Ignis Ardens -> Whither Goest Thou, Angelus Press?

Whither Goest Thou, Angelus Press?

Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Pilgrimage of Grace

Posted: Nov 4 2009, 12:32 AM

Poor Old Grumpy

Group: Members
Posts: 6046
Member No.: 93
Joined: 26-January 07

Durendal
http://rencesvals.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, October 28, 2009

QUOTE

Wither Goest Thou, Angelus Press?

By E. J. G. Jones

Several days ago, I received an email from Angelus Press.

Now, this is not a particularly unusual thing, as these emails come once every month or so, and I normally enjoy them, as they acquaint me, as is their purpose, with the newest products of that fine publisher, and occasionally provide news of tempting sales and discounts as well.

However, this time was different. As I read through the offerings, I came to one called "Holding the Stirrup." It sounded lovely, at first glance... a true story of heroic action on the part of Catholic nobility in the earlier 20th century, full of chivalry and the like. As a writer on a blog called Durendal, and a convinced monarchist and supporter of the old ways, in politics as in almost everything else, by rights I ought to be very attached to this book. I ought to be possessed of a strong desire to buy it, and I ought to be happy that Angelus Press is carrying it, and "getting the message out" to all those Traditionalists in the English-speaking world who still labor under the modern propaganda, and have an axe to grind against aristocracy, submission to one's superiors, the Catholic social order which arose in what we like to call the 'middle ages,' etc. But, I don't. I do not believe that this book sounds like edifying reading material for a Catholic.

"Why not?" I hear you ask.

As soon as the third sentence in the description, he who wrote it is already playing up "the evils of Hitler and Communism." Notice, if you will, the order in which these evils are mentioned. In right thought, one addresses the major point prior to the minor, the greater before the lesser. In this case, it is reversed. Communism, one of the "errors of Russia" spoken of by Our Lady in 1917, is, from every Catholic standpoint, vastly more evil than the Nazism of Herr Hitler. (Which was quite evil enough, thank-you.) Communism killed more people, (even, most likely, more Jews) and is a godless and avowedly materialistic system, whereas 'national socialism' was "merely" neo-pagan. The ad continues with rather vivid language, which I find unbalanced. The author refers to "The tragic aftermath of the Third Reich" and "the last bulwark of Christianity in Hitler's Germany," and, even more dramatically, to "the last organized defender of the human rights and dignity which Hitler brought to such a terrifying end."

A few questions can't help but present themselves, upon reading this rhetoric. Firstly, in the last quotation, the ad spoke of 'human rights.' Since when, I'd like to know, do Traditional Catholics make it a practice and a habit to conjure up this very progressive idea of the enlightenment? Only when it suits them, perhaps? "Human rights are a modern concept, except when we want to embrace them to show we condemn a certain evil?" Secondly, given the tone of my writing, it may come as a surprise, but I really do not disagree with the general thrust: "Hitler was really bad." That said, from a Catholic perspective, we know that the soul-rotting, materialistic "democracy" of the "Allies" or the "West" or the "victorious powers" was just as evil, if not more so, due to its insidiousness, than the neopaganism of Nazi Germany. This being the case, why do we not hear balanced rhetoric in other works praising those nobles in England who heroically fought against the liberal warmongering of Winston Churchill, or the veiled communism of Franklin Roosevelt? It simply does not exist in our society, even in traditionalist circles, and I think this is a very sad state of affairs. We're happy to condemn one evil, but we refuse to acknowledge the more dire and perhaps greater one which has been systematically turning the world into a godless 'paradise' of materialist secularism since 1945.

You doubtless think that I am splitting hairs, here, and that my strong words are quite unjustified. "After all, this is just ad copy, do you expect it to be historically and philosophically perfect?"

No, I do not. Nevertheless, I am disturbed by the trend which I have discerned, of late, in The Angelus, and Angelus Press, of covering Nazism and the German concentration camps virtually ad nauseam. One could almost extrapolate, from their constant articles, publications, book reviews, interviews, etc., that they were very eager to "prove" to the world, and to anglophonic Traditional Catholics, that they fully believe in the WWII Jewish Holocaust, and are very eager to distance themselves from Mgr. Williamson's very publicized questioning of these events, which became fodder for public discussion at the beginning of this year. This "trend" at Angelus Press began around that time, and seems to have scarcely abated since. It may seem a petty personal gripe, but when I subscribed (to the magazine and the emails) I expected to be subscribing to a Traditionalist magazine, not to a WWII history magazine. (One article, even two, would have been quite sufficient for their purposes, if they felt a need to distance themselves from the very notion of a politically incorrect questioning of the precise historical details.)

Returning, however, to this new book offered by Angelus Press, we find yet more problems, as we continue reading. I said above that I did not expect the ad to be perfect historically, because a humble catalogue-compiler need not necessarily know history in order to do his job. I do, however, expect that in a Catholic publishing house, Catholic morality will be followed. If we continue reading the ad, we see that even this benchmark is not met.

"It was this nobility" (which nobility he has been waxing poetic about the goodness and virtue thereof throughout his writing, and clearly believes them to be in the right) "which implemented the famous plot to assassinate Hitler, a plot in which Elisabeth's cousin, Claus Stauffenberg, and many good friends lost their lives. The drama of this great conspiracy, together with the personalities and secret machinery which almost made it work, is the high point of the book."

This is very, very sad, and I did not think I would see the day when a traditionalist publication suggested that murder or vigilante justice is a legitimate or justifiable thing. In the liberal west today, where the devil himself has been forgotten and written off as superstitious myth, while Hitler has taken center-stage as the world's most vicious villain ever, it is now quite fashionable to praise the "heroic" Count von Stauffenberg, for his attempt to instigate a coup and assassinate Adolf Hitler. Not only was the count's action cowardly (a bomb) and treasonous (because he, a military man, had sworn an oath to the Nazi government, just as U.S. servicemen today swear an oath to the constitution) but it was attempted murder, plain and simple. It is true that Hitler was an evil man, and it is true that his death could perhaps be rationalized as "the greater good," but one cannot, according to Catholic moral theology, do evil that good may come of it, and one cannot act as a vigilante, which is precisely what Count von Stauffenberg did.

An example very relevant to today will prove my point. Count von Stauffenberg undertook to kill one high-placed man, in the hope that this would prevent the future death of many other men in the war. He may have hoped to save a million men. Yet, in the United States, since the decision of Roe v. Wade in the 1970s, it is estimated that upwards of 44,000,000 babies have been murdered through abortion. If von Stauffenberg acted rightly to save a million, could we not say that any men with decency ought to emulate his actions to save another 44,000,000? Was not the vigilante who gunned down the abortionist George Tiller in the right? To say this would be an absurdity, as everyone readily recognizes. Society cannot function save when law and order prevails, which it does not when men take it into their minds to kill, not on the state's authority (sanctioned by God) but on their own, those whom they deem, from their perspective, to be evildoers who should not be longer tolerated by society. Modern men are hypocrites, when on the one hand, they lambast the killing of Dr. Tiller as an injustice, and on the other, they praise Count von Stauffenberg as a glorious hero.

I am very sad to see that Angelus Press has apparently succumbed to this hypocrisy, at least in a material way. I hope they correct their ad and stop selling a book which appears to perpetuate this myth of Col. Stauffenberg's heroism -having even the chutzpah to suggest it is exemplary Catholic behavior. Since Angelus Press has publicly released this ad, and is selling this book, I believe it is a man's Catholic duty to call them on it, publicly.

laudamus te	Posted: Nov 4 2009, 01:12 AM
Saint Group: Members Posts: 337 Member No.: 325 Joined: 21-May 08	Interesting. I, too, have sensed a bit of "anti-Hitler" overkill amongst the SSPX, though I can't specifically cite anything off hand. Just sort of a vague impression. I wonder if the author of this blog post wrote to the Angelus of his concerns?

bernadette

Posted: Nov 4 2009, 01:57 AM

Angel

Group: Members
Posts: 486
Member No.: 407
Joined: 4-August 08

QUOTE (laudamus te @ Nov 4 2009, 12:12 AM)

Interesting. I, too, have sensed a bit of "anti-Hitler" overkill amongst the SSPX, though I can't specifically cite anything off hand. Just sort of a vague impression. I wonder if the author of this blog post wrote to the Angelus of his concerns?

I haven't sensed it, because of late, I am not reading Angelus Press nor looking to the book catalogue, but I will say one thing....I'm even more unhappy now about hearing this, although not really in the least surprised. This is a prime example of the turn of foot the SSPX has taken since the Bishop Williamson affair and since the reality of the "hallowed" discussions (negotiations) have materialized. And the changes are subtle...

Pilgrimage of Grace	Posted: Nov 4 2009, 03:20 AM
Poor Old Grumpy Group: Members Posts: 6046 Member No.: 93 Joined: 26-January 07	Without doubt the direction of the US District began to go drastically down-hill after Fathers Fullerton and Novak resigned. The pair of them had done an excellent job, against all odds, in attempting to form proper Catholics out of typical US conservatives. Since then it's been a steady down-hill process that many people seem to have recognised aspects of. Personally I can find no enthusiasm to read either The Angelus magazine or even bother to look at the latest book offerings any more. The work of the Fraternity in the USA appears to me to be regressing. The District authorities appear to have given up on attempting to promote and fight for the Social Kingship of Christ. The new orientation seems to be headed towards that sugar-coated, pollyanna-type, nineteen-fiftyism American Catholicism that allowed the Revolution in the Church to succeed in the first place - in as far as it has succeeded. The final straw for me came when those excellent articles on the US District website, by such people as Fr. Crowdy, Fr. Fahey and Bishop Sigaud, and Bishop Williamson's Letters, were purposely erased from the memory-hole in a fearful fit of book-burning. What relief and joy it is to live in a country where Archbishop Lefebvre's fight against Liberalism is taken seriously by the District Superior. Great honour is due to all American Catholics who continue, against all odds, to fight for the Social Reign of Christ the King.

Clare	Posted: Nov 4 2009, 09:46 AM
Mother Flump Group: Admin Posts: 13083 Member No.: 2 Joined: 9-March 06	Here's the permanent link to that blog post. -------------------- S.A.G. �If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly.� - G.K. Chesterton Add yourself to our Play the Daily Trivia Quiz

Clare

Posted: Nov 4 2009, 09:55 AM

Mother Flump
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 13083
Member No.: 2
Joined: 9-March 06

Oh, and here is the advert referred to.

QUOTE

In an older day it was customary for a woman to hold her husband's stirrup when he mounted to go into battle. That gesture became a symbol of her
fidelity and courage while he was gone.

Baroness Elisabeth von Guttenberg, daughter of the General Baron von der Tann-Rathsamhausen of Bavaria and the Countess Emma Mikes of Hungary,
for several years held the stirrup for her husband, who died in his lifelong fight against the evils of Hitler and of Communism.

Elisabeth was reared in the aristocratic tradition - Goeth and Schiller, Bach and Beethoven, a summer home in the 500 year old
castle of Tann and a winter home in Nurnberg, member of the Old World society of Berlin and Budapest, host to Bruno Walter, Kaiser Wilhelm
and Emperor Karl of Hungary and eventually wife of the Baron George-Enoch von und zu Guttenberg, the leader of the "White Army"
that liberated Munich from the Spartacists after the first World War.

But more than nostalgia for the grace and security of the past, Elisabeth's life story reflects world events from the turn of the
century to the present, from the decline of the Hapsburgs to the tragic aftermath of the Third Reich. It is a story of heroism and
self-sacrifice - the struggle waged by a nobility which, for all its faults and omissions, was the last bulwark of Christianity in Hitler's Germany,
and the last organized defender of civilization which Hitler brought to such a terrifying end.

It was this nobility which implemented the famous plot to assassinate Hitler, a plot in which Elisabeth's cousin, Claus Stauffenberg, and many
good friends lost their lives. The drama of this great conspiracy, together with the personalities and secret machinery which almost
made it work, is the high point of the book.

Elisabeth writes lovingly of her visits to the cities and courts of Europe; of her castle homes; of her friendship with the peasant girl,
Theresa Neumann Konnersreuth, who bore the holy sign of the stigmata; of her romantic and deeply spiritual devotion to her husband, who, even
after his death in the German Navy, was never quite apart form her; of her sons and daughter and of the rich, friendly commonplaces of family
life in a time gone beyond recall - except for a book such as this.

This graceful and Christian memoir, by a daughter of the German aristocracy, is a fond testimonial to a way of life that was critically wounded at
Sarajevo and met its death at the hands of Hitler.

Seldom does one find a faith and sincerity like Elisabeth's, and seldom can one share such a sense of physical participation in history.
Holding the Stirrup is one of those happy accidents which happen so rarely - a memoir that
tells an intensely personal story and yet captures the spirit of the age.

--------------------

S.A.G.

�If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly.� - G.K. Chesterton

Add yourself to our

Play the
Daily Trivia Quiz

Berengaria

Posted: Nov 4 2009, 04:27 PM

Elevated Member

Group: Members
Posts: 293
Member No.: 539
Joined: 30-October 08

QUOTE (Pilgrimage of Grace @ Nov 3 2009, 11:32 PM)

QUOTE

Wither Goest Thou, Angelus Press?

By E. J. G. Jones

...I did not think I would see the day when a traditionalist publication suggested that murder or vigilante justice is a legitimate or justifiable thing. In the liberal west today, where the devil himself has been forgotten and written off as superstitious myth, while Hitler has taken center-stage as the world's most vicious villain ever, it is now quite fashionable to praise the "heroic" Count von Stauffenberg, for his attempt to instigate a coup and assassinate Adolf Hitler. Not only was the count's action cowardly (a bomb) and treasonous (because he, a military man, had sworn an oath to the Nazi government, just as U.S. servicemen today swear an oath to the constitution) but it was attempted murder, plain and simple. It is true that Hitler was an evil man, and it is true that his death could perhaps be rationalized as "the greater good," but one cannot, according to Catholic moral theology, do evil that good may come of it, and one cannot act as a vigilante, which is precisely what Count von Stauffenberg did.

Just to play the devil's advocate, I had heard about a case to be made for tyrannicide in the past. I am not here commenting on whether the von Stauffenberg incident fits the criteria, nor killing abortionists, nor the overall merit of this blogger's complaint about Angelus Press in general, but only asking whether the Church allows for tyrannicide ever.

I did a 2 second google search (ha ha yes extensive research! -no time for more), and came up with this:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...ion/re0476.html

QUOTE

Does the Church Condone Tyrannicide?
FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS
With the recent terrorist attacks, some have suggested that the leaders of these terrorist organizations be assassinated for the good of all people. What would be the Church�s teaching on this?

The moral issue here is that of tyrannicide � the killing of a tyrant, and specifically, the killing of a tyrant by a private person for the common good. Technically, there are two classes of tyrants: a tyrant by usurpation (tyrannus in titulo), a ruler who has illegitimately seized power; and a tyrant by oppression (tyrannus in regimine), a ruler who wields power unjustly, oppressively, and arbitrarily.

St. Thomas Aquinas gave the most substantial argument for tyrannicide. He based his position on his arguments for just war and capital punishment. St. Thomas concluded, "He who kills a tyrant (i.e. an usurper) to free his country is praised and rewarded" (In 2 Sentences, 44.2.2).

A tyrant by usurpation has illegitimately seized power and, therefore, is a criminal. When there are no other means available of ridding the community of the tyrant, the community may kill him. According to St. Thomas, the legitimate authority may condemn him to death using the normal course of law. However, if the normal course of law is not available (due to the actions of the tyrant), then the legitimate authority can proceed "informally" to condemn the tyrant and even grant individuals a mandate to execute the tyrant. A private citizen who takes the life of a tyrant acts with public authority in the same way that a soldier does in war.

The key conditions for a justifiable act of tyrannicide in this case include that the killing be necessary to end the usurpation and restore legitimate authority; that there is no higher authority available that is able and willing to depose the usurper; and that there is no probability that the tyrannicide will result in even greater evil than allowing the usurper to remain in power.

A tyrant by oppression is one who has come to power legitimately, but rules unjustly, oppressively, and arbitrarily. Here the community must confront the tyrant, and if necessary, depose him, formally or informally, according to the course of law available. In most circumstances, a private citizen morally cannot kill a tyrant by oppression, because the tyrant came to power through a legitimate means and thereby the community must depose him. If the community does depose the tyrant, according to St. Thomas, he becomes now a tyrant by usurpation and thereby may be eliminated by an act of justifiable tyrannicide in accord with the above norms.

However, if the tyrant by oppression attacks the citizen, jeopardizes the welfare of the community with the intent leading it to destruction or killing the citizens, or commits other evils, then a private citizen can morally commit an act of justifiable tyrannicide. Moreover, if because of the tyrant's rule, a nation cannot defend itself, is on the course of destruction, and has no lawful means to depose or to condemn the tyrant, then a citizen may commit an act of justifiable tyrannicide. Interestingly, many modern political philosophers would posit that a leader who abuses power and has become tyrannical ipso facto loses legitimacy and becomes an usurper.

Please note that the Church has not definitively taught on this subject. The Church not only recognizes the authority of legitimate rulers and their duty to uphold the common good of the community, but also the duty of citizens to support a legitimate government. However, the Church also has set standards of just war and even capital punishment which would be applied to a conflict between a community against an unjust tyrannical leader. Keep in mind that an act of justifiable tyrannicide would have to be an act of last resort, when no other reasonable course of action is available to protect the community.

Unfortunately, I have no idea of the accuracy of this source. I wish he would cite sources - like where St. Thomas Aquinas said a b or c. Likewise, at the end he says the Church has not definitively taught on this subject. I wonder if Fr. Domenico (or anyone else who's familiar with this) could comment, or if someone knows of a Traditional Catholic commentary on the subject. (I had read about the idea in a book about the French Revolution, where some woman murdered one of the Revolutionaries, which of course did not fit the criteria.) I realize it is a slight digression from the main point of this thread, but since the blogger brought that issue up, I was curious about it. Nevertheless, given the above source, it sounds like the type of thing that in practice would almost never meet the criteria, particularly the last one (which I italicized):

"The key conditions for a justifiable act of tyrannicide in this case include that the killing be necessary to end the usurpation and restore legitimate authority; that there is no higher authority available that is able and willing to depose the usurper; and that there is no probability that the tyrannicide will result in even greater evil than allowing the usurper to remain in power."

Quo Vadis Petre

Posted: Nov 4 2009, 05:56 PM

Soldier of Christ Fighting for His Social Kingship

Group: Members
Posts: 913
Member No.: 109
Joined: 18-March 07

Actually, the priest does here,

QUOTE

St. Thomas Aquinas gave the most substantial argument for tyrannicide. He based his position on his arguments for just war and capital punishment. St. Thomas concluded, "He who kills a tyrant (i.e. an usurper) to free his country is praised and rewarded" (In 2 Sentences, 44.2.2).

If you don't what the source is (in that bolded part), it means that it is found in the Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, Second Book, Distinction 44, Question 2, Article 2, I believe.

This post has been edited by Quo Vadis Petre on Nov 4 2009, 06:08 PM

--------------------

"Journalism is a false picture of the world, thrown upon a lighted screen in a dark room so that the real world is not seen and the unreal world is seen. ... We live under secret government, conducted by a secret process called Publicity."

-G. K. Chesterton
G. K.'s Weekly, December 3, 1932
(quoted from The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, p. xiii)

Pilgrimage of Grace

Posted: Nov 4 2009, 06:45 PM

Poor Old Grumpy

Group: Members
Posts: 6046
Member No.: 93
Joined: 26-January 07

QUOTE

Posted by Berengaria
Just to play the devil's advocate, I had heard about a case to be made for tyrannicide in the past. I am not here commenting on whether the von Stauffenberg incident fits the criteria, nor killing abortionists, nor the overall merit of this blogger's complaint about Angelus Press in general, but only asking whether the Church allows for tyrannicide ever.

The Angelic Doctor teaches the conditions that are absolutely necessary for tyrannicide to have moral legitimacy, but the necessary conditions of the Moral Law make such an act rare.

He writes about it mainly in De regimine principum, 1, 7 but also touches upon it in the Summa at IIa IIae, 42, 2

QUOTE

Reply to Objection 3: A tyrannical government is not just, because it is directed, not to the common good, but to the private good of the ruler, as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5; Ethic. viii, 10). Consequently there is no sedition in disturbing a government of this kind, unless indeed the tyrant's rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant's government. Indeed it is the tyrant rather that is guilty of sedition, since he encourages discord and sedition among his subjects, that he may lord over them more securely; for this is tyranny, being conducive to the private good of the ruler, and to the injury of the multitude.

Essentially what St. Thomas teaches is that,

1) There must be very good chance of successfully overthrowing tyrannical government and the attempt must have behind it some legitimate authority or widespread popular support.

2) What replaces a tyrannical government must be less injurious to the community than that which was overthrown.

3) The harm that results in taking such action must not be greater than the good which taking such action is expected to secure.

Gregorio Sarto	Posted: Nov 4 2009, 06:53 PM
Unabashed European culturalist. Group: Members Posts: 1401 Member No.: 9 Joined: 21-March 06	They'[re only following in the footsteps of The Remnant, which came out with an article a few years ago entitled: "Stauffenberg: a Catholic Hero" !! No question of suggesting anything there... -------------------- Christus Semper et Ubique Imperat!

Pilgrimage of Grace	Posted: Nov 4 2009, 07:04 PM
Poor Old Grumpy Group: Members Posts: 6046 Member No.: 93 Joined: 26-January 07	Perhaps it should be mentioned that von Stauffenberg's attempted assassination of Hitler and overthrow of the German government came right at a time when the German authorities were attempting to regroup their forces on the Eastern Front in order to halt the Soviet advance. We all know what resulted. Europe was overrun and butchered by the barbaric hordes of Soviet Communism backed and facilitated by their insidious Liberal Allies.

fr.domenico

Posted: Nov 4 2009, 08:15 PM

Elevated Member

Group: Members
Posts: 232
Member No.: 104
Joined: 8-March 07

QUOTE (Pilgrimage of Grace @ Nov 4 2009, 05:45 PM)

QUOTE

I would say, rather, that St. Thomas here is not speaking of tyrannicide but rather the removal of a tyrant from office. As you pointed out, in "De regimine", Saint Thomas deals with this problem at greater length. He rules out tyrannicide completely as an act done by individuals, but argues that a tyrant can be slain by the public authority (the example he gave was the Roman Senate) after deposition on the grounds that the tyrant had broken his covenant with the nation. This, of course, is referring to legitimate rulers who become tyrants. One who takes an office by usurpation is not a legitimate ruler; thus to act against him is not to act against a ruler, per se.

Pilgrimage of Grace

Posted: Nov 4 2009, 09:00 PM

Poor Old Grumpy

Group: Members
Posts: 6046
Member No.: 93
Joined: 26-January 07

QUOTE

Posted by Fr. Domenico
I would say, rather, that St. Thomas here is not speaking of tyrannicide but rather the removal of a tyrant from office. As you pointed out, in "De regimine", Saint Thomas deals with this problem at greater length. He rules out tyrannicide completely as an act done by individuals, but argues that a tyrant can be slain by the public authority (the example he gave was the Roman Senate) after deposition on the grounds that the tyrant had broken his covenant with the nation. This, of course, is referring to legitimate rulers who become tyrants. One who takes an office by usurpation is not a legitimate ruler; thus to act against him is not to act against a ruler, per se.

Yes, important distinctions.

Thank you, Father.

Gregorio Sarto

Posted: Nov 5 2009, 08:04 PM

Unabashed European culturalist.

Group: Members
Posts: 1401
Member No.: 9
Joined: 21-March 06

QUOTE (fr.domenico @ Nov 4 2009, 07:15 PM)

[...] This, of course, is referring to legitimate rulers who become tyrants. One who takes an office by usurpation is not a legitimate ruler; thus to act against him is not to act against a ruler, per se.

Whatever may be said about Hitler, he DID take office legally and constitutionally.

Lenin, Stalin et al. didn't.

--------------------

Christus Semper et Ubique Imperat!

Wessex	Posted: Nov 6 2009, 11:57 AM
Angel Group: Members Posts: 404 Member No.: 54 Joined: 13-July 06	We are all caught in this grip of post-war righteousness where anything less than a total condemnation of any form of European colonialism or expansionism is regarded as having a Nazi mentality and the war is touted as the final act of such ambition from which we must all recoil humbly or in humiliation. Come poppy day and we are again awash with war films and documentaries pushing this stuff and giving justification to whatever contemporary conflict arises, all in the name of democracy and freedom. Our wits are dulled and we grow silent because the slightest objection from our mouths marks us out as an enemy. Even within the SSPX such an isolation process is under way.

0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

0 Members:

« Next Oldest | General Discussion | Next Newest »