Keep up the Fire

by Norman Fulkerson

It was the most memorable Veterans Day of my life.

 

 

 

 

 

As many recognized the sacrifices made by the living I paid my respects to someone who sacrificed it all. His name was Sgt. Daniel Shaw of West Seneca N.Y.

I was doing home visits with the pilgrim statue of our Lady of Fatima in Western New York when the area was shocked by the news of his untimely death. Although I did not know Sgt. Shaw, I felt that paying my last respects to a young man who died for his country was the best way I could spend Veterans Day.

“The angels must be watching over me”
As I entered the room where he was laid out, I saw his flag-draped coffin with two soldiers on either side, in impeccably pressed uniforms and black patent leather shoes. Every half hour, they would change in a military fashion which added a refreshing and solemn note of ceremony.

In front of the coffin was Sgt. Shaw’s uniform neatly arranged on a display easel. On the shoulder of his jacket was a crest with the words “Keep up the Fire.” Behind his coffin were several dozen red roses, white baby’s breath and an appropriate blue ribbon to give the national colors.

In the next room were poster boards with pictures of Sgt. Shaw along with childhood mementos. Among them was a religious drawing done by the fallen soldier when he was only 10 years old. It was a picture of Our Lord agonizing in the Garden of Olives with a simple caption written in the block letters of a child that said: “Jesus is my Shepherd.” Underneath was a picture of the handsome little boy who would grow up to be a proud soldier.

The Shaws are a Catholic family and the religious side of their son was evident after he suffered an earlier injury from an RPG which exploded close to him. He was sprayed by shrapnel but spared serious injury by his Kevlar vest. “The angels must be watching over me,” he told his mother, “keeping me safe.” His mother recounted how this incident did not shake his commitment and he remained upbeat and motivated

“He wanted to be a soldier,” his father, Ronald Shaw, told me. “He wanted to make a difference, to make the world a better, safer place.”

America’s Son
As I sat there in the funeral home parlor, I had plenty of time to absorb the scene before me. I reflected long and hard on the fact that Sgt. Shaw, like all of our soldiers in the Middle East, was not drafted. He voluntarily joined the army knowing that he would be sent into harm’s way. It seemed to me that if he gave his life for us, the least I could do was spend time thinking about what it all meant.

Brig. Gen. Thomas Cole

As friends of the family approached the bier, I could not help but notice how they all seemed to be dwarfed in the presence of his flag-draped coffin. This was partly due to the imposing, somewhat intimidating, presence of soldiers standing at attention on either side, but there was something else. It seemed to me that this regular hometown boy was somehow transformed by having given everything. This became evident when Brig. Gen. Thomas Cole, the highest-ranking officer, approached. After clicking his heels in front of the coffin he slowly and ceremoniously brought his right hand up in a solemn salute. After a brief prayer, he made another solemn salute before doing an about-face and walking away.

It was then that the thought occurred to me how a man such as Sgt. Daniel Shaw is not just the son of a grief-stricken father and broken-hearted mother. The sacrifice he made somehow makes him America’s son. The nation cannot help but embrace him as its own. I was a total stranger, for example, visiting from out- of-state, yet I felt welcome as if I too were a member of the Shaw family as did the many other strangers who filed past the flag-draped coffin offering condolences to his family.

Sgt. Raleigh Heekin
Before leaving the funeral home on that memorable Veterans Day, I had the chance to speak with Sgt. Raleigh Heekin, from Denver, Colo., who served in the 9th Infantry Regiment with Sgt. Shaw. The task of escorting the body from Dover, Del. to Buffalo, NY fell heavily on his shoulders.

“It was the hardest thing I have ever done in the Army,” he said. “It is easier to be shot at than to do that.” I was deeply impressed by the calm and serious demeanor of Sgt. Heekin, especially after hearing his combat stories from Iraq. He was seriously wounded when an IED exploded under a jeep he was riding in.

“The percussion was so violent,” he said, “it blew my body armor off and left two of my men dead.” In spite of what he has been through, he admits that he wants to go back.

Sgt. Heekin also proudly wears the crest which I had seen on Sgt. Shaw’s uniform. He explained the meaning of their motto, “Keep up the Fire.” It actually goes all the way back to the Boxer Rebellion of 1899. At that time, Lt. Col. Lipscomb, another member of the 9th Regiment, while fighting in that conflict, was mortally wounded. With his dying breath, he encouraged his men to “Keep up the fire.”

As I watched Sgt. Heekin explain the history of the century-old-motto with such pride, I realized that Sgt. Daniel Shaw did not die in vain. On this Veterans Day, it became very clear that many others have what it takes to “keep up the fire.”

Three Reasons the Church’s Enemies Hate The Immaculate Conception

The following text is adapted from a lecture Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira gave on June 15, 1973.  It has been translated and edited without his revision.

Note, in this text, he uses the words Revolution and Counter-Revolution as he defined them in his book Revolution and Counter-Revolution. In this sense, the Revolution is a centuries-old process, motivated by pride and sensuality, and therefore egalitarianism and liberalism, that dominates the modern world and seeks to destroy Christian civilization. Counter-Revolutionaries are those dedicated to defeating this process and defending the rights of God. –Ed.

One of the truly Counter-Revolutionary acts of Pope Pius IX’s pontificate was the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception.

There are three reasons the definition of this dogma was especially Counter-Revolutionary and therefore hateful to the enemies of the Church.

First Reason:
An Anti-Egalitarian Dogma
This dogma teaches that Our Lady was immaculate at her conception, meaning that, at no moment, did she have even the slightest stain of Original Sin. Both she, and naturally Our Lord Jesus Christ, were exempt from that rigid law that subjugates all other descendants of Adam and Eve.

Thus, Our Lady was not subject to the miseries of fallen man. She did not have bad influences, inclinations and tendencies. In her, everything moved harmonically towards truth, goodness and therefore God. In this sense, Our Lady is an example of perfect liberty, meaning that everything her reason, illuminated by Faith, determined as good, her will desired entirely. She had no interior obstacles to impede her practice of virtue.

Being “full of grace” increased these effects. Thus, her will advanced with an unimaginable impetus towards everything that was true and good.

Declaring that a mere human creature had this extraordinary privilege makes this dogma fundamentally anti-egalitarian, because it points out an enormous inequality in the work of God. It demonstrates the total superiority of Our Lady over all other beings. Thus, its proclamation made Revolutionary egalitarian spirits boil with hatred.

Second Reason:
The Unsullied Purity of Our Lady
However, there is a more profound reason why the Revolution hates this dogma.

The Revolution loves evil and is in harmony with those who are bad, and thus tries to find evil in everything. On the contrary, those who are irreproachable are a cause of intense hatred. Therefore, the idea that a being could be utterly spotless from the first moment of her existence is abhorrent to Revolutionaries.

For example: Imagine a man who is consumed with impurity. When besieged by impure inclinations, he is ashamed of his consent to them. This leaves him depressed and utterly devastated.

Imagine this man considering Our Lady, who, being the personification of transcendental purity, did not have even the least appetite for lust. He feels hatred and scorn because her virtue smashes his pride.

Furthermore, by declaring Our Lady to be so free from pride, sensuality and the desire for anything Revolutionary, the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception affirmed that she was utterly Counter-Revolutionary. This only inflamed the Revolutionary hatred of the dogma all the more.

Disputing the Doctrine:
A Counter-Revolutionary Struggle

Prof. Plinio Correa de Oliveira commented on the Immaculate Conception.

For centuries, there were two opposing currents of thought about the Immaculate Conception in the Church. While it would be an exaggeration to suggest that everyone who fought against the doctrine was acting with Revolutionary intentions; it is a fact that all those who were acting with Revolutionary intentions fought against it. On the other hand, all those who favored its proclamation, at least on that point, expressed a Counter-Revolutionary attitude.

Thus, in some way the fight between the Revolution and Counter-Revolution was present in the fight between these two theological currents.

Third Reason:
The Exercise of Papal Infallibility
There is still another reason this dogma is hateful to Revolutionaries: it was the first dogma proclaimed through Papal Infallibility.

At that time, the dogma of Papal Infallibility had not yet been defined and there was a current in the Church maintaining that the Pope was only infallible when presiding over a council. Nevertheless, Pius IX invoked Papal Infallibility when he defined the Immaculate Conception after merely consulting some theologians and bishops.

For liberal theologians, this seemed like circular reasoning. If his infallibility had not been defined, how could he use it? On the contrary, by using his infallibility, he affirmed that he had it.

This daring affirmation provoked an explosion of indignation among Revolutionaries, but enormous enthusiasm among Counter-Revolutionaries. In praise of the new dogma, children all over the world were baptized under the name: Conception, Concepcion or Concepta to consecrate them to the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady.

Pius IX:
Bringing the Fight to the Enemy
It is not surprising that Pius IX so adamantly affirmed Papal Infallibility. Very different from those who succeeded him, he was ever ready to bring the fight to the enemy. He did this in Geneva, Switzerland, which then was the breeding ground of Calvinism, which is the most radical form of Protestantism.

When Swiss laws changed to allow a Catholic cathedral in Geneva, Pius IX ordered that a statue of the Immaculate Conception be placed in the middle of the city, to proclaim this dogma in the place where Calvinists, Lutherans and other Protestants denied it more than anywhere else. This is an example of Pius IX’s leadership in the fight against the Revolution.

It is therefore entirely proper that all Catholics entertain a special affection for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which is so detested by the enemies of the Church today.

Who Will Guarantee the Peace?

Since 1990, a crowd has gathered every year at Fort Benning in mid-November to protest against the activities of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (formerly called the School of the Americas) and demand its closure.

The annual event is not so much a protest, but rather a gathering of the remnants of the religious and cultural left who create a sixties-like carnival atmosphere around Fort Benning. The Army’s efforts to “dialogue” with the protesters by opening their doors to any who wish to review the school’s operation has fallen on deaf ears. Instead, some protesters actually want to get arrested by deliberately breaking the law.

Fr. Bourgeois is facing excommunication for openly opposing Church doctrine.

Prominent leftist Maryknoll Father Roy Bourgeois is the leader of the event. He is facing imminent excommunication by the Vatican for openly opposing Church doctrine. Were it not for this recent development, Father Bourgeois’ presence might give the impression that the participants speak for all Catholics.^[1] In a similar way, the numerous priests, nuns and Catholic university students seem to cling to the long condemned tenets of “liberation theology,” a Marxist interpretation of the Catholic faith.^[2]
Such a liberationist vision has nothing to do with true Catholic teaching. In their skewed outlook, the military is a symbol of oppression that must be eliminated, forcing all States to renounce the use of force to secure their rights and maintain order. This pacifist mentality harbors a profound dislike for the discipline, order, hierarchy, sense of duty and other values that are part and parcel of military life.
Using typical Marxist class struggle language, the protesters claim to represent peace and justice in defense of the people. The military men sent to the Fort Benning Institute and those who teach there are said to represent the oppressors.
We ask: Who really guarantees the peace? The pacifists? Or those upholding order?

The military guarantees true peace.

The Military Guarantees True Peace
First of all, we condemn all abuses – on any side. However, we also defend the overwhelming majority of those who have honorably served their country with American aid.
We recognize that throughout history there have always been those who would systematically break the peace, and use violence to impose their rule upon the innocent. Not least among these in our days are those Marxist Latin American revolutionaries, who have wrought so much misery upon their nations. This is the case of groups such as Colombia’s Communist-inspired FARC. Its “tactics” consist of a gangster/terrorist mix of bombings, murder, mortar attacks, drug running, kidnapping, extortion, hijacking, and ambushes of conventional military forces. Last February, an estimated 4.8 million Colombians took to the street – well over ten percent of the population – to demonstrate a whole nation’s rejection of this terrorist group.
When such brutal enemies attack society, it falls upon heroic soldiers who risk their lives to save their countries from the Marxist threat. We should applaud the dedication of those who honorably fight and make the greatest of all sacrifices so that others might live in peace.
According to the traditional definition of Saint Augustine, peace is the tranquility that results from good order in society. The existence of true order is a necessary condition for true peace. The goal of war, and therefore of military life, is not to wage war for the sake of war, but to obtain through war the restoration of peace.

An American Hero
We have a vivid example of such dedication to uphold the peace in a recently deceased soldier. War hero, U.S. Marine and practicing Catholic, Col. John Ripley, died at his home in Annapolis, Maryland on November 1.
During the Easter Offensive in 1972, this legendary Marine hero single-handedly blew up the bridge at Dong Ha in Vietnam and thus prevented a column of 200 North Vietnamese tanks and 30,000 enemy soldiers from overrunning the northern provinces of that country.
Col. Ripley would go on to receive the Navy Cross for his heroism along with numerous other awards. At the time of his death, he was considered one of the most highly decorated Marines. Obituaries of the fallen hero used such words as “legendary.” One of the last tributes he received was to be inducted into the Army Ranger Hall of Fame, the only Marine to receive such an honor.
What defined this great man was the moral nobility of a fight that is entirely based upon ideas of honor, and of force placed at the service of good and turned against evil. It is the joy of serving with courage, strength, discipline, and heroism that allowed him to live in an atmosphere of legend and glory.
Society should applaud such sacrifice rather than deplore it.
Ft. Benning’s Efforts
We have experienced the tragic lesson of communism that imposed (and still imposes) its ideology upon uncounted millions. Our country faces other threats from rogue nations and terrorist organizations. Other nations face similar threats and need our help to defend order. What stands between civilized society and these threats are those brave soldiers that put their lives on the line.
A Call for Fairness
The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) calls upon the protesters to apply a standard of fairness. We find it objectionable that protesters refuse to hear the Army’s side of the story. We call upon the protesters to apply their rigorous criteria for abuse to those on the left. Let them be consistent and condemn the left’s violence with equal and greater vehemence. Let them recognize and condemn the systemic and widespread abuses that have come from Castro’s Cuba, the FARC guerillas and other leftist movements who do not hesitate to use violence against innocent civilians. Let them renounce the Marxist ideologies that inspire these movements.

Pat Tillman, an American hero.

At the same time, we express our admiration for American military men, like Col. Ripley and Pat Tillman, whose sense of honor, discipline and duty so well represents our armed forces and so endears them to our citizens. We resist those who would vilify, not just the soldiers, but the military in general in the name of an outdated and iniquitous political ideology.
Rather than mourn the death of great men, Gen. Patton once said: “We should thank God that such men lived."
In our uncertain times, it is the military that guarantees true peace. As Americans, we can be justly proud of our young troops who symbolize the best America has to offer. While we censure any abuses, we are proud of all those who help others fight against the enemies of Western Christian civilization.
May God protect them in their daily battles around the world as they defend our nation and us.

Footnotes:

1. Fr. Bourgeois’ liberationist views have led him to defy the Church’s teachings on women priests and other issues. After his formal participation in a woman’s “ordination” ceremony, he faces excommunication on November 22.
2. This “theology” originated in Latin America in the late seventies and was condemned by the Church on August 6, 1984, in the "Instruction on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberation,” signed by the then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

Catholics Must Affirm Their Faith in Their Public Lives

Bishops remind Catholics that abortion, homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” are incompatible with receiving Holy Communion

Ever more frequent attempts to drive religion and morality from the public square have left America divided.

On one side are secularists who in varying degrees subscribe to a philosophy based on a supposed right to absolute individual liberty, unrestrained by law, religion, or morality.

Americans who love liberty but abhor anarchy rally to the other side. They understand that true liberty comes from observing divine and natural law.

Dissident Catholics Try to Reconcile the Irreconcilable
The philosophical divide between these two camps underlies America’s Cultural War.

It is found in the clashes in courtrooms and statehouses over abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and, now, homosexuality^[1], civil unions, and same-sex “marriage.” It also influences the debate within the Catholic Church on denying Holy Communion to public officials who vote in favor of these anti-natural acts.

The Church’s perennial moral teaching is that these acts are intrinsically evil, and Catholics who promote or participate in them must refrain from receiving Holy Communion until they repent.

When Catholic bishops remind their flocks of Church teaching, however, militant secularists accuse them of meddling in public affairs, exerting undue pressure, or attempting to improperly influence elections.

Secularists Press Their Attack on the Church…
Citing separation between Church and State, these secularists argue that the Church must abstain from religious pronouncements that influence public life. They claim such Church pronouncements go beyond the purely spiritual and interfere in the domain of the State.

To say that the Church may not make moral pronouncements that have political consequences is to say the Church cannot promote morality. To a greater or lesser degree, every law has a moral dimension, and no moral principle fails to somehow influence law. If the State determines what type of pronouncements the Church may make, it erases the distinction between the spiritual and temporal powers, and the temporal sphere absorbs the religious. The State becomes the sole arbiter of morals. It becomes a sort of State-Church, as in the times of the deified Roman emperors.

…Aided by Liberals in the Church
The secularist attack on the Church’s freedom to preach the Gospel is greatly helped by liberal Catholics inside the Church. Liberal voices often argue

1. that in rebelling against Church teaching on abortion and homosexuality they are following the dictates of conscience. However, conscience is not the source of morality. The objective norm of morality is God’s law known to us through our rational nature (natural law) and by divine revelation (divine positive law). Therefore, although our conscience perceives the natural moral law and makes it present to us in order to guide our action, it does not create this law.

2. that proclaiming Church teaching is imprudent and divisive. However, what divides is not the truth but our position in face of it. Hence the prophet Simeon said of Our Lord that He had come “for the fall and for the resurrection of many in Israel and for a sign which shall be contradicted.” Thus, it is from truth that “out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed” (Luke 2:34). The basis of pastoral action can only be the truth presented in its entirety.

3. that strict fidelity to Church discipline will lead to increased bigotry and persecution against the Church. However, the Divine Master warned that persecution would befall the faithful: “The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:20). And Saint Paul wrote, “All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution” (2 Tim. 3:12).

4. that denying Holy Communion to ostensibly pro-abortion and pro-homosexual Catholics will drive them from the Church. However, we do well to remember that the Savior faced an analogous situation when some disciples were scandalized with His words about the Eucharist and abandoned Him. He turned to the Apostles and asked, “Will you also go away?” To which Saint Peter replied: “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou alone hast the words of eternal life” (John 6:69).

5. that denying Holy Communion to government officials who systematically vote in favor of abortion and homosexuality is to “politicize” the Eucharist and turn the Blessed Sacrament into a weapon. However, it is “manifest, persistent, and obstinate sinners” insisting on their “right” to receive Holy Communion who are politicizing the Eucharist, not the shepherds who remind them of the conditions for the proper reception of the sacrament. Bishops who deny Holy Communion to “manifest, persistent, and obstinate sinners” not only defend the honor of the Blessed Sacrament; they give an example of charity. It is charitable to prevent a public sinner from profaning the Eucharist and being condemned accordingly (cf. 1 Cor. 11:27). It is likewise charitable to the faithful in general, whose faith can be shaken by the scandal of “manifest, persistent, and obstinate sinners” receiving the Blessed Sacrament.

6. that it is unfair to deny Holy Communion to Catholics in favor of abortion and homosexuality, and not to Catholics in favor of the death penalty or the war on terror. However, this is not a valid comparison. The Church has always and everywhere taught that abortion, homosexuality and euthanasia are intrinsically evil. It does not teach the same regarding the death penalty or just war.

Statements of Courageous Bishops Spur Catholics to Action
Pope John Paul II recently exhorted American bishops to “respond to the profound religious needs and aspirations of a society increasingly in danger of forgetting its spiritual roots and yielding to a purely materialistic and soulless vision of the world.”^[2]

Several Catholic bishops have done so in recent declarations. The bishops have reminded Catholics that they cannot serve two masters, receiving Holy Communion and at the same time favoring abortion, euthanasia and same-sex “marriage” (see below). Their statements encourage us to legally and peacefully oppose all the more the evil of abortion, which has killed more Americans than all our wars combined. They encourage us to oppose homosexuality and same-sex “marriage,” as well as a whole range of anti-Commandments being imposed on us.

Catholics Must Stand Up for the Faith
Our Lord expects us to confess our faith publicly: “He that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:33). “He that shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him the Son of man shall be ashamed, when he shall come in his majesty and that of his Father and of the holy angels” (Luke 9:26).

As Archbishop Chaput of Denver stated, in any situation Catholics must “act like it–without caveats, all the way, all the time, with all our heart.”

The bishops who have come to the defense of the Blessed Sacrament and reminded Catholics of their public duties at this crossroad for America represent two thousand years of Church tradition. The voice of the Good Shepherd resounds in the words of these bishops, and it is a voice the faithful recognize (cf. John 10:27).

Ensuring the Freedom of the Church
The valor of these bishops has another important aspect: it safeguards the freedom of the Catholic Church in America.
Indeed, if bishops refrain from upholding Catholic moral teaching in the public square for fear of controversy or sanction, the laity will likely do the same. Secularists will thus be emboldened and attempt to silence the Church definitively.

We pray that this will never happen, but, if one day the Church is deprived of its freedom to preach the full truth of the Gospel in America, the guarantees enshrined in the Constitution will be dead letter.

This year we commemorate the 150th anniversary of the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Let us ask the Immaculate Virgin, Patroness of the United States, to protect America and help all Catholics to proclaim their faith in her Divine Son, and to do this boldly in the public square.

June 13, 2004 – Feast of Corpus Christi
The American TFP

Our Bishops Speak
(This is not a complete list of the bishops who have spoken out. Nor does it include all the pronouncements of the bishops quoted.)

• Bishop William Weigand of Sacramento – The Salvation of Pro-Abortion Catholics Is at Risk

On January 22, 2003, Bishop Weigand warned the faithful in his diocese:

“As your bishop, I have to say clearly that anyone–politician or otherwise–who thinks it is acceptable for a Catholic to be pro-abortion is in very great error, puts his or her soul at risk, and is not in good standing with the Church. Such a person should have the integrity to acknowledge this and choose of his own volition to abstain from receiving Holy Communion until he has a change of heart.
“Just last week, the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith addressed a statement directly to politicians. In part, it stated: Catholic politicians ‘have the right and the duty to recall society to a deeper understanding of human life and to the responsibility of everyone in this regard. Those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life. A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.’
“Issues of the sacredness of human life and other questions of basic morality are matters of natural moral law, not simply of Church teaching. The Vatican statement states: ‘No Catholic can appeal to the principle of pluralism or to the autonomy of lay involvement in political life to support policies affecting the common good which compromise or undermine fundamental ethical requirements.’ There can be no division between public and private morality. It is untenable to say, ‘I am personally opposed to abortion,’ but support someone else's right to kill their unborn baby. Catholic moral doctrine respects the ‘rightful autonomy of the political or civil sphere from that of religion and the Church – but not from morality.’”^[3]

• Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis – Pro-Abortion or Pro-Euthanasia Legislators Should Not Receive Holy Communion

In November, 2003, Archbishop Burke, then Bishop of La Crosse, Wisconsin, warned his flock in a canonical notification:

“A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion or euthanasia, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others. Therefore, universal Church law provides that such persons ‘are not to be admitted to Holy Communion’ (Code of Canon Law, can. 915).…
“They are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, should they present themselves, until such time as they publicly renounce their support of these most unjust practices.”^[4]

• Archbishop Alfred C. Hughes of New Orleans – Those Who Openly Support Abortion, Euthanasia or the Destruction of Human Embryos Are Not Faithful Members in the Church

On January 14, 2004, Archbishop Hughes stated:

“When Catholic officials openly support the taking of human life in abortion, euthanasia or the destruction of human embryos, they are no longer faithful members in the Church and should not partake of Holy Communion.”^[5]

• Bishop John Smith of Trenton – Public Officials Who Support Legislation Contrary to Church Doctrine May Not Claim They Are Devout Catholics

Speaking at the annual diocesan Respect Life Mass on March 27, 2004, Bishop Smith expressed annoyance at the response of public officials who portray themselves as devout Catholics and publicly ignore the teachings of the Church:

“When he refers to himself as a devout Catholic and supports legislation and programs that are contrary to the teaching of the Holy Father and the bishops, he is not a devout Catholic. He cannot compromise what it means to be a Catholic.”^[6]

• Bishop Robert Carlson of Sioux Falls, S.D. – Catholic Politicians May Not Vote for Abortion

At his diocesan Respect Life Mass on October 5, 2003, Bishop Carlson said:

“Regardless of your political party, you cannot be a Catholic legislator at the state level or congressman or senator at the national level and vote for abortion.”^[7]

• Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln – Complete Agreement with Archbishop Burke

The Wanderer reports Bishop Bruskewitz saying:

“We agree completely with Archbishop Raymond Burke in the action he has taken and we would take the same action in the diocese of Lincoln with regard to manifest, persistent, obstinate sinners, including politicians, regardless of which diocese they are from.”^[8]

• Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, Oregon – Pro-Abortion Politicians Exclude Themselves From the Eucharist

In his column of June 3, Bishop Vasa wrote:

“Unfortunately there are some Catholic politicians whose statements, positions, voting records and stances, particularly on life issues, are so far from ‘communion with the Church’ that it is impossible to see how they can qualify for the ‘full communion’ required for admission to full Eucharistic Communion. What they do screams so loudly about what they believe that it drowns out the tininess of the voice with which they affirm what they claim to believe. Their manner of acting excludes them. Where their manner of acting is so clearly in opposition to ‘full communion’ then that lack of communion needs to be first privately and then, if necessary, publicly declared.”^[9]

• Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver – Beware of Profanation

In his May 26, 2004 column, Archbishop Chaput reminded Catholics:

“None of us ‘deserves’ the Eucharist.....
“We need to take the words of St. Paul very seriously: ‘Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord’ (1 Cor 11:27).
“Likewise, if we ignore or deny what the Church teaches, or refuse to follow what she teaches, we are not ‘in communion’ with the Catholic faith. We separate ourselves from the community of the believers. If we receive communion anyway, we engage in a lie.”^[10]

• Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo, N.D. – Catholics Who Separate Their Faith from Their Professional and Social Activities Risk Hell

In a homily delivered April 2004, Bishop Aquila recalls the much forgotten dogma on the existence of hell:

“Jesus Christ has warned clearly within the Gospel that hell is a reality and that we are free to choose it. Catholics who separate their faith life from their professional and social activities are putting the salvation of their souls in jeopardy. They risk the possibility of hell. Any Catholic who stands for a law of man, most especially one which is objectively evil, before a law of God, puts his or her soul in jeopardy of salvation, for they cooperate with a real evil.”^[11]

• Bishop Thomas Wenski, Coadjutor of Orlando – Pilate Did Not Demand to Receive Communion

In his May 3, 2004 column, Bishop Wenski suggests that if Catholic public officials wish to imitate Pontius Pilate, they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion:

“We can explain, for example, why Pontius Pilate, though he personally was convinced of Jesus’ innocence, could not bring himself to ‘impose’ his views on the mob. Yet, he did not demand to participate with the Apostles in ‘breaking of the bread’ as the Mass was first called.…
“Bishops as teachers of the faith have no special competencies in the world of business or politics – and in those worlds we have no regulatory or legal powers. We don’t want such power – nor should we. But precisely as teachers of the Catholic faith we do have competence to tell businessmen or politicians or anyone else for that matter what is required to be a Catholic. It is totally within our competence to say that one cannot be complicit in the injustice of denying the right to life of an unborn child or an invalid elder and still consider oneself a good Catholic.”^[12]

Bishop Wenski finished by saying that “pro-choice” politicians may only receive Holy Communion after ceasing to support abortion.

• Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs -- Conscience Must Be Rooted in Truth, Not Personal Preference

On May 1, 2004, Bishop Sheridan wrote in a pastoral letter to the faithful in his diocese:

“The right judgment of conscience is not a matter of personal preference nor has it anything to do with feelings. It has only to do with objective truth.… A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful.…
“All people have a grave obligation to form their consciences by adhering to the truth, precisely as that truth is found in the natural law and in the revelation of God. As Catholics we have the further obligation to give assent to the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Church.”

Promoters of Same-Sex “Marriage” Are Not to Receive Holy Communion

“In recent months another issue has reached the level of our legislatures. It is so-called ‘same-sex marriage.’ Those who now promote this deviancy often present it as a human right denied homosexual persons and thus illegally discriminating against them. But, in fact, no one has a right to that which flies in the face of God’s own design. Marriage is not an invention of individuals or even of societies. Rather it is an element of God’s creation….
“As in the matter of abortion…Catholic politician[s] who would promote so-called ‘same-sex marriage’…place themselves outside the full communion of the Church and may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled by the Sacrament of Penance.”^[13]

• Archbishop John Myers of Newark – A Perennial Catholic Teaching: Only Those Who Live According to Christian Principles May Receive Communion

In his May 5, 2004 pastoral letter “A Time for Honesty,” after saying that it is dishonest to dissent from Church doctrine and receive Communion, Archbishop Myers points out:

“This is not a new teaching of the Church.… In the second century St. Justin Martyr described the Eucharist in this way: ‘No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.’”^[14]

• Bishop Joseph Galante of Camden, N.J. – Dichotomy Between Private Life and Professional Life Does Not Make Sense
In a May 5, 2004 press conference, Bishop Galante likened the separation between faith and public life to schizophrenia:

“This dichotomy between ‘my private life’ and ‘my professional life’ from a human point of view doesn’t make sense. We’re not schizophrenic. I don’t know how a Catholic politician can say my faith life doesn’t interfere with my political life.”^[15]

___________________

Footnotes:

1. The indiscriminate use of the word homosexual has generated much confusion in the public. Many times it is unclear whether the word refers to someone with same-sex attraction only or whether it refers to someone who practices homosexual acts. This confusion favors the homosexual agenda. We cannot equate people with same-sex attraction who resist it and are chaste with those who engage in homosexual behavior. These are two distinct and essentially different moral realities. Therefore, we use homosexual to refer only to those who practice homosexual acts and thereby deserve moral reprobation.
2. Address of John Paul II to the Bishops of the Ecclesiastical Provinces of Indianapolis, Chicago and Milwaukee, May 28, 2004, www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2004/may/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20040528_ad-limina-usa-reg-vii_en.html.
3. www.diocese-sacramento.org/bishops/bishop.prolife.homily.2003.htm.
4. www.dioceseoflacrosse.com/whats_new/notification.pdf.
5. www.clarionherald.org/20040114/art002.htm.
6. www.dioceseoftrenton.org/department/news_detail.asp?newsid=921.
7. www.sdakotagop.com/newsdetail.asp?iNewsID=241.
8. Barbara Kralis, “Bishop Bruskewitz Would Deny Pro-Abort Pols the Eucharist,” The Wanderer, www.thewandererpress.com/a4-15-2004.htm.
9. www.dioceseofbaker.org/HeartAndMind.htm.
10. “It’s a Matter of Honesty: To Receive Communion, We Need to Be in Communion,” www.archden.org/dcr/news.php?e=81&s=2&a=1976.
11. www.fargodiocese.org/Bishop/Homilies/homily4-24-04.pdf.
12. www.orlandodiocese.org/our_diocese/wenski/columns/politics.htm.
13. www.diocesecs.org/bishopsOffice/PastoralLetterMay2004.pdf.
14. www.rcan.org/archbish/jjm_letters/ATimeforHonesty.htm.
15. www.camdendiocese.org/pdf/new/Press%20Release-McGreevey.pdf.

The Universe is “Too Fine-Tuned for Chance”

Francis Slobodnik of America Needs Fatima interviewed John H. Calvert, a lawyer and a managing director of Intelligent Design Network, Inc. Mr. Calvert has focused on constitutional requirements for teaching origins science in public schools, has been actively involved in the debate across the United States over the definition of science and the content of Science Education Standards, and has advised school boards, school administrators and science teachers regarding the teaching of origins science.

Mr. Slobodnik: Mr. Calvert, how did you become interested in the concept of Intelligent Design and later become co-founder of the Intelligent Design Network?

Mr. Calvert: I studied geology in college and received my first degree in 1962. Then I was in the Army for two years where I became interested in law. After leaving the Army, instead of going for a doctorate in geology, I opted for law. Then I worked with a large regional Midwestern law firm where my focus was on law relating to securities.

I was an agnostic and never questioned evolution until a few years after I became a Christian in 1978. In the early eighties, I came across an article about DNA and the genetic code. It blew me away because I discovered that the genetic code works almost like Morse code. The genetic code functions the same way, using four symbols instead of two, which are chemical components called nucleotide bases. It dawned on me that this genetic code, common to all living systems, could not be explained by a Darwinian mechanism but only by intelligence. I could not imagine how a mechanistic process alone could construct this code.

I began to study the evidence for design and natural phenomenon. I later found an article by a chemist who was critical of the scientific theories of origins. He wrote that when you look at biochemical systems you are inexorably led to an inference of design, which is precisely my thinking. However, he said, “Because I’m a scientist, I am not allowed to explore that hypothesis. It is off limits.” That really opened up my eyes. I thought, “He is disregarding the evidence because of its implications. He is using philosophy rather than science to derive his investigation.” Later I learned that this is an unwritten rule in science and many use it to avoid any discussion of design, or teleology—the study of design and purpose in nature. Design was being disallowed not because of the strength of evidence but because of a philosophy.

In 1999, someone handed me a draft copy of the “Kansas Science Standards.” The science community proposed that the government adopt a no-design materialistic philosophy. “Well,” I thought, “it is one thing for a scientist to embrace materialism, but quite another to ask the State to do it.” I went to the meeting and objected, but I do not think anyone understood my argument. The next person to speak was Dr. William Harris, a biochemist who made the same, yet more eloquent, argument. Jody Sjogren, a zoologist, also agreed with us.

We three later met to discuss our common interest. After looking over the drafts proposed by the science community, we prepared our own draft proposing changes that would be objective and not biased. One of our suggestions revising the definition of science so as to remove the materialistic bias was accepted. It was overlooked by the general public but not the science community. Subsequently, Bill, Jody and I decided to incorporate Intelligent Design Network as a nonprofit organization to promote institutional objectivity in origins science.

Mr. Slobodnik: Could you describe the purpose and mission of Intelligent Design Network?

Mr. Calvert: It is a very narrow mission. Its focus is to seek institutional objectivity in origins science.

In football, you need two teams and a ball. You also need a set of rules and an impartial umpire. Likewise, in a scientific arena, we invite teams to develop competing ideas by using scientific method in a stimulating contest. The job of the institutions of science and public education is to be that impartial umpire. Our organization seeks this goal since origins science is subjective today. The set of rules has been revised so the preconception that only materialistic causes can explain where we come from is accepted. The umpire has been demoted to the position of security guard with the job to keep all ideas out of the stadium except those promoting materialistic worldviews. That is not objective, and therefore problematic.

Mr. Slobodnik: What element in Intelligent Design do you find most persuasive?

Mr. Calvert: The messages in DNA. Each cellular body has a message that is three billion characters long, a complexity recently described as indescribable. Is there a natural explanation to those messages? You find no physical or chemical law explaining that sequence. Any natural mechanism must resort to chance. The question is whether chance can explain those messages.

Chance is a real problem because its probability decreases exponentially as complexity increases. There is now interest in Intelligent Design because we are looking at cells, seeing this level of complexity and actually applying statistics to understand the probability of these things coming together by chance.

Along with biology, scientists are looking into the cosmos itself, finding that the laws regulating the operation of the universe cannot depend upon arbitrary quantities. The law of gravity, for example, can have any quantity, but for life to exist, its strength cannot be even a little bit off or we could not be here. Cosmologists have concluded that the universe is “too fine-tuned” for chance to explain that we have life.

Mr. Slobodnik: Why do supporters of Intelligent Design face such fierce persecution?

Mr. Calvert: Because the materialistic paradigm supports non-theistic beliefs that prefer not to have God intervening from time to time in the natural world. Furthermore, one of the primary non-theistic beliefs is secular humanism, which says that since natural selection and evolution can explain life quite adequately, there is no rational basis for belief in a Creator, which makes us simple occurrences lacking purpose and meaning. There is no purpose of life if we are mere products of a mechanistic cause. So, if science allows Intelligent Design into the equation, it will have a significant effect on religion, ethics, bioethics, government and so forth. That is why Intelligent Design is being suppressed.

Mr. Slobodnik: How does Intelligent Design relate to science and religion?

Mr. Calvert: Science is theoretical and religion is dogmatic. In religion, you cannot argue with certain tenets that are accepted by faith. In science, every explanation should be open to criticism and revision. Science is inherently skeptical—and it should be. For example, evolution’s contention that life is not a product of Intelligent Design should be open inherently to question.

When that “unspoken” rule is used to exclude Intelligent Design, evolution ceases to be theoretical. It becomes a dogma or an ideology, and the use of that “unspoken” rule actually takes evolution out of science and into theology. For evolution to be scientific, it has to accept the challenge of Intelligent Design.

Mr. Slobodnik: Why do neo-Darwinians not want to discuss the subject of Intelligent Design?

Mr. Calvert: Because if they discuss Intelligent Design, they violate their “unspoken” rule, which is why they boycotted the hearings in Kansas. It would be sort of like saying to the Pope, “Let’s discuss the likelihood that the Resurrection did not occur” or, “Let’s discuss the likelihood that there was no virgin birth. Let’s discuss that issue and maybe we will find out that we are wrong.”

Last Updated ( Tuesday, May 27 2008 )

In Defense of the Catholic Social Order

This year we celebrate the 15th anniversary of the launching of the book: Nobility and Analogous

Traditional Elites. This last work of

Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira outlines a true program to bring the world out of the chaos into which it is sinking. It indicates the path for an authentic restoration of Christian Civilization in our days. The book’s eternal truths remain ever timely.

Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira treated the pontifical documents against the errors of our days with a veneration that surpassed enthusiasm. He took a special ardent joy in those documents that fought the egalitarian doctrines originating in the French Revolution which later became the foundation of communism. This can be seen in his first book, In Defense of Catholic Action, and in his last, Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites in the Allocutions of Pius XII.

This year we commemorate, respectively, sixty and fifteen years since the launching of these works. This article will take a special look at the background and timeliness of the book on nobility and elites in society.

1943 – 1993 – 2008

His first work, In Defense of Catholic Action, defended the internal order of the Church, threatened by egalitarian ideas.¹ Professor Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira focused on a doctrinal error, whereby elements of the laity of the Catholic Action claimed for themselves powers and dignities inherent to the Sacred Hierarchy due to the priesthood’s very nature.² The thesis of In Defense of Catholic Action was later confirmed by documents of the Supreme Magisterium of the Church.³

His last book on the role of elites could have been titled, In Defense of the Catholic Social Order. It was the crowning work of a life spent defending the fundamental principles of Christian Civilization. Just as the name of a church appears above its doorway, the name of this incomparable apostle, dubbed “The Crusader of the Twentieth Century,”⁴ is written above an imaginary doorway of an edifice that spans half a century.

Nobility and Traditional Elites

Throughout history, no institution or political party ever did as much for working men as the Catholic Church. Innumerable saints were dedicated to the most needy. One reason the majority of canonized saints are nobles⁵ is their inherent drive to protect the least-favored of society.⁶

Whether in war or at peace, the nobility has given countless examples of heroism and sanctity throughout history. However, since the French Revolution of 1789 the nobility has been the victim of a black legend. Historians and authors constantly defame nobility and, in so doing, degrade the leaders and models of society. This lack of role models has helped the unprecedented religious and moral squalor of our times to advance.

After Charlemagne's great empire was destroyed, primitive Europe was thrown into chaos. The nascent nobility helped pick up the pieces.

The Historical Formation of the Nobility

After his death, the great empire of Charlemagne (768-814) was slowly destroyed by successive barbarian invasions. With these invasions, Europe entered into a long period of upheaval. Cities were destroyed; roads were made impassible; and churches and convents were sacked.

During this nascent period of Christendom, the scorched earth produced practically nothing. There was neither law nor order. These primitive Europeans dared not leave their hamlets, where they survived in fear and poverty. In face of this calamity, the helpless populations clamored for protection.

Responding to these cries, local leaders arose who distinguished themselves in the defense of their families and villages. They manifested true courage in repressing the invading hordes. They also distinguished themselves by their methods of organizing civil life during times of peace – above all in financial and agricultural matters. They acted simultaneously as land managers and war leaders and thus became known as administrators. Later they became known as lords.

Their fortifications were emerging castles; they were the nascent nobility. “From the spontaneous circumstances of history, the figure of the landowner-lord emerged.”⁷

Nascent Nobility

Fortified by charity and the preaching of a flourishing Church, the bonds that formed between the people and their lord closely imitated those which exist within the family.

Each lord’s peacetime duties were to fortify the citadel, organize production, maintain justice and protect the village from wild beasts. The nature of these social relations were such that: “in the past it could be said that in the home, even the most modest home, the father was the king of his children, while at the summit, the king was the father of fathers.”⁸

The history of France, Germany and Hungary shows that these lords joined together under more powerful lords with greater dominions by this same organic process of amalgamation. In periods of peace and war, each tier of this ascending staircase of lords assumed duties which were intrinsically more difficult and noble than those below them. Thus, the lords formed a series of concentric circles of influence that was crowned by the king.

This colossal process of defining and organizing the nobility was fruit of the practice of virtue. Obviously, it also suffered from the miseries inherent to any human group. However, through the Church’s influence and the organic nature of this process even human misery was largely checked. In spite of the black legend of our day, the word noble still evokes the idea of elevated abnegation.

The cruel blade of the guillotine was indifferent to the service that generations of France's illustrious lineages had given to the country.

Revolutionary Republics

In this context, it is entirely reasonable that St. Thomas Aquinas⁹ and Pius VI¹⁰ taught that monarchy is the best form of government. However, they also taught that both aristocracy and democracy are legitimate forms of government which, due to the unique conditions of a given region, may better serve the common good. Thus, a Catholic can perfectly well accept the teaching of St. Thomas and still prefer democracy for his country.

On the other hand, revolutionary republics are different. The disciples of the French Revolution imposed their revolutionary model of republic on almost everyone, crushing the most illustrious dynasties through violence and other means. This tragic process wreaked havoc on the West, humbling and even abolishing its nobility.

In France it persecuted religion, martyred priests and guillotined innocent “wrong-doers,” simply because they belonged to illustrious lineages. The guillotine’s cruel blade was indifferent to the generations of these lineages who had faithfully served their nation.

A leader of this Revolutionary ideology, Diderot, affirmed: “Man will never be free until the last king is strangled by the entrails of the last priest.”

France’s radical model of republic did not end with the French Revolution. As late as World War I, French Prime Minister George Clemenceau praised the crimes of the French Revolution. He stated: “Since the Revolution, we are in revolt against human and divine authority. In one stroke we settled a terrible score on January 21, 1793 [the beheading of Louis XVI].”¹¹ This attitude shocked many faithful Catholics who rejected these republics for years after the Revolution.¹²

The Third Disastrous Way

After the Terror of the French Revolution, timid Catholics acting as “moderates” promoted dialogue and compromise, seeming to forget the revolutionary radicality that had killed so many.

In the name of peace, dialogue and “getting along” they promised a “third way” for French Catholics. This did not consist in openly denying the Faith, but rather in attempting to make a compromise between the Faith and the radical secular republic. These centrist Catholics were indifferent to the fate of legitimate monarchs and nobility. Their policy was to accept the humiliations imposed on the Faith to ensure peaceful coexistence.

Leo XIII, ascending to the Pontifical Chair resolved to pursue this policy… Leo XIII also sacrificed the support of those Catholics who, in the political arena, remained faithful to the legitimate monarchy of the Count of Chambord and, in the religious field, vindicated all or almost all the rights the Revolution had wrenched from the Church. Such Catholics, nostalgic for the political strategies of Pius IX, were the most fervent and enthusiastic partisans of the Papacy, the most intransigent defenders of dogmas.¹³

Anti-Catholic Egalitarianism

The teachings of St. Thomas of Aquinas on the licitness of democracy cannot lead to the acceptance of a republic that is modeled on the French Revolution’s anti-Catholic principles. St. Pius X reaffirmed these truths, during his reign.

Leo XIII defined the basis for his policies in his encyclical Au Millieu Des Solicitudes (February 16, 1892). He brought the majority of Catholics to accept revolutionary republics. Leo XIII, himself, later recognized the disastrous effects of his teachings.

The Revolution had persecuted Religious orders, convents, families and entire regions for their adhesion to the Faith. These fervent Catholics wanted to restore legitimate order. They “staunchly defended the integrity of the age-old rights granted the Church by the tradition born of St. Remigius and Clovis, King of the Franks.”¹⁴ Thus, the effects of Leo XIII’s policy were disastrous. They discouraged the most fervent and combative Catholics.

Many Catholics continued to behold with apprehension the policy the famous Pontiff pursued in France, since they believed that the majority of republicans were imbued with doctrinal errors inherited from the Enlightenment, namely radical egalitarianism and a phobia against the Catholic Church stemming from deism or atheism.¹⁵

Persecution of the Church

The Revolution always takes advantage of their enemy’s goodwill gestures to further persecute them. Thus, Leo XIII’s policy brought new persecutions. Shortly after its establishment, the state expelled religious congregations from France.

Eight years after the publication of the encyclical, Au Millieu Des Solicitudes, Leo XIII recognized his political errors in two letters: one to Cardinal François Richard, Archbishop of Paris and the other to the President of the French Republic, Emile Loubet, to whom he lamented:

For us, having arrived at the evening of life, it would be too great a source of pain and bitterness to see disappear, without bearing fruit, Our good intentions toward the French nation and her government, to whom We have given repeated proofs, not only of Our most scrupulous attentions, but also Our efficacious and special affection.¹⁶

Post-war Europe

World War II and its aftermath presented new challenges for society and the nobility in general.

Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira visited Europe twice shortly after World War II, exactly during the years when Pius XII delivered a series of allocutions on the role of the nobility (1940 – 1958). He encountered a psycho-social panorama which showed him the reason for those wise pontifical discourses.

Postwar Europe was partially in ruins. It was wounded and impoverished. It wanted to return to God and His Church, seeking consolation for its sorrows and orientation for the future. Great Eucharistic congresses, pilgrimages and days of recollection attracted multitudes. Pius XII saw this as the hour of Providence. In the hope that elites would take a decisive role in reconstructing Europe, he delivered his historic allocutions to the Roman Patriciate and Nobility.

Opposing this religious reawakening were many post-war Europeans who put their hopes in so-called economic miracles. The “German miracle” and “Italian miracle” were the most notable. They brought riches and optimism but separated man from the supernatural.

Germany epitomized this false confidence. The deification of Hitler had provoked a world-wide hecatomb. Germany needed reflection to bring it once again into the bosom of Christian Civilization. Instead, Germany trusted in an “economic miracle.”

“Miracles” and Moral Crisis

Political crises are inexorably linked to moral ones. Such European prosperity only made the moral crisis that already existed before World War II worse. The fifties gave rise to the turbulent sixties, whose sharpest explosion was the student revolt at the Sorbonne in May of 1968.

Afterwards, the threats to the world only multiplied. Thus came the development of the Cold War, which was in full-swing in 1968, tragedies arose in the Middle East and the mounting Arab-Israeli war.

Internally, nations face other threats. Immoral customs and frequent divorce have assailed the family to the point that it no longer offers a safe haven from life’s tragedies. Abortion, homosexuality followed by the AIDS epidemic, drug abuse and criminality continue to destroy lives. Today, humanity appears more depressed than in the post-war years. It no longer has any illusions of a panacea to come from new “miracles” that human ingenuity can produce.

Vulgarized by the leveling effects of egalitarianism which allow hedonism and obscenity to triumph, society needs more than ever the mysterious impulse towards perfection that nobility offers. It needs this impulse which would provide an escape from modern chaos. Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira wrote this incomparable work to explain this impulse and show its efficacy.

Professor Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira's incomparable book indicates the path for an authentic restoration of Christian Civilization.

A Book, A Program

The apprehensions we face as we enter the 21^st Century are worse than those of post-war Europe and our hopes can no longer be fulfilled by “economic miracles.” Since the appearance of communism and the subsequent break down of morality and the family, society has gone from abyss to abyss towards a chaos unseen in history.

To face this chaos, man must base himself in unchangeable criteria. Maybe it is time to take a closer look to the perennial teachings of Pius XII on the importance of nobility and elites. Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira’s book offers these teachings in a succinct and accessible way and calls on traditional elites to fulfill their historic mission.

It furnishes solid considerations based in the Magisterium and Church Tradition. Furthermore, considerations based on this foundation are often accompanied by the hope-filled action of grace.

The book’s program is bustling with hope. However, only men can implement this program.

The crisis of our days cannot endure forever. Its end was announced in Fatima, where Mary Most Holy coming from Heaven prophesied the triumph and reign of Her Immaculate Heart.

_____________________

1. The American TFP recently continued this fight with its hard-hitting book, I Have Weathered Other Storms, A Response to the Scandals and Democratic Reforms that Threaten the Catholic Church. Order this book online by clicking here.
2. Cf. St. Pius X, Encyclical Vehementer, 1906.

3. The Encyclicals Mystici Corporis (1943) and Mediator Dei (1947) and the Apostolic Constitution Bis Saeculari Die (1948), understood together, annunciated, refuted and condemned the principal errors which had been refuted by In Defense of Catholic Action.

4. Cf. Roberto de Mattei, The Crusader of the Twentieth Century – Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, Gracewing Fowler Wright Books, Leominster, Herefordshire, 1998.

5. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites, Hamilton Press, October, 1993, p. 519-523.

6. Cf. Allocution of Pius XII to the Roman Patriciate and Nobility of January 9, 1958, published in Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites, p. 458.

7. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites, pg. 95.

8. Ibid, pg. 93-94.

9. St. Thomas Aquinas, On the Governance of Rulers, Gerald Phelan, trans. (London: Sheed and Ward, 1938), Book I, chap. 2, pp. 40-42.

10. Pii VI Pont. Max: Acta (Rome: Typis S. Congreg. De Propaganda Fide, 1871), Vol. 2, p. 17.

11. Apud Cardinal Louis Billot, Les Principes de 89 et Leur Conséquences, Téqui, Paris, p. 33.

12. Cardinal Louis Billot, Les Principes de 89 et Leur Conséquences, Téqui, Paris, p.30 “…[the French Revolution] presented its Satanic character so visibly and expressly that until now nothing in the past compares to it;” J. de Maitre, Du Pape, Discours Préliminaire: A Revolucão Francesa é Satanica em Sua Essência.

13. Op. Cit. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, p. 416.

14. Ibid. p. 415.

15. Ibid. p. 418, footnote #37 continued from p. 417.

16. Ibid. p. 417, footnote #37.

Guaranteeing the Next Generation of Pro-Lifers

America's Future Lies in the Hands of Her Youth, How do We Ensure They Will Respect Life?

 

TFP contingent at the annual March for Life in Washington DC.

Imagine a baby born in 1973, the year of the Supreme Court's infamous Roe v. Wade abortion edict. His mother - rejecting the unnatural sin that cries to heaven for vengeance - gave him life and nurtured it: the labors of her love. Escaping the destiny of prenatal death - the fate of so many of his contemporaries - he is an adult today.

Given his chance to live, will he be found - as an adult - in the ranks of pro-life Americans? Or is he an abortionist, one of those whose hands are stained with the innocent blood of a million and a half babies a year?

Spared from the being a victim of abortion, he should be a defender of life. Indeed, it is his only legitimate choice: to follow natural law and obey the commandment given by God Himself: "Thou shalt not kill."

But what will prevent a child, any child - even the child of pro-life parents - from becoming an abortionist (or a defender of abortionists) once infected with the moral relativism that permeates out society as a cancer?

In order for this child to grow up with the respect for life, the ambience of the home must be imbued with the morality inscribed in the Ten Commandments. The parents' example must be the guiding light that shows the child the way to responsible adulthood - amid the snares of hedonism along life's path.

For only when fortified with moral fiber will he or she be strong enough to resist being "one of the crowd" whose moral relativism ultimately seeks leads to justifying the "right" of the strong to murder the weak: the mother her unborn baby; the son, his frail and elderly mother.

As we work for life, let us remind ourselves that the fight for life, is not simply to stop today's generation of abortionists, but to guarantee the next generation of pro-lifers, by instilling in our children a reverence for life, whose only sure foundation is living a life of moral virtue in obedience to God's commandments.

And if the child whose future formed the basis for these reflections should, alas, be an abortionist today, to him, we address these heartfelt words:

"Once you were an enchanting child, as all babies are. Today you are an abortionist, a killer of babies. Do you not regret your wicked deeds? Do you not see the innocent blood of our children that stains your hands and cries out to God?

"Have you no shame as did our first parents when they sinned against God? Why do you not turn to Him today, seek His forgiveness and His strength never again to murder the innocent? Would you not rather bring children into the world than destroy them? Children you could raise with respect for life to take the place of those you robbed from God?"