Pazdziernik II

Jansenism

On Thursday April 15, 2010 Fr. John Conley, S.J. presented a lecture at Loyola University Maryland in Baltimore (one of 28 Jesuit institutions of higher learning in the USA) on the seventeenth century heresy of Jansenism in France: "Authority and Freedom: Learning from the Jansenists”. (The lecture’s presenter introduced Fr. Conley as a “specialist in feminist philosophy”.) More accurately, the talk emphasized a particular aspect of the Jansenist reaction to ecclesial attempts to eradicate the controversy. 

Fr. Conley graciously provided a helpful abstract:

During the Jansenist controversy, the philosophers Antoine Arnauld and Blaise Pascal developed droit/fiat distinction to circumscribe ecclesial authority. The distinction claimed that the church could bind the conscience of its members on matters of droit (issues of faith and morals) but not on matters of fait (issues of fact). Using this distinction, Jansenists assented to the magisterium’s judgment that certain theories of grace were heretical but dissented from its judgment that Jansenius had actually defended such theories. 

The droit/fiat distinction not only represents an effort of the Catholic philosophical tradition to articulate the relationship between authority and freedom in early modernity; it parallels and illumines certain contemporary Catholic dualisms on the relationship between ecclesiastical authority and personal conscience. 

Such dualisms appeal to the difference between doctrine and discipline, moral principles and prudential application, and infallible and noninfallible teaching. This baroque creation of the Catholic tradition provides and account of freedom in an ecclesial context that can instruct contemporary Catholic philosophers in our efforts to clarify the nature and limits of church authority.

My Thursday visit to the Loyola University Maryland campus in Baltimore City was my first. It had a positive experience. The small and traditional campus was beautiful in springtime. I was very much edified that the Jesuit Catholic University had a crucifix on the classroom wall and that the presenter and another priest in the lecture audience wore clericals clearly identifying the university’s mission and personal consecrations to God and to the Church, respectively. 

Through Fr. Conley’s lecture, I gained a bit of fluency in the controversy and heresy of Jansenism. Here we go with a general outline…

The controversy and heresy of Jansenism occurred after the publication of Bishop Cornelius Jansen’s (1585-1638) work Augustinus (1640). This was a time in France when the ideas of John Calvin(1509-1564) on grace and freedom, contrary to Catholic teaching, began to take hold in parts of France. (This was a time in which King Louis XIV (1643-1715) exiled the Archbishop of Paris, tried to suppress the Jesuits and persecuted Protestants.)  Pope Urban VII in 1641 condemned the polemical work on prudential grounds in an attempt to quell the violent controversies on grace and freedom. 

To protect the faithful from unsound teaching, both Popes Innocent X and Alexander VII condemned 5 propositions on the nature of grace and freedom attributed to Jansen’s Augustinus as heretical. The five propositions condemned in 1653 are:

Some of God’s commandments are impossible to just men who wish and strive (to keep them) considering the powers they actually have, the grace by which these precepts may become possible is also wanting; 

In the state of fallen nature no one ever resists interior grace; 

To merit, or demerit, in the state of fallen nature we must be free from all external constraint, but not from interior necessity, 

The Semipelagians admitted the necessity of interior preventing grace for all acts, even for the beginning o faith; but they fell into heresy in pretending that this grace is such that man may either follow or resist it; 

To say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men, is Semipelagianism.

In 1664, Pope Alexander VII, required ecclesiastics and men and women religious to subscribe to the following formula:

I, (Name), submitting to the Apostolic constitutions of the sovereign pontiffs, Innocent X and Alexander VII, published 31 May, 1653 and 16 October, 1656, sincerely repudiate the five propositions extracted from the book of Jansenius entitled 'Augustinus', and I condemn them upon oath in the very sense expressed by that author, as the Apostolic See has condemned them by the two above mentioned Constitutions (Enchiridion, 1099).

Many clergy, men and women religious could indeed in conscience and obedience subscribe to the condemnation of the five heretical propositions as contrary to the Catholic faith on different aspects of the nature of freedom and grace but many could not affirm that these five errors were held by Jansen or were to be found in his work or in his work as he intended. Many could not accept that Jansen actually accepted these heresies which closely aligned with the polemics of John Calvin. Others simply could not assent to “that something is in a book that they have never seen” — a quite reasonable objection indeed! 

Many believed that the Church erred in judging “textual fact” by including “in the very sense expressed by that author”. Some Jansenists began to distinguish between law (droit — matters of faith and morals) and fact (fait — empirical fact) in order to assent to the formula. 

That’s the broad outline of Fr. Conley’s lecture. 

I’m sure many would see in such an incident in ecclesial history precedent that the Church was wrong and would try to cite it as a model in challenging “church authority” or "appeasing erroneous conscience" today especially in matters of morals and discipline. In my estimation, the “formula incident” confirms the Catholic Church's  pastoral care and safeguarding of truth in seventeenth century France …but with the wrong means. 

(I can quickly think of one among many “wrong means” incidents in history …that of President Lincoln rescinding the order of one of his generals who, during the US Civil War, issued a proclamation freeing some slaves which he had not the authority to do. President Lincoln demonstrated that the wrong means could not be used toward a good and noble end.)

Photo: Stained glass windows. Sainte Chapelle in the courtyard of the Royal Palace. Paris. France.

Ann Landers From 1956

Today, I was going through some of my dad’s old newspaper clippings of himself and his brothers. These clippings are interesting because not only did I get to see the events of my dad and my uncles from way-back-when but also for the time capsule news surrounding them. On the flip side of an article from 1956 I found the following 1956 advice from Ann Landers from Lynn Telegram-News (Lynn, MA) Wednesday January 25, 1956.

Dear Ann: I’m 28 and my husband is 30. We’ve been married six years and have daughters 2 and 4. My husband gets drunk once a week without fail and has cracked my jaw, knocked out several teeth and fractured my arm. I’ve had him in jail four times. The last time he started on me I decided to stop being meek and I let him have it with a rolling pin. He had 15 stitches taken in his head. Now he’s afraid of me. 

Money is scarce because he goes crazy when he drinks. Don’t tell me to go to work. I just quit after three years. When he knew I had money coming in he spent every dime of his check. What’s wrong with our marriage? Am I too easy going? — Upset 

An “easy going” woman does not cave in her husband’s head with a rolling pin. This is not your problem. You both need professional help before you cripple each other permanently. To clobber one another is a shameful admission that your emotional development hasn’t gone beyond the Stone Age. 

Get some outside help. Alcoholics Anonymous could benefit your… 

(Your Problems advice column by Ann Landers, January 25, 1956)

“What’s wrong with our marriage?” — I suppose some things never change given our common human nature. 

Perhaps today many tend to idealize the past and think that many of their problems are “new” or “unique” or have never been encountered before. Apart from the rolling pin, I’m pretty certain many today can relate to 1956. If you can relate to Upset, then either Steppin’ Out Radio or Alcoholics Anonymous can be a good start either for yourself or for someone else. 

Image: Lynn Telegram-News, Wednesday January 25, 1956. 

Tags: Ann Landers, Alcoholics Anonymous, 1956, Steppin’ Out Radio

Encountering St. Jacobus Intercisus at The Cloisters

 

Last week I had a chance to visit The Cloisters museum in northern Manhattan.

The Cloisters—described by Germain Bazin, former director of the Musée du Louvre in Paris, as "the crowning achievement of American museology"—is the branch of the Metropolitan Museum devoted to the art and architecture of medieval Europe. Located on four acres overlooking the Hudson River in northern Manhattan's Fort Tryon Park, the building incorporates elements from five medieval French cloisters—quadrangles enclosed by a roofed or vaulted passageway, or arcade—and from other monastic sites in southern France. Three of the cloisters reconstructed at the branch museum feature gardens planted according to horticultural information found in medieval treatises and poetry, garden documents and herbals, and medieval works of art, such as tapestries, stained-glass windows, and column capitals. Approximately five thousand works of art from medieval Europe, dating from about A.D. 800 with particular emphasis on the twelfth through fifteenth century, are exhibited in this unique and sympathetic context. 

The collection at The Cloisters is complemented by more than six thousand objects exhibited in several galleries on the first floor of the Museum's main building on Fifth Avenue. A single curatorial department oversees medieval holdings at both locations. The collection at the main building displays a somewhat broader geographical and temporal range, while the focus at The Cloisters is on the Romanesque and Gothic periods. Renowned for its architectural sculpture, The Cloisters also rewards visitors with exquisite illuminated manuscripts, stained glass, metalwork, enamels, ivories, and tapestries. ( The Cloisters overview )

As a personal highlight, I encountered St. Jacobus Intercisus (or James who was torn to pieces) depicted on a silver-stained roundel as part of a stained-glass window from around 1520 A.D. in Southern Holland. This roundel depicts the martyrdom of St. Jacobus (d. 420 or 421 A.D.) with his hands and his feet cut off. 

This saint is not so well-known in the Latin-rite of the Catholic Church. So, I decided to research his story given his martyrdom and the effort of others to record his heroic deeds in ecclesial art. I discovered that “intercisus” means “cut up”. St. Jacobus was a Persian tortured, dismembered into 28 pieces and decapitated for openly declaring his Christian faith and by refusing King Yazdegerd’s order to offer incense to “the god of the sun”. (Wow, and today many Christians prefer to “sleep in” on Sunday mornings! St. Jacobus’ martyrdom is a great witness to Our Lord Jesus Christ and to the Church!)

St. James was a Persian who lived in the fifth century. He was a great favorite of King Yezdigerd I. When this king began to persecute Christians, James did not have the courage to confess his faith. He was afraid of losing the king's friendship. So he gave up his faith or at least pretended to. James' wife and mother were broken-hearted. When the king died, they wrote a strong letter to him to change his ways. This letter had its effect on James. He had been a coward, but at heart, he was still good. Now he began to stay away from court. He blamed himself openly for having given up his faith. 

The new king sent for him, but this time, James hid nothing. "I am a Christian," he said. The king accused him of being ungrateful for all the honors his father, King Yezdigerd, had given him. "And where is your father now?" St. James calmly answered. The angry king threatened to put the saint to a terrible death. James replied, "May I die the death of the just." The king and his council condemned James to torture and death. But his fears had gone. He said, "This death which appears so dreadful is very little for the purchase of eternal life." Then he told the executioners, "Begin your work." All the while, he kept declaring his faith that his body would one day rise in glory. ( St. Michael Center , Honolulu, HI)

St. Jacobus’ feast day in the Maronite Church (Eastern-rite Catholic) is November 27th.

Image: Martyrdom of St. Jacobus Intercisus ; One of Nine Silver Stained Roundels; Leiden, North Lowlands, ca. 1520; Glass with silver stain and vitreous paint The Cloisters Collection, 1991 (1991.291.2); (Creative Commons) 

Tags: Jacobus Intercisus, The Cloisters, New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, Fort Tryon Park, Manhattan, Maronite Church

Augustus (2003)

Augustus (rated R) is a made-for-television movie directed by Roger Young. It is an Italian production by RAI Radiotelevisione Italiana. This was in English. However, many of the lines were dubbed in to avoid dialogs of English with Italian accents. These were noticeable, but tolerable and certainly not distracting.

Augustus is about the life of Octavian (b. 63 B.C.) , the legal son and specified heir to Gaius Julius Caesar (reign 49–44 B.C.). As Roman Emperor (27 B.C.–14 A.D.) he would call himself “Augustus.” The month Sextilis was re-named August in his honor.

Well, if you are not familiar with this period of Roman history, then viewing this movie will most likely be overwhelming in terms of keeping track of who’s who and their relationships. The first of three hours covers essentially the same period that HBO’s series Rome: Season 1 covered.

In Augustus, an elderly Octavian (Peter O’Toole) recounts his life to his daughter Julia (Vittoria Belvedere). Extended “flashback” scenes are interspersed with real-time events, most notably, the question of Octavian choosing his successor. This question has plagued nearly every period of Roman history.

Augustus was neither a vacuous “swords and sandals” film nor a CGI-inspired “epic battle” film. Rather, it was a historical drama that, not surprisingly, focused on the prominent women of this period, e.g. Tiberias’ mother Livia (Charolette Rampling and Martina Stella), Cleopatra of Egypt (Anna Valle), and Octavian’s sister Octavia (Elena Ballesteros).

For the first hour, I thought the casting of young Octavian (Benjamin Sadler) was poor but as the film went along he really grew into his role. Perhaps this was simply a reflection of Octavian maturing into Augustus.

This was an ambitious movie with much material to cover. As such not everything could be covered in detail. For the most part it covered the significant events well. I was disappointed that the significant naval Battle of Actium (31 B.C.) in which Octavian defeated Mark Antony (Massimo Ghini) and Cleopatra was just about glossed over in favor of presenting the previous alliance of Octavian and Antony at Brundisi:

Octavian: The madness

Antony: I will kill you myself.

Octavian: My sword is in my sheath. Strike. The soldiers are wiser than their generals. These are not two armies. This is one nation. No more Roman blood Antony. An alliance. I will give you half of my men to defeat Parthia. You swore before the senate that you would conquer Rome’s enemies.

Antony: Can I trust you?

Octavian: Can I trust you?

Antony: No one will believe it.

Octavian: True. We need a sign. A demonstration of our pact. Will you give up Cleopatra? Rome fears her most.

Antony: No. But I will take a Roman wife to show my loyalty.

Octavian: My sister. There is not better woman to demonstrate our alliance.

Antony: Done

Augustus overall was a good presentation of the life of Octavian. However, it should not be approached as a primer for this period of history. O’Toole’s acting was a bit over-dramatic. Rampling as Octavian’s wife Livia certainly stole the show, as often “scheming women” do. Just as in HBO’s Rome, Mark Antony, was well cast.

Augustus certainly “earned” its R rating. The battlefield blood was tolerable. There was no nudity but very scantily clad women abounded. The film ends by noting “in the 23rd year of his reign in the province of Judea Jesus of Nazareth was born.”

Related posts: Movie Reviews , HBO Rome Season 1, The Fall of The Roman Empire

Image: Octavian (Benjamin Sadler) and Marcus Agrippa (Ken Duken)
Tags: Octavian,Augustus, Rome, Peter O’Toole

Stuck in the ‘80s

Well, if you’re stuck in the ‘80s —we know who you are — we’ve found the web site for you: Stuck in the ‘80s. Yes I did own a Member’s Only jacket back then. However, fortunately, it is a time I can leave behind. Not all can. So, for those who can't or for the curious, enjoy the links! And if you are not satiated or simply satisfied with their Molly Ringwald coverage, more can be found here .

Fake 'staches of the 80s caught my attention, in particular, because, in the ‘80s, I was the real stash, and still am! (Always without the stache of course. Never had one and never will. At least never in a solo form.)

For a select group this will be THE most edifying post to date I'm sure.

Image: Molly Ringwald in The Breakfast Club (1985)
Tags: the 80's, Molly Ringwald

Our First Revolution

After reading Michael Barone’s Our First Revolution: The Remarkable British Upheavel That Inspired America’s Founding Fathers (Crown Publishers 2007), Maureen Waller’s book on the same topic (Ungrateful Daughters , blog: part 1 and part 2) now appears in even greater relief as an anti-Catholic screed.

Our First Revolution is on the events of The Revolution of 1688-89 or so-called Glorious Revolution in which King James II was ousted from the English throne by Prince William of Orange from the United Provinces (Netherlands). It is the way a good history text should be written. In the first place Barone helps 21st century readers to understand the seventeenth century in context in order to avoid an anachronistic perspective of these times. He also readily presents the perspectives of other historians who either come to different conclusions or have other possible interpretations on events and so forth.

Unlike Waller’s book, Barone focus not so much on personalities but on the events themselves, their significance, and possible motivations all of the key characters. Barone does not excoriate anyone. He keeps the text at a professional level. He readily delineates the consequences of The Revolution of 1688-89 and applies them to the present. (This is the main thesis of Our First Revolution.)

What kind of world would there be if Britain and then the United States had not gotten into the habit of opposing tyrannical hegemonic powers? The question is unanswerable. But it does seem clear that it would have been vastly more potential for expansion of the reach of Louis XIV and Louis XV, the revolutionary Jacobins and the Emperor Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm II and the Führer Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and his Communist heirs, the terrorists of Osama bin Laden and the mullahs of Iran. Of course we cannot say that Britain or the United States would have declined to oppose such hegemonic powers if James II had remained on the throne and William of Orange had remained in the Netherlands. But we do know that the shift of England and Britain from a policy of isolation and noninvolvement to a policy of active opposition to tyrants and hegemons occurred at one moment, as the result of one highly improbable event, the Revolution of 1688-89. (p 241)

So why did the Dutch Calvinist William accept the "invitation" from prominent Englishmen and set sail to invade England on October 30, 1688 with 15,000 Dutch and German troops (many Catholic) and 500 naval ships? Barone answers that it was a “pre-emptive war” and an exercise in "nation building". In short: William wanted to check the ambitions of France. France under Louis XVI was Europe’s superpower at that time and William wanted to prevent England under James II from allying with the French against the Dutch.

"William’s chief purpose in coming over was to enlist England in the war against France; for that he needed [the English] Parliament to vote revenue." (p 195)

William certainly took advantage of the anti-Catholicism in England to his benefit. The Catholic monarch James II pushed for toleration of religious freedom. James did not want all his subjects coerced into to the Church of England. James wanted anti-Catholic laws and laws against Protestants not in the Church of England repealed and so forth.

In addition anti-Catholic sentiment could not ignore that Catholics James II and Louis XVI supported one another. France, for example, gave much financial aide to the English crown. When James II finally had a legitimate successor in James Francis Edward, the Prince of Wales, in 1688, many in the established Church of England feared that Catholicism would once again flourish if a Catholic line of monarchs were established. (James’s brother, King Charles II (1630—1685), converted to Catholicism on his deathbed.)

Politically, William feared that England was headed toward a French-style absolutism. A Catholic line of kings would "seal the deal." To achieve his ends James "packed" Parliaments with his supporters.

"Packing Parliament" consisted of James and his men asking three questions of candidates: 1. Would they support the repeal of the Test Acts and penal laws? 2. Would they support candidates for Parliament who supported repeal? 3. Would they live in peace with their neighbors regardless of religion? It was a plan that backfired.

With the English opposition to James "packing parliament", William also feared that James would be ousted and a republic established like in the Cromwell years after beheading James’ father King Charles I in 1649.

Barone summarizes the consequences of The Revolution of 1688-89:

1. Guaranteed liberties by way of the 1689 Bill of Rights which he sees as an inspiration for the 1791 American Bills of rights.

2. Religious liberties. Laws after the 1688-89 revolution encouraged worship outside of the Church of England. This certainly encourages the splintering and growth of new protestant communities. However, laws against Catholics remained in force. A "small gain" for religious liberty? In short, in my estimation William’s legacy was the continuation a long history of states interfering with the affairs of the Church and other religious communities.

3. Economic changes which encouraged growth in England by establishing a national debt (1693) and a Bank of England (1694) principally to fund William’s wars through a bond market, etc. The center of economic life and trade shifted from Amsterdam to London.

4. Foreign policy changes from British isolationism to greater involvement in European and world affairs.

Another significant legacy of William III was the 1701 Act of Settlement. This law specified that Catholics can not hold the throne. King William III died in March 1702 (Queen Mary died in 1694) to be succeeded by Queen Anne, James' daughter. Many Catholics were bypassed in favor of Sophia of Hanover, sister of Charles I, who was 21st in line for succession at the time of the 1701 Act. Although she did not come to the English throne, her son George Ludwig of Hanover, became King George I in 1714. Needless to say, British and European history would have been very different without the Act of Settlement.

Likewise the history of Ireland would have been different without Jacobites supporting the restoration of James II, his son James Francis Edward (1688—1766) and his grandson, Charles Edward ("Bonnie Prince Charlie", 1720—1788). Barone and others speculate quite reasonably that the potato famine of the 1840's may have been avoided if Ireland had had the economic and political benefits ejoyed by the rest of Britian during these times rather than enduring the punitive measures because of their Catholic Faith and support of Jacobites "rebels".

Overall, I am well pleased with Our First Revolution. I will certainly give Barone's other works a look. In my estimation, it was a fair and balanced presentation of the Revolution of 1688-89.

Tags: Michael Barone, Our First Revolution,King James II, William of Orange

Ungrateful Daughters (part 2)

The first part of my review of Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses Who Stole Their Father's Crown by Maureen Waller (St. Martin's Griffin 2002) can be found here. It presents my motivation for reading Waller's work and also gives a primer on this period of Stuart history (c 1641-1714).

Ungrateful Daughters can be divided into three parts:

The first part presents the childhoods of James II, and his daughters Princess Mary, and Princess Anne. Waller tells the story of the same events from different perspectives. The average reader may be left fatigued after this point and tempted to abandon the effort altogether.

The second part is a complete near hysterical, hyperbolic, tendentious "pig pile" on King James II (reign 1685-1688). James might not have been a popular King but the only kind words about James we can find here are that he was a "kind and indulgent father". It also presents William of Orange's usurpation of James II in 1688 and his coronation as King William III and of James's eldest daughter, Mary, as Queen Mary II in 1689. It is in this section that Waller betrays her prejudices or at minimum displays her inability or unwillingness to approach these historical events and personalities even-handedly. A nuanced perspective seems to be too much out of reach for Waller at say the least.

The third part is on Queen Mary II (reign 1689-1694) and Queen Anne (reign 1702-1714); their quarrels with each other and their quarrels with ladies of their courts.

Ungrateful Daughters as popular history (as contrasted with professional history) presents a personal account of the characters through their personal letters. Waller nicely ties these personal letters with the turmoil of the events of this period.

Ungrateful Daughters was disappointing in multiple aspects. Where to begin? Well, Waller often presents characters and only later gives us their background — as if we are supposed to know who they are. Annoyingly she refers to the characters through multiple circumlocutions, e.g. "Duke of Gloucester" for "William" or "Anne's son". As soon as someone is introduced, the reader is expected to readily track all of their titles and familial relationships.

The Catholic/Protestant divide was a major issue of the day. Ungrateful Daughters, although unintended, is a book-length anecdote on the consequences of what happens when the state interferes with the affairs of the Church.

In 1669, James abandoned Anglicanism and became Catholic. In 1673, James married fourteen year-old Italian Princess Mary Beatrice of Modena by proxy. (Yes, Their vows were made by proxy. It is intent of these vows that makes a marriage valid. According to Canon 1104 (1983 Code of Canon Law), "by proxy" is still a licit way to contract marriage.) Mary Beatrice eventually fell in love with James nonetheless.

[Anglican] Bishop Compton and her chaplains had taught Lady Mary [Princess Mary] that Roman Catholicism was one of the worst evils in the world — and indeed, she had at first been very upset to hear her father [James] was marrying a Roman Catholic [Italian Princess Mary Beatrice of Modena] — but the young Duchess of York [Princess Mary Beatrice] worshipped privately and did not enter into discussions with her step daughters [Mary and Anne].

I was irritated that Waller continually ruined promising narrative by inserting anti-Catholic barbs into the drama of a situation and always — seemingly — to present Catholics in the worst possible light; all the while giving a relatively "free pass" to William, a Dutch Calvinist, and the other Protestants or at least presenting them in neutral terms.

Opinions on James are presented as facts throughout her polemic against James. For example, Waller describes James as "tactless" for saying grace at a meal when he was in captivity in December of 1688 and was being brought to London by William's troops!

In another incident, Waller unjustly excoriates James that he asked Pope Innocent XI for a Cardinal's hat for Queen Mary Beatrice's uncle Prince Rinaldo D'Este. James had every right to ask. Waller also needs some fact checking because she seems to be unaware that lay men could be made Cardinals in the Catholic Church according to "Canon Law" at the time. (Currently Cardinals need Holy Orders.)

Waller's near little sympathy for James and his fellow Catholics is offset here and there in the text:

When James said that he intended to 'establish' the Catholic religion in England, he meant that he wanted to give Catholics the same rights as Protestants, to allow them freedom of worship and to hold public offices. He was at pains to reassure the Anglican establishment that they would not loose out by granting Catholics equality.

Waller gratuitously reminds the reader at points of crisis — and in elaborating on the King James's personal problems — that James was Catholic. Meanwhile, William of Orange is described as "discrete in his extra-marital affairs".

Given that readers of Ungrateful Daughters live in the twenty-first century, Waller fails to explain why first cousins (Princess Mary and William of Orange) were allowed to contract marriage.

The political dimension of Ungrateful Daughters was adequately presented.

There were no checks on the power of the monarchy before calling of the Long Parliament in 1640, at the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, on James's accession in 1685, or at the time of William's invasion in 1688.

English Parliament "merely invited him [William of Orange] to restore English liberties and the rule of law." James believed in the principle of heredity succession and "divine right" of monarchs. Well, William of Orange was after the crown all along. The English Parliament gave it to him and James's daughter, Mary, as co-soveriegns. Anti-Catholicism is presented as a "matter of fact" as if it were ironically a "divine right". The 1689 Bill of Rights forbade a monarch or any heir to the throne to marry a Catholic.

Unlike other nations where the religion of the ruler determined that of the people, in England that of the people would determine that of the ruler. Catholics were barred from the throne. The principle that the Whig members of the Exclusion Parliaments [those who excluded Catholics from participation in public life] had fought so hard to put on the statue book had at last been accepted. The Torries had allowed James, the rightful hereditary heir, his chance, and he had let them down. At one stroke both Houses of Parliament agreed to set aside the claims of James and his son on the grounds of their religion and of any other Catholic heirs to the throne. Given the disastrous consequences of the marriages of recent Stuart sovereigns to Catholic consorts, specifically Henrietta Maria [consort of Charles I] and Mary Beatrice, it was also resolved that no monarch or heir to the throne might marry a Catholic either.

In 1701 when James II died, Louis XIV of France proclaimed James's son, James Francis Edward, King James III to no avail. King William III died in 1702 and Princess Anne became Queen while her brother and legitimate Stuart heir, James Francis Edward, was in exile in France. In the 1701 Act of Settlement stipulated that the English crown after Anne was to go to Sophie of Hanover, granddaughter of James I and her Protestant heirs. Sophie of Hanover died and her son George became king in 1714 thus passing over about 12 Catholics in line for the throne!

Both Queens Mary and Anne died unrepentant for their treason to their father James. Yet, Waller points out that James never granted them forgiveness. Well, forgiveness needs to be asked for before it can be granted in the normal course. Given Waller's presentation of this period — and of James II in particular — I searched in vain to discover what the daughters were "ungrateful" for?

Ungrateful Daughters requires critical reading skills. It can both easily remind one that there is "nothing new under the sun" and provide a further "comfort" in approaching contemporary crises. It allows one to further understand that history is made up of personalities and decisions that shaped our present world.

Tags: Ungrateful Daughters, Maureen Waller

Ungrateful Daughters

As we were beginning to celebrate America’s Birthday this year I came across Michael Barone’s article Our First Revolution (N.Y. Sun July 3, 2007). It was basically a summary of the thesis of his new book Our First Revolution: The Remarkable British Upheaval that Inspired America's Founding Fathers in which he argues that America owes her Liberties not "directly" to our Founding Fathers but rather to William of Orange (1650-1702) during the period of English history known as the "Glorious Revolution of 1688-1689".

As the historian, J. H. Elliott, has noted, one reason the Spanish colonies in the Americas had difficulty winning independence and establishing self-government is that they had no legislative assemblies, no experience with self-government. The British colonies of North America, thanks to this successful revolution, had such assemblies and the colonists — the founders — had such experience. "Without 1688," as Christopher Hitchens has written, "there would have been no 1776."

The American founders consciously imitated the makers of the First Revolution. They set up a government where power would be shared by executive and legislative branches. Provisions of the second, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments were copies or expansions of provisions in the Declaration of Right.

Alexander Hamilton persuaded the First Congress to establish a funded national debt and a Bank of the United States. And in the 20th century, American presidents followed the foreign policy followed by Britain for most of the time since 1689 in opposing expansionist tyrannical regimes in Europe and around the world.

We owe much to the founders. But we owe something as well to the men and women who made, what I call, Our First Revolution nearly a century before.

Before approaching Barone’s tome I decided to read a "primer" on this period since I did not know too much about these events other than England’s last Catholic King, James II (1633-1701), was deposed by the Dutch Calvinist William of Orange. I chose Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses Who Stole Their Father's Crown by Maureen Waller (St. Martin’s Griffin 2002).

Before commenting on Waller's book, Ungrateful Daughters, here’s a quick primer on this period…

James II became King in 1685 when his brother Charles II died. (Their father Charles I was beheaded in 1649 when the monarchy was overthrown by Oliver Cromwell's Parliament. Charles II was restored King in 1660.) James had two daughters with his wife Anne Hyde, a commoner: Princess Mary and Princess Anne. When Anne Hyde died, he married an Italian Princess, Mary Beatrice of Modena. James II and Queen Mary Beatrice had a son in 1688, James Francis Edward, and a daughter Louise Marie in 1692. (James also had four legally illegitimate children with his mistresses, Arabella Churchill. Anne Hyde and Queen Mary Beatrice also had many children who were stillborn or did not survive childhood.)

Princess Mary, the older sister, married her first cousin, William of Orange of Holland. (William’s mother, Mary (1631-1660), was Charles and James' sister.) They had no children. Princess Anne, the younger sister, married George, the Prince of Denmark. They had no children who survived childhood despite Anne's seventeen pregnancies.

In 1688, the Dutch prince, William of Orange came for the crown and ousted King James II. James II, Queen Mary Beatrice, and the infant Prince of Wales, James Francis Edward, fled to France and protection of Louis XIV. In 1689 William was crowned King William III and Mary was crowned Queen Mary II. They were co-monarchs of England, Scotland, Ireland, etc.

The second part of Ungrateful Daughers can be found here.

Image: (L to R) King James II, Princess Mary, Princess Anne, and William of Orange (Nicholas de Largillière, National Maritime Museum; Sir Peter Lely, National Portrait Gallery; William Wissing, The Royal Collection; Godfried Schalcken, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam respectively)
Tags: Glorious Revolution, Ungrateful Daughters, King James II, William of Orange, King William III, Stuart Monarchy, Maureen Waller, Michael Barone

Immaculée Ilibagiza in Atlanta

[YFE Atlanta 2007]

Last Friday Immaculée Ilibagiza was a featured guest speaker at the 2007 Regnum Christi Youth and Family Encounter in Atlanta, GA. Immaculee’s talk was most powerful. She, an ethnic Tutsi, was a survivor of the Rwandan Genocide which began in April of 1994. The events of the Rwandan genocide, but not her story in particular, were presented in HBO’s Sometimes in April (2005).

How could intelligent people do this? How could her friends, schoolmates, and neighbors turn against her and want to kill her? Her testimony through her talk had great insight to an answer.

Personal stories and conversion stories are always powerful. They make the abstract concrete and offer us — hopefully if we are conscious — inspiration and hope. Well, the story Immaculée told certainly fit the bill.

Immaculée, a Catholic, told us that a protestant minister kept her and others in hiding for 3 months beginning in April. She spent her time in a 6x3 bathroom with 7 others at times. The Hutus searched for her and other Tutsis continuously. She had many close calls but avoided detection. (For example, they only flushed the toilet when others did as well to avoid detection.) At one point the “soldiers” were at her bathroom door but for some reason did not open it. Eventually she wasted away to a mere 65 pounds in weight! He whole family was killed and she was the only survivor.

She told us that she struggled with God through her trials. Yet these same trials strengthened her Faith and trust in Providence. If Divine Providence was present her why did she live and others die? She concluded that others were ready for death — they were ready to meet Our Lord for judgment — but she was not. Her Faith was not strong enough at this time.

She told us that she prayed all day: seven full rosaries a day, the Divine Mercy Chaplet and so forth. Her greatest struggle was dealing with her anger. Eventually she her anger left her when she learned to forgive and see others as truly God’s children as well, regardless of the fact that some were trying to machete her. In her bathroom hiding place she found peace and serenity like never before!

Immaculée provided us with a great insight into the nature of evil. It is one that we should already know. However, an extreme trial and personal triumph can provide an occasion for the lesson to be re-taught.

Her friends and neighbors that she went to school with and whom she knew well turned against her and wanted to kill her. They were intelligent people. They sought her out to machete her to death. Why? She concluded that their evil intentions toward her and others were a blindness to the truth. They refused to see and respond to the truth of things. Evil is blindness. She told us that the same “blindness” phenomena could be applied to those who support the absolute horror of abortion. I paraphrase: “Intelligent people can see the baby is alive and growing. The baby has a head and arms and heart. They can see all of this yet they have blindness to the truth of the good. They want to kill. This is evil. The problem is not in the intellect. The problem is in the heart. It is a blindness of heart.”

Immaculée is a humble and joyful woman who readily admits that she is far from perfect and that — like all of us should — continues to struggle each day to become better and please God as she should.

We all surely noticed how beautiful Immaculée is. She could surely have been a fashion model. We also noticed how joyful and full of life she was. Most of all we noticed the beauty in her that responded to truth and her inner beauty that helps lead other to truth.

Immaculée wrote an autobiography of her trial: Left to tell: Discovering God Amidst the Rwandan Holocaust .

Photo: Immaculée Ilibagiza ( lefttotell.com )
Tags: Rwanda, Immaculee Ilibagiza, Regnum Christi

Nashua Dodgers

The above mural of Don Newcombe (b. 1926) and Roy Campanella (1921-1993) is found in downtown Nashua, New Hampshire behind City Hall. I’ve driven by this mural many times and simply thought that we simply had some Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodger fans in the area. Perhaps we do, but these two players, from what I discovered, are part of, Nashua history, American baseball history, and black history.

Don Newcombe and Roy Campanella played for the Nashua Dodgers (1946-1949) at Holman Stadium in Nahsua. (Holman Stadium has been home of the Nashua Pride, a non-affiliated professional independent team, since 1998.)

In 1946...Branch Rickey desegregated the Dodgers by sending Jackie Robinson to Montreal AAA. Five months later, he opened a second phase by signing catcher Roy Campanella and pitcher Don Newcombe. He had to send them to A ball because of their history as Negro League stars, but 3 of the 5 Dodger A teams were in segregated states. That left Danville, IL and Nashua, NH. Danville refused the 2 players, but Nashua GM Buzzie Bavasi said If they can play ball better than what we have, we don’t care what color they are.

…Located forty miles north of Boston, Nashua residents seemed to have no qualms about welcoming the two black athletes. These people are wonderful, reported the ebullient Campanella. Newcombe and I go anyplace we want to, do anything we please, and are treated like long lost sons. Newcombe and Campanella and their wives constituted the entire black population of Nashua. They rarely saw the other blacks in the area, who lived at a lumber mill several miles outside of town. We even had to go to the white barber shop, recalls Newcombe. He didn’t know how to cut black peoples hair. We got scalped many times by the barber who tried. He could have said No, I don’t cut black peoples hair, but he tried. Bad haircuts, however, seemed a small price to pay. The two black families had no trouble finding lodgings and experienced no problems in restaurants or at the stadium. We were very lucky to play in that area, says Newcombe. On a short brick outfield wall in a very short left field are circles with the numbers 36, 39, and 42. The 42 is for Jackie Robinson; the 36 and 39 are for his future Dodger teammates Don Newcombe and Roy Campanella, who played here for the Nashua Dodgers in the late 1940s. (Robinson never played at Nashua; he spent the 1946 season at Montreal before being recalled to Brooklyn in 1947.) [full article: NashuaPride.com]

Don Newcombe pitched for ten seasons in the National League (149-90 3.56 ERA, 1.203 WHIP) and was a pretty good hitter was well (.271 15 HR 108 RBI). He was the 1949 N.L. Rookie of the Year, a 4 time all-star, and 1956 N.L. MVP and Cy Young Award winner ( 27-7, 3.06 ERA 0.99 WHIP).

Roy Campanella (Italian/African) was a great hitter in the National League and was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1969 (.276 242 HR 856 RBI). He was the N.L. MVP in 1951, 1953, and 1955 and was an 8 time all-star.

I am happy that Nashua honors these two baseball players with a nice mural. Come by and see sometime!

Tags: Nashau, Nashua Dodgers, baseball, Don Newcombe, Roy Campanella, black history