Sunday, February 7, 2016

The E.U. and What Crisis Forgot

Today is the anniversary of the signing of the Maastricht Treaty which gave birth to the European Union as we know it today. However, before there was the European Union, there was the European Community, an economic bloc whose senior member was the European Coal and Steel Community. The statesmen who put this seemingly innocent organization together are regarded as the "Founding Fathers" of the European Union, though one would be inclined to believe that they would be horrified by what their child has grown into. That assumption comes from the fact that we are often told, such as in a recent article in the Catholic periodical Crisis Magazine, that these men were all devout and sincere Catholics while the European Union of today seems not only indifferent to Christianity but positively hostile to it. The article in question, "How the EU Betrayed Its Christian Founding Principles" points to the devout Catholic piety of these founders, French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman, French diplomat Jean Bonet, German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and Italian Prime Minister Alcide de Gasperi, how they were inspired by Christian morality, forgiveness, reconciliation, subsidiarity and the old Frankish empire of Charlemagne and how the modern EU falls so very short in all of those areas. The article stresses that these values need to be restored if the EU is to survive.

Frankly, I do not concur as I see the reformation of the EU as impossible and its survival as undesirable. These men may indeed have been very devout Catholics, I cannot say, but I cannot help but be somewhat skeptical. It is true, as the article states, that all but Adenauer are currently at varying points along the path to sainthood in the Catholic Church and Pope Francis has recently "fast-tracked" the cause for the canonization of the first Prime Minister of the Italian Republic Alcide de Gasperi but that is not enough to convince me. As stated before, the Catholic Church has also placed every single deceased pope since the Second Vatican Council on the path to sainthood (one having already achieved it via the innovative "fast-track" process) but considering that this same period has coincided with a rapid decline for Catholicism, I feel justified in my skepticism of the motives behind this sudden flurry of papal saints just as I do the drive to declare the Founding Fathers of the EU to be saints. Looking at either the Catholic Church or the European Union, if all of these canonizations are beyond reproach, one can only conclude that saintly leaders may not make the best leaders. Perhaps the old saying that, "great men are rarely good men" is more true than we would like to believe?

In any event, to focus on Schuman, Bonet and de Gasperi, if their goal was to remake the empire of Charlemagne they, and Crisis Magazine, seem to be forgetting the other key ingredient to that recipe alongside the shared faith of Christendom which was the Emperor. Monarchy is what they have forgotten and partly why I am skeptical of how intelligent, accomplished, devoutly Catholic men thought that they could do without it. For most of Christian history it was taken for granted that having an emperor was as essential as having a pope. It was the emperor who called most of the early councils of the Church, it was the emperor who was expected to defend and advance the faith that the Pope taught and was the combination of throne and altar that was the foundation of Christendom and the basis of what European unity there was in those days. It is simply impossible for me to look at these great statesmen as being too pristine in their piety considering that they were all republicans. If they truly wanted to restore Christendom, why were Schuman and Bonet not working for the restoration of the Kingdom of France, Adenauer for the restoration of the German Empire and why was Alcide de Gasperi not absolutely loyal to his own monarch, King Umberto II?

To me, this is the central, forgotten, element. These men started out with the economic integration of western Europe, based on republican regimes that looked to ensure the peace of Europe, not by forgiveness and reconciliation but by ensuring that all would be economically bound together that any conflict would be impossibly ruinous for all. No, it does not seem to me at all to be an effort to recreate the Europe of the Ages of Faith but rather an effort to gain the benefits of peace and unity by political and economic means rather than sincere faith and shared moral values. The only shared values of the West German, French and Italian republics were their shared glorification of the mob and lip-service to liberal idealism which has no moral foundation, no religious core and can never have as it is based on nothing but pride and vanity. Today, we see the results all too clearly. The mob is so easily manipulated and led astray that today the leaders of the EU can all but ignore them. They feel no connection to their people at all as they feel just as responsible (if not more) for the welfare of people from other countries than they do for their own.

The article in question notes those moral failings of the EU members which have occurred when supposedly "conservative" governments were in power, which is true and it is no wonder. They have a conservatism built on sand, they are playing a rigged game and even in monarchies like Britain or Spain they have adopted the leftist-republican mentality. These parties are shamed into doing what anyone with common sense knows to be wrong but they do it because they are playing on the leftist field, by leftist standards and so they are constantly having to give in so that they may avoid being condemned as "evil" (racist, intolerant, bigoted etc) by the leftist measure of right and wrong. That is also why, if things continue as they are, only those who are truly evil and don't care who knows it and are comfortable with the title will be left standing as the only alternative. We must refuse to play by their rules, we must stop submitting to their double-standards, stop being cowed by their name-calling and stand and fight for our own before we have nothing left to fight for.
Vivat imperator in aeternum!


  1. Good to see you back; I missed you.

  2. This is what makes it difficult for me as a Catholic Christian to know what's right and what's wrong at the present time.

    When I returned to the Church it was because evidence and reason led me there: first to believe that God exists, second to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is His Son, and third to believe that the Pope is Jesus's Vicar. I'm convinced of the evidence and reasoned arguments refuting any non-Catholic position.

    But with regard to the Second Vatican Council I'm a little bewildered, to say the least. On the one hand, I recognize that it's not infallible, that it's not binding upon all Catholic faithful, and that it could be rescinded in its entirety--and I recognize the rotten fruits it's borne.

    On the other hand, evidence and reason lead me to believe that sedevacantism is false--unless I'm unaware of some ecumenical council called by sedevacantist bishops that invoked the Holy Spirit in infallible language to support their claim that Vatican II is heretical and that the Vatican II Popes were antipopes. That and being unaware of an alternative papal line that I have any reason to take seriously as such--that didn't start with a self-proclaimed "Pope" or one elected by a small number of laity who have no right doing so. Maybe not impossible but I'd say very improbable that this has happened--and if not, why take so long if it's both possible and pressingly urgent to expose the false Church for what it supposedly is?

    And canonized saints recognized as such before Vatican II have said that canonizations are infallible:

    From that, I can only conclude that the only legitimate reason to doubt the canonizations of, say, Popes John XXIII and John Paul II is to conclude that Pope Francis isn't the Vicar of Jesus Christ and isn't the visible head of the true Church--which would either mean sedevacantism or else some non-Catholic faith, and evidence and reason has suggested that I reject all of these.

    Therefore I should take it on faith even if I don't understand why. Certainly people can repent on their deathbeds and only God knows what's in their hearts especially at such a time. But it does require effort on my part because my concluding Catholic Christianity (combined with my conclusions about Vatican II above) strongly suggests monarchism as you said in this article--so that I suspect that the West's troubles began even before the French Revolution, with the end of the Holy Roman Empire's power and the subsequent Western desire for a "balance of powers" after 1648. And that being the case, treason against monarchies offends me.

    This sort of thing just makes me hope for the day when Christ retakes the world from Satan, punishes the wicked, spares the righteous, and sorts everything out so that it's made clearer.

    Thank you for this article and letting us know, though, about those founders being on the paths to canonization. God bless.

  3. Man, you just got to blogging again and your spitting fire on republicans.

    1. If only that were literal. Is anybody so stupid as to ignore the advice of a man who can breath fire on them until they comply? I fear the spirits have whispered already, an answer that I do not want to hear.

    2. Demotist thinking is so ingrained that any group from the past less liberal than themselves are either the forgotten Hitler or champions from the good old days. I take modern admiration with a grain of salt, I am afraid.

      A part of me wonders if outright evil isn't a better choice than the prissy, passive aggressive goons wearing the villain's robes.

  4. He's lived! The succession is safe!

    But seriously, please make more videos on YouTube like maybe the politically incorrect truth about Francisco Franco.

  5. Firstly, good to see you again, MM. Stay in good health for your sake - and ours.

    Secondly, I think we all need to start being realistic and honest with ourselves. Making Christendom again isn't going to be easy. To be quite frank I think Traditionalist Clergy with legitimate lines of succession need to be brought together under a Caesarean strong man of the Old Blood so that Church can be restored.

    Christendom was made from the grass roots by the Old Faith and it will be rebuilt from the ashes the same way.

  6. I feel that the fight is just getting into full swing. This isn't over, and who knows, the EU may soon crumble into dust. This Syrian migrant fiasco with Merkel is bringing everything into the open.

  7. Good to see you back sir. The referendum campaign is hotting up here in the UK and from what I can see we have a very good chance of getting out of the EU mess. That said, Cameron will still be Prime Minister and he will no doubt want to punish us post referendum.
    I am a bit worried as some individual Eurosceptics seem to expressing republican sentiments, blaming the monarchy for all the ills caused by the EU. They keep citing the signing of the Lisbon Treaty and that the Queen 'agreed' to it, although I would point out that no monarch since Queen Anne has used the power of veto and today the Queen would have to go through politicians if she ever wanted to use it. Republicans moan when the Queen doesn't do something and moan when she does.
    That said Nigel is still as loyal as ever to Her Majesty (he continually expresses it when talking about Jeremy Corbyn and his policies) and most of the grassroots members of UKIP are monarchist from what I can see so have no fear. The main focus of the referendum seems to be immigration, security and sovereignty.

  8. Nice article! But didn't you mean Jean Monnet instead of Jean Bonet?

  9. "I feel justified in my skepticism of the motives behind this sudden flurry of papal saints"

    2014 I felt justified in concluding that beyond any shadow of the doubt the canoniser of Wojtyla and Roncalli was not a canoniser infallibly of saints, i e not a Pope. I still feel the same.

  10. Adenauer may have been German, but let's face it: he should have been advocating for the Holy Roman Empire, or at least the dual monarchy and the Austro-Hungarian Empire instead of the militaristic and Lutheran-Calvinist Prussian/German Empire. That would have meant convincing the Allies to leave Hungary in the Western zone and Austria to first permit the re-entry of the imperial family and both countries to take back the Habsburgs. The family, by the way, has enjoyed much success in the European Parliament; even Archduke Otto was an MEP. Another member is currently Hungary's ambassador to the Holy See.

    The flag was based on the twelve stars of the Virgin, for what it is worth.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...