George Washington and Phillis Wheatley

Tuesday, April 6, AD 2010

 

Born circa 1753 in West Africa, Phillis Wheatley was kidnapped by slavers in 1761 and taken to America on the slave ship Phillis, from which she gained her first name.  She was purchased in Boston by a wealthy merchant, John Wheatley.  He and his wife treated her more like a daughter than a slave.  Educated by them, she was reading the Greek and Latin classics by the age of 12.

Beginning to write poetry, in 1775 she wrote a poem celebrating George Washington.

Celestial choir! enthron’d in realms of light,
Columbia’s scenes of glorious toils I write.
While freedom’s cause her anxious breast alarms,
She flashes dreadful in refulgent arms.
See mother earth her offspring’s fate bemoan,
And nations gaze at scenes before unknown!
See the bright beams of heaven’s revolving light
Involved in sorrows and veil of night!
The goddess comes, she moves divinely fair,
Olive and laurel bind her golden hair:
Wherever shines this native of the skies,
Unnumber’d charms and recent graces rise.

Muse! bow propitious while my pen relates
How pour her armies through a thousand gates,
As when Eolus heaven’s fair face deforms,
Enwrapp’d in tempest and a night of storms;
Astonish’d ocean feels the wild uproar,
The refluent surges beat the sounding shore;
Or thick as leaves in Autumn’s golden reign,
Such, and so many, moves the warrior’s train.
In bright array they seek the work of war,
Where high unfurl’d the ensign waves in air.
Shall I to Washington their praise recite?
Enough thou knw’st them in the fields of fight.
Thee, first in peace and honours,—we demand
The grace and glory of thy martial band.
Fam’d for thy valour, for thy virtues more,
Hear every tongue thy guardian aid implore!

One century scarce perform’d its destined round,
When Gallic powers Columbia’s fury found;
And so may you, whoever dares disgrace
The land of freedom’s heaven-defended race!
Fix’d are the eyes of nations on the scales,
For in their hopes Columbia’s arm prevails.
Anon Britannia droops the pensive head,
While round increase the rising hills of dead.
Ah! cruel blindness to Columbia’s state!
Lament thy thirst of boundless power too late.

Proceed, great chief, with virtue on thy side,
Thy ev’ry action let the goddess guide.
A crown, a mansion, and a throne that shine,
With gold unfading, WASHINGTON! be thine.

She sent a copy of the poem to Washington with the following letter:

To His Excellency
George Washington

Sir,
I have taken the freedom to address your Excellency in the enclosed poem, and entreat your acceptance, though I am not insensible of its inaccuracies. Your being appointed by the Grand Continental Congress to be Generalissimo of the armies of North America, together with the fame of your virtues, excite sensations not easy to suppress. Your generosity, therefore, I presume, will pardon the attempt. Wishing your Excellency all possible success in the great cause you are so generously engaged in. I am,

Your Excellency’s most obedient humble servant,
Phillis Wheatley
1776

Washinton responded:

Cambridge, February 28, 1776.

Mrs. Phillis,
Your favour of the 26th of October did not reach my hands ’till the middle of December. Time enough, you will say, to have given an answer ere this. Granted. But a variety of important occurrences, continually interposing to distract the mind and withdraw the attention, I hope will apologize for the delay, and plead my excuse for the seeming, but not real neglect.

I thank you most sincerely for your polite notice of me, in the elegant Lines you enclosed; and however undeserving I may be of such encomium and panegyrick, the style and manner exhibit a striking proof of your great poetical Talents. In honour of which, and as a tribute justly due to you, I would have published the Poem, had I not been apprehensive, that, while I only meant to give the World this new instance of your genius, I might have incurred the imputation of Vanity. This and nothing else, determined me not to give it place in the public Prints.

If you should ever come to Cambridge, or near Head Quarters, I shall be happy to see a person so favoured by the Muses, and to whom Nature has been so liberal and beneficent in her dispensations.

I am, with great Respect, etc.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to George Washington and Phillis Wheatley

George Washington and Catholics

Thursday, November 5, AD 2009

America has been blessed by God in many ways but I suspect no blessing has been greater than His granting us George Washington to lead us in our struggle for independence and to be our first President.  Catholics have perhaps more reason than other Americans to keep the memory of Washington alive in our hearts.  In a time of strong prejudice against Catholics in many parts of the colonies he was free from religious bigotry as he demonstrated on November 5, 1775 when he banned the anti-Catholic Guy Fawkes celebrations.

“As the Commander in Chief has been apprized of a design form’d for the observance of that ridiculous and childish custom of burning the Effigy of the pope – He cannot help expressing his surprise that there should be Officers and Soldiers in this army so void of common sense, as not to see the impropriety of such a step at this Juncture; at a Time when we are solliciting, and have really obtain’d, the friendship and alliance of the people of Canada, whom we ought to consider as Brethren embarked in the same Cause. The defence of the general Liberty of America: At such a juncture, and in such Circumstances, to be insulting their Religion, is so monstrous, as not to be suffered or excused; indeed instead of offering the most remote insult, it is our duty to address public thanks to these our Brethren, as to them we are so much indebted for every late happy Success over the common Enemy in Canada.”

Order in Quarters, November 5, 1775

– George Washington

Continue reading...

25 Responses to George Washington and Catholics

  • President Washington is by far my favorite president. I know that he was a mason and consequently has been a figure of esteam for masons I have met in the past. So with what was written above and what I researched myself – I still get confused as to how he could have been so pro-catholic and be a mason… anyone have input on this?

  • Very interesting — had no idea about this. I linked over at Inside Catholic; thanks for sharing!

  • In spite of those historians who happen to believe that Washington’s primary reason for this ‘politically-correct’ move then was purely for pragmatic reasons and not actually due to any genuine consideration for Catholics in general, I personally happen to admire Washington nonetheless for his wisdom and exceptional leadership.

  • Masons in this country have to be distinguished from Masons in Europe. Masons in the US have largely been free of the anti-clericalism that infested European Masons. In the time of Washington in America, Masonic lodges provided an opportunity for men to get together to eat, drink, engage in boisterous good humored conversation and participate in “secret” rituals. In short to be boys again with the addition of alcohol. Masons would often help fund good works in the community such as relief of the local poor, etc. I doubt if Washington took belonging to the Masons much more seriously than most people today view belonging to the Rotarians, the Lions, etc.

  • So is Donald implying that the Masons in America were more of the “Skull and Bones” secret society version?

  • Nope e. I am stating that they were more like modern Rotarians, with announced meetings and known meeting places. The only thing “secret” about the Masons was their ritual flapdoodle.

  • Does the KofC count? ;^)

  • e., stop mentioning the KofC, or you might be paid a visit by one of my squirrel albino assassins. 🙂

  • “Very interesting — had no idea about this. I linked over at Inside Catholic; thanks for sharing!”

    Thank you Margaret!

  • Freemasonry is not anti-Catholic. Catholicism is anti-Masonic. Freemasonry welcomes men of any religion. Freemasonry stands for abosolute freedom of conscience, and encourages members to honor their commitments to their own religion. Freemasonry is spiritual, not religious.

    There is a difference for some members of the Freemasons from social clubs like the Rotary or Lions. Freemasonry o ffers a potential opportunity to study spirituality differently than most do. Many members take advantage of this, many do not.

    All of this said, there is no central authority that defines what Freemasonry is or believes: it is what the individual Mason, Lodge and Grand Lodge make of it. There is no set Credo.

    There is no contradiction between Pres. Washington praising Catholicism and being a Mason. There is no big surprise about Pres. Washington having respect for the Roman Catholic Church. Among British upper classes, the reformation was still being debated, and American gentry were part of that debate.

  • “There is no contradiction between Pres. Washington praising Catholicism and being a Mason. There is no big surprise about Pres. Washington having respect for the Roman Catholic Church. Among British upper classes, the reformation was still being debated, and American gentry were part of that debate.”

    Very interesting. Would you kindly provide references that would corroborate this?

    “Freemasonry is not anti-Catholic. Catholicism is anti-Masonic. Freemasonry welcomes men of any religion. Freemasonry stands for abosolute freedom of conscience, and encourages members to honor their commitments to their own religion. Freemasonry is spiritual, not religious.”

    If true, this would make some sort of sense out of why Mozart himself was a mason (at least, some claim he was).

  • Steve,

    Masonry is anti-Christian in many ways–as it violates and encourages man to take part in rituals that go against what Christianity teaches–e.g. blood oaths.

    It is forbidden in Catholicism for good reason.

    – Freemasonry teaches about a resurrection to an afterlife whether or not the Mason accepts Jesus Christ.

    – Freemasonry believes that all religions lead to one God

    – Masons do not pray in Jesus’ name.

    The primary reason for the Church’s opposition to Freemasonry is that Freemasonry promotes indifferentism. Indifferentism is the heretical belief that all religions are equally legitimate paths to God. Freemasonry promotes indifferentism in many ways, such as by inviting all religious writings to take an equal place on the Masonic altar with the Sacred Scriptures, and promoting a common religious worship through esoteric ritual. The other reason why Masonry is incompatible with the Christian faith concerns Masonry’s requirement that its members swear oaths of self-donation to the organization and its principles under symbolic, blood-curdling penalties of self-mutilation and death.

  • It is silly to say Freemasonry welcomes men of all religions, when it encourages beliefs and for men to take oaths against and in violation of the practice of their religion.

    I think particularly of the masonic belief that there is a knowable Truth (the knowledge that is God) that can be achieved solely through man’s reason.

  • Buffalo Bill converted to Catholicism on his death bed and asked for a Catholic funeral. The Masons in Denver stole his body over the protests of his wife and had a great public parade and a completely non-Catholic funeral. This was reported in the papers in Denver at the time. I have always thought of this when trying to evaluate Washington’s connection with the Masons. If I wouldn’t trust what they said about Buffalo Bill why would I trust them on Washington.

  • Freemasonry is undoubtedly anti-Catholic. The Popes have repeatedly emphasized the incompatibility of Masonry with the Catholic faith (Paul outlines a few very clearly above). Additionally, there are numerous writings and actions that attest to its anti-Catholic nature.

    While it is true that the men at the local lodge may not know or realize this, it does not change the history regarding Masonry and what it stands for.

  • In 1776, the Continental Congress asked Carroll, his cousin Charles Carroll, Samuel Chase, and Benjamin Franklin to travel to Quebec and attempt to persuade the French Canadian population to join the revolution. Although the group was unsuccessful, it made Carroll well known to the government of the new republic. Carroll was in fact excommunicated by the local Quebec bishop, Jean-Olivier Briand.[4]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carroll_(bishop)

    If we were to assert that under no circumstances had a Mason been found willing to take arms against a bad government, we should only be declaring that, in trying moments, when duty, in the masonic sense, to state means antagonism to the Government, they had failed in the highest and most sacred duty of a citizen. Rebellion in some cases is a sacred duty, and none, but a bigot or a fool, will say, that our countrymen were in the wrong, when they took arms against King James II. Loyalty to freedom in a case of this kind overrides all other considerations, and when to rebel means to be free or to perish, it would be idle to urge that a man must remember obligations which were never intended to rob him of his status of a human being and a citizen. [201]

    and

    The Kadosh (thirtieth degree), trampling on the papal tiara and the royal crown, is destined to wreak a just vengeance on these “high criminals” for the murder of Molay [128] and “as the apostle of truth and the rights of man” [129] to deliver mankind “from the bondage of Despotism and the thraldom of spiritual Tyranny”. [130] “In most rituals of this degree everything breathes vengeance” against religious and political “Despotism”. [131]

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm

    One of his fondest wishes, however, came to naught: the use of vernacular languages in the liturgy. In 1787 he wrote “Can there be anything more preposterous than an unknown tongue; and in this country either for want of books or inability to read, the great part of our congregations must be utterly ignorant of the meaning and sense of the publick office of the Church. It may have been prudent, for aught I know, to impose a compliance in this matter with the insulting and reproachful demands of the first reformers; but to continue the practice of the Latin liturgy in the present state of things must be owing either to chimerical fears of innovation or to indolence and inattention in the first pastors of the national Churches in not joining to solicit or indeed ordain this necessary alteration.”[13]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carroll_(bishop)

    John Carroll was not consecrated bishop until August 15, 1790. While it would be more than a hundred years before Leo XIII condemned Americanism as a heresy, Bishop Carroll already seemed to desire “the Church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world” (Leo’s words in Testem Benevolentiae ). Carroll agitated for a vernacular liturgy, bishops elected by their people (no “foreign” appointments from Rome), and a pope with little practical authority over the Church. He also crossed the Bishop of Quebec, the saintly Bishop Briand, by escorting Benjamin Franklin there on an anti-English embassy that failed. (Recall that our Puritan forefathers had seriously offended the Catholic Québécois by declaring England’s toleration of the Faith there to be an “intolerable act”!) Perhaps most damning of Carroll’s integrity as an ecclesiastic is this fact, related in the New Catholic Encyclopedia , Volume 6: “The papal condemnations of Freemasonry were not promulgated in the American colonies by Bishop John Carroll. In fact his brother Daniel was an active Mason and a practicing Catholic. Bishop Carroll wrote to a layman in 1794 regarding the lodge question: ‘I do not pretend that these decrees (against Freemasonry) are received generally by the Church, or have full authority in this diocese.’” Thus was established, early on, the American tradition of ignoring Roman decrees.

    http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:iOXP9LgvkCYJ:catholicism.org/father-john-thayer.html+%22+do+not+pretend+that+these+decrees+(against+Freemasonry)+are+received+generally+by+the+Church,+or+have+full+authority+in+this+diocese%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&ie=UTF-8

    http://books.google.com/books?client=firefox-a&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html&id=5B8FAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22john+carroll%22&pg=PA126&sig=ACfU3U0Clz8E8ariAdE7rRWMXeo2O8zFBg&q=masons
    Your Eminence, when Father John Carroll, who was to become the first American bishop and the first Bishop and later Archbishop of Baltimore, accompanied John Adams and Benjamin Franklin to Québec to ask that the Canadians join in the American Revolution, the then Bishop Briand of Québec forbade his priests to have anything to do with the visitors and he actually excommunicated John Carroll. Bishop Briand had his reasons, in that the British had guaranteed the Catholics of Québec freedom of religion, a freedom which was not guaranteed at that time in the original thirteen rebellious colonies, where Catholics were often discriminated against. Bishop Briand saw no reason for Canadians to join the American colonies against the British, and he was very annoyed that a Catholic priest should be among those seeking to encourage Canadians to risk their religious liberty in what he considered to be a dubious cause. So he excommunicated Father Carroll – and there is no record of which I know that such an excommunication has ever been lifted.

    http://www.kofc.org/un/eb/en/convention_2008/addresses/sd_address_foley.html

    These articles are why I am not enamored of Washington or our first bishop. John Carroll was rightfully excommunicated. What right does a priest have to solicit aid for a political revolution? His first duty is the salvation of souls. Especially without first speaking with the bishop of the diocese. Free Masonry is duplicitous and from careful reading (which is necessary when reading anything written by influential Masons) it seems that Washington only opposed the celebrations since the French Catholics may be offended may refuse aid. Masonry is indifferent to all religions so the attendance of varying churches is more indicative of indifference- not necessarily favor. Neither did the Continental Congress ever repay the French government the loans it made. Not only that but they shared in the general delight when the monarchy in France (their former allies) fell. It is unfortunate since the French king was a better man and more honest. Not only that but our government congratulated the new Russian government when the Czar was deposed (also a former ally). He was a much better man than Wilson. Not all the monarchs were the tyrants we have been told they were in public schools. Not all the presidents were as virtuous as we have been led to believe. Our country has been heavily influenced by Masons from the beginning. Even many of our clergy. Read history. All practicing and high ranking Masons were not what they seemed. There are three words that come to my mind that applies to Free Masonry and those sufficiently initiated. Perfidious, evil and duplicitous. No doubt I will be heckled.- after all it does sound sort of incredible until you study it. However, save your breathe and read the sources at length and do some serious/ impartial research. Then see if you can find a copy of “Catholicism in New England” By the Rev Arthur J Riley. It may be hard as it is a dissertation for his degree in the 1930s but it is written well and is a treasure trove of documentation about a part of our history that most don’t know about. Best regards.

  • Robert, in regard to your comment:

    1. The excommunication imposed against Carroll by the Quebec Bishop was clearly done for purely political purposes as the Bishop was a supporter of the British and had no impact on the standing of Carroll with the Church. It was a misuse of the authority granted to the Bishop.

    2. Considering the fact that Leo XIII noted John Carroll had been set up as first Bishop in the US by “apostolic authority” I doubt if he shared the same animus you feel against John Carroll.

    3. Anti-masony tends to quickly fall into tin foil hat territory. The Church had good reason to oppose free masonry in Europe, but too often this worthy effort is seized upon by paranoid conspiracy mongers.

  • Actually if you would read the rest of the New Advent article and the sources you would see you are clearly wrong. I used no sources that were particularly conspiritorial and do not normal countenance such views. Unfortunately after a review of the facts there is no other answer. Carroll denied the authority of the Vatican in his diocese- that is clearly different from asking for a pastoral concession. Mason have historically been conspiritorial and never have disavowed their connection with the Latin Orient. They merely discountance their methods if you read closely.

    No the excommunication was done because he sought to enlist the Canadians in a foreign war that was not necessary. There was danger to life and limb of the members of his flock without suffiecient cause. Carroll came in like a wolf- over the walls and used his status as a priest to try to persuade the Canadians to join. He never deigned to approach the Bishop of Quebec first. Hence it was more of a pastoral than political issue for the bishop. He was a vagus in doing so.

    Most likely the Vatican felt the selection could have been worse. If you read you will note that there was sufficient concern on the part of the American clergy not to offend the protestants, etc in this country. If the Vatican appointed someone it was strongly possible the American government would have objected. as a matter of fact they sought information from the government as to whatwas acceptable. If you had read you would have noticed that he was elected and confirmed by the Vatican- not appointed as was normal procedure. It was obvious to the pope that if he objected that the American clergy were not steadfastly loyal to Rome and that Catholics in this country would have been persecuted even more in this country. There was no other real option.

    Please trouble yourself to read all the sources. I know it is inconvenient but you claim the arguments are inadequate but have countered none of them. Instead you have merely presented personal opinions which you honestly admit are such when you say “I do not think”, etc. I respect you honesty as such. However you have implied I am a nut and have not deigned to offer a different interpetation or refutation of those articles. Please trouble yourself to do so. It is only intellectually honest as I am certain you will concede.Thank you.

  • Robert in regard to the excommunication you merely support what I was saying. A Bishop has no right to excommunicate anyone because they take a differing position on a political issue unrelated to the Church and that is precisely what the Bishop of Quebec did.

    The Vatican had no problem approving Carroll as Bishop. I have found nothing in the historical record indicating otherwise. The Vatican approved the procedure of the election of the Bishop by the clergy prior to the election being held.

  • Whispers in the Loggia had composed an entry that pays fitting tribute to the great man who was the Father of American Catholicism:

    In the Beginning….

    His legacy plugged by no less than The Pope Himself — who recalled him with “admiration and gratitude” in addressing his many heirs last week — the father of American Catholicism, John Carroll of Baltimore, took center stage in a major lecture given Tuesday night in the cathedral he envisioned, but never saw completed: Charmopolis’ Basilica of the Assumption.

    Held to commemorate both the bicentennial of Carroll’s elevation as the nation’s first archbishop and the impending reception of the pallium by his 14th successor, Archbishop Edwin O’Brien, on-deck for the talk was one of the bench’s handful of historian-prelates, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of Milwaukee.

    Held to commemorate both the bicentennial of Carroll’s elevation as the nation’s first archbishop and the impending reception of the pallium by his 14th successor, Archbishop Edwin O’Brien, on-deck for the talk was one of the bench’s handful of historian-prelates, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of Milwaukee.

    (To think: 25,000 Catholics in thirteen colonies at The Founding… 22 priests… not a lot of money… and a whole lot of misunderstanding and discrimination… and you think we had it bad?)

    On a related note, Carroll was also the launch-pad of O’Brien’s homily at Baltimore’s bicentennial liturgy earlier this month.

    Bishop Carroll took possession of his See in December, 1790 and his inaugural sermon makes clear his state of mind. Of his appointment he said, “I have always dreaded it.” And given the immense challenge that faced him it is easy to see why. “Everything had to be raised from its foundation,” he said with scant resources at hand and a Catholic people among the poorest in the city and countryside. He specified the challenge in his sermon: canonical structures, schools, native clergy, a newly-founded seminary, schools and the evangelization of her near and distant flock.

    His goal, he said, was “to have nothing in view but God and your salvation.” He went on to say, “My heart sinks almost under the impression of terror which comes upon it. In God alone can I find any consolation…He will not abandon me…Pray, dear brethren, pray incessantly (for me.).”

    Pray, they must have. And no, God did not abandon him.

    As founding bishop, this premier missionary and persevering evangelizer of our new nation truly laid the foundation of Catholicism in America . He convinced Rome and some skeptics at home of the compatibility of Catholicism and a free democracy. A friend and confidant of Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and a supporter of many civil causes and institutions, what Washington is to our country, John Carroll is to the Church in our country. In his 25 years of shepherding, the Catholic population of the expansive Church of Baltimore doubled as did our number of native priests. He founded three colleges and two seminaries and strongly promoted the foundation of many religious orders, receiving the vows of the now St. Elizabeth Seton. He would go on to encourage and support the establishment of both the first distinctly American community of religious women and of the first Catholic school in our land…

    http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2008/04/in-beginning.html

  • As I recall, the Vatican approving locally selected bishops (rather than centralling appointing bishops) was more common in the 18th century than it is now. And if one goes back a few centuries more, it was in fact the norm.

  • Pingback: Pio Nono, the Washington Monument and the Purloined Block of Marble « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Pio Nono, the Washington Monument and the Purloined Block of Marble « Almost Chosen People
  • There are, however, some intriguing hints — and at the very least Washington (known to offer up his suffering and to have a woman “say the beads” for him) was far more spiritual than most of our history teachers taught

    Most tantalizing was a report in volume 4, number 12 of an old nineteenth-century veterans publication known as the National Tribune. Now known as Stars and Stripes, the publication quoted a man named Anthony Sherman as describing a vision that allegedly occurred in 1777.

    It was said that as the chilly wind murmured through leafless trees, Washington, who was known to wander alone praying, spent nearly the entire afternoon in his quarters, allowing no interruptions. “When he came out, I noticed that his face was a shade paler than usual, and there seemed to be something on his mind of more than ordinary importance,” claimed Sherman, who reputedly fought alongside Washington.

    Returning just after dusk, he dispatched an orderly to the quarters of the officer who was presently in attendance. After a preliminary conversation of about half an hour, Washington, gazing upon his companion with that strange look of dignity which he alone could command, said to the latter: “I do not know whether it is owing to the anxiety of my mind, or what, but this afternoon as I was sitting at this table engaged in preparing a dispatch, something seemed to disturb me. Looking up, I beheld standing opposite me a singularly beautiful female. So astonished was I, for I had given strict order not to be disturbed, that it was some moments before I found language to inquire into the cause of her presence. A second, third, and even a fourth time did I repeat my question, but received no answer from my mysterious visitor except a slight raising of her eyes. By this time I felt strange sensations spreading through me. I would have risen but the riveted gaze of the being before me rendered volition impossible. I assayed once more to address her, but my tongue had become useless. Even thought itself had become paralyzed. A new influence, mysterious, potent, irresistible, took possession of me. All I could do was to gaze steadily, vacantly at my unknown visitant.”

  • Read the CDF document, Quaesitum est (1983) on Freemasonry. It’s clear enough. No one is condemning the wonderful work the local lodges do. What I’ve been reading in the above personal opinions seems similar to what I’ve read from those who know exactly what Vatican II says, even though they haven’t read the documents nor the commentaries written by those who were there.

Following the 2009 Election Results which way is the tide turning toward truth or relativism?

Wednesday, November 4, AD 2009

Under the surface, and largely unbeknownst to the mainstream media, the tide has been turning to Catholicism for some time. The pontificates of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI along with events such as an increase in orthodox minded seminarians, young priests and young women religious, a return to devotions and a reform of the reform of liturgy have shown us that indeed the tide is turning. However, for some time now western culture has been moving in the opposite direction, where any, whim or opinion that holds that orthodox minded religious thought is antiquated and even harmful is held in high regard. How could this jibe with the turning tide within the Church? Who would win? Didn’t Jesus promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church after He gave Peter the keys (and the 265 subsequent popes) to lead it? The answer is the same answer that has always been, the Church eventually always wins and it will this time as well.

Following the Election of 2008 when liberalism was on the ascendancy, many in the mainstream media joyfully proclaimed a new era, where one could read between the lines and see that traditional views of society, family and religion were on their way out and big government was in. However, a funny thing happened on the way to the revolution, many Americans refused to go to the Bastille with pitchfork in hand. Americans view of revolution was almost always in line with George Washington’s view of limited government and not Maximilien Robespierre’s view of war against society, family and religion. Perhaps the Election of 2008 was a pox on both their big spending houses that was wrongly construed as a vote for Big Government.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Following the 2009 Election Results which way is the tide turning toward truth or relativism?

  • Thank You Dave for constantly reminding us of our faith and our needed prayers and continued efforts to overcome those who pick and choose in the Church whether laity or heirarchy. These young priests and current seminarians are a godsend for the Church and we are fornunate to have one sheparding our parish by hs example, homilies, and teaching.

  • Bravo Dave. History is not a straight line progression to a progressive paradise no matter how many of our friends on the Left believe it to be.

  • I’m still going to thumb my nose at the elites.

  • Thanks again Dave! I wish you the best on your journey. God Bless you and your family…

    Robert from Michigan

  • Indeed the elections, as Catholic League’s Bill Donohue put it, made for a “big night for Catholic values.” The gay marriage proponents must be seething that our Tortoise of Truth passed by their Hare of Relativism in Maine like it did in my state of California last year!

  • I don’t know how much we can say the election results foreshadow a turning of the tide. The two new republican governors both ran campaigns that did not stress their stance on moral issues – they won by not splitting the social conservatives from the moderates. Let’s be honest, the people who vote solely on morals (at least until a race with two moral candidates comes along) are in the minority. I worry that the lesson the Republican party will learn from this election is to shy away from moral issues. Of course, if the Democrats learn the same lesson and stop shoving abortion down everyone’s throats, maybe we’ll actually see more social conservatives in both parties.

  • Thanks again, Dave!

Pope Leo XIII On America and George Washington

Sunday, February 22, AD 2009

 pope-leo-xiiigeorge-washingonHattip to commenter Blackadder who brought this to my attention in a post on Vox Nova last year.  On the 277th birthday of George Washington, it is appropriate to recall these words of Pope Leo in regard to the Father of our Country:

“Nor, perchance did the fact which We now recall take place without some design of divine Providence. Precisely at the epoch when the American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic the ecclesiastical hierarchy was happily established amongst you; and at the very time when the popular suffrage placed the great Washington at the helm of the Republic, the first bishop was set by apostolic authority over the American Church. The well-known friendship and familiar intercourse which subsisted between these two men seems to be an evidence that the United States ought to be conjoined in concord and amity with the Catholic Church. And not without cause; for without morality the State cannot endure-a truth which that illustrious citizen of yours, whom We have just mentioned, with a keenness of insight worthy of his genius and statesmanship perceived and proclaimed. But the best and strongest support of morality is religion.”

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Thanksgiving 1789

Remember, Remember…

Wednesday, November 5, AD 2008

washington1

Today is Guy Fawkes’ Day in England.  This Catholic-bashing holiday is not observed in America and the Father of Our Country is largely the reason why.

“As the Commander in Chief has been apprized of a design form’d for the observance of that ridiculous and childish custom of burning the Effigy of the pope – He cannot help expressing his surprise that there should be Officers and Soldiers in this army so void of common sense, as not to see the impropriety of such a step at this Juncture; at a Time when we are solliciting, and have really obtain’d, the friendship and alliance of the people of Canada, whom we ought to consider as Brethren embarked in the same Cause. The defence of the general Liberty of America: At such a juncture, and in such Circumstances, to be insulting their Religion, is so monstrous, as not to be suffered or excused; indeed instead of offering the most remote insult, it is our duty to address public thanks to these our Brethren, as to them we are so much indebted for every late happy Success over the common Enemy in Canada.”

Order in Quarters, November 5, 1775

— George Washington

After the election results of last night, for those of us on the losing side, it is good to remember just how wonderful a nation America truly is.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Remember, Remember…

  • I don’t remember where I read this, but when I find it, I’ll post it, but I read that George Washington converted to the Catholic faith on his deathbed.

    I’ll do some research to get more information on this. Just curious if any of our readers can supply some more information on this.

  • It would be nice if he had Tito, but the conversion story of Washington is merely a pious fable with no historical validity. A completely made up tale. However, throughout his life Washington was friendly to Catholics and contributed to the construction of a Catholic Church.

  • “Catholic Bashing”? or simply a tradition,harking back to a time when Catholic Plotters tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament.

    As a Catholic I participate,I even build a guy with my children,but I don’t take it personally,because I don’t identify with Guido Fawkes and the plotters. I have no wish to bomb people.

    Maybe you do?

  • Yes Catholic Bashing. Consider this charming traditional Guy Fawkes rhyme:

    “A penny loaf to feed ol’ Pope.
    A farthing cheese to choke him.
    A pint of beer to rinse it down.
    A faggot of sticks to burn him.
    Burn him in a tub of tar.
    Burn him like a blazing star.
    Burn his body from his head.
    Then we’ll say ol’ Pope is dead.
    Hip hip hooray!
    Hip hip hooray!”

    As for Guy Fawkes and the other plotters they were attacking a state that had made their religion a criminal offense and executed priests who attempted to minister to faithful Catholics. I would rise in revolt against such a government in an instant.

  • Don’t listen to the dhimmi troll.

  • B.C.,

    I would rise up as well. You’ve been dhimmitized by your Protestant Overlords.

  • I’m just happy he didn’t want to pick on us Canadians.

    Good lesson for the new guy.

  • I love Canadians!

    I’m just curious why PM Harper, of the ‘Conservative’ Party, is so bashful on dealing with life issues such as abortion and traditional marriage.

  • The plain truth is that a large part the Canadian electorate is paranoid about a hidden right wing agenda. Harpers’ Government is only in a minority situation in parliment and if he wants to survive he’ll have to wait and secure a majority position before he directly attacks life issues.

    But even then, it may not hit his agenda.

    If you think American Catholics don’t vote thier faith, Canadian Catholics are even less assertive. An entire generation threw in the towel.

  • The only ‘Catholic bashing’ bonfire night celebrations in Britain today are those in Lewes. But then they are also commemorating the seventeen Protestant martyrs burnt at the stake there. Throughout our history the Catholics have been persecutors as well as the persecuted. Bloody Mary had 300 Protestants burned at the stake due to their faith. If bonfire night is anti Catholic then the fourth of July is anti British. By the way I am C of E.

  • Comparing Guy Fawkes day to the Fourth of July is ludicrous. We did not have centuries following the Revolution during which English-Americans were discriminated against. Catholics in England during the reign of Bad Queen Bess had anti-Catholic law after anti-Catholic law heaped upon them. Catholics were not given full civil rights until the Catholic Relief Act in 1829. The Gordon riots in 1780 against the Papists Act of 1778 demonstrated the depth of anti-Catholic bigotry in England. Guy Fawkes Day is a legacy of bitter religious bigotry.

  • Well I certainly wouldn’t defend any of the monarchs from the House of Tudor who are, after all, known as the Terrible Tudors. It never ceases to amaze me how this one family has influenced English history so much. My religion is the product of a selfish and murderous womaniser called Henry VIII. His dissolution of the monasteries was the biggest criminal act of cultural destruction in our history. A visit to Fountains Abbey would bring tears to your eyes. Mary burnt Protestants and Elizabeth burnt Catholics. The roots of the British Empire lie with Elizabeth. The English Reformation was a bloody affair which resulted in the longstanding persecution of my fellow countrymen just because they looked towards Rome. I may be C of E but I don’t pray or go to Church and I think religion is a crock of ****. And Americans wonder why England is a post Christian society. Bonfire Night is a tradition and nothing more. If we lose this tradition because it’s not PC then what next, Remembrance Day, the Monarchy, Trooping the Colour?

  • Without Faith John what’s the point of tradition? I am a great believer in tradition but without Faith life is literally meaningless. The fact that some people have misused religion is no more an attack on Christianity than the fact that demagogues have misused democracy is an attack on democracy or the fact that some soldiers have committed atrocities is an attack on the legitimate role that the military plays as the guardian of society. In the last century we saw true post-Christian societies in the Soviet Union and in Nazi Germany and the results were horrific. I’ ll stand with Christ and good traditions.

  • http://proecclesia.blogspot.com/2006/02/in-honor-of-father-of-our-country-his.html

    With regard to Donald’s comment … There seems to be ample evidence to believe that George Washington converted.