Smoky Mountains Sunrise

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Meet the President of Europe


From The Brussels Journal
By Paul Belien


Herman Van Rompuy. Get used to the name. He is the first President of the European Union, which with the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon by all the 27 EU member states in early November was transformed into a genuine United States of Europe.

The President of Europe has not been elected; he was appointed in a secret meeting of the heads of government of the 27 EU member states. They chose one of their own. Herman Van Rompuy was the Prime Minister of Belgium. I knew him when he was just setting out, reluctantly, on his political career.

To understand Herman, one must know something about Belgium, a tiny country in Western Europe, and the prototype of the EU. Belgians do not exist as a nation. Belgium is an artificial state, constructed by the international powers in 1830 as a political compromise and experiment. The country consists of 6 million Dutch, living in Flanders, the northern half of the country, and 4 million French, living in Wallonia, the southern half. The Belgian Dutch, called Flemings, would have preferred to stay part of the Netherlands, as they were until 1830, while the Belgian French, called Walloons, would have preferred to join France. Instead, they were forced to live together in one state.

Belgians do not like their state. They despise it. They say it represents nothing. There are no Belgian patriots, because no-one is willing to die for a flag which does not represent anything. Because Belgium represents nothing, multicultural ideologues love Belgium. They say that without patriotism, there would be no wars and the world would be a better place. As John Lennon sang “Imagine there’s no countries, it isn’t hard to do, nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.”

In 1957, Belgian politicians stood at the cradle of the European Union. Their aim was to turn the whole of Europe into a Greater Belgium, so that wars between the nations of Europe would no longer be possible as there would no longer be nations, the latter all having been incorporated into an artificial superstate.

A closer look at Belgium, the laboratory of Europe, shows, however, that the country lacks more than patriotism. It also lacks democracy, respect for the rule of law, and political morality. In 1985, in his book De Afwezige Meerderheid (The Absent Majority) the late Flemish philosopher Lode Claes (1913-1997) argued that without identity and a sense of genuine nationhood, there can also be no democracy and no morality.

One of the people who were deeply influenced by Dr. Claes’s thesis was a young politician named Herman Van Rompuy. In the mid-1980s, Van Rompuy, a conservative Catholic, born in 1947, was active in the youth section of the Flemish Christian-Democrat Party. He wrote books and articles about the importance of traditional values, the role of religion, the protection of the unborn life, the Christian roots of Europe and the need to preserve them. The undemocratic and immoral nature of Belgian politics repulsed him and led to a sort of crisis of conscience. Lode Claes, who was near to retiring, offered Herman the opportunity of succeeding him as the director of Trends, a Belgian financial-economic weekly magazine. It is in this context that I made Herman’s acquaintance. He invited me for lunch one day to ask whether, if he accepted the offer to enter journalism, I would be willing to join him. It was then that he told me that he was considering leaving politics and was weighing the options for the professional life he would pursue.

I am not sure what happened next, however. Maybe word had reached the leadership of the Christian Democrat Party that Herman, a brilliant economist and intellectual, was considering leaving politics; perhaps they made him an offer he could not refuse. Herman remained in politics. He was made a Senator and entered government as a junior minister. In 1988, he became the party leader of the governing Christian-Democrats.

Our paths crossed at intervals until 1990, when the Belgian Parliament voted a very liberal abortion bill. The Belgian King Baudouin (1930-1993), a devout Catholic who suffered from the fact that he and his wife could not have any children, had told friends that he would “rather abdicate than sign the bill.” The Belgian politicians, convinced that the King was bluffing, did not want the Belgian people to know about the King’s objections to the bill. I wrote about this on the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal and was subsequently reprimanded by the Belgian newspaper I worked for, following an angry telephone call from the then Belgian Prime Minister, a Christian-Democrat, to my editor, who was this Prime Minister’s former spokesman. I was no longer allowed to write about Belgian affairs for foreign newspapers.

In April 1990, the King did in fact abdicate over the abortion issue, and the Christian-Democrat Party, led by Herman Van Rompuy, who had always prided himself on being a good Catholic, had one of Europe’s most liberal abortion bills signed by the college of ministers, a procedure provided by the Belgian Constitution for situations when there is no King. Then they had the King voted back on the throne the following day. I wrote about the whole affair in a critical follow-up article for The Wall Street Journal and was subsequently fired by my newspaper “for grievous misconduct”. A few weeks later, I met Herman at the wedding of a mutual friend. I approached him for a chat. I could see he felt very uncomfortable. He avoided eye contact and broke off the conversation as soon as he could. We have not spoken since.

Herman’s political career continued. He became Belgium’s Budget Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Speaker of the Chamber of Representatives and finally Prime Minister. He kept publishing intellectual and intelligent books, but instead of defending the concept of the good, he now defended the concept of “the lesser evil.” And he began to write haiku.

Two years ago, Belgium faced its deepest political crisis ever. The country was on the verge of collapse following a 2003 ruling by its Supreme Court that the existing electoral district of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde (BHV), encompassing both the bilingual capital Brussels and the surrounding Dutch-speaking countryside of Halle-Vilvoorde, was unconstitutional and that Parliament should remedy the situation. The ruling came in response to a complaint that the BHV district was unconstitutional and should be divided into a bilingual electoral district Brussels and a Dutch-language electoral district Halle-Vilvoorde. This complaint had been lodged by… Herman Van Rompuy, a Flemish inhabitant of the Halle-Vilvoorde district.

In 2003, however, the Christian-Democrats were not in government and Herman was a leader of the opposition. His complaint was intended to cause political problems for Belgium’s Liberal government, which refused to divide the BHV district because the French-speaking parties in the government refused to accept the verdict of the Supreme Court. The Flemish Christian-Democrats went to the June 2007 general elections with as their major theme the promise that, once in government, they would split BHV. Herman campaigned on the issue, his party won the elections and became Flanders’ largest party.

Belgium’s political crisis dragged on from June until December 2007 because it proved impossible to put together a government consisting of sufficient Dutch-speaking (Flemish) and French-speaking (Walloon) politicians. The Flemings demanded that BHV be split, as instructed by the Supreme Court; the Walloons refused to do so. Ultimately, the Flemish Christian-Democrats gave in, reneged on their promise to their voters, and agreed to join a government without BHV being split. Worse still, the new government has more French-speaking than Dutch-speaking ministers, and does not have the support of the majority of the Flemings in Parliament, although the Flemings make up a 60% majority of the Belgian population. Herman became the Speaker of the Parliament. In this position he had to prevent Parliament, and the Flemish representatives there, from voting a bill to split BHV. He succeeded in this, by using all kinds of tricks. One day he even had the locks of the plenary meeting room changed so that Parliament could not convene to vote on the issue. On another occasion, he did not show up in his office for a whole week to avoid opening a letter demanding him to table the matter. His tactics worked. In December 2008, when the Belgian Prime Minister had to resign in the wake of a financial scandal, Herman became the new leader of the predominantly French-speaking government which does not represent the majority of Belgium’s ethnic majority group. During the past 11 months, he has skillfully managed to postpone any parliamentary vote on the BHV matter, thereby prolonging a situation which the Supreme Court, responding to Herman's own complaint in 2003, has ruled to be unconstitutional.

Now, Herman has moved on to lead Europe. Like Belgium, the European Union is an undemocratic institution, which needs shrewd leaders who are capable of renouncing everything they once believed in and who know how to impose decisions on the people against the will of the people. Never mind democracy, morality or the rule of law, our betters know what is good for us more than we do. And Herman is now one of our betters. He has come a long way since the days when he was disgusted with Belgian-style politics.

Herman is like Saruman, the wise wizard in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, who went over to the other side. He used to care about the things we cared about. But no longer. He has built himself a high tower from where he rules over all of us.


Paul Belien is the author of A Throne in Brussels – Britain, the Saxe-Coburgs and the Belgianisation of Europe, Imprint Academic, Exeter (UK), Charlottesville, VA (US).



King's College Choir - "I Was Glad When They Said Unto Me" - Sir Hubert Parry






Solemnity of Christ the King - A Homily by The Rev. George Rutler, S.T.D.




Pastor


Church of Our Savior


New York, New York


November 16, 2008


To Jesus Christ Our Sovereign King




To Jesus Christ, our Sov'reign King,
Who is the world's salvation,
All praise and homage do we bring,
And thanks and adoration.

Refrain:
Christ Jesus Victor, Christ Jesus Ruler!
Christ Jesus, Lord and Redeemer!

Thy reign extend, O King benign,
To ev'ry land and nation,
For in Thy kingdom, Lord divine,
Alone we find salvation.
(Refrain)

To Thee and to Thy Church, great King,
We pledge our hearts' oblation,
Until before Thy throne we sing,
In endless jubilation.
(Refrain)



Saturday, November 21, 2009

An Anglican Bridge Across the Tiber



A Bob Jones University Graduate, former Anglican Vicar, and now a Catholic Priest Reflects on the Apostolic Constitution


From The Times (UK)
By Father Dwight Longenecker

Last Monday I was traveling to Tampa, Florida for a week long retreat with other Catholic priests who were once Anglican priests. In the airport I got an email with the news that the new Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus had been published. Suddenly the rest of the week’s program was decided. My brother priests and I spent time studying the document and discussing its implications.

The wider implications of Pope Benedict’s invitation to Anglicans to come into full communion are genuinely historic. It impacts discussions not only with Anglicans, but with all of the churches derived from the Protestant Reformation. It is a popular past time among traditionalist Catholics to throw dirt at ecumenism. Catholic triumphalists trumpet the truth of the Catholic faith and denigrate discussions with Protestants. They point out the false premises, the artificial camaraderie, and the fickleness of their ecumenical partners. The ecumenical movement is not without its faults, but it is also not without its accomplishments. Through the ecumenical movement Catholics and Protestants really have learned from one another. Over the last 40 years astounding progress has been made. Old prejudices have disappeared. Historic misunderstandings have evaporated. New formulas for old truths have been discovered and agreed.

Some commentators have reported the end of the old ecumenism. In one sense this is true. Through the new Apostolic Constitution, the Catholic Church is following up her warnings with action. For over a decade now the Vatican has had a consistent message to the Anglican Church, and the message can be summed up as, "Please don't do that. It puts yet another obstacle in the path of Christian unity." Time and again the Anglicans have gone ahead anyway. Each item on the progressive agenda has been another wound to the body. Now Rome has acted and with Anglicanorum coetibus, directed the ecumenical journey in a radical new direction. No doubt the old style ecumenical meetings will continue, but they will lack urgency. It is as if the Catholic Church has sent a butler with a bell into the hall where the pre prandial cocktail party was going on to announce that dinner is served. The drinks are over. Dinner time has begun. Are you coming in to dinner or not?

Ecumenism isn’t over. It has taken a new direction. To understand the wider implications of Anglicanorum coetibus one needs to look further than the shores of England and Europe. Most people have rightly focussed on the troubles within Anglicanism, and the new relationship between the Catholic and Anglican churches. However, we sometimes forget that the rest of Protestantism is struggling with the same conflicts that besiege Anglicanism. It is said that “where Anglicanism goes the rest of the Protestants soon follow." Here in the United States, where Anglicanism is just one of many Protestant groups, the Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists and Evangelicals are all battling over the same issues of modernist theology and relativist morality.

In England, the Anglican Ordinariate will benefit the small rump of Anglo Catholics who are still in the Church of England, but elsewhere in the world I believe it will eventually become a bridge into full communion with the historic Church for Protestants of many different backgrounds. In the United States there are large numbers of Evangelical Christians who are attracted to the historic liturgical churches. They hold to the historic faith, but they want to move away from the sectarian and often shallow worship and theology of the large Evangelical churches. They admire Catholic liturgy and spirituality, but they are repelled by the progressive political and moral agenda of the liturgical Protestant churches like the Lutherans and Episcopalians. They admire the Pope and much of Catholicism, but for most of them the step into the Catholic Church is still a step too far.

If the Anglican Ordinariate includes 'broad church Anglicans' as well as Anglo Catholics, then these other Protestants may also find a way to 'come home to Rome.' If this is the way the Ordinariate develops, then it will provide not only a bridge across the Tiber for Anglicans, but an Anglican bridge across the Tiber for many other Christians, and if this happens, then the harvest from the ecumenical discussions over the last forty years will be rich indeed.


Fr Dwight Longenecker is Chaplain to St Joseph's Catholic School in Greenville, South Carolina. He is a former Anglican priest, and the author of ten books on the Catholic faith. He blogs at Standing on My Head .


U. S. Navy Ceremonial Drill Team at Norwegian International Tattoo




Friday, November 20, 2009

Pope to Honor Cardinal Newman During British Visit


John Henry Cardinal Newman

From the Daily Mail
By Simon Caldwell

The Pope is to waive his own rules so he can preside in person over the beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman during the papal visit to Britain next year.

In an unprecedented decision, Benedict XVI will take charge of the ceremony which will confer the title 'Blessed' on the Victorian convert from Anglicanism.

The Pope has previously insisted that all beatifications - the last step before sainthood - are carried out by a Vatican official in the diocese in which the candidate died, which in Newman's case is Birmingham.

But because the Pope has such a strong devotion to Cardinal Newman and his theological writings he has decided to beatify the cardinal himself.

With one rule already set aside, Vatican officials may now agree to the ceremony being held in London, the city of Newman's birth, rather than Birmingham, say Roman Catholic sources.

This would enable the beatification to take place at Westminster Cathedral - or even before a congregation of 80,000 in Wembley stadium.

Vatican sources say the Pope will preside over the ceremony in September.

The beatification comes as some fear the Church of England is breaking up over the ordination of women bishops and homosexual priests.

And the timing will prompt speculation that it is designed to persuade Anglicans to follow Newman into the Catholic Church.

But Father Ian Ker, a biographer of Newman, said: 'The problems in the Church of England are nothing to do with it.

Many popes have been anxious to canonise Newman. They look to him as a man who welcomed modernisation but in fidelity to Church authority.

'By breaking his own rules Pope Benedict clearly shows he regards Newman as a completely exceptional case, one of the great theologians of the Catholic Church.'

Pope Benedict announced the beatification in July after Vatican theologians ruled the healing in 2001 of Jack Sullivan, an American with a severe spinal condition, was a miracle brought about by praying to Cardinal Newman.

Newman was born in London in 1801 and converted to Catholicism at the age of 44 after leading a movement to try to unite Anglicans with their Catholic roots.

He was made a cardinal by Pope Leo XIII in 1879 and died at the age of 89.