Brigadier-General Stand Watie: Cherokee Indian and Confederate cavalry commander

Stand Watie (also known as Standhope Oowatie or Degataga meaning "stand firm") was a Cherokee and a Christian born in Georgia in the year 1806, the year when, in Europe, in the face of Bonaparte’s attacks, the Holy Roman Empire was declared at an end.

By 1820, almost one third of the Cherokee nation had been relocated west of the Mississippi River. Their lands in Indian Territory (modern-day Oklahoma), prosperous before the War of 1861-65, were in ruins thereafter. Many of these Indians were Christians and excellently educated.

They were US citizens, many became wealthy, and many become plantation and even slave owners.

The Cherokee people established a central government in 1827, electing John Ross (1796-1866) as their principal chief. He spoke out against the removal of the Cherokee from their homeland and strongly opposed the illegal Indian Removal Acts of President Andrew Jackson.

Cherokee Chief John Ross

Watie recognized Andrew Jackson’s determination to proceed with the ethnic cleansing of the Cherokee people from the south-eastern United States. The Supreme Court struck down the Indian Removal Acts as unconstitutional. However, President Jackson famously responded:


"The Chief Justice [John Marshall] has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it".


But it was the President’s job to enforce it!

In defying the Constitution, Jackson was a traitor.

But he had might over right on his side and so survived his treacherous betrayal of the US people and Constitution.

President Andrew Jackson, the founder of the Democrat Party.
He illegally sent thousands of Cherokee to their death west of the Mississippi.

This was the founder of the Democrat Party of the United States.

By mid 1837, many Cherokee had been moved to Indian Territory. The rest of the tribes, excluding some who fled to the mountains, were forcibly removed from their homes and shipped West in 1838 on the infamous “Trail of Tears” upon which many perished thanks to the illegal Acts of Jackson.

A portrait of a Cherokee chief

Thousands of them, mostly women and children, died in the vast open wilderness amidst a howling winter and sometimes brutal Federal soldiers, en route to their new homeland.

It was an attempted genocide.

Watie and others were at first seen as collaborators and some were murdered. Eventually, these troubles ended and Watie was appointed to the Cherokee Tribal Council and served from 1846 to 1861.

Shortly thereafter, Watie enlisted in the Confederate army.

Of the five "Civilized" Tribes – Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole – most fought for the Confederacy.

A successful planter and journalist, Watie supported the Confederacy from the start. His influence helped lead the Cherokee nation into a formal alliance with the South. He and many fellow Cherokees gained renown for their battle exploits – renown largely ignored in traditional American histories.

Watie’s own wife, Sarah Bell Watie, and their children had to flee into North Texas in the cold of winter.

Sarah Bell Watie, wife of General Watie

He was promoted Colonel and organized and commanded the Cherokee Mounted Rifles. They earned a fearsome reputation at such battles as Wilson’s Creek in Missouri and Pea Ridge in Arkansas.

At the latter, Watie’s cavalry, though outnumbered, charging into the face of blazing Yankee cannon, captured them, then turned them on their fleeing Yankee enemy.

Watie eventually commanded the Confederate Indian cavalry made up mostly of Cherokee, Creek and Seminole.

He led Confederate forces to victory in the Second Battle of Cabin Creek where he captured an enormous Federal wagon train.

He was promoted Brigadier-General in 1864.

He was the last Confederate general to surrender, undaunted and unvanquished, on 23 June 1865, nearly three months after the surrender at Appomattox. At Fort Towson in the Choctaw Nation's area of the Indian Territory, Watie signed a cease-fire agreement with Union representatives, becoming the last Confederate general in the field to stand down.

Watie returned to financial ruin and a home burned to the ground by Yankees during the war. He tried to restore his ruined Grand River property which was devastated by the war and met with but little success. Exhausted by the war, Watie nevertheless committed his resources to the education of his children.

The Confederate Cherokees saw their land stripped away from them by a vengeful Yankee government.

In 1863, Stand Watie was elected principal chief of the Cherokee Nation.
Stand Watie died on September 9, 1871. He had outlived all but two of his children.

A friend wrote to Watie’s widow in these moving terms:

"I read with sadness of the death of your much esteemed husband. My tenderest sympathy is yours. I trust you have consolation from a Higher Power than earthly friends for the loss of one so dear to you. His labours on earth have not been in vain, he has done much lasting good for his country and country-men, that will never be forgotten but handed down to the future generations in the book of history for them to follow in his foot-steps and to aspire to leave their foot prints on the sands of time as well as he."

The grave of Brigadier-General Stand Watie

All ye holy saints of the Americas, pray for Stand Watie and the Cherokees deceased!

...

"I serve" or "I shall not serve"? Master and servant - or mere employer and employee?

We all are - or should be - servants: servants of others and of each other.

In so doing we imitate the very God Himself who, though He was the Creator of all things, did not shrink from making Himself the servant of His own creation.

In the famous Ford Maddox Brown painting (left), the Second Person of the Holy, Undivided and Everlasting Trinity washes the feet of His own disciples, setting a famous example for us all.

At the great feast of the institution of the Holy Eucharist, on Maundy Thursday, this great act of humility and love is re-enacted as the celebrant priest washes the feet of 12 members of the congregation.

The choir sing the famous words based upon the Gospel of St John - Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est - "Where charity and love are, there is God" and the Last Supper is remembered when the God of earth and heaven gave His own precious Body and Blood as food for His children.

This is the heart and centre of the Christian religion.

In it is contained the most noble of all its teachings: we are all to be servants of each other as God made Himself our servant and as the Son is servant to the Father and, in turn, the Father serves the Son.

Just as the Father serves so does a Christian father and, indeed, a Christian king or master.

Indeed, the relationship between the Father and the Son and between God and His people is the model for the relationship between every master and every servant.

The Christian master is a father to his servant. They obey him and he protects and cares for them. Their bond is a bond of mutual charity, loyalty and fidelity. It is a quasi-familial, paternal relationship, just as the relationship of priest and people is a paternal relationship.

Such was the model of the master-servant relationship that obtained in old Christendom. Think of good King St Wenceslaus fetching food for the poor and warming the feet of his servant or of King St Louis of France or of any of the saintly kings of Christendom.

A stylized view of Good King St Wenceslaus and his servant

Nowadays, this relationship - based upon the divine - is mocked, derided and scorned to ridicule and falsely caricatured as a relationship of exploitation, venal peculation and cruelty by the master and of craven, stupid subserviance on the part of the servant.

What a shameless lie!

This, indeed, is what the relationship became when it ceased to be based upon the divine charity and instead became the pedestrian, mundane and loveless relationship of "employer" and employee".

No longer was the relationship familial but merely a cold, sordid relationship of money, exchange, trade and mutual exploitation.

Old master was replaced by new "employer" who cared only for money and kept his "employees" only so long as they were useful to him.

The employer sought only to maximize his profits through hiring employees who, once no longer useful, were "let go" and dispensed with as mere surplusage to fend for themselves.

The employee sought to extract from his employer all that he could in wages and recognised his authority for only so long as it suited him.

The employers used the employee as a mere commodity and the employees combined together to squeeze out of the employer every last penny that they could through strikes and walk-outs.

The familial and paternal relationship of mutual love, respect, loyalty and fidelity for life was gone - smashed by the preposterous Victorian "Political Economists" with their "hidden hand" of mutual exploitation which led to the ghastly mills, factories and workhouses of Victorian England.

Later smashed still further was it by the rise of the "wild-cat" striker Trade Unions, eschewing all responsibility in the name of the Worker's Marxist paradise. Reacting to the new evil of employer Capitalism came the devilish creed of Communism.

Reacting to the new evil of employer Capitalism came the devilish creed of Communism.

Such became the new relationship between men: mere employer and mere employee. Love died and dull exploitation replaced it.

Yet modern man fatuously rejoices in these new, loveless titles!

This was even - ridiculously - called "progress"!

The idea of any man serving another man as "servant" to his "master" was laughed to scorn. The master no longer felt any responsibility to his servant and the servant no longer felt any loyalty to his master.

The very idea of serving others was cast aside in favour of serving only oneself - the creed of Hell. Like their new master, the Devil, men said "I shall not serve".

Egalitarianism again raised its ugly, diabolical head, for where all are equal then none can appeal to any higher authority for justice and the rule of might conquers the rule of right.

As Gilbert and Sullivan put it so aptly "When every body's somebody then no-one's anybody".

In fact, of course, hierarchy is the natural order for mankind since that is how heaven is and will be. God intends that some should be masters and some servants, so that all can appeal to a higher authority, but both are really servants of a different sort, serving each other and others, in differing ways.

The motto of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst describes well the role of a Christian leader: "Serve to lead".

"Serve to lead"
- the motto of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst

Leadership is a form of service to others. A Christian leader seeks first to serve and not to be served, just as his master, Christ the King, came to serve rather than to be served.

So it was that our Lord commended the gentile Centurion who came to him and asked that our Lord heal his servant. He said these profound words:

"Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, and is grievously tormented. And Jesus saith to him: I will come and heal him. And the centurion making answer, said: Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof: but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed. For I also am a man subject to authority, having under me soldiers; and I say to this, Go, and he goeth, and to another, Come, and he cometh, and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it".
[Matt 8:6-9]

Our Lord marvelled at this, the Centurion being a gentile.

"And Jesus hearing this, marvelled; and said to them that followed him: Amen I say to you, I have not found so great faith in Israel". [Matt 8:10]

"I have not found so great faith in Israel"
- the prayer of the Good Centurion was Domine, non sum dignus - "Lord, I am not worthy..."

Now we say the Centurion's prayer 3 times at Mass whenever we prepare to receive the Holy Eucharist in Holy Communion:

Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo et sanabitur anima mea.

"Lord, I am not worthy to receive you under my roof, say but the word and my soul shall be healed."

This is the prayer of a true Christian master, officer and leader who, loving his own servant as a son, is himself a servant to others.

This is how all Christian masters and leaders should be, whether they are kings, military officers, professional men, or political or business leaders.

They should be as fathers to their servants, not merely employers to their employees.

One gets something of the flavour of the old Christian bond between master and servant, in an amusingly eccentric English way, in the relationship between Lord Peter Wimsey, and his butler, Bunter, the aristocratic detective and his servant, both creations of English writer Dorothy L. Sayers. [Note for American readers: only the sons of Dukes and Marquesses have the courtesy title of "Lord" before their first name and family surname. A life peer in the House of Lords has the title of "Lord" before his family surname only. These days plenty of ignorant English writers get this wrong.]

Unlike other "employers" Wimsey will never part with Bunter and always provides for him. Bunter, on the other hand, saved Wimsey's life in the trenches of the First World War, as he lay wounded in no-man's-land.

It is unquestionably a relationship of love between master and servant, a relationship now mocked by "progressive" - and ignorant - modern man. Lord Peter Wimsey and Bunter share a mutual love and respect which modern secularist man - in his utter ignorance and clod-like inability to think beyond himself - simply cannot fathom.

Lord Peter Wimsey and his manservant, Bunter,
share a mutual love and respect which modern secularist man - in his utter ignorance
and clod-like inability to think beyond himself - simply cannot fathom.

HRH the Prince of Wales, the heir to the throne, has, as his motto, the German phrase Ich Dien which means simply "I serve". It is a profoundly Christian idea. Even the heir to the throne must regard himself as a servant.

Ich Dien
is the motto of HRH the Prince of Wales and means "I serve".
Even the heir to throne must regard himself as a servant.

Like a good father, the Christian master does not throw out his servant when he is no longer useful but rather cares for him in his old age remembering the good service that the servant did when he was fit and young.

He does not merely dump him upon the resources of the state, community and society as the modern employer does once he no longer has any use for the employee.

Likewise the servant shows a filial loyalty and love for his master just as God the Son does for the God the Father, as a son does for his father and as a good religious does for his Father superior.

Ultimately, the good Christian master shows the same paternal love for his servant as the father does even for his prodigal son, never casting him off but bearing with him even when he is froward, wasteful or neglectful.

Bartolomé Esteban Murillo. The Return of the Prodigal Son. 1667-1670.

What a disaster for mankind it was when the wonderful relationship of the Christian master and the Christian servant was consciously rejected.

Like so many evils, the beginnings of this rejection is to be found in that cataclysm that historians call the Protestant Reformation. Fortunately, not all Protestant masters rejected the old idea and many continued to treat their servants in the old, charitable way. It was the so-called Enlightenment and the later Industrial Revolution which eventually deprived the world of the beautiful old relationship that God intended to exist between a master and his servants.

The Servant King

...

Animal "rights" sentimentalism: irrational and often lethal

Coochy, coochy, coo - nice sharky warky!

Mr Shark, having just painted the Sistine chapel, written Dante's Inferno and built Chartres Cathedral, is on his way to file suit at the US Supreme Court in defence of his "right" not to have his piece of the ocean trespassed upon by man.

Err...

The debate on so-called "animal rights" continues - and plenty of good people are falling for the sentimental and irrational arguments with which the animal liberationist revolutionaries try to deceive people.

There is simply no teaching of the Church that confers rights upon animals and plenty that say the opposite. Animal rights is an entirely invented and modern concept that has no basis in Christian doctrine - or truth - whatsoever.

Thus, to pretend that animals have rights is to be in disagreement with God, the Creator of all creation, including animals.

If an animal had a "right" then it would have to have at least the potential ability to enforce that right - but it can never do so because animals are not rational creatures.

The fact that one finds one's cat or dog cuddly or "nice" does not confer rights on them.

Indeed, it is the argument of the animal liberationists that creatures have the right to life only if they are "wanted" and thus that humans can be discarded if they are not wanted i.e. if they are no longer "cuddly" or "nice".

Silly sentimentalising plays straight into the hands of this extremely odious ideology, just as all those intensely silly people in the 1920s (women as well as men) fell for the odious nonsense that Hitler spewed forth. They exchanged logic and rationality for woolly sentiment and irrational emotional feeling.

Not wanted?
Then, according to animal liberationists - like vegetarian Adolf Hitler - you have no rights!

Look what the result was: the utter horror of the death camps and vile experiments on human beings.

On the other hand, human beings do have obligations toward God's creation and are obliged not to abuse God's creation, including animals, such as is happening on a vast scale in all too many factory farms that produce genetically-modified animals for use in fast-food outlets.

That is a serious abuse of God's creation and should certainly be banned. It is bad for humans: morally, intellectually, spiritually and digestively.

But man's obligations towards creation do not create "rights" for animals and any attempt to argue for such "rights" is inevitably incoherent. Why stop at baby seals or horses or cats or dogs? If they have rights then why not poisonous spiders, rats or even bacteria?

There is no logical reason to stop at one's favourite pet, or animals that one finds "cute", like baby seals, save that they are "wanted" (because cute) and so we are back to having rights only when "wanted" and no rights when "unwanted" - the classic argument for abortion and euthanasia.

A monster croc - cute, cuddly, "nice" and friendly???

The only solution is that humans have rights and animals do not, but that humans have obligations toward God's creation.

Take Rodeo, for example.

Every time a horse is broken in it requires a type of "Rodeo" since someone has to ride the horse until it is tamed. It is, rather, a question of how it is done.

It can be done cruelly (which is usually an ineffective way of doing it) or it can be done sympathetically, which is usually a more effective way. But there will very often be bucking and resistance from the horse, even for the best and cleverest of horse-tamers.

 

Rodeo and horse-breaking are not necessarily cruel

No-one can rationally suggest that the age-old practice of "breaking-in" or taming a horse is "very cruel".

Moreover, animals attack and eat each other. They often do so very savagely. It's a fact of life. Indeed, that is another difference between men and animals - animals are naturally savage, men are not (although they can become so if they choose).

Animals have to be tamed or contained. That is their natural condition. It is not cruel or savage for men to tame animals nor, indeed, to hunt them and eat them. Indeed, God made the animals for our use - as pets, for work, for food and, indeed, also, for their simplicity.

A wild cat or dog is by no means "cuddly" or "nice". However, they do not choose to be wild, as some men do. That is because they cannot choose at all since they are not rational beings. Thus they cannot have "rights".

A man who chooses to be wild can have his rights curtailed but, since he remains a rational being (however wild or sinful), he never loses all his rights. But an animal is not rational and so cannot have rights at all, wild or tame.

No amount of silly sentimentality can overcome the facts of nature. Indeed, it can often lead to dangerous consequences as happens when silly sentimentalists think they can tame wild animals by lovey-dovey, sweet-talking to them, as if they were rational creatures.

Some foolish people have even attempted to do so and have got themselves and others killed or maimed into the bargain.

Try hugging a grizzly bear - silly sentimentality can be lethal!

One simply has to face the facts of life: silly sentimentality can be lethal - literally.

...

The HFE Bill: "the lights of a perverted science"

The official summary of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill describes it as providing for revised and updated legislation on assisted reproduction and for changes to the regulation and licensing of embryo use in research and therapy.

A draft Bill, the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, was scrutinised by a joint committee of both Houses of the UK Parliament. The Bill includes provision for research into different types of embryos, and proposes changes to definitions of legal parenthood for cases involving assisted reproduction.

New technologies, especially in relation to the creation of embryos from donor cells, have since come into existence and the present Bill deals with some of them and with the creation of inter-species embryos which the Bill terms “admixed embryos”.

The Bill provides for the mixing of human and animal genes, for the creation of embryos for spare parts for other siblings, for cybrids and chimerae, and for the creation of embryos for same-sex couples without any requirement for a father.

A bundle of joy?
- or a mere bundle of flesh to be cannibalised for others?

Lord Patel and Lord Walton moved two amendments relating to consent for the provision of human tissue for research in the course of the Report Stage legislative debate in the House of Lords.

The first amendment concerned human tissue that,either, had in the past been donated for research, or that could not be traced to the donor and for which no express consent had been given either for or against its use in the creation of human or inter-species embryos.

The amendment proposed that the law should be changed to permit the use of tissue donated for research on these bases to create human and human-animal inter-species embryos for research.

The second amendment proposed that it should be possible for children’s tissue to be given for the creation of human and human-animal embryos for research with only the consent of their parents.

These were termed, respectively, “presumed consent” and “substitute consent”.
The argument behind the amendments was that they were needed in order to facilitate research into serious diseases and that the continued ban upon such tissue use (save with the donor’s consent or for his or her own therapeutic benefit) would unduly hamper scientific research.

Initially, Baroness Royall, for the government, took the view that the amendments were potentially incompatible with the HRA and the Convention.

How would Baroness Royall feel if scientists starting experimenting on her or stripping her out for "spare parts"? But she is quite happy for the same to be done to embryonic humans and for research to be done on children without their consent...

Patel and Walton responded robustly and the government later altered its position, and Lord Darzi, in an letter to peers, conceded a “compelling case” for removing some of the consent restrictions and agreed that such a case provided a proper exception to any potential incompatibility with the Convention.

There was little discussion in the Commons debates and Schedule 3 of the Bill contained the provisions of presumed and substituted consent as envisaged by the amendments.

These now provide, in contradistinction to the provisions in the 1990 Act, for the use of cells for the creation of “admixed embryos” if:

(1) The donor of stored material is dead (or is reasonably believed so to be); or
He is not dead but cannot be traced or identified; or

(2) A prospective donor is not legally competent to consent (either because a child or because mentally or physically incapacitated).

In addition, Schedule 7 is amended to allow an amendment to earlier legislation to the effect that research will not be regarded as intrusive to the extent that it consists in the use of a person’s human cells to bring about the creation in vitro of an embryo or human admixed embryo.

This is the direction that a society begins to take when it no longer draws any distinction between humans and animals, when it no longer recognises the uniqueness of man and his creation in the image of God and in the existence of free will, right and wrong and the human spirit or soul.

It marks the return to the long, dark road down the tunnel of dehumanisation, degradation and – after many foul vicissitudes – death.

We must work to save ourselves from a return to the darkness and pray, pray, pray for protection from what Winston Churchill once rightly called:

“the abyss of a new Dark Age made more protracted still by the lights of a perverted science”.

He fought against "the abyss of a new Dark Age made more protracted still by the lights of a perverted science".

...

"A-hunting we shall go": why the hunting ban is wrong and the "animal rights" revolution is another false ideology

Ever eaten a roast?

Yes?

Well, then, you're an accomplice to murder according to the loony "animal rights liberationist" revolutionaries.

This is the new stage of the Revolution, with a capital "R".

The exploitation of workers led to the error of Communism - and we know how disastrously that failed.

The exploitation of women led to the error of Feminism - and we are currently living that disastrous failure.

Animals are also part of God's creation and they and the environment should not be abused but such exploitation has led now to the error of Animal Liberationism which claims that animals have rights, just as humans do, and should be legally accorded them.

Under the extreme versions of this false ideology, a wanted animal, such as a cat or a dog, has more right to live than an unborn child, guns should be banned as they are used to kill animals and abortion should be allowed where a child is not wanted. Thus the ideology often gives more rights to animals than to humans.

It follows that the unwanted sick and elderly are also at risk under this ideology.

This is the duplicitous logic of the "animal rights" revolutionaries. There are even Catholic clerics who have fallen for this bizarre logic and who even retail the same nonsense in their sermons.

This is the philosophy that led to the ban on hunting.

What are guns for? They are used to hunt food and to eliminate verminous animals. They can, occasionally, be used in self-defence, where necessary. Self-defence is not - like abortion - murder or manslaughter.

If the pursuit of animals is also objected to then one must ask "on what ground?". If the answer is because they are God's creatures, then the next question is this "are all God's creatures, e.g. flies or poisonous spiders to be exempt thereby from being killed? Are cows and pigs also to be exempt from being used for food?".

If the answer is - ridiculously - "yes", then the next question is "why?".

The only answer can be because they have a "right to life" akin to that of humans, in which case there is an equality being made between humans and animals which is plainly wrong since humans have a rational soul and are made in the image and likeness of God, with free will, and animals have only an animal soul, and do not have free will or rational souls.

Since the Fall of Adam and Eve, man has had to hunt for his food. It is a natural activity. Moreover, a hunted animal has virtually no cholesterol in it so that it is actually healthier for you than farmed produce.

NORMAL

The technical banning of all forms of hunting has been effected in this country largely on the basis of so-called “animal rights”.

The more extreme animal rights movements are revolutionary in nature and seek to overthrow the legal and moral distinction between men and animals, claiming that all species should be accorded equal status in law and morality.

Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University in the USA is an advocate of extreme animal rights and believes that new-born children may have less right to life than wanted animals do, like a favourite cat or dog.

TOTAL AND UTTER WEIRDO
Professor Peter Singer thinks that a wanted animal has more right to live than an unwanted human child

The issue is thus not only one of the enjoyment, or otherwise, of hunting. There is a deeper philosophical and theological issue at stake here.

Is man different from the animals?

That is the question.

In truth, the answer is obvious.

What species, other than man, built the great Cathedrals, or painted the Sistine chapel, or wrote Dante’s Commedia Divina, or devised Justinian’s law code, or wrote the works of Plato and Aristotle or of St Thomas of Aquinas or came even close to producing anything like the great works of literature, art and architecture? Who but man devised modern science, medicine and mathematics?

“What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? Or the son of man, that Thou visitest him? Thou hast made him but a little less than the angels, Thou hast crowned him with glory and honour; and Thou hast set him over the works of Thy hands: Thou hast put all things under his feet.”

So sings the Psalmist (Ps.8:4-6).

Man is not merely an animal. He is made in the likeness and image of God with free will and the power to subdue nature and to create great things and to do great things.

Animals simply do not have anything like that power.

They do not have rational souls but only animal souls. They have been provided by God for man’s benefit. Of course, it is not good for man to be cruel toward them or to abuse the natural world but that does not confer upon the non-rational world the human and rational idea of rights, let alone human rights.

It does mean that we should oppose the extreme kinds of bizarre factory-farming practised by some big food multi-nationals which is plainly an abuse of God's creation and, moreover, is bad food for us and our children. But this does not confer legal rights upon animals. It is, rather, an enforceable obligation imposed upon men not to abuse creation - a very different thing.

COMMON, OR GARDEN, WEIRDO

Virtue and vegetarianism are not synonyms. Indeed, the great mass-murderer, Hitler, was himself a vegetarian, a teetotaller and a non-smoker, let us not forget.

Vegetarianism, teetotalling and non-smoking are all morally neutral. But let us not forget that evil men can adopt them, too. They do not, of themselves, confer virtue, though they may do so if undertaken as a sacrifice and a discipline, especially if done for good and devout religious motives.

But that is a very different thing from doing so out of a false belief in the equality of men and animals, or out of an excessive devotion to extending one’s life span, ignoring the next world, our true and eternal destination.

Wonderful creations of God though animals are, they are not to be equated with man, God’s special creation, made in His image and likeness.

Icon of St Irenaeus of Lyons

"The glory of God is living man” wrote St Irenaeus of Lyons.

Indeed he is, for he is the reflection and image of God, free to choose good and evil and destined, if he chooses good, to spend a glorious and bountiful eternity with the God who created nature for our benefit.

"The glory of God is living man" - St Irenaeus of Lyons
and here depicted by Leonardo da Vinci.

...

Martinmas: remembering our dead on the Feast of the soldier-saint on Remembrance Day 2008

We shall remember them...

The British tribal rite of honouring the war dead is still second to none and captures exactly the feeling that ought to be experienced when we consider all those who gave their lives in war - especially those young lives cut off in their prime.

This is one thing the BBC still does well:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7718227.stm

I can never help but think of the young lives lost in the First World War - that useless, pointless war brought about by the enemies of civilisation, of peace and - above all - of Christianity. Having started the war, the enemies of Christianity then did their level best to prevent it ending until every Christian nation had either toppled (like Austria-Hungary) or else had been bled half to death.

I think of young men like 19-year-old Roland Leighton, the poet and fiancee of Vera Brittain, who died of wounds on the Western Front.

"Goodnight, though life and all take flight, never goodbye..."
Inscription on the grave of Roland Leighton, the 19-year-old English poet.

AT A CALVARY NEAR THE ANCRE
(Wilfred Owen)

One ever hangs where shelled roads part.
In this war He too lost a limb,
But His disciples hide apart;
And now the Soldiers bear with Him.

Near Golgotha strolls many a priest,
And in their faces there is pride
That they were flesh-marked by the Beast
By whom the gentle Christ's denied.

The scribes on all the people shove
And bawl allegiance to the state,
But they who love the greater love
Lay down their life; they do not hate.

St Martin of Tours, pray for our noble dead!


...

Aha! But what about the secret supplement, eh? In fact, the "Secret Supplement" to the Reichskonkordat shows nothing extraordinary.

One absurd website calling itself “No beliefs” (which says it all, folks, does it not?) claims that the Concordat includes a Secret Supplement and “naturally, this is omitted on Catholic sites”.

Well, Messrs “No Beliefs” you are lying again (so what’s new? Ho, hum…).

Here is yet another “Catholic site” that is more than happy to put the "Secret Supplement" onto site for all to see.

“No Beliefs” claims that it shows that “by 1933 the Vatican knew that Hitler was going to re-arm in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles, and wanted to help him keep it secret”.

It shows no such thing.

Here’s what it says:

“Secret Supplement

In case of a change in the present German armed forces in the sense of the introduction of universal conscription, the induction of priests and other members of the regular clergy and the orders into military service will, with the understanding of the Holy See, be arranged within the framework of approximately the following guiding ideas:

a) Students of philosophy and theology at Church institutions who are preparing themselves for the priesthood are to be freed from military service and the preparatory drills for it, except in the case of a general mobilisation.

b) In the case of a general mobilization clerics who are employed in the diocese administration or the military chaplaincy are freed from reporting for duty. This applies to ordinaries, members of the ordinariate, provosts of seminaries and Church residences for seminarians, professors at the seminaries, parish priests, curates, rectors, coadjutors and the clerics who provide a church with worship services on a continuing basis.

c) The remaining clerics, insofar as they are considered suitable, are to join the armed forces of the state in order to devote themselves to pastoral care for the troops under the Church jurisdiction of the military bishops, if they are not inducted into the medical unit.

d) The remaining clergy in sacris or members of orders, who are not yet priests are to be assigned to the medical unit. The same shall apply when possible to the candidates for the priesthood mentioned in a) who have not yet taken their final vows.”

The "Big Four" who forced the Treaty of Versailles through so as to penalise Germany so harshly as to prepare the way for the next war and the rise of Nazism.

The operative words are “in case of a change in the present German armed forces in the sense of the introduction of universal conscription”.

These vague and generic words make provision for an eventuality which is by no means ruled out by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, even given that the Versailles Treaty was very unjust and a recipe for another war, and even given that a future re-negotiation of terms was highly likely, in any event, given the Western powers concern over the growth of Soviet Russia.

Here are the relevant extracts from the Treaty of Versailles:

“Article 159. The German military forces shall be demobilised and reduced as prescribed hereinafter.

Article 160. By a date which must not be later than 31 March1920, the German Army must not comprise more than seven divisions of infantry and three divisions of cavalry.

After that date the total number of effective regular personnel in the Army of the States constituting Germany must not exceed 100,000 men, including officers and establishments of depots. The Army shall be devoted exclusively to the maintenance of order within the territory and to the control of the frontiers.

The total effective strength of officers, including the personnel of staffs, whatever their composition, must not exceed 4,000....”

How and where does this prevent “universal conscription”?

Universal conscription simply means that everybody becomes potentially liable for military service but not necessarily all at once or necessarily so as to exceed the limit of 100,000 men.

Once clergy were in danger of becoming liable to conscription then it became necessary for the Church to negotiate over how clergy were to be so conscripted and what they could be conscripted to do.

There is the simple reality of it!

No Catholic website has anything to cover up or conceal.

“No Beliefs”, like so many other atheists and enemies of the Church, however, does not scruple to lie and distort and resort to any feeble dishonesty merely to further its aim of attacking the Church.

Pathetic.

These liars do not stop there but further claim that:

(1) Perhaps “the Vatican” (who he?) was even hoping for this eventuality, since Pius IX “supported any policy or any man who would oppose and fight Soviet Russia”.[1]

(2) Cardinal Faulhaber, who helped negotiate the concordat with Hitler (and who ordained the present pope), assessed its international impact in a 1937 sermon:

"At a time when the heads of the major nations in the world faced the new Germany with cool reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat expressed its confidence in the new German government."[2]

The 2 sources for these statements are these:

[1] Avro Manhattan, “Chapter 10: Germany, the Vatican and Hitler”, The Vatican in World Politics, London, 1949.

[2] Guenter Lewy, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany.

The first provides not one jot of evidence for its statement and it is meant to refer to Cardinal Pacelli NOT Pope Pius IX, as “No belief” wrongly states (they cannot even misquote accurately!).

It is pure opinion and that expressed in an amazing rant by Avro Manhattan who variously and contradictorily takes the Catholic Centre Party for daring to oppose Bismarck and the Falk laws that imprisoned Catholic archbishops who would not kowtow to the state but also for cosying up to the oppressive Bismarckian regime – flatly contradicting itself all in one article!

That’s not all.

He then takes them to task for not favouring the Liberals – and the supposedly “liberal” laws of Bismarck - and for denouncing rapacious Capitalism whilst at the same time he blames them for being hostile to Communism!

You never saw such a farrago of contradictions!

In essence, the author is opposed to the Catholic Church because he is opposed to the Catholic Church. That is the sum total of this dunderhead’s logic.

This is the work which “No Beliefs” quotes as a source for its completely unsupported claim.

Pah!

What about the Faulhaber quote?

Well, to start with, there is no page or chapter reference for this plainly controversial quote. In fact, another author claims it is at page 20. But page 20 of the copy of Lewy’s1964 book which I was able to access, gives no reference for the alleged quote from Faulhaber’s alleged sermon.

This becomes second-hearsay only and with no authoritative reference.

Moreover Lewy’s book is a ranting diatribe against the Church which carefully omits mountains of evidence in the Church’s favour.

This is what “No Beliefs” puts forward as serious research!

Pathetic.

And this, folks, is the so-called "evidence" against men like Pope Pius XII and against the Catholic Church!

Truly pathetic.


...

So what was this "Reichskonkordat" that the enemies of Pius XII complain of? Let's have a look, shall we?

Well, folks.

Here it is, below.

The more you study it, the more you realise what a diplomatic achievement it was for Cardinal Pacelli, given that it gives away virtually nothing to the state and receives a huge amount of protection in return.

Any diplomat coming back to his government with a treaty like this could expect high praise.

Unfortunately, as became clear after the event, the Nazi regime did not mean a word of it and breached the treaty virtually at will. But even their plenipotentiary, Franz von Papen (left, in the photo above), did not realise it until later, after which he was sacked and then escaped from Nazi Germany.

Anything critical that can be said of this Concordat can just as easily be said of numerous agreements reached between the Western powers and both the Soviet and Nazi governments.

But do they get called Hitler's men?

Nope.

Only Pius XII.

Why?

The usual thing: anti-Catholic prejudice and a willingness to tell any old lie in order to attack the Church. In this way, the anti-Catholics of today are willing to use the same deeply dishonest tools and lies that the Nazis used to further their own campaign against the Church.

The true effectiveness of this Concordat is demonstrated by one simple fact that never gets told by the enemies of the Church.

It is still in force today!

Yes, folks! After the war, it was found by the victorious Allies to be so fair and reasonable that they left it in place and it became a fundamental part of the new Federal German Constitution.

Fact!

When you read this document, note that the only part that gave anything away to the Reich government was couched in very careful terms. See Article 16 which contains the oath of loyalty which is required of Diocesan bishops (oaths had always been required of bishops by European states).

First, it is to the Regional state (Land) and/or to the President of the Reich, not a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler.

Second, the bishop swears to honour the "legally constituted government" not just any government. Once Hitler overrode the Constitution, the oath excluded him, quite apart from the fact that an immoral oath could not bind in conscience, anyway. But Cardinal Pacelli was careful, in any case, to avoid any immoral oaths.

Note, too, how he has carefully negotiated away any obligation on the part of clergy to serve in state positions, save as Army chaplains (where they are necessary, anyway, simply to save souls).

It is a brilliant piece of diplomacy.

If this had been negotiated between Israel and the nearby Arab States it would have been hailed as a great work. The negotiating diplomats would not have been later called "Islam's Jews" or some other equally offensive insult.

But there is one rule to be applied to the Church and quite another rule to be applied to everyone else.

Such are the double standards of the modern enemies of the Catholic Church.

Dishonesty and lying are their stock-in-trade.

But - hey! - what about the Jews? Aha, there's nothing there about them, is there?

Right! Not a word requiring any Catholic priest to approve any mistreatment of Jews, whatsoever. But you might be forgiven for thinking the opposite if you listened to the enemies of the Church.

Aha! But doesn't that show that the Church didn't care about the Jews?

On the contrary! It shows that the Church was very careful, when negotiating with the Nazi government, not to allow its hands to be tied against helping Jews - or any other ethnic or religious minority.

Moreover, the Nazis would not have allowed any negotiating by the Catholic Church on behalf of the Jews.

Even so, Cardinal Pacelli still managed to get in Article 29 which "accorded no less favourable treatment than that accorded by law and in practice to members of German origin and speech living within the boundaries of the corresponding foreign states" as regards their religious education and societies.

This enabled many Jews to be saved by the use of false baptismal certificates.

But the International Red Cross protested against this becuase it was "illegal". Pah! Do they get called "Hitler's Red Cross"? Oh, no! Never. Only Pius XII and the Church.

This was a Concordat between the Holy See and the Reich government. The Church had first to negotiate its own freedom if it wished to save others - which, as we now know, it most certainly did when Pius XII, as Pope, saved over 860,000 Jewish lives.

What liars the enemies of the Church are! Any old lie will do so long as they can attack the Church!

But look here - read the text of the Concordat and make up your own mind:


"The Reichskonkordat of 1933

His Holiness Pope Pius XI and the President of the German Reich, moved by a common desire to consolidate and promote the friendly relations existing between the Holy See and the German Reich, wish to permanently regulate the relations between the Catholic Church and the state for the whole territory of the German Reich in a way acceptable to both parties. They have decided to conclude a solemn agreement, which will supplement the Concordats already concluded with individual German states (Länder) [4], and will ensure for the remaining states (Länder) fundamentally uniform treatment of their respective problems.

For this purpose His Holiness Pope Pius XI has appointed as his Plenipotentiary His Eminence the Most Reverend Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, his Secretary of State and the President of the German Reich has appointed as Plenipotentiary the Vice-Chancellor of the German Reich, Herr Franz von Papen, who, having exchanged their respective mandates and found them to be in good and proper form, have agreed to the following Articles:

Article 1

The German Reich guarantees freedom of profession and public practice of the Catholic religion.

It acknowledges the right of the Catholic Church, within the framework of the laws valid for all, to manage and regulate its own affairs independently, and, within the framework of its own competence, to issue binding laws and ordinances for its members.

Article 2

The concordats concluded with Bavaria (1924), Prussia (1929) and Baden (1932) remain in force, and the rights and privileges of the Catholic Church recognized in these are preserved unchanged within the territories of the states concerned. For the remaining states (Länder), the agreements reached in the present concordat come into force in their entirety. These last are also binding for the three states (Länder) named above, in so far as they affect matters not regulated by the states’ (Länder) concordats or in so far as they supplement the earlier settlements.

In the future concordats with the states (Länder) will be concluded only with the agreement of the government of the Reich.

Article 3

In order to foster good relations between the Holy See and the German Reich, an apostolic nuncio will reside in the capital of the German Reich and an ambassador of the German Reich at the Holy See.

Article 4

The Holy See enjoys full freedom in its relations and correspondence with the bishops, clergy and other members of the Catholic Church in Germany. The same applies to the bishops and other diocesan officials in their dealings with the faithful in all matters belonging to their pastoral office.

Instructions, ordinances, pastoral letters, official diocesan gazettes, and other decrees concerning the spiritual direction of the faithful issued by the Church authorities within the framework of their competence (Art. 1, Sect. 2) may be published without hindrance and brought to the notice of the faithful in the customary form.

Article 5

In the exercise of their clerical activities the clergy enjoy the protection of the state in the same way as state officials. The state will proceed, in accordance with the general provisions of civil law, against any insult to their person or to their clerical capacity, as well as against any interference with the duties of their office and, if necessary, will provide official protection.

Article 6

The clergy and members of religious orders are freed from any obligation to take public office and such obligations as, according to the dictates of Canon Law, are incompatible with the status of a member of the clergy or religious order respectively. This applies particularly to the office of a lay judge, juror, member of a tax committee or of a fiscal tribunal.

Article 7

For the acceptance of employment or appointment as state official, or to any public corporation dependent on the state, clergymen require, the nihil obstat [5] of their diocesan ordinary, as well as of the ordinary of the place where the public corporation is situated. The nihil obstat may be withdrawn at any time for important reasons of ecclesiastical interests.

Article 8

The official income of the clergy is immune from distraint [6] to the same extent as is the official salary of the Reich and state officials.

Article 9

The clergy cannot be required by judicial and other authorities to give information about matters which have been entrusted to them in the course of administering pastoral care, and which therefore fall under the obligation of pastoral secrecy.

Article 10

The wearing of clerical dress or of a religious habit by lay people, or by members of the clergy or religious orders by whom this use is forbidden by a definitive and legally valid directive of the competent ecclesiastical authority and officially communicated to the state authority, is liable to the same penalty by the state as the misuse of the military uniform.

Article 11

The present organisation and boundaries of dioceses of the Catholic Church in the German Reich remain in force. Any creation or rearrangement of a bishopric or ecclesiastical province, or other changes in the boundaries of dioceses that seem advisable in the future, so far as they involve changes within the boundaries of a German state (Land), remain subject to the agreement of the state (Land) governments concerned. Rearrangements and alterations which extend beyond the boundaries of a German state require the agreement of the Reich Government, which shall be left to secure the consent of the appropriate state (Land) government. The same applies to creations or rearrangements of Church provinces involving several German states (Länder). The foregoing conditions do not apply to changes in ecclesiastical boundaries made merely in the interests of local pastoral care.

In the case of any (territorial) re-organisation within the German Reich, the Reich Government will communicate with the Holy See with a view to rearrangement of the organisation and boundaries of dioceses.

Article 12

Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 11, ecclesiastical offices may be freely created and changed, unless state funds are drawn upon. The involvement of the state in the creation and alteration of parishes shall be carried out according to standard procedures that are agreed to by the diocesan bishops, and for which the Reich Government will endeavor to secure the most uniform treatment possible from the state (Länder) governments.

Article 13

Catholic parishes, parish and diocesan societies, episcopal sees, bishoprics and chapters, religious orders and congregations, as well as institutions, foundations and property which are under the administration of Church agencies, shall retain or acquire respectively, legal competence in the civil domain according to the general provisions of civil law. They shall remain corporations under public law to the extent that they have been so far; the others may be granted similar rights within the framework of the laws valid for all.

Article 14

As a matter of principle the Church retains the right to appoint freely to all Church offices and benefices without the involvement of the state or of civil groups, in so far as other provisions have not been made in previous concordats mentioned in Article 2.

Concerning the appointment of bishops’ sees, the regulation made for appointment of the two suffragan [7] bishoprics of Rottenburg and Mainz, as well as for the bishopric of Meissen, is to be duly applied to the metropolitan see of the Upper Rhine Ecclesiastical Province of Freiburg. The same holds for the two first named suffragan bishops with regard to appointments to the cathedral chapter, and for the administration of the right of patronage [8].

Furthermore, there is agreement on the following points:

1. Catholic clerics who hold an ecclesiastical office in Germany or who exercise pastoral or educational functions must:

(a) be German citizens,
(b) have earned a secondary-school graduation certificate which permits study at an institution of higher learning,
(c) have studied philosophy and theology for at least three years at a German state university, a German ecclesiastical college, or a papal college in Rome.

2. The bull nominating archbishops, bishops, coadjutors cum jure successionis [9] or a praelatus nullius [10] will not be issued until the name of the appointee has been submitted to the Reich governor in the relevant state (Land), and until it has been ascertained that there are no objections of a general political nature. In the case of an agreement between Church and state, Paragraph 1, sections (a) (b) and (c) may be disregarded or set aside.

No right of the State to assert a veto is to be based on this Article.

Article 15

Religious orders and congregations are not subject to any special restrictions on the part of the state in relation to their foundation, establishment, number and – subject to Paragraph 2 of this Article – the selection of their members, their pastoral activities in care, education, care of the sick and charitable work, the management of their own affairs and the administration of their property. Superiors of religious orders whose headquarters are within Germany must be German citizens. Superiors of provincials and orders whose headquarters lie outside the territory of the German Reich, have the right to visit those of their establishments that lie within Germany.

The Holy See will take pains to ensure that for conventual establishments within the German Reich the provincial organization is set up so that, as far as possible, German establishments do not fall under the jurisdiction of foreign provincial superiors. Exceptions can be permitted with the agreement of the Reich Government, especially in cases where the small number of houses makes a German province impracticable, or where special grounds exist for the retention of an historic and firmly established provincial organisation.

Article 16

Before bishops take possession of their dioceses they are to take an oath of loyalty either to the Reich governor of the state (Land) concerned or to the President of the Reich respectively, according to the following formula:

"Before God and on the Holy Gospels I swear and promise, as becomes a bishop, loyalty to the German Reich and to the State (Land) of . . . I swear and promise to honour the legally constituted government and to cause the clergy of my diocese to honour it. With dutiful concern for the welfare and the interests of the German state, in the performance of the ecclesiastical office entrusted to me, I will endeavor to prevent everything injurious which might threaten it."

Article 17

The property rights and other rights to assets of corporations under public law, of the institutions, foundations and associations of the Catholic Church are guaranteed according to requirements of the general law of the land.

No building dedicated to religious services may be destroyed for any reason whatsoever without the previous consent of the proper Church authorities.

Article 18

In the case of the abrogation of state obligations to the Church, whether based on law, agreement or special charter, before working out the principles according to which the abrogation is to be carried out, in a timely manner an amicable agreement is to be effected between the Holy See and the Reich.

Legitimate traditional rights are to be considered as titles in law. An abrogation must bestow upon those entitled to abrogation proper compensation for the loss of the customary state benefits.

Article 19

Catholic theological faculties in state universities are to be maintained. Their relation to Church authorities will be governed by the relevant concordats and by their supplementary protocols with stated regulations, having due regard for the relevant Church decrees. [11] The Reich Government will endeavor to secure for all of these Catholic faculties in Germany uniformity of treatment.

Article 20

Where other agreements do not exist, the Church has the right to establish theological and philosophical colleges for the training of its clergy, which are to be wholly dependent on the Church authorities if no state subsidies are sought.

The establishment, management and administration of theological seminaries and hostels for seminarians is, within the framework of the laws valid for all, the exclusive prerogative of the Church authorities.

Article 21

Catholic religious education in elementary, vocational, secondary schools and institutions of higher learning is a regular school subject, and is to be taught in accordance with the principles of the Catholic Church. In religious education, special emphasis will be given to inculcating a patriotic, civic and social sense of duty in the spirit of the Christian faith and the moral code, just as happens in all other subjects. The curriculum and the selection of textbooks for religious education will be arranged in agreement with the Church authorities. The opportunity will be given to the Church authorities to check, with the agreement of the school authorities, whether the pupils receive religious education in accordance with the teachings and specifications of the Church.

Article 22

In the appointment of Catholic religious instructors, agreement is to be reached between the bishop and the state (Land) government. Teachers who, because of their doctrine or moral behaviour, are declared unfit to further impart religious education, are not permitted to be employed as religion teachers so long as this obstacle remains.

Article 23

The retention of Catholic denomination schools and the establishment of new ones is guaranteed. In all parishes where parents or guardians request it, Catholic elementary schools will be established, wherever the number of pupils, with due regard for the local conditions of school organization, appears to be sufficient for a school administered in accordance with the standards prescribed by the state.

Article 24

In all Catholic elementary schools only such teachers are to be employed as are members of the Catholic Church, and who guarantee to fulfill the special requirements of a Catholic school.

Within the framework of the general professional training of teachers, facilities will be created which will provide for the training of Catholic teachers, in accordance with the special requirements of Catholic denominational schools.

Article 25

Religious orders and congregations are entitled to establish and conduct private schools, within the framework of the general laws and ordinances. These private schools award the same qualifications as state schools, insofar as they adhere to the regulations governing curriculum prescribed for the latter.

Members of religious orders or congregations seeking admission to teacher training and employment in elementary, secondary or post-secondary schools are to meet the general requirements applicable to all

Article 26

Until a later comprehensive regulation of the marriage laws, it is understood that, apart from cases of critical illness of an engaged person which would not permit delay, and in cases of great moral emergency, whose presence must be confirmed by the proper episcopal authority, the Church marriage blessing should precede the civil ceremony. In such cases the priest is obliged to immediately notify the Registrar's office.

Article 27

For the German army pastoral care outside the realm of ordinary jurisdiction is conceded for its Catholic officers, officials and men, as well as for their families.

The administration of such pastoral care for the army is the duty of the army bishop. His Church appointment is to be made by the Holy See after contact has been made with the Reich Government in order, with its agreement, to select a suitable person.

The Church appointment of military chaplains and other military clergy will be made by the army bishop after prior consultation with the appropriate authorities of the Reich. He may appoint only such chaplains as receive permission from their diocesan bishop to undertake military pastoral work, together with a certificate of suitability. Military chaplains have the rights of parish priests with regard to the troops and other army personnel assigned to them.

Detailed regulations for the organisation of pastoral work by chaplains will be supplied by an Apostolic Brief. Regulations for the legal aspects in terms of officials will be drawn up by the Reich Government.

Article 28

In hospitals, prisons, and other public institutions the Church is permitted to make pastoral visits and conduct services of worship, subject to the general rules of the institutions concerned. If regular pastoral care is provided for such institutions, and if pastors must be appointed as state or other public officials, such appointments will be made with the agreement of Church authorities.

Article 29

Catholic members of a non-German ethnic minority living within the German Reich, as regards their mother tongue in Church services [sermons], religious education and Church societies, will be accorded no less favourable treatment than that accorded by law and in practice to members of German origin and speech living within the boundaries of the corresponding foreign states.

Article 30

On Sundays and official holy days, a prayer conforming to the liturgy will be offered at the end of the principal Mass in parish, auxiliary and conventual churches of the German Reich, for the welfare of the German Reich and (German) people.

Article 31

Those Catholic organisations and societies which have exclusively charitable, cultural or religious purposes, and, as such, are placed under the Church authorities, will be protected in terms of their institutions and activities.

Those Catholic organisations which, in addition to their religious, cultural and charitable purposes, have others, such as social or professional tasks – even though they may be brought into national organizations – are to enjoy the protection of Article 31, Paragraph 1, provided they guarantee to conduct their activities outside all political parties.

It is reserved to the Reich Government and the German episcopate, in a joint agreement, to determine which organisations and associations come within the scope of this Article. In so far as the Reich and the states (Länder) take charge of sport and other youth organisations, care will be taken that it shall be possible for the members regularly to attend church on Sundays and feast days, and that they shall not be induced to do anything inconsistent with their religious and moral convictions and obligations.

Article 32

Due to the special situation existing in Germany, and in view of the safeguards created by the clauses of this concordat of legislation preserving the rights and privileges of the Catholic Church in the Reich and its states (Länder), the Holy See will enact regulations to exclude the clergy and members of religious orders from membership in political parties and from working on their behalf.

Article 33

All matters relating to clerical personnel or Church affairs, which have not been treated of in the foregoing Articles, will be regulated for the ecclesiastical sphere according to current Canon Law.

Should differences of opinion arise regarding the interpretation or execution of any of the Articles of this Concordat, the Holy See and the German Reich will reach a friendly solution by mutual agreement.

Article 34

This Concordat, whose German and Italian texts shall have equal binding force, shall be ratified, and the instruments of ratification shall be exchanged, as soon as possible. It will be in force from the day of such exchange.

In witness hereof, the plenipotentiaries have signed this Concordat. Signed in two original copies, in the Vatican City, July 20th, 1933.

(Signed) Eugenio, Cardinal Pacelli

(Signed) Franz von Papen"

Read this, too:




...

As the sun dawns over America and people are waking up...nothing changes at all.

The trouble with voting in America is that whomever you vote for, it's always more of the same.

The financial, media and political moguls would not allow anything else.

That's democracy, American-style, folks. Get used to it!

But it's probably just as well in the case of Barack Hussein Obama.

The National Right to Life Association gives Obama a perfect zero rating, because he has voted anti-life at every opportunity, including voting against banning partial birth abortion in which a child is stabbed in the back of the neck as it is being born, and its brains are sucked out of its skull (yes, folks, he’s not against this practice - nor is he concerned that there are more aborted black babies than any other!).

So - as Aelfheah rightly points out (in the comment box) - this is the one area where there will be likely change - and for the worse. The rights of unborn black babies will be particularly at risk under this Presidency!

His election may be a shot of confidence for born black Americans but it will be a back-handed one when it becomes clear that he is a flaky, politically correct, mouther of worthless slogans brought up in the school of crazies like Saul David Alinsky.

“Change you can believe in” means “no change at all” and just more of the same old secularising, materialistic stuff that keeps the immensely rich secular humanists of America happy.

That is the irony of secular radicalism: it talks big about change and achieves nothing at all but more of the same.

It is, however, strange to listen to the 44th President of the USA telling the nation that he wants to support all the things that the country's founders set out to achieve, since one of those things was black slavery.

Other things included anti-Catholic bigotry, narrow-minded liberal Protestantism, unrestrained financial cheating and chicanery to dispossess the poor which is called "Capitalism" and an aggressive foreign policy designed to turn nearby countries into slaves of America or financial and political basket-cases.

Anyone who thinks that Barack Hussein Obama is not going to do exactly the same, simply because of his name and race, had better think again.

Hey, man, this is AMERICA, the home of the "rave" and the land of "I love me!" (with apologies to Francis Scott Key and to those Americans whose vision for their country extends a bit wider than simply more money, more sex and more power).

And then there's Joe Biden, Vice-President elect and allegedly a "Catholic". Pah!

And you thought I was Catholic? Too bad, sucker...

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose...

...