31 May 2020

Meet the Contemplatives Known as ‘the Heavy Artillery’

Contemplatives are the dynamo of the Church. They are also the first Orders to be suppressed by the Revolution, because the Reds know the power of prayer!

From the National Catholic Register

By K.V. Turley

The Tangiers Carmel’s surprising link to the financial heart of London.

LONDON — There is a community of enclosed Carmelite nuns who are gaining a reputation in London.

The community, the Carmelite Sisters in Tangiers, lives in Morocco, however, many miles from the British capital. So how have these contemplatives attracted a devoted and grateful group of supporters and friends in London, centred mainly in the capital’s business district known simply as: “The City”?

In recent years, bankers, stockbrokers and City lawyers have started talking of these Carmelite nuns as “the heavy artillery.”

The nuns received this nickname because many prayer requests — often-desperate ones for desperate situations, frequently involving illness — have gone to the nuns, sometimes with spectacular success. Many of these London requests for prayers come from Catholics, both lapsed and practicing; others, however, come from non-Catholics. What these Londoners all now have in common is an immense gratitude to these women religious for praying on behalf of complete strangers in their hour of need.

So who are these nuns, and how did this connection with London come about?

London Calling

The answer to the second part of the question is straightforward. Antonio Irastorza is a City lawyer with offices just off Finsbury Square in the heart of London’s financial quarter. He encountered the nuns by accident. He told the Register, “I came across them in January 2013, when I was in southern Spain. I crossed to Tangiers from there on the ferry, but I couldn’t come back because my ferryboat sank due to very strong winds! One of the only two places to hear Mass in Tangiers is at the Carmel, so I went to Mass there.”

He discovered that the Carmelite sisters were living in abject poverty and was impressed by their Christian witness in an Islamic country. “I had a chat with Mother Prioress through the grill and asked if I could keep in contact with the Carmel via email,” he explained.

From then on, Irastorza did just that; he also began forwarding to the sisters many prayer requests. “Many people have received favors through the prayers of the sisters, whether these be about work or for family members. One of the people who received a favor through the sisters described their prayer as akin to the military idea of ‘heavy artillery.’” The growing reputation of this “heavy artillery” soon spread throughout London’s financial quarter.

The Carmel in Tangiers is not the only such monastery in the Islamic world. There is a Carmel in Syria and in Egypt. “But,” as Mother Prioress Julia de San Jose of the Tangier Carmel told the Register, “In those places there are also native Christian families who are living there. In Morocco, there are no Moroccan Christians living here.”

Holy Foundation

The story of how the Carmel came to be starts in 1923, when Mother Teresa of the Holy Family from the monastery of San José, Avila, Spain, was sent to Segovia. It was there she consulted the superiors of her religious order about the possibility of founding a Carmelite monastery in Africa. Eventually, this idea was approved. Mother Teresa arrived in Tangiers on January 23, 1933, with the Discalced Carmelites’ Monastery of the Holy Family and St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus formally established on Dec. 13, 1934.

Today, there is a monastic community there of nine sisters: two from Spain and one sister each from the following countries: Portugal, Italy, Ecuador, Colombia, Liberia, the Philippines and Chile.

“The day of a Carmelite nun is balanced with solitude and community life, recreation and silence, work and prayers,” says Mother Julia de San Jose.

The horarium of the nuns is as follows:


6am Morning bell
6:30-7am Morning Prayer
7am Silent prayer, for one hour
8am Holy Mass, followed by thanksgiving, and mid-morning prayer
9am Breakfast
9:10am-12:45pm Work period within the monastery followed by midday prayer
1:00pm Lunch
1:30pm Community recreation
2:30pm Mid-afternoon prayer
2:45-4:45pm Rest and spiritual reading
4:45-6:25pm Work period in the monastery
6:30pm Evening Prayer, then one hour of silent prayer
8:10pm Supper
8:30-9:30pm Recreation
9:30pm  Night Prayer
Followed by the “Grand Silence”

Mother Julia de San Jose summed up the life of the Tangiers Carmel as follows: “Like our sisters in other Carmels, we help one another to live a life in union with Christ. We sing praises to the Lord; we try to live in silence, meditating on the word of God every day; we do our work in imitation of the life of the Holy Family in Nazareth; and we present every day to the Lord the joys and sorrows, anguish and hope of the Church and of all men.”

Help From Distant Friends

With little or no Catholic community to offer material aid, the Tangiers Carmel supports itself by selling homemade cookies, jams and cakes. “We also make religious articles like rosaries and key rings. We have a hostel where we receive visiting groups during the summer,” said Mother Julia de San Jose. The Carmel also gratefully receives alms, not least from their devoted band of beneficiaries in London.

Irastorza says the connection between the alms given to the sisters by many of his friends and colleagues in London is a simple one — the sisters have prayed for his friends and colleagues. Sometimes this has been with incredible results, and, therefore, a reservoir of goodwill has built up over the years for the Carmelite Sisters in Tangiers. This goodwill is evidenced in the financial contributions the sisters have received in their hour of need.

At Peace With Neighbors

How do local people feel about a Christian monastery in their midst? This is especially a concern, given the recent upheavals across the Islamic World. Mother Julia de San Jose has no fears about the Carmel’s relationship with their neighbors, though: “We are at peace with the people around us. We respect each other. In our experience, we have been respected in our 80 years here in this country.”

Still, Morocco is next door to Algeria, which, in recent times, has witnessed the slaying of the Cistercian monks, now known as the Atlas Martyrs. The sisters at Tangiers knew one of those martyr-monks, the Prior Christian de Chergé (now a “Blessed”). On occasion he had celebrated Mass in the chapel at the Tangiers Carmel.

That fact alone is a reminder of the threat with which all Christians in North Africa live at present. Nevertheless, the Tangiers Carmel continues witnessing to God’s love and mercy. Trusting in divine Providence, the sisters continue to pray for anyone who asks this of them, using their spiritual “heavy artillery” to lighten the load of many in London and across the world.

“The sisters never talk about themselves,” observed Irastorza.“All they are interested in is helping other people by and through prayer. Their witness has been a great lesson to me in serenity and abandonment to God’s will.”

Xi Jinping Tells Chinese Military to Prepare for War. Is It Against India, US or Taiwan?

On top of the pandemic they engineered, the seem to want war. Is there no end to their evil? The CCP must be destroyed!
From India Today

By Prabhash K. Dutta

Chinese President Xi Jinping has asked the PLA to prepare for war without specifying who is the enemy. China is currently engaged in intense territorial dispute with India, Taiwan and also the US.


Howsoever unusual it may sound, Chinese President Xi Jinping has asked its People's Liberation Army (PLA) to prepare for war even though the Covid-19 threat is not clearly over.
Xi Jinping, as quoted by state news agency Xinhua, said, "It is necessary to explore ways of training and preparing for war because epidemic control efforts have been normalised."
"It is necessary to step up preparations for armed combat, to flexibly carry out actual combat military training, and to improve our military's ability to perform military missions," said Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the week-long sitting of the National People's Congress (NPC), the national parliament of China.
This follows a decision to increase the budget for the Chinese military by $178 billion -- or 6.6 per cent -- over last year's allocation.
Xi Jinping's direction to the Chinese military to be battle-ready has come at a time when tension is growing between India and China in Ladakh and Sikkim sectors, and also at the Lipulekh tri-junction with Nepal.
China is understood to have played a role in the recent assertion by Nepal over Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura areas of Pithoragarh district in Uttarakhand.
The situation along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Ladakh is tense. Indian and Chinese soldiers are locked in an eyeball-to-eyeball face-off in Galwan Valley, Pangong Tso, Demchok and Daulat Beg Oldie.
The tension began on May 5, when around 250 soldiers from the Indian and Chinese sides engaged in a face-off. Over two days, some 100 soldiers from both sides received injuries.
Reports also suggested that the Chinese had "detained" some Indian soldiers for a few hours. The two sides agreed to disengage after a meeting between local commanders.
China has opposed Indian construction on its side of the LAC, calling it a violation of the agreement to maintain the status quo in the region till the boundary question is settled. China claims parts of Ladakh as its own territory. It occupied Aksai Chin during 1962 war and has refused to vacate it since.
China has been posturing aggressively since Ladakh was granted Union Territory status in 2019 following the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir.
India is undertaking road construction and infrastructure building activities in villages near the LAC as development work as well as to boost its strategic position. China has already built heavy infrastructure on the other side of LAC.
Currently, both sides are ramping up their presence in Ladakh in what looks like a replay of Doklam in 2017 at a tri-junction with Bhutan. Doklam had seen a message being sent following a meeting between Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the militaries of the two countries from their leadership to take all efforts to avoid confrontation.
In Sikkim, Chinese troops engaged in a physical brawl with Indian soldiers near the Naku La pass. This happened on May 9, four days after the face-off in Ladakh. Around 150 Chinese and Indian soldiers were engaged in the face-off, leaving 10 soldiers injured on both sides.
On the Lipulekh tri-junction, India is likely to step up its military presence to secure its interests in case China turns aggressive directly or by fronting Nepal. The ITBP (Indo-Tibetan Border Police) has been guarding the Kalapani and Lipulekh areas.
China has also protested two MPs from the ruling BJP sending congratulatory messages to Tsai Ing-wen, who recently won her second term as the president of Taiwan. China does not recognise Taiwan, emphasising on the One-China policy. Its stated goal is to unify Taiwan with China, even by force if necessary.
Taiwan, on the other hand, has chosen a pro-independence leader -- Tsai -- for the second consecutive time. Under Tsai, Taiwan has been focusing on strengthening its defence against suspected Chinese aggression.
To boost its military preparedness, Taiwan conducted an ambitious test-fire of a missile in the middle of the Covid-19 outbreak in April. The missile, when developed, can hit targets deep inside China.
Under Tsai, Taiwan has struck defence deals with the US, purchasing F-16 fighter jets worth $8 billion and also over $2 billion pact for missiles for its army and navy.
There have been reports that China is preparing to forcibly occupy Taiwanese islands in the South China Sea, which Beijing claims at its sovereign water territory. A simulation video released by China recently heightened the speculation that it is planning to seize Taiwanese islands. China has planned a massive naval drill in nearby sea waters in the coming months.
The US has been standing with Taiwan solidly. That flies in the face of the Chinese assertion that no country should engage diplomatically or militarily with the island nation. The US-China relation is at its lowest in the years under President Donald Trump.

Trump's policies have led to an intense US-China trade war since 2018. The US's refusal to acknowledge the Chinese claim of the South and East China Seas have prompted China to claim that it faces a security threat from the Trump regime.

The war of words over the Covid-19 outbreak has further aggravated the tension between the US and China. Trump has openly accused China of spreading the pandemic to whole world, and feels it should be held accountable. Trump went on to say he does not feel like talking to Xi Jinping, and even poking China over pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
US air force bombers have conducted about 40 sorties over the South and East China Seas this year. They had run only about a dozen flights through 2019. The US navy has conducted what it calls "freedom of navigation operations" four times already in the two seas, drawing an angry reaction from China.
China says it faces real security threats from countries engaging in unilateral action to challenge its sovereign interests. This is the same argument that China uses against both India and the US to justify its assertion on contested territorial claims.
Against this backdrop, Xi Jinping has left many guessing his real intention behind making public through a state-run news agency his message to the Chinese military to be combat-ready. Does China really want a war? If so, against whom? And, why in the shadow of the Covid-19 pandemic?

Who Were the Assassins?

Real Crusades History #189 And don't forget the Real Crusades History website!

Real Crusades History examines the mysterious order known to the West as "the Assassins", who played a role in the Crusades executing targeted killings of important political figures.


How China Is Destroying The Mekong River

Not only have they engineered a world wide pandemic and created chaos in the South China Sea with their power grab, but they are systematically destroying peoples' lives in the countries downstream on the Mekong. The CCP must be destroyed!


Will Children’s Liturgies Fall Victim to COVID19?

We can only hope. They are one of the most ill conceived ideas anyone ever had in the Catholic Church, for the reasons Mr Denninger lists!

From A Catholic Misfit

By Larry Denninger


As dioceses resume public Masses resume throughout the country, safeguards to prevent the spread of COVID-19 are being implemented: no sign of peace; no hand-holding during the Our Father; social distancing; no holy water in the fonts; reduced capacity.
And please God, the death of the Children’s Liturgy.
I’ve never understood why parents were encouraged to dismiss their children for the Liturgy of the Word. Jesus said, “Let the children come to Me”, not “Send your kids away to hear a watered down gospel (read by a lay person, no less) and a juice box.”
When I was a kid, Children’s Liturgies weren’t a thing. I sat with my family the entire Mass. My parents discussed the homily with us on the way home, or at dinner that evening. We were expected to pay attention, behave ourselves, and participate to the best of our ability. Granted, prior to reaching the age of reason, understanding and wisdom were limited. But it engendered good habits – or at least that was the hope. We were told, while in God’s house, reverence was expected.
But Larry, some might object, what if Father preaches on a topic too “sensitive” for their innocent ears? Come on, be real. Who preaches on fornication, birth control, or abortion in the US nowadays? Or personal sin? Or better yet – scriptural exigesis and proclamation of the Gospel? They’re more likely to hear a sermon attempting to sound relevant rather than revelatory. But let’s say the priest does preach on the evils of abortion or sex before marriage. Then what? Obviously, the parents are obligated to answer their children’s questions, should they arise. It’s their responsibility to discuss the homily in age-appropriate ways, to reasonably explain Catholic doctrine. After all, parents are their children’s primary teachers. It’s not the Church’s job to protect children from difficult topics by providing a safe space to which their parents can send them.
But what if the kids get bored? Okay, so? Kids get bored, especially when they aren’t the center of attention. They won’t develop the skills of attentiveness, listening, and reverence when their boredom is enabled.
Ultimately, the question is: ‘Do the children receive any spiritual benefit?’ Sure, they get to make a craft (just like in school), and have a snack (again, just like in school), and they get to hang out with their friends (like in school…hey, I detect a pattern here). Mass isn’t meant to be like school, though. Mass is for worshiping God in Word and Eucharist, where families WORSHIP TOGETHER, and they can’t worship together if they don’t STAY TOGETHER.
Besides, isn’t that why we have Religious Ed? Why disrupt the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass twice, once for the assemblage, blessing, and dismissal; and then for their return, like an Oklahoma land rush?
Many months from now, once some level of normalcy returns, I bet Children’s Liturgies will be reinstituted. Let’s hope by then, parents will have learned that worshiping together strengthens their family’s faith much more than by sending out their children for a juice box and coloring page.

Baltimore Catechism #4 - QUESTIONS ON THE CATECHISM - Lessons 28, 29, & 30

Lesson 28

677. How many kinds of prayer are there?

678. What is "meditation"? 
679. What should we do before praying? 
680. What do you know of St. Monica? 
681. Of St. Augustine? 
682. Why does God not always grant our prayers? 
683. If prayer is necessary for salvation, how can infants be saved who die without having prayed?

Lesson 29

684. Were people obliged to keep the Commandments before the time of Moses? 
685. How many kinds of laws had the Israelites? 
686. When were these laws abolished? 
687. How were the Commandments given to Moses? 
688. What was manna? 
689. What is the difference between the Commandments of God and the commandments of the Church? 
690. What does "love thy neighbor as thyself" mean?

Lesson 30

691. How did the Israelites come to worship false gods? 
692. How do we sometimes worship strange gods? 
693. What are "fortune tellers"? 
694. Why is going to fortune tellers a sin? 
695. What are spells, charms? 
696. Are medals, scapulars, etc., worn about us charms? 
697. What are dreams? 
698. Did God ever use them to make known His will? 
699. Why does He not use them now? 
700. What are mediums and spiritists? 
701. How do bad Catholics do injury to the Church? 
702. Why did the Christian religion spread so rapidly? 
703. Who are atheists, deists, infidels, heretics, apostates, and schismatics? 
704. Are all religions equally true? 
705. Why is presumption a great sin? 
706. How are we frequently presumptuous? 
707. Are heretics Christians?

Next - Baltimore Catechism #4 - QUESTIONS ON THE CATECHISM - Lessons 31, 32, & 33

Word of the Day: Congregation for Bishops

CONGREGATION FOR BISHOPS. Established in 1588 as the Sacred Consistorial Congregation by Pope Sixtus V. Its name was changed in 1967 by Pope Paul VI, and its authority clarified. In countries not subject to the Congregations for Oriental Churches or the Evangelization of Peoples, the Congregation for Bishops may erect, divide, and unite dioceses, provinces, and other ecclesiastical territories. It prepares the documentation for the choice of bishops, apostolic administrators, and prelates with personal jurisdiction. It is kept informed about and watches over whatever concerns the persons and offices of bishops and the state of their dioceses. It examines the quinquennial reports and episcopal conferences and, in general, oversees the needs of the Church as these are to be met by the local ordinaries and their auxiliaries.

The Congregation for Bishops has its origins in the "Congregation for the Erection of Churches and Consistorial Provisions" founded by Pope Sixtus V on 22 January 1588. Before the Second Vatican Council, when the pope announced the names of new cardinals at a Secret Consistory, that is, a consistory that only churchmen attended, the names of new cardinals would be read out, followed by those of archbishops and bishops. The name was changed from the Sacred Consistorial Congregation to the Congregation for Bishops in 1967. Since 30 June 2010 its Prefect has been Cardinal Marc Ouellet. Since 12 October 2013 its Secretary has been Archbishop Ilson de Jesus Montanari. Since 25 January 2012 its Undersecretary has been Monsignor Udo Breitbach.

If Only Progressives Could Learn to Think Small

To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country, and to mankind. - Edmund Burke

From The Imaginative Conservative 

By Willis Renuart 


Nostalgia for the smaller face-to-face societies of the past is common to both progressives and conservatives. There was a time, whether it was 100 years ago or 10,000, when relationships between people were more meaningful, families lived more in harmony with nature, and communities worked together to care for the young and the needy. The critical difference between progressives and conservatives, as explained by George Scialabba in his recent essay about Wendell Berry, published in the Baffler, is that progressives believe that the inhuman scale of our institutions cannot be reversed.[*] Mr. Scialabba writes that conservatives like Berry are ineffective antimodernists because conservatives have retained faith in the dynamic potential of neighborhoods and communities. It is a difference that conservatives should embrace wholeheartedly.
This bedrock difference between conservatives and progressives has unfortunate but unavoidable consequences, Mr. Scialabba admits, because virtue is not such an important value in a bureaucratized society “dense with complex systems, which only large aggregations of people (or money) can move.” In a complex society that does not rely on face-to-face interactions, Mr. Scialabba argues, we need “more, not fewer, plans, laws, and policies.” Berry’s call to cultivate our own gardens and learn the virtues we have forgotten is contrary to the “big thoughts” necessary to save the planet. In the progressive vision, the ideal of a limited government is no longer possible, except for those restrictions on government action enshrined by the Bill of Rights and Supreme Court decisions.
The conflict between conservatives and progressives is so deep because conservatives believe the centralized planning Mr. Scialabba is calling for and the control that large institutions exercise over our lives is precisely the cause of our social ills. Of course, even conservatives recognize that many things must be done on a large scale, such as national defense, border security, utility grids, and environmental regulation. But virtue is fragile; it requires face-to-face community, and even the purpose and vision necessary to confront national issues must be grounded locally. The dystopian future our children face is primarily a cultural failure caused by the decline of communal associations whose authority has been usurped by large institutions. Without strong communities, elites in government and business will always run roughshod over the masses. The big ideas of progressives promise many things, but, with the exception of promoting big unions, they are not advancing any ideas that could remedy the loss of agency that has so emasculated communities. Like the ruling classes of the past, progressives have become disdainful of the less educated “basket of deplorables” with their parochial religious sensibilities.
As Republicans continue to become more dependent upon the votes of the working class and lose the support of college-educated suburbanites, there may be new opportunities for compromise. Many conservatives agree with progressives that it is an injustice for capital to be taxed at a lesser rate than labor and that management’s control of the voting machinery of public companies has unfairly enriched executives. Conservative pundits regret that government is often captive to the interests of big business and the military industrial complex. Both sides of the spectrum may also be persuaded to make incremental improvements to the public welfare by our numerous think tanks and public policy experts. However, as positive as the potential for agreement may be, these things would only make our society slightly less broken.
Our best hope lies in persuading the good people on the left that faith in the dynamic potential of neighborhoods and local associations can be well-founded. Roger Scruton called this the “romantic core of conservativism,” the belief that what has been lost can be regained but in reimagined form. This faith is essential to our humanity because only in smaller associations is it possible to achieve the immediacy and trust that allow for meaningful relationships with mutual appreciation for the unique gifts everyone brings to the table. Small groups can reverse our decline and decadence because they rely more on life-affirming communal values rather than the quantitative analysis of bureaucracies. Human talents cannot fully mature and be realized separate from the “little platoons” that give life meaning.
Empowering small groups may seem counter-intuitive in this age of global warming and pandemics, but it does not mean that efficacy must be forfeited. The power of Edmund Burke’s platoons has been changing corporate America for 50 years since the big automobile manufacturers learned that their hierarchical structure could not compete with the Japanese team-based approach. Now the operations of America’s most competitive companies are team-oriented. In education, the trend is also towards empowering students and parents. School choice is an obvious example, but so are “flipped” classrooms where the teachers act more like coaches. Our dystopian criminal justice system could be improved with community courts and small local jails for nonviolent offenders free of the rape and abuse so prevalent in large jails and prisons.
There are innumerable things that could be done to make communities more resilient by engaging people in ways that would provide more meaning to all our lives. Unlike the dreams of progressives, reinvigorating communities does not require a nationwide approach. One community can blaze a path for others to follow. Cities and especially neighborhood associations can be the new laboratories of democracy we so desperately need if they are empowered by larger institutions. Of course, no institution, no matter how magnanimous, will freely surrender power, but the populist refrain of “drain the swamp” suggests the masses intuitively understand our dilemma and may effect change. The future success of our democracy depends upon making small groups more central to our day-to-day lives.
Notes:
[*] George Scialabba, “Back to the Land,” The Baffler, January 6, 2020.
The featured image is “Village Wedding” by Jan Steen (1625-1679) and is in the public domain, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Feasts of June (I)

Feasts of the first half of the month of June. June is dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus since the Feast of the Sacred Heart, the Friday 19 days after Pentecost almost always falls in June.


Revisiting the “Armenian Question”

A stark warning to the Christians of the Middle East. The US gave no official support to the Armenians a century ago, and they will give you none

From Law & Liberty

By Mark L. Movsesian

Last fall, the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate adopted bipartisan resolutions commemorating the Armenian Genocide, an ethnic cleansing campaign the Ottoman government carried out 100 years ago, during the First World War, against Armenians and other Christians in the eastern provinces of the Empire. The vote on the House resolution was 405-11; in the Senate, the vote was unanimous. At a time of deep partisan division, honoring the victims of the Armenian Genocide seems one of the few things that unite Democrats and Republicans.

This is not the first time the suffering of Armenian Christians has figured in our national conversation. As Charlie Laderman recounts in his fine new history, Sharing the Burden: The Armenian Question, Humanitarian Invention, and Anglo-American Visions of Global Order, in the first decades of the twentieth century, the “Armenian Question” was a familiar topic for Americans. Newspapers continually ran stories about the “starving Armenians.” Sunday Schools across the country took up collections for them; as a result, Herbert Hoover remembered, American children in 1919 knew more about Armenia than any other foreign land, with the possible exception of England. One American charity alone raised more than $40 million to assist Armenian refugees, more than $600 million in today’s money. Prominent politicians of both parties—Republicans like Hoover, Elihu Root, Charles Evans Hughes, Henry Cabot Lodge, and Theodore Roosevelt, and Democrats like William Jennings Bryan and especially Woodrow Wilson, who proposed that the United States accept a Mandate for Armenia after the war—repeatedly declared their support for an independent Armenian state.

Laderman, a historian at King’s College London, writes that many factors made the Armenian Question salient at the start of the 20th Century, including, principally, American leaders’ belief that the Armenian crisis might offer an opportunity to spread “civilization” throughout the Middle East, perhaps in tandem with Great Britain; and the American public’s affinity, influenced by decades of American missionary activity in Turkey, with Christians suffering under a militant Islam.

Laderman also explains why, notwithstanding the good intentions, and the substantial efforts by private groups, the U.S. Government ultimately did nothing for Armenia. In the end, America was unwilling to shoulder the immense responsibility of protecting vulnerable Christians in the Middle East. Turkey was allowed to regain control of its Anatolian provinces, cleared of the Armenians and other Christians who had been killed or removed across the border to Syria—where, as it happens, a new Turkish campaign has exposed their descendents to grave danger. The story Laderman recounts thus has implications for the present day. The American abandonment of Armenians a century ago suggests disquieting lessons for Christians and other Middle East minorities today.

The Armenian Genocide’s roots go back at least a generation. In the 19th Century, the Ottoman Empire, under pressure from European powers, granted formal legal equality to all its subjects, regardless of religion. When Armenian and other Christian minorities began to assert this equality, it caused a backlash in the wider Muslim population, especially in the eastern provinces. Some Armenians formed paramilitary groups to protect themselves, which in turn led to brutal state repression, particularly the Hamidian Massacres of the 1890s, which killed hundreds of thousands of Christians.

The Hamidian Massacres drew the attention of Americans and Europeans. Theodore Roosevelt wrote in 1896 that the massacres constituted the “great crime of this century against civilization.” But, aside from protests and an ineffective naval demonstration, the West did nothing. “No power was willing to risk continental stability,” Laderman writes, or its “own interests, to intervene on behalf of the Armenians.” Roosevelt himself counseled caution. While he would personally “head a crusade for the Armenians” if he could, he told a correspondent while President in 1907, America “has not the remotest intention of fighting on such an issue.”

When World War I began, Turkey sided with Germany and against Russia. Fearing that Armenian paramilitaries in Anatolia would fight for Russia, the Young Turk government decided to deport the entire Armenian population. Scholars estimate that 1.5 million Armenians died during the deportations, along with hundreds of thousands of Syriac and Greek Orthodox, who were also caught up in the anti-Christian violence. The victims died in terrifying conditions, murdered by Kurdish and Turkish irregulars, often with the cooperation of government officials, or as a result of starvation, thirst, and exhaustion in the Syrian desert. A small percentage of refugees eventually found safety in Syria and elsewhere in the Levant, where they established new communities. Some escaped to Western Europe, principally France, and the United States.

In the run up to America’s entry into the war in 1917, the plight of Armenians was, in Hoover’s words, “on the front of the American mind.” American leaders thought the crisis might afford an opportunity to spread American civilization throughout the Middle East. An independent Armenia, supported by America, could be a beachhead for liberal democratic ideals that would, in time, transform the entire region. As Laderman recounts, in public speeches and private correspondence, politicians voiced the idea that American intervention could defeat “barbarism” and “fanaticism” in favor of liberty and the rule of law.

American leaders were encouraged to think this way, Laderman writes, by Britain. Beginning in the late 19th century, British diplomats assiduously sought to interest the United States in a joint, Anglophone partnership to superintend the Middle East according to American and British values. The British appeal was not disinterested. As the Ottoman Empire crumbled, Britain desperately wanted American troops to provide a buffer against Russian expansion in Turkey, which could threaten British supply lines to India. By appealing to America’s moralism, British diplomats thought they could enlist America’s help in the Great Game.

Americans also identified with Armenians because of the influence of American Protestant missionaries, who had been working in Turkey for decades, building schools, hospitals, and churches. Many, including the missionaries themselves, took credit for sparking minority aspirations for equality in Turkey, “by teaching men and women to think in harmony with our Western ideals.” As Laderman writes, the missionaries viewed Armenians as their “principal wards,” and they used their considerable influence at home to promote the Armenians’ cause. The missionaries’ reports about the Armenians, an ancient Christian people threatened with extinction at the hands of a militant Islamic empire, found an attentive audience in America’s overwhelmingly Christian culture. The appeals resonated especially with Wilson, the son of a Presbyterian minister who maintained close ties with the missionaries’ organizations.

When the war ended, Armenians had great hopes that America’s leaders would live up to their oft-repeated assertions and support an Armenian state in Anatolia. Their hopes were dashed in May 1920 when the Senate rejected, by a vote of 52-23, Wilson’s proposal that America accept a Mandate for Armenia, much as France had accepted a Mandate for Syria and Britain for Palestine and Mesopotamia. As Roosevelt had foreseen in 1907, America was simply unwilling to accept responsibility for guarding a poor and desolated region in the Middle East—a responsibility, in Hoover’s estimation, that would have required “at least 150,000” American troops and brought America “into direct political entanglement with the whole weight of Russia”—especially when Britain, America’s ostensible partner, had taken for itself oil-rich lands in Iraq. Turkey regained sovereignty over its Anatolian provinces in the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, and the idea of an independent Armenian state in Anatolia evaporated. A small Armenian state, made up of Russia’s Armenian territories, was absorbed into the Soviet Union.

Laderman’s persuasive and readable history has implications for the present day. The congressional resolutions last fall were, largely, a rebuke of Turkey for its current invasion of northern Syria. The invasion, which a sudden withdrawal of American forces made possible, has created 300,000 refugees, many of them the descendants of Armenians and other Christians who settled there after the Genocide. Christians, once again, are targets, this time of a revived ISIS, which the Turkish invasion has emboldened. Last November, a Catholic priest was ambushed and murdered by ISIS outside a church in Deir ez-Zor, a city that witnessed the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Armenians 100 years ago.

Congressional resolutions are very welcome, but history suggests that these Christians should not expect much more from America. Just as in the last century, despite the best intentions, America’s commitment to Christians in the Middle East today is limited: well wishes, exhortations for equality and tolerance, some humanitarian assistance—though nothing like the massive humanitarian campaign that took place in the last century and saved so many lives. Ultimately, nations act in their political and economic interests, and America does not perceive long-term interests that would justify putting at risk the large number of troops necessary to defend Mideast Christians on an ongoing basis. Many private citizens and charities continue to help Mideast Christians, thank God. But the sad lesson of Laderman’s book is this: if Christians in Syria expect the American government to do more to help them, they will find themselves on their own.

The Netherlands in the Napoleonic Wars

In talking about France, Britain, Austria Prussia, Russia, and Spain, we often neglect the fact that others were involved. Here's a look at the Netherlands.

From The Mad Monarchist (15 July 2017)


At the time of the outbreak of the French Revolution, The Netherlands was still a republic, albeit a very business-minded republic with a prince, usually, holding the place of honor in government. This was the United Provinces, as they were often called, though some still referred to the area as the Spanish Netherlands to differentiate the lands from Belgium which was known as the Austrian Netherlands. Both areas were to see rebellions and upheavals and their destinies would prove to be intertwined. In the Austrian Netherlands, Catholics and leftist republicans joined forced in opposition to Emperor Joseph II to proclaim the independence of the “United States of Belgium” which was eventually suppressed by Emperor Leopold II. The trouble brewing in Belgium, where Catholic opposition to the Emperor brought about a common cause with the dissident, revolutionary sect, was the primary reason why Joseph II was probably the most anti-American and pro-British monarch on the continent during the American War for Independence as he feared the precedent this would set for his Belgian subjects.

Prince Willem V of Oranje
In the United Provinces, there had long been a tension, periodically breaking out into violence, between the republican faction and the royalist faction (or ‘Orange party’) of Dutch politics with the republicans wanting to keep the country a republic and, indeed, make it even more republican while the Orange party wanted to empower the Prince of Orange and make him king. The American War for Independence also highlighted this division as the Prince of Orange, Willem V, favored the British while the republican government favored the American patriots and ultimately succeeded in bringing the Dutch republic into the war against Britain alongside the American rebels (though the Dutch did not benefit by it). As in Belgium, the Dutch republicans seem to have been inspired by the American example as illustrated by how they began calling themselves the Patriot party in opposition to the Orange party. They became even bolder until finally clashes broke out between the Patriots and the Dutch army which tended to be loyal to the Prince of Orange. The situation became so serious that it took an armed intervention by King Friedrich Wilhelm II of Prussia to see the Dutch patriots cleared out.

Prince Willem V was thus in control but only by the grace of Prussian bayonets when the French Revolution began to come to a boil and, given recent events, he was well aware of the danger of such ideology spreading. In 1792 the French declared war on Austria and prepared to invade Belgium where they expected popular support. The Prince of Orange, not being in the strongest position, held back. However, 1793 saw the regicide of King Louis XVI of France and every royal in Europe was instantly made aware of how serious this situation was. On February 1, the United Provinces, led by Prince Willem V, declared war on the French Republic, joining the “War of the First Coalition”. There was, originally, some success when an Austrian-Dutch army led by the Prince of Coburg defeated the French under General Charles Dummouriez at the Battle of Neerwinden on March 18 in Belgium, however the Prince of Orange and his Dutch troops were defeated at Menin on September 3 and another Austro-Dutch army was defeated by the French at the Battle of Wattignies in October. The Austrians on their own, as well as the British and their German comrades did no better in the face of the mass conscript armies of France.

Willem VI, later Willem I
1794 saw the last of the coalition forces driven from Belgium and the country was annexed to the French Republic and would remain so for quite some time. That same year, French forces under General Charles Pichegru invaded the Netherlands along with a contingent of anti-Orange Dutch patriots led by General Herman Willem Daendels in a surprise attack during the harsh winter. Local republican revolutionaries rose up in support of the invaders, making things even more difficult. Whereas, in the past, the French had been traditional enemies of the Dutch, the French had made themselves the most acceptable allies for Dutch, Protestant, republicans by embracing republicanism and tearing down the Catholic Church as well the monarchy. The French republicans declared that they had come to “liberate” the Netherlands and in 1795 declared the country the Batavian Republic. Defeated from without and betrayed from within, Prince Willem V was forced to go into exile in England. The new French-backed Batavian Republic was declared a “sister republic” of France, one of many such puppet-republics the French established in the wake of their armies.

However, not everyone felt “liberated” by this turn of events. The behavior of the French republicans won them few friends outside the already ideologically committed and the French also annexed Flanders, Maastricht, Venlo and part of Walcheren with Flushing to France. The British, however, still had a good intelligence service operating in the area and took notice of the growing Dutch discontent with their so-called liberators and in 1799, as part of the War of the Second Coalition, launched a joint invasion of the Batavian Republic along with an Imperial Russian Army force. The British were led by the “Grand Old” Duke of York and the Russians by General Johann H. von Fersen. They were met by a Franco-Batavian (Dutch) force of about equal size but, after initial success, in battles lasting from August to November, the Anglo-Russian army was ultimately forced to retreat, leaving the Netherlands once again to the First French Republic and their local collaborators. The House of Orange had not been mere spectators to these events as the Hereditary Prince of Orange, later Willem VI, participated in the campaign alongside the British and Russians. In fact, he was instrumental in the seizure of a naval squadron known as the “Vlieter Incident” with the ships ultimately being sold to the Royal Navy.

Gen. Janssens at the Battle of Cape Town
The Prince of Orange also wrote a series of letters in 1795 known as the “Kew Letters” while in exile, instructing the governors of the Dutch colonies overseas to resist the French and cooperate with the British, in his capacity as Captain-General of the Dutch armed forces, in the hope of keeping these territories from being controlled by the Batavian Republic. Malacca, Amboina and West Sumatra (in the Dutch East Indies) did so and surrendered to the British without opposition. Cochin, or Dutch Malabar in India, on the other hand, required some “persuasion” from the Royal Artillery but, in the end, the Dutch holdings in India and Ceylon were captured by the British. Also in 1795 the British sent an expedition to seize control of the Dutch Cape Colony at the bottom of Africa. The local Dutch forces offered determined resistance but were finally compelled to surrender on September 15. Later, the British would hand the cape over to the Batavian Republic as part of a peace agreement and so another expedition would have to take it back again. When the Napoleonic Wars finally ended, the British would give back the Dutch colonies they seized, but not all of them, keeping some, such as the Cape colony, for themselves as it was a highly prized strategic chokepoint, controlling access to and from the Indian Ocean and south Atlantic.

Meanwhile, in 1803, Jan Rudiger Schimmelpenninck was elected President of the Batavian Republic but things began to change thanks to the grander aspirations of one Napoleon Bonaparte. After succeeding in making himself “Emperor of the French”, the client republics that France had set in neighboring countries suddenly received an upgrade to become client monarchies. In 1806 the Batavian Republic, at the behest of its French masters, became the Kingdom of Holland and the Emperor Napoleon awarded the new Dutch kingdom to his brother Louis (originally Luigi) who became King Ludwig I of Holland (or to be more precise, Lodewijk I). This led to a rather unusual situation as the new King Ludwig proved to be quite popular with his new Dutch subjects. Unlike, for instance, Napoleon’s older brother who became King of Spain, many Dutch people embraced their new monarch or, at least, did not dislike or oppose him. To his credit, Ludwig I took his new position seriously and tried to be a good king. That, however, ultimately led to trouble with his brother. King Ludwig I was supposed to be little more than a puppet but he was a puppet who tried to pull his own strings and when Dutch and French interests conflicted, Napoleon expected French interests to prevail. However, his brother actually stood up for Dutch interests which caused Napoleon no small amount of frustration (and at a time when he had much to be frustrated about).

King Ludwig I of Holland
This tension between the two Bonaparte brothers was exacerbated by the effort of the Emperor Napoleon to defeat Britain by means of economic strangulation. He instituted the Continental System which forbid France and all countries controlled by or allied with France from trading with the British which, as it turned out, proved more ruinous for the continent than it did for Britain and particularly for The Netherlands which had a heavily trade-based economy. Needless to say, smuggling soon reached epidemic proportions because of this and Napoleon was so desperate to stamp it out that in 1810 he simply annexed the Kingdom of Holland and it was absorbed into the French Empire. The former King Ludwig I, by then none too popular with his brother, fled into exile in the Austrian Empire and remained there for the rest of his life. So it was that, until 1813, the Dutch, willingly or not, mostly fought alongside the French under Napoleon. For some, this did not seem all that unnatural given the long history of Anglo-Dutch rivalry and warfare.

Because of this situation, there were prominent Dutch military men on both sides of the conflict. General Jan Willem Janssens had fought against the British at the Cape Colony and Java, was made Secretary-General for War for the Kingdom of Holland by Louis Bonaparte and then, after annexation, fought for Napoleon under Ney in the War of the Sixth Coalition. He would later serve as War Minister for the Kingdom of the United Netherlands in the last campaign against Napoleon. General David Hendrik Chasse, regarded by many as the best Dutch soldier of the period, was from the Patriot party and commanded the Dutch brigade that fought for Napoleon in Spain for which exploits he was elevated to baron. He carried on in French service after the annexation but remained bitter about it though he won decorations and promotions for outstanding service, even being credited with saving the French army at the Battle of Maya. For his offensive spirit and fierce attacks, Napoleon nicknamed him, “General Bayonet”. He too though would later fight against Napoleon as commander of the Third Netherlands Division during the Waterloo campaign. Later still, he would defend Antwerp during the Belgian Revolution.

Constant Rebecque
One soldier of the Dutch army who fought against the French revolutionaries as well as Napoleon the whole way was not actually Dutch but a Swiss professional soldier; Jean Victor de Constant Rebecque. He first came to France as part of the Swiss Guard protecting the King. He survived the massacre of his regiment during the Revolution and from there was employed by the Dutch, serving in the regiment of Prince Frederick. When the French conquered the United Provinces, he served with the British and later the Prussians before returning to the British along with the Prince of Orange during the Peninsular War under the Duke of Wellington. After the downfall of Napoleon, according to a previous agreement by the major allied powers, the former United Provinces as well as Belgium were to be united into one country with the Prince of Orange as its monarch. This would be the Kingdom of the United Netherlands which would officially come into being in 1815, combining the Seven Provinces, Belgium and Nassau, though Nassau would later be traded for Luxembourg. This was because the allies wanted a strong monarchy as a buffer between the French and the Germans. Rebecque was instrumental in organizing the Dutch-Belgian army and would serve as Quartermaster-General and chief aid to the Prince of Orange (commander of the Allied I Corps) in the Waterloo campaign.

Prince Willem V of Orange was long since gone by then, having died in exile in Germany in 1806 (in fact, his body was only reburied in The Netherlands in the 1950’s). He was succeeded by his son Prince Willem VI of Orange, however, in 1813 he had, with the downturn of fortune for Napoleon, returned to the Netherlands and received quite a warm welcome, almost everyone by that time having turned against the French. In 1815, with the support of the allies, he proclaimed himself King Willem I of the United Netherlands, also becoming, in due course, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. His son and heir was the Prince of Orange who would fight on more than one battlefield as chief deputy to the Duke of Wellington with his old military tutor Rebecque as his ‘right hand man’. Unfortunately, the military reputation of the Dutch, particularly as it concerns the Waterloo campaign, has suffered considerably and quite unjustly at the hands of their British allies, both in accounts from participants, post-war historians and even television filmmakers.

The Prince of Orange at Quatre Bras
Probably because so many had fought with the French, the British may not have been inclined to trust the Dutch too much and, in addition, there was the already mentioned long history of Anglo-Dutch rivalry in trade, colonial expansion and naval supremacy. Whatever the cause, the British quite unfairly ridiculed and derided the Dutch participation in the Waterloo campaign. More recently, historians have done serious research, not simply repeating what others wrote before them and have found that the standard British version of events was not true, indeed, in some cases was shown to be impossible. The truth is that the Dutch-Belgian army played a critical part in the final campaign against Napoleon. Indeed, if Rebecque had not countermanded an order from Wellington so that the Dutch-Belgian troops stayed and fought at the crossroads of Quatre Bras, the British would not have been able to occupy the choice position that Wellington had picked out to do battle at Waterloo. The Prince of Orange himself, has often been portrayed in a grossly exaggerated way as being totally incompetent. This is also not true. Though the Prince of Orange certainly made some mistakes, they were not due to incompetence but simply to his lack of experience.

King Willem I of the Netherlands
As it happened, the troops with the orange cockades acquitted themselves well and, again, if the Dutch forces had not held off the French for as long as they did at Quatre Bras, the subsequent defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo might never have happened. However, it did and so King Willem I was secure on his throne, achieving what almost all the Princes of Orange before him had dreamed of since the winning of Dutch independence. As things were established, he was also pretty much an absolute monarch, though that situation would not survive him. The French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars could be seen as the fire in which the modern Kingdom of the Netherlands was forged. At the beginning of the era, they were a republic, the Seven Provinces which was often called the United Provinces but which were far from united. Crippled by the feuds between the orange and patriot parties, the country was an easy victim of the revolutionary French. However, they endured and finally fought their way back, emerging as a strong and, mostly, united kingdom. Belgium and Luxembourg was part from them in time but for the Netherlands itself, the Napoleonic Wars were a pivotal moment in history. The Dutch had gone in as a republic but emerged as a monarchy.

31 May, Antonio, Cardinal Bacci: Meditations For Each Day

Pray for Us... at the Hour of Our Death

1. We have come to the end of this month, which we have dedicated to Mary. Let us remember, however, that apart from this month of May we should dedicate our whole lives to her up to the final moment of death. We are always in need of Mary's patronage and intercession with God. Let us always have recourse to her, therefore, especially in danger and in suffering, but most especially at the decisive moment of death, for this is the moment on which eternity depends. This day will arrive sooner or later, but it will certainly come, “at an hour that you do not expect.” (Luke 12:40)

In the second part of the Hail Mary the Church places on our lips these words of supplication: “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.” How many times we have recited this prayer! But do we ever think of death? Let us remember that a meditation on death is the most valuable lesson in life. One day we shall find ourselves face to face with God, drawing our last breath on earth. It may be on a sick bed, it may be in the middle of a street—we do not know. It may be after a long illness at the end of which we are comforted by the Holy Sacraments and blessed by a priest, or it may be quite unexpected. But it is certain that death will come. Let us aim, therefore, at being always prepared; so that it may not come when we have no good works to offer and when our hearts are full of ourselves and of worldly interests. Like Mary, let us lead lives of holiness, and we shall be sure to die holy deaths. Let us beseech our heavenly Mother to be by our side at that final moment to sustain us in the conflict and to consign our souls to her divine Son, Jesus.

2. Our divine Redeemer, although He was God, did not except Himself from the law of death. It was appropriate, therefore, that His divine Mother should have been no exception either. But Mary had shared in the torments of her Son's death upon Calvary and so obtained from Him the privilege of a death so sweet and gentle as hardly to justify the name at all. Her soul was separated from her body as if in an ecstasy of love and was united even more indissolubly with God. She did not die of a natural disease, but out of love for God. She had always loved God with all the ardour of the noblest of creatures and her life ended in a final outpouring of love. It was the climax of a continuous ascent towards God. Death should be like this for us also. It can be like this if we follow her example, especially in the boundlessness of her love for God. 

3. O Mary, my tender Mother, be at my side throughout my life, but especially at the hour of death. Shelter me beneath your maternal mantle and never let me be far apart from you. Grant that I may have a calm and peaceful death like yours, a death made easy by a great love for Jesus and for you, as well as by the reception of the Holy Sacraments and by your special blessing. Amen.