REQUIEM MASS FOR THE PONTIFICAL SOLDIERS WHO DIED IN THE DEFENSE OF ROME

The Foundation for Catholic Reform ^ | September 20, 2003 | Fr. Ignacio Barreiro

[Land of the Irish]

HOMILY DELIVERED AT A REQUIEM MASS FOR THE PONTIFICAL SOLDIERS WHO 
DIED ON THE 20TH OF SEPTEMBER, 1870, IN THE DEFENSE OF ROME
By Fr. Ignacio Barreiro

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

On this sad anniversary, we offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on behalf of the souls of the Pontifical Soldiers who perished in the defense of Rome and Christian Europe and also for the souls of the enemy soldiers who died in that battle. Indeed it is a Christian virtue to pray for all the deceased, so in the same way as Blessed Pius IX ordered the faithful after the battle of Mentana to pray for the souls of their enemies who had died, we also do so today.

We cannot honor the memory of so many good men who gave up their lives in defense of the ideal of Christian society without at the same time upholding those same ideals. A basic sense of coherence leads us to proclaim a Christian view of society based on the Social Kingship of Christ. A society that rejects Christ will never find happiness because He is the only rock on which we can build society.

The twentieth century, in many respects one of the most horrible centuries in human history, came to an end with the apparent victory of liberalism. This ideology has apparently defeated other ideologies, which in a direct or indirect way also came down from the Enlightenment, such as totalitarian Marxism or an extreme form of nationalism that has broken its roots with the healthy traditions of the people. Liberalism has a view of man and society that is closed to the truth of God and man because it is agnostic toward transcendental values. Adherents of this ideology are mostly concerned with the promotion of mere instrumental values for the establishment of what they consider to be a more open society. Such a society in real terms brings about a self-destructive libertarianism, leading men to become slaves of their most base passions and at the same time making them dependent on those few who dominate consumer society for their own benefit. This libertarianism destroys marriage through divorce, grants legal protection to homosexual unions, and brings about collective suicide through abortion, euthanasia, and contraception. (God considers the sin of contraception so serious that He punished with death the first man in the Bible who is described as having committed it.)

We all know that behind a facade of civility, the liberals actively seek the destruction of the Catholic Faith and of the few remaining traditional values. On top of the direct and explicit aggression against traditional values, we are suffering the tragedy, as was recently underlined by the Holy Father John Paul II, that "European culture gives the impression of a silent apostasy by a man who, having too many material possessions, lives as if God did not exist." This silent apostasy has many causes: from a liberal and secularist propaganda that has been active for more than two centuries, to pastoral shortcomings within the Church, which has not been able or has not known how to transmit the faith, as Cardinal Ratzinger has recently enumerated.

Confronted by this tragic situation, we have to promote a society that is based on the values that come from the natural law and Christian revelation as it has been taught through the centuries by the Magisterium of the Church, a model of society that became real and life-giving under great Christian emperors and kings of the past. It is a type of society that even today, after several dark centuries, could be reestablished if the men of our time were to return to the only faith that saves. A Christian society maintains always the same substance and the same grounding principles, but at the same time it can admit of differences, taking into account the different particular traditions of the nations and the changing circumstances of time and place. It would be utopian to try to copy in a literal way the models of the past, but it is not utopian to do everything that we can to reestablish the same permanent grounding principles that previously gave us a society based upon the Social Kingship of Christ.

Now we are witnessing another step in the process of the destruction of the traditional values of Europe with the approval of the "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe." Reading the preamble, it is easy to see how this document is a direct descendent of the revolutionary Enlightenment that has brought about so many tragedies in Europe as well as in countries all over the world.

From its very first paragraph, the preamble begins with a brash lie when it states that the inhabitants of Europe "have gradually developed the values underlying humanism: equality of person, freedom, respect for reason." First, we should state that values are never developed by men, but are gifts from God that man receives partially through natural revelation and fully through the knowledge that derives from supernatural revelation. So to say that man is a creator of values is a lie that in the end constitutes a blasphemy against God. Second, we should remember that it is not by accident that these ideas are regrettably all too similar to the counter values that can be found in the proclamations of the French Revolution. There is no doubt that all men are equal by essence, but it is also obvious to everyone that men are different between themselves in so many ways that to speak of equality without speaking about those great differences leads to a great injustice that damages the common good. Liberty for the drafters of this document means a total autonomy of man to do whatever he wants to do, which in the end leads to a lawless and antisocial lifestyle. Instead, liberty is for us the moral capacity that man possesses to choose the good. What do they mean when they speak about respect for reason? They speak of an autonomous and self-sufficient reason. To be truly rational, human thinking has to be grounded in reality and, in particular, grounded in the truth, which is God.

Without hiding their satisfaction, the drafters of this document state that "Europe intends to continue along the path of civilization, progress and prosperity." Then they provide us with a comprehensive list of all sorts of nice things that they are doing and conclude this list with the promise of "solidarity throughout the world". A person would have to be truly blindfolded to consider that this continent, which has given birth to the most horrible ideologies, which in their own turn have caused the most horrendous massacres in these last centuries, is moving along the path of civilization. (A partial listing of the horrors that have taken place across Europe in recent centuries would take us from the terror of the French Revolution, to the Soviet Gulag, to the martyrdom of thousands of Catholics in 1930's Spain.) These horrible crimes regrettably are not something from the past, but rather they continue in our own day as we now witness millions of human beings killed in the wombs of their mothers and thousands of old and sick persons that are murdered because contemporary society, which has "progressed" so much in its civilization, is too selfish to take care of them. They talk to us of progress, one of the Enlightenment myths, and instead we see regress and decadence all over. How can we talk of progress on a continent where the demographic winter has arrived with a yearly population decrease? At the same time that this happens, the identity of Europe is at risk by an illegal and uncontrolled immigration from non-Christian nations. How can they speak of prosperity when we find a high rate of unemployment and when so many workers earn miserable salaries with which they cannot support their families? How can we talk of solidarity throughout the world when the common agricultural policy of Europe, besides causing long-term damage to European farmers and making them dependent on a band of bureaucrats, seriously damages the economy of so many poor countries as may be seen in the recent conference of the WTO at Cancun? (This is said without in any way giving legitimacy to these international organizations that are not inspired by traditional Christian values.)

As one can see, this preamble is an accumulation of lies because the true unity of Europe will never be grounded in false ideologies, but only in the Eternal Truth, the same truth that comes from God and that for centuries has become incarnated and taken root on this continent. This is the faith that has been lived by the different Christian nations that have built Christian Europe with their sweat and blood. For that reason we have to be deeply aware that either Europe remains Christian or it is no longer going to be Europe. A Catholicism that came alive in the institutions of so many European nations, a totalitarian and Jacobin centralism is today trying to destroy. This attack on the spiritual, cultural, and historic identity of European nations has been constantly denounced by the Holy Father John Paul II. For these reasons we strongly object to a draft of the European Constitution which lacks all references to God and to the Christian roots of our continent.

We hope that Europe, the history of which cannot be separated from Christian civilization, will return to its roots in Christ. Union with Christ is the only reality that would bring about the unity of Europe.

To conclude our prayer, we seek the intercession of the Immaculate Virgin Mary and of Blessed Pius IX, asking their assistance first and foremost for the souls of the deceased Pontifical

Soldiers and of their enemies, and secondly, we also pray that we remain faithful in our battle for the establishment of the Social Kingship of Christ in a Christian Europe.

This homily was delivered by Father Ignacio Barreiro on September 20, 2003, at the Church of Corpus Domini in Rome. A native of Uruguay, Fr. Barreiro was ordained in the Archdiocese of New York in 1987 and is currently Director of the Rome Office of Human Life International.

Home l Contact l Site Map l Donate l Books l Mailing List

Copyright 2001-2003 The Foundation for Catholic Reform, P.O. Box 2286, Fort Collins, CO 80522

[royalcello]

Traditionally, the powers of Christian monarchs were limited in practice by the aristocracy, the Church, and common law. Royal absolutism was a byproduct of the Protestant "Reformation," and even then, it was nothing like the truly evil totalitarianism of the 20th century. And democracy can also lead to tyranny, as the Germans found out. The democratic countries of Europe and North America are experiencing a much milder but still worrying version of tyranny today, with restrictions on politically incorrect speech, etc..

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I'm not sure that our goals are necessarily mutually exclusive. Was not the Holy Roman Empire an attempt at such a commonwealth?

Well, not really. The Empire of Charlemagne, the East Roman Empire (falsely styled Byzantine), and the Austro-Hungarian Empire are better examples.

The Holy Roman Empire was "The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation". No different in principle than the "Roman Empire of the Serbs and Greeks" that Serbia made in the 1300's. In other words, a petty nationalism.

I tend to doubt that a permanent "worldwide peace" is possible, and would take the past "evils" over the present ones any day.

Peace is possible if rulers will conform themselves to Christ. Peace among Christians, which is what I am really after, is eminently possible.

[MWS]

It would be nice to have an English-language monarchist presence. It is unfortunate that the English speaking world isn't exactly the bastion for such thought. The English monarchy itself seems to be a joke at times, and certainly does not seem like something to which a Roman Catholic monarchist can give much support.

I've heard of the Monarchist League, which I think is a very nice idea. I've considered becoming involved with it, although it is something about which I am still learning.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The only problem with a monarchy is your are placing you bets on one person being a just ruler instead of the pluraity being just in their choosing of leaders. The former can lead to tyranny, the latter to anarchy. Pick your poision and take your chances.

A Christian Monarchy should be limited by a Senate, an Assmebly, a Judiciary, and a Church. The Monarch would not reign absolutely or by divine right, but so long as he conforms the course of the State to Justice and Faith. The Constantinopolitan model of the East Roman Empire is far superior in many regards to those given by most western or eastern Monarchies.

[MWS]

A Christian Monarchy should be limited by a Senate, an Assmebly, a Judiciary, and a Church. The Monarch would not reign absolutely or by divine right, but so long as he conforms the course of the State to Justice and Faith. The Constantinopolitan model of the East Roman Empire is far superior in many regards to those given by most western or eastern Monarchies.

I've thought along those lines in the past, but my main concern is that limiting the monarch in such ways often leads to completely declawing the monarch, making him a symbolic head. It would seem that such a system leads to rule by popularly elected representatives, which in turn leads back to materialistic secularism and rule by politics.

I'm of the mind that the power of monarchs is better limited by its hereditary nature. Hereditary leaders, although raised to be monarchs, tend towards ineffectualism and concern with enjoying their wealth and status. They tend to depend upon advisors to help make many of the important decisions and act as a sort of "official stamp", keeping the advisors in check.

Of course, then again, I could be completely off base here.

[royalcello]

It has been quite some time now since the worst of the Windsor scandals, and I am firmly of the opinion that, especially in the absence of any preferable alternative, the British monarchy must be supported in spite of the flaws of some of its representatives. I watched the funeral of HM the Queen Mother on TV, and attended the Golden Jubilee celebrations in London, and I can tell you that in spite of everything that has happened, the British monarchy is still far from being a "joke." Surely the intense hatred the British Left has for the royal family suggests that the Windsors must be doing something right. And as Catholic monarchist Charles Coulombe pointed out, "If immorality on the part of its leaders were a reason for abolition, there would be no institutions: political, business, religious, or any other sort; remaining on Earth---and that includes even families."

[redgolum]

Royal absolutism existed before the Reformation. Take a look at the history surrounding the Crusades for example. Many of the Frankish nobles and "kings" did as they pleased, especially when they got to the Byzantine empire. One of the more basic aspects of the human conditions is that power can and will corrupt. The dangers of monarchies is that the number of people to corrupt is smaller, but the advantage is that if the monarch is just, they can help pull the nation back on the right path. A true republic can be just as corrupt, but the checks and balances can serve as a way to limit the amount of power any one group can get.
What is the best form of government? Hard to say. All have the possibility of abuse. A constitional monarchy can be a good form of government, so can a republic.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Look at how the Christian Roman Empire was governed. The Emperor was checked by the Senate, the Judiciary, and the Church in carrying out his will absolutely. The Church felt no compunction at all in opposing him and having him tossed out if he became a heretic or gross public sinner.

The Monarch needs to be more than a hereditary administrator, but less than an only lawgiver.

[royalcello]

A constitutional monarchy can be a good form of government, so can a republic.

I don't really disagree, although I don't think "constitutional" has to mean that that the monarch has no power at all as is currently the case in the surviving European monarchies (except for Liechtenstein).

I (obviously) have a strong emotional preference for the trappings, customs, and philosophy of monarchy. However, I also recognize that different forms of government can be suitable for different countries depending on their heritages and traditions, which is why I do not advocate monarchy for the United States or Switzerland.

[redgolum]

True, but that is a fine line to walk. Even in the Christain Roman Empire, there were leaders who attempted to become absoulte. Give a man control of army, and he will forget to ask others for council.

[redgolum]

By the way, what battle was fought in 1870? That would be about the time that Prussia began to fight, but I haven't studied that time in enough detail to remember the specifics.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The 1870 Battle was Masonic Italy against the Papal States. It was started by the withdrawal of French troops from Rome due to Napoloen III's provocative moves towards Prrussia concerning Luxemburg, countered by the invasion of Bismarck.

[redgolum]

Any good links for information? I have tried to find a few on the net on this issue.

[Guelph4ever]

From a Conservative Catholic Monarchist:

I think you should read the book 'Politics Drawn from Holy Scripture' by Bishop Jacques Bossuet, in which he outlines the difference between an absolute monarch and an arbitrary monarch (not the same thing!)

During the High Middle Ages (really the glory days of Christianity) the monarch was strong, holding a very exalted position, in name-an absolute ruler. Yet, the Church was above him, and most government was done on the local level. Power was very de-centralized. Traditional Catholic monarchists have always supported this, be it the autonomy and strong king of the Spanish Carlistos or the "Divine Right" Stuarts with home rule for Scotland and Ireland desired by the Jacobites.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

During the High Middle Ages (really the glory days of Christianity)

I rather think the age of Justinian and his successors were the glory days of Christianity. The Middle Ages saw the final end of the Imperial Roman ideal.

[Guelph4ever]

I personally would not call Imperial Rome the ideal as the secular rulers still had too much power, whereas during the High Middle Ages, particularly in the time of Innocent III, the Church was recognized by everyone as having the last word.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I personally would not call Imperial Rome the ideal as the secular rulers still had too much power, whereas during the High Middle Ages, particularly in the time of Innocent III, the Church was recognized by everyone as having the last word.

Which is why the Crusaders went to sack Constantinople New Rome against his orders?

Wasn't the period AD 400-650 a lot better for Christians in Africa, Egypt, Syria, Persia, Spain, etc. than post Islam in the Middle Ages? Or does the only part of Christendom that counts consist fo France, Italy, and Germany?

Why do you insist on seeing the Most Christian Emperors as all-powerful tyrants and dictators? Rome was the source of law, order, and freedom, not the German barbarians. Rome had a system of free cities and provincial rule in a united land at peace long before the medieval royals figured out how to mimic this system and curb the depredations of their nobles. Rome didn't suffer from peasant revolts and constant internicene warfare (Hundred Years War, etc.).

Have you ever actually read any Christian Roman History?

You might find some of what is available here to be of great interest and fascination. It's a real labor of love.

General index - http://www.friesian.com/philhist.htm

Roman History - http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm

German History - http://www.friesian.com/germania.htm

French History - http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm

Russian history - http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm

[Hermann the Cherusker]

One interesting thing from studying Christian Roman history was my realization that the Republic of Venice and the Papal States were the last surviving fragments of the Empire of Romania (Roman-Land), as it was termed in Christian times. In them, the Imperial Roman past survived until just 130-200 years ago. The name lives on in the country of Romania and the Italian Province of Emilia-Romagna, as well as in the Rhaeto-Romanisch peoples of the Alps.

[Guelph4ever]

Alright, if you're going to get combative I really don't have time for another round tonight...

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Alright, if you're going to get combative I really don't have time for another round tonight...

Combative?