Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: The Neocons and Charles Maurras Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/leo_strauss_the_neocons_and_charles_maurras#6753 Post contents: Always changing his name (maybe to avoid Adriana’s own accusation of Clerical Fascism with respect to Argentine history?), my first opponent, gives away his hand and shows his cards, apparently without being aware of his Miranda rights: <i>the declaration Dignitatis humanae (1965) was a pastoral declaration of the Vatican Council II. In many ways it epitomizes modernism [sic] in the contemporary Church.</i>. A Document of a Church Council with full and ordinary Magisterial authority is accused, falsely, of the Modernist heresy. Thus my first opponent shows himself to be heretic, openly opposing a clear Church teaching. We’re not dealing here with a Catholic, folks. Not only does he hate everything the Church teaches after 1958; he hates everything she has said after 1878. He holds also to the view that Catholics hold everything a pope says as infallible, exactly the libel that the Ultra-Orange say about Catholics. We can now dismiss him as an impostor, a faux Catholic, or simply of another religion, and waste no further time on him. As for my other, and better reasoning, opponent Kirt Higdon (whose last paragraph I warmly endorse): <i>And then we have the Nazi Arrow Cross in Hungary - not clerical, not even really fascist, but just Nazi puppets. </i> A contradiction in terms and false distinction. Nazi is fascist (lower case). <i> Codreaunu in Romania - not clerical, not even Catholic </i> An Eastern Orthodox fascist. And “Clerical Fascist” can refer to laymen. “Clerical Fascists” are churchmen who support Fascist, fascist, Nazi, Extremist Nationalist, Racialist, juntas, Bonapartist, and thugish regimes. One just got what he deserved in Argentina. So they are still with us. By the way, a puppet is a poor metaphor. The “puppets” in question had free will, and thus moral responsibility, and thus guilt. See Hannah Arendt’s devastating rejoined to such an Eichmann defense. With Stepinac, I thought at the time that John Paul II had been poorly advised. (Benedict has been well advised on Jagerstetter.) I’ve read, in an unauthoritative source, “In 1946, in a verdict that polarised opinion both in Yugoslavia and beyond, a Belgrade court found [Stepinac] guilty of collaborating with the Ustaše and complicity in allowing the forced conversion of Orthodox Serbs to Catholicism”. I cannot comment to the truth of this verdict. John Paul, overlooking his activity during the Nazi occupation, chose to emphasize his being persecuted and martyred by Communism – a matter the Pope personally knew something about. And such a martyrdom may have washed him clean of former sins. Martyred saints aren't judged by their entire lives but how they ended their lives. Jews in Croatia said that Stepinac helped them. I have no way of knowing the truth of this. The Simon Wiesenthal Center urged the Vatican to wait until Stepinac could be further investigated. "Windthorst" is spelled with a T. And the real man, the founder of Christian Democracy in Germany, would have laughed at the name-calling done by <i>this</i> impostor. Readers know who my Presidential candidate is. Another note from from my first opponent’s earlier writeback. Leo XIII of happy memory did indeed say that the Church should be indifferent to forms of the State. But he did not say this to support French Royalism, as my opponent implies. Just the opposite. He said this to encourage Catholics in France to support THE THIRD REPUBLIC! <b>A DEMOCRACY!</b>. Let’s pause briefly before we continue to roll on the floor in laughter. . . . . . after laughter comes regrets. My first opponent could have offered much to the reader about Maurras. He comes from a Legitimist-Carlist-Jacobite school. He could have told us a comparison and contrast between Legitimist royalism and Maurras’ Orleanist view. He could have told about Maurras regionalist conception of the royalist state and the Carlist conception of Fueros. He could have told us how, when in 1688 the British King become the creation of Parliament, the good mixed constitution of England began to unravel, with the effective end of the Royal Assent, with the first Prime Minister, with the effective end of the House of Lords, and finally with the Westminster system ending up an elected dictatorship. He could have told us in detail Maurras’ royalist views. He could have told us about the reception of Maurras in Spain. He could have told us all these things, and the reader would have been well served. Instead we get an impostor posing as a Catholic, the quixotic defense of a church that never existed except in the minds of heretic Catholics and Protestant extremists, the misrepresentation of Church documents, and a Johnnie Cochran defense attorney for Clerical Fascists. And now this blog is too old to have readers. Well, maybe next time. Sent at: 2008 05 16