My Governmental Principles To A Catholic British Crown

My Extra Principles Of A Catholic British Crown

William Cardinal Allen, on his death bed, he wrote to Philip II about a prophecy of the return of the Catholic Crown of Britain.

To Philip II Of Spain:

"Again upon his deathbed he asked the Duke of Sesa to entreat Philip II, not to abandon the good Catholics of England, for that he was dying in full confidence that through the crown of his majesty the realm would one day be restored to the obedience of the Holy See." Page xxii of the Historical Introduction of The Letters and Memorials of William Cardinal Allen.

My Principles of a Catholic Monarchy of Great Britain:

My First Royal Memo or Recommendation:

My fellow Lord Cardinals and Bishops, welcome, it is time to renew the Isle of Britain back to the Catholic Faith and back to Mary as her Dowry.

1. I urge you to allow and restore back to every Diocese, Monasteries, Convents, Parishes, the Traditional Latin Mass and everything that goes with it.

2. To reform the Ordinary Form back to how was after the Second Vatican Council, before the liberal progressives broke it and brought in numerous errors: by restore is to have the Priest face the Lord as he does in the Latin Mass, the use of Latin, the Ordinary used to look, sound and smell like the Traditional Latin Mass.

3. Reform and Restore Sacred Music back to your dioceses, ending the bad music, the use of pianos, guitars, drums, that are not to be used for Sacred Music and the end of bad hymns, I ask you to restore Gregorian Chant and Polyphony back to it's proper place in the Liturgy and if you must use hymns, use them by St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Music written by Johann Bach.

My Second Royal Memo or Recommendation

I ask and urge you to reform the Seminaries of Great Britain, no more will it look like or feel like college, it must feel totally different and set apart from the world, you must feel that this is a place where holy Priests and Deacons are formed.

1. The seminary will not be part of any university or in a town or a city, but in a rural area that is a gothic style buildings, chapel and Cathedral.

2. When you enter, there is an entrance school to help the young men learn Latin and the basics to help them get a taste of what will be taught.

I recommend you to restore Scholastic Theology and Philosophy, Traditional Liberal Arts, Traditional Biblical Theology and History.  The Study of Biblical Greek, study of the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Traditional Homelitics, on the Liturgy, on the Sacraments.

Also, I recommend you to make the spoken language Classical Latin, when not spoken, they must keep a prayerful silence.

How shall the young men live?  Each room will be a Monastic Cell, 1. bed, 1. desk, 1. book case, 1. lamp, 2. pillows, 2. sheets, 2. blankets. with four cassocks in their closet.  Also there will be a private bathroom connected, 1. water basin, 1. bowl, 1. towel, 1. bar of soap, toliet and toliet paper, plus 1. shaving razor and shaving cream to help them stay groomed. Plus one prayer desk kneeler and wall crucifix in the Traditional Spanish Catholic Style.

The classes will be every other day at certain times of the day, it is important to make sure the young men have extra prayer time before Our Lord in Eucharistic Adoration, praying the Rosary together and alone in the chapel and in their rooms, plus time for confession and spiritual direction based on St. Francis de Sale's Introduction To Devout Life. Plus extra personal time to talk and discuss with the Professors to help learn the Faith better.

I also would like you to change how the young men are tested, let the testing be as it was done in the olden days, the Professors give the young man a topic and he must prepare it and defend it when he is asked by the entire Professor body and student body oral questions to test him in the large hall, once testing is done, the professors go over every answer and call him back in to tell him what was wrong, how to fix it and even improve it, this way the young men can learn the Faith and most of all, Defend it, then they will give him time to prepare and tested at a later date.

The Seminary, make sure no computers at all, huge library filled with study tables and all the manuscripts from the Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, the Councils, Catechism of the Council of Trent, Pope St. Pius X, Baltimore Catechism, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Plus all the documents by the Popes, make sure it is Faithful to the Catholic Church and nothing contrary.

Finally, make sure the young men wear the Cassock with black sash, but no collar.

The next principle to restore the Catholic Faith to Britain, all shops will be closed on Sundays and Holy Days, the faith will be taught as in olden days when the Priest taught Catechism, they will teach both youth and adults to help re-teach the people the Authentic Faith and will defend the Authentic Faith.  The Pro-Abortion, Pro-Contraception, Pro Sodomy will be outlawed, so will civil marriages and co-habitation; crisis pregnacy centers, adoption centers will be opened all over Britain. 

If any abortion, contraception, or sodomy promoter enters Britain, it is illegal for them to even step onto British Ground and will either be sent back or sent directly to prison; if it is abortion provider/promoter; they will be sent to Prison and Sodomy promoters will be sent back home.

The next Principles will cover the Economy and lower prices but good quality.

Here we will touch on what was used in the past and sometimes the normal every person did have it rough, FEUDALISM  AND  THE  MANORIALISM, but to help everyone have good take home pay and good living, we will follow the Traditional Catholic Social Doctrine of Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI "Distributism"   To understand what it is, I urge you to read this piece by Joseph Pearce, What Is Distributism?

Also I recommend this piece by Thomas Storck by the same name, What Is Distributism?
We will recommend this piece, Introduction To The Social Doctrines of the Catholic Church to help you understand the principles laid out here.


I will be sharing what we will be implementing:

"The medieval guilds ensured quality with the apprentice–journeyman–master structure wherein the craft guilds maintained their high standards and trained those who wished to enter the craft. Merchant guilds imposed strict business standards to try to protect the consumer (and therefore their businesses) from unethical practices. The only real difference between these systems and what we have today is the authoritative agency granting the license to do business; the guild effectively replaces most functions of the city/county/state regulatory agencies with a single local authority directly answerable to the local community."

"Distributism prefers the locally produced product, but it does not require it even in the face of poor quality or unjust behavior on the part of the local producer. If the locally produced products are of low quality, the local merchants would seize the opportunity to increase their own sales by importing better quality products from other areas.

Regulatory capture only works when the regulations can be imposed on a large enough area to make obtaining alternatives so difficult that it’s not worth the effort. Because the scope and range of authority of the guilds would be limited to the local community, citizens will likely consider it worth the trip to the next town to buy a better product. Remember that distributist guilds would be composed of local small businesses. Protectionist regulations would end up hurting members of other local guilds and the local community in general. Small business cannot afford to upset the local community on whose custom they depend to maintain their livelihood. Therefore, the only real option under Distributism would be for the local guild members to produce high quality products."

Under Distributism, huge chain stores and franchises could not qualify for the local guilds; they would be replaced by smaller locally owned and managed stores which would have an incentive to support local farmers. The need for more local farms to provide for the needs of local cities would result in more farmers. The increase in local farmers and the lack of centralized corporate control over the business would mean more variety and more options. The same principle applies to manufacturing."

The guilds envisioned by distributists consist of small local businesses. Small businesses cannot afford to make enemies of the local community upon whose custom they depend because it is easy for their customers to go outside the community to get better quality or prices. This means the local producers must either produce good quality products at competitive prices or go out of business. Therefore, the small businesses of the local guild under Distributism are simply not able to establish the same kind of protection schemes as have been done by big business interests and monopolies under Capitalism. This would tend to prevent local guilds from being too restrictive in their regulations, from having low standards for quality, and from having unjust prices, would it not? Since wide-spread monopolies cannot be formed, there will be producers and service providers wherever there is a market to support them. The result would be the opposite of what our detractors suggest. Research and development could be collectively funded by the guilds for the benefit of all members instead of exclusively funded by single businesses as is done under Capitalism. Distributist guilds would provide more competition, more variety, better quality, and more true economic power for the people."

Reprinted From The Distributist Review: Capitalist Monopolies vs Distributist Guilds

To understand the type of Healthcare System I will put in place, please read Distributism and the Health Care System
To understand the type of Tax Plan under Distributism, please read Distributism and Taxation

We will replace the struggling Bank of England with Credit Unions, as is taught by Distributists and also a National Treasury, this would lower all taxes paid by the British People, they pay a tax to the Bank for the money they get that the Banks currently print and then pay horrible taxes on everything else, with ending the Bank of England, we will create more profit to put money into the departments: Police, Fire and Rescue, EMT; which aren't getting money currently due to no money available to them.

This will lower taxes and make it easier to buy a home or whatever, when high taxes are lowered, red tape gone. 

We will be banning and outlawing illegal drugs, weed, and everything that hurts our youth and the people.  We will also check and see if Britain is able to grow tobacco for pipe smoking and cigars, but we will outlaw chewing tobacco and cigarets due to all the dangerous chemicals in them.  And we will make the traditional smoke pipes, those used by Sherlock Holmes and other pipe smokers.
Principles On Education

We will return the great universities of Cambridge and Oxford back to Scholasticum and Classical Liberal Arts, back to Traditional studies of the University as Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman described it in his work, Idea of a University.
Also we will keep King's College and famous choir as it is, but re-consecrate it back to being Catholic.

We will favorable to homeschooling, where Catholic families group together and help teach the Faith, Traditional Liberal Arts, Classical Music, English Writers, John Henry Cardinal Newman, Mgsr. Ronald Knox, G.K. Chesterton, William Shakespear, Hilaire Belloc, Charles Dickens, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, etc. Traditional Mathmatics, Language, Latin, Italian.

If some parents can't help in teaching, but want their kids homeschooled, they will be allowed to join the group of kids learning through homeschool, all we ask if they can help in other ways, donate some type of food for the school lunches or donate time to help where their vocation and talent is at.

I want the kids to learn Home Education classes, how to cook, sow, clean, etc. Also trades, wood working, metal working, painting, how to hunt, gun safety, how to clean and prepare animals killed for food.  Have the guild experts teach this to the kids, help them learn how to survive out doors, how to make things, how to live off the land properly and safely.

Also, how to farm and harvest, do small crop fields to be able to harvest by hand and show them on field trips to big farms on how to harvest with combines and other equipment.

Principle On Security and Military


Security and protecting the sovereignty of Britain is most important to me and rounding up any Terrorist Friendly Muslims and doing investigations to see who the real bad actors are that need long and solitary prison time or sentenced to Death or shipped back to their homeland.  Then, set up a stiffer border wall with check points to screen papers, to check cars and scan their eyes and face to see if everything matches on their papers and to make sure the papers are real. With more money coming into the Police, we will have highly armed border guards ready for anything and have the proper scanners and other technology available to them.

Our Military, we will restore the great British Navy, restore strict and proper restrictions on choosing for the military, no more Political Correctness.  We will follow the Just War Theories of St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas. 

St. Augustine of Hippo:

"Augustine is noted in history as the founder of Just War Theory in the Western tradition (The Islamic world has it's own tradition of Just War Theory based on the Koran).  This is a body of thought that seeks to provide guidelines for when it is justified for one nation to wage war on another.  These guidelines also seek to clarify what sorts of conduct are morally acceptable within war.

One popular theory of justice in war is simply Might is Right.  Whosoever has the greater power is able to dominate others, and so is in the position to determine what is just and unjust. An early philosophical statement of this position is given by Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic. He says that "justice is the interest of the stronger." Numerous nations have followed this policy, even though few admit it.  Imagine a nation that was so powerful that no other nation could stand as a credible threat.  Perhaps this nation had great weapons of total destruction as well as powerful military forces to enforce policies.  Such a nation would seek to protect its status as the primary might by attacking any other nation that came close to its military power.  Of course, such a nation would issue proclamations of it's virtue and benevolence and inherent peacefulness.  Yet, let another power emerge that posed even a remote threat to its hegemony, and that other power would be attacked and dismantled.  Such a nation would operate on the Might is Right principle.

Augustine lived in the era when Rome had lost its control of the world and was quickly falling to other powers.  The question of moral values in war were immanent for him.  Augustine identified two aspects of war that required moral justification and guidelines:
             -The right to go to war (Jus Ad Bellum)
             -The right sorts of conduct in war (Jus In Bello)

The right to go to war concerns the justification that a nation must give in order for it to have a moral right to wage war on another.  Augustine laid the basis for four main criteria:
    1. Just Authority - is the decision to go to war based on a legitimate political and legal process?
    2. Just Cause - has a wrong been committed to which war is the appropriate response?
    3. Right Intention - is the response proportional to the cause? i.e. is the war action limited to righting the wrong, and no further. When people speak of "mission creep," this condition is the relevant concern.
    4. Last Resort - has every other means of righting the wrong been attempted sincerely so that no other option but war remains?

The conduct of war is clearly a matter of moral concern.  Even when a nation is justified in waging war on another, there are moral limits on what it may do in prosecuting the war.  Defining and enforcing such limits has been a long a concern for international agreement and law.
    1. Proportionality - The proportionality of the use of force in a war. The degree of allowable force used in the war must be measured against the force required to correct the Just cause and limited by Just Intention (see Jus Ad Bellum).
    2. Discrimination -The combatants discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Innocent, nonmilitary people should never be made the target of attacks.
    3. Responsibility - A country is not responsible for unexpected side effects of its military activity as long as the following three conditions are met:
    (a) The action must carry the intention to produce good consequences.
    (b) The bad effects were not intended.
    (c) The good of the war must outweigh the damage done by it.
More resources on the criteria and case studies of just war theory are available at the Just War Theory website (see Resources at the left).

These criteria have been revised and expanded, notably by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century.  Since war is a constant human condition, the concerns for it's moral constraint are ever important.  Consider how the criteria of Just War may be applied to the present.  Clearly an insightful philosopher writing almost 1,600 years ago speaks to matters that are relevant to us now and will be relevant to us for some time.  Philosophy is a living and present concern, even when it speaks to us from the distant past." See On The Just War Theory of St. Augustine
St. Thomas Aquinas:

"St. Thomas Aquinas
The Summa Theologica
Part II, Question 40
(Benziger Bros. edition, 1947)

OF WAR

We must now consider war, under which head there are four points of inquiry:

    Whether some kind of war is lawful?
    Whether it is lawful for clerics to fight?
    Whether it is lawful for belligerents to lay ambushes?
    Whether it is lawful to fight on holy days?

Whether it is always sinful to wage war?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is always sinful to wage war. Because punishment is not inflicted except for sin. Now those who wage war are threatened by Our Lord with punishment, according to Mt. 26:52: "All that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Therefore all wars are unlawful.

Objection 2: Further, whatever is contrary to a Divine precept is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept, for it is written (Mt. 5:39): "But I say to you not to resist evil"; and (Rm. 12:19): "Not revenging yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give place unto wrath." Therefore war is always sinful.

Objection 3: Further, nothing, except sin, is contrary to an act of virtue. But war is contrary to peace. Therefore war is always a sin.

Objection 4: Further, the exercise of a lawful thing is itself lawful, as is evident in scientific exercises. But warlike exercises which take place in tournaments are forbidden by the Church, since those who are slain in these trials are deprived of ecclesiastical burial. Therefore it seems that war is a sin in itself.

On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion [*Ep. ad Marcel. cxxxviii]: "If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay' [*Lk. 3:14]. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering."

I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (Questions. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [*The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1]): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."

Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 70): "To take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority." On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to "take the sword," but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment. And yet even those who make sinful use of the sword are not always slain with the sword, yet they always perish with their own sword, because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword.

Reply to Objection 2: Such like precepts, as Augustine observes (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19), should always be borne in readiness of mind, so that we be ready to obey them, and, if necessary, to refrain from resistance or self-defense. Nevertheless it is necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for the common good, or for the good of those with whom he is fighting. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Marcellin. cxxxviii): "Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy."

Reply to Objection 3: Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Mt. 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."

Reply to Objection 4: Manly exercises in warlike feats of arms are not all forbidden, but those which are inordinate and perilous, and end in slaying or plundering. In olden times warlike exercises presented no such danger, and hence they were called "exercises of arms" or "bloodless wars," as Jerome states in an epistle

Whether it is lawful for clerics and bishops to fight?

Objection 1: It would seem lawful for clerics and bishops to fight. For, as stated above (Article [1]), wars are lawful and just in so far as they protect the poor and the entire common weal from suffering at the hands of the foe. Now this seems to be above all the duty of prelates, for Gregory says (Hom. in Ev. xiv): "The wolf comes upon the sheep, when any unjust and rapacious man oppresses those who are faithful and humble. But he who was thought to be the shepherd, and was not, leaveth the sheep, end flieth, for he fears lest the wolf hurt him, and dares not stand up against his injustice." Therefore it is lawful for prelates and clerics to fight.

Objection 2: Further, Pope Leo IV writes (xxiii, qu. 8, can. Igitur): "As untoward tidings had frequently come from the Saracen side, some said that the Saracens would come to the port of Rome secretly and covertly; for which reason we commanded our people to gather together, and ordered them to go down to the seashore." Therefore it is lawful for bishops to fight.

Objection 3: Further, apparently, it comes to the same whether a man does a thing himself, or consents to its being done by another, according to Rm. 1:32: "They who do such things, are worthy of death, and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them." Now those, above all, seem to consent to a thing, who induce others to do it. But it is lawful for bishops and clerics to induce others to fight: for it is written (xxiii, qu. 8, can. Hortatu) that Charles went to war with the Lombards at the instance and entreaty of Adrian, bishop of Rome. Therefore they also are allowed to fight.

Objection 4: Further, whatever is right and meritorious in itself, is lawful for prelates and clerics. Now it is sometimes right and meritorious to make war, for it is written (xxiii, qu. 8, can. Omni timore) that if "a man die for the true faith, or to save his country, or in defense of Christians, God will give him a heavenly reward." Therefore it is lawful for bishops and clerics to fight.

On the contrary, It was said to Peter as representing bishops and clerics (Mt. 16:52): "Put up again thy sword into the scabbard [Vulg.: 'its place'] [*"Scabbard" is the reading in Jn. 18:11]." Therefore it is not lawful for them to fight.

I answer that, Several things are requisite for the good of a human society: and a number of things are done better and quicker by a number of persons than by one, as the Philosopher observes (Polit. i, 1), while certain occupations are so inconsistent with one another, that they cannot be fittingly exercised at the same time; wherefore those who are deputed to important duties are forbidden to occupy themselves with things of small importance. Thus according to human laws, soldiers who are deputed to warlike pursuits are forbidden to engage in commerce [*Cod. xii, 35, De Re Milit.].

Now warlike pursuits are altogether incompatible with the duties of a bishop and a cleric, for two reasons. The first reason is a general one, because, to wit, warlike pursuits are full of unrest, so that they hinder the mind very much from the contemplation of Divine things, the praise of God, and prayers for the people, which belong to the duties of a cleric. Wherefore just as commercial enterprises are forbidden to clerics, because they unsettle the mind too much, so too are warlike pursuits, according to 2 Tim. 2:4: "No man being a soldier to God, entangleth himself with secular business." The second reason is a special one, because, to wit, all the clerical Orders are directed to the ministry of the altar, on which the Passion of Christ is represented sacramentally, according to 1 Cor. 11:26: "As often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He come." Wherefore it is unbecoming for them to slay or shed blood, and it is more fitting that they should be ready to shed their own blood for Christ, so as to imitate in deed what they portray in their ministry. For this reason it has been decreed that those who shed blood, even without sin, become irregular. Now no man who has a certain duty to perform, can lawfully do that which renders him unfit for that duty. Wherefore it is altogether unlawful for clerics to fight, because war is directed to the shedding of blood.

Reply to Objection 1: Prelates ought to withstand not only the wolf who brings spiritual death upon the flock, but also the pillager and the oppressor who work bodily harm; not, however, by having recourse themselves to material arms, but by means of spiritual weapons, according to the saying of the Apostle (2 Cor. 10:4): "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God." Such are salutary warnings, devout prayers, and, for those who are obstinate, the sentence of excommunication.

Reply to Objection 2: Prelates and clerics may, by the authority of their superiors, take part in wars, not indeed by taking up arms themselves, but by affording spiritual help to those who fight justly, by exhorting and absolving them, and by other like spiritual helps. Thus in the Old Testament (Joshua 6:4) the priests were commanded to sound the sacred trumpets in the battle. It was for this purpose that bishops or clerics were first allowed to go to the front: and it is an abuse of this permission, if any of them take up arms themselves.

Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (Question [23], Article [4], ad 2) every power, art or virtue that regards the end, has to dispose that which is directed to the end. Now, among the faithful, carnal wars should be considered as having for their end the Divine spiritual good to which clerics are deputed. Wherefore it is the duty of clerics to dispose and counsel other men to engage in just wars. For they are forbidden to take up arms, not as though it were a sin, but because such an occupation is unbecoming their personality.

Reply to Objection 4: Although it is meritorious to wage a just war, nevertheless it is rendered unlawful for clerics, by reason of their being deputed to works more meritorious still. Thus the marriage act may be meritorious; and yet it becomes reprehensible in those who have vowed virginity, because they are bound to a yet greater good.

Whether it is lawful to lay ambushes in war?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is unlawful to lay ambushes in war. For it is written (Dt. 16:20): "Thou shalt follow justly after that which is just." But ambushes, since they are a kind of deception, seem to pertain to injustice. Therefore it is unlawful to lay ambushes even in a just war.

Objection 2: Further, ambushes and deception seem to be opposed to faithfulness even as lies are. But since we are bound to keep faith with all men, it is wrong to lie to anyone, as Augustine states (Contra Mend. xv). Therefore, as one is bound to keep faith with one's enemy, as Augustine states (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix), it seems that it is unlawful to lay ambushes for one's enemies.

Objection 3: Further, it is written (Mt. 7:12): "Whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them": and we ought to observe this in all our dealings with our neighbor. Now our enemy is our neighbor. Therefore, since no man wishes ambushes or deceptions to be prepared for himself, it seems that no one ought to carry on war by laying ambushes.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Questions. in Hept. qu. x super Jos): "Provided the war be just, it is no concern of justice whether it be carried on openly or by ambushes": and he proves this by the authority of the Lord, Who commanded Joshua to lay ambushes for the city of Hai (Joshua 8:2).

I answer that, The object of laying ambushes is in order to deceive the enemy. Now a man may be deceived by another's word or deed in two ways. First, through being told something false, or through the breaking of a promise, and this is always unlawful. No one ought to deceive the enemy in this way, for there are certain "rights of war and covenants, which ought to be observed even among enemies," as Ambrose states (De Officiis i).

Secondly, a man may be deceived by what we say or do, because we do not declare our purpose or meaning to him. Now we are not always bound to do this, since even in the Sacred Doctrine many things have to be concealed, especially from unbelievers, lest they deride it, according to Mt. 7:6: "Give not that which is holy, to dogs." Wherefore much more ought the plan of campaign to be hidden from the enemy. For this reason among other things that a soldier has to learn is the art of concealing his purpose lest it come to the enemy's knowledge, as stated in the Book on Strategy [*Stratagematum i, 1] by Frontinus. Such like concealment is what is meant by an ambush which may be lawfully employed in a just war.

Nor can these ambushes be properly called deceptions, nor are they contrary to justice or to a well-ordered will. For a man would have an inordinate will if he were unwilling that others should hide anything from him.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

Whether it is lawful to fight on holy days?

Objection

    It would seem unlawful to fight on holy days. For holy days are instituted that we may give our time to the things of God. Hence they are included in the keeping of the Sabbath prescribed Ex. 20:8: for "sabbath" is interpreted "rest." But wars are full of unrest. Therefore by no means is it lawful to fight on holy days. Objection
    Further, certain persons are reproached (Is. 58:3) because on fast-days they exacted what was owing to them, were guilty of strife, and of smiting with the fist. Much more, therefore, is it unlawful to fight on holy days. Objection
    Further, no ill deed should be done to avoid temporal harm. But fighting on a holy day seems in itself to be an ill deed.

Therefore no one should fight on a holy day even through the need of avoiding temporal harm.

On the contrary, It is written (1 Machab 2:41): The Jews rightly determined . . . saying: "Whosoever shall come up against us to fight on the Sabbath-day, we will fight against him."

I answer that, The observance of holy days is no hindrance to those things which are ordained to man's safety, even that of his body. Hence Our Lord argued with the Jews, saying (Jn. 7:23): "Are you angry at Me because I have healed the whole man on the Sabbath-day?" Hence physicians may lawfully attend to their patients on holy days. Now there is much more reason for safeguarding the common weal (whereby many are saved from being slain, and innumerable evils both temporal and spiritual prevented), than the bodily safety of an individual. Therefore, for the purpose of safeguarding the common weal of the faithful, it is lawful to carry on a war on holy days, provided there be need for doing so: because it would be to tempt God, if notwithstanding such a need, one were to choose to refrain from fighting. However, as soon as the need ceases, it is no longer lawful to fight on a holy day, for the reasons given: wherefore this suffices for the Replies to the Objections. " St. Thomas Aquinas On War

Finally from Theodore Roosevelt Speech at the Navy War College:

These are my governmental principles laid out so far.  I will come back to add or edit.
I also place these under copyright law, you may share them but no one else may use them, these are my core Governmental Principles On Restoring The Crown Of Great Britain Back To Being Catholic, if God so chooses me for this task.

Andrew J. Baalman