From the earlier post, I note that an Orthodox version of this may be seen at:

http://www.deathtotheworld.com/downloads/wallpaper4.jpg

I do love the caption: “Freedom from the tyranny of fashion”.

Wonderful essay.  Several of us who attended The Rockford Institute’s Winter School this January were inspired to go the “Addams Family Chapel” by your post and the section in your Bad Catholic’s Guide.  In my two visits to Rome, I have seen much to inspire awe and to move the soul, but nothing comes quite as close as contemplating the display in this chapel, especially in light of the words in the final room: “As you are, we once were; as we are, you will be.”

God save us.

Masterfully written, Mr. Zmirak. The last paragraph is especially well-crafted, and prescient.

I am a corelgionist of yours, but would be astonished if even the most ill-mannered athiest (with an eye for writing) could not find something worthwhile in this.

My first post here, btw. Glad the comments have been sorted out so well. Kudos to those responsible.

Mr. Zmirak, I am a fan. Happy travels.

Excellent essay, John.

Friar Matteo and his first companions were forced into hiding from Church authorities, who sought to arrest them for having abandoned their religious duties. They were given refuge by the Camaldolese monks, in gratitude for which they later adopted the hood or capuccio worn by that order. -Wikipedia.

The church wanted to arrest the monos [monastic/hermits]...interesting.

Zirmak failed to see the symbolism which had nothing to do with the bones such as Vesica Piscis.

Jet

So you don’t like Mr. Zmirak—we know that.

John, will you or one of the many catholics here denounce the pope’s support for Open Borders?

I think I’ll save that coupon I just received from ‘cremations “r” us’.

This is a wonderful piece! I enjoyed the links too.

I do not think that the pope HAS called for open borders--although some may have misread his comments as indicating that. I have on about 15 occasions, in various venues, criticized the American bishops for supporting immigration. Their position contradicts official Catholic teaching--just as their economic nostrums violate Catholic social teaching.

Thanks to all for the encouraging words on this piece. After the events of the past month on the site, I’d come to dread looking at the comments on my articles. I appreciate you all raising the tone.

John,
If memory serves me right, it was Churchill who noted that the first requirement of anybody who wants to participate in politics is the thick skin of a hippotamus.  As to the attacks on the site, they are an extremely positive sign; people who do not like the site now regard it as so serious a threat that they are willing to invest time and effort to sabotage takimag.  This is a huge improvement from the time when people thought the site could just be ignored.

Jet

So you don’t like Mr. Zmirak—we know that.

Au contraire, I have never said I dislike Mr Zirmak, in fact I have said he is a very intelligent person and never have I wrote the words hate or dislike in response to his posts. So please, do not think that I dislike John, I do not and you should not say WE know that because you [we] dont know that.

Could somebody write a summary of what happened to takimag during the last month or so?

There has been an orchestrated effort to disrupt the site by a pack of neo-nazi trolls.
...

John, I had the opportunity to visit the Church of the Immaculate Conception this past summer. It is a sobering experience, and you capture it very well.

I rather wonder about the our displacement of “foreigners”. Seems to me that most of the foreigners with whom you’re concerned are also those most likely to empathize with your experience. Visit the Shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe in Mexico City, and tell me that I’m mistaken.

I also wonder why, in the midst of an article with near-universal and timeless appeal, you would introduce such a temporary and parochial concern as one country’s immigration policy?

RE: Mr. Konkola,
You might find useful this previous Sniper’s Tower article on the subject you raise: http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/article/did_nazis_really_target_takimag/

RE: Erich,
I raised that temporary, parochial issue because the pope raised it on his visit to the U.S., and various commenters on the site are speaking about it.  The pope gave a nuanced position, which many (including some U.S. bishops) are trying to shoehorn into a “wedge” issue to divide U.S. Catholics from other cultural conservatives. If that happens, many causes are doomed--the prolife cause, first of all. Which is, of course, why the Left is eager to promote the idea that “the Church” (as opposed to some bishops) favors open borders.

Temporary and parochial?  2/19/08 four school children are killed, two of them brothers, twelve injured when a twenty-four year illegal alien from Central America slammed into their school bus in Cottonwood, MN.  The illegal alien had been cited in 2006 for driving without a valid license in Minnesota.  Moreover, she is an identity thief.  Temporary and parochial, I would argue that for the parents of these children the effect is entirely permanent.

The statements of this Pope can, with little debate, be construed as arguing against any realistic enforcement of our immigration laws, to the utter detriment of the citizenry of this nation and to our sovereignty.  It is none of his business.  His business is to solve the manifest abuse of his charges and the innocent victims of this horror, the effects of which are also neither temporary or parochial.

Semper Fi

What a lovely meditation on one of the Four Last Things. Thank you. May God bless you for this.

As usual an excellent piece.

“How odd to see a skull surrounded by two shoulder bones that look like wings, to make a grinning Angel of Death.”

This stylized arrangement is a “memento mori” which echoes the theme of the whole Chapel. It is an interesting touchstone to a symbol you would once commonly find in most Churches and Chapels and was used to remind passing sinners of the finality of the Four Last Things. While modern “Goths” of the Dethklok variety have co-opted it, the symbol pre-dates the rise of Gothic art and architecture.

On a recent trip to Malta, I was pleased to see the “memento mori” repeated without exception on the decorative slabs covering the tombs of our brethren the sleeping Knights at the Conventual Church of St. John in Valetta.

I was told that the Capuchins began the practice because they had soil from the Holy Land in the basement in which to bury their brothers, but it eventual maxed out on its capacity and hence the Chapel’s furnishings. Given the splendid and special witness the Chapel and their order now gives to the world, Our Lord has wisely not extended the grace of incorruption to any of the Brothers, although I’m fairly certain more than a few have merited it.

John:

The Pope said the following:

I want to encourage you and your communities to continue to welcome the immigrants who join your ranks today, to share their joys and hopes, to support them in their sorrows and trials, and to help them flourish in their new home. This, indeed, is what your fellow countrymen have done for generations. From the beginning, they have opened their doors to the tired, the poor, the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” (cf. Sonnet inscribed on the Statue of Liberty). These are the people whom America has made her own.

If I take this at face value, the verb “welcome” seems to be the operative term, followed, of course, by “share”, “support”, “help”, and so forth. Perhaps you can help me with this, but I don’t see the nuances.

I also don’t understand how immigration, legal or otherwise, has any impact on the pro-life movement. Surely this is a matter for organizing. There is significant freindliness toward that cause amongst (let’s call a spade a spade - this is really who we’re talking about - isn’t it?) the Hispanics that I’ve encountered.

So far as being a wedge issue that divides Catholics from “other cultural conservatives” - are you referring to these folks?

Dear Erich,

The pope’s pastoral comments are a different matter from official Catholic teaching--just as Julius II’s fulminations about the Papal States were distinct from the official teachings of the Church in his time. If he is saying that America (unlike other countries, such as… say, Vatican City) has no right to enforce its immigration laws, then he is simply, and probably for the best of reasons, mistaken. Unless he invokes his ex cathedra authority to say so, his statements are over-ridden by Catholic Tradition on the subject, and the doctrinal statements of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is NOT true, as Rex Mottram of “Brideshead Revisited” believed, that if the pope said it would rain tomorrow, and it didn’t rain, “That it would be sort of spiritually raining, only we’d be too sinful to see it.”

If Pope Benedict does invoke his supreme authority… then I will stand corrected. Until then....

As for the electoral impact of Mexican immigration, it is obvious: These people vote for baby-killing Democrats, out of a frankly racist concern for their ethnic self-interest. I DO NOT favor Republican Anglos emulating their strategy, and supporting anti-Mexican candidates regardless of their views on Life issues. Until and unless Latino leaders rise to the same level of moral consistency, I oppose increasing their numbers in my country.

Period.

I take it that the corollary would be once Latino leaders do “rise to the same level of moral consistency”, the issue would disappear. You would then support “increasing their numbers in my country”.

Out of curiosity, how far are you willing to take the criteria of party affiliation?

You’d exclude immigrants who tend to vote for the Democrats - due to abortion. 

I assume that you would also exclude immigrants who support the neo-conservative mainstream of the GOP - same difference - neo-conservatives are not known for their pro-life bona fides.

I’m guessing that you would oppose out of hand anyone who tends toward the Greens, pro-life socialists that they are, and that Libertarians are at least questionable: personal choice, Rothbardian property theory, and all of that.

So that leaves, who? Immigrants who swear allegiance to the Constitution Party?

As far as Pope Benedict is concerned, do I understand you to say that he speaks in contradiction to, and not in the spirit of Church tradition?

John, I don’t want to belabor this. But it seems to me that this is a blind spot for one who otherwise seeks to exemplify and explain Christian tradition.

Please consider this as you continue with your fascinating columns.

Best Regards,

“pro-life socialists” should be “pro-choice socialists”, obviously.

While I haven’t read the Pope’s remarks in context, the paragraph quoted by erich seems clear enough to me. He’s talking about legal immigrants--those who pass by the Statue of Liberty on their way to becoming citizens. He is warning us against walling ourselves off from the rest of the world in some gated community of the rich and elite, looking down upon the poor and unfortunate with disdain--a desire he no doubt detects in our snooty insistence that we are more loved by God than other nations. Probably also he is warning against taking out our frustrations over illegal immigration on legal immigrants; painting them all with the same brush, in other words.

While he may be right or wrong about our collective desire to halt all immigration to the U.S. or potentially abuse what immigrants we do allow, I nowhere here see him saying that we should not enforce our immigration laws.

Mr. Zmirak writes: “Until and unless Latino leaders rise to the same level of moral consistency, I oppose increasing their numbers in my country.”

But if they do come around to a pro-life, pro-Catholic platform, you’ll support the increasing of their numbers?

Is there a name for Catholics unlike yourself who value particular ties and traditions including genetic and ancestral cultural traditions? Or… do such Catholics not exist?

(I’m pro-life...)

If the Mexican influx were in fact the march of Counter-Reformation Hispanic Catholics into the U.S… it seems silly to contemplate such counterfactuals, doesn’t it?

If the Spanish Armada had landed, what would Shakespeare have done?

If the French had won the 7 Years’ War, what role would George Washington have played in the resistance?

I enjoy counterfactual novels more than most (I’ve spent hundreds of dollars on hardcover versions of Harry Turtledove’s excellent books--apart from “Ruled Brittania,” which seems like Whig propaganda), so I’ll play the game:

If the Mexicans coming into the U.S. were vigorously Catholic, and likely to keep their Faith--like the Irish and Italians who came before them--I would be confident that they would quickly develop most of the civic virtues which would make them excellent citizens. They would, like the Irish and Italians (and most of all German Catholics) who came before them, quickly learn English and become patriotic Americans. They would be taught in the schools staffed by the countless religious and priests who staffed their parochial schools that patriotism is a moral duty on pain of sin, and that loyalty to the “old country” was strictly secondary to their duties as Americans. They would fit in very nicely, open good restaurants, work hard, form families, and generally make America a better place.

That doesn’t seem to be happening, so I’m not reacting to the fantasy but to the reality--that Mexicans are being encouraged to assimilate to the American welfare state, our cultural pornocracy, and urban gang culture.

Given that reality, I say keep them out--for the sake of our own civic order and (MUCH MUCH MUCH more importantly) their immortal souls.

I appreciate the forthrightness. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.