Skip to comments.Why the Holy Father chose the name "Benedict"...?
Posted on 04/19/2005 11:56:55 AM PDT by MadIvan
Cardinal Ratzinger on the Banishment of God From Public Life
Receives St. Benedict Award for Promotion of Life and Family
SUBIACO, Italy, APRIL 12, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger says that believers are faced with the tendency to banish God from public life and confine him to the "subjective realm of past residual cultures."
On April 1, when receiving the St. Benedict Award for the Promotion of Life and the Family in Europe, conferred by the Subiaco Foundation for Life and the Family, the dean of the College of Cardinals delivered an address on the present crisis of culture and identity, especially in the Old World.
After stating that "moral force has not grown apace with the development of science but, on the contrary, has diminished," Cardinal Ratzinger explained that "the most serious danger at this time is precisely the imbalance between technical possibilities and moral energy."
He gave two examples: the threat of terrorism and the possibility to manipulate the origin of human life.
The then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faithalmost all heads of Vatican dicasteries lost their posts when John Paul II died pointed out that "Europe has developed a culture that, in a way previously unknown to humanity, excludes God from the public consciousness, either by denying him altogether or by judging that his existence cannot be demonstrated, is uncertain and, therefore, somewhat irrelevant to public life."
An attempt is being made "to build the human community absolutely without God," the cardinal stressed.
"The rejection of reference to God is not an expression of tolerance which wishes to protect non-theist religions and the dignity of atheists and agnostics, but rather an expression of the desire to see God banished definitively from humanity's public life, and driven into the subjective realm of residual cultures of the past," he warned.
For the cardinal, the starting point of this view is "relativism," which has become "a dogmatism that believes it is in possession of the definitive knowledge of reason, and with the right to regard all the rest as a stage of humanity, which has basically been surpassed, and which can be suitably relativized."
At this rate, Cardinal Ratzinger added, we will no longer "be able to affirm that homosexuality, as the Catholic Church teaches, is an objective disorder of the structure of human existence."
"The fact that the Church is convinced of not having the right to confer priestly ordination on women, is now considered by some as irreconcilable with the European Constitution," he added.
In the final part of his address, Cardinal Ratzinger explained that "we need roots to survive and we must not lose them from sight if we do not want human dignity to disappear."
"Only creative reason, which has been manifested in the crucified God as love, can really show us the way," he said. "We need men who will keep their sight on God, learning there" what "true humanity" is, as "only through men touched by God, can God again be close to men." ZE05041102
We are on the verge of designer babies, cloning, using fetus' for body parts, genetic manipulation of humans...
Our nation was content allowing theists to form the government, and establish a new justice system based on Judeo/Christian principles. I think we should be discussing the future path of scientific discovery and experimentation with those same principles as the standards.
Um, you would seem to be the one with a "poor understanding of history." Emperor Franz Joseph died in 1916; Bl. Emperor Karl (the one I described as a saint) was his successor.
While Franz Joseph may not have been as saintly as his grandnephew, and I wish he hadn't approved the attack on Serbia, he was still a better man than any of the elected Allied leaders.
And the elimination/nanomachine-repair of Down's Syndrome, Cystic Fibrosis, Tay-Sachs Disease, and a thousand other genetic diseases. If you suffered from one of those diseases, wouldn't you pray for a such a cure?
Our nation was content allowing theists to form the government, and establish a new justice system based on Judeo/Christian principles. I think we should be discussing the future path of scientific discovery and experimentation with those same principles as the standards.
Content? I think not.
You cannot restrain the scientists in other countries. Restraining scientists here will result in an inevitable decline in our scientific standing and income.
And as a parent, wouldn't you be willing to pay for such a genetic cure? Or how about an increased intelligence for your children? Or an increase in immune response? How about better musculature? Symmetric features? Improved empathy or sociability? Religious affiliation? Just what would you be willing to pay for? Anything?
What would the richest among us be willing to pay for? And how can you hope to restrain them when you can't restrain them from cloning pets and children?
Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary single-handedly initiated The First World War by his invasion of Serbia (note: massive war crimes against the Serbs after the invasion).
Yet you call him *better* than all other leaders of his day.
Note also that his successor, Emperor Karl, did not successfully sue for peace in 1916, 1917, or 1918. Moreover, Emperor Karl was allied with both Germany and the Islamic Ottoman Empire.
It was only the U.S. Army that ended that war, though credit should be given to Pope Benedict XV for trying.
Those are Enlightenment principles, not Judeo/Christian.
It is a gross oversimplification to blame Emperor Franz Joseph for the outbreak of the war. What about the Serbian government's sponsorship of terrorism and murder? What about the warmongering generals, ministers, arms manufacturers, and politicians on both sides? The causes of the war were complex, and laying it all at the feet of Franz Joseph is ridiculous.
Yet you call him *better* than all other leaders of his day.
Better than Wilson, Lloyd George, and Clemenceau, who together conspired to bring down the old monarchical order which I revere and of which Franz Joseph, whatever his flaws, was a devoted and faithful symbol, yes.
Learn more about Blessed Emperor Karl here:
I am most happy the cardinals chose Joseph Ratzinger as the new pope. May he never so much as ponder straying from the Word, and may there be much gnashing of teeth by the left.
But may he also reconsider the flattering title, "Holy Father". I offer this to explain:
"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." -- Matthew 23:9
"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy..." -- Revelation 15:4
I understand why our Founding Fathers banned flattering titles (such as "Sir", "Baron", "Your Honor", etc.). There is only one worthy of a flattering title, and he is the Lord -- our Creator. Or, as my prayer goes, "I give thee thanks, Lord God Almighty, for thou has created all things, and for thy pleasure they are, and were, created".
Thanks for the ping!
Here's what Karl did:
A cavalry officer until the outbreak of war in late July 1914, he subsequently took up an appointment as liaison officer, in which capacity he served during the opening Galician campaign. Following promotion he was recalled to court in mid-1915, but returned to active duty in May 1916. On the Italian Front he was given command of a corps before being transferred back to Galicia following the Russian Brusilov Offensive.
His military career was ended by the death of Franz Josef in late 1916; he became Austrian Emperor (Kaiser) on 21 November, and King of Hungary on 30 December.
Acutely aware that Austria-Hungary's entry into the First World War (having essentially brought it about) was likely to prove the undoing of the empire, Karl quickly sought a means of negotiating a separate peace with the allies.
Much influenced by his pro-Allied wife, Princess Zita of Bourbon-Parma, Karl sent peace feelers to France through the medium of his brother in law, Prince Sixtus of Bourbon-Parma. Inexpertly managed - clumsy even, since he refused to cede any territory to the Italians - his efforts were dismissed by the French government, although they were put to handy propaganda use the year during the great German push of Spring 1918 (to the great annoyance of his German allies, who never again trusted the Austro-Hungarian emperor).
Regarded as weak by both political extremes, left and right, Karl nonetheless drew support from political moderates. Karl responded with the appointed of a succession of liberal, reformist prime ministers, pretty much reflecting his own views.
Similarly determined to reform the army, Karl banned flogging, ended duels, called a halt to strategic bombing and limited the widespread use of poison gas; which served merely to infuriate his high command. He also decided to jettison Austria-Hungary's long-standing Chief of Staff, Conrad von Hotzendorf, replacing him with the more pliable Arz von Straussenberg.
It was all too late however. Utterly dependent upon German's military might, Karl's reforms achieved relatively little. With the Germans by now suspicious of Karl and Austria-Hungary generally, the new emperor was essentially coerced into what largely amounted to economic and military union with Germany following a meeting with the German Kaiser, Wilhelm II, at Spa on 11 May 1918.
Karl repeatedly attempted in the second half of 1918 to negotiate peace with the Allies, each time without success. By now it was clear that the tide was turning in favour of the Allied effort.
With political extremism growing at home, and nationalism rampant, Karl's attempt at domestic reform - the October Manifesto - which established a federation of autonomous Austrian states, proved insufficient.
Unusually for a monarch, Karl foresaw and largely accepted the dismantling of his empire - at least initially. On 31 October 1918 he granted permission for his soldiers to join national armies; just under two weeks later, on 11 November, he renounced his constitutional powers.
Having done so he then changed his mind, refusing to formally abdicate and instead vainly attempting to drum up royalist support. It was too late.
Forced to seek exile in Switzerland in March 1919 (with the assistance of the British), the Austrian parliament deposed him the following month. He attempted to return to Hungary two years later, but was denied permission on each occasion by the Horthy government.
The last of the Austro-Hungarian emperors died in penury in Madeira on 1 April 1922 of pneumonia at the tragically young age of 34. His wife, Zita, lived for a further 67 years, dying in Switzerland at the age of 96. She wore mourning black to the end.
Monarchies are for the fools and the sheep to worship. While many have fallen and been replaced by brutal governments, many of those brutal governments were replaced by far better ones, superior to "government by birthright" monarchies and the immediate successor governments.
Tis a fool who would choose to follow a king simply for them being born, true men, always prefer choice, cowards and scoundrals run from it towards servatitude to crowns.
To spread true liberty and give man a choice in his own destinity, crowns should be abolished.
The crown is the enemy of liberty. Look at the monarchies of the middle east, they to shall fall one day, and when democracy spreads through that region, they, along with the civilized world, will wonder why such a primitive system of government lasted this long into modern day civilization.
Here's what President Wilson did:
In 1916 Wilson ran on the slogan,"he kept us out of war," and narrowly defeated Supreme Court Justice Charles Even Hughes. Wilson managed to keep America out of the war until it was clear that Germany's submarine warfare would continue to claim American civilian lives. During the 976 days of neutrality Wilson repeatedly tried to negotiate for an end to the fighting, and called on all those involved to accept peace without victory. Facing the imminent defeat of France, and seeing no end to Germany's attacks on civilian shipping, Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany 2-Apr-1917. Neutrality had ended, the nation was at war.
United States Involvement in WW1
Wilson continued to work for an end to the fighting while mobilizing the nation for war. American forces led by General Pershing made a significant addition to the allied fighting force in both numbers and morale. When America entered the war France was on the verge of collapse. Within months the Germans agreed to an armistice based on Wilson's 14 points. It was clear that they could not continue.
The Versailles Peace Conference
"Punitive damages, the dismemberment of empire we deem childish and in the end less than futile"
Woodrow Wilson, 1917
Wilson became the first President to leave the country while in office when he left for France aboard the S.S. George Washington 4-Dec-1918. Wherever he went in Europe huge crowds gathered to cheer him on. His 14 points were very popular and the common people saw him as the savior of France, and the greatest hope for world peace. His efforts, for the most part, would end in vain. British Prime Minister Lloyd George and French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau resisted most of his ideas. To them the goal was to punish Germany to the extent that it could never make war again. They both were very conscious of the revengeful attitude of constituents, and would not budge. Wilson, through much effort, did manage to prevent some of the more extreme punishments against Germany, and convinced the allies that a League of Nations was necessary. With these small victories in hand Wilson headed home.
The Last Battle
"There are only the pursued, the pursuing, the busy, and the tired."
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Wilson could not convince people at home that it was time for America to join the World Community. America had stepped back into isolationism, and would not be budged. The Congress was in Republican hands and was generally uncooperative with Wilson. Led by Wilson's longtime adversary Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, the Republicans insisted that certain parts of the League be altered. Wilson refused to make even the smallest concessions, fearing it would make it impotent. The Senate would not agree to the treaty so Wilson entered the final chapter of his relatively short political story. He decided to take the matter directly to the public.
His doctor warned him not to go. His wife begged him to reconsider. Wilson was determined and would not be turned back. The Senate would not listen to him, so he hoped to convince the public through an extensive speaking tour, and thus pressure the Senate into ratifying the treaty. The tour started out well. Enthusiastic supporters cheered him at each stop. Victory turned out to be beyond his grasp. Wilsons fragile health halted the tour abruptly in Colorado. . "I don't seem to realize it," he commented to an advisor, "but I seem to have gone to pieces."
For the remainder of his administration Wilson was a near invalid. His wife looked over him carefully and was suspected of making important decisions for him. His hope was not shattered, but his body was, and that handicap was insurmountable. Wilson lived on until 1924, but never fully regained his mental or physical abilities. He died with his wife by his side, confident to the end that wrongs would be righted, and that America's mission would be fulfilled. His last words were "Edith,(His wife) I'm a broken machine, but I'm ready."
His influence has been significant. During his tenure there were 3 amendments to the constitution. The Seventeenth provided for the direct election of United States Senators.
The Eighteenth prohibited the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors. The Nineteenth, guaranteed suffrage for women. His legislative successes included the Federal Reserve Act, the Clayton Anti-trust Act, Keating-Owen Child Labor Act, and the Adamson Act which established the eight-hour work day on railroads. According to Henry Kissinger, his foreign policy has shaped 20th Century United States policy like no other.
He was a man known for his principles, drawn from the pages of the Bible and the doctrine of the Presbyterians. He was an unusual president in that he had years of thinking and writing the philosophy of government, but little in the way of political experience. In the end he may be remembered more for his failure concerning the League of Nations than his progressive reform.
Wilson served in an era before Watergate, and before all of the scandals that have reduced faith in government to tired cynicism. Wilson was a great man in an age when people still believed in great men.
"I can predict with absolute certainty that within another generation there will be another world war if the nations of the world do not concert the method by which to prevent it."
Woodrow Wilson, 1919
Efforts by Wilson to negotiate an end to the War were dimissed by the Kaiser as naive.
American Public Opinion
Many Americans favored the Allles at the onset of war and German offers of the southwest to Mexico (Zimmerman Telegram) and British war popaganda gradually moved most Americans increasingkly to the Allied side.
America Decalres War
When the Kaiser ordered the resumtion of unrestricted sunmarine warfare, Wilson asked the Congress to declare war. (April 1917).
New Peace Plan
President Woodrow Wilson unveiled a new Peace Program to Congress (January 1918). The program had been prepared by a group of U.S. foreign policy experts and consisted of 14 major princiles.
The text of the 14 Points addresses issues which are today widely accepted. Many have been embraced by Europe within the structure of the European Union. Thet were in Europe at the time warmly received by the European public, but in fact highly controversial when it came to implementing them.
The first five points dealt with major principles. Point 1 renounced secret treaties which many had come to see as a cause of the War. Point 2 dealt with freedom of the seas, the issue that brought America into the War. Point 3 called for the removal of worldwide trade barriers. This was a major issue both in American domestic politics as well as international diplomact. Point 4 advocated arms reductions. Point 5 suggested the international arbitration of all colonial disputes. Points 6 to 13 were concerned with specific territorial problems, including claims made by Russia, France and Italy--some of the major Allied beligerants. Here Wilson addressed difficult issues such as the control of the Dardanelles and the claims for independence by the people living in areas controlled by the Central Powers.
Perhaps the most widely accepted of the 14 ponts, and the one most difficult to implement, was the princile of national self determination. The principle to be followed was to be national self-determination. This is such an accepted princile today that it is difficult to understand the enmense impact and reperscussions on a Europe that had been dominated by four huge empires (Austro-Hungarian, German, Ottoman, and Russian). This was of interest to many ethnic Americansm especially Polish Americans. These ethnic groups were not coincidentlly important sources of strength for Wilson's Democratic Party.
Many of these issues were highly controversial. All the beligerant countries objected to some aspects of Wilson's Peace Program. They proved, however, very popular among the Allied public. Wilson himself both because of the American intervention in the War and his Peace Program was lionized, much more so than in America. British and French officials were much less enthusiastic. French Premier Clemanceau mocked, "Moses was satisfied with 10 commandments but, Wilson requires 14."
When peace negotiations actually began in October, 1918, Wilson was adamanent that his 14 Points should serve as a basis for the signing of the Armistice. The 14 Points did not include any mention of reparations and on this issue the British and French would not compromise.
Whether you realize it or not, in your contempt for monarchy (which goes beyond the position of the more sensible American founders), you are essentially a leftist and no better than the Jacobin thugs of the French Revolution. I have nothing more to say to you.
What a nauseating load of garbage. Wilson was a liar whose "neutrality" was a sham and a fraud. He was secretly shipping arms to Britain in violation of international law. He shamelessly ran on the platform "he kept us out of war" and then got us into it as soon as he was re-elected.
Germany attacked the Lusitania because it was secretly carrying arms to Britain. Wilson maintained the absurd position that American citizens had some sort of "right" to travel to Europe on ships carrying arms while there was a war going on without their safety being endangered.
Wilson also favored the income tax and the Federal Reserve. He sympathized with the anti-Catholic revolutionaries in Mexico.
Nothing you cut and paste will change my view of Wilson, the worst of all American presidents, because he was openly dedicated to bringing down the old European monarchical order which I love. I will never forgive him for that alone.
Wilson was a bad President with many sins, but he was far better than you give him credit, warts and all.
Per your specific complaint about Wilson bringing down Monarchies, you must ignore that Wilson saw and agreed to the new monarchies in Serbia, Montenegro, and elsewhere that were established at the end of the Great War.
Per your complaint that he didn't seek peace to the same extent as Austria's Emperor Karl, you lionize Karl for making the tiniest of peace overtures (he sent his brother in law on a single peace-making attempt) while ignoring that President Wilson called upon Allied and Central Powers to declare "peace without victory" prior to the U.S. entry into that war, further ignored Wilson's January 1918 peace initiative, disregarded Wilson's historic 14 Point peace plan that historians universally applaud today, and appeared to have missed not only his massive popularity in post-war Germany, Austria, Italy, France, and Britain, but also his Nobel Peace Prize in 1919 (when European Emporer Karl didn't even get a nomination from his own kind).
OK, so you despise President Wilson and the forced end of the German monarchy (Austria's Emperor voluntarily ended his own monarchy). Fine. Wilson, warts and all, still stands head and shoulders above *all* of the monarchs of Austria and Germany.
Good point about President Bush.
Evil hates good; darkness hates light
The Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments,speak clearly to all concerning Him. "My sheep hear My voice."
it needs to be said - ONE MORE TIME
Yes, our souls are an image of God. They are not God. God is perfect. We are not perfect. An image of something is not the original, nor is it identical to the original. For example, we are three dimensional creatures, but our mirror image is only two dimensional. Our mirror image does not have a soul. It is not exactly like we are.
There was no evil until Adam and Eve ate the fruit.
I did not say this, nor imply it. Clearly, Lucifer existed before Adam and Eve were created given that he tempted them. When Lucifer, a fallen angel, was created by God he, as all angels, was infused with perfect knowledge of natural things. He was also given free will to choose God or to reject God. At this point, he didn't see God. Only angels who choose God are able to see Him. Angels who reject God are cast into hell. Lucifer thought he could be God - he was very prideful. He rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven.
We are like God, but not God. Just as a mirror image is like us, but not us. He has given us all that we need to be with Him for the rest of eternity - to know, love and serve Him - if we accept His plan for us and do not reject Him. Those who go to hell have made that choice. God merely ratifies their choice. He does not make the choice for them. He wants all of us to choose Him and spend the rest of eternity loving Him.
Yes, the devil tempts us (because he does not want us to go to heaven), but we always have God's help to resist those temptations if we just ask Him.
Only an RC could invent volumes of tradition around an invention called Pope and ascribe it all to that little verse, which is about Peter's profession, as everyone ELSE knows.
Speak German or Russian? If not just says thanks
Montenegro? You got that backwards. The Montenegrin monarchy disappeared as a result of WWI. The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes was not really a "new monarchy" but rather an extension of Serbia which was allowed to grab territory that had belonged to Austria-Hungary, as well as the formerly independent Kingdom of Montenegro.
Thanks in part to Wilson's inconsistently applied and hypocritical concept of "self-determination," seven new republics were created out of what had been monarchical territory: Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. (And Hungary remained a monarchy in name only, with Karl betrayed and excluded by the "Regent" Horthy.) The inherent instability of some of these new artificial states, with their large discontented German majorities, would be a major catalyst for World War II.
Wilson's purported desire for peace was dishonest; he consistently backed the Allies behind the facade of neutrality. As far back as 1915, Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan resigned because he could see that the Wilson administration was bent on war. Wilson's double standards led him to condemn German attacks on "neutral" ships while ignoring the British naval blockade of Germany which was a violation of international law and deliberately designed to starve the German population. Doesn't sound like the actions of a great humanitarian to me. Read Thomas Woods's Politically Incorrect Guide to U.S. History, whose excellent chapter on World War I devastates Wilson and his unjustified intervention from a traditional American conservative point of view, without the author being a monarchist.
He was one of the Hitler youth.
"Speak German or Russian? If not just says thanks."
No, but I am in danger of speaking a rather adulterated version of English called American.
Bloody well !!
Or, putting it another way, he served Hitler for 2 years.
"Perhaps you'd prefer that the U.S. simply left you to your own devices.
But tell me, how precisely would that have worked out for you circa 1944?"
Hmmm .... I had the impression Russia did most of the work ... and got most of the rewards, including Poland. But US commercial interests did alright too, as usual.
FReepmail me to get on of off this list
Did you misunderstand the question?! I said:
Perhaps you'd prefer that the U.S. simply left you to your own devices. But tell me, how precisely would that have worked out for *you* circa 1944?"
Pope Arnold sounds too "Jewish?"
Read Keegan's The History of the World War I (title from memory). Austria had to respond to the assassination of the Archduke, just like we had to respond to 9/11. In retrospect, it would have been better if Austria attacked Serbia singlehandedly after Serbia (egged on by the Russians) rejected the ultimatum. But Austria made the mistake of consulting with her allies, which triggered mobilization orders in Russia and Germany, and in turn, in France and England.
Austria is the least blameworthy in the summer of 1914. Its one mistake was hesitance to act singlehandedly, which it was perfectly justified to do.
Serbia agreed to all points of Austria's ultimatum. Austria's Emperor Franz Joseph invaded anyway.
Ultimatum to Serbia
Having received the wholehearted support from Germany, Austria sent an ultimatum to Serbia on July 23, 1914. The ultimatum was to be answered within 48 hours. It included the following demands:
(i) Serbia was to suppress all anti-Austrian (and Pan-Slav) publications, societies and propaganda.
(ii) Serbia was to dismiss all anti-Austrian officials objected by Austria.
(iii) Austrian police and officials were to enter Serbia and to take part in the Serbian police force in order to carry out the suppression of anti-Austrian activities and investigations concerning the Sarajevo murders.
These demands infringed Serbian sovereignty. Austria expected that Serbia would reject, thus giving her the excuse to declare war. Instead, Serbia accepted the first two demands and suggested the third be submitted for arbitration by the Hague Tribunal. William II was satisfied with the Serbian reply and did not feel the need to punish Serbia with a war. He declared, "a brilliant diplomatic triumph, no excuse for war."
2. Outbreak of War - July 1914
Austria was still determined to destroy Serbia. After declaring the Serbian reply unsatisfactory, the Austrian government simply declared war anyway on July 28. The bombardment of Belgrade began on July 29.
Serbia mobilized before answering the ultimatum and rejected the key demand. At that time Russia issued a pre-mobilization order.
That month before the start of the war was a time of great confusion in Austrian, German, and Russian governments, -- which all lacked adequate crisis management mechanisms. It is possible to find a quote from the Keiser, for example, supporting several contradictory positions, -- depends which minister he spoke to just before that.
I will refer to the Keegan's book and give a more substantive response later.
Serbia accepted Austria's first two demands and *suggested* that Austria's third demand be submitted for arbitration.
Austria didn't even reply, save to say that Serbia's response was inadequate, and Austria certainly didn't attempt to negotitiate. Austria simply invaded anyway, revealing their ultimatum to be a ploy in the first place.
Serbia's acceptance of Austria's demands was so well done that Austria's chief ally Germany, in the form of Kaiser William II, said that there was now "no excuse for war."
Austria invaded Serbia anyway.
That's not a causi belli. Sovereign nations can mobilize at their whim.
Mobilization, at the state of the art then, meant war. Each side had elaborate and rigid war plans. Once mobilization started, the movement of troops was calculated with mathematical precision. It was a war by timetable. So while the diplomats and the Keiser hoped for diplomacy to work, -- and issued praises for this or that diplomatic demarche,-- the generals computed distances and throughput of roads and said things like:
-- The enemy mobilized yesterday. If we mobilize today, we lose 10 miles inside our territory. If we mobilize tomorrow, we lose 20 miles. If we mobilize the day after tomorrow the enemy has access to our railroad grid and we lose the war. Your Majesty, you have to mobilize.And His Majesty wrung his hands and listened.
The military doctrine of the time -- dictated by the military technology of the time -- made mobilization an effective act of war.
When membership was mandatory.
Great way to put that -- pithy post of the day.
Only to apologists and those who beg to re-write History to their own liking.
For those interested in facts, it's a different story altogether.
Then let me joint leftists such as Ruch Limbaugh and Jesse Helms and President Reagan and toast, that the so called "true conservatives" are but a trivia question in support of a more primitive time of civilization.
Left wingers of the likes of Jesse Helms, and Barry Goldwater,raise your glasses, for the crowns are falling into the heaps of history. Long live conservatism of man, and be gone to the ruins conservatives of the crown.
Last I read (in the Bible) the Holy Father's name was Yaweh or "I am"
If Keegan is an apologist, he would be an apologist for England, to whose veterans he dedicated his book. The understanding of the role of war plans as definitive for early 20 century strategists is common knowledge and I took it straight from Keegan.
Have you seen this?
There does appear to be a logic to the name choice in light of the challenges being faced.
It's still a weak fulfillment in my opinion, but then the papacy has just begun.
Danny, thanks for the article. As interesting is the following: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1351430/posts, this was started in February. I just find the prophecies interesting. Mainly, I enjoy parsing Latin. I do think Ratzinger took the name Benedectine to fulfil the prophecy but I'm a bit of a cynic. I mean, why not? It makes for good press and the vatican is probably one of the most savy PR machines in history. JHVHO.
As JPII was dying on April 1st, Cardinal Ratzinger was receiving a Benedictine award. He has had long ties to the Benedictines.
The night and most of Saturday remained for it to be seen what the Serbs would do. On the morning of 25 July they were still reconciled to capitulation, though reluctantly and with occasional bursts of belligerence. Then, during the afternoon, word was received from their ambassador ad the Tsar's country palace tha tthe mood there was fircely pro-Serbian. The Tsar, though not yet ready to proclaim mobilisation, had announced the preliminary "Period Preparatory to War" at eleven o'clock. The news reversed everything the Serbian ministers had decided. In the morning they had agreed to accept all ten Austrian demands, with the slightest reservations. Now they were emboldened to attach conditions to six and to reject aboslutely the most important, that Austrian officials be allowed to take part in the investigation of the assassinations on Serian territory. In the hurried hours that followed, the reply to the note was drafted and redrafted, lines crossed out, phrases corrected in ink. As would happen in the Japanese embassy in Washington on the night before Pearl Harbor, the typist gave way to nerves. The finished document was an undiplomatic palimpsest of revisions and afterthoughts. With a quarter of an hour in hand, however, it was finished, sealed in an envelope and taken by the Prime Minister himself, Nicholas Pasic, for delivery to the Austrian ambassador. Within an hour of its receipt, the personnel of the legation had boarded the train for the Austrian frontier and left Belgrade.
There followed a curious two-day intermission, Sunday and Monday 26-27. Serbia mobilised its little army, Russia recalled the youngest reservists to the units in its western military districts, there wqere scenes of popular enthusiasm in Vienna over the government's rejection of the Serbian reply and similar scenes in German cities, including Berlin. On Sudnay, however, the Kaiser was still at sea [on vacation], while Poincare and Viviani, the French Foreign Minister, aboard La France, did not receive a signal urging their immediate return until that night. Meanwhile there was much talk, reflective and anticipatory, rather than decisive or belligerent. Bethmann Hollweg instructed the German ambassadors in London and Paris to warn tha tthe military measures Russia was taking could be judged threatening. The German ambassador in St. Petersburg was told to say that the measures, unless discontinued, would force Germany to mobilise which "would mean war". Bethmann Hollweg learnt from him in reply that the British and French were working to restrain Russia while Sazonov, the Russian Foregin Minister, was moderating his position. The Kaiser and the Austrian government were informed. The British Foreign Office, working from information of its own, perceived a hope that the Russians were ready to acquiesce in a mediation by the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy. There was, briefly, the circulation of a feeling that the crisis, like those of 1909 and 1913, might be talked out. [This must be when the Kaiser praised his diplomats].
The weakness of that hope was the ignorance and misunderstanding among politicians and diplomats of how the mechanism of abstract war plans, once instigated, would operate. Only Sir George Buchanan, the British ambassador in St. Petersburg, and Jules Cambon, the French ambassador in Berlin, fully comprehended the trigger effect exerted by one mobilisation proclamation on another and the inexorability of deployment once begun.
First, source? Second, even if so, the two theories aren't mutually exclusive.