Posted on 11/27/2006 11:43:34 AM PST by Joseph DeMaistre
The more I read of the Left's twisted view of Conservative Christianity, the more ignorant they seem.
(1) Josemaria Escriva was not a Carlist. He did not support the claims of Javier I, the Carlist regent.
(2) TFP is not a Catholic organization.
(3) The Carlist opposition to the Bourbon monarchy's plan to confiscate Church property and sell it for the benefit of the monarchs' own treasury was hardly "theocratic."
What do you mean? It isn't a personal prelature like Opus Dei, or is it a "cult"?
(1) Unlike Opus Dei, FSSP, and other Catholic organizations, it is not officially endorsed by or canonically incorporated by the Holy See.
(2) Its history and ideals are doctrinally questionable on a number of points - particularly its unhealthy view of the founder's mother's theological significance and its bizarre focus on nobreza.
Looks like the Catholics have their own "Dominionist" strawman now (snicker)....
I have friends in Opus Dei and Regnum Christi ... neither of those organisations appeals to me, but their membership doesn't come off as brainwashed freaks. To me, anyway.
Apparently "God, King and Country" is suspicious when it is said in Spanish instead of English.
And Fueros is the most interesting - it means respect for the rule of law as enacted by local communities: i.e. subsidiarity or federalism.
The Bourbon monarchy in Spain stood for an all-powerful nationalist state which controlled the Church and overruled all local communities.
Opposing the Bourbons was apparently madness when the Spanish did it, but heroism when the French did it.
Interesting.
Say what?
I've been reading First Things for years. I've never gotten a single hint that RJN is any kind of monarchist.
I've read several of George Weigel's books, op-ed columns, and heard him speak. I've never gotten a single hint that he's any kind of monarchist.
My thoughts exactly. This guy's misunderstanding of papal authority and papal infallibility are laughable.
It's funny how the Left always decries stereotyping, except for when they're the ones doing it.
I think he means that it's not formally recognized by the Church hierarchy.
I've heard to wacky stuff about TFP too, such as the rumor they've deified their founder.
No, they're just a bunch of theophobes. Besides, there's nothing wrong with Carlism as far as I'm concerned because it stood for the rights of Catholics in the face of anticlericalism.
People like Cocozelli are nothing but anticlerical bigots.
Ridiculous article.
The Carlists began as traditionalists, that is, seeking to continue what they perceived as traditional culture in Spain, including both the monarchy, traditional ways of life (this was at the dawn of industrialization) and a central role for the Church as the arbiter for human beings against the State and maintainer of the values of Spanish life. However, it was largely a world that had never existed; the State was very hostile to the Church off and on throughout the 19th century, and in fact, in 1836, had seized all Church property, expelled religious from their convents (including elderly nuns who had spent all of their lives as cloistered religious, and literally died along the roadsides as they trudged to seek shelter), expelled religious orders from the country and supressed their schools and even closed the simple village schools often run by the parish priest.
The climate in Spain was quite tense, but it had not been provoked by the Church; it was provoked by the imposition of the ideas of the "ilustrados" or "afrancesados," that is, people adopting French Enlightenment ideas and practices.
The Carlists eventually ended up as small militant bands in the north of Spain, in the Basque Country, where there was considerable social disruption and many bloody battles were fought. Oddly enough, the Franciscans were involved in the fighting. Eventually, partially because of their more militant turn, they lost support, and some of their members formed other types of Catholic conservative organizations.
Towards the end of the 19th century, Marxist and anarchist thought became influential in Northern Spain, and the conservative Catholic political parties found themselves with new enemies, whom they fought through political campaigns. Eventually, with manipulated elections and the general social instability brought on by political assassinations and terrorism, the whole delicate balance collapsed in the 1930s, with the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War.
Interestingly, some of the Basque Carlists were very involved in Basque nationalism and were quite radical; by the 1960s, Basque nationalism had become a Marxist movement, and ETA emerged as a fully left-wing group. But there is some historical connection between the remnants of the Carlists and the rise of Basque radical nationalism.
As for Escriva being a "Carlist," that's ridiculous. Opus Dei's theory is anything but monarchist, instead stressing social responsibility.
TFP is a bunch of people who tie their ties too tight and appear in Spain as groups of men wearing red capes and pounding on drums and has no official Church support and little or no unofficial support, either.
This whole article is just an attempt to distort and discredit.
I know.
This whole article starts out with a historically-correct account of the people associated with Triumph, and as livius states, tries to distort the truth and discredit modern-day conservative Catholic leaders.
As for what livius says about the TFP ("TFP... has no official Church support and little or no unofficial support, either."), he isn't too far from the truth. They definitely don't have the resources of Opus Dei.
Earlier this year, they had a large campaign against the Da Vinci Code movie, and I participated in their street protests in the DC area. A bunch of bishops supported their campaign as well. Since then, they have had a few "e-protests" against anti-Catholic activities across the country, and I signed the associated petitions. They're among the very few (including the Catholic League) that draw attention to such activities. I've heard the wacky things about them as well, but they don't seem to have much documentation. If it's true, why would Archbishop Burke and Fr. Trigilio have anything to do with them?
You can pretend that somehow "the left" is misinterpreting this. Or you can do some research. There are in fact Roman Catholic who are monarchists.There is one in this forum as a matter of fact.
I personally know a few here in D.C.
No one says there are no Catholic monarchists. There's Catholic everything.
The point was simply that this piece distorts their influence and makes downright false charges about other Catholic conservative organizations as an attempt to deligitimize all Catholic conservatives.
It looks like Mr. C has become an authority worthy of citation by the tinfoil hat crowd.
Submitted by Kety on Thu, 03/16/2006 - 6:43am. Mar 16 2006 - 10:43am
CrossLeft community,
I am pleased to announce that Frank L. Cocozzelli has joined the CrossLeft Leadership Team. Frank is a private practice attorney residing with his family in New York City. He has become involved in politics, first through advocacy for enlarged embryonic stem cell research and currently on issues of progressive faith. Frank is currently finishing up his first book, By the Better Angels of Our Nature, which is a plan of action for a reinvigorated centrist liberalism. He is a graduate of Queens College CUNY as well of the CUNY Law School at Queens College.
Haven't heard much of anything about TFP, care to fill me in?
I have heard some disturbing things about Regnum Christi, but only in regards to their boarding schools, from former students. (nothing of a sex abuse nature or anything but deliberate undermining of parents in a cultlike manner)
Then again, I have yet to see a truly successful Catholic boarding school. The few I have any experience with are truly awful, but I have had limited experience.
I don't doubt there are Catholic monarchists on the Right, but they're a small minority found mostly in traditionalist chapels.
The fact one of my ancestors was beheaded during the French Revolution because he was a bishop makes me hardly a fan of the French republicans.
Cocozelli tries insinuating that Catholic traditionalism is incompatible with democracy in his other works, but Orestes Brownson developed a good Catholic democratic synthesis. God grants power to the government through the people.
This guy says conservative Catholicism is somehow incompatible with democracy because it rejects the will of the people, but what happens when the will of the people reflects that of the Catholic Church. I guess then the will of the people doesn't count in his mind.
I had the honor of meeting Fritz Wilhelmsen at a seminar at Steubenville in 1990 on, yes, the thought of John Courtney Murray. During a break I asked him if the red berets they wore that day had anything to do with Carlism (I already knew that he taught a course each year at the Escorial). He drew himself up to an imposing height (he was taller than me, anyway) and said: "Why of course. I am an honorary Requeté you know." He was a legendary character.
His daughter, Dr. Alexandra Wilhelmsen, has actually pubished some very interesting articles on Carlism, pointing out some of its more attractive features as mentioned in part in this thread. To me it was especially interesting to find that Carlism was a monarchist movement that recognized that a monarch could in effect abandon his right to the throne by failing in certain respects in doing his duty, such as to uphold the fueros, as I recall it. "Pure" monarchists would say that the king could never abandon his rights, even through abdication--I think this is the Habsburg family's position, in effect denying the validity of the abdication by Blessed Charles of Austria.
One or two Carlist pretenders when making an incursion into Spain swore the royal oath to uphold the fueros (I believe this was done even at the famed tree of Guernica, where the old rulers had sworn the oath and which was what made Guernica significant in the first place, but which the Nazis were too clueless to know to destroy in their air raid).
This whole subject is part of a much larger historical topic that seems largely unknown today, the extent of local and regional liberties in pre-Revolutionary Europe. To juxtapose the thoughts here, I first had my consciousness raised on this point by an Opus Dei priest and himself famous University of Navarre historian, Fr. Federico Suarez, writing in a festschrift book for Fritz ("Saints, Sovereigns and Scholars" [I may have reversed the order, though]), in which he noted in passing that monarchical central governments interfered less in the daily lives of the people than post-Rveolutionary governments do. His cite was to a very interesting book by Frantz Funck-Brentano, entitled something like "The Ancien Regime in France." That book is itself very worthwhile reading, and really eye-opening in a way. If so moved, some day I will cite passages from it.
Fritz wrote articles for the SSPX's "Angelus" magazine in his later years, and Alexandra told me that when she told him that he would be thought to have gone over to the Lefebvrists (he in fact was an adherent of the FSSP's Indult Mass in Dallas), he told her "most people ecumenize to the left, but I ecumenize to the right."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.