Skip to comments.Last Catholic Monarchy Euthanized - Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg Silenced!
Posted on 03/20/2009 1:28:51 PM PDT by GonzoII
|Last Catholic Monarchy Euthanized|
Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg Silenced!
|REMNANT COLUMNIST, Oklahoma|
(Posted 03/20/09 www.RemnantNewspaper.com) The last act of the French Revolution came to a close on March 12, 2009, but hardly anyone was watching. The demonic forces unleashed over two hundred years ago took on the aim of destroying all monarchial authority in Europe. The rulers of the once Christian nations of Europe, or at least their governing authority, had all been executed, except for the tine nation of Luxembourg. On March 12, without much fanfare, the parliament of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg voted to end government of their small nation by the Grand Duke.
Luxembourg was the last European nation to be governed by a real monarch. Although the tiny nation has had a parliamentary chamber, that body functioned as parliaments were originally designed to function. It was an advisory body to the Grand Duke. After new legislation was voted on by the Chamber of Deputies, Article 34 of the Constitution stated: The Grand Duke sanctions and promulgates the laws. He makes his resolve known within three months of the vote in the Chamber. This provision permitted the Grand Duke to perform the proper function of a monarch in a mixed form of government. He served as a check on the potential excesses of political parties legislating when they encroached on the principles of the natural law. As a hereditary ruler for life, the Grand Duke is immune from elector politics. He can thus serve as an outside supervisor of the results of the legislative process. This is exactly what he did last year in an act which precipitated the March 12 vote.
In 2008, the Chamber of Deputies voted to approve a law which authorized the intentional killing of human beings, commonly referred to by its morbid proponents as euthanasia. Such a law is contrary to the natural law. For, as St. Thomas observed in his Summa the civil law can not always punish everything that the natural law forbids but it may never sanction such evil. Now we know both by reason and divine authority that euthanasia is prescribed. It violates the first principle of the natural law - self preservation. The Church has confirmed this deduction of reason on several occasions by pronouncing euthanasia to be immoral. Even the sensus Catholicus of this overwhelming Catholic nation was clear; the populace of Luxembourg opposed the bill pushed through by the Socialist and Green parties.
Henri, the current Grand Duke, fulfilled his moral obligation as a good Catholic monarch and refused to sanction this evil legislative act. As a reward for doing the right thing, the so called conservative Prime Minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, called for an amendment to the Constitution stripping the Grand Duke of his authority to sanction laws passed by the Chamber of Deputies. The March 12 vote approved the removal of the word sanctions from Article 34. Prime Minister Juncker made clear the intention was to remove the right of the Grand Duke to approve of or reject laws. According to Juncker he must be required to promulgate all acts passed by the Chamber. The Luxembourg monarchy has thus entered the realm of Walt Disney monarchs inhabited by the remaining figure heads of Europe such as England, Spain and Belgium. They can parade around for tourists in quaint costumes and live in nice palaces, but they have no authority to protect and defend their nation by governing it.
The old sly tactics of the spirit of Liberalism were visible in the way this final act unfolded. The press and politicians called the Grand Dukes prevention of this immoral euthanasia legislation a constitutional crisis. Now a constitutional crisis occurs when an official violates the norms and rules constituting the mode of government of a civil society. In this case the Grand Duke did not violate a single provision of the existing written constitution. He merely exercised his legitimate and rightful authority to withhold his sanction from a proposed civil law which is contrary to the natural law. And the reaction of Liberalism to his exercise of his legitimate right strip him of that right!
Liberalism has always been willing to grant freedom and rights so long as the recipients only exercise that freedom in accordance with the wishes of Liberalism. Post French Revolutionary Liberalism claims to stand for the rule of law, a phrase that purports to mean that rules are not to be changed merely to reach a desired outcome. The established rules of the game, Liberalism claims, are sacrosanct.
In reality, the rules are changed whenever Liberalism does not get its way. Like a spoiled child, it picks up its toys, which it previously claimed to have given away, and goes home. A few years ago after several nations clearly voted to reject the proposed European Constitution, the forces of Liberalism decided that the right to vote on the proposed Constitution was no longer necessary. The Constitution was repackaged as a treaty needing only the approval of the governments of the member states, not a vote of the population at large.
Ireland stood as the only exception and allowed the Irish people to vote and they said no. Even this vote did not stop the forces of Liberalism who vowed to find another way. Likewise, when Grand Duke Henri uses his legal right to withhold his sanction from a law, the right he thought Liberalism had conceded to his ancestors, the modern Constitution is seen for the illusion it is. He has the right for only so long as he does not actually use it.
This pattern of give and take rights is as old as the French Revolution which began by proclaiming Liberty for all and then proceeded to guillotine those who did not use that Liberty in the way the Committee for Public Safety thought they should (i.e. by apostatizing from the Faith). Liberalism means the right to be Liberal (as defined and redefined by the reigning generation of Liberals).
Fortunately for Grand Duke Henri, his confrontation with the old enemy cost him only his legitimate governing authority and not his head. Some Liberals have at least learned that the messy business of liberally severing heads always seems to turn on them, literally.
Still, the Grand Duke is to be commended for his fortitude. One can only imagine the subtle voices of temptation that were poured into his ears by the Machiavellian politicos. Just sanction the euthanasia law and avoid a constitutional crisis. and conserve your rights. You can compromise by expressing your personal disapproval but still promulgate the bill as the will of the legislature. This is not an issue worth loosing your privileges and rights over.
But no, Grand Duke Henris Catholic conscience was too well formed for these deceits. He refused and was duly reprimanded. Again, in an absurdity of contradiction, the new liberal article 34 will prevent the Grand Duke from acting in accordance with his conscience. Its terms require him to promulgate all laws, even those that violate his well formed conscience so much for freedom of conscience!
In lieu of tossing flowers to the Grand Duke as he makes his final bow on the decaying ruins of the theater of Christendom, I suggest all Remnant readers instead offer a rosary for His Highness that God, whose divine law leaves no good deed unrewarded and no evil deed unpunished, will bless him for his courage. While you are doing that, perhaps you can utter a prayer for the tiny population of Luxembourg who are now defenseless against the enactment of euthanasia laws and all the other gruesome ordinances of 21st Century Liberalism. These will all be possible now despite the will of their Grand Duke and, as in this case, even their own overwhelming sentiments. Libera nos ab potestate tyrannico liberalismi, Christus Rex.
"But no, Grand Duke Henris Catholic conscience was too well formed for these deceits."
Change the names and you’ve got the same thing here. The Constitution and the rights of the States and the People are slowly being stripped away. I only hope our outcome is better than his.
He needs to update his calendar; this is 2009.
Thank you for this post.
I'd take him over Obama.
Surprisingly, there are some conservatives who are so conservative they reject classical liberalism and advocate a return to the monarchy. They argue that Enlightenment thinking—including the political and economic liberalism that accompanied it—was inherently anti-Christian, and while they may have a point I think they fail to recognize there’s little reason to assume the monarchy is a superior system.
Well, I am glad the Grand Duke has decided that ‘it is better to serve in heaven, than rule in Luxembourg.’
Yeah, but imagine an Obama for 40 or 50 years under a monarchy.
At least we get another crack at zer0 in 2012.
Did they mean proscribed?
I wouldn't call that being ultra-conservative. It could more accurately be described as extremely idiotic and stupid.
Are these Freepers you're talking about, or well-known conservative personalities?
What matters most is that the governing authority, whether king, president, parliment or “central committee” recognize that they operate under the authority of God and are accountable to God.
Once a ruling authority forgets this or rebels against God, decay begins. Everything begins to fall apart.
A godly monarchy is better than an ungodly democracy.
I'd take him over Obama.
King Ronald I would have been loved by all, except for the bitter leftists whose yapping we wouldn't listen to. His first natural born son would now be king and I don't think I'd care much for the rule of King Ronald II.
I think what matters most is that the state understands that it never, ever has the right to make anyone worship a particular religion, force the populace to be accountable to any clergy or church, or prohibit the exercise of religion.
A birthright monarch does not assume power by the consent of the governed, and that is the antithesis of freedom.
I think there’s one Freeper—B-Chan—who calls himself a monarchist, but I’m not sure if that’s why. I know a couple people in real life who lean in that direction, and I recently went to an ISI conference at Yale where many of the speakers seemed to take that position.
Who gave the various European Monarchs their authority? What a load of dung. The founding fathers of American got many of their ideas from the French revolution and understood that wisdom was not hereditary.
Thomas Paine wrote while reviewing several sources of governments:
First, Superstition. Secondly, Power, Thirdly, The common interest of society, and the common rights of man.
The first was a government of priestcraft, the second of conquerors, and the third of reason.
When a set of artful men pretended, through the medium of oracles, to hold intercourse with the Deity, as familiarly as they now march up the back-stairs in European courts, the world was completely under the government of superstition. The oracles were consulted, and whatever they were made to say, became the law; and this sort of government lasted as long as this sort of superstition lasted.
After these a race of conquerors arose, whose government, like that of William the Conqueror, was founded in power, and the sword assumed the name of a scepter. Governments thus established, last as long as the power to support them lasts; but that they might avail themselves of every engine in their favour, they united fraud to force, and set up an idol which they called Divine Right, and which, in imitation of the Pope, who affects to be spiritual and temporal, and in contradiction to the Founder of the Christian religion, twisted itself afterwards into an idol of another shape, called Church and State. The key of St. Peter, and the key of the Treasury, became quartered on one another, and the wondering cheated multitude worshiped the invention.
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man
And ... what?
Popular election of heads of government has given the world such worthies as (in no particular order, and not implied to be equal) Franklin Roosevelt, Josef Stalin, Jimmy Carter, Robert Mugabe, Bill Clinton, Barak Hussein 0bama, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac ...
"Enlightened", "Rational" revolutions have presented us with "La Terreur", the Third Reich, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos under the Institutional Revolutionary Party, the Peoples' Republic of China ...
Sometimes, Monarchy looks pretty darn good by comparison.
Oh yeah, Stalin and Mugabe were certainly elected in free and fair elections. /s
Are you trying to discredit yourself?
If King Ronald had served he would be succeeded by his idiot leftist natural born son Skipper.
So you think that a monarchy can be superior to the Constitution of the United States.
Oh and the USSR and PRC? Are you joking?
Grow up. I've seen 'way too much outright fraud to buy into that silly notion even for a moment.
Are you trying to discredit yourself? You're darned close to doing it.
And anybody who sees anything at all good in the French Revolution has already discredited himself.
< snort > THAT outdated, repudiated rag? What has it got to do with any government in 2009?
Yeah, it was an interesting idea, back in 1789. Too bad it's only an historical curiosity, now.
And to be perfectly clear, to both of you: I think that government itself is what "sucks" ... the form thereof is virtually irrelevant. Our much vaunted Constitution has proven utterly incapable of protecting itself, or limiting government. A monarchy or dictatorship is only as good or bad as the monarch or dictator. One could be very free (in the sense of being left alone to do one's thing) under a monarch who knows better than to go meddling in folks' lives. One can be very unfree under a supposedly democratic or republican government, when it (by popular demand) turns into the nanny-state. Or worse.
If I ever see a primogeniture king in the United States, ruling me by perceived birthright, I will shoot him on sight.
Does this sound anything like an election to you?
Your knowledge of history is appalling. You're just thossing out names like Stalin and the PRC with no logical reason (although maybe you don't believe in logic--it does seem like one of those evil Enlightenment values), hoping that somehow you can tar democracy by association when no association exists.
You in part, somewhat sensibly implored;
Hate to tell 'ya ---but Check out this guy, B-Chan, @ post # 24
Here's a piece of the guy's mind;
The tagline is a real loo-loo, too.
He's been here a while. I assume he hasn't yet attempted to institute a Catholic monarchy in Texas, though, since he's obviously still breathing.
Form of government is all important to you. Substance thereof? Not so much, apparently.
USSR had "elections". They were "free". Just ask 'em ...
Communism is and was completely a product of the so-called enlightenment. PRC and USSR came into being as the result of communist revolutions.
Not necessarily. There are some democracies and republics that I would never live in, such as the People's Republic of California, or most European democracies.
But I would never under any circumstances live in a place where the head of state was a monarch who held real power and acquired that power by birthright. If said person attempted to rule the United States, I would join the long line of people waiting to put a bullet in his head.
Yes, and we mustn’t forget Iran’s popularly elected President who expects an imminent return of the Thirteenth Imam and plans to celebrate by nuking Israel.
I’m increasingly fond of Switzerland’s highly decentralized system in which the President serves a one-year term.
Just because they used the word “election” doesn’t mean they were elections, anymore than the Westboro Baptist Church is counts a “Baptist” or “Christian.”
In the USSR, a small minority seized control through revolution, unchecked by a poorly designed democratic process. Once they had control, there was nothing democratic about their government. The PRC took control through armed revolution, without even a pretense of democracy.
Communism may in a sense be a product of the Enlightenment, in the same way Islam is a product of Christianity and Judaism, but those countries most strongly influenced by the Enlightenment were the ones that stood most strongly against communism in the 20th century.
That's what ANY nation becomes when it loses its Divine anchoring.
Do you thing the US will be immune from the dustbin of history because of our great Constitution? It's worthless without God.
Funny that it doesn't mention God except in the date.
United States Peoples' Republic of America is far more abusive of your natural rights than King George III ever dreamt of ... and has legalized the murder of far more innocent people than Stalin ever managed.
All under the auspices of our sainted and all-holy Constitution.
You, right now, have a president (who may have been elected illegally, but the courts don't seem to care) more abusive of your rights than any historical monarch ... what are you "lined up" to do about it, and what do you think the odds of success are?
Looks to me like some folks are willing to suffer any abuse, so long as it's "democratic".
Doesn't seem very "enlightened", or "rational" to me.
Who? Socialist France? Socialist Britain? Germany????
Stuff and nonsense.
Yeah ... the West fought a great Cold War against communism. We won the war ... and we're losing the peace. Wonderful ...
Don't try to dissociate communism from the so-called enlightenment, either. That's dishonest.
Just saying it doesn't make it true.
Right, it mentions God.
The Constitution is a product of the Enlightenment. A different branch than, say, the French Revolution, but it absolutely reflects Enlightment thinking and classical liberalism. And if you hate the Enlightenment, you must really hate capitalism and the free market.
The Enlightenment was not some monolithic movement that culminated in communism.
But are you really going to go on record supporting the divine right of kings?
"In the year of our Lord" is not exactly a political mandate. It makes no religious requirements on the state, except to stay out of it.
I certainly wouldn't advocate a monarchy for the United States, because the US has also come up with a system that works well. That's the most important thing for any nation.
The question has been asked: So you think that a monarchy can be superior to the Constitution of the United States.
The problem is, in my country, the monarchy would not be replaced by anything like the Constitution of the United States. It's not likely to be in most monarchy's. America wound up with a wonderful constitution out of revolution - that's not really all that common.
A brave and honorable man who deserves our admiration.
So does being in the Commonwealth alone make you a monarchy, or is it some extra decree?
I refer you to my #26.
The United States, for one. But as a whole, the Western world—the region that clearly adopted Enlightenment thinking—was the only one that unambiguously rejected communism, while Asia and Eastern Europe accepted it, South America went back and forth, and even Catholic Southern Europe produced strong communist movements.