Blessed England, Blessed Europe

“This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England…” – Shakespeare

I saw two Londons the other day. The first London was in a short documentary following a movie made in 1940. An American photo journalist gave Americans a close-up view of Londoners going about their daily lives despite the fact that every night the Germans destroyed their buildings and killed thousands of their people in air raids. Still, in spite of doom, the Londoners remained undaunted. The American journalist concluded that “London will survive.”

I saw the second London in a recent news report from a London newspaper:

Carol singers raising money for a cancer charity in Trafalgar Square were attacked by protesters during a night of disorder that saw 139 arrests.

Shops were attacked, passers-by threatened and car windows smashed during a demonstration in central London against the election result in the Democratic Republic of Congo…

Masked teenage boys ‘stormed’ the singers, throwing bottles of water and hot drinks into the crowd. A woman in her 40s, said to be undergoing treatment for breast cancer, was pulled to the ground. A youth attempted to set light to the Christmas tree, an annual gift from the city of Oslo since 1947, one witness said.

The obvious question is, “Why did the Londoners of 1940 stand firm against megatons of German bombs while the Londoners of 2011 cannot even prevent a few black punks from terrorizing their people?” The answer is quite simple: The Londoners of 1940 might have loosened their ties to the past prior to World War II, but they hadn’t yet made a complete break with their heroic past. Hence they had the spiritual reserves to survive as a people. But the modern Londoners, like all modern Europeans, are morally adrift. They don’t believe in the same God that their ancestors believed in, so they can’t respond to black barbarism in the way their ancestors would have responded. If you don’t regard black people as gods you can treat them like the thugs that they are.

In the 18^th and 19^th centuries the British not only defended their own in Britain, they defended their own abroad. For instance, in my school days of long ago, I remember reading about an incident that took place in an African country in the 1800s. A British couple were jostled in an African riot, and in retaliation the British invaded the country and deposed the black dictator. Nor did the British in India allow their people to be killed or injured without retaliating. It’s sad and tragic when white men no longer believe they should defend their own people.

The incident in Trafalgar Square was typical of the ongoing war waged by the colored races against white people. And the liberal response to such incidents is always the same. “Let’s not let the acts of a few violent ‘youths’ prejudice us against the vast majority of fine, moderate black people who are a credit to multi-racial Britain!” If the white-liberal does not know by now that there is no such thing as a moderate black person he will never know, because he has no intention of removing the mind-forged blinders from his eyes. The only reason every single black in a formerly white country doesn’t riot, rape, pillage, and murder is because some are still afraid that there might be consequences for their actions. The escalating number of black atrocities in every European-based nation is the result of more and more blacks coming to an awareness that there will be no white response to black violence except the usual liberal double-speak. Gangs of black murderers and rapists will be called ‘youths,’ and their criminal activities will be described as ‘unfortunate’ but (as if some outside source was making them commit violent acts) “understandable under the circumstances, blah, blah, blah…”

No matter what acts of violence are perpetuated by blacks we must, our clerical elite tell us, keep up the refrain, “Let’s not let a few misguided youths prejudice us against a whole people. And let us not become violent; that would be counter-productive.” But why shouldn’t whites be prejudiced against blacks? Have the negroes as a race ever shown themselves capable of supporting the good and hating evil? The bolder ones seem to genuinely enjoy murder, rape, and mayhem. And the more timid majority enjoy the violent activities of their fellow blacks vicariously. While working as a police officer I was struck by the contrast between the black and white neighborhoods. When we went into white neighborhoods to arrest white punks the people there cheered us. When we went into black neighborhoods to arrest black punks the people threw rocks and homemade explosives at us.

And why is it a given that white people must not respond violently to black crime? Because it is ‘counter-productive’? I beg to differ; immediate, violent retaliation is the only thing that does deter black violence. As whites retreat and appease, the blacks advance and escalate their violence. If the anti-Christian Christians of the new Christless churches would stop looking for the mythical, moderate blacks whom they can worship and adore and face reality, they would see that every humane, charitable impulse on this earth emanates from white people. It’s quite simple, Mr. Negro-worshipping Liberal. When the white remnant disappears so will charity. And then what will happen to your beloved black gods?

In view of what Savanhu considered to be European unfitness to govern Rhodesia, we might examine what he would consider to be African fitness. Having already glanced at African political fitness we can leave that on one side. But where for example the Africans’ purely humanitarian regard for their own kind is concerned, we find the Native Affairs Department reporting that film scenes of African children suffering from disease and starvation are greeted with shrieks of laughter by African audiences, “We have found that a distressingly large proportion of our rural population see nothing but humour in the sufferings of other people,” Mr Nesham, the N.A.D. senior information officer, reported. Similarly, Mr Guy, of the Rhodesian Association for the Prevention of Tuberculosis, stated: “I have met no Coloured, Asiatic or African workers in the campaign against tuberculosis. Is it too much to ask members of these communities to come to our assistance?” Likewise, the only African-managed orphanage in Rhodesia reported that it has to rely entirely on White generosity for its support, as Africans themselves refuse to contribute because they feel that that is “the white man’s job.”

It is the colored barbarians’ love of cruelty and indifference to human misery (and the Asian surpasses the black in this regard) that separates them forever from the antique European. Between such wholly different peoples there can be only enmity. The white is repulsed by the black’s barbarism and the black is enraged by the white man’s attempts to bring him out of his beloved Babylonian night. The new “unity” between whites and the colored races has come about because the white liberal has become a techno-barbarian. The techno-barbarian, like the colored barbarian, has not charity, but there is a difference between the two barbarian tribes. The techno-barbarian, because he once was Christian, does not want to look at the consequences of his inhuman philosophy. He relies on his technology to shield his eyes from his own cruelty. Where a colored barbarian would kill a child up close and personal with no compunction whatsoever, a white liberal has the child tortured and killed in an abortuary hidden from his liberal eyes. The modern liberal is like the head bad guy in the old gangster films. He tells the hero that he deplores violence, but he must torture him if he doesn’t talk. When the hero refuses to talk the leader exits the room and “regrettably” leaves the hero to the not-so-tender care of his subordinates. Robespierre, an ardent opponent of capital punishment who had thousands killed in the name of humanity, was a forerunner of the modern technocratic liberal.

The crazed voices you hear from the hinterlands of Liberaldom are the “conservative Christians” of the Catholic and Protestant denominations. “It doesn’t matter that white people no longer support the antique faith of Europe,” they tell us. “The black, yellow and brown people of the world will take up the cause of Christian Europe.” Oh really? Where is the evidence for such an astounding claim? In Africa where the inhabitants, in the absence of white rule, have returned to cannibalism and voodoo? In China where Asian cruelty still reigns supreme over all other forms of cruelty? How about Mexico where the ancient Aztec faith has returned? Et tu, Mr. Conservative Christian? Why must you plunge your dagger into the European remnant? Aren’t there already enough bleeding wounds in the Europeans? If the conservative wants to regain his honor as a man of Europe instead of trying to hold on to his cherished corner of Liberaldom, he must venture forth with the remnant band of Europeans to wrest the kingdom of Europe from the liberals and colored barbarians. But it is easier to proclaim heathendom the new Christendom than it is to fight for the restoration of Christendom. Which is why we won’t see the conservative in the ranks of the antique Europeans. That’s just as well, because the conservative, when forced to choose between the antique Europeans and black-worshipping Liberaldom will always side with the liberals. Something to do with the side their bread is buttered on.

In a short story called “The Haunted Man,” Charles Dickens tells the story of an educated man, a Chemist, who makes a bargain with a phantom from the world of spirits. The ghost grants him a “gift.” The Chemist asks to be released from the remembrance of all the sorrow, wrong, and trouble he has ever known.

“I have the power to cancel their remembrance – to leave but very faint, confused traces of them, that will die out soon,” returned the Spectre.

And the Chemist is also granted the power to erase the remembrance of sorrow and trouble in the lives of others.

“And take this with you, man whom I here renounce! The gift that I have given, you shall give again, go where you will. Without recovering yourself the power that you have yielded up, you shall henceforth destroy its like in all whom you approach. Your wisdom has discovered that the memory of sorrow, wrong, and trouble is the lot of all mankind, and that mankind would be the happier, in its other memories, without it. Go! Be its benefactor! Freed from such remembrance, from this hour, carry involuntarily the blessing of such freedom with you. Its diffusion is inseparable and inalienable form you. Go! Be happy in the good you have won, and in the good you do!”

Of course the “gift” does not make the Chemist a happy man; he becomes a haunted man, and he does not bring happiness to others, for without the remembrance of past sorrows there can be no present joy. The haunted man and the people he blights with his presence know neither sorrow nor joy; they are devoid of all humanity. And without a knowledge of past sorrow the haunted man cannot know the Man of Sorrows who turned our sorrows to joy with His resurrection from the dead. It is only when a woman breaks the curse by refusing to give up the remembrance of her dead infant, that the chemist and those he polluted can once again see the light.

Redlaw fell upon his knees with a loud cry.

‘O Thou,’ he said, ‘who, through the teaching of pure love, hast graciously restored me to the memory which was the memory of Christ upon the cross, and of all the good who perished in His cause, receive my thanks, and bless her!’

I would suggest that the great majority of modern Europeans are in the spiritual state of Redlaw, the Chemist. They have tried to build a utopian world of science in which there is no remembrance of past sorrows. So the faith of their ancestors, who believed in the Man of Sorrows, must be either eliminated or modified into a Christianity without the cross.

I love the ending of Dickens’ story. The haunted man is not restored by a wise man; he is restored to life because one simple, unlearned soul loves too much to give up her remembrance of past sorrow. Christ’s Europe, the Europe of Grimm’s fairy tales, “A Christmas Carol” and Christmas caroling, church bells at midnight, and evening lingerings, depends on our loving remembrance of the cross of Christ and our determined refusal to let His Europe, with all its sorrows and troubles, die. Europeans who love deeply will simply not let barbarian hordes rule His Europe. God has never abandoned His people. If we hold fast to our remembrance of Christian Europe we will see miracles in the blessed plot of land and throughout the sacred realm of Europe. +

Hearts of Stone

This sort of people are so taken up with their theories about the rights of man, that they have totally forgotten his nature. Without opening one new avenue to the understanding, they have succeeded in stopping up those that lead to the heart. They have perverted in themselves, and in those that attend to them, all the well-placed sympathies of the human heart.

– Edmund Burke

It is one of the great ironies of history that Robespierre, the infamous architect of the reign of terror, was an outspoken opponent of capital punishment before the revolution took place and even after the revolution. How then did he justify what he did during his bloody reign? He used the justification of all utopian zealots. He claimed that for a very short period men had to harden their hearts against all human sentiments and be merciless and cruel in order to usher in a world where there was no need for cruelty and killing, because there would be equality and harmony. Such is always the mantra of the utopian reformers, whether they be French revolutionaries, Russian Marxists, Northern Reconstructionists, or modern day democratic egalitarians. Everything that stemmed from the ancient faith, love of kith and kin, honor, and fidelity to the time worn traditions of one’s nation, all had to give way before the new utopian creed which entailed hatred of kith and kin, a sneering contempt for the code of chivalry, and a hatred for the ancient traditions of one’s nation. The transition period in which there is to be no human sentiment is always supposed to be short. But it never is; it always becomes permanent. Humanity never returns to utopian nations unless the utopian heresy is rooted out of the offending nation. (1)

The abstract principle to which the utopian appeals to justify his bloodletting is “the people.” But of course it is a people narrowly defined. Everyone outside the orbit of “the people” such as French aristocrats, white southerners, or Russian nobles are to become the necessary sacrifices to the new world order that is to be ushered in by Comrade Robespierre, Comrade Lincoln, or Comrade Lenin. All “human respect” must be burned out of the new breed of men so that they can murder every man, woman, and child that stands in the way of “the people.”

And who are the people? That has changed over the years. Initially the people were the proletariat of every race, but the liberals discovered, over the centuries, that it wasn’t just the French nobility, the Southern aristocrats, or the Czar and his Cossacks that were impeding mankind’s onward march to the light, it was all white people – poor, rich, and in-between – who had blighted the world. It does no good to ask the utopians to compare the old, racist, non-utopian regimes to the new utopian regimes in order to show the superiority of the old order to the new order, because the new pigs of Animal Farm are in that “transition stage” during which the heart must be closed to every human sentiment and the mind must be focused on abstract notions of the people, which currently translates to blacks, first and foremost, and then the other colored races.

If the modern Europeans could see Christian Europe next to contemporary Europe, all but the worst, the liberals with the passionate intensity of the possessed, would follow the call of old Europe and old Europe’s God. But the grazers do not see; they have been anaesthetized incrementally. They no longer believe there ever was any other world other than Liberaldom. The halfway-house Christians? They are wedded to liberalism. They feel uncomfortable with some aspects of it, but they remain allied to the liberal succubus because of their inability to see that modern, democratic egalitarianism, in which the negro has been elevated to the status of a God, springs from the same utopian roots as the French and Russian revolutions. We have not dispensed with utopian animal farms because Robespierre was deposed and communist Russia is no more. The hideous, inhuman ideology of utopia still dominates every European country in the guise of an abstraction called democracy, which in reality is a negro-worshipping oligarchy.

It can’t be stressed enough that the transitional stage of utopia, during which the heart must be hardened against the old, antiquated notions of love, honor, loyalty, and faith, is a permanent stage. The liberal’s utopian promised land is a desert in which nothing human can live. If Europeans were not morally anaesthetized, they could see this clearly. Look at our comedy; it is base and degrading. Our drama? We have none. Our great works of art? They celebrate the disintegration of the human personality. A desert would actually be a step up from democratic utopia. We need to go to the Old Testament prophets to describe the “utopia” we live in:

Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overgrown by strangers.

Yes, that succinctly describes the “utopia” that is modern Europe. Strangers devour our land because we do not believe in the antiquated, non-utopian virtues that sustain a land against devouring strangers; faith, hope, and charity. And the greatest of those virtues is the virtue that is so obviously missing from the desolated lands of the European people. Divine charity incarnate reached out to mankind; the Europeans responded to Him and Christian Europe was the result. Is it possible for a heart that has been touched by that divine charity, through the good offices of the antique Europeans, to permit their civilization, which is ours as well, to be obliterated, along with those who are faithful to it, from the face of the earth? No, it is not possible. The hearts that truly love never forget. No Christian European can forget that the interracial utopia of the liberals was built with and is sustained by sacrilege and blood –the sacrileges of a legion of Voltaires and Rousseas and the blood of Christian Europeans that are sacrificed on the altars of the new barbarian gods. But of course, the liberals tell us, the absence of charity in the new utopia is only temporary. Charity will return when the recalcitrant remnant of Europeans are eliminated. Liars! It is the remnant band that must restore the Europe that revered the Man of Sorrows from whom faith, hope, and charity comes.

I do not agree with G. K. Chesterton’s flippant summation of Thomas Hardy’s work, “The village atheist commenting on the village idiot.” Hardy was an atheist, but he was not a sneering atheist. He wanted the Christian faith to be true but could not bring himself to believe that a loving God could permit the suffering that came with the human condition. And the village idiots? They are us. I certainly don’t feel morally or intellectually superior to the characters depicted in Hardy’s novels. Hardy was spiritually akin to Ivan Karamazov: “I don’t reject God, I reject His world,” and to the embittered, blinded Goucester prior to his conversion: “As flies to the wanton boys, are we to th’ gods, They kill us for their sport.” Hardy’s vision is hard to refute. It certainly cannot be refuted by Thomistic rationalism or by the type of Christian apologetics (“let me tell you why God makes you suffer”) practiced by Job’s comforters. But there is a response to Hardy, and the response came from Him, as Alyosha tells his brother Ivan.

“That’s rebellion,” Alyosha said softly, lowering his eyes.

“Rebellion? I wish you hadn’t used that word,” Ivan said feelingly. “I don’t believe it’s possible to live in rebellion, and I want to live! Tell me yourself—I challenge you: let’s assume that you were called upon to build the edifice of human destiny so that men would finally be happy and would find peace and tranquility. If you knew that, in order to attain this, you would have to torture just one single creature, let’s say the little girl who beat her chest so desperately in the outhouse, and that on her unavenged tears you could build that edifice, would you agree to do it? Tell me and don’t lie!”

“No, I would not,” Alyosha said softly.

“And do you find acceptable the idea that those for whom you are building that edifice should gratefully receive a happiness that rests on the blood of a tortured child and, having received it, should continue to enjoy it eternally?”

“No, I do not find that acceptable,” Alyosha said and his eyes suddenly flared up. “But a moment ago you asked whether there was in the world ‘a single creature who could forgive.’ Well, there is. And He can forgive everyone for everything, because He Himself gave His innocent blood for everyone’s sin and for everyone’s sake. You forgot to mention Him, although it is on Him that the edifice must be founded, it is to Him that they will sing. ‘You were right, O Lord, for Your ways have now been revealed to us!”

Our Lord has been condemned for breaking a promise He never made. He promised to redeem our earthly suffering, not to end it. The Jews of the hardened hearts could not forgive Him, despite the fact that the prophets told them of the coming of the suffering servant and not the king of the revels, for not setting up a paradise on earth. And the modern liberals have joined with the Jews in their hatred of the Man of Sorrows. Once again Christ has been rejected by His people. “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.” But the promise was kept; He has redeemed our suffering. The antique Europeans bore witness to His act of redemption. “Truly,” the ancient Europeans tell us, “this man was the Son of God.”

By seeking to create a world different from God’s world, a world without suffering, the liberals have plunged us into a world in which there is even greater suffering, because it is a world devoid of charity and a world devoid of the faith and the hope that our suffering has some meaning because He has redeemed our suffering through His Holy Cross. We have lost so much by allowing the liberals to replace Christian Europe with their mind-forged paradise on earth, in fact we have lost everything that makes life bearable. Must we accept this brave new world? I don’t accept it. The liberals have convinced the grazers that there never was any other world but theirs, and they have convinced the halfway-house Christians that their advanced Christianity is the real Christianity. But the liberals have not charity; their regime is built on pillage, sacrilege, and murder. If we don’t love our faith and our people enough to fight the liberals and their barbarian allies to the death, we are worse than dead men, we are men without souls.

If we are alive to the Europeans’ Christian journey, the Via Dolorosa, we will know that there is a Man of Sorrows who stands ready to renew the covenant that was so shamefully discarded by an adulterous and evil generation of liberal vipers. We can go home again by simply affirming what Peter affirmed, many months after the night of his denials, “Yes, I know that man, He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” We know he said those words or words like them because we know that he was crucified because of his affirmation of Christ. We all suffer and we all die. The great question is whether we suffer and die for nothing, for nada, or whether our pain, suffering and ultimate death in this world has been redeemed by His pain, suffering, and death on the cross. The collective voice of the much-vilified and hated Europeans of the olden times says that we have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. We will hold to their vision in defiance of the Babylonian liberals and their dark barbarian legions. +

________________________

(1) Neither France nor Russia ever went back to their Christian roots. The French shifted to a more incremental utopian scheme, the democratic egalitarianism of the United States, and the Russians did the same in the latter half of the 20^th century. Only those who equate Christianity with democracy would see Christianity in post-Communist Russia and post-revolutionary France.

Vision

We were all one heart and one race

When the Abbey trumpets blew.

--Kipling

Thornton Wilder, author of Our Town, The Skin of Our Teeth, The Bridge of San Luis Rey, and others, has been labeled an optimist by the literary critics. But I always found his works depressing because his “optimism” is grounded in this world only. His religion is Platonic; he believes in love and a divine force but not in a personal God behind that divine force. One must concede however, that his criticism of Catholicism, expressed in The Bridge of San Luis Rey, is well-thought out. And the Catholic Church has not been able to refute Wilder’s critique with traditional apologetics, which is why the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches which have followed in the Catholic train stand in such a pathetic state today.

In The Bridge of San Luis Rey, Brother Juniper sets himself the task of explaining the ways of God to men: “On Friday noon, July the twentieth, 1714, the finest bridge in all Peru broke and precipitated five travellers into the gulf below.”

Having witnessed the tragedy, Brother Juniper decides to answer the question, “Why did this happen to those five?” He fails to come up with an answer and is eventually burned at the stake by the Church, not so much for anything he said, but because he, a lowly monk, presumed to do what the high mucky-mucks of the Church liked to do. Before his burning, Brother Juniper also
attempts an explanation of why the pestilence strikes some individuals and not others:

It was by dint of hearing a great many such sneers at faith that Brother Juniper became convinced that the world’s time had come for proof, tabulated proof, of the conviction that was so bright and exciting within him. When the pestilence visited his dear village of Puerto and carried off a large number of peasants, he secretly drew up a diagram of the characteristics of fifteen victims and fifteen survivors, the statistics of their value sub specie aeternitatis. Each soul was rated upon a basis of ten as regards its goodness, its diligence in religious observance, and its importance to its
family group. Here is a fragment of this ambitious chart:



The thing was more difficult than he had foreseen. Almost every soul in a difficult frontier community turned out to be indispensable economically, and the third column was all but useless. The examiner was driven to the use of minus terms when he confronted the personal character of Alfonso V., who was not, like Vera N., merely bad; he was a propagandist for badness and not merely avoided church but led others to avoid it. Vera N. was indeed bad, but she was a model worshipper and the
mainstay of a full hut. From all this saddening data Brother Juniper contrived an index for each peasant. He added up the total for victims and compared it with the total for survivors, to discover that the dead were five times more worth saving. It almost looked as though the pestilence had been directed against the really valuable people in the village of Puerto. And on that afternoon Brother Juniper took a walk along the edge of the Pacific. He tore up his findings and cast them into the waves; he gazed for an hour upon the great clouds of pearl that hang forever upon the horizon of that sea, and extracted from their beauty a resignation that he did not permit his reason to examine. The discrepancy between faith and the facts is greater than is
generally assumed.

It would be easy to just dismiss Thornton Wilder as the village atheist. But his critique of Catholicism is completely correct. Brother Juniper’s ill-advised attempt to present a rational defense of suffering is the embodiment of pre-Vatican II Catholicism. The reason the “sound apologetics” of the pre-Vatican II era were abandoned was because they were false. No one believed them. But the old Brother Juniper apologetics were not replaced by sound apologetics, they were replaced by Wilder’s faithless faith. He had faith that humanity would survive but not individual human beings. He believed in love but not the God of love. In short, Brother Juniper’s Aristotelian apologetics was replaced at the Council by Wilder’s Platonic apologetics. The Church is still in need of a defense of the Faith that is not made of Greek vapor.

I think of Thomas Campbell’s assertion that the faith is not a theory or a philosophy. He is right; it is a vision. I ask the question, what would be wrong if the Church actually started to preach about a man who was both God and man, who came down from heaven, was crucified, died and was buried, and on the third day rose from the dead? That would indeed be something. And I think that something is what the first missionaries from Rome told our European ancestors: a simple straight forward story about the King of Kings. Our ancestors listened to that story and they believed!

Men have done deeds in the name of God which would have made Christ weep, but the story of the conversion of England to Christianity, with which Durham is so marvellously linked, is, I believe, one of the loveliest stories since the New Testament. Look back to a time long before the Council of Whitby, and you see the pilgrim monks tramping the weed-grown Roman roads to speak to men and women under an oak tree in a wood. These simple, holy men trudged the heather, traversed the mighty woods, and crossed the lonely hills to baptize the heathen Saxon beside wells and at the edge of streams. They were uplifted by a magnificent single-mindedness, inspired with a Christ-like humility, strengthened by a superb sincerity. How real a thing in those rough days was the brotherhood of the holy men. (1)

The simple story made England become England and Europe become Europe.

Some twenty years ago I saw the Protestant Reformation as a very regrettable attack on Christ’s church. But now I see the Reformation, in its essence, as an attempt by the Christian faithful to reclaim the Christ that had been wrested from them and replaced by an abstract philosophy. The great tragedy was not that there was a Protestant revolt; the great tragedy was that the revolt failed when the philosophical speculators took over.

The philosophers seized upon it... and made it the unwilling and unnatural parent of the largest and most hideous brood of ills that had ever appeared at one birth since the opening of the box of Pandora. (2)

The speculating European has reached the end of the line. He has speculated himself out of existence. He rejected the light, and as a consequence he is now lost in the darkness. The Hebraic parallel is apropos. When a people forsake their God they cease to be a people; they become a loose collection of blasphemers huddled around the golden calf. (3)

The Christ story, the Hebraic Fairy Tale, is the story that the Europeans took to their hearts. Burn every single cathedral, church, and art work that celebrates the Christ story, and you still won’t eradicate the sacred remembrance of Christ that lives in the blood of the European. There will always be some Europeans that will never let go of the European past. Against all logic, against all practicality, a certain breed of men will simply not let go of the vision of the one true God, who lives and reigns in eternal Europe.

It seems, when you look at Europe and the world today, that darkness has conquered the Light. And one could say that this is no time to talk about fairy tales. But I think it is precisely the time to talk about fairy tales. Christ’s resurrection from the dead was The Fairy Tale of all fairy tales, the truest and the most magnificent fairy tale of all. Beyond the graveyard of European civilization is the Kingdom of Europe where He reigns. It can be seen only by men who have hearts that burn inside them like the apostles’ hearts burned within them on the road to Emmaus. Brother Juniper got it wrong. The Sacred Heart only reveals Himself through the narrows of the human heart. The wide-gated community of intellectual pride will never know the Man of Sorrows. The true European knows this in his blood. The European’s task then is to never forsake his blood. +
_________________________________
(1) In Search of England by H. V. Morton
(2) Cannibals All! or Slaves Without Masters by George Fitzhugh
(3) I think that it was the issue of suffering that brought the Christian churches down. The question of human suffering cannot be solved by a syllogism; it can only be understood at the foot of the cross. We need King Lear, not the Summa or the Institutes.