The Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II is, I would contend, one of the most significant saints of the past century and of our “modern” times.
Clearly, every saint is of incalculable worth; yet there have been certain saints throughout the course of human history that occupy such a standing that their actions on the providential path which God ordained for them have vast implications for the world. Other examples would be St. Constantine and St. Vladimir.
One could easily speak on the deep personal attributes of Tsar Nicholas II, his profound faith and piety, his devotion as a husband, father, and ruler, together with his heartfelt concern for the well-being (physical and spiritual) of his country and the people God had entrusted to him.
He was a true pastor who did not flee before the wolves of secular humanism and in the end, in emulation of His Lord Jesus, laid down his life for his sheep.
As a husband, father, priest, and pastor, I am continually inspired by this priceless man, whose portrait hangs in my office.
Despite the virulent propaganda promoted by the communists, which is mindlessly repeated by many a modern historian, it is undeniable that the Tsar was a man of deep conviction, righteousness, and a just ruler, just as St. John of Kronstadt testifies.
Laying aside the consideration of his incalculable personal spiritual treasures, my goal is to briefly outline an aspect of his global, dare I say cosmic, significance.
The recognition that clearly emerged, most of all with the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity in the early 300’s — that the Caesar (Tsar) was ordained by God for the good and godly ordering of governmental affairs — is an understanding that became a bedrock of Christian society. Ideally, this God-ordained earthly authority worked in harmony, in symphony, with the Church. Moreover, true and lasting earthly government, to be just and true, must be founded upon the eternal and divinely revealed principles of Orthodoxy. Ultimately a very important reality was and is confessed – God alone is the source of all true authority. Here there is no dialectic of church and state as found later in Western Europe, nor is present the bizarre “theocracies” such as appeared in Munster under Anabaptist rule. The Tsar was never outside the Church or above the law. He was first and foremost to be a servant of Christ and a minister of the Gospel.
This is not to say that bad rulers do not arise. But ultimately, the whole course of the world is in God’s hands. The fact that evil authority arises (mainly because people actively seek not to be ruled by God) is another topic. For now, I am speaking of the ideal of Christian authority.
Through all the ups and downs of history, this principle is evident in the (imperfect) spiritual striving of both Byzantium and Holy Rus’. Temporal earthly authority has a very important role: to help guide people to the eternal and heavenly Kingdom.
The modern secular ideal of government is based on “Enlightenment” ideology and its subsequent evolution into the revolutionary mindset. The Granddad of modern revolutions, the French Revolution, made no attempt to hide the fact that it desired the complete overthrow of “throne and altar.” The brutal history of bloody secular revolutions has always set as primary targets royalty and clergy (and anyone who would support them).
A very enticing motto was created – rule for the people and by the people. The essential problem here is an inversion of authority. In the Christian ideal authority to rule (as Tsar or President) comes ultimately from God. In modern democracies the authority to rule is said to reside in, that is, takes its source from, the people. The people may choose who and what they want to rule over them (while at times, in some instances, giving lip service to God). This is pure humanism. The people are deluded into thinking that they are the source of authority for those who rule over them; thus ascribing to themselves, as if possible, an authority that belongs to God alone. Meanwhile, the rulers are “freed” from the notion that they will answer to a Higher Authority, and thus they now may do whatever is “right in their own eyes.”
In such an inversion, rather than the government assisting to prepare people for ultimate eternal existence, it becomes totally consumed with the base tendencies of humanity and the enshrining of these tendencies in civil law. Subjective and nebulous ideas such as “human rights” and “equality” replace the objective realities of Christian charity and love. The tyranny of fallen human perversions and passions become the dictators of human existence; any attempt to inhibit them is called a restriction of freedom, an infringement on “human rights,” and hateful. Fallen human degeneracy becomes a “right” which must be protected and even promoted under civil law. The “people” and their governments begin to believe that they have the authority, power, and right to rewrite the definitions of human morality and existence. This is the situation in the democracies of the West at present.
St. John Maximovich asks a very important question,
“Why was Tsar Nicholas II persecuted and killed?”
And he provides a wise answer,
“Because he was Tsar, Tsar by the grace of God. He was the bearer and incarnation of the Orthodox worldview that the Tsar is the servant of God, the Anointed of God, and that to Him he must give an account for the people entrusted to him by destiny.”
To rule as Tsar was a sacramental act, a mysterion. At the coronation of the Russian Tsar, he would enter the altar and commune in the same manner as a priest. As the priest is bound to give an answer to God for the flock with which he is entrusted, so the Tsar is pertinently reminded that he will ultimately answer to the King of kings for the people over whom God has placed him as ruler.
Thus, the Tsar stood as an icon of the reality of heavenly rule; a reminder to even other rulers of the earth that true sovereignty belongs to God Most-High, the High King of all. The Orthodox Tsar (both Byzantine and Russian) is also seen as a restraining force to social chaos, lawlessness, and degeneracy. St. Paul states in 2 Thessalonians,“For the mystery of lawlessness already is energizing itself, only there is the one who restrains now, until he should be taken out of the midst. And then the lawless one shall be revealed …” (2:7-8a). “The one who restrains” is traditionally understood to be the Orthodox Tsar. St. John Chrysostom comments:
“That is, whenever the empire is taken out of the way, then he shall come. For as long as there is fear of the empire, no one will willingly exalt himself. But when it is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the sovereignty both of man and God.”
The clear implications, in which we possibly live, are that once the Orthodox Tsar together with the Empire falls, then the way will be cleared for the antichrist. He will exploit the social, moral, and spiritual confusion and lawlessness which will be the dominant situation in the world.
St. John Maximovich further reveals:
“The meaning for world history of the martyr’s death of the Imperial Family, something that likens it to the most significant Biblical events, consists of the fact that here the Constantionopolitan period of the existence of the Church of Christ comes to an end, and a new, martyric, apocalyptic age opens up. It is begun with the voluntary sacrifice of the last anointed Orthodox Emperor and his family.”
Thus, the removal and martyrdom of the last Orthodox Tsar have vast cosmic ramifications.
Maybe the world was no longer worthy of such an ideal. Maybe we all love our own authority a little too much. Regardless, after the martyrdom of the Tsar, the world entered into a time of unheard of global chaos, socially and morally. The foundations of the “old world” have been relentlessly assaulted. A new world is indeed arising but I am afraid its end has long been prophesied.
Godless, anarchist, and iconoclastic secular humanism, under the manifestation of Soviet communism, ruthlessly murdered the Tsar and his family because he was an Orthodox Christian and the Tsar. He stood as an icon of Godly rule; a reminder that humanity and all its earthly authority must answer to God. Secular humanism hates this. The utterly inhuman brutality with which the Tsar and his wife and children were killed reveals the demonic face and goal of godless secularism in all its forms. May those westerners with sanity hear and tremble, the godless agenda of sovietism is alive and well in the West. Its mask may have had an upgrade, but the demonic face behind it remains the same.
Fr. Zechariah Lynch & his wife Natalia
Isabel Allende: ‘There is a real war against women’ | USA
The world’s best-selling Spanish-language author talks feminism and love in later life as she unveils Violeta, a novel about the world between two pandemics.
Isabel Allende published her debut novel at the age of 40, finding global success with The House of the Spirits, about the tangled history of a Chilean family leading up to the years of the country’s dictatorship. This was followed by almost 30 books that have sold around 70 million copies in 42 languages. Now on the verge of turning 80, Isabel Allende lives a semi-reclusive life in San Francisco and will publish the English-language version of Violeta, her latest novel, next week. This new tale begins in the 1920s with the havoc wreaked by the so-called Spanish flu, and ends 100 years later in the midst of our own pandemic.
This perfect ellipsis is used to pay homage to her mother’s generation, though it never neglects her usual themes: domination, power, women’s aspirations to enter forbidden spaces, freedom, loyalty and love. Allende believes that Chile has a new chance with the election of the youthful left-winger Gabriel Boric, and is proud to have become a passionate old woman. She speaks openly of her marriages and relationships, of the death of her daughter Paula, and the fear of love she sees in her grandchildren’s generation.
What follows is an edited version of her interview with EL PAÍS.
Question. Your new novel, Violeta, begins with the wrongly-named Spanish flu and ends in the times of Covid-19. What a good tool literature is for tracing historical ellipses, don’t you think?
Answer. It was almost natural that it came out that way. The idea was born when my mother died, a year before the pandemic. If she had lived another year, she would have been 100 years old. She was born in a pandemic, because the flu arrived in Chile in 1920, and she would have died in another one. When she died, many people told me to write her story. We had an extraordinary relationship. But she was always submissive, first to her father and then to her husband. There is no self-fulfillment for a woman if she cannot support herself. If you depend on someone else to pay your bills, you have to bow down. And that was my mother’s fate, even though she was a very creative woman. As I wrote, not knowing what Violeta would become, I think that deep down she is the woman I would have liked my mother to be.
Q. Your mother was an artist, she painted?
A. She painted and had an eye for business. If her father and husband had listened to her, they would have ended up rich. She knew instinctively where to invest.
Q. What sets your generation apart from your mother’s? In a short time a big gap was created.
A. My generation went out on the streets, and many went to college, although I didn’t. They looked for work and they earned a living. But this is within a specific social class. The humblest and hardest workers have always supported their families; I am talking about that class of girls who were educated to be wives and mothers.
Q. You have always been interested in inventing women with grit and determination.
A. I am surrounded by them! Extraordinary women. Often I find a human model to develop as a character, but I’m overwhelmed by reality because they achieve things I would never have dreamed of.
Q. Reality itself is often an exaggeration… should we suppress that in fiction?
A. Exactly. When I wrote The Infinite Plan, based on my second husband William Gordon, there were critics who argued that no one could have all that happen to them, yet I had to cut some things out to make it believable. Fiction must be believable, and at times life is not.
Q. What are your work’s obsessions? What questions are still present and what answers have you not found?
A. They are always the same: love and death. Violence, the need for justice, loyalty and courage. And a subject that haunts me: power with impunity, both in the family and in society.
Q. You fail to mention feminism. You say that the key to that movement is not what women have between their legs, but between their ears.
If Boric manages to do half of what he intends to, it will already be a step forward
A. Of course, that has marked my whole life! We live in a patriarchy. Morals, laws, everything is mostly done by men. We women have to find loopholes to let our voices be heard. More and more often we are succeeding. But we are not there yet. There is a real war against women.
Q. The problem in the West is that there is a far right wing that maintains that the patriarchy is in danger and that the loopholes to which you allude are already too numerous. What do we do?
A. Didn’t I tell you that we live under a patriarchy? By that logic, they don’t like any gains from the other side. But women have been tearing bits and pieces out of the situation little by little. And they will succeed, but I will not be alive to see it. Even so, I feel the rumbling underground energy of young people. Look at what just happened in Chile.
Q. I was thinking that too.
A. A young man like Gabriel Boric, 35 years old, has won [a presidential election]. Who voted for him? 63% of women and three out of four young people too. I feel that energy, and that is why I am very optimistic about the future. They are not going to stand idly by as these old fogeys run the world.
Q. What do you think these elections crystallized?
A. What has been going on for many years. Inequality, discontent, corruption and impunity produced an outburst in 2019. They did not really know what they were demanding. It was not just the price of a subway ticket, although that served as an excuse: it was privatization, the state of education, the scandalously miserable pensions, the complete corruption of the whole system. They demanded a new constitution. Democratic, and not imposed from above as has happened with all of them since the beginning. The pandemic sent everyone home and it all seemed to be frozen, but the election came along and it had not been forgotten, far from it. Things are happening there.
Q. Of course.
A. If Boric manages to do half of what he intends to, it will already be a step forward. His acceptance speech summarized in 17 minutes the great aspirations I have for Chile: inclusion, equality, women, diversity, democracy, respect for nature. If he succeeds, it will be a huge step forward. If the CIA doesn’t get involved, of course.
Q. How has that young woman who you once were, going into exile, been stirred up during the months of campaigning?
A. It’s been a long time. We live in another country, in another world. I notice a little wink from Boric to Allende. But I never think about that girl anymore.
Q. Is she someone you have definitely left behind?
A. Yes, deep down, when I go to Chile, I feel like a foreigner. The dictatorship changed it completely. It’s another country. I feel Chilean if I talk to people, but if I go there, I feel as foreign as in the United States, where I live.
Q. So you define yourself as a foreigner and you’re not at all nostalgic?
A. I am nostalgic for that time when I felt I belonged somewhere. But it is a sentimental, romantic and very unrealistic nostalgia.
Q. A kind of nostalgia, on the other hand, that is good for your work?
A. Yes, because that’s where my roots nourish me. This last book, for example, although I never mention it, I could not have written it if I did not come from Chile. I carry it here, in my heart.
Q. Violeta also carries things in her heart. For example, when one does the formula “wife plus mother equals boredom,” it’s mathematics. Isn’t it the same equation that you confess to having experienced in your first marriage?
A. Yes, it certainly draws on personal experiences. My first husband, Miguel Frías, was like Violeta’s first husband: respectable and a good person. Then came the passion I experienced in Venezuela with an Argentinean. He made me leave that first husband and my children, but it didn’t last, and I quickly became disillusioned. When I feel that affection, mutual respect and admiration is over, that’s it. Ciao!
I think it takes more courage to stay in a relationship that doesn’t work than to leave
Q. Even so, you got married again.
A. Yes, to a fascinating, adventurous man who at first you weren’t sure if he was a criminal or not, and that was Willie Gordon. But that too ended when I noticed that on his side the affection had stopped. I could have gone on, but as soon as I realized it, it was “Ciao!” again. I got divorced at 74 and people said, “What? You are going to be all alone.” Well, I think it takes more courage to stay in a relationship that doesn’t work than to leave.
Q. And then Roger came into your life. Your third partner.
A. Roger gives me what I need: a lot of love. The rest I can get on my own. But I can’t allow myself that unless I get it as a gift. And he gives it to me!
Q. Does this fulfill your aspiration to become what you were looking for, a passionate old woman?
A. I’ve been training all my life for that. Don’t you think that you can just get to old age and be passionate, you have to train for it.
A. By taking risks. By throwing yourself into adventures, participating in life with curiosity about others and the world, not settling in where you feel good. I see young people my grandchildren’s age who have cautious relationships, who don’t want to suffer. What are you going to do with your life if you don’t want to suffer?
Q. They are often overprotected by their parents. Is that good or unrealistic? Shouldn’t they suffer a little more?
A. That’s what I say, let them suffer a little. Gentle neglect works well for children. That’s how I raised Paula and Nicolás. I held down three jobs simultaneously when I was raising them, I didn’t have time to keep an eye on what they were doing. I suppose they took a lot of risks and did stupid things, but they also grew up without me monitoring everything.
Q. The happiest moments of your life, you say, were when you held them in your arms for the first time, and the saddest, when you held Paula, who was dying. Have you been able to turn that grief into something positive?
A. Yes, into action. Writing the book about my daughter, Paula, helped me to put it into words, to understand what had happened. Her year-long agony was a very dark night. Everything was a haze of pain and anguish. When I started organizing it, based on things I had written to my mother and the notes I took, I realized that my daughter’s only way out was death. I had to accept it, understand it, try to get rid of the rage I had built up from that neglect that gave her severe brain damage. Nobody tried to hurt her on purpose; it was a series of circumstances. I received thousands of letters, as there was no internet. And by answering them, all of them, I was developing a communication process with people. Everyone has suffered losses and pain. That was extraordinary. I feel Paula everywhere. I won’t say I’m seeing ghosts, but it’s a very strong feeling. And the proceeds from that book went to a foundation that is dedicated to doing what she would be doing if she were alive, defending the fundamental rights of women and children.
Q. Which is more painful and which is celebratory, writing about one’s parents or one’s children?
A. I don’t know. I make use of them all: parents, grandparents, children, cousins… When I published The Sum of Our Days, my son Nicolás told me: “Please, mom, don’t ever write about me again. I have a private life and I don’t want to expose my family.” And I didn’t. It’s been 15 years since that memoir and no more.
Q. After Paula, in Aphrodite you paid tribute to aphrodisiacs. Did it work for you?
A. I was lucky that book was published four months before Viagra appeared. Otherwise, not a single copy would have been sold.
Q. Thank goodness!
A. After Paula was published, I couldn’t write anything. Everything came out flat, gray, boring, impossible. I remembered that I was a journalist and I looked for a subject that was as far away from grief as possible: love, gluttony, sex. And the bridge between these are aphrodisiacs, so when I researched and tested the recipes with friends…
Q. Tell me which ones really work.
A. None, the only thing that works is imagination.
Q. The same in men as in women?
A. Especially with women, we romanticize everything, we get sentimental, we make up stories because we find that much more stimulating than anything else. Men are very visual. I don’t know if Playboy magazine still exists. They have tried to make those magazines for women and they don’t work. They’re bought by homosexuals. We don’t get turned on by seeing a half-naked man, we get turned on by having something whispered in our ear. The G-spot is in the ear, you don’t need to look for it elsewhere.
Q. Wise advice at almost 80 years old!
A. I’m almost there!
Q. Do you plan your books much?
A. Nooooo! Except if they deal with historical episodes. I’ve learned after 40 years of writing to relax, to not try to force either the story or the characters with what I previously thought it should be. If I let myself go by instinct and enjoyment, discovering what happens, it usually works much better. There is a very intuitive part to writing.
Q. Many consider you to be one of the very few female voices of the Latin American Boom, a very masculine movement.
A. Well, that’s what they said when House of the Spirits appeared, that I was the only woman in that movement. But then they quickly erased me, I don’t know why, and labeled me as post-Boom. And you know what? Nobody likes to be considered “post” anything.
Former pope Benedict criticised in Munich church abuse report
German investigators have said it was “overwhelmingly likely” that Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI was aware of a paedophile priest in his former Munich archdiocese and dismissed as “not credible” his claims he did not attend a key meeting where the cleric was discussed.
On Thursday, lawyers commissioned by the Catholic archdiocese of Munich and Freising presented a report identifying 497 cases of clerical sexual abuse and identified 235 perpetrators – with 42 cases now passed on to state prosecutors.
The report is based on examination of archdiocese files and identifies two cases in which prosecutors say the current archbishop of Munich, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, breached church rules and did not report abusers to the Holy See.
The report found that 40 of the perpetrator priests identified were known to their superiors at the time of their abuse yet allowed to continue their pastoral work, with many moved to new parishes unaware of their behaviour. Only a handful of priests were punished and laicised.
In the case of Benedict, who served as Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger from 1977 to 1982 in Bavaria, investigators uncovered four cases of abusing priests during that time but “no indication” the archbishop was interested in abuse victims.
In response to a catalogue of written questions, the retired pope provided an 82-page written response rejecting claims he knew of abusing priests during his time heading the archdiocese.
“We consider the information from Pope Benedict to be not credible,” said Dr Ulrich Wastl, one of the investigators at a press conference.
Presenting the four-volume report, he said it revealed a “shocking picture” of an institution that, for decades, ignored victims of clerical sexual abuse. Those who took note of survivors, he added, were usually seen “as a danger for the institution”.
Co-investigator Marion Westphal said they had uncovered a “terrible phenomenon of cover-up”. After this report, their second for the Munich archdiocese in a decade, she said the time of investigation had passed and the time of “individual guilt” had come.
The investigators declined to say what consequences, if any, the report should have for the 94-year-old former pontiff.
An entire volume of the report is devoted to one priest who was moved from the diocese of Essen to Munich-Freising in January 1980 for treatment for his paedophile tendencies.
More than two dozen men, in both dioceses, are on record as saying they were sexually abused as teenagers by the priest, identified only as Peter H, often after he gave them alcohol and showed them pornography.
When the case first came to light a decade ago, Munich and Rome moved quickly to insist Benedict, then still pope, had known nothing of the abuse during his time as archbishop.
Ahead of Thursday’s report, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, private secretary to the retired pope, insisted it was “incorrect to claim [Ratzinger] had knowledge of the previous history [claims of sexual assault] at the point of the decision to accept the priest H. He had no knowledge of this previous history.”
In his written response to investigators, the retired pope insists he did not attend a meeting on January 15th, 1980, at which the priest was accepted for therapy.
But a 2016 internal report, commissioned by the Munich archdiocese, disagrees, saying Ratzinger, “knowing the facts” about the priest accepted him and “ignored” a 1962 obligation to report the priest to Rome.
On Thursday, investigating lawyers presented details from the minutes of the January 1980 meeting at which the transfer of the priest was discussed, indicating that the archbishop attended.
The investigating lawyers said they “regretted deeply” that Cardinal Marx declined an invitation to attend Thursday’s presentation. He will make a statement in the afternoon and hold a press conference in a week’s time, after he has had time to read the 1,000-page report.
Planned review of State agencies’ actions dropped in 2018
A proposed inquiry into the sexual abuse and neglect of several children by family members in the Munster area, to examine the actions of State agencies in the case, was previously shelved.
The review, announced in 2018, was halted after a number of months due to concerns raised by those conducting the work and the government’s legal adviser over fears it could prejudice criminal investigations.
On Tuesday, five family members were sentenced and jailed over the abuse and neglect, after earlier being found guilty by a jury of a total of 77 counts against the children following a 10-week trial last summer.
The family members were the parents, aunt and uncles of the children, and cannot be named for legal reasons. They were all found guilty of sexually abusing the three eldest children between 2014 and 2016, while the parents were found guilty of wilfully neglecting five of the children, who ranged in age from one to nine during this period.
Following initial media reports in early 2018, then minister for children Katherine Zappone announced she was to commission an independent review into the serious case of abuse and neglect.
The review was to include an examination of the actions of An Garda Síochána and Tusla, and how they responded to the case.
The children came to the attention of the State’s social services in 2011, and there was extensive engagement between social workers and the family over several years, the trial heard.
Following years of severe neglect, the children were removed from the family home by Tusla in 2016, and placed in foster care. Later that year the eldest child made a disclosure about sexual abuse to his foster parents, which Tusla referred to gardaí, who later opened an investigation.
The proposed independent review of the case was to be led by Dr Geoffrey Shannon, child law expert and former special rapporteur on child protection. A three-person review panel would also include child welfare consultant Suzanne Phelan and retired Garda chief superintendent Pádraig Kennedy.
Internal Department of Children records show officials were in regular contact with Dr Shannon about the proposed review over several months in 2018, before it was halted.
It is understood those involved in the review raised concerns about the work impacting on the criminal case, which were shared by then attorney general Séamus Woulfe, and led to the review being dropped.
A 2019 briefing note from Fergal Lynch, department secretary general, said it “did not prove possible to frame terms of reference that successfully guarded against the dangers of pre-empting the criminal cases that were in process”.
“After a number of months it had to be postponed, because the Attorney General was very concerned about the potential effect on criminal cases pending,” he wrote in the note, released under the Freedom of Information Act.
In a statement on Wednesday, Tulsa said it would review the Munster abuse case “when appropriate to identify any learnings or insights that can be gained from our involvement in the lives of the children and their families”. The agency said its main focus continued to be to “support the children who were the victims in this case”.
Macron promises strong EU borders
‘I was just really scared’: Apple AirTags lead to stalking complaints | Technology
No reasons recorded for low rates of successful speeding prosecutions
The 1915 Armenian Genocide and its Russophobic Origins
What’s artificial intelligence best at? Stealing human ideas | Technology
The Religious Roots of Russia’s Mistrust towards the West
Technology1 week ago
Microsoft starts 2022 with 96 CVEs for Patch Tuesday • The Register
Culture1 week ago
Online portal for antigen test results to go live tomorrow, says Donnelly
Current1 week ago
Record €19m Lotto jackpot will be clinched in ‘must be won’ draw
Technology1 week ago
Belfast’s Kainos snaps up US tech company Blackline
Technology1 week ago
Ireland’s M&A deals reached record-breaking levels in 2021
Global Affairs1 week ago
‘No running water’: foreign workers criticise UK farm labour scheme | Workers’ rights
Current1 week ago
London only just pips Cornwall as most searched area for homes
Technology1 week ago
Cork start-up Clearword raises $3.25m in seed funding