Obligatory Templars Knew How to Pray Post

Another attempt at milking modern Templar research for all its worth.  I hate to be so templar-cynical.  I guess I am jaded.

I will not resurrect the Chinon journalistic fiasco.  I promise.

I will admit that I am very interested to see the prayer itself, especially if it is addressed to the Blessed Virgin.  So far I have not been able to find a translation.

I really am willing to believe the best about the historical order.  I am just weary of the sensationalism.  Here is the skinny on the prayer:

The prayer is addressed to “Holy Mary, mother of God”, the “consolation of those who hope”, and “humbly implores” her to obtain freedom for the order “through the intercession of the angels, archangels, prophets, evangelists, apostles, martyrs, confessors and virgins”.

A sword salute and click of the heals to David E.

Courious Kmiec

Here is very interesting article on Doug Kmiec of flip-flop from Romney to Obama fame.  Kmiec, a “pro-life” professor of constitutional law and long time Republican, has endorsed Obama because the Democratic senator has promised to reduce the number of abortions.  The article points out that Obama has inconsistently (surprise) promised to repeal the Hyde Amendment which prohibits governmental funding of abortion.

I asked Kmiec, in light of Obama’s commitment to taxpayer funding of abortion, if he would consider renouncing his endorsement if the senator didn’t change his position. “I haven’t seen the social science literature that you’re obviously much more privy to and obviously sending me,” he said. But assuming that public funding would significantly increase the abortion rate, Kmiec added, “I would be at a loss to say anything other than I can’t support the senator at that point.”

Kmiec pointed to a piece he had written for Slate, in which he declared his endorsement of Obama “will be renounced more loudly than it was given,” if Obama failed to “work to reduce the incidence of the practice [of abortion]”.

I emailed Kmiec reports on a number of studies showing that Medicaid funding of abortion causes a higher abortion rate. But when he got back to me in mid-June, he said Obama’s position on abortion funding was not a dealbreaker. Kmiec explained that one “must take full account of the church’s social teaching” on other issues like poverty, war, and the environment. When I asked him about his statement that he would likely renounce his endorsement if Obama didn’t reconsider abortion funding, he replied: “If I said it quite that categorically, that’s not quite where I’m at.”

Well, well.  No surprise really.  More of the same.  More mealy mouthed Catholicism.  We need leaders, knights, crusaders martyrs, not politicians and lawyers.  I understand political expediency, but this is beyond the pale.  Pray for saints and martyrs among our leaders and pastors.  Pray, pray, pray.

The courious thing is how someone like Kmiec got to the point of selling the farm.

Four Chivalrous Things to Remember

Video courtesy of Bob Fox, his son Gregory, producer and his daughter Theresa, editor.

Great work.  This links up with my post on the squires oath and the four things I wanted the boys at the ecampment to remember.

The video was originally posted as a Standing Fast entry on AirMaria.

Chivalry Under Fire

I just googled the term Benedictio Novi Militis (Blessing of a New Knight) and happened upon a British feminist blog where I read this comment:

Polite is just custom, as is secular or modern chivalry, the religious version, blessing of sword on altar, truce of God, orphans, widows protected from mayhem,

I think “Benedictio novi militis.” was the first time since the Roman era that soldiers became respectable. In fact,

in the late Roman period in the west they were also hated, that aversion essentially continued to the crusades.

Chivalry is a boy-word for doing the right thing in the right circumstances. It’s as patriarchal as the pigeon splattered statues of yesterday’s war-mongering classes in the park.

To each calling there is a custom. If one is lining up for a life-boat, that’s probably not the time to make a big issue out of it

The whole post is quite interesting, as are the related posts, especially this one, which contains the following: Continue reading

Little Disney Feminists

Much to my chagrin, the post on this blog that has received the most hits is the one in which I linked to an article by a feminist on the evils of the Disney Princesses. I barely even commented on the article; I just provided the link. Over the last couple of months the hits have gone out of sight. I have no idea why and would be really interested to know why.

In my search for the reason, I have come across a better known article on the subject that was published in The New York Times in December, 2006 by Peggy Orenstein, entitled “What’s Wrong with Cinderella?” Seems the feminists have a love hate relationship with Cinderella and her cohorts. What would probably be more of concern to the regular readers of Mary Victrix is the way in which young girls are being hyper-sexualized and the way in which the story’s minimize fatherhood; what concerns the feminists, however, is the do-nothing, girlie-girl image of the Princesses (Mulan and Pocahontas, excepted).

In spite of her uneasiness with pink dresses and tiaras for toddlers Orenstein wonders if the current Princess-mania is part of the third wave of feminism. Women are claiming their “right” to have it all: to be one of the boys and a princess at the same time.

The first wave of feminism was the “fight for suffrage.” During the 60s and 70s of the women’s movement saw its second wave, which “fought for reproductive rights and economic, social and legal equality,” and which eschewed gender image altogether, especially that which made women subject to men, either by way of authority or sexuality. The third wave of feminism, according to Orenstein has reclaimed “sexual objectification as a woman’s right.” In other words the new feminists see nothing wrong with being a sex-object as long as it is on their own terms.

Now that “reproductive rights” are fairly secure, men are not entirely to be exiled from the midst of the Amazons. Now the game of exploitation can be engaged in on a much more level playing field. Now feminists are teaching girls to use their sexuality to secure their independence even further and have fun at the same time. They still remain concerned about issues of equality and the culture which puts so much pressure on girls to look like models and Hollywood actresses, but God forbid anyone teach chastity. They are worried about “age-inappropriate” exposure to the culture of lust, but not about the consequences of an unchaste spirit itself.

Without being paranoid, one would think that in this age of pedophilia,  the feminists would be less fearful of chastity and do more to reexamine the dictates of common sense.  One can still hope.

Disney is not the worst of it, for sure, what with Bratz dolls and fashions like Abercrombie & Fitch. Still, what remains particularly distressing about Disney is the target age of little girls and the relative “wholesomeness” of the Disney reputation in main-stream culture.

There seems to be a great deal of latent anger against men who have neglected and abused their wives and abandoned their children. We have much work to do in order to restore respect for the institution of fatherhood. Fathers have a tremendous amount of work to do in order to teach their sons to respect their mothers and sisters and to teach girls that not all male attention is exploitative and selfish.

Clear Hot Air on Catholics and Abortion

Some clear thinking from Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.

I am following up on earlier posts.

Many Catholics maneuver around this by simply ignoring it, and they’re free to do so.  Membership in the Church is voluntary, after all, and people can leave the Catholic Church if they disagree with its catechism (and strictly speaking, they should do so under those circumstances).   However, it’s either a gross misrepresentation or self-delusion to argue that abortion is simply one issue among many for observant Catholics and that economic policy or foreign affairs can outweigh it.

His earlier post is on the mark as well.

It remains to be seen how far Catholics like Doug Kmiec will push the envelope, and how long it will be before canon 915 is actually enforced.

From mealy-mouthed “Catholic” politicians and political advisors, deliver us, O Lord.

Templar Baloney Revisited (Updated)

Here we go again.

Well, someone from the Telegraph has at least finally read the Chinon Parchment instead of just repeating what the sensationalists continue to spout.

The occasion is the release of a new book by Michael Haag, which is reviewed by Christopher Howse:

Michael Haag, in his well-knit narrative, gets through an enormous spread of history, helpfully telling readers what the Bible has to say about the Jewish Temple before running through the Roman, Muslim and Crusader centuries. The after-history of the Templars is dominated by the imaginings of Freemasons and the conspiracy fancies of scarcely distinct alternative historians and novelists. If anything, the author is too tolerant of this froth. Historical truth does matter.

Why is that among authors who dedicate themselves to unraveling the “Templar mysteries” one after another are “too tolerant of this froth”? Perhaps, because frothy books sell better than honest and realistic ones? I am a perpetual stick in the mud.

Howse is refreshingly unsympathetic to Templar baloney, but unfortunately is also unsympathetic to the Church Militant:

Perhaps the Templars themselves were off-beam from their first dawn, since it seems to have escaped the notice of these poor, chaste and obedient monk-knights that Christ was not a soldier. They joined St Bernard in promoting the rather disastrous Second Crusade, but found little success in freeing Christian territories in the Holy Land from surrounding warring Islamic factions. They had better luck in Spain, where the frontier of reconquered territory pushed steadily southwards.

Hmm,  “Christ was not a soldier.”  Oh, really?  Seems Christ was more a soldier than St. George for Our Lord’s dragon threatened not just one virgin, but the whole human race.  Mr. Howse should read Genesis 3:15, John 19, Ephesians 5 and Revelations 12.

Furthermore, the word of Christ to soldiers was not a condemnation of soldering, but of the sins common to soldiers:  Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely–be content with your pay (Lk. 3:14).

Perhaps both the sensationalists and pacifists would do well to read some reliable history on the Crusades instead of relying on Ridley Scott.  (See this video at 3:16-3:27 for a nice taste of the slop that too many moviegoers are only too eager to lap up).

A sword salute and click of the heals to Frank Wilson.

Update:

Michael Haag, has commented below Mr Haag is the author of the book The Templars:  History and Myth, the review of which is the subject of this post.  His comment is a fair defense of his book, which I admittedly have not read.  See also my response to him following his comment.