Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:31 pm Post subject: Monarchy, Democracy, and Catholic views
I noticed that quite a few of the Angelqueen posters favor a monarchist form of government. I am interested in your views on how this type of government should work. Are there any websites that explain the traditional Catholic view or an "ideal" goverment setup? Is it simply what most know monarchy to be (ie. son of king inherits the throne, etc.)? Or is there something more to it?
Also, how do today's monarchists get politically involved if their country's government system is completely contrary to monarchy (eg. in a democratic republic, who do you vote for, or do you abstain from voting?) Could a democratic government theoretically elect a monarchist? How would monarchists propose setting up this new form of government?
Thank you for satisfying my curiosity with your comments.
Monarchy is not a "traditional" Catholic view of how government should be set up. There is no Catholic teaching favoring monarchy over other forms, such as representative democracy or oligarchy. The problem with the U.S. government is not that it is not a monarchy, but that it fails to give the Church her proper due and acknowledge the indirect authority of the Church in temporal matters. Any "monarchist" who in fact desires that our form of government should be abandoned and a monarchy set up is, in fact, a seditionist, no matter how much Catholic principles should be alleged in support of it. For the people of a nation have the right to determine for themselves what form of government they wish to have.
And, even monarchists today should vote, for that is a civic obligation of a citizen of a representative democracy. According to Fr. Jone in "Moral Theology", voting is an obligation which binds under pain of venial sin.
Divine Mercy, I would suggest reading the works of De Maistre, Jaime Balmes, and Donoso Cortes.
Some of their books are available in English translation, and can be ordered through the internet.
According to Catholic theology, it is allowable for a sovereign to be designated by an electoral process. For example, the Pope himself is elected. Once designated, sovereignty must be understood as inhering in the sovereign absolutely, only dependent upon his obedience to the Divine Will. Sovereignty must never be understood as something contingent upon the electorate. It is something bestowed by God directly upon the sovereign.
Thus, the philosophical principles of the American Founding, but not necessarily our Constitutional system, are wholly repugnant to Catholic thinking.
My personal thinking is that while it is not sinful to vote for President, it is sinful to vote for senators and representatives.
Joined: 20 Nov 2005 Posts: 454 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:05 pm Post subject:
Personally, I support a consitutional monarchy. I tend to find democracy a bit of a joke as a means of running a government. I agree with Plato, the democracy is most often driven by indidual greed and whims. At the same time, I don't think I don't think despotism is the answer, while having a true Philosopher King as a ruler would be excellent, the damage that could be wrought with a single absolute leader is obvious.
In the end, there is never a total absence of democracy, laws can't extinguish your free will. And if neccessary, it is possible to revolt.
Monarchy is not a "traditional" Catholic view of how government should be set up. There is no Catholic teaching favoring monarchy over other forms, such as representative democracy or oligarchy. The problem with the U.S. government is not that it is not a monarchy, but that it fails to give the Church her proper due and acknowledge the indirect authority of the Church in temporal matters. Any "monarchist" who in fact desires that our form of government should be abandoned and a monarchy set up is, in fact, a seditionist, no matter how much Catholic principles should be alleged in support of it. For the people of a nation have the right to determine for themselves what form of government they wish to have.
And, even monarchists today should vote, for that is a civic obligation of a citizen of a representative democracy. According to Fr. Jone in "Moral Theology", voting is an obligation which binds under pain of venial sin.
Spoken like a true "Thomist"! The Church does not prefer one form of Government to another so long as it conforms to the moral law and pursues the common good of society. I think some monarchists are mistaken in the notion that temporal society and temporal authority must necessarily be structured according to the manner of the supra-temporal society of the Church. This in fact is not the case.
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 Posts: 91 Location: Kansas City, MO
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:16 pm Post subject:
schoolman wrote:
The Church does not prefer one form of Government to another so long as it conforms to the moral law and pursues the common good of society. I think some monarchists are mistaken in the notion that temporal society and temporal authority must necessarily be structured according to the manner of the supra-temporal society of the Church. This in fact is not the case.
Absolutely right.
We have examples as well of a variety of types of governments which are truly Catholic, from the Monarchies of Europe, to the Constitutional Monarchies, to perhaps one of the best examples of a Catholic Republic: Equador under Gabriel Garcia Moreno (a republic which cosnecrated itself to the Sacred Heart ). _________________ Ian Andrew Palko
http://nobis-quoque.blogspot.com
The Church does not prefer one form of Government to another so long as it conforms to the moral law and pursues the common good of society. I think some monarchists are mistaken in the notion that temporal society and temporal authority must necessarily be structured according to the manner of the supra-temporal society of the Church. This in fact is not the case.
Absolutely right.
We have examples as well of a variety of types of governments which are truly Catholic, from the Monarchies of Europe, to the Constitutional Monarchies, to perhaps one of the best examples of a Catholic Republic: Equador under Gabriel Garcia Moreno (a republic which cosnecrated itself to the Sacred Heart ).
Yes, unfortunately some monarchists consider that the temporal order has been patterned by God according to the supernatural order of the Church. The Church has been divinely constitued as a Monarchy as the Pope is the vicar of Christ on earth and his authority decends [directly] from God. The divine plan for temporal society is according to another model as the temporal rulers are not the vicars of Christ as such, but are vicars of the body politic.
My personal thinking is that while it is not sinful to vote for President, it is sinful to vote for senators and representatives.
Mind if I ask why?
My view is that sovereignty must reside in a person; whereas in our Constitutional system, sovereignty resides in the "tension" (as the great heresiarch John Courtney Murray put it) produced by our tripartite form of government.
Voting for senators or representatives for me (I don't pass judgment on what anyone else does) means to collude in a system that thwarts the very idea of sovereignty.
My view is that sovereignty must reside in a person...
Is your view based on any specific magisterial teaching? I thought that "sovereignty" (i.e., the supreme power of the state to direct its members toward the attainment of the common good) could reside in one person or several.
Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 7071 Location: San Diego
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:28 pm Post subject:
thomist wrote:
Monarchy is not a "traditional" Catholic view of how government should be set up.
Actually, I think it is. It is reflects nature itself. It in fact reflects the supernatural order as well. It reflects the Church, "on earth as it is in Heaven". The heavenly court, the King, the Queen, the everything. Hierarchy, authority, order, beauty... truth.
Quote:
The problem with the U.S. government is not that it is not a monarchy, but that it fails to give the Church her proper due and acknowledge the indirect authority of the Church in temporal matters.
No real argument with this point.
Quote:
Any "monarchist" who in fact desires that our form of government should be abandoned and a monarchy set up is, in fact, a seditionist, no matter how much Catholic principles should be alleged in support of it. For the people of a nation have the right to determine for themselves what form of government they wish to have.
As a monarchist, I'm under no delusion that our current form of government can, by the actions of men, be abandoned and a monarchy set up. I would entertain no such thoughts of any such effort, nor participate in even any thoughts of such an effort, since humanly speaking we are so far gone it is an impossibility. It would take an act of God in several different arenas to make way for even the thought of its possibility again. That being said, it will in fact happen again.
Quote:
And, even monarchists today should vote, for that is a civic obligation of a citizen of a representative democracy. According to Fr. Jone in "Moral Theology", voting is an obligation which binds under pain of venial sin.
I do not vote, and will not vote ever again. _________________ The Blessed Sacrament is Heaven on Earth
Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 7071 Location: San Diego
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:31 pm Post subject:
schoolman wrote:
I think some monarchists are mistaken in the notion that temporal society and temporal authority must necessarily be structured according to the manner of the supra-temporal society of the Church. This in fact is not the case.
Well then, fire away and tell us why not. _________________ The Blessed Sacrament is Heaven on Earth
Monarchy is not a "traditional" Catholic view of how government should be set up.
Actually, I think it is. It is reflects nature itself. It in fact reflects the supernatural order as well. It reflects the Church, "on earth as it is in Heaven". The heavenly court, the King, the Queen, the everything. Hierarchy, authority, order, beauty... truth.
Yes, but humans are burdened with original sin. It is for this reason that monarchy becomes non-ideal. St. Robert Bellarmine agrees with you on the ideal superiority of monarchy but sees a prudential reason, given the fallen state of human nature, to prefer a more mixed form. According to Bellarmine, ideally the best form of government would be a monarchy but practically, due to the fact a bad monarchy causes the most damage the more prudent form would be a type of government that kind of mixes monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy, such as a representative democracy such as we have. Again, this isn't doctrine. One is free to prefer whatever form of government he prefers. It's a matter of prudential judgment. However, according to Leo XIII all forms, monarchies, republics, whatever, are legitimate as long as they pass just laws (with due deference to the indirect temporal authority of the Church) and work for the common good.
Quote:
As a monarchist, I'm under no delusion that our current form of government can, by the actions of men, be abandoned and a monarchy set up. I would entertain no such thoughts of any such effort, nor participate in even any thoughts of such an effort, since humanly speaking we are so far gone it is an impossibility. It would take an act of God in several different arenas to make way for even the thought of its possibility again. That being said, it will in fact happen again.
Again, I don't disagree with you monarchy is better when the monarch is a Saint. The trouble is that history shows that for every St. Louis of France, there are 10 Josef Stalins.
Quote:
Quote:
And, even monarchists today should vote, for that is a civic obligation of a citizen of a representative democracy. According to Fr. Jone in "Moral Theology", voting is an obligation which binds under pain of venial sin.
I do not vote, and will not vote ever again.
Fr. Jone was a standard pre-Vatican II reference on moral theology. Are you seriously telling me if a truly Catholic candidate ran for public office, you wouldn't vote for him? We live in a fallen and sinful world; we have to try to do good where we can.
Is your view based on any specific magisterial teaching?
It's not out of place here to remark that the Church has expressly taught the opposite view.
"Various political governments have succeeded one another in France during the last century, each having its own distinctive form: the Empire, the Monarchy, and the Republic. By giving one's self up to abstractions, one could at length conclude which is the best of these forms, considered in themselves; and in all truth it may be affirmed that each of them is good, provided it lead straight to its end-that is to say, to the common good for which social authority is constituted; and finally, it may be added that, from a relative point of view, such and such a form of government may be preferable because of being better adapted to the character and customs of such or such a nation. In this order of speculative ideas, Catholics, like all other citizens, are free to prefer one form of government to another precisely because no one of these social forms is, in itself, opposed to the principles of sound reason nor to the maxims of Christian doctrine." (Leo XIII, Encyclical Au Milieu des Sollicitudes)
"From the foregoing it is manifest, beloved son, that we are not able to give approval to those views which, in their collective sense, are called by some 'Americanism.' But if by this name are to be understood certain endowments of mind which belong to the American people, just as other characteristics belong to various other nations, and if, moreover, by it is designated your political condition and the laws and customs by which you are governed, there is no reason to take exception to the name." (Leo XIII, Encyclical Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae)
"These civil rights are of various kinds, even to the extent of directly participating in the political life of the country by representing the people in the legislative halls. Most serious reasons, however, dissuade Us, Venerable Brethren, from departing from that norm which Our Predecessor, Leo XIII, of blessed memory, decreed during his Pontificate. According to his decree it was universally forbidden in Italy for Catholics to participate in the legislative power. Other reasons equally grave, however, founded upon the supreme good of society which must be preserved at all costs demand that in particular cases a dispensation from the law be granted especially when you, Venerable Brethren, recognize the strict necessity of it for the good of souls and the interest of your churches, and you request such a dispensation. This concession places a duty on all Catholics to prepare themselves prudently and seriously for political life in case they may be called to it." (Pius X, Encyclical Il Fermo Proposito)
"In such a psychological atmosphere, is it to be wondered at if the tendency towards democracy is capturing the peoples and winning a large measure of consent and support from those who hope to play a more efficient part in the destinies of individuals and of society?
It is scarcely necessary to recall that, according to the teaching of the Church, 'it is not forbidden to prefer temperate, popular forms of government, without prejudice, however, to Catholic teaching on the origin and use of authority,' and that 'the Church does not disapprove of any of the various forms of government, provided they be per se capable of securing the good of the citizens' (Leo Thirteenth: Encyclical "Libertas," June 20, 1888). ...
And since the center of gravity of a democracy normally set up resides in this popular assembly from which political currents radiate into every field of public life—for good or ill—the question of the high moral standards, practical ability and intellectual capacity of parliamentary deputies is for every people living under a democratic regime a question of life and death of prosperity and decadence, of soundness or perpetual unrest. ...
A sound democracy, based on the immutable principles of the natural law and revealed truth, will resolutely turn its back on such corruption as gives to the state legislature an unchecked and unlimited power, and moreover, makes of the democratic regime, notwithstanding an outward show to the contrary, purely and simply a form of absolutism. ...
We were anxious, Beloved Sons and Daughters, to take the occasion of Christmastide to point out along what lines a democracy befitting human dignity can, in harmony with the law of nature and the designs of God as manifested in Revelation, secure happy results." (Pius XII, 1944 Christmas Radio Message)
I think some monarchists are mistaken in the notion that temporal society and temporal authority must necessarily be structured according to the manner of the supra-temporal society of the Church. This in fact is not the case.
Well then, fire away and tell us why not.
I already spoke about the fact that the Church is governed as a Monarchy by virtue of the fact that the Pope is the vicar of Christ. Therefore, in the Church God's authority decends from above [directly] to the Pope upon his election. In civil society, on the other hand, God's authority [indirectly] ascends from below. That is why St. Thomas describes the civil ruler as the "vicar of the multitude" (Cf. Summa. i-ii. 90. 3). Pope Pius XII has confirmed the above distinction (between Ecclesicatical and Temporal authority) as follows:
Quote:
The foundation of the Church as a society did not proceed, as does that of the State, upwards from below, but downwards from above. (Cf. Pius XII, allocution to the Roman Tota on Authority - Civil and Ecclesiastical, October 2, 1945)
To ignore these realities would be to fall into the error of the so-called "divine right of kings".
Betcha a million bucks that NeoCatholicism is intrinscally allied with Americanism.
You need look no farther than the NeoCatholics' adulation of John Paul "the Great" suddenly turning to silence when he condemned the Iraq War, meaning that according to him, those who supported it were supporting mass murder. Their justification for this? Well, you see, it's up to the prudential judgment of the civil authorities to determine whether war is justified (as though the Vicar of Christ can have nothing to say about it). So, I guess they follow "the Great" to the ends of the earth, except if national interest is involved...
Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 7071 Location: San Diego
Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:03 am Post subject:
schoolman wrote:
pascendi wrote:
schoolman wrote:
I think some monarchists are mistaken in the notion that temporal society and temporal authority must necessarily be structured according to the manner of the supra-temporal society of the Church. This in fact is not the case.
Well then, fire away and tell us why not.
I already spoke about the fact that the Church is governed as a Monarchy by virtue of the fact that the Pope is the vicar of Christ. Therefore, in the Church God's authority decends from above [directly] to the Pope upon his election. In civil society, on the other hand, God's authority [indirectly] ascends from below. That is why St. Thomas describes the civil ruler as the "vicar of the multitude" (Cf. Summa. i-ii. 90. 3). Pope Pius XII has confirmed the above distinction (between Ecclesicatical and Temporal authority) as follows:
Quote:
The foundation of the Church as a society did not proceed, as does that of the State, upwards from below, but downwards from above. (Cf. Pius XII, allocution to the Roman Tota on Authority - Civil and Ecclesiastical, October 2, 1945)
To ignore these realities would be to fall into the error of the so-called "divine right of kings".
Regarding from where authority proceeds, upwards from below in the state, or downwards from above in the Church: can one necessarily conclude that by this reason it can be said that "temporal society and temporal authority must necessarily be structured according to the manner of the supra-temporal society of the Church" is a mistaken notion?
I'm not sure that follows. _________________ The Blessed Sacrament is Heaven on Earth
My view is that sovereignty must reside in a person...
Is your view based on any specific magisterial teaching? I thought that "sovereignty" (i.e., the supreme power of the state to direct its members toward the attainment of the common good) could reside in one person or several.
No, my view reflects (partially) the political philosophers I've mentioned above.
Are you seriously telling me if a truly Catholic candidate ran for public office, you wouldn't vote for him?
Think about this for a moment, though. Let's say a truly Catholic candidate really ran, and really did win. And I mean a truly Catholic candidate.
Do you realize what he would be obligated to do?
Sure. That's why we should strive for it if possible, and if voting is one of the means, then we should use it.
Just imagine if all the Catholics in the country really voted as Catholics, and truly Catholic candidates were elected. Just imagine if they were not so blinded by the miasma of Americanism as they currently are. We would, for instance, vote in prosecutors and state legislatures that would thumb their noses at the Supreme Court and criminalize abortion anyway.
I think some monarchists are mistaken in the notion that temporal society and temporal authority must necessarily be structured according to the manner of the supra-temporal society of the Church. This in fact is not the case.
Well then, fire away and tell us why not.
I already spoke about the fact that the Church is governed as a Monarchy by virtue of the fact that the Pope is the vicar of Christ. Therefore, in the Church God's authority decends from above [directly] to the Pope upon his election. In civil society, on the other hand, God's authority [indirectly] ascends from below. That is why St. Thomas describes the civil ruler as the "vicar of the multitude" (Cf. Summa. i-ii. 90. 3). Pope Pius XII has confirmed the above distinction (between Ecclesicatical and Temporal authority) as follows:
Quote:
The foundation of the Church as a society did not proceed, as does that of the State, upwards from below, but downwards from above. (Cf. Pius XII, allocution to the Roman Tota on Authority - Civil and Ecclesiastical, October 2, 1945)
To ignore these realities would be to fall into the error of the so-called "divine right of kings".
Regarding from where authority proceeds, upwards from below in the state, or downwards from above in the Church: can one necessarily conclude that by this reason it can be said that "temporal society and temporal authority must necessarily be structured according to the manner of the supra-temporal society of the Church" is a mistaken notion?
I'm not sure that follows.
Again, it is a mistaken notion to think that the temporal order must be patterned after the Church because:
a) the Church was divinely constituted as a Monarchy while the state was not
b) therefore, the Pope alone holds supreme power in the Church while State sovereignty can be vested by one or many
c) Authority descends [directly] from above in the Church while in the State is ascends [indirectly] from below
d) therefore, the Pope is the vicar of Christ while the State power is the "vicar of the multitude"
I think some monarchists are mistaken in the notion that temporal society and temporal authority must necessarily be structured according to the manner of the supra-temporal society of the Church. This in fact is not the case.
Well then, fire away and tell us why not.
I already spoke about the fact that the Church is governed as a Monarchy by virtue of the fact that the Pope is the vicar of Christ. Therefore, in the Church God's authority decends from above [directly] to the Pope upon his election. In civil society, on the other hand, God's authority [indirectly] ascends from below. That is why St. Thomas describes the civil ruler as the "vicar of the multitude" (Cf. Summa. i-ii. 90. 3). Pope Pius XII has confirmed the above distinction (between Ecclesicatical and Temporal authority) as follows:
Quote:
The foundation of the Church as a society did not proceed, as does that of the State, upwards from below, but downwards from above. (Cf. Pius XII, allocution to the Roman Tota on Authority - Civil and Ecclesiastical, October 2, 1945)
To ignore these realities would be to fall into the error of the so-called "divine right of kings".
Regarding from where authority proceeds, upwards from below in the state, or downwards from above in the Church: can one necessarily conclude that by this reason it can be said that "temporal society and temporal authority must necessarily be structured according to the manner of the supra-temporal society of the Church" is a mistaken notion?
I'm not sure that follows.
Again, it is a mistaken notion to think that the temporal order must be patterned after the Church because:
a) the Church was divinely constituted as a Monarchy while the state was not
b) therefore, the Pope alone holds supreme power in the Church while State sovereignty can be vested by one or many
c) Authority descends [directly] from above in the Church while in the State is ascends [indirectly] from below
d) therefore, the Pope is the vicar of Christ while the State power is the "vicar of the multitude"
Pope has never had absolute supreme power in the Church for the Church can open a Council to see if he's unfit to rule the Church
why can't the State not something be like that. i propose the law of Divine Grace of Kingship which would be a monarchic aristocracy but allow for dethroning of a bad king almost like the holy roman empire turned out in the end but the cardinal-electors will only be in case of a bad emperor or let's just bring back the Holy Roman Empire!
Yours in Christ,
Jonathan _________________ All for Jesus, Rome, the Old European Monarchies, Land!
Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 7071 Location: San Diego
Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:31 pm Post subject:
thomist wrote:
Just imagine if all the Catholics in the country really voted as Catholics, and truly Catholic candidates were elected. Just imagine if they were not so blinded by the miasma of Americanism as they currently are. We would, for instance, vote in prosecutors and state legislatures that would thumb their noses at the Supreme Court and criminalize abortion anyway.
What would happen is that we would default to a benevolent monarchy, because it is the true nature things; the reality. _________________ The Blessed Sacrament is Heaven on Earth
Pope has never had absolute supreme power in the Church for the Church can open a Council to see if he's unfit to rule the Church
why can't the State not something be like that. i propose the law of Divine Grace of Kingship which would be a monarchic aristocracy but allow for dethroning of a bad king almost like the holy roman empire turned out in the end but the cardinal-electors will only be in case of a bad emperor or let's just bring back the Holy Roman Empire!
Sorry I could not quite follow your train of thought. Did you have a specific question for me?
Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 7071 Location: San Diego
Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:40 pm Post subject:
schoolman wrote:
Again, it is a mistaken notion to think that the temporal order must be patterned after the Church because:
a) the Church was divinely constituted as a Monarchy while the state was not
You're proposing a separation of Church and State in principle here based upon a misapplied point concerning how each, Church and State, have been constituted. The fact of the matter is that civil society is to reflect or to mirror the divine order.
Quote:
b) therefore, the Pope alone holds supreme power in the Church while State sovereignty can be vested by one or many
Even among kings it is vested in many, as there would be many kings. I don't see your point.
Quote:
c) Authority descends [directly] from above in the Church while in the State is ascends [indirectly] from below
This does not mean that what ascends from below does not reflect what descends from above. If anything, such a recognition is an argument that what ascends from below should mirror what descends from above, and rooted in the same principle.
Quote:
d) therefore, the Pope is the vicar of Christ while the State power is the "vicar of the multitude"
Meaningless. _________________ The Blessed Sacrament is Heaven on Earth
Just imagine if all the Catholics in the country really voted as Catholics, and truly Catholic candidates were elected. Just imagine if they were not so blinded by the miasma of Americanism as they currently are. We would, for instance, vote in prosecutors and state legislatures that would thumb their noses at the Supreme Court and criminalize abortion anyway.
What would happen is that we would default to a benevolent monarchy, because it is the true nature things; the reality.
That is something you need to prove via recourse to Catholic teachings. Leo XIII has said that both republics and monarchies are acceptable as long as they pass just laws and respect the indirect temporal power of the Church. The fact that God, as Supreme Ruler, is One does not necessarily translate to the conclusion that all human societies must necessarily be ruled that way; and in fact the Israelites were not always ruled by a monarchical form.
It should be pointed out that even the Church is not a true and proper monarchy in the strict sense; for while the Pope has plenary jurisdiction over the entire Church the Bishops nevertheless exercise a true and proper power over their own dioceses and are not mere vicars of the Pope. The Pope would in fact become a schismatic if he tried to abolish the office of the episcopacy.
This is somewhat (although not completely) analogous to the situation of States in the U.S.; governors have true power in their own right and are not mere appointees of the President.
The fact of the matter is that civil society is to reflect or to mirror the divine order.
Well, if that were true then Monarchy indeed would be the only model to follow for civil society. But the Church has never said this. On the contrary, the Church does not prefer one form of Government over another so long as it conforms to the moral law and pursues the common good.
Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 7071 Location: San Diego
Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:52 pm Post subject:
schoolman wrote:
pascendi wrote:
The fact of the matter is that civil society is to reflect or to mirror the divine order.
Well, if that were true then Monarchy indeed would be the only model to follow for civil society.
That's correct.
Quote:
But the Church has never said this. On the contrary, the Church does not prefer one form of Government over another so long as it conforms to the moral law and pursues the common good.
That wouldn't be an "on the contrary". That's not a "contrary". Because the Church has not condemned one or another form, it does not follow that there is not a perfect form. _________________ The Blessed Sacrament is Heaven on Earth
Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 7071 Location: San Diego
Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:58 pm Post subject:
thomist wrote:
pascendi wrote:
thomist wrote:
Just imagine if all the Catholics in the country really voted as Catholics, and truly Catholic candidates were elected. Just imagine if they were not so blinded by the miasma of Americanism as they currently are. We would, for instance, vote in prosecutors and state legislatures that would thumb their noses at the Supreme Court and criminalize abortion anyway.
What would happen is that we would default to a benevolent monarchy, because it is the true nature things; the reality.
That is something you need to prove via recourse to Catholic teachings.
Let me restate it again a different way, since what I meant may not have come across properly. I mean to say that if people were to vote as Catholics, all of them... and elect a truly Catholic president, as well as all the other offices of our current system, that the entire system itself would default to operating as a benevolent monarchy.
This defaulting has already happened by negation in its corrupted form: the current government is already acting the role of the corrupted monarchy in whichever way it has erred. One need to look no further than the presidential directives. _________________ The Blessed Sacrament is Heaven on Earth
The fact of the matter is that civil society is to reflect or to mirror the divine order.
Well, if that were true then Monarchy indeed would be the only model to follow for civil society.
That's correct.
Quote:
But the Church has never said this. On the contrary, the Church does not prefer one form of Government over another so long as it conforms to the moral law and pursues the common good.
That wouldn't be an "on the contrary". That's not a "contrary". Because the Church has not condemned one or another form, it does not follow that there is not a perfect form.
Now if there were a so-called "perfect form" then the Church would certainly endorse it - but she does not. Rather she leaves this decision for each of the peoples to decided for themselves as to what is most appropriate given the diversity of their individual history, cutoms, and circumstances.
Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 7071 Location: San Diego
Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 8:05 pm Post subject:
schoolman wrote:
Now if there were a so-called "perfect form" then the Church would certainly endorse it - but she does not. Rather she leaves this decision for each of the peoples to decided for themselves as to what is most appropriate given the diversity of their individual history, cutoms, and circumstances.
The Church has not declared a perfect form, therefore there is no perfect form.
Nope; that doesn't follow. _________________ The Blessed Sacrament is Heaven on Earth
Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 7071 Location: San Diego
Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 8:12 pm Post subject:
If it is true that the family is the atomic principle of society, then all of the rest of society's construction must follow typical suit.
Everything the Catholic Faith gives us is presented to us in terms of the perfection of the family: a heavenly mother, brothers in Christ, God the Father, partaking in the Body and Blood of Christ, kingship and queenship, and so on and so forth. The principles of the government of the macrocosm must be of the same principle as the government of its elements. _________________ The Blessed Sacrament is Heaven on Earth
Now if there were a so-called "perfect form" then the Church would certainly endorse it - but she does not. Rather she leaves this decision for each of the peoples to decided for themselves as to what is most appropriate given the diversity of their individual history, cutoms, and circumstances.
The Church has not declared a perfect form, therefore there is no perfect form.
Nope; that doesn't follow.
The Church denies the notion of a so-called "perfect form" of government as some kind of absolute ideal. There is no absolute ideal in this regard and that is why she leaves it to the desicion of the individual nations who can determine what is best according to their individual needs.
Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 7071 Location: San Diego
Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 8:28 pm Post subject:
schoolman wrote:
The Church denies the notion of a so-called "perfect form" of government as some kind of absolute ideal.
Show me.
Quote:
There is no absolute ideal in this regard and that is why she leaves it to the desicion of the individual nations who can determine what is best according to their individual needs.
Yes there is an absolute ideal. _________________ The Blessed Sacrament is Heaven on Earth
"Indeed, very many men of more recent times, walking in the footsteps of those who in a former age assumed to themselves the name of philosophers, say that all power comes from the people; so that those who exercise it in the State do so not as their own, but as delegated to them by the people, and that, by this rule, it can be revoked by the will of the very people by whom it was delegated. But from these, Catholics dissent, who affirm that the right to rule is from God, as from a natural and necessary principle."
All authority descends from God, and can never ascend from below. As I said before, the ruler may be delegated by the people; but this is different from saying that the people themselves vest the ruler with power.
Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 7071 Location: San Diego
Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 8:39 pm Post subject:
Did you mean this to refute the proposal that there is an ideal form of government? Because it doesn't. _________________ The Blessed Sacrament is Heaven on Earth
I thought I made it clear from the outset of this thread that I believe monarchy to be the ideal form of government. The authors I cited, de Maistre, Balmes, Donoso Cortes, all make this argument.
The political philosophy of the Enlightenment and of the American Founding (Locke, Montesquieu, etc.) are thoroughly repugnant to Catholic principles.
Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 7071 Location: San Diego
Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 9:20 pm Post subject:
Torquemada wrote:
I thought I made it clear from the outset of this thread that I believe monarchy to be the ideal form of government. The authors I cited, de Maistre, Balmes, Donoso Cortes, all make this argument.
The political philosophy of the Enlightenment and of the American Founding (Locke, Montesquieu, etc.) are thoroughly repugnant to Catholic principles.
Alright. So there is a perfect form of government, then. _________________ The Blessed Sacrament is Heaven on Earth
The Church denies the notion of a so-called "perfect form" of government as some kind of absolute ideal.
Show me.
Well, see my emphasis below that shows that there is no absolute ideal. Rather, there is a relative "ideal" that takes into consideration the individual circumstances of time and place, customs, etc.
Quote:
"Various political governments have succeeded one another in France during the last century, each having its own distinctive form: the Empire, the Monarchy, and the Republic. By giving one's self up to abstractions, one could at length conclude which is the best of these forms, considered in themselves; and in all truth it may be affirmed that each of them is good, provided it lead straight to its end-that is to say, to the common good for which social authority is constituted; and finally, it may be added that, from a relative point of view, such and such a form of government may be preferable because of being better adapted to the character and customs of such or such a nation. In this order of speculative ideas, Catholics, like all other citizens, are free to prefer one form of government to another precisely because no one of these social forms is, in itself, opposed to the principles of sound reason nor to the maxims of Christian doctrine." (Leo XIII, Encyclical Au Milieu des Sollicitudes)
"Indeed, very many men of more recent times, walking in the footsteps of those who in a former age assumed to themselves the name of philosophers, say that all power comes from the people; so that those who exercise it in the State do so not as their own, but as delegated to them by the people, and that, by this rule, it can be revoked by the will of the very people by whom it was delegated. But from these, Catholics dissent, who affirm that the right to rule is from God, as from a natural and necessary principle."
All authority descends from God, and can never ascend from below. As I said before, the ruler may be delegated by the people; but this is different from saying that the people themselves vest the ruler with power.
Torq, it should be noted that Pope Leo is referring here to the Roussouist notion of the State that excludes God as the Origen of civil authority. There is no contradiction here with the teaching of Pius XII (see my post above) who said that civil authority ascends from below (i.e., from the community to the civil ruler(s)).
Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 7071 Location: San Diego
Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 9:37 pm Post subject:
schoolman wrote:
pascendi wrote:
schoolman wrote:
The Church denies the notion of a so-called "perfect form" of government as some kind of absolute ideal.
Show me.
Well, see my emphasis below that shows that there is no absolute ideal. Rather, there is a relative "ideal" that takes into consideration the individual circumstances of time and place, customs, etc.
Quote:
"Various political governments have succeeded one another in France during the last century, each having its own distinctive form: the Empire, the Monarchy, and the Republic. By giving one's self up to abstractions, one could at length conclude which is the best of these forms, considered in themselves; and in all truth it may be affirmed that each of them is good, provided it lead straight to its end-that is to say, to the common good for which social authority is constituted; and finally, it may be added that, from a relative point of view, such and such a form of government may be preferable because of being better adapted to the character and customs of such or such a nation. In this order of speculative ideas, Catholics, like all other citizens, are free to prefer one form of government to another precisely because no one of these social forms is, in itself, opposed to the principles of sound reason nor to the maxims of Christian doctrine." (Leo XIII, Encyclical Au Milieu des Sollicitudes)
Let me rebold certain portions:
Quote:
Various political governments have succeeded one another in France during the last century, each having its own distinctive form: the Empire, the Monarchy, and the Republic. By giving one's self up to abstractions, one could at length conclude which is the best of these forms, considered in themselves; and in all truth it may be affirmed that each of them is good, provided it lead straight to its end-that is to say, to the common good for which social authority is constituted; and finally, it may be added that, from a relative point of view, such and such a form of government may be preferable because of being better adapted to the character and customs of such or such a nation. In this order of speculative ideas, Catholics, like all other citizens, are free to prefer one form of government to another precisely because no one of these social forms is, in itself, opposed to the principles of sound reason nor to the maxims of Christian doctrine." (Leo XIII, Encyclical Au Milieu des Sollicitudes)
This is an encyclical and does not reflect the supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church providing definitive Catholic teaching on the matter, any more than one of the encyclicals of Pope John Paul II does.
I maintain that there is an ideal form of government which most perfectly mirrors the true order of things according to nature and according to a mirroring of heavenly order. While the pope in this encyclical may have ok'd Catholics adopting one or another form of government so long as none of them contradicted Catholicism, I say that this does not mean that no ideal form exists. I would also posit that such types of governments have, in the time since then, manifested themselves to be in contradiction with Catholic principle. I also maintain that the Pope may not have expressed most perfectly the truth in this particular matter here. _________________ The Blessed Sacrament is Heaven on Earth
The Church denies the notion of a so-called "perfect form" of government as some kind of absolute ideal.
Show me.
Well, see my emphasis below that shows that there is no absolute ideal. Rather, there is a relative "ideal" that takes into consideration the individual circumstances of time and place, customs, etc.
Quote:
"Various political governments have succeeded one another in France during the last century, each having its own distinctive form: the Empire, the Monarchy, and the Republic. By giving one's self up to abstractions, one could at length conclude which is the best of these forms, considered in themselves; and in all truth it may be affirmed that each of them is good, provided it lead straight to its end-that is to say, to the common good for which social authority is constituted; and finally, it may be added that, from a relative point of view, such and such a form of government may be preferable because of being better adapted to the character and customs of such or such a nation. In this order of speculative ideas, Catholics, like all other citizens, are free to prefer one form of government to another precisely because no one of these social forms is, in itself, opposed to the principles of sound reason nor to the maxims of Christian doctrine." (Leo XIII, Encyclical Au Milieu des Sollicitudes)
Let me rebold certain portions:
Quote:
Various political governments have succeeded one another in France during the last century, each having its own distinctive form: the Empire, the Monarchy, and the Republic. By giving one's self up to abstractions, one could at length conclude which is the best of these forms, considered in themselves; and in all truth it may be affirmed that each of them is good, provided it lead straight to its end-that is to say, to the common good for which social authority is constituted; and finally, it may be added that, from a relative point of view, such and such a form of government may be preferable because of being better adapted to the character and customs of such or such a nation. In this order of speculative ideas, Catholics, like all other citizens, are free to prefer one form of government to another precisely because no one of these social forms is, in itself, opposed to the principles of sound reason nor to the maxims of Christian doctrine." (Leo XIII, Encyclical Au Milieu des Sollicitudes)
This is an encyclical and does not reflect the supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church providing definitive Catholic teaching on the matter, any more than one of the encyclicals of Pope John Paul II does.
I maintain that there is an ideal form of government which most perfectly mirrors the true order of things according to nature and according to a mirroring of heavenly order. While the pope in this encyclical may have ok'd Catholics adopting one or another form of government so long as none of them contradicted Catholicism, I say that this does not mean that no ideal form exists. I would also posit that such types of governments have, in the time since then, manifested themselves to be in contradiction with Catholic principle. I also maintain that the Pope may not have expressed most perfectly the truth in this particular matter here.
Let me re-reemphasise as you are giving yourself up to hopeless abstractions! We are not pure spirits as are the angels and therefore we are conditioned by matter. This means that we are bound to apply principles that consider the conditional realities of time, place, custom, etc.
Quote:
"Various political governments have succeeded one another in France during the last century, each having its own distinctive form: the Empire, the Monarchy, and the Republic. By giving one's self up to abstractions, one could at length conclude which is the best of these forms, considered in themselves; and in all truth it may be affirmed that each of them is good, provided it lead straight to its end-that is to say, to the common good for which social authority is constituted; and finally, it may be added that, from a relative point of view, such and such a form of government may be preferable because of being better adapted to the character and customs of such or such a nation. In this order of speculative ideas, Catholics, like all other citizens, are free to prefer one form of government to another precisely because no one of these social forms is, in itself, opposed to the principles of sound reason nor to the maxims of Christian doctrine." (Leo XIII, Encyclical Au Milieu des Sollicitudes)
Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 7071 Location: San Diego
Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 9:56 pm Post subject:
schoolman wrote:
Let me re-reemphasise as you are giving yourself up to hopeless abstractions! We are not pure spirits as are the angels and therefore we are conditioned by matter. This means that we are bound to apply principles that consider the conditional realities of time, place, custom, etc.
Not a good rebuttal. This is the equivalent of saying that one cannot identify the nature of man because he has a body.
Sorry: there is a perfect form of government which reflects the divine order. That's the truth. _________________ The Blessed Sacrament is Heaven on Earth
"Indeed, very many men of more recent times, walking in the footsteps of those who in a former age assumed to themselves the name of philosophers, say that all power comes from the people; so that those who exercise it in the State do so not as their own, but as delegated to them by the people, and that, by this rule, it can be revoked by the will of the very people by whom it was delegated. But from these, Catholics dissent, who affirm that the right to rule is from God, as from a natural and necessary principle."
All authority descends from God, and can never ascend from below. As I said before, the ruler may be delegated by the people; but this is different from saying that the people themselves vest the ruler with power.
Torq, it should be noted that Pope Leo is referring here to the Roussouist notion of the State that excludes God as the Origen of civil authority. There is no contradiction here with the teaching of Pius XII (see my post above) who said that civil authority ascends from below (i.e., from the community to the civil ruler(s)).
Is it really necessary to respond to this? The "foundation" of the state is different from the procession of authority. Pius XII is talking about the origin of the state. The origin of the state is in man's nature, in the natural law promulgated in man by God. No disputes here. I agree with Thomas.
Jesus Christ founded the Church. Human beings found states. Nevertheless, in both cases, authority to rule comes from God.
Let me re-reemphasise as you are giving yourself up to hopeless abstractions! We are not pure spirits as are the angels and therefore we are conditioned by matter. This means that we are bound to apply principles that consider the conditional realities of time, place, custom, etc.
Not a good rebuttal. This is the equivalent of saying that one cannot identify the nature of man because he has a body.
Sorry: there is a perfect form of government which reflects the divine order. That's the truth.
That doesn't work. Of course we can determine the nature of man, however, you are trying to determine the absolute "ideal" man in his temporal aspects. Would you say that the conceptual "ideal" man about 6 feet tall, 180 lbs, dark hair, medium build, etc? Of course not, that is rediculous.
"Indeed, very many men of more recent times, walking in the footsteps of those who in a former age assumed to themselves the name of philosophers, say that all power comes from the people; so that those who exercise it in the State do so not as their own, but as delegated to them by the people, and that, by this rule, it can be revoked by the will of the very people by whom it was delegated. But from these, Catholics dissent, who affirm that the right to rule is from God, as from a natural and necessary principle."
All authority descends from God, and can never ascend from below. As I said before, the ruler may be delegated by the people; but this is different from saying that the people themselves vest the ruler with power.
Torq, it should be noted that Pope Leo is referring here to the Roussouist notion of the State that excludes God as the Origen of civil authority. There is no contradiction here with the teaching of Pius XII (see my post above) who said that civil authority ascends from below (i.e., from the community to the civil ruler(s)).
Is it really necessary to respond to this? The "foundation" of the state is different from the procession of authority. Pius XII is talking about the origin of the state. The origin of the state is in man's nature, in the natural law promulgated in man by God. No disputes here. I agree with Thomas.
Jesus Christ founded the Church. Human beings found states. Nevertheless, in both cases, authority to rule comes from God.
I think the origin of the state and the procession of authority is significant to the question of Monarchy as a so-called absolute ideal in the temporal sphere. God directly gave the Church her divine constitution and authority. On the other hand, this is done indirectly in the case of natural civil societies where peoples can choose their appropriate forms of government according to individual needs and circumstances.
I maintain that there is an ideal form of government which most perfectly mirrors the true order of things according to nature and according to a mirroring of heavenly order. While the pope in this encyclical may have ok'd Catholics adopting one or another form of government so long as none of them contradicted Catholicism, I say that this does not mean that no ideal form exists. I would also posit that such types of governments have, in the time since then, manifested themselves to be in contradiction with Catholic principle. I also maintain that the Pope may not have expressed most perfectly the truth in this particular matter here.
I don't know if you are getting the point. Monarchy is indeed the "ideal form of government which most perfectly mirrors the true order of things according to nature and according to a mirroring of heavenly order". This however doesn't mean that in each and every circumstance adopting monarchy is the most prudent thing to do. For humans are fallen, burdened with the effects of original sin. A corrupted monarchy becomes a tyranny, and there is truth to the maxim of Lord Acton that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Hence the Church does not demand that every government be a monarchy, and in fact St. Robert Bellarmine held that the best form of government, considering the fallen condition of the human race, was one that incorporated elements of monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy.
Of course we must all understand that there will never a perfect government here on earth because we are not perfect but fallen. Now in saying this i still believe that monarchy is still the best form of government that we can and have ever had. Now that does not mean that we can't have any other form such as a republic or democracy but that even catholic republics and catholic democracies cannot be as good as catholic monarchies as history has proven.
Jonathan _________________ All for Jesus, Rome, the Old European Monarchies, Land!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
).
