01 December 2020

A British State of Mind

A Scot makes a beautiful and impassioned statement that he is British. 'With all my heart I declare that (we) are the luckiest, most blessed of all people. I am British. I will always be British.'

From The Spectator|UK

By Neil Oliver

I was born British and as a British citizen I will live out my days. My nationality is a state of mind and I have no intention of changing either. I know who I am and what I love – and what I love is Britain, the whole place, every nook and cranny. This is my island. No pronouncement by any politician – here today and gone tomorrow – and no referendum on this or that issue of the day will have any effect on my understanding of myself and where I belong. It makes me feel better just to put those words down on the page.

The Canadian anthropologist Wade Davis said, 'The world into which you are born does not exist, not in any absolute sense, rather it is a model of reality.' I listen to those words and realise that Britain does not exist either. Neither does England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales or any other country, not really. There are physical landscapes on the face of the Earth – made of dry land set apart from the sea. But the lines drawn and countries named are figments of collective imagination and made all the more meaningful as a result. They are what we say they are. The existence of our homelands is nothing more nor less than an act of will, and also of love. Just as creatures that once walked, swam or flew are long gone now, so there is a long list of countries that once were here but are here no longer … Sumer … Chimor ... Kush … the list goes on and on. You might say that a country is a dream shared by its inhabitants. As long as enough of the inhabitants believe in the existence of Britain, or Scotland, or wherever, then the dream remains alive and the country in question is made real. If too many people stop believing, or choose to believe in someplace else, then the dream is over and the country ceases to exist as completely as a candle flame blown out by the wind. I will always believe in Britain, come what may. That will never be taken from me.

The most familiar line of the Declaration of Arbroath, a letter to a 14th century Pope, concerned the necessity of 100 Scots remaining alive if Scotland were to prevail. My dream of Britain requires just me myself alone – it will last as long as me – but as many as want to are welcome to join me.

The question of whether or not Britain should continue to exist has been haunting our lives for years now. In 2014 a referendum asked the population of Scotland whether or not it was deemed a good idea to remain part of Britain, to maintain its existence. A majority said they did wish the union to prevail – 55 per cent of voters in fact. The 55-45 split is well known. Less familiar to most is the fact that of the 32 council areas in Scotland, 28 said they preferred to maintain the three-centuries-old union. Many of those councils were small, with small populations dwarfed by those of conurbations elsewhere. But we are all told, are we not, that small voices must be listened to as well as large, and that small, determined, self-confident places might know their own minds?

In spite of that decision, that clean and clear 'once in a generation' decision – that decision that both Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond swore, in writing, they would accept and uphold – the question has never gone away.

On the last page of his popular classic, Culloden, about the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion, John Prebble elegantly expressed the nature of dreams, or at least their power over us even when all seems lost.

He wrote: 'A lost cause will always win a last victory in men’s imaginations.'

The Nationalist cause in Scotland is stubborn. I will admit to understanding stubbornness, being sympathetic to the trait and also admiring of it. This is because I am stubborn too, as stubborn as any nationalist could ever hope to be. My dream of Britain will always live in me. There is undoubtedly a requirement for relentless stubbornness and determination when it comes to the question of whether Britain – the dream of Britain, that is – should continue or be blown out. As far as I am concerned it is necessary most of all to see that it is that dream that matters most. In the end it might be all that matters.

Like everyone else involved in deciding the future of Britain I have read and listened to countless thousands of words on the subject. When it comes to predicting the prospects of a Scotland alone I have driven myself half demented trying to decide who and what to believe. The nature of the border; the ownership of the oil; the currency; the sharing of the national debt; the Barnett Formula; relations with the European Union; the armed forces; the fishing grounds; on and on goes the litany of concerns, opinions, promises, accusations, threats and denials. Both sides have at times declared victory – outright victory – in the economic debate. At the same time there have always been those on the separatist side evidently of the mind that the risk is worth it – come hell or high water, it will be alright on the night. While others (with brains wired for the task, unlike my own) continue to fight that good fight, I have moved in a different direction.

I know what I have come to believe about all of the above, but I will leave that much aside. Why? Because long ago I realised that the economic argument was not what mattered to me. Dreamers of dreams and those who pursue causes, lost or otherwise, care not a jot for economics. In my heart I respect this. A dream as grand as a country to believe in, to belong to, to stand up for, to speak for, to fight and to die for is a prize beyond gold or any other treasure. The economics matter – of course they do, and for many people such is the be all and end all of the necessary discussion. I understand that and respect that. But I am well beyond making the so-called 'economic argument' myself. Just as I would not ask a mother to put a price on her child’s heart, so I will not seek to challenge, to tarnish and sully a dream, with talk of money. What is truly at stake here, at least for me, is the business of the heart.

History has been invoked – again and again and again until everyone is blue in the face (well, one side certainly). Both sides – unionist and separatist – reach backwards in time in pursuit of origin myths and superior claims of ownership of place and people, hearts and minds. This is among the oldest tricks in the book and has been tried more times than anyone might count. While trying to hammer the Scots into submission, King Edward I wrote to the Pope to assert the ancient nature of England’s claim on the whole island. Quoting historian Geoffrey of Monmouth, he said his countrymen were descended from a Roman named Brutus and that Brutus was the root of the very name Britain. Since the English were in Britain first, went Edward’s logic, then the whole place must be his by right. The Scots replied by sending a party of churchmen led by one Baldred Bisset to talk to the Pope in person. There in the Holy Father’s summer home in the hill town of Anagni, Bisset declared that the Scots were descended from Noah, that his descendants had fled Israel, all the way to Scythia on the Black Sea. One of them had married a princess called Scota who led them on an odyssey to the land subsequently named after her, bringing with her as an heirloom the Stone of Destiny upon which Scots kings were crowned ever after.

(Britain is certainly an old name – much older than England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales. It seems likely that when the Romans first encountered these islands, splashing ashore somewhere on the south coast, they asked the locals what they called the place. The reply would have been something like Prytain and the Romans’ attempt at pronouncing the word – called an ethnonym – became Britannia.)

But I ask you … Brutus, Scota – who really cares about the truth or otherwise of those ghosts now? Just as the economic argument is too shallow, so fairytales told to a Pope seven centuries ago are inadequate. Neither ghosts nor fairy tales make foundations deep enough for persuading people of the best path to take now, into the future.

The union is more than 300 years old. The coming together of Scotland and England, on May Day 1707, was hardly a happy one and no one denies it. The bride was poor and the groom knew he was being married only for his money. Unhappy or not it was to prove the best thing that ever happened to either of them. The Scotland and England that came together then no longer exists, however. This, as much as anything else, is worth remembering. Our parents, happy or not, are gone now and never coming back. It is we, the children of that union who must decide what is to be done with our shared inheritance.

More recently Scots, some Scots, have sought to distance themselves from the long years of Empire and Commonwealth. What was once cause for common pride has been recast as national shame and some of those Scots have sought to pretend, to themselves most fervently of all, that imperial Britain was none of their doing. Apparently a big boy – England – did it and ran away. This stance is so wide of the mark, the claim so utterly false, as to be nothing short of a bare faced lie. We Scots were talented and enthusiastic builders and administrators of empire – as wedded to the enterprise as anyone else and grown rich and fat on the profits in the process. If there is shame to be apportioned then it is ours as much as anyone’s. While there might be little to be gained now from knowing whether Brutus or Scota made the earliest footprints on the homelands, it is surely vital we remember the truth of all our behaviours during the last three centuries of our coupling at least – the bad as well as the good.

So much for economics and history – both matter but not enough, either together or alone. What matters is who we are now, who we think we are and who we could or should be in the future. In seeking to portray Britain and British-ness in a bad light – a corrupt and sinful enterprise best dismantled and discarded – the champions of Scottish separatism have somehow claimed the moral high ground in its entirety. Not only were the sins of Empire committed behind our backs, without our knowing (don’t you know) apparently it is the Scots, the Scots alone, that are the egalitarian, caring defenders of freedom. South of the border, therefore, lies the embodiment of all that is corrupt, selfish and heartless – the Mordor that is Westminster. It is worth noting that since it has long been unfashionable for the SNP and its supporters to openly voice hatred for England and things English, 'Westminster' has become the handy proxy. Something similar lurks furtively behind every disdainful reference to the 'London parties' by which the SNP mean Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and anyone else that might speak up in favour of a United Kingdom.

If not economics or history, then what? How to make the claim that we, the inhabitants of these islands, are one family? In the end I can only speak for myself and from my own heart. That much is all I truly know. More by luck than good judgment, and mostly by means of the magic carpet provided by making television. I have seen a great deal of these islands. I have circumnavigated the coastline multiple times. I have criss-crossed the interior. I have seen the landscape from the sky, from the cockpit of fighter jets, vintage biplanes and microlights. I have been on its encircling waters in kayaks, battleships and just about anything in between that floats, and under its waters in scuba gear and a nuclear submarine. I have had a thorough look around. Long before the end I realised it was all one place; that the national borders drawn across it had no meaning for me and were invisible anyway. I have seen for myself how fisherfolk in Cornwall have more in common with others of their kind in Fife than either has with any inhabitants of the interior. You might say the same common ground is there with fishermen in France or Spain, but there is no denying the added strength of bonds made by shared language, shared culture, shared history, shared centuries.

I have also found it unavoidable to see the connections between the character of folk in Liverpool, Belfast and Glasgow: on account of shared shipbuilding heritage. My English father-in-law learned his trade as an engineer in the coalmines of Kent, before coming north to make the family that is part of my own. His Scottish father had worked as a miner in the pits of both the Central Belt of Scotland and in England’s south east. Both talk and talked with nothing but love for that lost trade. It was a love born of camaraderie and shared experience in an often dangerous world. Underground it hardly mattered where you had been born, as long as you could do the job and cared to look out for the wellbeing of the other men on the shift. Miners were miners.

I have noticed that differences in accent and dialect, style and demeanour, the countless idiosyncrasies providing the dizzying multicolour of the tapestry of Britain happen mile by mile, between one valley and the next, and are not all about national boundaries. Most of all, and best of all, I can say with hand on heart that I have been received with nothing but affection in every town and city, nook and cranny. Year after year, as a Scot abroad, I have been made to feel at home all over. When I toured Britain with one of my books last year and the year before, going from theatre to theatre, I stepped out onstage one memorable night in Liverpool into a welcome of cheers that took me aback so much I almost burst into tears. I have no connection to that city on the Mersey and yet I was nearly knocked to the back wall of the stage by the wave. I know that might sound self indulgent but I have to write about what I have experienced as a citizen of Britain, to make clear why it all matters to me the way it does. All of this is personal in the end, perhaps for all of us. How could I not love this place – this whole place – and so hope with all my heart that it remains one place. If so much is cut away from me I will feel the itch of missing limbs until my dying day.

I have been around enough of the wider world to know that most places are not like Britain, not at all. Every time I hear the place being run down for some or other alleged failing I want to ask, 'Compared to where?'. That anyone at all would imagine it were possible to break this wonder into pieces and yet somehow retain its fragile, precious gifts in each of the tattered remnants is beyond me. A torn fragment of a work of art is not enough. Once its gone, it is forever and we will all be diminished by its passing.

This Britain of ours has been and remains a bright light in a dark and darkening world; a magnet for humanity moving in hopes of somewhere better. When the EU was conjured into being, it copied our union in hopes of having a fraction of its success. Whatever the intention, those builders fell short of the mark. There is no EU welfare state, and German taxes do not pay for healthcare in Greece or pensions in Spain. Most of the wider world would rather it were more like us – that it might have what we have had. When it comes to western liberal democracy, ours is the original marque.

What I said in 2014 I will say again: the idea that we Scots might look on at a whole Britain in need of repair, in need of realignment and updating to cope with the future, and choose to cut and run just makes me blush to my fingertips with shame. I am a British Scot and the Britons are my family, all of them. I don’t give a fig for politicians and I certainly don’t allow my feelings about the present bunch to blind me to what Britain actually is – no more than I would let this year’s crop of midges blind me to the beauty of the Highlands. I set aside my feelings concerning the latest incumbents of various parliaments on the grounds that they – and all of us besides – are temporary tenants. These islands of ours are rented accommodation, whether we like it or not, and sooner or later we will vacate the place for new occupants. You don’t burn down the house just because you don’t care for those living in it now. Keep the house together. This house of ours is the work of 300 years (and the rest). If there are repairs to be done, then so be it. Let’s treat it like the grand home it is, and make it wind and watertight for the whole family again. The whole family. Let’s not break it into flats like a dodgy conversion job by cowboy builders.

I don’t base my decision on politics or economics or even history. I make my choices based on the responsibility I feel for people – alive now and yet to be born. I love Britain more than anywhere else in the world. With all my heart I declare that those of us born here, or who have made a home here by choice, are the luckiest, most blessed of all people. I am British. I will always be British.

The Fraternal Fallacy

An examination of the Virtues, both Cardinal and Theological, and how we should implement them in our lives.

From One Peter Five

By the Rev. Deacon James Toner

“He that walketh with the wise, shall be wise: a friend of fools shall become like to them”

(Proverbs 13:20 DRB).

There are, I know, exceptions to this “rule,” but let’s stipulate that men who enter the priesthood are good guys:  They like people, generally interact well with people, expect good things from other people, and are surprised and disappointed when others let them down.  Customarily, priests expect the best of people, not the worst; they expect that people will do the intentional right thing, not the deliberate wrong one; and that apologies will follow if and after people recognize their errors. If sin is a fact of our fallen lives, our priests give full credit to the people they know for apparently trying to fight the good spiritual fight.  Priests are optimists fond of saying things such as they have read the last page of the Bible, and God wins!

Such a sanguine attitude is not to be mocked.  Can you imagine a priesthood utterly embittered by cynical, suspicious, and saturnine men who invariably think the worst of everyone whom they know or meet?  Not without compelling reason–and not without clear biblical warrant (1 Cor 13:13)–are faith, hope, and love the three theological, or supernatural, virtues. By extension, friendliness, a trusting spirit, and optimism are, and should be, a key part of the presbyteral personality.

Unfortunately, these same elements—amiability, confidence in others’ intentions, and a positive attitude—may be mistakenly invested or easily betrayed.  Not without compelling reason—and not without clear biblical warrant (Wisdom 8:7; cf. CCC #1805)—are wisdom, fortitude, temperance, and justice the four cardinal, or natural, virtues.

Faith, hope, and love are grounded, guarded, and guided by the more immanent—that is, the more vigilant—virtues which insist that we examine people and circumstances with what the ancient Greeks called phronesis,  which means an enlightened, well-formed judgment, responding to our situation, whatever it is, with integrity (a noun I use to incorporate wisdom, fortitude, temperance, and justice).  Such integrity can be learned, in part, from wise counselors (see Tobit 4:18) and from good books; but it must also be learned from sagely considered experience and a deep reading of history, especially including salvation history.

A tragedy—perhaps even the tragedy—of our morally fallen world is that men of great faith, hope, and love sometimes see, and trust in, political or strategic mirages.  It may be that Neville Chamberlain was a better man than Winston Churchill–I don’t know, and I am not seeking to make that argument here–but he saw a mirage at Munich in 1938, viewing “Herr Hitler” as someone of similar character, as eager as he was to avoid the horror of another world war. Weak-kneed strategic appeasement led to war.  (Ecumenism, similarly, should never degenerate into the religious appeasement of syncretism.)

This kind of quixotic, irenic, and pollyannaish thinking sabotages and subverts the cardinal virtues, and it invariably flows from a cast of mind which routinely sees moral and political problems as difficulties to be amicably resolved by shared reason, good will, and kindly spirit.  Franklin D. Roosevelt, for example, often referred to Stalin (although not in his presence, of course) as “Uncle Joe.” Lyndon Johnson, for his part, seems never to have understood that Ho Chi Minh was not a ward boss to be bribed or somehow personally intimidated.

Political scientist Cecil V. Crabb, Jr. (1924-2003) put it this way:

“Americans have been slow to [understand that] . . . countless internal problems, like divorce, delinquency, alcoholism, traffic accidents, crime, poverty, and many other issues . . . are ever ‘solved’ in a final sense. They are ameliorated, softened, mitigated, made endurable, adjusted to, outlived—but seldom eliminated.”

 This streak of fraternal well-wishing and meliorism (the belief that things will grow better over time) is part of the fraternal fallacy, which insists that we believe positively (even giddily) about others’ character and our circumstances. It may help to explain why such a holy man as Pope St. John Paul did not understand the egregious evil and perversions of Marcial Maciel (1920-2008) and of Theodore McCarrick, both moral monsters.

We know that, in place of a given virtue, there may be either deficiency or excess:  cowardice or rashness, for example, may take the place of courage.  A trusting spirit is surely valuable and virtuous for all of us, but it must be balanced by phronesis.  The Good News Bible puts this bluntly: “A fool will believe anything; smart people watch their step” (Prv 14:15; cf. CCC #1788). Gullibility results in our being easily duped or deceived by false teachers, who are legion (cf. Prv 8:5, Col 2:8, 2 Thess 2:3, and Heb 13:9).

This is the great danger of what Monsignor Ronald Knox (1888-1957) called “Enthusiasm,” a moral Micawberism which tells us, foolishly, that all will be well if we see with the eyes of only faith, hope, and love.  The only here is a critical word. As Catholic Christians, we are, indeed, called to see people and events with eyes of faith, hope, and love—but not with such vision alone.  Our Lord is love, is truth, is justice, is mercy—but Jesus was never credulous.  St. John tells us that our Lord “knew what was in man” (2:25) and that “the world knew Him not” (1:10) because we men “loved darkness rather than light” (3:19; cf. Jer 17:9, Gal 5:19-21).  Jesus did not expect of men the provision of a Redemption which could be effected only by Emmanuel Himself (Is 7:14, Mt 1:22-23).

We read or hear so often that we should be dreamers, expecting peace and progress and prosperity.  Some will recall Robert Kennedy’s well-known line: “Some men see things as they are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were, and ask why not.”  Almost the same line, though, was put into the serpent’s mouth (by George Bernard Shaw in Back to Methuselah) to tempt Eve in the Garden. Our vision of “great things” can thus be Satanic (cf. Isaiah 14:14, 2 Thess 2:4). Both Flannery O’Connor and Walker Percy, after all, tried to warn us that tenderness can lead to the gas chamber.

As much as we wish to trust others (and ourselves), we ought to heed the insight of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008):

“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

Although we yearn for goodness in ourselves, in others, and in our national institutions, a deep reading of history—and the instruction of the Catechism (#2515, #387, #407-#409)—tell us that we are concupiscent humans, heir and liable to sin.  No amount of good fellowship or wishful thinking can erase the human propensity to sin.

Then there is the political derivative.  As once expressed by the French diplomat Talleyrand (1754-1838): “Surtout, pas trop de zele!”—“Above all else, not too much zeal!”  In other words, we should not expect too much. We sensibly seek progress and peace, but integrity—the constellation of cardinal virtues—reminds us not to be optimistic.  In the words, not of a diplomat, but of a prophet: “We hoped for peace and a time of healing, but it was no use; terror came instead” (Jeremiah 8:15).  In teaching leadership, one sometimes hears this: “If hope is your only management tool, you’re in for a very rough ride.”

Integrity—the entire plate of virtue—teaches us patience.  We live in a world of hoaxes, of false and fleeting dreams, of utopian schemes, of mirages which seduce or suborn us by promising us roses without thorns and salvation without suffering.  The fraternal fallacy–the specious assurances of brotherhood without burden, of lives without pain, of a world without tears (only God will finally and fully grant us peace [Rev 21:3-4])–was diagnosed about seventy years ago by H. Richard Niebuhr (1894-1962): “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”

The wise among us, those with phronesis, tell us that when something is too good to be true, it most probably is, in fact, not true (cf. 1 John 4:1).  “Trust but verify” was a favorite proverb of President Reagan’s.  It has great good sense.  It has, as well, a biblical connection.  We are instructed to “hold fast to what is good” and to “abstain from every form of evil”: to “test everything”

(1 Thess 5:21) and not be “quickly shaken in mind or excited by spirit or word” (2 Thess 2:2).

The fraternal fallacy insists that political concord is on the horizon if we embrace a progressive political program, or divide national monies more equitably, or develop the right meteorology.  We must not be so imprudent, however, that we mistakenly or impetuously trust false political leaders (Ps 118:9), false shepherds (Jude 4), or false friends (1 Cor 5:11; Sirach 37:1, 6:13).

  • Identify false messiahs (Ps 146:3): Know that political progress is often more illusion than reality; that guarantees of fulfillment in this vale of tears are invitations to corruption and disaster; that prudent sorrow about the human condition serves civic purpose more reliably than quixotic optimism; and that fear of the Lord is, in fact, the beginning of wisdom. Herod, whatever his name may be here and now, is incorrigible.  And . . .
  • Insist upon orthodoxy (Gal 1:6-9, 2 Pt 2:1): How we worship and pray, what we read and watch, whom we listen to—should be clearly consistent with the Holy Bible, with Sacred Tradition, and with the Settled Magisterium—the Deposit of the Faith which comes to us from the Apostles (1 Tm 6:20; cf. CCC #84, #86, #2035). Nevertheless, “fierce wolves will come among you,” and some men from our own number “will tell lies to lead the believers away” (Acts 20:29-30). Resolve to guard, and to be governed by, the truth entrusted to us (cf. 2 Tm 1:13-14). And . . .
  • Separate wheat from chaff: Fraternity has its time and its place. We are explicitly warned, though, by St. Paul: “Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company ruins good morals’” (1 Cor 15:33). To revivify an old phrase: It behooves us to take that admonition to heart, for it both complements and, when necessary, corrects the fraternal fallacy.  First:  recognize the bad company (cf. Eph 5:11).  Such recognition requires the cultivation of both virtue and phronesis, the spiritual vaccine produced by wise education and examined experience. Second:  recognize, too, the good company, for “a loyal friend is like a safe shelter; find one, and you have found a treasure” (Sirach 6:14).

The House of Hapsburg in World War II

A look at the effect of the loss of the Dual Monarchy on the rise of Hitler in  the inter-war years and the activities of Archduke Otto during the War.

From The Mad Monarchist (20 June 2015)

The First World War saw the venerable Hapsburg dynasty deposed and exiled, their empire, Austria-Hungary, broken up. The Second World War saw the end of the last realistic hope for a Hapsburg restoration to date. When it comes to monarchies, history has tended to take an “out of sight, out of mind” attitude; if they do not have a throne, they are not worth remembering. However, the Hapsburgs came closer than almost anyone realizes to being restored to the Austrian throne just prior to World War II. It is also technically true that they retained, in name though not in fact, the throne of the Kingdom of Hungary until late in the war. Unlike the other Central Powers of the First World War, Austria-Hungary had ceased to exist entirely, yet, there were many factors in the inter-war period that encouraged hopes of a restoration in both Austria and Hungary. What had replaced the old “Dual Monarchy” did not seem to be working out so well. Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were not nation-states but multi-cultural contrivances that faced serious ethnic tensions and other powers, such as Hungary and Austria found themselves isolated and wishing to be relevant again.

Altogether, the absence of Austria-Hungary helped pave the way to power for Adolf Hitler, a man who despised everything about the “Dual Monarchy”. There was the monarchy, the aristocracy, the multi-cultural nature of it as well as what he viewed as the pandering to the Jewish and Slavic populations by the Hapsburgs. There was nothing about it he liked and the international tensions created by the new borders drawn after World War I all worked together to create a situation the Nazis were only too willing to exploit. Yet, the former Hapsburg lands also posed the greatest threat to the Nazi movement ever gaining the domination in Europe they longed for even after coming to power in Germany. Czechoslovakia stood in the way and had an industrial center that Nazi Germany very much needed. To unite all Germans into a single nation-state also meant that the first “prize” on the Nazi wish-list was Austria and yet Austria was also their first obstacle as Italy supported Austrian independence as a buffer state between Italy and Germany and this also barred the way to the Italo-German alliance which Hitler considered paramount to his plans. A Hapsburg restoration, even if only over Austria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, would have created a power bloc that would have been a major obstacle to Nazi plans for German expansion considering how militarily weak Germany was at the time, even right up to the outbreak of war.

Archduke Joseph

Of the countries involved, probably none presented a greater cause for monarchist frustration than the Kingdom of Hungary. The full restoration of the monarchy there was tantalizingly close on several occasions and the fact that it ultimately failed can be attributed to two sources: the paranoia of the Allies (primarily France, though only God in His wisdom knows why) and the ambition of Admiral Miklos Horthy. At the end of the First World War, power in Hungary had fallen to the Hapsburg Archduke Joseph August of Austria, who was quite popular in Hungary and was given the place of regent. He put down one attempted revolution, survived another (communist) revolution and was restored to power again as Hungarian regent. However, in their blind and short-sighted opposition to a Hapsburg holding power in any part of the former Austria-Hungary, the Allies forced Archduke Joseph to step down in 1919. He then became a member of the House of Lords where he remained a respected figure until the German occupation in 1944 forced him to flee to the United States.

King Charles

Nonetheless, in 1920 the Hungarian government voted to restore the monarchy though they lacked a monarch and so Admiral Miklos Horthy was appointed regent. He was of service in preventing a communist takeover of the country, reestablishing stability and a general sense of normalcy but he proved to be ultimately treasonous by not handing power back to the last King of Hungary, Emperor Charles I (Kaiser Karl), when he tried to reclaim his throne twice in 1921 only to be forced out of the country on each occasion. Horthy protested that the time was not right, the Allies opposed it and though some of his arguments might have had merit, as regent it was not his decision to make. As regent, he was only to hold power until the King returned and as soon as Emperor Charles set foot on Hungarian soil, Horthy should have deferred to his legitimate monarch. According to some accounts, the idea that Britain and France would have taken action against any Hapsburg restoration in Hungary seems likely to have been exaggerated. If power had been handed over and the restored monarchy solidified, it seems rather unlikely that Britain and France would have risked a conflagration to keep the Hapsburgs from their Hungarian inheritance.

Horthy and Hitler

So, Hungary would go on through most of World War II as a nominal kingdom; a monarchy without a monarch. Without the monarchy, Hungary drifted ever closer to Nazi Germany, first by increased economic ties, later by taking part in the division of territory in Czechoslovakia and finally militarily by joining the Axis and participating in the invasion of the Soviet Union. Hungary regained some of the territory lost to Romania thanks to Hitler, regained more in the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia and took a slice for itself when Czechoslovakia was dismembered. Slovakia had been part of the Kingdom of Hungary prior to World War I and the Slovaks were persuaded to become a German protectorate when Hitler threatened to allow Hungary to swallow them whole if they tried to make any trouble about it. The Hungarians went on as less-than-enthusiastic members of the Axis but the Hungarian military was decimated at the Battle of Stalingrad and as the Soviet Red Army drew closer, Horthy began trying to get Hungary out of the Axis and surrender. When Hitler learned of this, not surprisingly, German forces occupied Hungary in 1944, Horthy was arrested and the Hungarian pro-Nazi “Arrow Cross” party took power as the willing instruments of the German occupation.

Crown Prince Otto

All of these events were watched very closely by the man who should have been King of Hungary, Archduke Otto of Austria. He succeeded as head of the House of Hapsburg on the death of his father Emperor Charles in 1922. It was at that time that he became the nominal King of Hungary but when he reached legal adulthood and was expected to actually take up the Hungarian throne, Admiral Horthy advised him not to try it. The Archduke knew well enough from the experience of his father that it would be useless to try so long as Horthy opposed him, given the current situation. With Horthy being replaced by the Nazis and they in quick succession by the communists, the opportunity to take up the Hungarian throne would never materialize for Archduke Otto. However, he did have reason to be hopeful about a restoration in Austria and if the Austrian situation had worked out, there is reason to believe that the situation in Hungary, and perhaps beyond, would have altered considerably and in favor of the Hapsburgs.

Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss

Very few people realize just how close Archduke Otto came to being restored to the Austrian throne. By his own accounts, it was a done deal, it was going to happen, the long-sought after goal of seeing the House of Hapsburg in Vienna again was no longer a question of “if” nor even of “when”. It was all planned out. The root cause for why it did not ultimately happen came from the last place anyone would have expected: Ethiopia. First, however, a little background information is probably in order. After the First World War, Austria was left as a small “rump state”, powerless and isolated in Europe. It is not surprising that Austrians initially favored a union with Germany but the Allies refused to permit this, fearing that it would strengthen the Germans. Austria went through turmoil, civil strife, the all too common threat of a communist takeover before order was finally restored by a short, fervent man named Engelbert Dollfuss, leader of the Fatherland Front. First coming to office as chancellor in 1932, Dollfuss solidified his hold on Austria after defeating the socialists in 1934 but would not survive the end of the year. He had courted the monarchists but never took them home from the dance.

Banning opposition parties, Dollfuss established a Catholic, corporatist state which has since been termed “Austrofascism”. He did manage to restore a proper patriotic pride to Austria, ended the threat of a leftist revolution and had very close and friendly ties with Benito Mussolini in Rome. He kept monarchists dangling on promises but did see eye-to-eye with Archduke Otto in their mutual loathing of the Nazis. Most importantly, this attitude was shared by Il Duce in Italy. Given the subsequent formation of the Axis, the “Pact of Steel” and so on, it can easily be forgotten that while Hitler hero-worshipped Mussolini since the Blackshirts march on Rome, that sentiment was not returned. Mussolini initially disliked Hitler and even after Hitler came to power and the two met face to face, Mussolini found something unsavory about him. This was important as the Nazis wanted Austria more than anything, it being the largest part of the German population outside Germany itself, and Italy was the one major obstacle to the Nazis being able to take Austria by force. In 1934, when Dollfuss was assassinated by the Nazis in an attempted coup, Mussolini was outraged and rushed Italian troops to the border, forcing Hitler to back down and denounce the Austrian Nazis who had done the deed.

Schuschnigg and Mussolini

At the time, Germany was still militarily weak but Mussolini was rather put off by the fact that, in that hour of crisis in 1934, he had been forced to act alone; neither Britain nor France had backed him up. In Austria itself, Kurt von Schuschnigg succeeded Dollfuss as chancellor and he knew that something more would have to be done to preserve Austrian independence and keep the country out of Hitler’s grasp. Restoring the monarchy was something Schuschnigg determined he could do. As Hitler and the Nazis in Germany grew in power and prestige there were not a few Austrians who longed to be part of the “Greater Germany” Hitler pledged to build. It was necessary then to give Austrians a greater sense of themselves as a distinct people, to recall the glory days of the past and there could be no better way to accomplish this than by restoring the Hapsburgs. There would be those in the European community who would oppose it but ultimately only two men mattered; Archduke Otto himself and the guarantor of Austrian independence Benito Mussolini.

Archduke Otto

Needless to say, Archduke Otto was more than willing to take the throne. Horrified by the thought of a Nazi takeover in Vienna and Austria becoming a state in Germany, the imperial heir offered to return at any time if he could be of help in saving the situation. The laws banning the Hapsburgs from Austrian soil were repealed and properties of the Hapsburgs were restored to them. The monarchists were jubilant, the Nazis were outraged and Schuschnigg finally put the issue to Mussolini. Would Italy support or oppose a restoration of the Hapsburg monarchy in Austria? By this time, Mussolini had come close to falling out with the Allies but still had no love for Hitler nor did he want to see the Germans on his border by annexing Austria. Surprisingly, given his background, Mussolini informed Schuschnigg that he would not oppose a restoration of the monarchy. He even went a step further and suggested that Italo-Austrian ties could be cemented by a Hapsburg marriage to a member of the Italian House of Savoy (something for which there was plenty of historical precedent). Schuschnigg arranged a secret meeting with Archduke Otto to inform him that the path had been cleared for the restoration of the monarchy. It was all agreed to and Schuschnigg stated that everything should be set for the restoration to happen the following year.

Fuhrer & Duce

Unfortunately, problems arose that prevented the speedy restoration that Schuschnigg and Archduke Otto planned. After an Ethiopian attack on an Italian outpost along the disputed border between Ethiopia and Eritrea, Mussolini launched his invasion of Ethiopia. Liberal world opinion came down hard on Italy with Britain and France denouncing Italy in the League of Nations. Sanctions were imposed on Italy that succeeded in infuriating the public but not in deterring the Duce from his war. Germany, of course, did not join in the sanctions against Italy but continued to offer an outstretched hand of friendship. Ethiopia was conquered by Italian forces within seven months and Mussolini was turned against the Allies firmly and irretrievably. Since the Allies had offended him, the Duce turned to Hitler. From that point on, Austria could no longer count on Italian protection from a Nazi takeover and Hitler immediately began planning for the annexation of Austria and to do it before Archduke Otto could be restored to the throne. Fittingly enough, the Nazi plan for the invasion of Austria was given the codename of “Operation Otto”.

Patriotic rally of the Fatherland Front

Today, few people realize how close Austria came to restoring the monarchy, were it not for the British and French sanctions on Italy over Ethiopia, it almost certainly would have happened. More than that though, few people realize just how seriously the Nazis took the possibility. They were positively panicked by the idea and their fears were not entirely unjustified. Stories circulated in Nazi Germany that Archduke Otto would be restored to the Austrian throne but also that Hungary and Czechoslovakia were planning to join together under the House of Hapsburg and attack Nazi Germany. Of course, the idea that Archduke Otto or any government he presided over would have launched an unprovoked attack on Germany is absurd, yet there was some elements of truth to the stories. Schuschnigg had worked to forge better relations with Hungary and Archduke Otto was already nominally the King of Hungary anyway, so it is not that far-fetched to foresee a restoration in Austria leading to a full restoration in Hungary as well. The idea of Czechoslovakia rejoining Austria and Hungary also seems far-fetched but considering that they were under threat from Nazi Germany themselves, if Italy, Austria and Hungary had become an all-monarchy, anti-Nazi power bloc, it is not impossible to imagine the Czech government joining in as a matter of practical necessity.

The anschluss is accomplished

But, as we know, it didn’t happen. Schuschnigg called for a referendum on Austrian independence and Hitler determined to take action before it could be carried out. The only one who could have stopped him was Mussolini and he was no longer prepared to stand in the way. When this news reached Hitler, the Nazi dictator was ecstatic, knowing that Austria was as good as his. To sweeten the deal, Hitler also renounced forever any claim to the Southern Tyrol (a German populated area ceded to Italy after World War I). Prince Philip of Hesse telephoned the Fuhrer from Rome to inform him that Mussolini would keep his troops at home this time. Hitler excitedly shouted into the phone, “Please tell Mussolini that I shall never forget this…Never, never, never! Come what may! …And listen -sign any agreement he would like…You can tell him again. I thank him most heartily. I will never forget him!…Whenever he should be in need or in danger, he can be sure that I will stick with him, rain or shine -come what may- even if the whole world would rise against him -I will, I shall-” No child on Christmas morning was ever so excited and, though it was said in an obviously exuberant moment, Hitler would be as good as his word, at least as far as Mussolini was concerned. On March 12, 1938 German army units drove into Austria and in quick order the annexation was accomplished.

Archduke Otto

Austrian aristocrats and monarchists were immediately arrested by the Nazis, many of them being killed, along with any others who had opposed the union. The laws against the Hapsburgs in Austria were put back into effect, their property was again confiscated and Archduke Otto himself was declared a criminal, a wanted man and he had to take extra precautions for his own security. He moved to France and helped a great many Jews escape from Austria prior to the outbreak of World War II. He also remained adamant that the Austrians were not partners with Germany, but their first victims. Without the unity that the Hapsburg monarchy had provided, Hitler had a relatively easy time taking the German populated areas of the former Austria-Hungary for himself. First was the Sudetenland and then all of Czechoslovakia was partitioned with Poland and Hungary joining in the feast. Anyone who would dismiss the impact on the world of the loss of the “Dual Monarchy” should consider the fact that all of Hitler’s pre-war territorial gains were a nibbling away at the former lands of Austria-Hungary. It also warrants pointing out that the Allies took no action against Germany in these days and that should serve as an illustration of how unwarranted the fears were of Allied opposition to the restoration of the Hapsburgs. It would all seem to indicate that, despite the protestations of those who did not want to give up power, that the French and British would not have taken any action to oppose a return of the Hapsburgs if a country like Hungary had just gone ahead and done it. Ultimately, the only one who made a commitment to restore the Hapsburgs regardless of Allied opinion was Schuschnigg and he was abandoned.

The Archduke in Florida, 1942

When World War II broke out in Europe and the Germans finally got around to launching their invasion of France, Archduke Otto was again forced to flee, this time to the United States of America via Portugal. With the Nazi laws enacted against them, the Austrian Imperial Family in America were people without a country but Archduke Otto never relented in his anti-Nazi campaign. He settled in Washington DC but traveled across America extensively. He met with President Roosevelt several times and urged him and the American people (which at the time wanted no part of Europe’s war) to intervene and take up the cause of defeating the Axis. He also raised money for refugees from the former Austria-Hungary and charitable causes to benefit them as well as doing his best to make it clear to all that his people were not the enemies of America but victims of the Nazis just as much as the Czechs or the Poles. At the end of 1941, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Hitler and Mussolini declared war on the United States in solidarity with their Japanese ally, America committed itself to the world war. Always a man of peace who greatly emphasized the role played by his father in trying to negotiate a peaceful end to the First World War, Archduke Otto nonetheless volunteered to fight for the Allied cause. While in America he tried to raise funds and gain support for an army battalion of Austrian exiles but was unable to bring it to fruition.

When the war progressed in favor of the Allies, ending ultimately in the total destruction of Germany and its division among the Allies, Archduke Otto was on the scene and was briefly able to visit his Austrian homeland in 1945. His immediate concern was lobbying Allied leaders to keep Austria out of the hands of the Soviets. He put forward his own proposal for post-war Central Europe, calling for the creation of a “Danube Federation” that would encompass much of the former territory of the Empire of Austria-Hungary. British Prime Minister Churchill seemed supportive of the idea but, not surprisingly, it was thwarted by the opposition of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. As nearly all of the territory of the proposed federation was within the agreed-to Soviet sphere of influence, Stalin was able to veto the plan. Although it was not stated outright that the “Danube Federation” would be another Hapsburg empire, for the Archduke was certainly not an ambitious man, it stood to reason that he would have been the only logical candidate to assume a position of leadership in such a state. As it was, he busied himself with arguing for the rights of the German-speaking peoples outside of Germany, trying to gain recognition of Austria as a victim of Nazi aggression rather than an accessory and to form an Austrian government-in-exile. The last goal proved unreachable and he also railed against the handing over of Eastern Europe to Stalin and the Soviets which was the primary impediment to most of his plans. Unfortunately, that concerned agreements already made and involved territory that the Red Army already occupied so that, even if the British and Americans had regrets, there was little to nothing they could do about it.

With the situation as it was at the end of the war, hopes for a Hapsburg restoration vanished quickly. However, it is still a mark of how much the power-mad politicians who seized control of Austria in the aftermath of the war were about the possibility of Archduke Otto gaining the throne that, while Austria was purged of all the laws and policies enacted during the union with Nazi Germany, the post-war republican government retained those that were anti-Hapsburg. The Archduke remained banned from Austrian soil for decades until he was obliged to renounce his claim to the throne simply to have the basic freedom enjoyed by any other citizen. It was an obscene injustice for a man who had opposed the Nazi movement from the very beginning, a man who had been singled out by the Nazi regime as an “enemy of the state” and who had devoted his entire life during the war to resisting the Nazis and rescuing Austria and the other Hapsburg realms from their grip.

1 December, Antonio, Cardinal Bacci: Meditations For Each Day

The Blessedness of the Peacemakers

1. The spirit of peace pervades the Gospel. When Jesus is born, choirs of Angels sing above the stable in Bethlehem: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of good will.” (Luke 2:14) When our Saviour has risen gloriously from the dead, He appears to His disciples and greets them with the words: “Peace be to you.” Finally, when He is departing from this earth He leaves His peace to His followers as their inheritance. “Peace I leave with you,” He says to them, “my peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, or be afraid.” (John 14:27)

Exactly what is the peace of Jesus Christ? It is much different from worldly peace, presuming that the world can give some kind of peace. St. Paul says of the Saviour that “he himself is our peace.” (Eph. 2:14) How are we to understand what is meant by this? The Apostle himself explains when he writes: “Having been justified by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
(Rom. 5:1) 


Jesus Christ, therefore, is our peacemaker. He has shouldered our iniquities and has offered Himself to the Father as a victim of expiation and of reconciliation. It is at the price of Christ's precious blood that we have regained peace with God and freedom from our sins. This is the peace which our Lord has given us. Let us remember, however, that if we return to the slavery of sin we shall lose at once the jewel of peace which Jesus Christ has bestowed on us. “There is no peace to the wicked.” (Is. 48:22) We have experienced on many occasions how true this is. Sin destroys peace of soul because it deprives us of Jesus, without Whom peace cannot survive. Let us resolve, therefore, to remain always close to our Lord and far from sin. Then only shall we be able to preserve our peace of mind in the midst of temptations and of earthly sorrows.

2. We should not imagine, however, that the peace which Jesus brought to us is a lifeless peace like that of a cemetery. On the contrary, it is the peace of conquest, a living peace. It cannot be attained by the sluggard who is aiming at an easy and comfortable existence, but by the generous warrior who is always prepared to throw himself into the fight for virtue, for the glory of God, and for the salvation of souls.

The peace of Jesus Christ is a victory over the evil which is rampant within us and around us. It demands vigilance, strife, and perseverance in fidelity to our Lord. It requires the spirit of sacrifice, the love of God, and dedication to the welfare of our fellow-men. It is the fruit of internal and external combat. It excludes all rancour, envy, detraction, and malice, which is why it costs so much hardship and conflict. When a man has gained the victory, however, he experiences that wonderful spiritual tranquillity which God alone can give.

3.”Blessed are the peacemakers,” said Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, “for they shall be called children of God.”(Mt. 5:9)

True Christian peace, which accompanies the perfect control of the passions and complete dedication to God's cause, makes us like God and enables us by His grace to become His adopted children. He is the God of peace, in Whom there is no conflict, but only perfect order and harmony. Since He is pure act, He understands Himself fully in all His beauty and perfection, and knowing Himself He loves Himself. He is peace, in an active and not in a passive sense. For this reason the peacemakers are singled out in a special way as the children of God. In other words, they become like God when they acquire that interior tranquillity which is the fruit of virtue and of victory over the flesh. With the help of divine grace, we should do our utmost to gain this peace.

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 2 DECEMBER – SAINT BIBIANA (Virgin and Martyr)

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 2 DECEMBER – SAINT BIBIANA (Virgin and Martyr): Bibiana was a Roman virgin, noble by birth, but more noble by her profession of the Christian faith. For, under the most wicked tyrant Ju...

Eastern Rite - Crosier

Today, we celebrate the Feast of St. Nahum, Prophet. One of the Minor Prophets, lived in the seventh century B.C. He saw the fulfillment of his prophecy of the destruction of Nineveh.

And of St. Filaret, the "Almsgiver" and St. Ananias, Martyr.
✠✠✠✠✠

The crosier (Greek: πατερίσα; Slavonic: zhezl) is carried by Eastern bishops and senior monastics as a stylized staff of office and a symbol of authority and jurisdiction. The crosiers are staffs that generally come with one of two different tops: on one form the top of the crosier is usually in the shape of the Greek letter Tau, with the arms curving downward, and the other is surmounted by a small cross. Crosiers are usually made of fine metal often gilded or silver plated. Some may be made of fine wood.

The crosier is carried by bishops, archimandrites, abbots, and abbesses. The crosier is presented to a new bishop by the chief consecrator following the dismissal at the Divine Liturgy when the bishop is consecrated. For archimandrites, abbots, and abbesses, the crosier is conferred at the time of their investitures. The crosier is carried by the bishop while outside the altar, and it is not taken within the altar area, that is behind the iconostasis. When the bishop enters the altar the crosier is placed leaning against the iconostasis next to the icon of Christ to the right of the Royal Doors.

When the prelate is not vested for services in the church, he uses a different, smaller staff that is in the form of a walking stick topped with a silver pommel.

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 1 DECEMBER – TUESDAY OF THE FIRST WEEK OF ADVENT

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 1 DECEMBER – TUESDAY OF THE FIRST WEEK OF ADVENT: Lesson at Matins – Isaias ii. 1‒3 The word that Isaias the son of Amos saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. And in the last days the moun...

1 December, A Chesterton Calendar

DECEMBER 1st

In this world of ours we do not so much go on and discover small things: rather we go on and discover big things. It is the detail that we see first; it is the design that we only see very slowly, and some men die never having seen it at all. We see certain squadrons in certain uniforms gallop past; we take an arbitrary fancy to this or that colour, to this or that plume. But it often takes us a long time to realize what the fight is about or even who is fighting whom.

So in the modern intellectual world we can see flags of many colours, deeds of manifold interest; the one thing we cannot see is the map. We cannot see the simplified statement which tells us what is the origin of all the trouble.

'William Blake.'

The Holy Rule of St Benedict, Father of Western Monks

CHAPTER L. Of the Brethren who are working at a distance from the Oratory, or are on a journey

1 Apr. 1 Aug. 1 Dec.

Let the brethren who are at work at a great distance, or on a journey, and cannot come to the Oratory at the proper time (the Abbot judging such to be the case) perform the Work of God there where they are labouring, in godly fear, and on bended knees. In like manner, let not those who are sent on a journey allow the appointed Hours to pass by; but, as far as they can, observe them by themselves, and not neglect to fulfil their obligation of divine service.

2 December, The Roman Martyrology

Quarto Nonas Decémbris Luna sexta decima Anno Domini 2020

December 2nd 2020, the 16th day of the Moon, were born into the better life:

At Rome, (about the year 363,) the holy Virgin and martyr Bibiana, who under, the profane Emperor Julian was for Christ's sake flogged to death with scourges loaded with lead.
There likewise, the holy martyrs the Priest Eusebius, the Deacon Marcellus, Hippolytus, Maximus, Adria, Paulina, Neo, Mary, Martana, and Aurelia, who suffered martyrdom under the judge Secundian, in the persecution under the Emperor Valerian, (in the year 256.)
Likewise at Rome, (at the end of the 2nd century,) the holy martyr Pontian and four others.
In Africa, the holy martyrs Severus, Securus, Januarius, and Victorinus, who were there crowned with martyrdom, (about the year of Christ 300.) At Aquileia, (about the year 409,) the holy Confessor Chromatius, Bishop (of that see.)
At Imola, (in the year 450,) holy Peter, Bishop of Ravenna, styled Chrysologus, (or him of the golden words,) famous for his teaching and holiness, whose feast we keep upon the 4th day of this present month.
At Verona, (in the sixth century,) the holy Confessor Lupus, Bishop (of that see.)
At Edessa, (about the year 468,) holy Nonnus, Bishop (first of that see, and afterwards of Heliopolis in Syria,) through whose prayers Pelagia the penitent was converted to Christ.
At Troas, in Phrygia, holy Bishop Silvanus, famous for miracles.
At Brescia, holy Bishop Evasius.
V. And elsewhere many other holy martyrs, confessors, and holy virgins.
R. Thanks be to God.

Memes of the Day