Time to Leave the Catacombs

"Rise, Rise, Lowland and Highland Men!"

Raising of the Jacobite Standard.

I am very glad for my Faith. I would not have it any other way. But particularly being a Traditional Catholic I start to notice a few things, especially since I'm a lay activist for the Religion. Certain trends that lead me to a conclusion best summed up in one of the idle soundbytes for the Gilneans/Worgen in World of Warcraft: "We've been walled up for far too long."

"The Almighty has a Sea of Hounds, and they bray for justice."

Traditional Catholics have often spoken of their position as "in the Catacombs." This is a useful explanation of the situation, but it's starting to become a problem. People have over the last half century started to glory in this state of being like it's the normal mode of operation, or that it's desired. For many this is not deliberate, but simply the natural growth of "siege mentality" among TradCats like mold in a damp, dark place - such as a Catacomb.

But that's not all, lots of bad habits have cropped up as a result of this. We've taken on or joined larger groups of others Alien to us who have also been forced into exile here. Our temperament has become so adapted to life away from the world and among our own that we have forgotten how to not speak carelessly to our fellow man who do not understand our ways. We've ignored the Gospel command to love and pray for our persecutors as those here before us did (who escaped the Catacombs, I might add). Down in the blackness our hope of rising up and reclaiming what was ours, to abandon the rotten low places in exchange for the holy high ones as our forerunners did on the Feast of the Lateran Basilica, has been lost. Possibly worse yet, our muscles have wasted away. Our eyes have become unable to bear the light of the sun. The free air cannot enter our lungs without sickening us. We have forgotten the use of many things that we in our haste left in the world above to our own detriment. Many have also gone mad as they ventured deeper and deeper into the corpse-filled caverns below. We take solace in polemic, in our own rantings and ravings, and leave the world above to drown in its sin with little heed to the Savior's command to baptize all men. We have divided ourselves and look even upon those we once called friend with suspicion and doubt.

"Forth Eorlingas!"

This is a situation that cannot stand. I love the Society, have a newfound respect for Archbishop Lefebvre, and appreciate all those in the "Tradition" movement who have done good work to keep the Faith alive in its current state. I have met endless wonderful Catholics who are a part of all this. I hope they will be remembered in our history as those who kept our ship on course in a storm despite the madness of the captain and officers. But if I may be so bold, I do believe that the Archbishop himself would agree with me when I say things must be put back under control as soon as possible. This mutiny must only be temporary, and we must like Cincinnatus and so many other noble men like him put things back to normal so we may not be necessary anymore - that we may no longer desperately comb through all of Denzinger just to answer questions of the faith our forefathers' clerics could answer if we but asked, that we may no longer look upon our fellow Catholics with distrust until they pass our own carefully crafted litmus test for a sensus fidei, that we may no longer fear our own clergyman, that we may no longer cower before the raised lash of any oppressor, that we may no longer be manipulated and used by outside agencies, that we may no longer fear for the future of our children - and justice can return to the land.

Return of the Emperor to Vienna.

But first we must organize ourselves. We must deal with the dissent, disease, and discord in our camp. Like Joan of Arc we must drive the degenerates from our host who leech from us. We must begin to plant the seeds, even if we within our own lifetime and those generations living presently will never rest beneath the boughs of the trees that will grow from our toil - if those who come after us can, I will consider the work well-done. But the soil must be tilled, fertilized, cultivated - we must start from the beginning as the Apostles, though doubtless we have the benefit of 2,000 years of history that they did not possess.

I cannot speak for all of you, but my course is clear: I will drag Authentic, True, Traditional Catholicism out of the Catacombs kicking and screaming if I must to save Christendom and ensure the salvation of souls. To whom much is given much is required, and I daresay in light of the present situation we've been given a lot - more than we deserve in some cases. The tools are there, all we need is a strategy to utilize them, and I welcome any man who would help me to do so.

The Sermon of an Apostle among Roman Ruins.  1740s.  Giovanni Paolo Panini. Italian 1691-1765. oil on canvas. Hermitage Museum.

Why We Lost the War for Marriage

The Most Expected Defeat of the Modern Age

If you're just starting your day or only now looking at the news, you've discovered the Supreme Court has legalized Gay Marriage. For me this is expected, and I think everyone in this "War" knew it would happen eventually. All we've done is grease the treads of their tanks with our blood. But I'm not here today to rail against our opposition; they will receive their reward. It does little good at this point to be angry or bitter. It's become an unfortunate calling card of conservatism and it's part of why we've lost. I'm here today to talk about why we lost. Because this is indeed a learning experience like no other. Most people my age lived through this struggle from its beginning to end, and so we have a front row seat. We just saw the movie, so we're in the perfect position to talk about it, so to speak. I'm going to list the reasons why we lost, explain them, and say what we could've done instead.

So without further ado, let's get on it.

First Error: Vatican II and the Dissolution of Christendom

 

Second Vatican Council

This is a complex issue so I will attempt to discuss it without getting into the theology of it all. Conciliarists and non, let's be honest: ever since 1958 the Faith has been in a nosedive of decline. It's been slowly declining since the Thirty Years' War but it was never really straight-up free-falling like it was after 1958. Even then this was usually due to outside factors or things no one had control over, it was hardly the result of a massive influx of internal missteps. From the destruction of churches to the sex abuse scandal the Church since 1958 has practically been a walking reason for the end of Catholicism in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Not only that but it split the Church into numerous factions who all now compete with one another regularly. Doctrinal error, questions over validity, and the downright disdain for Catholic history has been a reoccurring theme within the Church for half a century now. Bottom line it, the Catholic Church is a plague ship burning and rudderless and once the crew jumped ship the rats took over. This is the position from which the Church has tried to fight something like LGBT, a movement with mass appeal that does have itself together internally.

The Catholic Church is a hierarchical mess with no unity, no order, and no leadership. To top it off it's basically bankrupt. Financing any kind of organized resistance was impossible. To make matters worse an entire class of journalists exists who's living could be classified as damage control, except they don't so much actually repair the damage as do their damnedest to try and convince you all is well. The best part is most people actually buy it for the simple reason their minds can't wrap around the prospect of a fallen Rome, a dying religion, and the utter chaos that is ensuing without breaking. I say this with confidence as once upon a time I was one of them.

Pope S. Pius X.

Furthermore the liberalizing nature of Vatican II and its reforms opened the doors for acceptance of this sort of things; modernists in the clergy were perfectly deployed to do the work necessary to go so far as to create Catholic support for LGBT equality. Even the Church was divided on this issue, its lack of orthodoxy making it unable to fight back in any meaningful sense.

Rome fell because no one did the bloody work of trying to repair the Empire before it was too late. Much the same can be said for Catholicism in today's America and around the world; the Catholic Church is dying because no one is really trying to save it. Even among Traditionalists there exist a class of men who make money reporting on the tragedy without really doing a damn thing to stop it. Day after day they looked for a new piece to enflame their outrage-addicted reader base rather than using them to organize effective resistance. Many went so far as to attack the "moral outrage" of gamer culture.

Solution: Reform the Church

 

The Catholic Church has been in dire straits for a long time, but worse than that is we've ignored it. We've acted as though all is well and really it's not that important that we try and fix it. Many separated communities enjoy their isolated status away from the problems of the word, like little Catholic Hobbitons. Unfortunately this cannot stand, and it is time to do something about it. We can no longer sit by idly; the hour for action long since passed but if we act quickly it might not be entirely too late.

Don Carlos calling the Navarrese in 1833.

Firstly and foremost we need to get organized: the internet is a powerful tool for this. A myriad of software for communication exists and cellphones make our ability to coordinate almost instantaneous. If all else fails, good old fashioned postage will suffice. We need to call everyone together who could possibly be one of us and their leadership to form an organizational body. We have to make sure everyone theologically, philosophically, and intellectually is on the same page. We must, like the Apostles, be of one accord.

We need to start with finding good clergy. The NSIR needs pious, orthodox clergy to minister to its people. We need good theologians who are studious and equipped to cure the spread of heresy in Christendom. In short it will be best for Catholics to quit the field of battle for now and not even think about willingly returning to it until we are organized and unified. Many Catholics are even without parishes where they can receive the sacraments and be supported. The saints prophesied a time when no one in the churches would trust one another; that time is upon us now. We must fix that problem if we are to be an effective force.

When one says "Christendom" they instantly think of Europe, but the fact is Christendom is all of the Catholic world. Christendom once encompassed not only Europa but the Americas, Africa, Asia, the Pacific Islands, India, and modern-day Turkey. Everywhere Catholic peoples lived and dwelt was Christendom; their shared faith united them and together their history is ours as Catholics. Christendom began with priests converting the people; the aspects of it we love came later. We must accept that Christendom fell and must now rise up again like a phoenix, and the flames must be stoked by conversion. We have an advantage now in that we know it was done once and can be done again, and we have a plethora of resources our ancestors did not have.

The Church must be turned from its error; we must proselytize not just to the laity but to the clergy as well, but even this we cannot do until we are unified with purpose. It will take a veritable inquisition to purge our own heretical elements - racialism, fascism, national socialism, antisemitism, antiquarianism, puritanism, et al - but it will be a good testing ground for when we can reclaim what rightfully belongs to us.

As the clergy are reorganized the laity must also work together to reform the Old Guard. We must support them in their mission and take on the proper duties of the Faithful: charity, protection of the Church, whatever must be done to advance Christendom. Our duties will be manifold and ever changing, so we must be organized and ready to meet them.

Second Error: Piggybacking Secular Conservatism

Abp. John Hughes, N.Y.

 A huge contribution to our failure in America has been our attempt to "Americanize" ourselves rather than Catholicizing America. Nothing represents this more than how we shamelessly have ridden the Republican Elephant for the longest time. Prior to the Civil War one could almost classify American Catholics as apolitical due to their independence from any political party. This only fed the fires of the Know-Nothing sect of Republicans in America who accused Catholics of being direct threats to the United States due to their foreign loyalties concerning the Pontiff. While many Catholics could agree with abolition, they didn't want to vote for Know-Nothing Abolitionists. Similarly while Democrats could offer economic headway for immigrants they weren't keen on their social liberalism or the support for slavery. But with the coming of the Civil War this changed radically with Catholics overwhelmingly siding with the Republican Union. The result was the Irish Brigades who fought for the future of the union and the abolition of slavery, playing critical roles at Fredericksburg and in other places. After the war Catholics became much more politically active, having proved there loyalty to the Union. The majority of Catholics were indeed pro-union. It seemed as if the Church had finally made headway into American society. Irish patriots cleared the way through Confederate lines and into the hearts of America.

But it wouldn't take long for this situation to deteriorate. The American Church had always been somewhat divorced from Rome due to geographic limitations. This slowly became the case theologically; while not necessarily more liberal than the rest of Christendom it slowly became more accepting of unorthodox ideas. Without adequate oversight bishoprics began to engage in quite the bit of skullduggery. But all the while the faith at least remained strong and at times in places like New York the Catholic lobby was very powerful, embodied in the Saint Patrick's Day parade. Not so bad, right?

Unfortunately as Catholics became more and more happy with their new-found place in American society they became less and less aware of its dissonance with their own beliefs. The hierarchy began to directly speak on political matters in the country. Suddenly things like the Al Smith dinner became big deals in politics; the Catholic voter bloc was something that could be manipulated. Politicians took note, and the rest is history.

Social conservatism and economic "liberalism" divided Catholics for the longest time. But with Vatican II and the chaos the Conciliarists caused since, somehow people thought they could do both. Then everyone abandoned any pretense of doing either. With America going as far away from Catholicism as possible and the bishops not willing to lose the privileges they had earned, the cathedrals were silent and Catholics did as they pleased based on the poor catechism they had. Catholics voted for abortion and more with no meaningful resistance from the bishops. Furthermore they'd become so detached from their dioceses and attached to politicking and administration - on top of the cover-up of things like the sex abuse scandal and financial mismanagement - why should anyone listen to them? Even then what clergy that did take action simply clung to one political party or the other, never striking out for Catholicism's true social teaching.

The problem is that many of these parties don't represent Catholicism, nor do they wish to. They could care little for our future; we're just another religious conservative group. Many are outright disdainful of us, but if we're stupid enough to aid them in spite of this, hey, why shouldn't they exploit us? It's quite pathetic, really; one most only offer the most meager morsel of Catholic social morality and they all come to lap it up like starving dogs. All the while they sign into action laws and enact policies that go totally against our religion. It's not just conservatives, either; Democrats have long exploited Catholicism's charity to use pity-party tactics to earn our support for their own policies. To them we're just numbers; pawns in their quest for dominance, and beneath their titanic struggle our nation crumbles. A nation we call home whether we like it or not.

The result? We get dragged along and manipulated, and we don't even see victory for our trouble. Most specifically I must refer to American Conservatives and the Republicans and how it relates to the War for Marriage. How did this contribute to its failure? Simply put because the Republicans embraced a failed strategy of using the Religious Right as their vanguard in the assault on LGBT Democrats. What they failed to realize was this was the equivalent of the French attempting to use cavalry to break the Spanish Tercio, but we'll discuss the failed strategy later. The point is that these parties really had no understanding of our religion, and they practically took advantage (unknowingly most likely) of the fact that neither do most Catholics.

Solution: the NSIR

 

A Procession of the French Catholic League

Catholicism is a religion with its own philosophies: political, economic, social, and more. The Church left an indelible mark - almost like baptism - upon the Western World in terms of thought and ideas. Some things are so taken for granted we never stop to question their origin. Why should the powerhouse that not only did this but helped create the third largest empire in human history bend the knee to any sort of non-Catholic secular authority because they did something nice for us? Clovis didn't just sort of like Catholic ideas about things; he converted to the religion. Constantine didn't just think Catholicism was helpful to his empire; he legalized it and made the chi-rho the symbol of the Roman Empire.

Loyalty to a nation is one thing, but loyalty to a party? That's something else. The Catholic Church is the party for Catholics, or should be. Part and parcel for reforming the Church will be the rediscovery of our belief system and using it to guide us as we traverse these dangerous waters. Catholics have been misled and exploited long enough; it's time for action. No more will others misappropriate our faith and our culture for their policies when they do not represent us.

Third Error: A Poor Strategy

 

French Cavalry Break Themselves Upon the Tercios at Rocroi.

For the last several decades, Republicans and Conservative leadership's on-the-ground strategy has been to use the Religious Right has shock troopers in their fight against Democrats and Liberals. The problem is two-fold: for one, the "Religious Right" is not as fearsome as one might think. They are almost 100% bark and no bite. For all their "muh second amendment" posturing they pose no more threat to the current administration than a fire ant bed on the White House lawn. The Bundy Ranch debacle gave them every opportunity to start their war, but they did not take it. It seems even the most dangerous elements of the Far Right in America are only a threat to a room full of unarmed civilians; brigands to be sure, but representative of a larger threat of armed insurrection against the United States government? Don't make me laugh.

To pull away from the more militant side of things, let's look at it simply from a standpoint of a war of ideas. To debate with someone over something you must both be competent in the field you are discussing and you must be discussing the same subject. You can't debate that the sky is blue and the grass is green. You could debate that the grass is green or light green, or that the sky is actually azure and not blue, but you can't compare apples and oranges. So what secular conservatives have been trying to do is convince secular liberals of the benefits of secular conservatism through religious conservatism. Is it starting to sound stupid yet?

Perception is reality to the individual in the following sense: I am in a room. There is another person in the room with me. I do not know that the other person is there with me. Therefore, to my reality, he is not there. That does not change the fact he is real and in the room with me. Let's say a friend calls me and tells me, "Dude, there's someone in your room." I don't believe him, because as far as I know there's no one else in there with me and it's impossible there could be. Until can get me to turn around and see the other person, he will not be real to me. But in absolute reality, that person is still real.

Cover of the New Laws of 1542.

That's what it's like trying to argue for religious conservatism to a secular liberal: trying to convince someone something is somewhere without giving them adequate proof. Why on earth should a non-religious individual accept a religious person's way of thinking? It's like an American policeman going to the UK in uniform with his squad car and arresting British people for driving on the wrong side of the road. He has no jurisdiction, no authority, no power. Over an American he would on American soil, but not over a British man in the English countryside. But according to Republicans, the Yankee can arrest that Englishman all day long according to Yankee laws.

Arguing against secular law with religious law in the courts of the United States is exactly like trying to argue the superiority of apples over oranges. They are two entirely separate things and cannot be argued. Catholics did not try and counter Roman Law with their own religious canon, because it would be ridiculous in practice. They lived their lives according to their religious precepts and applied them within their own communities and were allowed to do so. Consider even further back to the Jews under Roman rule: they followed their own religious dictates and did not try to force them onto the non-Hebrew residents of Jerusalem, and according to the Imperial law they had every right to do so.

Why would someone believe the moral dictates of a religion that is not their own? Moreover, why would they follow them or support their passage into law? The same conservatives who think that civil marriage is somehow holy and the same thing as sacramental marriage (hint: it's not) would be aghast at the idea of Mormons demanding their idea of religious marriage be applied even in the state of Utah. They are horrified at the mere notion of Sharia law being applied even in areas that are 100% Muslim. How can they not see that many liberal democrats feel precisely the same about the idea of a religion they do not adhere to and see as alien being forced upon them? Furthermore, if one was to be a "conservative" in the American sense they would adhere only to the classically liberal enlightenment ideas of the Founding Fathers, who did not establish a state church, nor was the church meant to have any control over the federal government. Whatever the religious opinions of the Founding Fathers there was no piece of law in the US Constitution which stated that their laws were grounded in Christianity. If you want an example of that you can read the constitution of the Republic of Ireland, but that didn't stop them from passing gay marriage into law, because the very nature of a democratic-republican system is that the vote has all the power. If a referendum was held tomorrow to burn the Constitution in a brazier before the White House, and it passed with a majority vote, our laws say it would have to be done.

I think I've labored enough on the point: to argue with a secularist on the merits of religious law is pointless, because they likely do not even possess an unbiased and working knowledge of it. When you both live in a secular country, it is definitely pointless. On another level, if the goal was to pretend civil marriage was "sacred" in a Christian sense, why was their no protest against civil divorce (which you will recall no one in the Catholic Church cared about because they presumed their own flocks would rely on religious marriage anyway, which sadly they have not)? The Bible forbids divorce, full stop. Oh wait, but most Protestant denominations in America allow for it, and American conservatives are largely Protestant.

Solution: Conversion Through Missionary Efforts

 

Spanish Missionary Evangelizing Native Americans.

I hear even now some formulating arguments to me that America is or was a "Christian nation." Well friend, it sure was never a Catholic nation. This country was not intentionally founded upon Catholic principles and the majority of its founders were not Catholic. As such our laws, culture, and society are largely anti-Catholic or at least non-Catholic.

The historically astute person will take note that the Roman Empire did not become Catholic from the top-down. Catholics did not work to become senators or gain political power so as to achieve leverage, while they were loyal to the Empire. No, Rome became Catholic from the bottom up. The astute historian will also note largely that Western Europe left Catholicism much the same way, but we won't get into that here as it's only important in passing to illustrate the point I want to make.

Saint Paul delivering the Areopagus sermon in Athens, by Raphael, 1515.

Saint Benedict has been called the Father of Christian Europe; if that is the case, then the Apostle Paul is the Father of Christian Rome. Saint Paul made numerous sermons publicly, making the case for Catholicism to the people of the world. He wasn't the only one; all across the world the Apostles made the case for Christianity to anyone who would listen and they made converts. In this way many of the abuses of Old Rome were even discarded, such as the gladiatorial games. By the changing of hearts and minds, the Pagan world was changed to a Christian one. The sweetest thing about it all is that through it all, Pagan history was not necessarily recklessly discarded but preserved in literature as culture. Many of the pagan idols were willingly torn down by those the Apostles converted, not forcibly removed by state power.

St. Aemilianus destroyed many pagan idols and temples. Here he is shown using ropes to pull down a pagan idol, while his followers are breaking them up with picks and axes.

This has historically been the Catholic way, for what truly matters is what relies in a man's heart. The fate of his immortal soul takes precedent over all else. I once heard it argued that Christendom was not necessarily an intended creation by the Apostles, which might make it all the more glorious: these men did not set out to create a civilization, but they did anyway.

It has been remarked by clergy and laity alike that we find ourselves in a post-Christian world that is not very unlike the pre-Christian one. If such is the case would it not then make sense to repeat the method by which we created Christendom the first time? We have resources we did not have back then; 2,000 years of proof of the benevolence, majesty, and power of our faith! Against something as mighty and storied as the Roman Empire I think the Apostles might have welcomed such a thing, but they did not need it: the grace of God was sufficient.

St Patrick Preaching to the Kings.

Attacking Gay Marriage politically with religious assaults was never going to work, because most homosexuals do not believe in our religion at all. Why would they and their allies be phased at all with bible-thumping moral condemnations when they do not fear God in the first place? What has essentially been done all these years is that we have put the cart before the horse. This has been the fault of wrong theology which has lead to poor catechism which created rotten political philosophy. No, what we should have done is what we should have done this whole time: missionary outreach while protecting our own in a Benedictine fashion.

We should have done this because it's the most important thing: the salvation of souls. Furthermore, the reason the LGBT movement is a success is because of the massive appeal it has in the hearts and minds of the public. In a Catholic society such a thing would never occur simply because the mind of the people were not disposed to it. Furthermore State Marriage was unheard of, but that's another error and solution entirely.

If it follows that we want Christian policy in a democratic-republican society then it logically follows we should work to achieve it the same way our opposition has done so, by changing hearts and minds. But above political goals we must save souls. This is a difficult thing to convey and an even harder thing to understand seeing as how we've so politicized these issues, but the fact of the matter is that they are religious issues. They are issues of ideas and beliefs. The great failure of not just secular conservatives but Catholics from the Jacobites to the Carlists to the Bourbons - great and glorious they all may be - is that they failed to recognize the fact that while they may have been in the right, no one else could see that right. More important than enforcing their rights was making people believe they had them in the first place. Look no further than the LGBT for proof of this: sixty years ago the very idea of what we see now was unheard of. But the LGBT convinced people, so it's happened. They got out in the streets and refused to leave until they were heard.

'Christianization of Poland on 14 April 966' by Jan Matejko.

Now it is time for missionaries to do the same. They must go out and preach the Gospel and refuse to not be heard. It is however unnecessary to attack the institutionalization of gay marriage in this secular country. But it is an utmost necessity to convert people to Catholicism. Not only because we want our civilization to endure and be even greater than it was before, but because we must save souls. Christ did not command the foundation of Christendom, but he did command that the Gospel be preached to all nations - which lead to its formation. It is important to get the cart and horse in proper order if we expect to go anywhere. Furthermore we must stress: the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is higher than civil marriage in a sacerdotal sense. The two are not equal. Furthermore, the US is not a country based in any meaningful sense on Catholicism. Even if it was marriage would be the province of the Church, individuals, and communities and not controlled by the government. The War for Marriage would never have occurred at all.

Fourth Error: Joining the Fight At All

 

Banner of the Pilgrimage of Grace

This one might seem counter-productive entirely; what do I mean don't join the fight? Well, it's quite simple: it never was our fight to begin with. The LGBT War was always between Socially Liberal Democrats and Socially Conservative Republicans, most of whom were either Protestant or had no religious affiliation. If they were Catholic they were Conciliar, and if you ask me at the right time of day I might deny that Conciliarists are Catholic at all. I've already established neither side represents us, and the social conservatives who might have had a failed strategy to start with.

Within Roman Catholicism there are seven sacraments, one of which is indeed marriage. While the nomenclature has not always been the same the belief has always been present. For the longest time in human history marriage wasn't something the state oversaw or controlled; it was a the providence of communities, individuals, and religious authorities. It has been much this way throughout human history, and in Western Europe even after the fall of the Catholic Church in many countries Protestant denominations simply took their place in regards to domestic affairs.

Then the Age of Enlightenment and the French Revolution happened. More specifically, Napoleon happened.

At the height of his power as an Enlightenment Despot, Napoleon and the French were hated by pretty much the entire world. Bedazzled in imperial glory they marched across the world relentlessly on a path of conquest, smashing down the Old Order everywhere they went until at last he was pushed back and eventually exiled to an island several leagues off the coast of Africa where he died. No more passionately was this hatred felt than among Catholics, particularly French Catholics. His Concordat with the Church which offered minor legal protection to the Catholic Church in his domains earned him brownie points with the commoners - mind you this was also happening at a time when the other monarchs were trying to normalize him into the Balance of Power via marriage, so everyone was hoping things would become stable - but in Rome and among the exile Catholic French nobility and even in Austria, Russia, Spain, and the UK's highest halls of power he was still despised and looked at with a mixture of fear and loathing.

It was in the time that Napoleon published his infamous Code which bears his name and still influences the law in many places around the world. One of the major facets of this civil code was civil marriage officiated and controlled by the State. The motive was to wrest power away from the Church in the domestic sphere. During the French Revolution there was this thing called "Civism" which was being touted as the new source of all morality. Basically it means what is good for the state is a moral good, and that loyalty to the nation is the first and only loyalty of the citizen. Civism was hugely anti-Catholic, and Pro-Republic clergy were like some of the worst nightmares you've had about modernist priests. Essentially this was a slightly more tolerant and intelligent version of that, but it still hurt the Church immensely.

 

French Bonapartist Infantry Attempt to Storm a Church during the Second Siege of Zaragoza

One must consider everything that was done to the Church by Napoleon: he crafted a special tiara as a gift for the Pope just to humiliate him. He waged wars of aggression against the not just the remaining bastions of temporal Christendom but lead to the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire de jure and invaded the Papal States, imprisoning the then reigning Pope. His forces had killed more than their fair share of religious and lay Catholics for their trouble as they burned their way across Europe. Particularly in Spain the resistance to Napoleon was highly religious, and Bonapartist fury against all of Spain's great venerable Catholic history was unleashed, but the Spanish gave Napoleon some of his first and greatest defeats and the Napoleonic legions were repulsed - but at great cost.

The surrender of Zaragoza by Maurice Orange.

In spite of all this, Pope Pius VII was remarkably forgiving but stern towards Napoleon. He referred to him as, "A stubborn son, but a son nonetheless." History may not be kind to Pius VII's attitude toward the Little Colonel, but he carried Catholicism through the Bonapartist Scourging and brought it out the other side strong. Nevertheless he did excommunicate Napoleon finally, and what support Napoleon had from the Catholic Church vanished. What caused this? The Napoleonic implementation of Civil Marriage. Yes, dear reader, even the crying out of the martyrs could not move Rome to action, but stealing the right of marriage away from the Catholic Church and giving it over to the state caused Napoleon's inevitable falling out in the eyes of the Catholic world. Ponder this for a moment. Civil Marriage has never been considered on par with Catholic Marriage. In fact the civilly married who convert to Catholicism must - or at least used to have to - convalidate their marriage in the Catholic Church. If this is not a clear-cut illustration of the difference between today's Conciliar Church and the one of the past I don't know what is. If there wasn't in your mind a real good solid example of how divorced the modern Catholic Church is from its own history and theology, here's one that's relevant right now and can clearly be shown to have had a negative impact on the Catholic Church. To add to the loss of Catholic faith, the vandalism of Catholic churches, the demolition of Catholic culture, the revision of Catholic history, the humiliation of the Catholic Church before its enemies, the unchecked growth of Islamic terror, financial mismanagement, and the sex abuse crisis we can add successfully dragging the Catholic Church into a political fight that was not ours but now we must suffer the consequences of defeat from. Good job, guys.

Solution: Tend to Our Own

 

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on Saint Peter's High Altar.

If you haven't gotten the general idea by now, the Catholic Church is a wreck right now. The last thing we need is more problems from without when those from within would have caused it to crumble already if it hadn't been for Divine Providence. We are on borrowed time, on God's mercy - thank Heavens it be infinite. The only thing we ever should've done was, on our own, taught our faithful that homosexuality is indeed a sin but that there is no need to get involved on the marriage debate. This is not a Catholic country and we have no reasonable clout with which to at, even if we wanted to. We have no authority over civil, secular marriage. Homosexuality is a sin for Catholics and to engage in sodomy does, indeed, amount to sin. But a prerequisite for any man to be bound by the Faith is for him to be a baptized member of it; never in our history have we bound non-Catholics to our religious observances and Christendom was not a collection of moralizing, confessional police-states.

If we truly want America to be a Catholic country then we must make it one by Conversion. If we want a Catholic nation of our own, we must make one.

Conclusion

This has been a rough decade for more reasons than just gay marriage. But I hope, perhaps, this will provide some clarity on at least this hot button issue. What should you do right now? Well, I'd humbly ask you share this. I don't think it's a voice many people will here. I don't think it's a perspective most will have considered without it being shown to them. Furthermore I'd just council love and forbearance. If you know someone who is gay, pray for their conversion. If you have friends who are Conciliarist, pray for them. Pray for everyone and offer your Masses up. We need help from the Divine more than anything else.

Triumph of Faith - Christian Martyrs in the Time of Nero 65 A.D.

I know there are many now who agonize about the prospect of coming persecutions; they fear that now a great wave of persecutions will come upon them and they will suffer greatly for refusal to believe homosexuality is not a sin. Well, there is not much reason to believe that. Countries all over Europe have had legalized Gay Civil Marriage for a long time, and no persecution has come to the Catholics that live there. They still conduct their marriages how they wish without interference. They still teach their children the faith. There has been no push to force the Catholic Church to change its teaching on holy matrimony or to make them conduct gay marriages, at least not by the government. If such has not happened in countries with a stronger authoritarian tradition than America, I see no reason to believe why such things would come to pass here. I cannot foresee such a thing happening for any reason unless for some reason religious groups collectively did something horrible in the name of anti-Gay Marriage to mar the Union. Something like a bloody insurrection.

Or Secession *cough cough*

The best thing to do specifically in regards to the ruling is... ignore it. Move on with life. Continue to live as if nothing that odd has happened. Maintain your religious beliefs and live as you always have. If someone asks your opinion, tell them you believe homosexuality is a sin but that has no bearing on the law of the United States because Catholicism is not a legal voice of authority, but you do believe religious communities have a right to their beliefs and opinions, and at the same time people should not be bound to the dictates of a religion they do not follow. Anything along those lines would simplify it I think without giving offense. My only regret would be that Catholics did not adopt this position sooner; instead we embarrassed ourselves for a decade and wasted time, precious time we needed for other things.

A monumental task is before us: the reconstruction of Christendom and the conversion of the world. But if we are faithful, pious, and use history as our map for the journey we shall like the phoenix rise from the ashes more glorious than ever. But it needs men willing and ready to stoke the fires - however hot they may get - until she rises once more.

Secession Would Not be an Answer to, But a Part of Our Problem

When Was the Last Healthy Nation You Saw in a Civil War?

Aleppo, Syrian Civil War

Dylan Roof and the shooting at Emmanuel Church in Charleston has once again opened a racial and political wound in this country which refuses to heal. It almost seems like we refuse to let it mend; somewhere some how it will always be exploited and brought up again. Democrats in 2008 used it to get an unqualified community organizer elected as leader of what used to be a world superpower. Republicans have been using it discreetly to try and maintain some kind of relevance with the electorate. Public speakers and authors have been using it to sell tickets and books. Religious leaders have been using it to attach a religious element to the racial strife in America so they could maintain relevance in a vastly irreligious country. People continually take advantage of the situation and stoke the fires, but the last time we had anyone who seemed serious about overcoming and removing this hurdle seems to be in the Civil Rights Era or during the Harlem Renaissance.

But now that is all a distant memory; once upon a time in American politics we battled 18th and 19th century Racialism for what it was, but now both sides are beginning to comfortably and brazenly use it as each side becomes more daring in their radicalism. This is the future of American politics: drawn along the lines of race and identity for the sake of securing votes the political elite have successfully driven a wedge between the people of this country. Now the Civil War has re-entered American public conscience with a vengeance. Battle lines are being drawn between two sides that, to be quite frank, are pitiless and unlovable. Neither represent America, only portions of it. Neither represent the people, but are instead lead de facto by political elites who have sown all of this for their own benefit. They alone will reap the rewards of this harvest, we are but the slaves who will gather it by our sweaty toil; we shall starve for our trouble.

Battle of Pea Ridge, Ark., by Kurz and Allison.

The fact we feel so threatened by this that we must start banning Confederate memorabilia left and right illustrates this perfectly. At this stage there is no militant force of Neo-Confederates worth mentioning that could strike out at the Union or do harm to it. There are radicals who use it who could easily be dealt with case-by-case; other than being visibly or verbally offensive the organized groups are hardly a threat. But they could easily become one.

There's honestly not much I can add to all this that hasn't been said. I can offer my unique experience, however. You see, people make the standard suppositions about me when I speak on the Confederacy: that I'm ignorant and just know nothing about the Cause. Well...

Life Under the Southern Cross

 

... that's a load of horse shit, because I was raised Neo-Confederate and liked it at the time. So from this point forward, assume I know what I'm talking about and listen. I'll try and provide links and sources for historical assertions.

Up until I'd estimate my senior year of High School, I classified myself as a Good Ol' Rebel. I hoarded Confederate memorabilia and most of my first vacation destinations were anything that had to do with the Confederacy. Just imagine me, but with the CSA. I was incredibly proud of my Southern heritage. I was raised loving it and I knew about my Confederate ancestors, of whom there were several. One was a Confederate officer at the Battle of Pleasant Hill. Five who carry my last name are buried in the Vicksburg Confederate Cemetery. Another survived both Antietam and Fredericksburg. This isn't really special for someone with a Southern family; almost everyone has family who were involved in some way.

But I wasn't raised to be a racist, either. I think this is where the genuine disconnect comes in: Northerners and others see the Confederacy for what it was, a seditious institution founded for the protection of slavery upon ideas of white supremacy. But for many Southerners this is not how it's taught to them at all. I'm not going to pretend there aren't those who are taught that is what it is, but I can speak as a native that really these people are out in the sticks and generally aren't accepted in mainstream society. Those you do meet have only become more brazen in recent years as politics have become increasingly racialized. When I was growing up you didn't see those types, and they were banned from most things that had to do with the Confederacy.

What did the Confederacy represent to us then? True America, quite simply. To the average Southerner the Confederacy is the embodiment of not just everything we hold dear but everything good about America. Christianity, civil liberty, self determination, and the willingness to fight for it. More specifically to the South it represented tradition, chivalry, honesty, and upstanding virtue. I know that's hard to believe, but you must understand our folk historiography is basically formed by Gods and Generals and Gone With the Wind. Imagine if the average German's view of the Third Reich was Triumph of Will and only that film. Most of what we're exposed to regarding the Old South are romanticized paintings of Confederates in glorious combat against the Yankee Menace in the War of Northern Aggression (yes, they really call it that), or beautiful and white-washed depictions of plantation parties and rural country living. Along with spirited renditions of Dixie and other Confederate ballads, it isn't exactly difficult to let yourself get swept up in it all if you don't know better.

This is the Confederacy to the Average Southerner; This and Only This. Believe Otherwise and you're a dirty Yankee commie who hates America and just doesn't get it.

You're probably thinking that with time and scholarship such ideas would melt away. Well, it's not that simple. One thing I do disagree with is how the South was treated after the war, but ironically enough that was their own fault. When John Wilkes Booth shot and killed Abraham Lincoln he killed the most powerful friend the Post-War South had. Lincoln above all just wanted a solution to the crisis and he frankly didn't give a damn what it was; he loved America and wanted to preserve it and if that meant keeping slaves, freeing slaves, deporting them wholesale, or keeping them and integrating them he was going to do it. He cared about what worked, not necessarily what people wanted. At the same time the moral compass of the nation was being awakened with the advent of industrial agriculture. Slavery was quite simply no longer necessary because industry could beat anything a field of slaves could do, and there was more money in it. It was a perfect storm for abolition, just like the South's climate was naturally against abolition.

Back to Lincoln, Lincoln believed in a policy of reconciliation and recuperation for the South. He wanted them to be an industrialized, strong, happy, healthy, free part of the United States. But he was a minority in this, so when Booth cacked him it was only going to go downhill from there. As this bitter Southern man ran out of the theater shouting the Latin Virginian motto, Sic Semper Tyrannis, he sealed the doom of the South at the hands of embittered and angry northerners who wanted to seize the resources of the South away from them and use them for their own commercial gain.

This and the above painting is done by Don Troiani, a guy who specializes in Civil War art. This is totally unrelated to anything I'm talking about, I just wanted to show the Confederates aren't the only people with seriously epic artwork. You can enjoy it, be patriotic, and be guilt-free. Seriously, check him out.

To be quite honest I see where the North was coming from, but that doesn't mean revenge was a good guiding motivator for domestic policy. The South and the North had a nice dichotomy going before the war; the South grew the cotton, shipped it north to factories, and then the North made good use of it. If that could have been recreated maybe today the South wouldn't be one of the poorest places in the country. This may come as a shock to the Southerner who's so convinced in the agrarian purity of the South, but we're in the bottom on everything good and the top of everything bad. Highest crime rates, greatest amount of STDs, highest infant mortality rate, highest number of broken homes, lowest number of people with a high school diploma, greatest number of people on welfare, lowest GDP, lowest infrastructure score, greatest drug usage, highest rates of domestic abuse, you name it. I'm not saying anywhere else in America is paradise but when you look at the numbers we really are not doing that great. A big part of this has to do with how Reconstruction was done (which again indirectly was John Wilkes Booth's fault because he shot the one guy who could stop it). Every Southern boy knows that the Carpetbaggers came south and exploited us at our lowest, which is somewhat true. Most industries and manufacturing in this state is owned by non-native corporations. The only thing that isn't is agriculture and service industries, the former being because most Southerners owned the land to do it with in the first place and the latter because we have to make money somehow.

I'd also like to point out at this point there was this "Romance of Reunion" thing going on. See, actually, most of the big name guys involved in the Civil War were happy it was over and hated it while it happened. Most of the military who weren't "grunts" had all served together before in other wars, some as far back as 1812. They were not enthusiastic at the prospect of shooting one another. So after the war was over most people honestly wanted to get on with their lives and make sure this catastrophe weakened us as little as possible. Foreign powers were starting to take interest in the Americas again with its primary superpower divided and killing itself (see: France in Mexico), but the war ended decisively before any one side got too involved. Just as an aside, the Confederacy regarded every state as a sovereign nation. You needed a passport just to cross state lines. Each one could make treaties and trade deals of its own accord, and even declare war. Now how exactly is that supposed to work out for a strong, unified country? At the time, we would've become a playground for foreign empires within a year.

How and why does the South keep the Confederacy alive, then, if all this is true? Aside from the romanticism involved in all of it: money. Remember what I said about how poor the South is? Well, what we do have are a large collection of famous Civil War monuments, battlefields, and so on. Plantations and cities with old quarters full of reenactors. Who put the Old South on full display for your enjoyment as a tourist. Whether you be a foreigner, a Neo-Confederate on pilgrimage, or just a curious tourist, you're welcome for $20 each. Tourism is literally what keeps the South operating in the green, and even then for some of them it's not enough to keep them out of debt. We've also got civil war reenactments that are huge events, like football game huge. People bring lawn chairs and families to watch these things. They come for miles, even for battles where the Confederacy loses! It's a money making scheme; that's all it is.

But there's a final element to this whole thing: political disenfranchisement. The average Dixian feels disconnected from every other part of the country. As we've seen before, the entire South can vote one way in a national election and it doesn't matter; it's a drop in the bucket. But that's how our electoral college is set up. On top of that, we're a joke to most of the planet and even in the rest of the country. We don't know our own history, we seemingly live in invincible ignorance, we literally drag our nation down, and yet while being only a fourth of the nation we dare to make the assertion that we represent the United States of America. Or worse yet that we're better than the US and can somehow survive on our own without it. We're like that crotchety old relative who lives in your house, talks smack all the time to everyone else (but never gets in a fight of any kind or does anything substantial and when he does it fails gloriously), when he's in his 40s and has done nothing with his life and is utterly dependent on others.

But really, that's a big part of it. It really came back into vogue though the the Centennial of the Civil War in the 50s; before that, the Confederacy was a quirky piece of history. In fact the Confederate Flag you see today is the result of that Centennial; it was flown at parades and sold to people who wanted to commemorate a heritage which suddenly meant so much to them. The closest thing to what people use now was actually the navy jack (coloration is off) or the battle flag of Northern Virginia (though it's a square and had writing on it, unlike the ones you see today). So the flag everyone is arguing over is not even the right one.

I daresay many fly the flag simply as a symbol of rebellion: they feel themselves unjustly punished by the North because they were in the right, which they only believe because of folk historiography. Nothing embodies this thinking better than the song, "I'm a Good Ol' Rebel." Take a listen, and be amazed.

Now do you get it? Most Neo-Confederates know nothing of substance about the Civil War and don't want to learn because they enjoy the historical grounding the Confederacy gives their current distaste for things; they like the aesthetic, it fits them comfortably, and the idealistic and romanticized portrait of a bunch of rag-tag rebels fighting a modernized liberal empire for all that's good, traditional, and conservative in America with valor and courage. You can see the dissonance all over this video; he literally says he hates the Declaration of Independence and Old Glory, yet puts a picture of the Confederate Flag in captioned "Heritage/Not Hate." Note the inclusion of Black Confederates; they validate his believe that the original CSA was not about white supremacy, and to most Black Confederates it isn't either. They're an anomaly, truly. Historically blacks fought for the Confederacy because they were slaves and therefore had no choice or hoped fighting would advance their social standing. Others like black slave owners simply wanted to continue the business they had carved out for themselves. But it does not change that the CSA's continued existence would secure the perpetration of white supremacy and slavery in North America; not a chance. How many Neo-Confederates are racists? Honestly it's hard to say; I guess what would matter was if the power and influential ones were.

To make things worse, Republicans and Conservatives have almost been forced into appealing to these people because everyone else is voting Democrat. This almost seals the doom of the continuation and mainstream acceptance of Neo-Confederates.

The great irony is that it is indirectly our own fault: cantankerous and violent minorities with questionable loyalties very rarely get treated nicely. Especially when they've been treated marginally well compared to what could be done to them. Less generous nations might've smashed us into the ground multiple times now for our cries of secession and so-on and torn down every vestige of the Confederacy, but they didn't.

In summary? Neo-Confederacy is caused by a mixture of political disenfranchisement, folk historiography, romanticism, white-washing, a booming tourism industry, political manipulation, and racism.

So why am I now anti-Confederacy? Around the early days of the NSIR a critic of my page attacked my early posts defending the Confederacy, and told me some things I didn't know. Mostly concerning that link I showed you all. The fact is that slavery was the immediate cause of secession and most Southerners knew that; the election of an Anti-Slavery President was the source of secession. That was the event which triggered the whole proceeding events. The economic backbone of the South was threatened. Slavery was an immoral institution and many in America wanted it abolished, but the South would do no such thing as they'd built their entire society around it.

Every single secession declaration for the Confederate States of America mentions as a reason for their secession slavery, white supremacy, or both. Most notably South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas. People talk about other factors, but these were just straws on the camel's back; the one that broke it was slavery. State's Rights were only evoked to counter federal attempts at abolition. All I'm saying is, no one got beaten to death in congress by a Southern man because of some slanted tariffs: it was because he made a speech denouncing slavery.

An argument can be made that many people - even Robert E. Lee perhaps - who fought for the Confederacy were not overtly racist. Well an argument can be made that not everyone who fought for the Third Reich was not an overt antisemite, but we still condemn them because they fought - whether they liked it or not - for a regime that would have prolonged the Holocaust, a great injustice. It's the same with the Confederacy; the existence of the Confederacy would have prolonged slavery and entrenched racialism in the south. In the service of the Caliphs who ruled Christian Iberia with an iron first there were many religiously Catholic mercenaries. Are they to be forgiven for their crimes, and the oppression of the Caliphate upon our people to be ignored because of this? No; such would be preposterous.

Speaking of Catholics, much ado is also made about how the Confederacy was somehow "Catholic." This cannot be further from the truth. In pre and post Civil War South the Catholic Church was very much under attack because they disliked slavery and racialism. Beauregard might have been a Catholic, but so is Nancy Pelosi. I think most Catholics would agree with me having brought this up that it takes more than simply professing Catholicism to be considered a good Catholic. The only substantial arguments people make revolve around the fact that Blessed Pope Pius IX wrote with Jefferson Davis and recognized him as leader of a nation; well, he was. An illegitimate one, but a nation. As I've said before by the 19th century the Church basically lost all meaningful political power and they never really had it in America like they did in Europe. Rome's primary concern at this point was the protection of their flock, hence probably why he did not antagonize them. In those days one knew the Faith, and every Catholic knew this modernist racialism and unjust slavery was something no Catholic could support. A task I will give my fellow Catholics who support the Confederacy is to find me one piece of writing from Rome in which the support for the Confederacy is espoused. Why did any Catholics fight for the Union if the Pope espoused his support for one side over the other? Why is it the case then that the majority of Catholics fought for the Union? How came it that Catholicism became far more accepted in mainstream American society than ever before following the Civil War? Oh, that's right; Catholic brigades formed by the Irish and Italians played crucial roles in many battles.

To my fellow Catholics particularly I can only question this fascination with shock. Why do you so desperately cling to this rotten edifice of a government that did not outlive its founders and moreover stood against our principles? It can be said that before the Civil War many Catholics didn't precisely oppose abolition but they opposed the Republicans at the time mostly because they housed the Know-Nothings, the Anti-Catholic and Anti-Immigrant party of the day. But at the war's onset that all changed.

Memorial to the 28th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment.

We have a duty to this nation; we will not serve it if we get too bogged down in their sectarian politics.

Conclusion

Guys, why am I even having this discussion with you? Our nation is hurt with manifold wounds that open wider every day and threaten to kill us. America is not and never has been a true home for Catholics, but nowhere else in the world is either. We're much like the Jews once were in that regard; nowhere is a home for us. We are a people in exile, who's lot in life will be a boot pressed against our face if we don't act. The rest of the world doesn't care a damn about the Civil War. America is crumbling; it will crumble faster as a house divided. Ladies and gentleman, please; for the sake of our future and our survival, let's put this all behind us. America has a future: a united future, a royal future, a Catholic future. But even now those three words put many Americas in rows. We have a lot of work before us. Rome, too, was once a corrupt an inept republic. America can become something great, but it cannot be anything but a footnote in history if it falls. We must ensure that if it must fall something great must take its place, for now many malicious powers stand to replace it.

People say the Confederacy is the "Traditional" America. No it isn't; it was a merchant oligarchy that dressed itself up pretty. The difference is that the Union didn't stand on such ceremony. A rebellion or even the continual fomentation of these ideas only serve to further divide this country. For the sake of everyone we need to try and unify, even if only as Catholics. A storm is coming and it is best if we weather it united.

Hall of the Union League, Philadelphia