Skip to comments.Austria's last emperor nears sainthood
Posted on 10/03/2004 4:27:44 PM PDT by JB_90
Pope John Paul II on Sunday put the last Austro-Hungarian emperor, Charles I, on the road to sainthood in a solemn beatification ceremony in St. Peter's Square, prompting angry reactions in Austria and splitting the Roman Catholic community there.
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
The Europeon aristocracy were nothing but a bunch of thugs. How many Austrian pesants starved so little Charley could eat dainties on gold plates.
Sorry you feel that way, but Karl (or Charles) was of very saintly character. He took over the reigns of government from Franz Joeseph in 1916 - in the middle of WWI, and did his best to serve the countrymen of his very ethnicly diverse empire. He did his best to maintain a policy of semi autonomy in local matters, to allow the various ethnic groups to have some limited self governance.
In the war he insisted upon fair and ethical treatment of POWs, and ordered an end to the use of mustard gas. He also was constantly trying to find a way to come to the table to talk a peace settlement. But France, England, and the USA would have none of that. The only one who agree with him in his peace proposals was Pope Benedict.
After he was forced out of office by masonic anti-monarchial elements within and without his country, he twice tried to regain the throne, with the aid of the Hungarians. In the end he failed, and retired in exile to die of pneumonia.
This man was very much a Christian King......a Catholic who tried to uphold the rights of non-Catholics within his realm. This also was a leader who strove for fairness in labor practices, and with regard to housing. He was also the last Holy Roman Emporer.
As a desendant of citizens of his empire, I am very proud to see him Beatified.
Blessed Karl of Hapburg, pray for us!
Uh, sorry to "disappoint" you, but while his army was fighting on the front, he didn't dine while he reigned. He and his family lived on official wartime rations, and forbade anyone in his family to eat white bread. This is historical fact.
Your comments show you to be no better than the Jacobin thugs of the French Revolution. People like you have been responsible for millions of deaths since 1789. Take your class warfare and egalitarianism to a leftist website where it will fit in better.
The European aristocracy nurtured and led the greatest civilization the world has ever known. Charles I was a saint who even from childhood lived only to serve God and do what was best for his people. Try to read something about him before spouting off with your malicious leftwing ignorance.
Amen! It was the democratically elected leaders of the USA, France, and Britain who were the villains of this tale, not Emperor Charles.
Long live the Habsburgs! May we someday see them restored to their rightful place as the sovereigns of Austria and Hungary!
Here's the whole article. Isn't it interesting how, 85 years after the dynasty ceased to hold any power, leftists (including some on this website, apparently) still hate the Habsburgs with as much intensity as much as they ever did? (Note the "expert" Rumpler's derisive comment: "not really a politician." Oh, the horror! Is this the best they can come up with? As if Europe is so much better off being run by real politicians!)
Austria's last emperor nears sainthood
Elisabetta Povoledo IHT
Monday, October 4, 2004
ROME Pope John Paul II on Sunday put the last Austro-Hungarian emperor, Charles I, on the road to sainthood in a solemn beatification ceremony in St. Peter's Square, prompting angry reactions in Austria and splitting the Roman Catholic community there.
With dozens of members of Europe's royal families in attendance, the pope beatified Austria's last monarch, saying he hoped that the emperor would serve as an example, especially for those with political responsibilities in Europe today.
Looking tired and speaking with difficulty, the 84-year-old pontiff, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, beatified five Catholics, including the German mystic Anna Katharina Emmerick, whose visions inspired Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ"; an Italian nun, Maria Ludovica De Angelis, who worked with children in Argentina; and two Frenchmen, Joseph-Marie Cassant, a monk, and Pierre Vigne, who founded an order of nuns.
But it is the elevation to the penultimate step before sainthood of the commander in chief of an army that used mustard gas during World War I that has drawn the most attention.
In an interview last month with the Catholic News Service, Rudolf Mitlohner, editor of the Die Furche Catholic weekly, said he thought that the beatification would create unnecessary trouble for the church" in Austria.
Critics there believe Charles's elevation has been politically driven by conservatives. The Associated Press reported that the Austrian government had been criticized for its decision to send a delegation to Rome for the ceremony.
Andreas Khol, president of Austria's National Assembly, who represented President Heinz Fischer in Rome, told the news agency APA it was "a beautiful, joyous occasion," while the house leader of the Austrian Green Party, Stefan Schennach, said the late emperor's offspring had paid off the Roman Catholic Church, Agence France-Presse reported.
"The pope has found that selling indulgences is a lucrative and media-friendly business," he said. "The Habsburgs have for a decade lobbied the Catholic right wing and bought this glorious day for their family in Rome."
Otto von Habsburg, the emperor's 91-year-old eldest son, said he would not stoop to respond to the critics and insisted that his father's beatification was "a great celebration for all of the countries on the Danube."
APA also reported that Austrian media had ridiculed the Vatican for the miracle attributed to Charles I, the scientifically inexplicable healing of a Brazilian nun with varicose veins.
The campaign for the beatification of Charles - a step that requires at least one miracle - began in 1954 and has been sustained by a small conservative group of Austrian Catholics, the Catholic News Service reported.
Historians, too, have questioned the record of the last leader of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, who became heir to the throne on June 28, 1914 after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which historians say was the spark that ignited World War I. He was made emperor in November 1916 and crowned King of Hungary a month later. He died in exile in 1922.
The Catholic News Service cites an interview in London's The Guardian with Helmut Rumpler, head of the Habsburg commission of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, describing Charles as a dilettante, far too weak for the challenges facing him, out of his depth, and not really a politician.
The Church has praised Charles I for putting his Christian faith first in making political decisions, and for his perceived role as a peacemaker during the war.
Advocates like Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna, who has lobbied hard for the cause, believe that the beatification will assist Central Europeans struggling toward greater unification.
After a century of dispersion and suffering the peoples of Central Europe have found a new form of coexistence and collaboration, Cardinal Schonborn wrote in a Web site dedicated to Charles.
An estimated 30,000 attended the Cardinal's announcement in St. Peter's Square.
International Herald Tribune
The Habsburg cause is not forgotten. Our parish priest and a delegation from our parish are in Rome right now for the beatification ceremony. (Father H is a personal friend of the late Emperors son, HIH Karl von Habsburg, who is a member of the Europarliament and who has always been quietly careful to not renounce any of his royal legacy.) In addition, tomorrow at our parish church the morning mass is being said in honor of the late Emperor Karl. (I'm supplying the picture of the Blessed to be displayed during the mass.) The Yellow and Black lives, never fear!
the late Emperors son, HIH Karl von Habsburg
Don't you mean Otto? I believe he is now retired from the European Parliament. I saw him with many other royals at the mass yesterday on EWTN. Karl, 43, is Otto's son and the Emperor's grandson and eventual heir.
Incidentally, I suspect that many Austrians who do not identify themselves ideologically as monarchists would nevertheless welcome or at least not object to a restoration of the monarchy. A royalist friend once told me that when he was travelling in Austria, he dared to say to a tourism official, "you have a beautiful country....pity that it's a republic," and the official agreed. This summer, at a music festival in Switzerland I met two Austrian brothers who, when I told them of my interest, expressed their immense respect and admiration for Archduke Otto and said that they wouldn't mind having a monarchy again.
Would that the Archduke Rudolph of Mayerling infamny could have had even half the character of his relative, Karl. Who knows, history might have been very different....
That's one story that doesn't hold up very well. Rudolph had at least two other mistresses at the time besides Maria Vetsera, was on morphine and had been diagnosed with VD. He had attempted to talk one other mistress into suicide with him previously. Only the 17 "Mary" would agree, and left farewell letters to her mother and sisters behind at Mayerling. Her tomb was ransacked by Russians in 1945 and the battered condition of her skull later discovered, was held up as proof that she'd been beaten to death instead of shot. But others have said that one entrace and exit bullet hole could still be seen on the damaged skull. Rudolph was a depressed cad who didn't want to die alone.
Yes...which would seem to make it even more unlikely that he would want to give up everything for her, "including the throne and the opportunity to take action on political changes in which he had long been interested" (Bogle).
In any case, this thread is about Emperor Karl, who we can agree was a vastly superior character.
You don't think they'll fit in just fine here? =)
Thought of you during opening comments before Father's homily yesterday; here they are:
Today in Rome, the Holy Father beatified a very unique person. And I have put a little article in the bulletin today for you. His Apostolic Majesty Charles of Hapsburg, the Emperor King of Austria and Hungary and the last in the line of Catholic Roman Emperors that reached back over 1200 years to the coronation of Charlemagne in the year 800 was beatified this morning. He is now Blessed Charles, the Emperor.
When he came to the throne in 1916, he presided over a great many of the countries of Central Europe. He was a young man of only 29. His great-uncle, the Emperor Franz Joseph who had reigned longer than almost any other king in history had died and [Charles] immediately set about attempting to bring peace to the world, a world that was awash in World War I. He tried his hardest but, of course, was unsuccessful. The war went on until 1918, as we know, with the participation of the United States. And it was really the US participation that brought the war to an end. And, of course, we have Armistice Day November 11th every year to celebrate the end of the First World War. And on that date, the Emperor relinquished his authority--because of the changes in history that occurred as the result of World War I--and went into exile where he died soon after in 1922.
Now, I knew all about that. I'm a professor of history at the seminary so that wasn't any news. What was very new to me was when I read the material that the Vatican always assembles on a person who is about to be canonized. There is a great deal of material ... the research they do is vast and it includes Spiritual Research.
I was flabbergasted at how holy this man was. A very, very holy man. In fact, one bishop called him the "Eucharistic Emperor."
[Charles] had a deep devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. The Pope gave him special commission to have the Blessed Sacrament to have the Blessed Sacrament reserved wherever he lived so that he could pray before the tabernacle any time during the day or night and he often did his work in front of the [exposed] Blessed Sacrament.
I read that on one occasion he stopped the royal train because he saw a priest taking the Blessed Sacrament to a dying person. He stopped the train and got out and knelt as the priest carried the Body of our Lord to a dying person. He was an extraordinary man of faith, a great husband and father, a great model.
And the reason I mention all this is because we're in a time when apparently people think that in order to be a political and social leader--a public leader--you have to compromise your Christian faith. There is no way to be a practicing Christian and a politician. We hear that all the time in so many ways, don't we? That kind of "I believe one thing but I have to do and say and vote another way in the public sector."
No, you don't.
And the Holy Father, by elevating this great man to the altars shows the whole world that it is possible to be a practicing Christian and be a great public official and leader.
So, today we rejoice with the whole Church throughout the world and the Imperial Hapsburg Family. The son of Charles, there are several sons, but the oldest son who was at his coronation in 1916 is 93 years old and he was at the beatification this morning. So this must be a great day for that family, the Imperial Family.
Agreed, an excellent Christian who would have made a great Emperor in less drastic times.
You are a cretin.
I have to go to Savannah this weekend, unless my plans fall through. If I cannot go, I will certainly attend the Mass in NY.
Lets see what democracy got the world, in the 1790s, it gave France the reign of terror in France, in the late 1920s, it gave Germany Hitler. We can not view the world though the lens of US history.
Of course, I meant HIH Otto rather than Karl. Thanks for the correction.
And please feel free to use the graphic.
The French demagogues, Hitler AND Charley I are all spending special time in Hell.
Is that material, or are copies, made available to laymen or is it only to be found in archival storage somewhere in Vatican City? I would love to read more examples of his heroic sanctity.
There are monarchists who would otherwise be Berkeley leftists. The country to your north has redefined the meaning of constitutional monarchy to the point that they reflect more of Kerry-Clinton multi-culti fuddi-buddi rather than historic majesty of James I. I have seen Canadian "conservatives" flock to a known Chomskyite statist politician and not to his principled conservative counterpart (political issues speaking) just because he happens to pepper his speeches with "God save the Queen!"
Monarchy in the mold of Queen Victoria is not bad, but if you force me to choose a constitutional monarchical system with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, Helen Clark or Jean Chretien as head of government, and a republic with George Washington as both head of state and government, I will choose Washington, thanks.
I have never read that ANY Austrian peasants starved. Can you give me soe source documents?
I realize that this is possible, since I used to be one myself before I moved rightward on issues other than monarchy. However, as I wrote two years ago, the left-royalist position (what I call "neomonarchism") is becoming less plausible since leftists are becoming more openly hostile to constitutional monarchy, especially in the English-speaking countries.
I have seen Canadian "conservatives" flock to a known Chomskyite statist politician and not to his principled conservative counterpart (political issues speaking) just because he happens to pepper his speeches with "God save the Queen!"
Really? Somehow I doubt that this is all that common. I just find it difficult to believe that today's Canadian leftist politicians are eager to prove their enthusiasm for the monarchy.
if you force me to choose a constitutional monarchical system with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, Helen Clark or Jean Chretien as head of government, and a republic with George Washington as both head of state and government, I will choose Washington, thanks.
Helen Clark, as you probably know, is a republican who has announced that she thinks it is "inevitable" for New Zealand to break with the Crown, so no monarchist would want her in power either; I'm not sure what your point is. And the George Washington option is not currently available. In any case, as an unreconstructed Tory/Loyalist, between George Washington and King George III, I would have chosen the latter--without denying that the former was an honorable man, far superior to most of his successors.
Are you God? If not, please stop defiling this thread with your revolutionary filth. Come back when you've learned something other than leftist propaganda about the Habsburgs, and begged God for forgiveness for slandering His faithful servant Charles. You disgust me.
Yes, I remember that thread. Discovering it belatedly, I tried to revive the discussion, but no one took the bait. Charles Coulombe, the author of the FAQ you posted (hosted on my website) is an occasional correspondent of mine, and someone whose writings I greatly admire and who has been very influential in shaping my own thinking.
I think monarchy is much like democracy in that a lot of good can come from it but in the wrong hands, both are equally evil.
Perhaps, but I believe that monarchy is less likely to place power in evil hands than elections. The nature of the political process is such that unscrupulous people are more likely to succeed. In contrast, in a monarchy there is at least a chance that a totally decent person (like Emperor Karl) will attain the top position. It should also be noted that the modern democratic state is far more intrusive of its subjects' lives than any king ever dreamed. From a traditionalist conservative point of view, one of the worst dangers of democracy is that it inevitably promotes the idea that inequality is an outrage, encouraging statist redistribution of wealth (as well as obscene privileges such as affirmative action). Obviously, a monarchy, built on inequality, has no such inherent opposition to it and therefore has no incentive to engage in the redistributive, social engineering schemes that democratically elected politicians have been so fond of.
Are you the thread god? Thanks for not kicking me off. Worship dead kings of you like. I'll worship the Living King.
Oh yes they do. Have a look at the Monarchist League of Canada's forum. ( http://members.boardhost.com/monarchist/ ) It is full of monarchists who would be classified as Howard Dean Democrats on everyday issues. There are even posts cheering Adrienne-Clarkson despite how wacky her background is and how bad her conducts in office have been just because she is the current Governor-General of Canada! I'm a conservative-by-issues person (but then, like Mark Steyn, I think it is best for the Queen to stay as HOS), and I can never agree with such people.
One thing to note in particular is the perspective of "brownie nationalists". Indigenous peoples in New Zealand and Canada have respectively stated their support of continuation of the monarchy because historically they had signed treaties with the Crown and they could use the link with the Crown to re-engineer New Zealand (or Canadian) into an "ideal state" where the indigenous peoples are more equal than the others. Sorry, but this is class-race-gender New Left ideology, and I can never justify my support of monarchy linked with this fad.
It has often been said that the best leaders one can have is a omnipotent benign autocratic monarch, or popularly known as "the good tsar". But the flip side is that the very worst human leaders is "the bad tsar".
Mathematically you are bound to run into a bad tsar much more frequently in a hereditary succession of political leaders, and besides, n-th generation descendent of great leaders are far more likely spoiled brats, black sheeps, or worst, lunatic ideological socialists. (It has been repeatedly shown that sons and daughters of mega-riches with political interests tend to be the most leftist politicians you will ever see)
It is just not worthwhile to have such a system where people are put to ransom UNLESS as you say we have a perfect, merciful, and just King of kings, Jesus, ruling over the entire world. The Bible says such a Kingdom on earth will come in the future. I will gladly accept such a Kingdom because we will then have a perfect system of government.
Christ's Kingdom will be filled only with people who WANT to obey.
You beat me to the point. :-) Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore is, for instance, much better than Jimmy Carter. And similarly, you would rather live in Prussia of Frederick the Great than Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Human nature itself is defective and deeply (in Christian jargon, it is because of our sin nature inherited from Adam) and in this age God has authorized human leaders to do His will to uphold justice (Romans 13:1-8).
I think the best possible way of human government (short of Jesus returning today) would be to have an alert citizenery coupled with leadership that is constrained. We can't afford to have a Nero or Peter the Great just because we don't want to have a Schroeder or Clinton.
God impowered the Hebrews to over throw the corrupt monarchies of Canan, and promised them the land to live in as free men. A couple of generations later, they put their necks back in the yoke. God found them unworthy of freedom.
You mean the one where they couldn't stop slaughtering each other over religious differences for hundreds of years? A real bunch of saints, to be sure.
In case it may have escaped your estimable powers of observation, that same European aristocracy were neck deep in WWI, the implosion and utter self-destruction of the greatest civilization the world has ever known.
Perhaps it was the inbreeding. It leads to idiots.
Hold on a sec, professor. In case it might not have caught your attention, democracy is more or less what got us to where we are today, and, since you seemed to have slept through "History of the Weimar Republic 101", Hitler came to power through a bitch's brew of intimidation, subterfuge and critical problem with the constitution, article 48, which actually worked to undermined German Democracy.
The NAZI party in the 30 election and both elections in 32 got the plurality of the vote, and gave them the biggest share of seats in the German legislative body(dont feel looking up its name right now), and this is what gave Hitler the stage and platform to expose Germany to his "ideas". Yes, the NAZIs never gained a majority, but they gained enough influence to grab power without a coup. Kaiser Wilhelm II on the other hand would have thrown Hitler in jail in the 20s for his actions.
And while Hitler was thrown in jail by the Republic in the 20s, if the Kaiser was left in charge, he would have either been in prison for life or execuated for subversion, not repleased and allowed to pursure his political goals.
Catholic monarchist Charles Coulombe also addresses this issue in his Monarchy FAQ:
But wasnt God angry at the people of Israel for wanting a King? Werent Judges better?
The Judges of Israel were directly called by God, with neither acclamation by the people nor constitutional restraint. The fallen nature of the Israelites made such a government unfeasible for long---did not Our Lord complain that Jerusalem murdered the prophets? Having been chosen from all the Earth, the Israelites ought to been gratified that they had been given such a unique---and to our way of thinking, undemocratic---system of government. Instead, they demanded the natural manner of rule enjoyed by all other peoples---hence Gods anger. But He nevertheless showed His approval of the institution both by having Samuel anoint Saul, and by establishing the dynasty of King David, whose last rightful heir according to the flesh, Jesus Christ, continues to rule by right over us all, whether we wish Him or not. It is by Him, and as a reflection of Him, that, as Pope Pius XIs hymn to Christ the King puts it, "Kings the Crown and Sceptre hold," as pledge of His supremacy.
In any case, the Judgeship is completely irrelevant to us to-day. Our republic is certainly nothing like it, and one cannot imagine whom God might choose to rule a heathen people like the Americans. (It is interesting that no such thing has ever happened in Catholic countries). Did we attempt such a thing, we would doubtless have a regime like the Mormons did in pre-Territorial Utah, or the colonists in New Haven, where the ministers would run things. One can imagine what the result would be. Such non-Catholic clerics would have the power of life and death over all citizens, Catholic or not --- and no constitutional or legal restraints on them. Even a non-Christian Monarchy, restrained by local traditions, would be far preferable.
I'd like to add: how can Christ be "King of Kings" if there are no earthly Kings for him to be King of? He is not "King of Presidents" or "President of Presidents."
Such activities were hardly confined to the aristocracy. Funding and encouraging the development of great art, music, and architecture, however, largely were, in addition to the equally important role played by the Church.
that same European aristocracy were neck deep in WWI
So were businessmen, arms manufacturers, government ministers, politicians, and even (initially) the general population. The monarchs of 1914 cannot be fully exonerated of responsibility, but it would be even more unfair to single them out when so many other individuals and factors helped push Europe into war. The fact that the old order was partially responsible for its own downfall does not mean that the old order was a bad thing. If a person does something foolish which results in his own death, that doesn't mean he deserved to die.
That one section of Samuel explains why the monarchy and their collaborators in the Roman Church were so desperate to keep the scriptures out of the hands of the commons. It is a knife into the heart of the self-serving lie that monarchy, not liberty, is Gods perfect will for man.
Not all advocates of liberty agree with you that the two are mutually exclusive. Here are five excellent pro-monarchy articles by libertarians, published in libertarian sources:
...not to mention an entire book by economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy--The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order
Thanks for reminding me why I'm not a Libertarian.
To all of my fellow monarchists: I apologize for my delay in facing the latest Jacobin tirade, but like the Gonzales 32 (B-Chan knows'em I'm sure), 'I am come to share your fate".
Now, as to your uninformed comments Mr DManA, if you can tax your brain for a few minutes, I would be happy for you to read my look at this subject, all of it taken from the Bible directly at:
Contrarily to what YOU in your great holy wisdom seem to think, God, in both Sacred Scripture and tradition did no less than COMMAND obedience to monarchs, even going so far as to say we are not to even THINK evil of them or to associate in any way with those opposed to them.
Blessed Charles of Austria, pray for us.
GOTT ERHALTE UNSER KAISER!!!
Thought you'd be interested in this thread...
God's will for man is salvation last time I checked, not liberty (such an ambiguous term). The question is, what form of government creates a social order most conducive to salvation? Democracy, where the will of man rules supreme? Don't think so.