#its the rome vs england thing i fear.......

[crookedghosts]

why the fuck hasn't anyone written a valgrace x Red White and Royal Blue AU yet. Jason Grace as the Prince of England's Hearts falls in love with FSOTUS aka Bisexual Disaster Supreme Leo Valdez

[bopinion]

2021 / 26

Aperçu of the Week:

"If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, the prosperity, and the glory which its people would enjoy."

Sir Winston Churchill

Bad News of the Week:

Over the years, the EU has evolved from a purely economic alliance into a community of values. Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union makes this "respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights." And these values must be defended. Unfortunately, not only externally in bilateral relations with the whole world, but increasingly internally. Two incidents of the last week fill me with concern in this regard.

The highest body of the EU is the so-called Council, consisting of the heads of government of all member states. The presidency rotates every 6 months, and since July 1, 2021, it is held by Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Janša. The former constituent republic of socialist Yugoslavia and of it since 2004 first EU member is a European success story. A member of NATO and, since 2007, of the euro zone, Slovenia is now the most prosperous country in the Balkans. According to a 2020 assessment by the Bertelsmann Stiftung, it has achieved above-average success in its economic transformation and political development. And the United Nations Development Program ranks the parliamentary republic among the countries with very high human development.

So the European community of values should actually be in good hands with the head of government of this model student of democratization. Actually. Because Janša, to put it mildly, is polarizing. He repeatedly doubted that global warming in the context of climate change was man-made. He argues for the right of Slovenian citizens to carry firearms. He considers "cultural Marxism" a key threat to the European Union. He congratulated incumbent Donald Trump on his election victory in 2020 before the vote count ended. He has been investigated several times for corruption, once resulting in a prison sentence. He sympathizes with Identitarian movements. He constantly tries to undermine freedom of the press and independence of the judiciary. And and and...

Usually, an EU Council president is expected to moderate, to seek balance, to mediate, to push the general agenda forward, etc. But this agenda currently includes possible sanctions against member states if they do not respect the defined values. The headliner here is, of course, Viktor Orbán. And now Janša has backed Orbán in the dispute over a Hungarian law restricting minors' rights to information on homosexuality. It is to be feared that he will instrumentalize his temporary office - for the first time in its history - to support personal interests. And he will gladly do so against the EU itself.

Another essential body of the EU is the directly elected parliament. In it, the political camps form factions according to their basic orientation, with conservatives, social democrats, liberals and greens dominating. This stable structure, which reflects the preferences of EU citizens, is now facing a challenge: the right-wing populists.

Under the leadership of Marine Le Pen of France's Rassemblement National, Matteo Salvini of Italy's Lega and Viktor Orbán of Hungary's Fidesz, 16 parties explicitly belonging to the right-wing spectrum are preparing to build a new alliance. In addition to the above-mentioned parties, the corresponding parties from Poland, Spain, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Romania, Greece, Bulgaria and the Netherlands are also part of the alliance.

The planned alliance is the "first stone" in the construction of an alliance to "reform Europe," according to the official declaration of intent. This alliance is the "basis of a common cultural and political work," adds Le Pen, Salvini calls the agreement a "charter of values" on the basis of which a Europe is to be built that is based "on freedom and identity instead of bureaucracy and standardization." In other words, they are planning the overthrow.

Good News of the Week:

A fundamental pillar of every democratic legal system is the principle of "giving the accused the benefit of the doubt". Even in ancient Rome, "In dubio pro reo" applied, and it is still true today: everyone must be presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is good and makes sense. In the 19th century, people in this country spoke of preferring to let twelve guilty people go free rather than hang one innocent person. Innocence weighed more than guilt. So far, so civilized.

Another legal principle in ancient Rome was "Ne bis in idem": (You can) not (be accused) twice for the same. This principle, too, has made it into the modern rule of law. Until last week. Because then the German Bundestag decided to change the underlying law. The background to this is the availability today of forensic and criminal technology resources and tools that did not exist in the past. The decision is causing a great deal of discussion among legal experts.

On the one hand, some see it as calling into question the legal authority of the judiciary. After all, the verdict must be valid - forever. Publicist Franziska Augstein (yes, she is his daughter) denounces this with verve under the headline "Forever suspect". The law would subject once accused to lifelong fear. They would face a lifetime of having their case retried. So what? Victims always have to suffer the consequences of a crime for life.

On the other hand, in some cases it is possible to prove guilt after the fact. I can remember a case in which, after twenty years, fiber and DNA traces led to the conviction of a perpetrator who had kidnapped a child and left it to die in captivity. But at that time he was acquitted for lack of evidence (which was technically not usable at that time). And therefore - "Ne bis in idem" - he could not be charged and convicted again. He remained a free man despite proven guilt. How do you want to explain this to the parents of this child? Everything in me bristles.

Other news of the last days: Bill Cosby was released early from prison. He was the first legally convicted celebrity in #metoo. So why was a clearly guilty man who drugged and raped women released early? For one thing, because many of his at least 60 victims were not considered in court because his acts were "time-barred" - another one of those issues that doesn't sit right in my head without complications. On the other hand, because there was a legal "formal error" in the agreement between two prosecutors. I also find it difficult to acknowledge this.

In this respect, I am satisfied that resourceful - and expensive, since it is usually the financial strength of a defendant that determines the quality of his defense (this, too, does not correspond to my sense of justice) - lawyers now have one less legal dodge at their disposal, which is questionable at least in some cases. For there is one principle of jurisprudence that cannot be shaken: proof beyond reasonable doubt. In my opinion, this has to count. And it should count regardless of when it came to light, by whom, and under what circumstances. Likewise victims should have a higher value than (proven!) perpetrators. After all, Justitia is supposed to be blind - and not stupid.

Personal happy moment of the week:

In French, my son got an A on a team assignment. That is remarkable. Because according to his own statement, he "hates" this school subject. Which is a shame, because after all, his stepmother, a French Canadian, and I speak and love this language. However, I have to concede to him that, especially at his age, the teacher is crucial (I just leave it there). And that the first year of a new subject under "pandemic circumstances" is anything but ideal. Nevertheless, his big sister should finally stop picking on this belle langue - after all, she is a role model!

I couldn't care less...

...that Germany has been kicked out of UEFA Euro 2020. The Belgium vs. Italy match on Friday, for example, clearly showed that there are simply much better teams at the moment. And apparently also better coaches - I really don't understand any of this, but some tactical lineups seemed questionable even to me. But that doesn't mean that I would root for England now ;-)

As I write this...

...only with the right hand, I suffer from the so called "Moderna arm" - it's a good thing that as a right-handed person I had the first COVID vaccination put into my left arm. My daughter had still told me to let my arm rotate vigorously in order to avoid exactly that. But when everyone else in the waiting area looked at me a little irritated, I let it go. That was probably a mistake.

[minervacasterly]

~Henry VII: More Myth than Man - The Red Dragon's Odyssey~

“He was comely personage, a little above just stature, well and straight-limbed, but slender. His countenance was revered, and a little like a churchman, and as it was not strange or dark so neither was it winning or pleasing, but as the face of one well disposed. But it was to the disadvantage of the painter, for it was best when he spoke.” (Francis Bacon) Although written a century after his death, Francis Bacon’s description of the first Tudor King, is right on the spot. Linda Porter for her part, says the following in her book "Tudors vs Stewarts": “[He was] A considered person, not given to great public displays of emotion, somewhat ascetic in appearance, not exactly handsome but with an interesting and by no means unattractive face, the whole man only at his most appealing when he was animated. His portraits show that he did, indeed, have something of the churchman about him: a calm and also inscrutability, a sense that you would never entirely know that he was thinking. It gave him an air of authority.” Henry was formerly the Earl of Richmond, a title he inherited before his birth from his late father, Edmund Tudor, half-brother to the last Lancastrian King, Henry VI. Henry was named after his half-uncle and after he and his direct family died, he went into exile where he spent thirteen years as an 'honored guest' of the Duke of Brittany, Francis II, before spending his fourteenth year in France. The French King and his influential sister, Anne of Brittany, gave Henry funds and men for his campaign against the "usurper", King Richard III. After the Battle of Bosworth, he became King of England. According to one legend, one of his men found the crown lying in a thornbush near the slain Richard III. Some early Tudor motifs depict this, making this legend a popular truth in the minds of his future subjects who grew up knowing nothing else but the version of events that Henry and his descendants gave them. Archaeological evidence puts to the test some of the claims made by both parties. In his book "Bosworth", Michale Jones, says that most of what the Tudor chroniclers wrote must not be taken at face value since they were written after the outcome of the battle, nonetheless, he does give credence to some contemporary accounts as they corroborate medieval attitudes. Henry was 28 when he was crowned King of England and Lord of Ireland. Three years older than his granddaughter and last monarch of his dynasty, Elizabeth I, and like her and his other granddaughter, he had already experienced a lot. Aside from his exile, he had escaped assassination and kidnapping attempts from his late father-in-law, Edward IV. At a young age, he learned to trust no one and rely on his wits and those closest to him and blood. He was well-aware of the fact that without his uncle Jasper and mother, he would have never made it this far. He showed his gratitude by giving them titles, lands and positions that made them two of the richest and most influential peers in England. While his wife was not a political figure like many of her predecessors, she remained a constant figure in his life. He and Elizabeth loved and respected one another and as they swore to do on their wedding day, they were there for each other in sickness and in health. When they lost their firstborn and eldest son, Prince Arthur, Elizabeth of York was the first one to comfort Henry, reminding him of their duty and their youth -that they still had more years ahead of them and could still give the House of Tudor one more heir- and afterwards, Henry did the same for her. Henry showed a deep appreciation for the land of his birth, Wales, rewarding all of his Welsh commanders and creating new posts for some of them, as well as using the symbol of their flag as part of his royal coat of arms. To this day, the red dragon that represents Cadwalldr and in the Tudor years, came to be associated with the new dynasty, is still the symbol of Wales. To avoid another recession or economic collapse, Henry continued (albeit improving them) Edward IV's economic policies. Today we often hear about social scientists stressing on employers to make sure that they are in a good place (mentally), otherwise, their decisions could affect the well-being of their employees as well as themselves. This could not be truer for Henry VII. While his successes are commendable; sadly, they are overshadowed by the last years of his reign. Thomas Penn heavily focuses on these last years in his book "The Winter King" and in his documentary of the same name. He lists how Henry became more paranoid and closeted himself from the outside world, coming out only for special occasions. This was due to his personal losses. By 1503, he had lost his uncle, eldest son, wife and baby daughter and was soon to lose his eldest and favorite daughter, Margaret. Named after his mother -whose counsel he still valued-, Henry was close to his eldest daughter but like every royal father, he was well aware that if he wanted the peace between England and Scotland to remain (something that few other English kings achieved) he had to do this small sacrifice. Princess Margaret knew what her duty was and was ready to fulfill her royal obligations. In mid 1503, a few months after her mother died, Margaret left England. Months later she arrived to Scotland where she married King James IV, becoming Queen Consort of Scotland. Although Henry never saw his daughter again, the two remained close. Distance could not sever their bond anymore than Henry's lament for his dead ones could. The two continued to write to each other until Henry's dying breath in 1509, six years later. This affectionate persona is often dismissed by writers, because it detracts readers from focusing on the negative aspects they present them with to prove their case that Henry was a tyrant, or, that if he didn't start as one, he surely became one. But was he a tyrant? What is the truth behind the fiction? Towards the end of his life, Henry did become paranoid and he did enact policies that bled his country dry; but as it's been pointed out, this was due to the effect his personal losses had on him as well as the threats that still lingered abroad. Though he had rid himself of most Yorkists, including their puppets; there were still some out there whom he feared would be used against him in the same manner as he had been used against Richard III. And unlike his predecessors, including the king he deposed, Henry's claim was tenuous and his successes weren't enough to convince anyone of the validity of his claim, or the legitimacy of his offspring who were the embodiment of York and Lancaster. This made Henry uneasy and with only one male heir and no spare, Henry became increasingly cautious, seeing enemies everywhere. He was determined to safeguard what remained of his family and protect his only remaining son. By the time he died, the crown was wealthier than it had been in decades. His son, also named Henry, ascended to the throne as a seventeen year old and was crowned months later when he became eighteen. Henry VIII honored his father's legacy, reminding everyone of his father's victory, his parents' union, and the product of the union: Himself, as the living embodiment of their dream. The perfect union of Lancaster and York from which sprung a new hope who'd brought to England a golden age. And while some did dispute this, most were wise not to say a word unless they wanted to risk their heads at the chopping block or be accused as heretics by His Majesty's inquisitors. But, concerned with his own legacy, Henry VIII also delivered some clever jabs at his father. In the famous Tudor Dynasty portrait, both Henrys lean next to a pillar with their respective wives -Jane Seymour and Elizabeth of York- at the opposite side, that reads that while Henry VII was amazing, his son was more amazing because he separated from the church -thus freeing England from its shackles that bound it to Rome- and made himself pope, making the authority of a monarch absolute which was more than his father could have ever dreamed of. Henry VIII was certainly important and by many people's standards, a legend, but so was his father. His father should have never been King of England and yet he became one. Without him, there would have been no Tudors or strong king who would've gotten away with breaking away from Rome and making himself Head of his new Church.* To loosely quote Chris Skidmore from his book "Bosworth", the odds were stacked against him and he still kept advancing until he reached his ultimate goal and exceeded everyone's expectations. The end result was a mixture of luck, good timing, bad weather, indecision and bad choices on the part of his enemy. On the 30th of October 1485, Henry Tudor was crowned King of England. Months later he married the beautiful Elizabeth of the House of York whom he had re-legitimized by legitimizing her parents' union that Richard III through parliament had declared unlawful. While his last name died off with his granddaughter, his dream of seeing his dynasty overshadow all others came true. Controversy, success, among all other things, are what continue to make the Tudors one of the most interesting figures in history. *It was Henry VII's actions to eliminate private liveries that allowed for this. Henry had seen how easy it was for nobles to assemble an army. The Plantagents tried to do this but had little success. They had to keep their nobles content in order to avoid revolt, while others who were less eager to play the role of gracious hosts to them had to keep constant vigilance by placing spies on their households. Henry VII also increased the number of spies and required more tests of loyalty from his noble subjects which his successors, including his grandchildren, imitated, to ensure that no noble would ever overthrow them. This is one of the many reasons why ALL the Tudor Kings and Queen died in their beds instead of the battlefield or poisoned. Sources: Tudor vs Stewarts by Linda Porter Tudor by Leanda de Lisle Wars of the Roses: The Fall of Plantagenets and Rise the Tudors by Dan Jones Bosworth by Chris Skidmore Bosworth 1485 Michael K. Jones Henry VII by SB Chrimes Tudor Treasury by Elizabeth Norton Winter King by Thomas Penn Elizabeth of York by Amy Licence

[ticket4futball]

Euro 2020: Gareth Southgate warns against England complacency

Gareth Southgate has warned beside complacency when England was handed a fortunate draw for next summertime’s Euro 2020 finals that means they face a replay of the 2018 World Cup semi-final alongside Croatia.

Wales face a complicated undertaking to progress after being combined with Turkey, Italy, and Switzerland. Euro Cup fans can purchase England Euro Cup Tickets online to enjoy its stunning performances.

England, by now guaranteed of playing all their Group D competitions at Wembley because of the distinctive nature of the 60th anniversary of the contest in which 12 cities across Europe play swarm will take on the Czech Republic and the victors of play-off C, one out of Scotland, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, and Norway.

None of those must predominantly worry Southgate, who acknowledged he was reassured not to have been strained in the group of demise that contains Germany the world champions, France, and the containers, Portugal.

England beat Croatia 2-1 at home during the Nations League last year to gain a modicum of revenge for their defeat by the same scoreline in Moscow four months earlier.

Southgate’s side put five past the Czechs during qualifying on the way to topping their group although they did suffer their first qualifying defeat for almost a decade against Jaroslav Silhavy’s side in Prague in November:

Gareth Southgate saying

Southgate was cautious of undervaluing their enemies, predominantly with the individuality of the fourth side not to be resolute until the play-offs in late March: “The two teams that we know we have had certainly good consequences beside them and poor consequences.

So it is not a group we can be complacent about,” he said. “I think everyone will be looking at Group F and be pleased they are not in it. But Croatia at Wembley is a bright inaugural game for the followers and the performers.”

England will face Croatia in their first game on 14 June, with the playoff winners up next on 19 June and the Czechs in their final group match on 23 June.

Croatia went on to misplace to France in the World Cup final and completed onward of Wales in succeeding. But their director, Zlatko Dalic, insisted England will start as preferences beside his side.

Southgate took those comments with a pinch of salt, although he admitted that even beating Croatia at a major tournament would not exorcise the disappointment of two years ago. I’m sure he is being tactically economical with the truth there, he said.

England v Croatia Euro 2020

We have had three tight games with them with very little between the teams all three times. In their last game, they left Chelsea’s Mateo Kovacic on the bench which tells you a little bit about the quality they have. There is quite an interesting contrast.  

They have hugely experienced player’s right throughout the team who has played big matches, and we are right at the other end of the scale: very young with a lot of energy but still learning and improving.

While England will be hoping home advantage will mean they end up topping the group to set up a last-16 tie in Dublin that is likely to be against one out of Germany, France, and Portugal.

Everybody else can work over that like they had to in Russia, he said. It was a while like: do we need to be top sources for this appeal?

In the end, you want to try and win every game you play and at least have control of your destiny. Then prosperity will take you everywhere it takings you.

At a tournament, you have to have a strategy to get out of the group that is three games, not one, and then you go from there. We want to make Wembley somewhere that teams fear to come and we do that by the level of our performance.

In a complicated draw procedure in which 36 countries were represented at the Romexpo in a rain-sodden Bucharest, Wales were placed in Group A and face a 3,000-mile trip to play their inaugural match beside Switzerland in Baku on 13 June before gathering Turkey in the Azerbaijani capital four days late.

About Ryan Giggs

Ryan Giggs’s side then travel to Rome to face Italy in their final group stage match on 21 June. The former Manchester United midfielder admitted Roberto Mancini’s side will start as favorites.

“I think they are and that is not disrespectful to Turkey and Switzerland because they are both good teams,” he said. But because of their past and their performances in succeeding, 10 victories out of 10 and counting lots of goals, Italy will be observing to gain the group.”

Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland also have confidence in creating it to the finals via the play-offs and will be located into Group E with Spain, Sweden, and Poland if they are prosperous.

In our experience the Euro 2020 will be a very festive event, at least within the stadiums, said its vice-president, Giorgio Marchetti.

We are self-assured that this specific atmosphere will take importance over unwise and sometimes illegal things that inappropriately from time to time occur in football and we never want to see in our game.

Euro 2020 fans can get England vs Croatia Tickets through our trusted online ticketing marketplace. Ticket4football.com is the most reliable source to book Euro Cup Tickets.

[epeuthutebetes]

OrthodoxPolitics has replied to my more recent defence of ChristBol, which addresses a comment of his, on three points:

Just war and aggression;

Subsidiarity and sovereignty;

Redistribution and commonality of wealth.

Just war

Following the order we have used in the earlier parts of our exchange, I shall begin with just war.

He first responds to my point about National Socialism not following the principle of just war by arguing that National Socialism should follow it in theory, but didn’t in practice.

This is not actually what I do. I expressly disclaim any attempt in my reply to say concretely whether the German state’s invasion of Poland in 1939 was adequately ordered to a defensive end; instead, unlike the magistrates of Britain and France who declared war on Germany for that very reason, I suspend judgement on that point. I do, however, uphold general principles of just war, insisting that military action – even an invasion – ought to be essentially defensive. Thus I suggest, as OrthodoxPolitics rightly reads me, that National Socialist ‘expansion’ into Poland may be likened to an army’s trying to break out of a siege – that is, the siege imposed on the German people by the Treaty of Versailles. To what extent this was truly the case, and whether in the circumstances of 1939 such a siege justified the invasion of Poland in particular, I do not say.

While I think this can sometimes apply, an ideology centered around an aggressive ideal of expansion will lead to unjust war. It creates an us vs them narrative which breeds hatred between the citizens of two countries.

In principle, the 1920 NSDAP’s Programme does not advance an ‘aggressive ideal of expansion’. Rather, it recognizes that a people – and the German people in particular – has the right to take what it requires to survive. This recognition, though it set two states against each other, does not breed ‘hatred between the citizens of two countries’. It requires that a nation’s citizens be willing and ready to fight a political enemy, not that they treat foreigners as personal enemies.

As Carl Schmitt says in The Concept of the Political, the relevant text in Matthew and Luke ‘reads ‘diligite inimicos [personal enemies] vestros,’ and not ‘diligite hostes [political enemies] vestros.’ No mention is made of the political enemy.’ This is not to say, of course, that we are free to have no personal love for political enemies, but political enemies fall outwith the commandment’s proper scope, and only by extension – through understanding of broader principles and sound analogy – does the commandment apply to our relations with political enemies (hostes). And, of course, the command to love our personal enemies (inimicos) takes for granted that we have personal enemies in the first place. Enmity, then, is not in itself sinful, though the Lord requires us to settle with our personal enemies: Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Political enmity is what allows any war in the first place, a thing that holy Scripture gives its approval:

And between the passages, by which Jonathan sought to go over unto the Philistines’ garrison, there was a sharp rock on the one side, and a sharp rock on the other side: and the name of the one was Bozez, and the name of the other Seneh. The forefront of the one was situate northward over against Michmash, and the other southward over against Gibeah. And Jonathan said to the young man that bare his armour, Come, and let us go over unto the garrison of these uncircumcised: it may be that the Lord will work for us: for there is no restraint to the Lord to save by many or by few. And his armourbearer said unto him, Do all that is in thine heart: turn thee; behold, I am with thee according to thy heart. Then said Jonathan, Behold, we will pass over unto these men, and we will discover ourselves unto them. If they say thus unto us, Tarry until we come to you; then we will stand still in our place, and will not go up unto them. But if they say thus, Come up unto us; then we will go up: for the Lord hath delivered them into our hand: and this shall be a sign unto us. And both of them discovered themselves unto the garrison of the Philistines: and the Philistines said, Behold, the Hebrews come forth out of the holes where they had hid themselves. And the men of the garrison answered Jonathan and his armourbearer, and said, Come up to us, and we will shew you a thing. And Jonathan said unto his armourbearer, Come up after me: for the Lord hath delivered them into the hand of Israel. And Jonathan climbed up upon his hands and upon his feet, and his armourbearer after him: and they fell before Jonathan; and his armourbearer slew after him. And that first slaughter, which Jonathan and his armourbearer made, was about twenty men, within as it were an half acre of land, which a yoke of oxen might plow. And there was trembling in the host, in the field, and among all the people: the garrison, and the spoilers, they also trembled, and the earth quaked: so it was a very great trembling.

Thus Samuel, who also records that YHWH, never a god fearful of chastening his people with defeat, saved Israel that day. Likewise we know of David’s anger against the uncircumcised Goliath challenging Israel and going unanswered. The piety of the Old Testament is so closely bound to war, even while the sanctuary of the Lord has a court of the Gentiles, that it is hard to deny either the natural æquity of war or its holy use by the pious. And any war will require not only that a man fight but also that he own the hostility to which he is bound as a member of his nation; for the one cannot well be done without the other. What the pious man does with his body, he must also do with his spirit.

To acknowledge honestly when survival requires us to use force is not ungodly. The sin is to hope for force unnecessarily, against reason, when the good can be found for both parties without fighting. Thus, to commit to force, and to an ‘us v. them’ interpretation that substantiates it, is not wrong so long as it accords with reason. As Schmitt saw, after all, the friend-enemy (amicus-hostis) distinction is unavoidable in statecraft even when we do not actually fight. Nevertheless, If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

Subsidiarity

Next, I spoke to the point about subsidiarity by insisting that it be held together with the sovereignty of the state, and in particular that the parts must submit to the whole in matters pertaining to the good common to the whole. I am not calling for an unthinking ‘balance’ between the two, as if the two worked in the same dimension, but for the full acknowledgement of both.

OrthodoxPolitics agrees that Christ is king of the Church, and he also says that, as God, Christ is sovereign over all creation. I will go further: even as man, he has been raised from the dead and given all authority in heaven and on earth. We who are ‘in Christ’ and participate in his glorified humanity, as St Paul shows us in Ephesians and elsewhere, share in the authority committed to Christ. This theme is also developed by the author of Hebrews:

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

As he has been joined to us even in suffering death, so we too, many sons, will be crowned with glory and honour, being one with him who sanctifies. To say Christ has his authority over heaven and earth as God, but not as man, is not merely to look Nestorian by avoiding the communicatio idiomatum between Christ’s divine and human natures, but rather to cut against the grain of holy Scripture itself; for it is Scripture that tells us we have, even now, everything Christ has – although, as John Donne notes in a sermon on Psalm 63, we now have the joy but not yet the glory of the resurrection.

Nevertheless, with the universal jurisdiction of Christ the King, OrthodoxPolitics contrasts the polity of the Church:

Yet if we look at the Church, we see that bishops deal with issues in their jurisdiction, councils deal with local issues, and only pan Orthodox or Ecumenical councils deal with issues for the whole Church. One Pope does not have direct, jurisdictional control over the whole church, nor does the individual believer have free reign. (The author to whom I am responding is an Anglican however, so I’m not certain of how the Anglican church is structured.)

This is also the case for Anglicans. Our Thirty-Nine Articles say plainly, ‘The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.’ But this is not because no man rules the whole Church. Rather, that man is Christ, who holds authority over the whole Church, and not only as God but also as man. And this man, who rules believers by faith, by the power of the Holy Ghost, has no need of another man to stand in the temple of God and claim to be his vicar ruling the whole Church in his stead. Thus, as it is with the Easterns in polity, so it is with us: the Archbishop of Canterbury has no jurisdiction outwith England, the place of his primacy. Indeed, historically, the Archbishop of Canterbury has not been able to rule what was under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of York.

Even so, the bishops who are each archbishop’s suffragans are bound to obey each his own archbishop, and neither archbishop may impose laws upon the Church, nor hold any councils, against the will of the king – or, in the case of Constantinople, the emperor. And every suspension from Holy Communion is also to be reported to the ordinary – generally the diocesan bishop – within fourteen days, that it may be referred to his judgement. What we see is not that the bishops – or, God forbid, the archbishops – manage the details of lower levels of governance, but rather that appeal is to them and formal legislation is in the hands of the national church. Thus, the Book of Common Prayer is a law that not even an archbishop may break; nor may he change it of his own will without the rest of the national church. What the bishops judge is how it must be obeyed, with respect for both the spirit of catholic tradition and godly local custom on the ground. Thus is subsidiarity held together with solidarity, by the sovereignty of the chief magistrate.

So while the king has complete sovereign reign over his people, he should willingly allow issues to be dealt with on a local level.

A great many matters will never come before the king, and no sane king will ever want to deal with so many things. But matters of national defence naturally are in the compass of his care, as are all matters of national scope. To these things he must be allowed to attend, even when doing so requires that he specify certain things on the local scale; and if he be denied this right, he must cross the line that others have unjustly drawn.

Common wealth, or commonwealth

The last issue was wealth in the commonwealth, and the role of the magistrate therein.

While many Church Fathers did advocate for communal ownership, such as in Acts 4, it was never advocated that the government must force this. Instead, they saw that what matters is how one uses their wealth. It would be far better to have a society where the wealthy were expected to give to charity as a social obligation, rather than have one where they are forced to give up their wealth.

Pourquoi pas les deux? There is a certain measure of wealth to which some of the rich lay false claim in the first place. For the magistrate to refuse to honour this claim is only just. Such is the vast majority of the wealth held by about 20 houses in the world, which was not acquired but by deception, usury, and unjust wars whose cost has fallen rather on common folk than on these houses of greed. They must fall, both they and those who are allied with them around the world, many of whom are likewise exploiters of the poor. The Lord’s call for charity, which every man knows in his heart, goes beyond this need for that kind of strict justice. He who willingly submits to what is just, at his own expense, is also obliged to be liberal with his goods:

פ He hath dispersed, he hath given to the poor; צ his righteousness endureth for ever; ק his horn shall be exalted with honour.

Thus the Thirty-Nine Articles say on this matter, as I have quoted in my earlier post, ‘The riches and goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give Alms to the poor, according to his ability.’ That men should not all own the same things, or in the same amounts, I heartily agree; likewise, I am far from saying that a Christian nation, or Christians among themselves in a heathen nation, ought to treat their riches and goods as common with respect to ‘right, title, and possession’. Indeed, I agree with the Thirty-Nine Articles that these things are not common: not only underwear and toothbrushes, but also a host of other things, are not common and therefore should not be treated as such. What must or should be common – and certainly at least some things are – is a matter to be specified in law, varying somewhat from place to place. Indeed, every commonwealth has such properties that belong to all, not least the state itself; hence the term commonwealth. And any law must see to it that the people, not only the rich but also those of more modest means, have opportunity to give to others, according to their abilities. For virtue is ever to be encouraged by the magistrate, and never displaced.

But the point of expropriating what some hold unjustly for themselves is not that they should be forced to be virtuous, but that their holding that property is itself an injustice. And it is not to absolutely everything they own that we lay this charge, but only to what they hold or take unjustly. Naturally, the ones who submit to just expropriation ought to be treated more mildly, and those who rage and fight against the people ought to be killed in battle or tried and hanged.

The matter, then, is not one of taxation, though taxation too ought to be so used as to support the honest living and godliness of all. Unlike the utopians, I know the poor will always be with us, as the Lord says. This is why, until the ending of the world, we will always have the duty to give liberally to the poor; and this duty the poor often know more than the rich, for they give more than the rich. But justice remains, and it is not a mere matter of distribution and redistribution. I am not a socialist so that everyone’s possessions may be æqual, nor is my refusal to pursue such an end based on fear dressed up as moderation; I am a socialist so that the commonwealth may be so in fact as well as in name, a res publica (‘public thing’) as the Romans called it.

ChristBol Defended Ethically on Just War, Subsidiarity, and Wealth OrthodoxPolitics has replied to my more recent defence of ChristBol, which addresses a comment of his, on three points: