times as populous, in that same time period.[vi] While in Britain, 30,000 went to the stake for witchcraft, in Protestant Germany, 100,000, yet in Catholic Spain the numbers was around 1,000.[vii]

A sidebar to this is the argument made by many prominent historians, is that witch-hunts were but a means of the Church to keep women submissive. We shall deal with the false charges of misogyny against the Age of Faith in a later instalment of this chronicle, but for the purposes of the inquisition, suffice it to say that the majority of people tried and executed for magical practices in the Middle Ages were in fact men.[viii] So yet again, we see that The Middle Ages were a sane era, an honourable era, a devout era, and an age where just ecclesiastical courts operated in relative fairness to protect souls from heresy and sorcery.

Previous Articles concerning Mediæval Myths:

Hygiene in the Middle Ages
Child Brides
"Tyrants" and "Slaves"

Posted on the Feast of Corpus Christi, a.D. MMXI

[i] If the reader has neither read this novel, nor seen the film, avoid both. We only mention them because they are fairly well known and many have had their impression of the Inquisition coloured by them. But both are totally historically inaccurate and purposely written as “hit pieces” against the Catholic Church. As for Bernardo of Sienna, he was a real inquisitor, although far from the monster portrayed in Eco’s book. He was a very reasonable, earnest, and pious investigator of heresy and witchcraft, as I discovered when reading his personal journals: “Bernardo of Siena on Witchcraft and Superstition”, John Shinners ed., Medieval Popular Religion 1000-1500: Readings in Medieval Civilisation and Cultures II, Broadview Press (Peterborough: 1997)
[ii]O’Brein, Edward. “A New Look at the Spanish Inquisition”. EWTN Online. <http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/spaninq.txt>
[iii] Walsh, William T. Characters of the Inquisition. Tan Books (Rockford: 1987).
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Witches and Witchcraft, Time-Life Books (Alexandria:1990) p. 54.
[vi] Monter, “French and Italian Witchcraft”, History Today, Vol 30 N° 11 (Nov 1980) p. 31.
[vii] Walsh, William T. Isabella of Spain: The Last Crusader. Tan Books (Rockford: 1987). p. 275
[viii] Kieckhefer, Magic in the Middle Ages, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge: 1989) pp. 191.

True Restoration Conference Update

2011-06-21T12:26:00.003-04:00

If readers are wondering where some of the presentation summaries from the recent True Restoration Press conference have gone, they have been removed in order that corrections and clarifications can be made. Additionally, there are a few that were never posted which shall be added more slowly to ensure they accurately report what was said.

True Restoration 18 June 11 Conference

2011-06-18T18:03:00.000-04:00

”What is Honour?” - presented by Dr. David Allen White

Waugh viewed his Sword of Honour trilogy as his last major work and the crowning achievement of his career (although he considered Helena his best work). It came out over the period of a decade; her started out knowing it a multi-volume work yet did not know how long it would be.

The first volume is called “Men at Arms”, second volume “Officers and Gentlemen”, and “Unconditional Surrender” (in America the publisher demanded a different title - “The End of the Battle”). He later released the entire trilogy as one volume entitled Sword of Honour.

“What is Honour?” One of the great Falstaff speaches at the end of Henry IV, Part I is the honour speach. On the way to battle in Falstaff speaks for the last time to Prince Hal; asks him to defend him if he falls. Prince Hal says only a Colossus could do this, but in any event he owed God a death. His speech is the coward’s way out. At the end of the battle Prince Hal stands between Hotspur and Falstaff (Hotspur dead, he thinks Falstaff is too) -- one the man who had honour in excess and the other out only to save his own skin.

A working definition of the word honour: according to Webster “a person’s social status according to the community” ... in order to get a sane definition, Dr. White chose to go to Dr. Samuel Johnson’s dictionary instead: “Nobility of soul; magnanimity and a scorn of meanness”. Waugh had to know that definition because there, indeed, is his sense of honour in Sword of Honour.

Waugh had served in WWII. Much of what he chronicles in the novels is based on his personal experience. He had kept diaries throughout the war (even though this was strictly forbidden), so the novel is full of events he knew, but it is not autobiographical. In the hero, Guy Crouchback, we do get the view of Waugh’s view of the war as he lived through it. When the war begins, Crouchback is in his mid-thirties (as was Waugh), wanted to get into action, felt a need to serve, wanted to be a part of the enormous historic cataclysm that would change the world yet had no easy place to fit in. Guy Crouchback comes from an Old Catholic family; a proud family, a propertied family, a recusant family during the era of Elizabeth and this remains part of their heritage (a major difference between Waugh and his protagonist).

Crouchback is a failure and a ruin at the start of the novel, living in a castle his grandparents built on an island off the Italian coast. He is divorced, alienated even from the villagers on the island. When the war comes he has a cause. He saw the German-Soviet pack as “the modern world in arms” and it was finally clear. Waugh makes it clear there is something amiss, however -- we see the grave of an English knights who had put himself in the service of an Italian count in the Second Crusade but never gets to the Holy Land because he died on the island helping to “deal with” a local conflict that had to be resolved first. Waugh visits that tomb and takes this knight as his “patron saint”.

Guy’s father Gervais is a fascinating character. He doesn’t talk about the war when he meets with Guy; his first son Gervais died in WWI, his second son Ivo went mad and starved himself to death, and now only Guy is left. There is no talk of the war, only a Lourdes medal and going to Mass the next morning. At Mass the priest speaks in his sermon of a time of danger, doubt, and suffering.

There is a character in each of the three volumes that parallels what Guy is going through in that volume and must be exorcised -- part of his false vision of the war. In “Men at Arms” this character is Apthorpe; he and guy arrive at the training facility together, he is of similar age (they are referred two as “the uncles” by the younger recruits). Apthorpe claims to have been soldiering for years in Africa (which was false -- an attempt to gather false honour), he is “the man of action”. Apthorpe gets promoted and leads a company before Guy.

Apthorpe’s prize possession is a 19th century “Thunder box” (a portable field latrine). Apthorpe is so terrified of what he might catch from the men, and therefore can only use it. But all decent men must use the same facilities in the new order and is afrait it will be taken away and enlists Guy to help him hide his unique toilet. But a mad bloodthirsty officer Richie Hook finds the thunder box and starts using it producing a great comic conflict. We were told we must read the book to know the rest.

We see hope for Guy as he discusses with the padre that the supernatural is the real -- what we consider real is passing and transitory, in fact a mere shadow of this reality.

In Guy’s first operation in Dakar goes well and then Richie Hook goes off on his own an messes up the mission and Guy is reprimanded despite doing what he was told.

The second volume opens with a comic scene in a pub in London which has been bombed; Guy is walking through and finds the Air Marshall hiding under a billiard table.

The doppleganger for Guy in the second volume is Ivor Claire who is Guy’s model, an officer and a gentleman, quintessential England. However, as we discover through the novel is that the officers will not do their job and the gentlemen are no gentlemen at all. In the third volume, as part of Guy’s education, we will see where something totally disgraceful is perpetrated by these officers and they are not only not punished, but are rewarded.

The climax of the second volume is the ignominious retreat from Crete. As the public is being told of the valiant stand being made by the troops, it is total chaos. Major Hound, the picture of the modern officer, is the other end of the insane officer corps from Richie Hook -- Major Hound cannot function without order, is incapable of improvising or taking initiative in the absence of orders. Guy is with Major Hound where there is no food and chaos; he demands food from a sergeant who is dividing it among the lower troops -- the first moment of temptation in his life and he falls. The junior ranks end up taking control as the hierarchy collapses. A counter-scene features an old Greek general being retreated by his still loyal troops and Guy is the only Brit who offers him respect.

Volume 3 -- “Unconditional Surrender”; the title tells us Waugh’s vision of the war. He called it elsewhere “a tug of war between two groups of indistinguishable lugs”. He makes it clear in this book that what happened was there was a seeming, phony victory for the west which actually surrendered completely to the Soviet. The war ended in unconditional surrender to the Soviets. In Guy, he unconditionally surrenders to God’s providential plan for him.

It was determined by the king that the time had come to show their support for the Russian people. A ceremonial sword was forged as a gift for Stalin. Before being given, it was put on display in Westminster Abbey. It is placed on a table counterfeiting as an altar. It is worshipped by the British people hard by the shrine of St. Edward. Guy is not tempted to join in their piety.

Ludovic, the doppleganger of vol 3, is the last vestiges of the romance of war. He is an intellectual. What we find out is that throughout the intellectual set we have a parade of traitors (to communism). He is taken in by them. Waugh had Ludovic write a novel “The Death Wish” which was a parody of Brideshead Revisited (Waugh criticising his own work).

Guy is by this point in hospital and tempted to go the route of Ivo. The central scene of this novel is the requiem Mass of Guy’s father. At the end of it Guy realises the genius of his father, the only entirely good man he had ever known. This is his turning point. Guy does rise above his own death wish and links up again with his ex-wife Virginia who has become pregnant by a loathsome character who was manufactured into a hero by the media. She attempts to get an abortion but is foiled at every turn.

Dr. White said there was much more to be said but did not want to give away the story and insisted the trilogy be read -- he did not want to give away the plot.

True Restoration Conference 17 June 2011 (#2)

2011-06-17T16:19:00.001-04:00

Heinrich Pesch and the Germanic-Catholic Tradition of Economics - presented by Dr. E. Michael Jones

Dr. Jones opened his second talk discussing the discontinuity we’ve inherited. Going from the Distributists to things like the Acton Institute. The valuation of labour has been lost, and we’re left to dig among the ruins and try to rebuild from that.

He proposed to start with a contemporary phenomenon and work back to it’s source: the “Arab Spring”. The picture of the Arab Spring is of a man standing in Tahrir Square holding up a sign which says “Egypt Supports Wisconsin: One World One Pain” (cf. the protests again the Wisconsin governor). The one thing that Egypt and Wisconsin have in common is capitalism.

The world we’ve lived in has been the “triumph of capitalism over communism”. What we see in the Arab Spring is people realising that this is not the case. Egypt was the quintissential neo-liberal state (a theory human well-being can be advanced by liberating man through free market, free trade). This neo-liberalism was introduced by Mubarak’s regime. But the people are not accepting it -- everywhere neo-liberalism has been tried it has failed. In America, especially in Wisconsin where the manufacturing has been looted by outsourcing and the people become poorer and poorer and the looters richer. When the Tea Party Republicans came into power in Wisconsin, their first action was union-busting and more looting (of pension funds, which is stealing deferred wages).

This was all predictable because capitalism as we know it (beginning in England at the time of Protestant Revolt) began as a form of looting. The chief object of the “English Reformation” was the plunder of Church property: “the nobility had their teeth in the carcass and would not be whipped off by a sermon”

In the light of what’s happened in the last three years, we need a new definition of capitalism that more accurately describes it. Economics has to be brought back into the “matrix” of morality. One of the crucial issue is wages (cf. denying a just wage being a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance) because it involves a major power imbalance. The capitalist position on wage is that the just wage is whatever a worker agrees to -- their agreement to work for a certain wage is what makes it just. Likewise, a loan is deemed just, ipso facto, by the fact that someone agrees to its terms. The Church teachings is, of course, that usury is wrong.

In dealing with usury, the Church has traditionally spoken of “mixed will”: it is not that an individual desires to pay 500% interest on a payday loan, it is that he doesn’t want his family to starve. But the understanding of usury has disappeared from Catholic discourse today.

He noted the Benedictine motto “ora et labora” as an example of the medieval economy that replaced the economy of antiquity. In the Renaissance, the ancient economics were resurrected by usurers and the Protestant Revolt was used as an engine to bring this about. He discussed the role of the Medicis’ role (with Cosomo Medici as the prime personality responsible) in this which was covered briefly and packed with more detail than I could record. In the end he took the position that Savanarola (who essentially took over Florence after the fall of the Medicis) came very close to reaching a resolution to the question of capitalism while it was still very young but his murder at the order of Pope Alexander VI. He also noted how the robbing of workers of their wages in Florence destroyed it.

The real definition of capitalism according to Dr. Jones: usury at the expense of labour.

This brought us to the 20th century and the great rise of German political thinking. Pesch defined capitalism as “a system of freedom to exact usury with the sanction of the state”. According to Bruland capitalism means the domination over the economy by the inquisitive interest of those who own capital. Contractual appropriations of surplus value was put forward as an aspect of usury. According to Pesch Capitalism represents an inversion of the true economic order.

Dr. Jones’ proposal: economics as if God matters. Modern economics is greed and competition as the regulating factors of the economy. All the money in the world cannot make this economic model work. We have to order the economy, rather, according to reason and morality. The crucial test therefore becomes whether a given economy values labour over usury, or usury over labour. Economics as if God matters recognizes that freedom only has meaning if it conforms to the moral law.

Money cannot produce wealth, whereas labour can. Therefore human labour is the basis for the economy.

Heinrich Pesch called the pre-Protestant Revolt economy the Germanic-Christian tradition of economics (basing the Germano-”centric” aspect on the Holy Roman Empire as the civil arm of the Church). One of the great accomplishment of this economy was the exclusion of the liberty to get in debt.

According to Pesch wages cannot be regarded as costs from the point of view of the national economy. Cutting wages is cutting one’s own throat. This perpetuates the problems of an economy as things begin to spiral (more debt). A populace which lives in poverty and misery will find even cheap goods too expensive.

True Restoration Conference 16 June 2011 (#4)

2011-06-16T21:02:00.000-04:00

Capitalism, Vatican II, &c. - presented by Dr. E. Michael Jones

In his talks, indicates he wishes to narrow the focus of the crisis, capitalism, &c. and try to develop a coherent view. The crisis in the Church today is one of a lack of coherency, and focus on dualisms. He would then like to focus on the German approach, and look at the crisis within the context of German history. Germany is not just “any old country”; before the 19th century there was no Germany, up to Napoleon it was the Holy Roman Empire; the Christian successor to the Roman Empire, the political arm of the Catholic Church.

Americans are taught that the seperation of Church and state is a great thing. Therefore wishes to look at an integral sense, how we lost it, and perhaps how to get back there.

The situation as it exists now: we’ve been subjected to a number of books from Benedict XVI. Each book as it’s selling point, there is one statement taken out of the book that causes an enormous amount of controversy (for example, the comment on sodomite prostitutes using condoms as a “step towards” a “more human sexuality”). Dr. Jones’ view is that this is a marketing strategy.

Moreover, the statements are discontinuous. They state other than what the Church has taught, or inconsistent with theology. The crisis of dualism emerges as the pope indicates that “it’s not the pope who’s talking” specifically says that Jesus of Nazareth is specifically no a magisterial document. The question is then, as in a sports example, “which Mickey Mantle is going to show up today?”

Historically, only public persona the pope has was that as pope, hence the use of “we” when speaking. Now there is confusion, and a suspicion that the pope is playing one persona off the other.

This dualism is the legacy of Vatican II. We need to understand this to understand the crisis in the Church. There is also the Church/State dichotomy which was picked-up from John Courtney Murray . America became the tacit model upon which Dignitatis Humanae was based.

He went further to discuss John Courtney Murray’s comments in Time magazine at the time of the council (the meaning of being an American and a Catholic: “no boycotts”) contra the Catholic Church’s most powerful cultural campaign in the League of Decency. The Cardinal-Archbishop of Philadelphia ordered a boycott of Warner Brothers. Warner was losing $100,000 per week in Philadelphia alone during the Depression and eventually backed-down on the immorality they were introducing into film. This was the beginning of the rise of Catholic power in America. Once WWII was over, the backlash against this came (“Catholicism and Fascism are the same thing” was the thesis of one writer). In 1960 JFK was elected and it was time to a serious conversation about what it meant to be a Catholic in America and this is when John Courtney Murray came in with his “no boycotts”.

Pillars of the Catholic Church - Germany and Italy were the “bad guys”; Poland behind the Iron Curtain, France had gone “belly up” -- the only place left was America. John Courtney Murray was the architect of a “tame” Catholic Church that no longer said we need an integral state. He says that Vatican II was a legitimate council, but the Holy Ghost did not condone the theme that America was an ideal state.

Because of Vatican II the Church became inextricably tied to an American political agenda. The Church became extricated in the benign enlightenment state in trying to extricate itself from the confessional state.

Further, rapprochement between Jews and the Church led to fundamental/radical discontinuity with the Church since to reconcile with the Jews the Gospel cannot be preached (or at least a qualification on how the Gospel may be preach is placed on it).

What should our response be from an integral Catholic point of view? He preferred as an analogy the Gospel account of Our Lord sleeping in the boat being tossed upon the waves of an angry storm and said that jumping ship is death.

True Restoration Conference 16 June 2011 (#3)

2011-06-16T20:06:00.001-04:00

First Sir Charles defined the terms he would use, since “there are monarchies, there are monarchies, and there are monarchies”. It can mean a lot of different things, so can a republic or democracy for that matter. There are a few things that link the various systems that might be described as being monarchial:

One ruler (either as figurehead or reality)
There are traditions, especially religious, which tie the monarchy to his people
Legitimacy in ascendancy (this being the difference between a dictator and a monarch)
Even if they are called absolute, they are not; at the very least there are taboos that they cannot violate without losing their legitimacy

A monarchy is supremely connected to the culture of the people it rules. It’s not really an overweaning political ideology. It is a relatively recent thing that it’s become a political issue. Even the medieval republics were not really republics -- they ultimately acknowledged a monarchial head in the Holy Roman Emperor. Also, their are elective monarchies as well as hereditary ones -- although all are bound-up with tradition.

There are a lot of monarchies that Sir Charles would not have wanted to live under such as the Ottoman Empire, yet when republics took over (Atatürk for example) things were not improved. With the possible exception of the U.S. and Switzerland, there are no republics that were better than the monarchies they replaced. And even in the case of those two, the republics were purchased at the price of bloody civil wars.

In the U.S. the illusion of popular control replaces the four common elements of monarchies listed in the definition section.

The talk at this point went over to a Q&A session, and I must confess that after being on the road for 21 hours yesterday and getting only four hours of sleep afterwards, I was feeling too lazy to transcribe the questions and answers, but fortunately his complete conference should be available for sale from True Restoration Press in DVD format.

True Restoration Conference 16 June 2011 (#2)

2011-06-16T19:53:00.001-04:00

Henry VIII: Founding Father - Sir Charles Coulombe

King Henry VIII was in fact THE Founding Father. Henry VIII’s father Henry VII send explorers (Henry Cabot) to North America. Henry VIII had no interest in the lands across the sea, so it may seem odd to regard him as a founding father. If Henry VII founded colonization, Henry VIII founded the political foundation by removing England from the Catholic Church. He was not a Protestant, but a schismatic Catholic but he was the one who “opened the door” and who is ultimately responsible for the fact that the U.S. was a Protestant nation and is now a post-Christian nation. He wasn’t the only influence, but it was his key that opened the door.

Anglican Church was designed (by Elizabeth I) to bless the desires of the dominant class. When the dominant class changed, the Anglican “faith” changed. If we want to know what the dominant class wants, look at what the Anglican church teaches.

The American colonies brought together the Pilgrims and the Anglicans; the start of plurality. Every sect in England was reproduced in America. It was a real melting pot from the very beginning. Catholics were the only ones outlawed throughout the colonies. In all things we see Henry VIII at the origin.

Despite the revolution and break with England, much continued such as Common Law, the idea of sovereignty (although who exercises that sovereignty by inheriting it from the king) remains an open legal question), military units (such as the governor’s Foot Guard in Connecticut who wear British-style uniforms with shakos), sheriffs (from shire reeves). Federal level government was created in 1776, but the lower levels of government are what was in place at the time of the revolution, instituted by the British Crown.

How do you mobilize a religiously diverse population behind the government? The way the Founding Fathers resolved this was a manner similar to Anglicanism only without the king -- the worship of the state with its religious trappings of the liberty bell, the flag, &c. As in Henry’s day, if you go against the consensus morality you are a rebel (against the state now, versus against the Crown).

Looking at the progression from Henry VIII’s time: Henry VIII destroyed the concept of the Church’s sacredness. If the Church wasn’t sacred, then was the Crown? This led to the “Glorious Revolution”, then that having happened, William of Orange made king by parliament. If parliament can choose the king, why have a king at all? People don’t sit around thinking of this, but in the aggregate, things tend to follow a certain progression through time.

He noted that the great majority of Jacobites who lived in the colonies were, despite their adherence to the Stuarts, were loyalists. It wasn’t for them a question of who should be king in the 1776 Revolution, but the question of whether there should be a king. Therefore, on principle, they fought for the Hanovers.

First Christians in Mecca

2011-06-15T10:11:00.000-04:00

By Nicholas Wansbutter, Esq.

Italian traveller and writer Ludovico di Varthema (c. 1470-1517) is generally recognized as the first European non-Muslim known to have entered Mecca. However, while reading a very good and unbiased history, written by non-Catholics, entitled The Leper King and His Heirs, I discovered that Varthema was not the first Christian to visit Mecca, and that those who were the first visited it in far less pleasant circumstances.

The backdrop is Saladin’s war with the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem which began in early 1182. After victories by the Royal Army led by King Baldwin IV (who was by this time suffering terribly from advanced lepromatous leprosy) at Le Forbelet and at Beirut Saladin had withdrawn to Syria to campaign against the Aleppan Mohammedans who were not subject to him. During this “break” in active combat in the Kingdom of Jerusalem itself in early 1183, Raynald of Châtillon (a man unjustly villainized by many histories and by that abomination, Kingdom of Heaven), outfitted a flotilla of five galleys which were launched into the Red Sea where they were able to wreak much havoc behind Saladin’s lines. Saladin’s governor of Egypt, al-Adil, was able to get ships transported by land from Alexandria to the Red Sea and eventually routed this Christian force. After abandoning their ships, they surrendered, being trapped on the sourthern part of the Arabian Peninsula with no way of marching back home. When al-Adil asked Saladin what to do with these prisoners of war, he ordered that they all be executed, and reserved an especially grisly fate for two knights.

It is noteworthy that this episode does not come from European or Christian sources; in fact, the Frankish sources of the time make no mention of this particular expedition. Rather, this comes from Islamic sources, which can hardly be accused of being "Islamophobic" or pejudiced (if anything, they could be accused of being biased in favour of their fellow Mohammedans). Back to the story: the "special fate" these two knights I mentioned, was described in a letter written by al-Imad, contained in Abu Shama’s (1203 – 1267) The Book of the Two Gardens[1]:

They were taken to Mecca where, during the great annual pilgrimage, they were led outside the city to Medina. This is a stage in the pilgrimage at which the faithful offer animals for slaughter and give their flesh to feed the poor. There, among a zealous and hostile crowd of thousands of pilgrims, the two Christians were slaughtered ‘like animals for sacrifice’, presumably by having their throats cut.[2]

So, some three hundred years before Varthema these two Christian knights had visited Mecca and were then given the crown of martyrdom in Medina shortly thereafter by members of that great “religion of peace”. As to the “honourable”, “just”, “righteous” Saladin’s part in ordering all of this:

al-Adil had misgivings about executing all these prisoners, for in accordance with Islamic law, their lives should have been spared because they had surrendered voluntarily, but Saladin had no scruples of this kind.[3]

And speaking of martyrdom, this same book (The Leper King) also mentions in the same chapter the treatment of Latin Christians by the Byzantines, a group who like the Mohammedans, are made out to be innocent, peace-loving victims of the vicious Franks (cf. the sack of Constantinople) by most modern historians. When Emperor Manuel Comnenus died in 1182, his widow Mary of Antioch (a Latin) was overthrown by Manuel’s cousin Andronicus Comnenus. His coup was bloody:

When Andronicus advanced on Constantinople, there was a spontaneous uprising of the mob, who massacred all the Latins in the city, regardless of age and sex, and cut off the head of the papal legate. Even the hospital of St John was sacked and its inmates murdered.[4]

The Franks were certainly guilty of some brutalities of their own, we can’t deny that. But on the whole, they were far less barbaric than those around them. Other than the sack of Jerusalem (which is generally exaggerated) their rule of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem was quite benign: see Chapter 3: The Kingdom of The Leper King. In fact, read the whole book; it is an excellent account based on primary sources of a very important and misunderstood period of a misunderstood era, that of the Crusades.

Posted on Pentecost Wednesday, also the Feast of St. Vitus & Companions, Martyrs, a.D. MMXI

[1] An account of the dynasties of Nur ad-Din (Saladin’s predecessor) and Saladin, which makes careful use of contemporary sources including letters and a history written during Saladin’s life by a Shi’ite scholar from Aleppo named Yahya Ibn Abi Tayy. (Cf. Hilmy, M. and M. Ahmad. “Some notes on Arab Historiography during the Zengid and Ayyubid Periods (521/1127-648/1250)”. Historians of the Middle East. Ed. Bernard Lewis and P.M. Holt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962. pp. 90-4)

[2] Hamilton, Bernard. The Leper King and His Heirs: Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. p. 183

[3] Ibid., p. 184

[4] Ibid., p. 173

True Restoration Midwest Regional Conference

2011-06-13T09:28:00.001-04:00

16-18 June 2011 True Restoration Press is hosting a conference on "Integral Catholicism". Durendal will be well-represented at this event, since, barring unforseen events, both editors (M. Amesse and N. Wansbutter) will be present, as well as regular columnist E. Jones. It promises to be an excellent meeting (the schedule is here: http://freepdfhosting.com/8e57717c33.pdf).

Unfortunately, "live blogging" won't be possible due to the lack of WiFi in the facilities holding the event. However, we will endeavour to provide readers with at least one post each day during the conference with summaries of the various presentations. True Restoration Press will later be selling DVDs of the presentations.

So, if any of the conferences listed in the linked PDF are of interest to you, be sure to "tune-in" to Durendal later this week.

Durendal Reviews "A Canticle for Liebowitz"

2011-06-11T08:46:00.002-04:00

Title: A Canticle for Liebowitz
Author: Walter M. Miller, Jr.
Publisher: Spectra Books
Rating: 3.5 stars (out of 4)
Summary in a Sentence: A classic of science fiction and Catholic literature which gives a chillingly realistic portrayal of Catholic monks toiling in the Lord's vineyard in the wake of atomic apocalypse.

I must say the first thing that surprised me was all the overt and orthodox Catholicism. Written in 1959, the book portrays a future Church that is totally traditional, and is told from the perspective of an order of monks whose rules are based on those of the Cistercians - The Order of St. Leibowitz.

The novel is actually a collection of three novellas, each taking place several centuries apart, each following the same dystopic future setting and featuring monks from the order. The dystopia comes from a global nuclear war that took place some time in the mid-late 20th century, with the first novella taking place some 600 years later in a period of darkness and barbarism. In that time, the Church (as it was c. 500 a.D.) the last stronghold of learning and knowledge.

I have to say that I enjoyed the first novella, which followed Brother Francis of Utah, a novice seeking his vocation in the Order who plays a key role in the canonisation of St. Leibowitz, and the third novella, which follows Abbot Zerchi, leader of the order in the next time of troubles, the most. The middle novella wasn't as masterful as the first and last, in my view, though it was still very good.

One thing that impressed me about Miller's writing style was how he was able to portray traditionally Catholic life in a monastery, including prayers in Latin and the like, without coming across as preaching. At least, I didn't find it preachy, but perhaps non-Catholics or even non-traditionalists would find some of it offensive? However, the book sold over 750,000 copies so I think that many others had my impression of "non-preachiness" while immersing the reader in total Catholicism. This is a technique that I must master in my own writing, as I am somewhat of an aspiring novelist myself.

Perhaps part of the non-preachy tone of the book comes from the excellent characters that play central roles in the piece. They are all very human, with faults and strong points, yet their faults never give an impression of hypocricy in their devotion and the traditional confessional scenes were very well done. I loved the fact that all the characters in this book were believable, devoted Catholics who I could really relate to despite their monastic state versus my lay state.

Not only were the characters very strong, but the plot was quite well done. I made the mistake of reading the forward to the novel which totally gave away some of the main plot elements (which I am being careful not to do here), yet I still found the book highly enjoyable with a few unexpected twists. The portrayal of a post-nuclear holocaust world was chillingly believable. The depictions of the Church were very well done and traditional, with some well-concieved thoughts on what sorts of issues She might be wrestling with in the wake of a nuclear war and all that it brings. I thought it was a little Americo-centric to think that the papacy would relocate to the United States if Rome were annihilated in nuclear fire, but this didn't take away from the novel.

All in all, I can't really say enough good about this novel, which truly is a masterpiece. At its most basic, it is excellent science fiction with all the right elements of suspense, mystery, strong characters, and new societies. Beyond that, the overt Catholicism of it is an added benefit.

Posted on the Vigil of Pentecost, a.D. MMXI

Self-Murderers

2011-06-10T05:43:00.005-04:00

Nessus had not yet reached the other side
When we moved forward into woods unmarked
By any path. The leaves not green, earth-hued;

The boughs not smooth, knotted and crooked-forked;
No fruit, but poisoned thorns. Of the wild beasts
Near Cecina and Corneto, that hate fields worked

By men with plough and harrow, none infests
Thickets that are as rough or dense as this.
Here the repellent Harpies make their nests,

Who drove the Trojans from the Strophades
With dire announcements of the coming woe.
They have broad wings, a human neck and face,

Clawed feet and swollen, feathered bellies; they caw
Their lamentations in the eerie trees.

...

Dying would be a way to escape disdain,
Making me treat my juster self unjustly.

Dante, Inferno, Canto XIII

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

Suicide is a crime and mortal sin which today receives much sympathy, both from "mainstream" society, but even from many traditionalist Catholics, if certain popular message boards can be taken as any indication of trads' attitudes. At the most it is judged less harshly, and more often than not excuses are made for the self-murderer saying that she must have been "insane".

The Church rejects this notion that all, most, or even many self-murderers were insane at the time of their crime The Catholic Encyclopedia, in its article on "Suicide" (cf. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14326b.htm), has this to say about the rising suicide rate of that time (1917), and such commentary remains relevant to our own:

This suicide rate obviously includes suicides attributable to mental illness, but we cannot accept the opinion of a large number of physicians, moralists, and jurists who, led into error by a false philosophy, lay it down as a general rule that suicide is always due to insanity, so great is the horror which this act inspires in every man of sane mind. The Church rejects this theory and, while admitting exceptions, considers that those unfortunates who, impelled by despair or anger, attempt their life often act through malice or culpable cowardice. (The writer's emphasis)

But we must be clear: despair is a grave sin, and it's where the Devil wants us. Cowardice and a refusal to take up our crosses and follow the Lord is hardly Christian either. The devil would like us to forget these facts. One of his favourite tactics to do this in modern society is by slow progression, and it is a progression we have seen before with contraception, sodomy, and currently euthanasia: first it is decriminalised and/or called "illness", then it is legitimized, then finally it is enforced. We're at the illness stage with suicide, I submit, and nearly at the stage of enforcement with sodomy when one considers what is being pushed in schools (for just one example, see what Catholic schools in Ontario have recently instituted: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ontario-bishops-ask-all-catholic-high-schools-to-implement-gay-anti-bullyin/ or Brasil's proposed new laws: http://www.henrymakow.com/brazil_forced_to_embrace_homos.html)

Now, while I do not suggest that Catholics should be boorish or rude about this and angrily tell the grieving families of self murderers that their mother/father &c. is in hell. But nor should we be falling into lockstep with everyone else publicly exonerating the self-murderer and offering public prayers for them. We must remember that they are murderers.

Posted on the Feast of St. Margaret, Queen of Scotland, Widow, a.D. MMXI

Facebook and Verbicide

2011-06-08T00:00:00.013-04:00

"Only a continuous tradition of gentle speech, with all its implications—the avoidance of boredom and vulgarity, the exchange of complicated ideas, the observance of subtle nuances of word and phrase—can preserve the written language from death, and lifelong habitude to such speech alone schools a man to write his own tongue."– Evelyn Waugh

By M.D. Amesse

Until recently I had been staying away from Facebook, but the last few weeks I have been connecting to the social networking site to upload Durendal posts and comment on issues related to them. It doesn't take much to find myself idling away time. It is designed that way. There have been many warnings from clergy and lay faithful on the dangers of social networking, but I would like to touch on another. It struck me late the other night while I was reading my emails. I had been sent an amusing story about a bank being foreclosed on, and, for a split second before reality dawned on me, I was about to “like” it. Of course email has no such shortcut, and the email went uncommented on by me. At that moment, I realised that there was a problem.

Many commentators, in the early 20th century, noted the decline in language. Certainly things have not improved by the early years of the 21st. They have only gotten worse. Verbicide, as C.S. Lewis used it, includes the decline in the quality and quantity of society’s vocabulary, and thence subtly and fecundity of thought. How does this work?

The French Catholic philosopher and Vicomte Bonald argued that language is one of the proofs for the existence of God. He explained that without a language having been given to man, from some intelligence outside of himself, he would not have had the intellectual capability to develop one. Try to think of even simple concepts and draw comparisons between them without using words in your mind. The mind uses images, but it mostly uses words. Words are the building blocks of thought and the principle way we communicate our internal thoughts to others. How many pointless arguments could be avoided if we could communicate and think with clarity and with a firm perception of nuances? What happens when the building blocks of thought are crude or few is not difficult to imagine; we are there!

I suppose now I should make some practical suggestions. I am afraid I have nothing original to add, though that may not be a bad thing. Start living in reality—avoiding modern shortcuts, and consumerism— and speak where communication can find fertile soil. Facebook, despite its many words, has only helped verbicide along. As a married man, I am not able to gather with friends as often as I would like, but an effort must be made. Talk and read to your children. In one’s owns reading, pick up some of those old, dusty authors—and read them slowly with care! A dozen vulgar books read rapidly are not as valuable as one good book read slowly. Matthew Arnold said that writing good prose was about picking the best words to express your thoughts but poetry is about finding the best words in the best order. I cannot recommend highly enough the reading of good poetry. Many of the good writers recommend reading poetry to improve one's prose. Finally, toss out the T.V. and limit your intake of films. In this way, we will help to save language and thought from the revolution that is destroying both.

Posted on the Wednesday within the Octave of the Ascension, a.D. MMXI

Marriage is Overrated

2011-06-06T11:01:00.006-04:00

They [children] have been led to believe that religious life, or the priesthood, is a life of crucifixion; for the rest they “just get married.” ... As disciples of Christ, the choice of our state in life is to discern the manner of our crucifixion ... The graces of the family pass through the sacrament of matrimony, and primarily through the father. How many are the Catholic fathers who see themselves as “other Christs,” crucified for the well-being of their families? Where are the Catholic mothers who would wear themselves out risking all, even martyrdom as the Church has done in her mission to sanctify souls?

Father James Doran, S.S.P.X

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

First, a disclaimer after the provocative title for this article. This is not a rant by a bitter man unhappy with his life and his wife. To the contrary, these are the thoughts of a man who is very happily married to a beautiful, militantly counterrevolutionary wife who is a wonderful mother to the four children she's given him in six years of marriage. And yes, the photograph above is from my own wedding day.

Now, that mandatory preface covered, I can get to the "meat" of my thoughts: marriage is overrated today, not only among those of the mainstream populace, but among traditionalist Catholics as well. Even more so among the latter.

Depending on which saint you read, vocations to the priesthood and religious life are supposed to call between a quarter and a third of the populace. In my observations, the vocations rate in traditionalist Catholic chapels is somewhere around 1%. I know many traditionalist families, and not a single one of them has a nun or monk among their ranks. I know of only two priestly seminarians out of the five-hundred or so traditionalist Catholics I have known. Let us assume that my experience is far outside the norm and that there are three times as many vocations in reality; that's still around 1%. Now, there are many reasons why there are so few vocations. The insanity if the modern world, which none of us can escape without any taint from, is no doubt the prime reason. Yet it is my opinion that another reason is that the married life is so romanticized and so blown out of all proportion that people nearly see it as the "be all and end all". Even unmarried lay people are to be found in lower proportions today than in the past -- according to Dr. Horvat in her lecture "Women in the Middle Ages" (available here), as many as a third of the populace in any given medieval town were lifelong bachelors/bachelorettes who assisted those that did have families.

None of this is to say that marriage is bad in any way. My very point is this: no vocation is bad or to be disdained, but nor is any one vocation so much "better" (or dare I say, easier) as to exclude the others in all but extraordinary cases (i.e. ~1% of the population). If there is any vocation that is "better", it is the religious life, since this is the easiest life to attain heaven in, since one need only follow the rule to do so. Yet it seems that the prevailing attitude is that marriage is the "have your cake and eat it too" vocation, where you get to enjoy some of the world and the pleasures of the bed but still get to heaven. The "easy way out" vocation, as it were.

What is forgotten in those heady moments of courtship, is that every life is a Way of the Cross. There is no escaping this; the best a man can do is choose which life of suffering he shall take -- which manner of crucifixion (as Fr. Doran well stated) he shall receive. Those traditionalists who are married are good at hiding from others their crosses, which is meritorious (we do not want to be like the pharisees) but on the other hand those who are not yet married should go in with their eyes open and realise this is not the easy way out. I might even go so far as to say, in this modern age when parents lack the support of family, single relatives and friends, and religious monks and nuns, and are opposed by an apostate society, that marriage is the most onerous or difficult manner of crucifixion.

It is a vocation that carries with it immense responsibilities as we will be held accountable not only for the children that we don't have (as is always quoted) but for how we educate and prepare the children we do have for life and the four last things (which is almost never quoted). The pleasures of the marriage act come with a massive price tag for the education of children has never been more difficult. One will be fought every step of the way by the prevailing culture around us -- which is possessed of incredibly alluring seductions to the young mind! And although priests have a huge responsibility as preachers, teachers, and confessors, this is mitigated by the fact that their contact with their flock is limited. Parents are "on duty" 24/7 and as such, have a greater degree of supervision and control than any priest ever will. As such, they will shoulder a large portion of the blame if their children go bad, and their children's children, for as Exodus 20:5 states: "I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me". Traditionalists like to quote St. John Chrysostom on the pavement of Hell's floor -- but how terrible will be God's justice to those parents who culpably fail in their duties?

Once again, I stress at this juncture that I am focusing on "the bad" only because elsewhere the focus seems to be solely on "the good" (why else would so many trads rush off immediately after high school to get married?). But let us consider the physical toll as well -- when traditionalist parents are well out of earshot of any of the priests or young folk, they will sometimes confide to one another how physically run-down they are. No single person or priest can truly comprehend what it's like to not get a full, uninterrupted night's sleep for months or even years at a time -- and be unable to ever catch up because they can't take naps either. Nor can we ignore the trauma on a woman's body when she has many children close together.

And what about when the glow of the honeymoon wears off? Or what about those cases where (and I have seen this) a person's personality completely changes after they have their first child? Yet still, you have signed on for life at that point. The "in sickness in health, for richer for poorer" is for real -- and it frequently happens that the sickness and poorer is the lot we get.

Even when things are good, the married life is not a life of license and indulgence. The passions must still be moderated. While on the one hand, there is the "marriage debt", on the other hand this is not carte blanche for husbands to behave ‘like brute beasts that have no understanding’ towards their wives. There is a tremendous amount of sacrifice and mortification required in the married life. Not just from this aforementioned aspect, but simply due to the fact that two different people with different personalities must learn to co-exist. This is not simple or easy, either. Nor is the self-sacrifice in giving up one's own wants and desires. A married man can't just go out for a pint with his friends when he feels like it, once married, because he has duties to attend to at home.

Not for a moment ignoring all the wonderful and good things about the married life, I hope that these thoughts can help to bring marriage "down" to a more realistic level on par with other vocations so that it is not the "default" selection, but rather one among a group of equally difficult (but different), equally viable, crucifixions to be discerned. Although, if I were forced to choose one vocation that's more viable than another, I would say that especially in these apostate times, the safety of the cloister is the safer and more sure way to heaven. Being removed from the corrupt world, their vocation has changed much less than the others have.

Posted on the Feast of St. Norbert, Bishop & Confessor, a.D. MMXI

The Mad Monarchist: Refuting Republicanism in Christianity

2011-06-04T13:24:00.002-04:00

Recently, the blogger who calls himself "The Mad Monarchist", ran a series entitled "Refuting Republicanism in Christianity". As the title suggests, the author attempts to refute the all-too-frequently heard arguments that not only is republicanism somehow befitting a "Christian" nation, but that one is even compelled to be a republican to be a Christian and that "Christianity" is somehow opposed to monarchism (certainly many Americans, especially those of Irish descent, hold to this). It's not entirely clear to me that "The Mad Monarchist" means what we mean by "Christianity" (i.e. the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church), but certainly his arguments work equally with such a proper definition. And his argument is a pretty good one, and well worth linking to:

Part I
Part II
Part III

We at Durendal certainly don't agree with "The Mad Monarchist" on everything. Indeed, there is much we disagree with on that site, and judging by that same token "The Mad Monarchist" would likely say the same about us, but this does not prevent us from endorsing and agreeing with good work.

Posted on the Feast of St. Francis Caracciolo, Confessor, a.D. MMXI

Combating Women’s Suffrage by Voting?

2011-06-02T01:54:00.005-04:00

By M.D. Amesse

Divine suffrage is the most sublime form of government, and by this I mean monarchy, but let us consider the modern republic and universal suffrage. It is a hard truth to swallow, but the fact remains that the selection of the virtuous and skilled statesmen is beyond most people. And let us not forget the fact that, as Belloc tells us, we have little understanding of the powers and influences behind the visible statesmen. I think one of most naive ideas, of this entirely too foolish modern era, is the idea that the average person can have the knowledge necessary to prudently select a head of state. The larger the republic, and the more indiscriminately the privilege of voting is granted, the more obviously foolish this idea proves to be.

Now, a lady whom I am acquainted with via the internet—let us call her Miss F—asked if it was advisable for a Catholic woman to combat feminist voters by voting. I feel I am hardly qualified to answer such a complicated question, but that has never stopped me before, and I will certainly try. Let me make one thing clear. I do not think it is sinful in itself, but anything good that comes from it is, at best, a pyrrhic victory. The continued inversion of the natural order cannot be helpful in the long term.

This is so because the natural political order (at any point within the organs of the state) is rooted in paternity and the divinely constituted order of the family. In an aristocratic or monarchal society this principle is obvious.[i] Being more reasonable by nature, man is the head of the family. The woman’s greater capacity for intuition reserves her for the role of advisor with in the family. Before God they are equal, but within the hierarchal family (and thence the state) they were given different roles which complement each other. It is fair to conclude from this that women’s suffrage has made the state more unreasonable and the family less stable.

The family is destabilized by this equality granted to both husband and wife. The man no longer represents his family in society, and his unique role is denied. Can we deny that this has had negative effects on the family? This equality has entered into the family itself, and thence we hear of novel ideas such a “mutual submission” between spouses. The revolution in the state has infected its very foundation. The virtue of submission and beauty of femininity has been rejected, and a strange thing has occurred; as woman become more like men, the men become more like woman. The inversion is diabolical. Dead beat, effeminate fathers, and pants wearing feminists would be difficult to imagine without this development.

The result being that the peace of the home has been shattered. The natural complementary natures of man and woman are placed at odds with each other. On a personal note, growing up in a family divided by political parties, I can attest to the disorder which divisive republican politics can have on a family. I remember my father complaining about my mother canceling his vote. At the time his complaint seemed foolish to my ears. Now, I understand the truth of his words. Thankfully, my own wife refuses to vote. She says it is not her place, and resents any suggestion that she should take on a responsibility that is not properly hers. She has enough responsibilities within her duty of state. I could say the same for most husbands.

Surely, we must see that Satan has overturned the natural order in more ways than one. No longer is the state conceived on the familial model; it is now founded on individualism. This egalitarian individualism has dashed aside social bonds and helped to erase the difference between social classes. What remains is a social structure built on wealth—one of the only remaining difference between individuals. Capitalism wishes to enshrine this false structure, while socialism wishes to demolish even this—for its own diabolical ends, of course. Is it any wonder that the concepts of duty and loyalty are so cheap?

I think it is safe to say that we at Durendal do not hold voting in Masonic elections to be necessary. I occasionally vote on local matters. Such as when a local truck stop was trying to get permission to attach an “adult” book store to his premises (by the way, the pornographer won). The common good is rarely at stake, and voting will rarely make a significant difference. I would argue that such voting, especially for representatives at the federal level, whether by man or woman, is next to useless. I would even go so far as say that is often dangerous. It tends to infect a revolutionary, egalitarian spirit in Catholics. The need to belong and absorb the alien ideas of political parties and movements (whether it be the Tea Partiers or the libertarians, or what have you) is too tempting. I understand that Miss F will likely disagree, so I am trying to be as “pragmatic” as possible.

With these things in mind, I will try to answer, as definitively as I can, the question posed to me. There is an account in Michael Davies’ “For Altar and the Throne: The Rising in the Vendee” where the Catholic and Royal army is fleeing the field of battle past their wives. They are soundly rebuked and told that if they will not fight then they should leave their muskets behind for the women-folk. If a woman thinks that her vote is necessary for the common good, since it is not a sin, than it is technically permissible. If I may make a practical suggestion, one way to diminish the damage would be for a wife to ask her husband to tell her for whom she should vote. In this way she shows proper submission and effectively doubles, rather than cancels, his vote. Yet it should still be regarded as the corruption of the proper order; just as it would have been had those counter-revolutionaries of France not turned around after their wives castigated them. Women should loathe women’s suffrage, and resent the fact that they are being asked to perform duties not proper to their sex or state in life.

Posted on the Feast of the Ascension of Our Lord, a.D. MMXI

[i] The role of a female monarch does not fundamentally invert the order. Clearly it remains familial, and the queen still represents a maternal figure. She can be likened to a widow that has taken on the role of the father over her children. That said, the absence of a father figure as the head of state is one of the arguments for why woman should be excluded from succession, save where approved by local custom (Spain and Britain, for example).

The Royal Wedding

2011-06-01T06:19:00.009-04:00

By. N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

Several readers whom I know in the real world have asked me when they can expect Durendal's commentary on the Royal Wedding of 29th April 2011 joining His Royal Highness Prince Prince William of Wales, KG with Miss Catherine Middleton. Here, then, is the much awaited post, one which brings with it many mixed feelings towards a very mixed event. My dear Polish wife, despite being interested in the pageantry and formal dresses, would call the event łapu capu (pronounced "wapoo chapoo" and which basically means what it sounds like it means, not having a direct translation into English). Having dealt with why I paid attention to the event at all in Saturday's post, let us proceed directly to the event itself.

The father of the bride, Michael Middleton, had this to say in his speech at the reception (which, of course, received a standing ovation): "Today was everything I had hoped for and I’m thrilled that equality ruled the day. Everybody appears as equal and our two families joining together has been an easy process." This ridiculous quote exemplifies and encapsulates the contradictions that made this event such a "mixed bag". It was a collision of two worlds -- the modern and the remnants of the Catholic -- but also a sort of fantasy, where liberals (in their insanity) were able to claim that a royal wedding was, in fact, all about equality.

Of course, they are correct to some extent, or at least, they cannot be completely blamed for thinking there was equality here since by marrying a commoner Prince William gave some support to the notion that there is no qualitative difference between noble and commoner (for more on this see my thoughts on "The Intermarriage of Royals and Commoners"; although I have modified my view on it somewhat thanks to convincing arguments made by others, that is for another time). The Duchess of Cambridge's refusal to pledge her obedience to her husband by pointedly omitting that portion of her wedding vows also grants some credence to her father's claim. Yet even so, this is hardly an event of equality since in my observation very few people have a wedding surrounded in such pomp and ceremony. And the very attention that the event received underscores that even the liberals don't believe their own nonsense.

But in any event, to see the future king being wed did arouse in me certain patriotic sentiments. A monarchist always is encouraged to see the monarchy in the limelight and the good public relations for the monarchy that comes with it. He enjoys seeing the aforementioned pomp and ceremony appropriate to his sovereign -- and the British are one of the few who are still pretty good a putting on such a spectacle. That the pomp and ceremony included a wedding ceremony that was much more solemn and proper than many weddings today was also good. It warms the cockles of his heart, even, to see (small "r") republicans gnashing their teeth and Tea Partiers frothing at the mouth when they see "treasonous" and "un-American" parties commemorating the wedding. He may further have real hope that the (positive) publicity this wedding received will mark somewhat of a setback for republicanism in the Commonwealth. Handsome British uniforms were on full display, many interesting hats and dresses (although in general, the female garb immodest), but after that, impressions tend to go downhill (again) ...

The first black mark on the event came some time before the wedding itself, that being when Prince William and the now Duchess of Cambridge "shacked up". Let us be more direct still: they started "living in sin" (as the old saying called it -- mortal sin) quite some time before the wedding. According to one article it's been eight years, but the evidence of the inhabitants of Anglesey in North Wales where they lived, suggest less than a year. Either version is gravely scandalous, but the manner inwhich the Royal Family and the general public took it in stride is especially troubling, considering that the Royal Family has always been held to a higher standard (again, more proof the liberals don't believe their own propaganda). They are rightly held to a higher standard because one of the duties of monarchs and nobility is to give good example to those of lower status. This was not done. Imagine, on the other hand, how powerful it would have been had they exercised some decency and restraint and waited until being married to consummate that union.

This context then robbed the event of much of the solemnity a wedding ought normally to enjoy, making it seem rather anticlimactic. A footnote. A mere formality or an excuse to party. The formality (which normally would be from the Book of Common Prayer, based upon the Sarum Rite and, sadly, more Catholic than the Novus Ordo marriage ritual), as befits a modern event, was gutted of many of the things that make a marriage a marriage: the bit about obeying her husband was excised from the bride's vows, mention of first purpose of marriage as the procreation and education of children was censored, even the condemnation of men who behave towards women ‘like brute beasts that have no understanding’ was removed.

As alluded to above, even the formal clothing of the aristocracy at such an event gives one little refuge anymore. Although the women still had the decency to (by and large) wear dresses (showing the revolution hasn't achieved total victory yet) they left much to be desired being either short and/or low-cut and/or tight. Although at least the men's uniforms are still good.

In the end, the whole thing left me with rather mixed thoughts. One is forced to conclude that, notwithstanding the near-delirious joy of some monarchists, this is not an event that will "reinvigorate" the monarchy. And, indeed, the monarchy that was on display was but a pale shadow of what once was -- each year further from 1534 a year closer to total apostasy and republicanism. This was but one of the monarchy's very last gasps. It's been a much slower death in Britain than in many other places, but it is dying nevertheless.

Posted on the Feast of St. Angela Merici, Virgin, a.D. MMXI

Jacobitism and the Monarchy of Britain et al.

2011-05-28T10:36:00.001-04:00

King James VII of Scotland and II of England and Ireland

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

While preparing the much anticipated Durendal commentary on the Royal Wedding, I realised that a brief foray into the question of Jacobitism and "who is the real Monarch of Britain and the Commonwealth?" needed to be dealt with. My footnote on the subject had expanded into an entire article and thus I decided to split it into a separate post.

Now, first, for those who are unfamiliar with the term "Jacobite", a very brief introduction: a Jacobite is a person dedicated to the restoration of the Stuart kings to the thrones of England, Scotland, Ireland, &c. The movement takes its name from Jacobus, the Latin for James. This all flows from the overthrow of James VII and II in 1688 (mostly due to his embrace of the Catholic Faith) and replacement by the very Protestant Mary and William of Orange. It is obvious that a Catholic would be sympathetic to this cause.

In considering the legitimacy of the Jacobite position, the learned views expressed by the distinguished Professor Maitland, who is considered the preeminent legal historian in the British Commonwealth, cannot be ignored. His opinions are taught as next to gospel truth in the law school where I attained my Bachelor of Laws and in every other reputable law school in the Commonwealth. The pertinent quote comes from F. W. Maitland's The constitutional history of England(Cambridge: CUP, 1911), pp. 283-285):

Passing to the events of 1688 we see it was extremely difficult for any lawyer to make out that what had then been done was lawful. What had happened was briefly this. In July, 1688, James had dissolved parliament, so that at the critical moment there was no parliament in existence. On 5 November William landed; on 11 December James fled from London and dropped the great seal into the Thames; on the 22nd he left the kingdom. William, Prince of Orange, invited an assembly. It was rapidly got together. He summoned the peers and such of the members of the parliaments of Charles II's reign (not James II) as were in London; the aldermen of London were also summoned. This, of course, the lawyer cannot but regard as a quite irregular assembly, called by one who is not, who does not profess to be king. The assembly met on 26 December, 1688, and it advised the Prince to summon `a convention' of the estates of the realm. In accordance with this advice he invited the lords to come, and the counties and boroughs to send representatives to a convention on 22 January, 1689. The convention met.

On 25 January the commons resolved that King James II having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of the kingdom by breaking the original contract between king and people, and by the advice of the Jesuits and other wicked persons having violated the fundamental laws and having withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, has abdicated government, and that the throne has thereby become vacant. After some hesitation, on 12 February the lords agreed to this resolution, and it was resolved that William and Mary should be proclaimed king and queen. On 13 February the Houses waited on William and Mary and tendered them the crown, accompanied by the Declaration of Rights. The crown was accepted. The convention, thereupon following the precedent of 1660, passed an act declaring itself to be the parliament of England, notwithstanding the want of proper writs of summons. This Convention Parliament was not dissolved until early in 1690, and passed many important acts, including the Bill of Rights, which incorporated the Declaration of Rights. A new parliament met on 22 March, 1690, and this of course was duly summoned by writs of the king and queen. It proceeded to declare by statute that the king and queen were king and queen, and that the statutes made by the convention were and are laws and statutes of the kingdom.

Now certainly it was very difficult for any lawyer to argue that there had not been a revolution. Those who conducted the revolution sought, and we may well say were wise in seeking, to make the revolution look as small as possible, to make it as like a legal proceeding, as by any stretch of ingenuity it could be made. But to
make it out to be a perfectly legal act seems impossible. Had it failed, those who attempted it would have suffered as traitors, and I do not think that any lawyer can maintain that their execution would have been unlawful. The convention hit upon the word `abdicated' as expressing James's action, and, according to the
established legal reckoning, he abdicated on the 11 December, 1688, the day on which he dropped the great seal into the Thames. From that day until the day when William and Mary accepted the crown, 13 February, 1689, there was no king of England. Possibly the convention would better have expressed the truth if, like the parliament of Scotland, it had boldly said that James had forfeited the crown. But put it either way, it is difficult for a lawyer to regard the Convention Parliament as a lawfully constituted assembly.

By whom was it summoned? Not by a king of England, but by a Prince of Orange. Even if we go back three centuries we find no precedent. The parliaments of 1327 and of 1399 were summoned by writs in the king's name under the great seal. Grant that parliament may depose a king, James was not deposed by parliament; grant that parliament may elect a king, William and Mary were not elected by parliament. If when the convention met it was no parliament, its own act could not turn it into a parliament. The act which declares it to be a parliament depends for its validity on the assent of William and Mary.

The validity of that assent depends on their being king and queen; but how do they come to be king and queen? Indeed this statute very forcibly brings out the difficulty – an incurable defect. So again as to the confirming statute of 1690.

Do not think that I am arguing for the Jacobite cause. I am only endeavouring to show you how much purely legal strength that cause had. It seems to me that we must treat the Revolution as a revolution, a very necessary and wisely conducted revolution, but still a revolution. We cannot work it into our constitutional law.

Obviously, I strongly disagree, as any Catholic must, with the assertion that the "glorious revolution" was "neccessary" or "wisely conducted", but in any event, this great professor of legal history candidly admits that it is legally impossible to the House of Windsor/Saxe-Colburg and Gotha, having inherited the kingdom from the Hannovers who were the illegitimate beneficiaries of the aforementioned revolution.

However, this does not end the question. As always, these things are rather complicated and there are no simple answers. I have still in good conscience sworn oaths to Elizabeth II as Queen of Canada both as an officer in Her Majesty's Canadian Forces and as a Barrister. Firstly, whatever might be said of her claims on the United Kingdom, her title over Canada was created by the Statute of Westminster in 1931 which was properly enacted and therefore I don't believe the Jacobites have a claim on Canada. However, even if we assume the Statue of Westminster was illegitimate because it received royal assent from a pretender, consider the following:

(1) Up until Vatican II, after High Mass on Sundays, the following prayer was said, some variation of the following prayer was said:

We beseech Thee, Almighty God, that thy handmaid Elizabeth our Queen, who has been called by thy kindness to rule over this kingdom, may also receive from Thee an increase of all virtues. Fittingly adorned with these, may she be able to shun all evil doing, (to conquer her enemies), and, finally, being well pleasing before Thee, may attain with the Prince Consort, and their royal offspring to Thee, Who art the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

This amounts to tacit approval of the legitimacy of Queen Elizabeth II as sovereign of the United Kingdom by the Church, but this is not all;

(2) Pope St. Pius X sent the future Pope Pius XII as official papal representative to the Coronation of King George V. I would suggest that the Church would not so honour a false coronation of an usurper. Thus, again, this may be taken as tacit approval of the House of Windsor by the Church; and

(3) When the James VIII and III died in 1766, the Holy See refused to extend to his son "Bonnie Prince Charlie" the recognition it had given his father. While I am not sure precisely when formal diplomatic relations between the Vatican and the Court of St. James began, this would seem to consitute implicit recognition of the Hanoverian dynasty.

In any event Rome has never given any encouragement, that I know of, to the Jacobite "claimants" after the extinction of the Stuart male line in 1807. This is at the same time that the Church did publicly favour the Carlist claimants in Spain and the Legitimist claimants in France, so I do not think that this was mere pragmatism on the part of the Holy See.

And speaking of pragmatism, from a purely practical perspective, those same Jacobite "claimants" have since the time of "Bonnie Prince Charlie" persistently declined to press their "claim" or seek any recognition from the Holy See (or anyone else, for that matter). In my view, this constitutes a de facto abdication in favour of the current rulers, and possibly even a de jure one, since at law one must attempt to exercise control over something to maintain one's claim on it. Now, this doesn't mean that I wouldn't be happy to see a restoration of the Jacobites, for the time being the Windsors are the only thing standing between monarchy (albeit impotent) and the second republic, and I see no reason to refuse them my allegiance as Monarchs of Canada.

Notwithstanding all of the foregoing, some Catholics might argue that I should reject the Windsors on the basis of their Protestantism. I do not consider this an adequate reason to deny them my loyalty, either, and I base myself upon the logic of Pope Gregory XVI when he denounced the Polish uprising against the Russian Tsar in 1831:

We are taught most clearly that the obedience which men are obliged to render to the authorities established by God is an absolute precept which no one can violate, except if by chance something is commanded which runs counter to the laws of God or of the Church. "Let everyone", says the Apostle, "be subject to higher authorities, for there exists no authority except from God, and those who exist have been appointed by God. Therefore he who resists the authority resists the ordination of God wherefore you must needs be subject not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience sake" (Rom 13.1,2,5). Similarly St Peter (1 Pt. 2.13) teaches all the faithful: "Be subject to every human crea ture for God's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to the governors sent through him... "for (he says) such is the will of God, that by doing good you would silence the ignorance of foolish men". By observing these admonitions the first Christians, even during the persecutions, deserved well of the Roman emperors themselves and of the security of state. "Christian solidiers, "says St Augustine, "served an infidel emperor: when it came to the subject of Christ, they recognised no one except Him who is heaven. They distinguished between the eternal Lord and the temporal lord, but also were subject to the temporal lord because of the eternal Lord" (St Aug on Ps. 124). (Cum primum, cap. 3)

This, then should preemptively answer the question why I paid any attention to the aforementioned Royal Wedding at all, knowing that some readers may object that I should be a "Jacobite" and therefore reject the Windsors as Protestant usurpers &c.

Posted on the Feast St. Augustine of Canterbury, Bishop and Confessor

Chaperones

2011-05-25T03:48:00.007-04:00

Henry V woos Katherine while her gentlewoman Alice chaperones the encounter

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

With the news of Arnold Schwarzenegger's illegitimate child, we have another very publicly Catholic (albeit very Novus Ordo) man's fall from grace. Mel Gibson's sad story is all too well known. Both have been pretty much universally reviled for their philandering. Most recently Mr. Schwarzenegger has been called "disgusting" by his fellow Republican Sarah Palin.

Certainly, adultery is indefensible, but it is an interesting modern cultural phenomenon that a superabundance of temptation is thrown in the way of men and when they give in to it, there is indignation and outrage at the unique evil of the man. He is denounced as a "monster", a "pervert", &c. In my view, these men are simply human beings. Human men, to be specific, who have not taken prudent precautions.

Prudence would dictate that men, especially popular celebrities who have more women than the average man would pursuing them, not be alone with members of the opposite sex. It is for this reason that Holy Mother Church, in Her wisdom, has historically required that chaperons be used in order to avoid the near occasion of sin. In my view, what happened with Messrs. Gibson and Schwarzenegger isn't that these men are depraved individuals. I think in charity one could assume that they have the same inclination to lust that any man does, but placed themselves (or allowed themselves to be placed) in grave occasions of sin and took no such precautions. Other men in similar circumstances would have fared no better.

As such, the occasion of this latest public fall from grace seemed to me an opportune time to once again promote the use of chaperons. Unfortunately, in my experience, all too few traditionalist Catholics, even, see the need. So let us examine the benefits of the chaperone ...

Firstly, let us consider that mortal sins against the sixth commandment are not limited in the context of dating to carnal union, but that fornication contemplates all aspects of intimate contact associated with the marriage act. For one example, passionate kissing would be mortally sinful outside the context of marriage. Surely this is an easy sin to fall into, but an even easier one to avoid if one employs a chaperone. Anecdotally, I can attest to the truthfulness of both of those assertions. Only after coming to Tradition and being commanded by an S.S.P.X priest in the confessional to make use of a chaperone, was I able to avoid impurities in dating. My better success after that fateful confession cannot be simply ascribed to more graces from the True Mass, or the like -- if anything, I have been afflicted with far worse and more frequent temptations since becoming Traditionalist than before (I believe the devil knew he owned me pre-tradversion, and therefore threw fewer snares in my path).

As if avoiding mortal sin weren't enough of a benefit, there is a benefit that even some modern secular folk are catching on to (if some of the blogs I read preparing for this post are any indication): that it allows for a more honest assessment of the person you are courting/dating, free of the blinding affects of physical attraction indulged, and it also leads to getting to know the other's family as well. It is a cliché, but no less true for being a cliché, that one marries not just his husband/wife but his/her family as well. If one is studiously avoiding being alone with members of the opposite sex and especially one that he's courting, it is likely that a lot more time will be spent with family. This is again very important for knowing what you are getting yourself into, but also building a relationship with your future extended family.

How does one go about putting all of the foregoing into practice? Chaperones, as far as I can tell, fell into disuse prior to the second World War, even, and to many today would seem a bizarre anachronism at best. For those "cradle trads" from large traditionalist families, it should not be particularly difficult to get a brother or sister to come along for a date, provided you pay for their meal/movie/opera tickets as is only just since they are providing a valuable service. I think that a mature friend whom you can trust to be committed to their duties could work if family members are not available. I think that having a sibling or cousin of similar age would help things go a little smoother, although an older chaperone might be more effective. The priest I confessed to suggested that the chaperone can sit at a separate table when dining out, for example, to allow for some private conversation.

For those who are converts and come from small modern families, or who lives far away from his family, this may be practically more difficult. I think that at the least, meetings in private with a "love interest" must be rejected in favour of meeting in group settings. Although this is an imperfect solution because the acting-chaperones don't necessarily have the same commitment to that duty that one acting explicitly as such would.

Chaperones, of course, are for the unmarried who are specifically courting/dating others. However, the same logic and lack of trust in one's self applies even to the married. Every Catholic has the duty to avoid the near occasion of sin and a man is deluding himself if he thinks it is not an occasion of sin to be alone (especially frequently) with an attractive woman. Married men don't need chaperones because they don't go out on "dates" with anyone other than their wife, but they should make a concerted effort to not put themselves into dangerous situations if they value their own purity, reputation, as well as their wife's honour and feelings.

This is not rigourism or puritanism; it is having a healthy distrust of our human nature that is wounded by original sin. It is a certain pride and an implicit rejection of the doctrine of Original Sin to think that one can avoid sin without precautions. It is an even more deplorable, and Protestant attitude, to think that one is too depraved to avoid sin and therefore it is wrong or prideful to avoid near occasions of sin by using a chaperone. To the contrary, any Catholic catechism one can find will state that it is sinful to not avoid the near occasion of sin without necessity. I would suggest that giving in to mortal sin even once (when it could have been avoided easily) is a horrible injustice to God. Prudence is a virtue. Jealously guarding one's purity is a duty. Mayhap Messrs. Gibson and Schwarzenegger would have likely not offended God and thus destroyed their own careers if they'd taken such simple precautions as well?

Posted on the Feast of St. Gregory VII, Pope & Confessor, a.D. MMXI

Courtly Love: The Cancer of Medieval Chivalry

2011-05-24T10:33:00.009-04:00

By M.D. Amesse

Speaking as an Oxford man of letters in 1936, C.S. Lewis wrote in his Allegory of Love that courtly love was a revolution which made the Renaissance appear to be “a mere ripple on the surface of literature.” Hyperbolic? And what is so revolutionary about courtly love? That will be the subject of this short piece, but one thing we must do first is to dismiss the Romantic image, preserved in certain arguably legitimate works of art. And with that in mind, I must confess that I like some elements of Romanticism, and not everything that came out of that tradition is objectionable, though its overall spirit is. Likewise, not everything in the courtly love tradition is worthy of condemnation. One could even argue that some good came out of it. We also see something of this benign courtly love in the image of Dante and Beatrice, but it is far removed from the subject of this piece.

The courtly love that was condemned by medieval churchmen started out as an imprudent game amongst the aristocracy of southern France and northern Italy, and ended up as a quasi-religious movement which corrupted aristocratic society, chivalric thought, and thence music, literature and every art throughout Europe.

Courtly love had several forms, but central is the idea of transferring the feudal loyalty owed to a man’s lord on to his wife or some other noblewoman. Love for one’s spouse was not only against the “rules,” but condemned as improper. It would have been revolutionary enough if the love was altruistic and plutonic, but the love fostered was eros or romantic love, and the devotion was more akin to obsession. The man would try to win the "love" of his object of devotion. She would ignore him, save when humiliating him or sending him on some quest. Not even sin was a deterrent from fulfilling his lady’s wishes. He knew that if he persisted, like Sir Lancelot, he would win his lady. The fact is that he often did win her, and the Arthurian romances reflected the revolution that was destroying feudal bonds. It was art imitating life.

The arts are, of course, prone to reflect life, and before the rise of courtly love, the arts were focused on religion, war, or the feudal bond. This was the stage in Christendom when men were most devoted to Christ and most militant in seeing His reign secured. When love entered in, it was almost exclusively between comrades and their feudal lord (The Song of Roland, for example). The problem was not that romantic love entered into the arts, but rather the sentimental, rebellious, and irreligious spirit that carried it in. With courtly love the arts became increasingly bawdy, fixated on forbidden (illicit) “love,” and, worst of all, took on a religious parody, so that we find “priests” and “nuns” serving the goddess of love with carnal acts that blasphemously mimic the Catholic Church. It had its own rules and "doctrines." As Lewis points out, listen to modern music or film and you will see that the spirit is still going strong and still manages to displace the older traditions. The effects of this spirit in our young men are readily apparent.

Some will object that Dante had this spirit, but let us remember that Beatrice was already dead, nor would Dante’s love be licit for everyone. Truly, if Dante could pull it off, it was quite extraordinary, but cannot be a general guide. J.R.R. Tolkien, in a letter to his son Michael (letter #43 Houghton Miffin edition), which should be read by married and unmarried men for its insights on our fallen nature and love between the sexes, writes, regarding what he calls courtly love's deification of the Lady, that “it takes...the young man’s eye off women as they are, as companion in shipwreck not guiding stars.” He further observed that it forgets the woman’s “needs and temptations,” and “inculcates exaggerated notions of ‘true love’, as a fire from without, a permanent exaltation, unrelated to age, childbearing, and the plain life, and unrelated to will and purpose. One result being that young folk look for ‘love’ that will keep them warm in a cold world, without any effort of theirs; and the incurable romantic go on looking in the squalor of the divorce courts.”

An informal version of the game continues even today, outside of the aristocratic courts, and because it has infected modern society and contains legitimately praiseworthy aspects (a certain loyalty, love, devotion, and a connection to late medieval Christendom) it finds it practitioners and defenders even amongst traditional Catholics. The Lady, of course, is no longer a noblewoman, but the first beautiful thing that captures our attention and strikes our heart with that bitter sweet ache. Its appeal, on a certain level, is undeniable, but the danger of corruption remains very real. The danger is only avoided by taking as our Lady the one that was offered to us by Our Lord from the Holy Cross. There we will find our devotion secure and eternally rewarding.

Posted on the Feast of St. David, King of Scotland, Confessor, a.D. MMXI

Queen Victoria on Feminism

2011-05-24T10:30:00.003-04:00

Today would have been the birthday of H.M. Queen Victoria, and I thought some people would find this interesting in light of the vows recently used by the Duchess of Cambridge. It was taken from Victoria's private diary and aimed at the suffragettes.

I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights', with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.

Getting Out and Back to the Land

2011-05-21T11:59:00.010-04:00

By M.D. Amesse

Note: I normally mull over an idea and talk it over with friends before posting anything here, but Durendal is need of posts, so what you have here is my recent, unpolished, disjointed thoughts. Some will no doubt believe it is too Amish (puritanical) or tending towards socialism or green pantheism. I don’t think so, but feel free to agree or disagree in the comment box.

Has family life been eaten away by television and internet? This is a good question, but there is another. Where are the communities? Mr. Patrick Hall, who refers to the automobile as the “mechanical Jacobin” (Russell Kirks phrase), argues that the automobile has contributed to the destruction of community by isolating man from those around him. I think he is on to something. I would add that goods, which were once produced locally, are shipped in from hundreds of miles away, and we drive miles in these air conditioned boxes to get them. We shop at large supermarkets, the owners of which we will never meet, and are rung up by a cashier we may never see again. We travel miles from work to home to sit in front of the television and view an artificial depiction of life and interaction, or surf the increasingly addictive and dangerous internet to communicate in message boards with men hundreds or thousands of miles away because there, and only there, we find men of like mind and faith.

Perhaps I have read too much Tolkien and Waugh, but I have grown tired of the infernal combustion engine (Tolkien’s phrase), and repairing them is not so much craftsmanship as it is post-factory, industrial labour. A part breaks and you remove and replace it. There is little craft, or beauty, and even less connection between oneself and one’s work other than the expenditure of labour. I know, because I have spent a number of years doing it. I have no taste for it, if I ever did. While our world is now built on these contraptions (and for that reason, they have become a necessity), I cannot shake the feeling that in a society built on a sound foundation, auto mechanics would almost be subversive. Perhaps that is too strong, but it is remains with me.

The full weight of the insipid and artificial nature of mechanics hit me other day as I was out mucking and fertilising the garden with my oldest son. While this work is just as hard (often harder) than changing brakes or replacing a ball joint, it is, somehow, invigorating. There is a joy which comes from working in a similar way, and with similar material, as one’s fathers before. A well tended farm has beauty and utility. It connects man with what God made very good (Gen. 1:31) in a way that machinery cannot. It is man, his body formed of the earth, working with the earth. The lowly peasant wasn’t blessed with a lofty social status or political authority (nor should he have been), but who would deny that he received, on the natural level, the better part? How many saintly kings, who knew the real value of worldly pleasures, would have been content to work the soil had they not been called to a different vocation!

That’s all for now, for the fruit trees are still in blossom, and there is more work to be done outside.

Anglo-Saxon Series Update

2011-05-21T11:57:00.001-04:00

I promised a new series, and I intend to follow through, but I have been rather busy. I apologise for the delay. Also, I was contacted shortly after making the first announcement by a student well versed in Old English poetry. After responding, I heard nothing back. If you are reading this, and still interested in writing a guest post(s) for this series, please contact me at: MarkAmesse at gmail dot com.

John Paul II Beatified?

2011-05-01T12:06:00.004-04:00

John Paul II dances with Czech youth to rock music in 1995.

By E. J. G. Jones

Durendal is generally not given to updates on a Sunday, because it is the Lord's day and is intended to be a day of rest. However, given the waves being made in the Church Militant today by the beatification of the late pontiff John Paul II, it seems appropriate to post some commentary on the subject.

Now, most readers of this blog, if they have read it enough to know our principles, will see the problem at hand, here. John Paul II was the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the spiritual head of more than a billion Catholics (bad Catholics are still Catholics, or have the potential to be, anyhow, if they go to confession) and occupied an office we are all bound to respect, and bound to obey, assuming our conscience does not oblige us otherwise for the preservation of the faith. Yet, the man was a rogue and a scoundrel, and had he lived in a more sane time while retaining his views, he would almost certainly have been excommunicated by the reigning pontiff, or run out of town on a rail by his zealous flock. He was a liberal, who regularly published nearly-incomprehensible, ambiguous encyclicals which tended to favor heresy, if they were not directly heretical, and he regularly scandalized the faithful by visiting Jewish synagogues, the temples of Protestant sects, and Mohammedan mosques. He organized the blasphemous Assisi meetings of 1986 and 2002, and regularly engaged in behavior not proper to the vicar of Christ, such as cavorting around on-stage with rock-and-roll musicians, or being present at a Mass with bare-breasted heathen women. Yet, this man is today being beatified?

Traditionally, canonizations (though not necessarily beatifications) are held to be infallible. However, in the present circumstances, there are several reasons to doubt the validity of the ongoing proceedings.

Arguably, canonization means something different to today's pontiffs than it did 40 years ago, because now it is manifestly obvious from the number and variety of those raised to the altars that the goal is less about doctrinal purity and manifest sanctity of life, and more about a "good example." In the past, sanctity, (truly being impossible without doctrinal rectitude) not mere "niceness," or even heroic virtue on the natural level, was the test. Today, these terms, "sanctity" and "niceness" seem to be regarded almost interchangeably. Thus, the "product" of the process in question ("Canonization") has the same name, but the recipe has been altered -if we called something "deviled eggs" 40 years ago made with hard-boiled eggs and mustard, and then we change the recipe and the intended purpose by making them with hard-boiled eggs and chocolate chips, it would be foolish to expect the same taste in the final product, even if we continue calling them "deviled eggs." It would also be foolish to assume they possess the same inherent nutritional properties. It would be likewise foolish to expect that modern "canonizations," though retaining the old name, are in substance the same thing, when the evidence suggests otherwise, and the procedures are changed, with the elimination of the Devil's Advocate who gave the candidate for sainthood an authentic trial.

It is clear that the pontiffs since, at least, Paul VI have labored under false philosophical ideas which have clouded their perception of reality by obscuring the very nature of truth itself. If a man doesn't believe in immutable truth (through his own fault or not -that's a separate sin) how can he be expected to have the appropriate intention which the Church traditionally does in canonization, "to infallibly declare a given soul to be enjoying the beatific vision in Heaven?" He must unambiguously believe in the concept of truth before he can unambiguously declare something to be true! The current pontiffs effectively lack this ability due to their false philosophical outlook which taints their entire worldview. (Neo-Modernism.) They have deliberately shied away, therefore, from making any pronouncements over the last 40 years that have been doctrinally binding, and when they've "accidentally" done so, they've been quick to issue a clarification assuring the world that they haven't actually. (C.f. JPII's encyclical on woman priests, which appeared to have all the hallmarks of an infallible teaching, but which the Pope, through spokesmen, assured us hastily after the fact was, in fact, not meant to be an extraordinary exercise of the papal magisterium.)

It is clear, then, that pious Catholics need not be troubled in conscience about the "new canonizations," because today, despite some external similarities, the intention behind them, and the procedure for obtaining suitable candidates for them, has been altered so they are, in effect, not the same thing that they were before the Council, and do not bind the faithful as they did before, to solemnly believe that a given man is in Heaven. This is furthermore evinced when we see that the popes cannot have the requisite intention for a "valid" (ie, infallibly binding) declaration, owing to their rejection of "infallibility" and their entirely different understanding of it from pre-Vatican II popes.

All this being said, though we have every reason to call the new canonizations "suspect" at best, and "a charade and fraud" at worst, and we have every reason to be opposed to them because of the scandal associated with the elevation of men like John Paul II, Mother Theresa, or Josemaria Escriba to this dignity, we must recall that canonizations, even in the past, do not infallibly say "this man lived a good life worthy of emulation," even though that is implied by the fact that they are among the elect. Rather, they merely declare a given man is in Heaven at the moment. Perhaps some of these externally-unworthy men, who did and said such deleterious things to harm the church, were sincere and colossally ignorant, such that the Divine Judge could not in justice hold them as accountable as we, in our haste, might. Too, at least in the case of John Paul II, he did wear the Brown Scapular, I am told, so, given Our Lady's promises to those who wear it, it would not be inconceivable for him to be in Heaven now, due to Our Lady's prayers and Our Lord's ineffable mercy, despite the scandalous life he led. May St. Pius X, scourge of modernism, pray for us in these times!

Posted on the Feast of St. Joseph, Spouse of Our Lady, Confessor. A.D. MMXI

Congressional Budget Battle

2011-04-16T23:42:00.004-04:00

The media has been abuzz about the budget "battle" despite the fact that the budget reduction totals far less than one percent of the trillions (!) in total spending. The debt ceiling has now been raised to over 14 trillion in my country, and is typical of the current practice throughout the West, where money is now borrowed into existence. Recent reports suggest that the ceiling will be met in May, resulting in a further raise. Let us not imagine that the central problem is new. The attempt to manipulate the money supply has been a problem in Western civilisation since the days of our pagan ancestors, but the solutions are not as readily available. In the Christian West, it was monarchs who most ably fought against this plutocratic element. Even the Protestant kings of Britain (before their power was stripped from them) managed to fight this element better than our modern republics, but in doing so they were often underfunded. The idea of proportionally equivalent level of taxation and debt would have been unimaginable in any other time than ours. The wringing of hands over the possibility of a government shutdown, over a small percentage of a leviathan of spending, instantly brought mind how James the First’s wife lied in state for ten weeks before he was able to raise the funds to bury her. A great deal has been made of the recent budget cuts without substance. It is inconceivable that men holding office only with the support of the plutocratic element, and who are personally unanswerable to the debt incurred, would be willing to take on the same challenges and repercussions. It is something the Tea Party movement would be wise to consider when they decry the inevitable betrayal that is coming.

The Two Thousand and Fifty Fifth Ides of March: Literary Commemoration of Caesar

2011-03-16T05:16:00.002-04:00

by B.L. Wainscott

Much to the glory of republicans and egalitarians, 2055 years ago yesterday (sorry, I was not able to get this up yesterday) Julius Caesar was murdered by members of the Roman senate, including the famous Brutus and Cassius. In the following videos from my YouTube I draw from both Dante and Shakespeare and their treatment of Caesar, from Shakespeare's play with the murder and funeral oration, to Dante's placing Caesar in Limbo and his murderers at the bottom of hell alongside Judas. I discuss at length the reasons for this. All is dedicated to Caesar's memory and monarchy. Long live the Emperor!

PART I

PART II

Published on the First Day within the Octave of Ides of March, a.D. MMXI

Archbishop Lefebvre and the New Mass - Addendum

2011-02-09T14:57:00.002-05:00

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

It would appear that the way I worded my last article concerning the alleged letter from Fr. Guérard des Lauriers' letter that I believe the allegations against Archbishop Lefebvre and I've been approached by more than one reader voicing this concern. Again, I don't think it matters whether I believe it or not; whether Abp. Lefebvre celebrated the Novus Ordo Missae is irrelevant, in my view.

However, in the interests of accurate history, I think that a few more words are appropriate on the topic. I think that one ought to have great hesitation is accepting this alleged letter at face value -- the first question that jumps to mind is, "why has this only surfaced now?" decades after the deaths of both Abp. Lefebvre and Bp. Guérard des Lauriers. It is troubling, because there is no way for anyone to contact Bp. Guérard des Lauriers to confirm whether he wrote the letter or ascertain whether that which has been reproduced on the internet is accurate.

On the other hand, we have available to us the testimony of many living sources who can be "cross examined" on the matter, who say that Abp. Lefebvre never did celebrate the New Mass. One of the concerned correspondents, offered quotes from Marcel Lefebvre by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais. This reader wrote:

On p. 416, he mentions "Since Archbishop Lefebvre was opposed to the New Mass, he would not have it in the seminary. On the eve of the first Sunday of Advent 1969 when the NOM came into force in the diocese of Fribourg, the Archbishop simply said: "We'll keep the old Mass, eh?" Everyone agreed. ......according to Rome, the New Mass would only be obligatory at the end of 1971. Until then at least, the Old Mass could be maintained."

On p. 461, it says, Archbishop Lefebvre did not found his Society against the New Mass, but for the priesthood. However, the concerns of the priesthood now brought him to reject the new Ordo Missae. On June 9, 1971, the Archbishop returned from Paris.... At Econe, he called together the teachers and seminarians and began by handing out a typed sheet (which he did only rarely) with a summary of his talk, written on November 25, 1970. Until then, he had kept to the "old Mass" because it was still permitted: now, however, he would reject the Novus Ordo."

If you notice the dates, etc., it sounds like he never said the New Mass. Also, it seems to me in a sermon or somewhere in the Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, he said he had never said the New Mass.

Further, other members of the S.S.P.X yet living and active in ministry who knew Abp. Lefebvre personally can testify similarly. Since it is impossible to verify the Guérard des Lauriers letter, it ought not be given credence in the face of better evidence to the contrary.

Posted on the Feast of St. Cyril of Alexandria, Bishop, Confessor & Doctor, a.D. MMXI

The End of the Middle Ages

2011-02-07T06:24:00.000-05:00

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

Most historians mark 1492 and the expulsion of the Moors from Spain and the beginning of the Age of Discovery as the end of the Middle Ages, but I would argue their true end (or the beginning of the end, at least) was 8 September 1303 a.D. -- the end of the Golden Age of the Faith and the beginning of The Revolution.

That day, in the town of Anagni in Italy, about forty miles south of Rome, William of Nogaret, councillor and keeper of the seal to King Philip IV of France abducted Pope Boniface VIII. Nogaret had been sent to Italy with the task of kidnapping the Pope and bringing him to France for a show trial to be followed by deposition at the hands of a band of bishops loyal to Philip IV. With the help of a Florentine spy, Nogaret gathered together a band of some 1,600 rogues and political enemies of the Gaetani (Boniface's family) and suddenly descended on the town, looted the castle, and took the Holy Father captive. For two days the soldiers taunted the pope and Nogaret and his Italian accomplice, Sciarra Colonna, tried to pressure, cajole, and threaten him into abdicating. In response to death threats, Pope Boniface VIII replied "Here is my neck; here is my head.”

By September 9, the people of Anagni rose up in defence of Boniface VIII. Shouting, “Long live the Pope,” they expelled Nogaret and his men. The pope returned to Rome, but broken the by terrible sufferings of those three days, he died a month later. The French king was able to manouvre, after two years, a French cardinal to the papacy who took the name Clement V and moved the papacy to Avignon where it remained in captivity for 70 years.

The events at Anagni mark the end of the Middle Ages because they broke the supremacy of the Papacy over the temporal monarchs, which was one of the great characteristics of the Middle Ages, the Golden Age of the Faith. It marks the beginning of revolution, for it is obviously the epitome of revolutionary activity to perpetrate such an assault upon the person of the "Father of princes and kings, Ruler of the world, Vicar of our Saviour Jesus Christ."

Of course, the preparations had been laid well before this historic event. Mediæval man was, in a way, a victim of his own successes and certainly of a lack of vigilance. This may in a way be forgivable, as after centuries of almost constant warfare fighting back the pagans and Mohammedans, in the triumphal period that followed he sought to enjoy what life had to offer. There is nothing wrong with this in moderation, as we know, but in the latter part of the 13th century it began to go too far. This is why one must be cautious, even when dealing with the Middle Ages, not to take everything from that period uncritically. These are still men and this is still post-Fall earth we are speaking of here.

So, in the triumphant period of the 13th century, we see mediæval man allowing more time for pleasures. Social life began to develop in a more lavish and decadent direction -- at first still very tame and good to our eyes, but on a dangerous trajectory. By the time we reach the Renaissance, a period I deem one of revolution that gave birth to the Protestant Revolt, things have gone too far. The songs are more lighthearted and jovial -- again, nothing wrong with that in and of itself -- and the hitherto dominant themes of war and religion were fading away. Would that they had kept their focus on these worthy topics that help a Catholic keep his militancy! The arts became lighthearted and playful. Courtly love, a dangerous and perhaps even heretical and certainly romantic (the precursor of "luv, luv, luv?") crept in. This general softening of spirit (which, in many ways was legitimate) weakened mediæval man's defences against sensuality. Pride and vanity followed.

On these fed the first phase of the Revolution in politics: absolutism, an evil caricature of the true mediæval monarchism whose excesses opened the door centuries later to the demagoguery of the republicans. Absolutis, was promoted by a school of philosophers who called themselves "legists" and promoted an ideology wherein an all-powerful authority was vested in the king -- the source of Philip IV's revolutionary conflict with the Pope.

With the end of the Middle Ages, the so-called "Renaissance" began and the Revolution kicked into high gear. Now, for a man of the 21st century, the Renaissance looks like a haven of Catholic culture and a time of glory. Some traditionalists will even say that the Renaissance was the epitome of Catholicism rather than the Middle Ages. At the least, a great many traditionalist Catholics today are very fond of the Renaissance. True, the Renaissance was vastly better than today -- but that is because it was only the beginning of the Revolution and much of the "credit" of the Middle Ages had yet to be spent. I intend, therefore, over the course of a few months, as time allows, to pen a series of articles pointing out the evils of the Renaissance and hope to convince our readers that it is NOT a time to be emulated, that frescoes of naked bodies, though the decorate the Vatican, are NOT great Catholic art, and that we should not harken back to the Renaissance as some great time. It was, in fact, a bad time that as I said gave birth to the Protestant Revolt. To put it another way, the Protestant Revolt would not have been possible but for the decadence and exaggerations of the Renaissance.

Posted on the Feast of St. Romauld, Abbot, a.D. MMXI

Archbishop Lefebvre and the New Mass

2011-01-31T12:22:00.005-05:00

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

Recently on the internet, there's been circulating a letter purportedly written by Fr. Michel Louis Guérard des Lauriers, O.P. (as he then was) which alleged Abp. Lefebvre celebrated the New Mass from May 5, 1969, until December 24, 1970. This letter seems to be getting a lot of press, including at, unfortunately, Tradition in Action. I can only surmise they published it as part of their criticisms of the S.S.P.X's recent softness towards Rome and rumours of a "sellout". Whatever their motives, I say it is unfortunate because I think spreading this letter has the potential to cause scandal without just cause.

The reason I say it's without just cause is because, really, why does it matter that Abp. Lefebvre celebrated the New Mass for a time? Many wavered in the early days following Vatican II. As a priest of a religious order, Abp. Lefebvre was accustomed to prompt obedience without question; it is therefore not shocking, if one steps back and thinks about it. But ultimately it is not important; what is important (even if the rumour is true -- which I doubt), is that it only took Abp. Lefebvre less than two years to see the New Mass for what it was (N.B. that no other bishop, save Bp. de Castro Meyer and perhaps Abp. Thuc, did this, not even Cardinal Ottaviani who died a decade after the Novus Ordo Missae was promulgated); that from Christmas 1970 onwards he never used the New Missal again, and in fact publicly condemned it as a "bastard rite" borne of the "adulterous union" of the Church and the Revolution; and that he founded the S.S.P.X in 1970 and in the years following took many courageous steps to save Holy Mother Church.

It is also important to keep in mind that Abp. Lefebvre frequently pointed out that the real battle is one of doctrine. And he never wavered on doctrine. Nor did he remain culpably silent in the face of grave crimes being committed against the Lord God, such as when he called Assisi 1.0 "satanic". Contrast this with Fr. Herve Hygonnet, District Superior of the Fraternity of St. Peter for Belgium, who has never offered the New Mass, but who says in reference to Assisi 3.0 "[if a Catholic] unfortunately happens to believe that the Pope is erring dangerously or acting against Faith and Morals, he closes his mouth, if necessary he draws a veil over what seems a betrayal or a scandal to him, and above all he refrains from denouncing it, especially in public!"

So readers should not take scandal and think -- see, we should be easier on Rome, or the S.S.P.X has no reason not to regularise ASAP. Nor should readers take scandal the other way, and think Abp. Lefebve was not a great hero of the Church. Again, even assuming it were true, such a little "blip" prior to the establishment of the S.S.P.X does nothing to negate the great things Abp. Lefebvre did post-Christmas 1970.

Posted on the Feast of St. John Bosco, Confessor, a.D. MMXI

The Beauty of Medieval Love

2011-01-27T17:33:00.005-05:00

by B. L. Wainscott

As a poet, a lover, and a humanist, I cannot but share these lines of the great Francesco Petrarch, poet and humanist of the early Italian Renaissance. Petrarch, like Dante and Boccaccio, who together form the Three Crowns of Italy, had a lady whom he fell in love with for her beauty and her virtue, in this case a woman called Laura. Like with Dante and his Beatrice, we know the time he first beheld her: Good Friday of 1327 in a church.

To the minds of the Three Crowns, a beautiful and virtuous woman made a man a better person and moved him to do good. We need only think of Sydney Carton, inspired to the ultimate human sacrifice in Dicken's "A Tale of Two Cities" by the beautiful and virtuous Lucie Manette--to give up his drunkenness and debauchery and to die in the place of her husband, that Lucie might not suffer the death of her husband. Indeed, before to excursion to the unhappy other city, Paris (amid the French Revolution), in happy London, the unhappy Carton tells Lucie that though he does not seem able to amend his life, he has tried and he wants her to know that she inspired it. He then tells her that he would embrace any sacrifice for her or for those dear to her. By the end of the novel he does not drink heavily anymore, and fulfils his promise in taking the place of Lucie's husband at the guillotine. Such a woman of beauty and virtue was for the Three Crowns--such Dante for Beatrice, such Laura for Petrarch, and such the daughter of Robert the Wise to Boccaccio.

To the medieval mind, even in the human life of love (we are human after all with passions, not incorpreal angels), religion played a role. Beatrice is representative of the Beatific Vision as her name implies, and it is she who leads man, in the person of a pilgrim (the narrator of Dante's Comedy, Dante himself in fact) to mans heavenly country and last end, to his happiness--to God. Thus it is understandable that the other poet laurete of the Three Crowns, Petrarch, would write the following of his Laura on how even if he must die, what shall be sweet is her praying for his poor soul. Only in the medieval mind of a poet of glorious Christendom can such be celebrated in a love poem. Read this excerpt from Canzone 126 of Petrarch:

If 'tis my fate below

and Heaven will have it so

that Love must close these dying eyes in tears,

may my poor dust be laid

in the middle of your shade,

while my soul, naked, mounts to its own spheres.

The thought would calm my fears,

when taking, out of breath,

the doubtful step of death;

for never could my spirit find

a stiller port after the stormy wind;

nor in more calm, abstracted bourne,

slip from my travailed flesh, and from my borns outworn.

Perhaps some future hour,

to her accustomed bower

might come the untamed, and yet the gentle she;

and were she saw me first

might turn with eyes athirst

and kinder joy to look again for me;

Then, oh! the charity!

Seeing amidst the stones

the earth that held my bones,

a sigh for the very love a last

might ask of Heaven to pardon me the past:

And heaven itself could not say nay

as with her gentle veil she wiped the tears away.

Of course we are not angels so there is the whole poetic beauty and the beauty of romance, the beauty of invoking nature and so forth. But let us surely mark the beauty the medieval mind possessed in its very eros, the devotion to religion in a lover taking pleasure in his beloved praying for his poor soul. Of course, I think there is more behind these lines than just this, but I do think Petrarch is consoled by the thought of his beloved coming to where his bones rest, thinking on him, and asking pardon of him from heaven as is shown by the line: "might ask of Heaven to pardon me the past:". And beautifully we conclude our excerpt with these lines, and our entry for that matter, though the poem goes on and is worth reading whole: "And Heaven itself could not say nay/as with her gentle veil she wiped those tears away."

POSTED ON the Feast of St. John Chrysostom Bishop, Confessor, and Doctor of the Church, III class.

Western Civilization

2011-01-25T12:41:00.002-05:00

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

Although the book leaves much to be desired, especially in its improbable claims that capitalism was created in the Middle Ages and is the Catholic economic system par excellence, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, does properly credit the Church with building Western Civilization. I might phrase it differently, saying that the Church nurtured or raised Western Civilization, for it was conceived, or the seeds planted, in the time of Alexander the Great, as I argued in my article about that great conqueror. His spread of Hellenistic culture throughout the ancient world put Jew and Greek into the same cultural orbit.

There is something special about “the west”, something that binds us together. Yet it is something more than that, for Western Civilization is synonymous with Christian Civilization, or Christendom. On this blog, when I use the term “Western Civilization” rather than “Christendom”, this is to encompass that which came before Christ -- the preparations that Our Lord made among the classical pagans to lay part of the foundation upon which His Church and Christian society were built. Another example of God “writing straight with crooked lines”.

We should not fall for the relativistic, politically correct, anti-Christian argument that masquerades as “objectivity”, claiming that there is nothing special about Western Civilization, or nothing better about European culture. To the contrary, there absolutely is an intrinsic good to this culture which imbued with Christianity and thus helps to make us Christians. As Dr. John Senior ably argues in his The Death of Christian Culture, the word culture is to be considered in relation to the word agriculture; so whereas agriculture is the cultivation of the soil in which plants grow, culture is to cultivate the soil in which men grow; Christian culture is, therefore, the soil inwhich saints are cultivated.

This was historically understood by the Church. Proto-Modernist Alfred Loisy argued that "Jesus came preaching the Kingdom, and what arrived was the Church"; he believed that the Catholic faith “evolved”, in a necessary and inevitable manner, yet in a way unplanned by Our Lord. For this, he was excommunicated vitandus ("one to be avoided" versus toleratus -- an excommunicate whom Catholic may at least speak to) in 1908.

Today’s Modernists continue this theme, which is why the wallow in a sort of guilt or shame at being Western/European and then promote inculturation since there is, to them, nothing intrinsically Catholic in the culture of Christendom. So, in answer to this, on Durendal we promote Western Civilization by posts on culture, clothing, art, and history.

Posted on the Feast of The Conversion of St. Paul Ap., a.D. MMXI

Countering the WASP Interpretation of the Anglo-Saxons

2011-01-19T10:13:00.003-05:00

By M.D. Amesse

As I recently announced, I plan to highlight the true, the good, and the beautiful in Anglo-Saxon culture, but before doing so I want to challenge a falsehood. The roll the Germanic people played in the Protestant Revolt has often been cited, and often been exaggerated. According to the WASP interpretation, the “Teutonic” or “Nordic race,” having never been truly Romanized, remained insular, and, for that reason, individualistic and never fully integrated into the Roman Catholic Church. From this, the WASP argue that England was “saved” from Papal domination by its racial temperament, and the seeds of its barbaric heritage. Catholics have often accepted this thesis with their own slant, but there is, in my opinion, very little truth to the above claims. Even Hilaire Belloc, who agrees that the Revolt was an outland revolution against Roman civilisation, is unwilling to extend this factor to England. For him, one of the greatest evils of the Protestant Revolt is that a Romanized England had joined with the northern Germanic fringe of civilisation (See Ch. IX of “Europe and the Faith”). It was this defection of a Roman province to barbarism which gave the heresy its potency. Yet this theory, which makes Protestantism a reaction of the fringe against Romanisation, has trouble explaining the unity of Ireland, and Belloc and others are forced to make leaps to explain why it was not subject to the same laws. That is to say nothing of Poland, Lithuania, and other such places which were never even part of the fringes of the Roman Empire. I do not deny that the English schism had this effect which Belloc describes, I only question the lack of Romanisation as a determining factor.

The Romanised south had its part to play. Philip II of Spain was a devote man, but he let politics destroy England. He supported the bastard Elizabeth, during the phase where she pretended to be Catholic, even though she surrounded herself with heretics. He opposed Queen Mary Stuart because of her connection to France, Spain’s rival. And surely, no one would question the Romanization or integration of the glorious Eldest Daughter into the Catholic Church, but France was on the verge of going the way of England, and France's influence on the Revolt has too often been overlooked. Henry VIII was a weak and sensual man. Without the support and encouragement of the Machiavellian King of France, it is unlikely the Henry VIII would have rent England from Christian unity. Francis I fully supported Henry’s “marriage” to Anne Boleyn, and it was Francis that attempted to block the excommunication of Henry, who told the Holy Father that kings would not permit such interference from the Roman Pontiff and that any distress felt by Henry would be felt by him. The only reason Pope Paul III declined to excommunicate Francis, who deserved it as much if not more than Henry, was that he saw how little good it had done for England, and he preferred not to push Francis into open schism. These are not the words of an Anglophile attacking the “Frogs.” This should make sense even to every Francophile. If France has an exalted place, Christendom could not have been destroyed without the collusion or open treason of the French.

In a like manner, William Thomas Walsh in “Philip II” dismisses the Germanic theory and argues that many of the polemics which would later be used by Luther and Calvin were first developed in France.

Walsh writes,

Nor was this Protestant phase of the revolt a particularly northern or German product, though it has been convenient to make it appear so. It might have happened in southern Europe. In fact, it almost did happen in France, especially in southern France, before it happened in Germany. Lefevre, under the patronage of Marguerite of Angouleme and others of the anti-Catholic House of Navarre, taught justification by grace before Luther did, and profoundly influenced Beza, Farel, Rousel and other leaders who passed a Lutheran phase to the more radical organization of Calvinism. The roots of the revolution went deeper than the German affair. It was not local, but international.

If Walsh is correct, this leaves us with some serious questions. If Protestantism is not a rejection of Roman civilisation by a semi-barbaric Germanic and Scandinavian fringe, than what is it, and what made it so international when it visibly effected the north so terribly? And why did doctrine become secondary to economic concerns? Part of the answer lies in the fact that that the Christian kings were heavily indebted to the international bankers, and Walsh answers these questions by pointing to those wealthy, powerful, and organised Jews who have, since the days of Caiaphas, attempted to undermine His Church and His civilisation. This should not even surprise us. Why would sincere non-Christian Jews want the effects of the Catholic Church and the rule of Christian kings? If I were such a Jew, I would not. We imagine “half-converted” Germans resisted Romanisation, but we cannot face the more obvious fact that the Jews were even less Romanised and amiable to the Catholic Church. Of course they were a minority, but so were the Whigs in England and America, and the communists in Russia. A minority always attempts to influence the majority to their own ends. I am not Jew-bashing or hating, the worse crime was committed by the Christians Judases who should have known better, but the Jewish influence was a greater factor than that of any northern weakness or any resistance on their part to Romanisation. Walsh, in the 13th chapter of “Philip II” chronicles numerous examples, and the opinion is supported by Jewish historians who were willing to take credit for the Protestant Revolt. It was, by and large, Jewish money and publishers who printed the heretical bibles and books. It was Jewish merchants that secreted many of these books into diverse locales. Some Jews even pretended to be sincere Protestants in England after the rise of Elizabeth. Solange Hertz in “The Battle for Amerindia” points out that the Protestant sects were called semi-Judaei, for the number of heretics of Jewish ancestry, and, again, it should not suprise us that the Jews found it easier to pretend to be members of these sects than to pass inspection as faithful Catholics. This is not a conspiracy theory, though I know we are conditioned to conclude such whenever a negative comment is made against Freemasons or Jews. Jewish authorities confirm what I have written. As Walsh puts it,

If we may believe Graetz, and other Jewish historians, the Jews played a much more important role part in all this than Christians, for some mysterious reason, have generally admitted.

Of course, it would be erroneous to blame the Jews as a whole (much less as a race!) for the destruction of Christendom. As I aforesaid, the Jews working against Christ’s rule would have had no power without the weakness of bad Catholics. Yet, we should not let political correctness, or the fear of (inevitable) slander prevent us from noting what rabbis and Jewish historians were willing to admit. The Protestant Revolt was not a Germanic counter to Romanisation. It was not about a “Germanic race.” The English did not fall because some of their ancestors descended from Anglo-Saxon stock. They fell, first and for most, because of the sinfulness and weakness of Catholics everywhere, and were aided in their fall by the ancient enemies of the Church.

Posted on the Feast of St. Canute IV, king and martyr, a.D. MMXI

The Nine Worthies: Alexander the Great

2010-12-16T21:41:00.003-05:00

He believed the gods of Homer and ancient Egypt were with him, and we know as Christians that the One True God must have been with him; For by his march across the world, Alexander the Great prepared the way for its conversion.

Dr. Warren Carrol, lecture on Alexander the Great

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

The Nine Worthies (les neuf preux) are nine historical, scriptural, mythological or semi-legendary figures who, in the Middle Ages, were adopted in a gallery of heroes that were paragons of chivalry in their respective traditions. As will all things medieval, they are divided into three groups of three in honour of the Trinity: the Jews, the Pagans, and the Christian. They were:

Jewish: Joshua, David, and Judas Maccabeus
Pagan: Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Hector
Christian: King Arthur, Charlemagne, and Godfrey of Bouillon

I would like to look at each of these great men. I shall do them slightly out of order, and start with the Pagan worthies, only because I recently gave a guest lecture at the local S.S.P.X school concerning Alexander the Great, and will give another one on Julius Caesar in the new year.

Alexander the Great

Living from 20/21 July 356 – 10/11 June 323 BC, Alexander was the greatest general of all time. He never lost a battle. To quote Dr. Warren Carrol, “he might have conquered the world, but died before he was forty, with his armies at the border of China. He was a meteor and transformer of history, who created the Hellenistic world through which the Gospel of Jesus Christ spread three hundred years later.”.

He was the son of King Philip II of Macedon, a great warrior and conqueror in his own right, had put all of Greece under his rule. He was assassinated and Alexander King at the age of 20.

Philip desired that Alexander receive a Greek education, and as such, Alexander's teacher was "the supreme Greek intellect", the philosopher Aristotle. Alexander always considered himself Greek first, and considered himself the guardian and champion of Hellenic culture. He combined the skill at arms and political sagacity of his father, blazing passion of his mystic mother Olympias, and the discipline and expansion of mind of his tutor, Aristotle

Having nourished himself on ancient epics, modelled himself after great heroes and deliberately aspired to conquer the entire civilized world. And, returning to the theme of the quote above from Dr. Carroll, herein lies his great contribution to humanity, and the reason that he is worthy of honour on a Catholic blog.

Creating the "Hellenistic world" was, simply, the spread of Greek culture throughout what was then the civilized world. This included the spread of the Greek language which was important to spreading the gospels, but other aspects of Greek culture such as its literature, learning and reason, and arts, thus putting for the first time Jew and Greek in the same cultural orbit and founding the basis for Christendom or "Christian Civilization". For, without first the Hellenisation of the Ancient World, it would not have been possible for the Romans to enjoy their success and thus serve their own purpose as the vessel of the one true Church.

We thus may see in Alexander the Great yet another example of the Lord "writing straight with crooked lines".

How Alexander the Great created the Hellenistic World was through his impressive wars of conquest which will be recounted but very briefly: after putting down rebellions on the Balkan Peninsula, he set out to conquer Greece's ancient enemy, the Persian Empire. In the spring 334 BC his army of 32,000 (less than half Macedonians), including the 1800 companion cavalry which he always led himself, crossed to Asia. He offered sacrifice on the hill of Troy (Iliad) and garlanded the tomb of Achilles, from which took the epic hero's shield for himself. Having identified himself with Homer’s epic, met Persian army head-on at the Battle of the Granicus (near Zelea); his life saved in that battle by his trusted bodyguard Cleitus the Black who he, years later, killed in a drunken rage. Alexander killed or sold into slavery the Greek mercenaries with the Persian army as traitors, but offered the Persians to join him.

His navy was weaker than the Persians so he set about capturing all the ports, thus neutralising that advantage the enemy had. He worked his way through Asia minor and down through the Holy Land. He conquered the hitherto unvanquished city of Tyre by extending the land out to the island city and storming it.

On 1 October 331 B.C. he met the entire Persian army at Al Gaugamela, and, outnumered 2:1 delivered another crushing blow to the Persians. Never hesitating, never making a mistake, he won victory after victory against such odds. By January 330 B.C., his army was at the persian gates (guarding the only road to Persepolis). It presented a narrow valley guarded by thousands; but for Alexander every physical obstacle was but a new challenge and he took half his army over the snowy mountains and struck the Persians in the rear, scattering them. He then took Perseopilis and burnt Xerxes' palace to the ground. From here he continued through modern-day Iran and across more mountains taking Samarkand and establishing there Alexandria the Furthest. From thence he plunged into India where his army finally refused to carry on.

Returning home, he led his men across the Godrosian desert in Iran -- no other army has ever done this. He died soon after, perhaps from Typhoid Fever, perhaps in part from his many injuries he received including an arrow through the lungs while fighting alone inside a fortress in India. After his death, his successors could not maintain such a massive realm and it was split into four.

The prophet Daniel fortold Alexander the Great (Book of Daniel, Chapter VIII), with Fr. Leo Hayrdock comments in parentheses:

"... and behold a he goat (Greece) came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and he touched not the ground, and the he goat had a notable horn between his eyes (Alexander the Great). And he went up to the ram (Persia) that had the horns, which I had seen standing before the gate, and he ran towards him in the force of his strength. And when he was come near the ram, he was enraged against him, and struck the ram: and broke his two horns, and the ram could not withstand him: and when he had cast him down on the ground, he stamped upon him, and none could deliver the ram out of his hand. And the he goat became exceeding great: and when he was grown, the great horn was broken, and there came up four horns (the four kingdoms of Alexander's generals) under it towards the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came forth a little horn (Antiochus Epiphanes): and it became great against the south, and against the east, and against the strength (Jerusalem and the people of God)."

Posted on the Feast of St. Eusebius, Bishop and Martyr, a.D. MMX

A New Durendal Series: The Anglo-Saxons

2010-12-14T13:55:00.013-05:00

Like most Americans, I grew up without a culture of my own. Some would say that I had a WASP culture, but that is not completely true. It was a naturalized puritanical “culture” mixed with other fragments—lifeless shadows of the Old World. History has had its way with me. The Roman collapse and the invasion of heathen Anglo-Saxons cut off Roman Britain from the mainland of Christendom. We may wonder what Roman Britannia might have been like had it developed. Would it have figured as highly in Catholic culture as Spain, France, and Italy? It was not to be. I can read and speak some French and less Latin. My mother tongue is English, and it is, perhaps, for this reason that England (and even Ireland, for that matter) holds a high place in my affections and imagination. It is true, Latinate countries remained longer in the true faith, and it permeated them to a greater depth, but, to a certain extent, they remain closed to me.

What I am about to say will not be accepted by all, not even by my fellow Durendal writers. Common opinion tells us that England was never really converted, but I do not buy it. I also reject the opinion that Catholic Anglo-Saxon culture was strikingly inferior, or was incapable of being fully permeated with the Catholic faith. I am not against the Normans or the French. This weblog is named after the sword of a Frankish count. The inspiration was taken from an epic poem which was sung by the Normans before Hastings. Yet, I do not look on the Norman invasion as Belloc did. I would argue that Anglo-Saxon culture was stunted yet growing before the arrival of the Normans, but I will not develop the argument here. G.K. Chesterton, in his epic poem, The Battle of the White Horse writes in his introductory dedication:

Gored on the Norman gonfalon
The Golden Dragon died:
We shall not wake with ballad strings
The good time of the smaller things,
We shall not see the holy kings
Ride down by Severn side.

The Normans may have given, but they also destroyed. This post is not Anti-Norman, but an introduction to a new series. I intend to highlight the true, the good, and the beautiful in Catholic Anglo-Saxon culture and society. I am not going to argue that it was equal or superior to other cultures. It is what it is, and it is worthy of being studied, absorbed, and appreciated. I believe for too long the Protestants have claimed these Catholic men as their own, and Catholics have relinquished this ground without a fight. I will take up the challenge. Perhaps, other writers will join me in this effort?

Guest Article: On Preparedness - Part VII

2010-11-29T05:08:00.002-05:00

Editor's Note: Herein is part 7 of the series on preparedness written by Sean Johnson. Links to the previous parts are listed here: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, and Part VI.

Priority #6: Medical Supplies

You will need to come to terms with the fact that medical care as you know it may cease to exist (at least temporarily), and that you could be on your own. The grim truth is that, with the collapse of the medical establishment, people will begin dieing of things that have not killed us for over 100 years: Dysentery, infections from cuts, labor in pregnancy, etc. For this reason, I advise all preparedness plans to include medical supplies

There are websites from which you can customize your own self-built medical kit, complete with sutures, scalpals, disinfectants of all kinds, bone splints, pain relievers, bandages, burn sprays, allergy/sting kits. I built my own deluxe kit for only $100 USD. Pick and choose what you think you will need.

It is also prudent to keep a couple home remedy medical books around, and also a couple books for diagnostics (If there is an Amish store in your neck of the woods, they seem to have the best of these).

Conclusion

This installment has introduced you to some basic considerations you will need to entertain if you desire to conceive a preparedness plan. Though crises vary, they all seem to have common denominators we can prepare for. I have tried to list these only, in order that this article appeal to the broadest possible audience. These common elements were: Mental preparations/justifications; water; food; shelter; security; currency and bartering; medical care. Obviously, there are many other (less important, but not unimportant) things to consider, such as heating, cooling, lighting, washing, cooking methods, energy, etc. These can be the subject of a follow-up article, if there is sufficient interest.

For now, I will conclude this installment with helpful references from which you may obtain many of the items mentioned in this article.

Hyperinflation, Gold, and Silver:

1) http://321gold.com/ (Gold as insurance against currency crash and inflation)

2) http://jsmineset.com/ (Gold as insurance against currency crash and inflation)

3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ubJp6rmUYM (Gold for Food in Zimbabwe)

4) http://www.learcapital.com/gold-coin-content/storefront/_storetype/Coins.html (Reputable Precious Metal Dealer)

5) http://www.gainesvillecoins.com/ (Another excellent precious metals dealer)

6) http://inflation.us/ (Excellent info site on inflation, monetary policy, and economic collapse)

7)

Dry Bulk Food, Food Storage, and Shelf-Life Info, and Misc. Survivalist Accessories:

1) http://survivalacres.com/ordering/catalog.html

2) https://www.usaemergencysupply.com/ (Also includes medical supplies and other survivalist needs)

3) http://beprepared.com/Default.asp?bhcd2=1284079277 (If it isn’t here, you don’t need it)

4) http://waltonfeed.com/

5) http://www.providentliving.org/location/display/1,12568,2026-1-4-39290,00.html (Mormon Food Center locations; cheapest bulk food on the planet)

6) http://www.providentliving.org (Mormon home website: Click on home storage centers to see selections, prices, and order forms; take to location nearest you). Site also contains storage calculators to help you see how much you will need for a 1 year supply.

7) http://survivalacres.com/information/shelflife.html (Shelf life and storage charts for dry bulk goods)

Water Purifiers:

1) http://www.katadyn.com/usen/ (Water purifiers of all kinds)

Safe-Rooms, Bunkers, Shelters, and Clandestine Construction:

1) http://www.bunkerbuilders.com/

2) http://www.hardenedstructures.com/2050727/default.aspx

3) http://www.shelters-of-texas.com/home.html

4) http://www.stormshelter.com/index.html

5) http://www.hiddenpassageway.com/?gclid=CJzXgJLa36MCFeI55wod9jmObQ (Trap doors and secret doors)

6) http://www.groundzeroshelters.com/flattop.html

7) http://store.prepared.pro/sheltershome.aspx

How to Bury Your Gun:

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLISsCyi5EI (Prevent confiscation of your lifeline)

Guns:

1) http://www.gunbroker.com/ (Best gun purchasing site on the web)

2) http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/default.aspx (Cheapest ammo prices in the world)

May We Please Stop Pretending Sarah Palin is Some Great Conservative?

2010-11-27T11:05:00.007-05:00

...more power to ya for bustin' that glass ceiling, standing on the shoulders of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony.... but there are still those neanderthals out there who pick on the petty little superficial meaningless things, like looks, like whether you can or can't work outside... the home if you have small children.... I would hope that at some point those neanderthals will evolve into something a bit more with it, a bit more modern, a bit more understanding that, yeah, women can accomplish much.

So, according to Mrs. Palin, in the above-embedded video, it's "petty," "little," "superficial," and "meaningless" whether or not a wife and mother attends to her primary duty of state, or goes gallivanting around the country campaigning for political office. And further, one is a "neanderthal" if he (a) thinks that it's good for a woman to attend to her primary duty of state and (b) thinks that this is an important issue. Thus, she exposes by words that her innermost thoughts (unsurprisingly) coincide with her actions -- that she is, indeed, a feminist and a liberal.

Two years ago, Durendal was almost alone as a "voice crying in the wilderness" as most other "conservatives" and traditionalists loudly proclaimed that we "must" vote for McCain/Palin and how Sarah Palin is some sort of saviour or political panacea. Indeed, some commentators were angrily saying that to fail to cast a vote for Sarah Palin would be a mortal sin. See "Women and Public Authority Over Men" and "Madness, Morals, & McCain's Masterstroke" if you missed our take on it all. I personally didn't think Mrs. Palin was all that "stealthy" in her liberalism but obviously she had many fooled, and all of us were trying to be as charitable as possible and not assume she harboured such feminist views opting to assume more benign motives. Well, now we have it -- may we please stop pretending she's some great conservative saviour now?

And while we're on the topic of railing against people that are held up as great conservatives ... here's what the "arch-conservative" Abp. Chaput had to say about Pope Benedict XVI's already infamous Light of the World: "lucid and compelling". Dear readers, this is a book that hasn't been released yet and is already causing great scandal because of its comments on the use of condoms by prostitutes as a step towards a "more human sexuality" and which says we ought not "pray directly for the Jews in a missionary way". How many souls have been lost already because of the pope's gravely imprudent remarks and questionable [private] teachings in this book? Yet according to the "arch-conservative" Abp. Chaput, it's "lucid and compelling". May we please stop pretending that Abp. Chaput (and Cardinal Burke and Bp. Bruskewicz while we're at it) are great Catholic prelates?

Frankly, this book is a blessing in disguise as it pulls aside the veil that these liberals hide behind. It shows the pope and his "conservative" bishops for the liberals they are -- and His Holiness' camauro and ermine-lined mozzetta be damned.

Posted on Our Lady's Saturday, November, MMX

Guest Article: On Preparedness - Part VI

2010-11-09T13:39:00.002-05:00

Editor's Note: Herein is part 6 of the series on preparedness written by Sean Johnson. Links to the previous parts are listed here: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, and Part V.

Priority #5: Currency and Barter

Nobody can plan for every contingency. The best laid plans will reveal deficiencies once they are implemented. In such cases, it will be necessary to buy or barter for the things you still need. What you need to understand, however, is that, depending on the type of emergency that should befall you, cash may be of little (or no) value. Therefore, as a general rule of thumb, if you are fortifying against depression, unemployment, or short-term non-economic calamities (e.g., natural disasters), you will want to keep a cash supply on hand. In these types of events, cash will have retained its purchasing power, just as it does today. On the other hand, if you are preparing for hyperinflation, the crash of the US Dollar, the collapse of society for any lengthy (or permanent) period of time, then cash will not be worth the paper it is printed on. Why? Because the essence of inflation is that there is an influx of currency without a corresponding increase in the number or value of goods available for purchase. This has the effect of proprietors demanding more and more cash for the same goods. You could soon find yourself in the ridiculous position of burning piles of ash for heat in the winter, much the same way Germans of the Weimar Republic in the early 20th century.

In such cases you will need real money: Gold and/or silver. Men have always placed value on these metals precisely because they could not be manipulated in the same way cash supply can (e.g., Through the printing press and deliberate monetary expansion and contraction that arbitrarily increases and decreases the value of the dollar). But in the case of metals, not only is their weight fixed, but their value usually increases in inverse proportion to the dollar (i.e., Because it is perceived as a safe-haven, and a good store of value). For this reason people flock to it in times of economic uncertainty, which explains why silver hit its’ 2.5 year high today, and gold has been parked just short of its’ all-time high for a few days now.

The bottom line is that in crises of this nature, people will not accept your worthless cash for their goods. They will want metals. The questions then become: Which do you buy? Where do you buy it? In what form should you buy it? Lets take these one at a time, because they are all very important considerations.

My personal preference is to buy silver over gold. First, because it is cheaper. Second, because it is nowhere near its’ all-time high of over $50 USD/oz. Third, because although gold comes in different sized allotments, it is generally too valuable for small barters and purchases: If gold hits $2,000/oz, how are you going to divide that coin to buy a loaf of bread? Fourthly, you can’t buy (or sell) very much gold without triggering the $10,000 reporting mandate, which means someone knows what you have, whereas with silver, you can buy several hundred ounces (for the time being) for under $10,000, and nobody will be the wiser.

In any case, whichever you choose to buy, you need to purchase from a reputable company. I myself have purchased from a couple different internet companies, and will reference them below. But the way it works is that you will place your order at their on-line website, and will be given a real-time quote. If you accept it, you will have a certain time limit within which you must send payment (Confirmed by postmark). Once your check is received, and your check cleared, your order will be processed. You will be nervous, but be patient: It takes a while to fill your order. Usually, you will be given emailed updates to calm your nerves. One day, your metals will arrive by discreet (but heavy) postal delivery, which will normally be 3 weeks from the day you first placed your order. Most companies will give you tracking information, so that, if you preferred, you could intercept the package at your local post office, thereby eliminating the potential that the mailman leaves a very expensive package on your doorstep! Usually, they would not do this, but it did happen to someone I know.

Once you have chosen your metal, you will need to further decide what form you want it to take: Bars, bullion (i.e., non-legal tender coin), junk silver/gold (out of circulation coinage), numismatic collectibles, etc. My own advice is to go with bullion “coins.” If you go with bars, it may be that people possessing the goods you want to purchase/trade for could doubt the content or purity of the silver, and refuse the transaction. In other words, bullion is more liquid. It’s weight and purity are recognized by most persons, but most people have never seen a 10 gram gold bar. Silver bullion is ideal for small and large purchases because of its moderate value. Some people will try to convince you to pay extra to get pre-1933 “numismatic/collectible” coins, but I think this is a waste of money (I.e., You have to pay extra). They will tell you that it is less likely to be subject to confiscation because back in the President Roosevelt confiscation regime, those coins which pre-dated 1933 were exempt. What these people don’t tell you is that there is no reason the government couldn’t arbitrarily change that date, or simply demand the surrender of all precious metals period. The smart money will stick with bullion versus bars or numismatics. Finally, so far as “junk silver” is concerned (i.e., out of circulation legal tender coinage of various dates), I also don’t waste my time with this, simply because I don’t want to have to worry about mathematical calculations in my transactions: Junk silver was not pure, and depending on the year and denomination of coin, only yields a silver content of between 40-90%. This means that if you want to buy something that costs 2 ounces of silver, you will have to get your pencil and paper to figure out how many coins to surrender (and the seller will too, which may hamper liquidity a bit).

One final note: Though metals will be the most highly sought, and widely used bartering instrument, they will not be the only acceptable form of “currency.” Anything with a practical or desirable use can be traded to get you the things you want and need. Things such as tobacco, alcohol, ammunition, medical supplies, food/water, and tools will be in high demand. If you do not stock up on metals, these could be a fall-back preparation, but you will have to accept that not everyone who has what you need will want to take beer or band-aids for what they have to sell.

PS: If anyone should suggest to you that buying gold or silver is worthless, because you can’t eat gold and silver, please be sure to see the you tube video (referenced below) taken in 2008 Zimbabwe, which was ravaged by hyperinflation (for many of the same reasons, such as deficit spending and money printing, we are experiencing in America presently). You will quickly come to understand that, in hyperinflation, if you do not have gold or silver, you will be a dead man.

Posted on the Feast of the Dedication of the Archbasilica of Our Savior, a.D. MMX

Guest Article: On Preparedness - Part V

2010-10-29T09:09:00.004-04:00

Editor's Note: Herein is part 5 of the series on preparedness written by Sean Johnson. Links to the previous parts are listed here: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV.

Priority #4: Security

You have taken measures to provide for water, food, and shelter. Now the trick is hanging on to all of it. In any sort of sustained emergency, people will be looking for your stuff. They will take it if they can. Therefore, you need to prepare to defend yourself, your chattel, and your loved ones. If you don’t, you could die a miserable death (and watch your family die the same).

The first thing you need to do is to keep your big mouth shut. Though I began the article by giving you some justifying talk-tracks to explain the reasonableness of preparedness, I presumed that only your closest family members were the ones you were defending your actions to. But when things get really desperate, anyone who knows you have taken means to prepare will be coming to you for a handout (or to take your stuff). Fly under the radar. Don’t let people know what you are doing. Avoid notice all through the process (i.e., When preparing; when fleeing to your shelter; when you are at your shelter). This will protect you better than an AK-47: If nobody knows you have anything, it won’t occur to them to take it.

But inevitably, someone will see your campfire smoke, or lantern light, and come snooping. So what can you do? You need guns and ammo. Lots of both. The following are some considerations when making your selections:

First, you ought to get at least these 6 weapons:

A) 12-Gauge shotgun: good for home defense, since the buckshot will not over-penetrate walls and injure your own; also great for hunting.

B) .40 caliber high-capacity automatic pistol: Revolvers don’t hold enough bullets to make me feel safe, and 9mm pistols just don’t have the knock-down power I want. But a Glock .40 will hold 15 rounds and deliver more muzzle energy than a .45; you will need a handgun for short range and tight quarters shooting.

C) High powered pellet rifle/air rifle: Quiet for hunting without drawing notice.

D) .22 rifle: Longer range hunting than a pellet rifle, but not so loud as a typical hunting rifle; could also be used for self defense more effectively than a pellet rifle if you had to.

E) A combat rifle that shoots the 7.62 x 39 round, such as an AK-47 or SKS: The most commonly used battle round in the world today, and precisely the reason you want to choose your assault rifle in this round; you will need an assault rifle for long-range combat where your other weapons will be useless; this round is good for 200 yards, but accuracy drops off after this.

F) A combat rifle that shoots the .223 or 5.56 round. Probably the second most common round in assault weapons today, and precisely the reason you want it. Not as much knock-down power as the 7.62x39 round, but much more accurate at ranges up to 400+ yards. Used by NATO and US forces today.

Secondly, you need at least 1,000 rounds of ammunition for each gun. If you are a rookie to shooting, that probably sounds wild to you. But you need to consider that, if the emergency you are preparing for ever occurs, you may never have the chance to buy ammunition again. Ever. You also need to consider, therefore, that the ammunition you buy may have to last a lifetime (and the lifetime of your loved ones as well). Finally, a gun without bullets is worthless. If you run out, it will make life psychologically much more challenging; you will be scared every day, and so will your family. Don’t let that happen to you and them. Guns and ammo make people feel safe, and in the crazy new world you may be preparing to live in, that will count for a lot.

Thirdly, consider networking with like-minded people. Though you might be keeping your mouth shut, listen for those who don’t. Show them some interest, and let on that you are interested, but do not let on that you yourself are preparing. If something ever happens, consider teaming up with them when the SHTF: There is safety in numbers. And if you both have already made your own separate preparations, you don’t have to worry about mooching off each other. Americans might remember the videos of the Korean merchants banding together to fend off hoards of looting rioters in the LA Riots. The same principle applies here: If you know a few people who have made preparations, you are well-advised to ally yourselves. The more gunmen you have on your side, the better your chances of deterring gangs to go find easier targets.

Fourth: You need to patrol your shelter. If you have a cabin in the woods somewhere, you need to be on guard while your family sleeps; they need to be on guard during the day when you sleep. People will be looking for you, and you need to be able to send them a good signal that there is a peck of trouble at your cabin if they ever come back. The worst thing you could ever do is to have come this far and walk out your front door one day and someone has you at gunpoint. If that ever happens, you could lose everything. Therefore, you need to patrol your camp just like you were an army soldier defending against an enemy. Post signs within your camp (not at the property edges where everyone will know there is someone on site, but at the perimeter of your inner-sanctum just inside the tree-line so that those who stumble that deeply into your property will know they need to turn back or else).

Finally, require that nobody ever wanders off alone. It may be necessary to risk leaving your shelter/property from time to time (e.g., to barter; to get news; etc), but you need to be smart how you do it. Always go in pairs, at least. Always go armed. If someone has discovered your shelter, they may lie in wait to take a hostage to trade for supplies. Teamwork prevents this, and may save your life.

Posted on the Feast of St. Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem, a.D. MMX

Still Drinking My Tea

2010-10-21T15:13:00.009-04:00

By M.D. Amesse

I have to give credit where credit is due. I expected the Tea Party movement to have died out by now, and I never imagined the movement would be as influential in politics as it has been. It would seem this populist movement has teeth, and not a few established politicians have felt its bite. Democrats and “moderate” Republicans are legitimately afraid and social conservatives (whatever that means precisely) are rejoicing. Middle America now has a voice. It is easy to see why so many American Catholics might rejoice at these developments, but I have not changed my position on the Tea Party. If anything the movement is even more dangerous for being more influential than I supposed, and any pleasure I have at seeing the corrupt political establishment scrambling is erased by the knowledge that at the heart of the movement is a godless revolution and a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of Man and the state.

Moreover, the movement is not particularly intellectual. It finds its driving force--as populist movements always seem to do--in anger. When it does grasp for support it inevitably returns to the same revolutionary doctrines which created the mess in the first place. How often are we told by the Partiers that the politicians have ignored the will of the people? What a monstrous foundation for determining just legislation! Yet even their own philosophy haunts them. Have they forgotten that the “will of the people” elected this collection of criminals in the first place? Yet, at least, the corrupt politicians' inconsistency is consistent with the founding of the Republic. The Founders stripped the Tories of political power, and terrorized the political opposition into silence while preaching rule by majority. Now the politicians are using the similar tactics of the Founders. They are demonizing Middle America and the Tea Party, and the Partiers are stupid enough to call up the shades of the Founders from the Underworld for defence. The results remain the same.

Is it any wonder? The Founders, the politicians and the Partiers found their intellectual and moral foundation from the (so called) Enlightenment. What can grow in that soil? To a certain extent I am being unfair to the Founders. They had a greater respect for the natural law than the most conservative leaders of the Tea Party. Consider how many of the leaders of the Tea Party movement are women. Consider also Glenn Beck’s comment that the Sodomite agenda is no real concern for Americans because Thomas Jefferson said, "If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?”. The Mormon hero of the Tea Party movement has forgotten that Jefferson advocated capital punishment for sodomy. I am not praising Jefferson. Like the Tea Partiers, his contradictory and foundationless morality has led to the very vices he abhorred.

I can hear the objections now. The Tea Party is offering the only resistance to the spread of liberalism and the NWO, but it is a revolving wheel which no one is willing to step off. It is an internal battle with in the ranks of the enemy; no one there is fighting under the banner of Christ the King. It would seem the corrupt politicians and the Tea Partiers deserve each other. No lasting reform can take place until we leave the Founders dead and buried.

Posted on the Feast of St. Hilarion, Abbot, a.D. MMX

Guest Article: On Preparedness - Part IV

2010-10-15T02:06:00.002-04:00

Editor's Note: Herein is part 4 of the series on preparedness written by Sean Johnson. Links to the previous parts are listed here: Part I, Part II, Part III.

Priority #3: Shelter

You have come a long way by now, taking great pains to supply for your water and food needs under any contingency. The next step is to consider where you will live. You have a house or apartment. Will you be able to stay there? For how long? If you needed to evacuate for any reason, where would you go? Would you need to find interim shelter between leaving your home and arriving at your new destination? What would this new destination be? These are the thoughts and variables that ought to occupy your mind, and you must prepare for all of them, in order that you will have shelter in any of them.

This article presumes that, at some point, you will need to evacuate your home or apartment. If you are a suburbanite like me, I can guarantee you infallibly that, at some point in a sustained crisis of epic proportion (such as hyperinflation, economic collapse, pandemic, etc.) of 3+ month duration, people who did not prepare will be coming to take what you have. You will find it necessary, once mass-desperation reaches a fevered pitch, to head for the countryside, woods, mountains, or anywhere you can find a bit of seclusion. More on this later.

Here are some general considerations to ponder in planning your bug-out destination. First, you want your retreat to be reasonably proximate: 1-2 hours away maximum. Why? Two reasons: First, fuel is likely to be in short supply by the time you leave. Second, the main highways and roads are likely to be impassible, as they will be clogged with people just like you trying to get out of town. In other words, a bug-out destination does you little good if conditions make it impossible for you to get there.

Therefore, before deciding where this shelter will be, or of what type it will be, you need to plan how you will get to it. You can be pretty much guaranteed that you will not be able to escape by interstates, highways, or state routes. Insofar as is possible, you want your route to use the back roads.

Then, you need to decide how you will travel this route: Automobile? Bike? Walk? The best idea would be to plan for all three contingencies: Automobile if possible, with bikes pulled behind in case roads become impassible (In this latter case, you will lose most of the preparedness items you may have been carrying, since you will not be able to carry much on bikes or foot, but it is better than staying in a dangerous location; for this reason, it is better to have had the foresight to bring preparations to the retreat before the emergency began).

Once you have determined the route and method of travel, you need to decide what type of shelter you will prepare. Ideally your shelter will have the following advantages: Seclusion, proximity to water, some tillable land, sanitation, and defensible topography.

Seclusion is the most important thing. People will be foraging (a polite term for looting). They will be desperate. They will know you have something worth taking if they see lights on in your cabin and smoke coming from your chimney. Believe me, they will try to take what is yours rather than die (Wouldn’t you do it for your family if you were in their position?). Therefore, you should choose a rural location for your retreat; rural, but within the 1-2 hour distance limit from your current home.

Your retreat should have a water source (e.g., A pond, lake, river, spring, or well), and you should take care to investigate that it is available all year, since some streams are only seasonal. You will need this water source for your drinking needs, cleaning, cooking, cleaning, etc. Besides the convenience, you will not want to wander too far from your camp, so as to stay unnoticed. And then convenience is also an obvious advantage: Carrying water is heavy.

Ideally, your land would be a mixture of woods and pasture: You would build your shelter under the seclusion of the trees to avoid notice, but want arable land for the purpose of gardening/farming. Also, buy as much land as you can afford: The more distance between you and your neighbors the better.

Sanitation is also critical. Dysentery, cholera, and other fatal maladies are the demise of those who do not have the foresight to provide for the baser needs of the human being. Dig an outhouse no less between 30-40 yards from the cabin. If you don’t have the means or time to do so, minimally you must dig a trench to dispose of your waste, burying it when you are done.

Your shelter should also be constructed or set-up at a defensible position. You would want long fields of vision, in order to see approaching persons at great distance (Not necessarily from your tent or cabin, but from somewhere on your property. Gated access has obvious benefits, as do island abodes. Anything with only one approach or exit is easier to reconnaissance and defense.

A passing thought on the type of shelter, before continuing on to consider security: Many of us will not have the means to purchase a cabin and/or land. If I were in that position, I would give strong consideration to purchasing a safe-room (see websites below). A safe-room is the next best option for those who, all things considered, would be better off staying put in their homes because they really have nowhere to go. Basically, a safe room is a solid steel structure (or concrete, or fiber glass) “panic” in which you can lock yourself in until trouble passes. Normally, they are marketed to American homeowners who have no basement shelter from tornados, but since the whole preparedness movement has caught on, these companies have begun marketing to our crowd as well. A basic safe-room would be 6’ x 10’ x 7’ tall. That structure weighs 2,000 lbs, and is bolted to your garage (or any concrete) floor. It is immovable. The steel is ¼” thick, and bullets will not penetrate it. This structure costs about $5,000 USD, but there are all kinds of exotic and impressive structures available (Complete with escape exits, ventilation systems, sleeping and sanitation quarters, etc). If you have nowhere else to go, this is a winner.

Posted on the Feast of St. Teresa of Avila, Virgin, a.D. MMX

Monsignor Jean de Mayol de Lupé

2010-10-13T13:01:00.005-04:00

The world must choose: on the one hand Bolshevist savagery, [an] infernal force; on the other hand Christian civilization. We must choose at all costs. We cannot remain neutral any longer! Its Bolshevist anarchy or Christian order.

Msgr. de Mayol de Lupé, June 1943

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

Born 21 January, 1873 in Paris, the seventh child of Compte Henri de Mayol de Lupe, Elisabeth Girifalco Caracciolo, he was a Catholic priest, monarchist, and enemy of communism. This led him, at the age of 68, to volunteer as the Chaplain General of the Légion des volontaires français contre le bolchévisme and, later, the "Charlemagne" Division of the Waffen-SS (noteably, he was the only chaplain in the entire SS, a concession made to the French Catholics of that division, and a tribute to their Catholicity).

He was ordained priest in the Benedictine Order on 10 June, 1900. At the same time invested as a "chevalier ecclésiastique in l'Ordre sacré et militaire constantinien de Saint-Georges. He served as a military chaplain in the French Army during the First World War, was wounded three times, and received numerous citations for courage. Between the wars he served in Syria and made a chevalier de la légion d'honneur (the Legion of Honour being the highest decoration in France, akin to the Congressional Medal of Honour in the U.S. or the Victoria Cross in Britain, Canada, and other Commonwealth Nations). On 17 October 1934, he was made a canon of the chapter of the cathedral in Lucerna, Italy and was thus entitled to the title "Monsignor". Thereafter he served his Church an country in a variety of diplomatic missions.

France's defeat in the early years of WWII left him disheartened and he initially wanted nothing to do with the Germans. However, given his traditionalism, he was pressured from divers quarters to join the L.V.F. when it was founded in 1941. He initially hesitated, but after consulting with a number of his fellow clerics, agreed. He viewed his involvement as part of a religious crusade against atheistic Bolshevism. He then served with the unit until the end of the war. During that time he was twice wounded and awarded the Iron Cross I and II class.

A "larger-than-life" personality, a tough man who understood the life of the common soldier, it was said that Msgr. Mayol de Lupé was the de facto leader of the L.V.F. He was a staunch monarchist, so much so, that he refused to wear the tricolour shield of the L.V.F. on his uniform, and on his staff car flew the white pennant with gold fleur-de-lis of the French royal family under the Ancien Régime.

His reward for his efforts was 15 years prison by de Gaulle's government after the war ended. One of the few Frenchmen who served on the Eastern Front that was not summarily executed or hunted-down and assassinated by the 2e Bureau.

Posted on the Feast of St. Edward, King of England, Confessor, a.D. MMX

Guest Article: On Preparedness, Part III

2010-10-08T06:44:00.001-04:00

Editor's Note: Herein is part 2 of the series on preparedness written by Sean Johnson. Links to the previous parts are listed here: Part I, Part II.

Priority #2: Food

Once you have addressed the water issue, it is time to think about food supply, and just as was the case with water, there are several methods you ought to consider implementing concurrently, in order to insure your food supply against the greatest number of contingencies.

We begin with canned goods. They are cheap, and have a decent, intermediate shelf life of 2-3 years (in most cases). You will want to concentrate mostly on canned meats, fish, and beans for their protein content. Other nutritional needs will be met from different food sources (discussed below). Don’t waste your money on things you wouldn’t eat in normal life: These things will be even less appealing, and will have a demoralizing effect, in an emergency situation.

I would advise a 3 month supply of canned goods (Defined as: The length of time your supply would last if each member of your family consumed 2 cans per day). Once you have reached your 3 month supply, do not be afraid to start eating it! Just remember to replenish the small amounts you will deplete between shopping trips, and you will be fine. This way you do not incur the risk of having your entire canned goods supply expiring all at once (Which reminds me: You will want to continually rotate your can supply as you eat and replenish your stocks; keep moving the older food forward on the shelf to ensure it gets used next). There are some rather elaborate and ingenuous can-rotation shelving systems available on the internet designed to automatically handle can rotation for you, but for most of us, this luxury would not be necessary.

There is another reason you wouldn’t want to build a stockpile of canned goods much beyond a 3 month supply: Canned goods are heavy. If a situation arose where you needed to evacuate your home (or your retreat) on foot, how would you transport all that food? You wouldn’t be able to take more than a fraction with you. Canned food is not very portable, which brings us to our next project.

Once you have your canned food supply, it is time to consider portable food sources. By “portable,” I mean more than just lightweight. A portable food supply is one that is light, requires little to no preparation or cooking, and has a long shelf-life. This is food that is never used except in a transitional contingency (i.e., A situation which does not avail itself of cooking, preparation, time, and utensils). The best food supply for such circumstances – which all should prepare against- are called “MREs.” This acronym stands for “Meals Ready to Eat.”

MREs are a long-time staple of military units. They are basically single, self-contained meals in a vacuum-sealed, watertight box (usually rectangular in shape, and containing an entrée, dessert, drink mix, wet-wipe, and side dish). The food quality is most comparable to an airline meal, and of similar portion. They are not known to be fine cuisine, but are not horrible either, and come in a surprisingly wide variety. Their purpose is to get you through a pinch. They are not intended (except in the case of military deployment) to be a long-term, sole food source.

For this reason, I advocate a one week supply for each person in the family (defined as 2 MREs per person per day). The major down-side to MREs is the cost. Depending on the internet source you use, a one week supply (for one person) might run you $75-150 USD. On the other hand, this supply will be a one-time expenditure, so at least it is not a recurring expense. But I consider them an essential part of any food storage plan.

Once you have your MREs and canned goods (short-term and intermediate-term supply) taken care of, you will want to turn your attention to long-term food storage, which brings you into the world of storing dry bulk goods. Dry bulk goods are basically those foodstuffs that contain a very low moisture content, making them suitable for storage in large amounts for long periods of time (e.g., 5-30 years, presuming proper storage methods). Examples of dry bulk goods might include the following: Rice, pinto beans, dry milk, flour, corn meal, sugar, salt, rolled oats, potato flakes, pasta, or most dehydrated foods. Fortunately, dry bulk goods tend to be very affordable: As of last week, I could get a 50 lb bag of rice for $16 USD.

As with canned goods, common sense is demanded when choosing what kind of dry goods to store. If your family never eats pinto beans, how will they react to eating them every day for months? Or, will you have age-appropriate foods (e.g., powdered milk and rolled oats for the infants, who are not likely to think much of heaping plates of white rice)?

But even more important than food choice is storage method. Oxygen, moisture, and heat are the mortal enemies of long-term food storage, and you must take precautions against spoilage from these culprits.

Lets deal with oxygen first. Oxygen is a double threat. On the one hand, it renders your goods subject to slow (but steady) decomposition and spoilage. On the other hand, it allows for the incubation of infestations. People do not generally stop to realize that their dry goods once sat in a warehouse somewhere, and that in that warehouse there were insects. Insects can be trapped in the bags or boxes at the time of packaging, or, they can invade and infiltrate the paper or cardboard container. They love to do this! To their way of thinking, they have a lifetime food supply, and insulation from the cold (not to mention a perfect place to raise a family!). Rest assured that, if you do not take the means to eliminate oxygen from your dry goods, you are throwing your money right out the window, unless you consume these goods within 6-9 months (which would be self-defeating).

Your first protection against oxygen is the good old-fashioned 5-6 gallon plastic bucket. Please note that not all buckets are suitable for food storage. They must be classified as “food grade” storage buckets (and internet companies that cater to this market advertise their buckets as such). Naturally, this bucket needs a lid, and the lid would preferably contain a gasket rendering it airtight/watertight. But this is not enough: You are trapping oxygen inside the bucket, and, the bucket itself is semi-porous (thereby allowing a slight oxygen transfer).

If you are going to store dry goods, in addition to the food grade bucket and airtight/waqtertight lid, you also need a mylar bag inside the bucket. Mylar is the oxygen barrier par excellance. You can find these sold on the same internet sites that sell the buckets. Just shove one inside the bucket, and pour your food inside it. But don’t seal it yet! There is one more step.

You have a food grade bucket. You have a mylar bag lining inside the bucket. But you are trapping air inside the mylar bag, just as without it you would trap oxygen inside the bucket. The purpose of the mylar bag is to stop oxygen transfer through the plastic bucket. But you must still purge the oxygen inside the mylar bag that will be trapped there when you seal it. To accomplish this, you need oxygen absorbers.

Oxygen absorbers are usually available on the same website selling the buckets, lids, and mylar bags. An oxygen absorber is basically a plastic packet (of varying size and “strength”) filled with iron pellets. Once placed inside the sealed mylar bag, the iron inside the packets chemically reacts by oxidizing the iron, thereby “consuming” the oxygen in the process that was trapped within the bag. Oxygen absorbers come most commonly in 100cc, 500cc, and 1500cc sizes. And they are dirt-cheap: You can get a pack of 100 500cc absorbers for $5-10 USD, so don’t skimp on using them: The integrity of your food storage is at stake! Generally, I recommend 3000cc worth of absorbers per 5-6 gallon bucket.

A question usually raised at this point is, “How long will all this stuff last in these buckets?” The answer depends on what the food is, but you are looking at anywhere from 5-30+ years. For the sake of brevity, I will simply supply a link at the conclusion of this article which will direct you to a website laying out all the different life-spans for food items stored thusly.

Another question that comes up after proper storage methods have been discussed is, “How much do I need to store?” Basically, you want to store one full year worth of dry goods (Because this will reduce your dependence on gardening in the first year of a prolonged emergency. Eventually you will need to learn proper gardening/farming skills, but your first attempt is likely to teach you more about what you did wrong than provide you with a good supply; more on this later).

A quick (but important) note on the effects of heat on long-term food storage shelf life: Generally, you want to keep your food stored at a cool temperature. The most common recommendation is to store them at 70 degrees (farenheit) or less. Shelf life will increase in inverse proportion as temperature decreases; it will decrease in inverse proportion to rising temperatures. If you store your buckets in the garage or attic, you have just done a lot of work, and spent a lot of money for nothing: You will be lucky to get 5 years out of them. Don’t make that mistake.

A final note on food storage: As was the case with water, if you need to evacuate your home, you are going to have a very hard time taking 50-75 buckets of food with you (even if you can still use an automobile). Presuming you have the luxury of a bug-out cabin, you should move the majority of your buckets to that location before the emergency hits, so that your food is there (with your water) waiting for you. It goes without saying that doing so presumes the bug-out cabin is cooled.

Posted on the Feast of St. Bridget, Widow, a.D. MMX