Last Catholic Monarchy Euthanized - Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg Silenced!

Remnant ^ | 03/20/09 | Brian McCall

[GonzoII]

	Last Catholic Monarchy Euthanized
	Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg Silenced!

Brian McCall

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 Duke’s 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 Henri’s 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 21^st 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.

[GonzoII]

"Funny that it doesn't mention God except in the date."

Right, it mentions God.

[Arguendo]

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.

[GunRunner]

Who's denying that things are a mess? Or that the Constitution has been violated numerous times over going back to Lincoln and even Adams?

But are you really going to go on record supporting the divine right of kings?

[GunRunner]

Right, it mentions God.

"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.

[Lukasz]

but those countries most strongly influenced by the Enlightenment were the ones that stood most strongly against communism in the 20th century.

Please name these countries.

[naturalman1975]

I'm a monarchist - but I also happen to live in a Constitutional Monarchy which works well, and where the reserve powers of the monarch have only been used twice in our history to block illegal actions by socialist governments.

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.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

A brave and honorable man who deserves our admiration.

[GunRunner]

I'm a monarchist - but I also happen to live in a Constitutional Monarchy which works well, and where the reserve powers of the monarch have only been used twice in our history to block illegal actions by socialist governments.

So does being in the Commonwealth alone make you a monarchy, or is it some extra decree?

[ArrogantBustard]

I refer you to my #26.

[Arguendo]

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.

[ArrogantBustard]

But as a whole, the Western world—the region that clearly adopted Enlightenment thinking—was the only one that unambiguously rejected communism

ROFL!!!!!!!

[BlueDragon]

I see you are yet another Catholic monarchist.

No matter how much you may wish, and fantasize, there will be no return to the days when it was "Popes" and Roman Catholic Church officers/politicians, who get to pick who is king, and who is not.

The only King "christian" religious authorities have proper right to call upon, is the Lord.

They overstepped their bounds in "going secular", making themselves to be the worldly king-makers in the past. History richly illustrates the mixed bag that brought the world. Thanks for the thought, though. I realize you are just trying to help, but no thanks all the same...

[Arguendo]

You’re being intentionally obtuse. Yes, there were pockets of communist sympathy in universities and such, but there was never any serious danger of communist government (even if some countries accepted something close to socialism). Contrast this with every other part of the world.

[naturalman1975]

A country can be part of the Commonwealth and not be a monarchy - there are a number of republics within the Commonwealh. For the others, the precise form the Monarchy takes differs depending on their history.

In the case of Australia, our Constitution first and foremost makes us a monarchy: The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called The Parliament, or The Parliament of the Commonwealth.

(Commonwealth in this case refers to the Commonwealth of Australia - the British Commonwealth/Commonwealth of Nations did not exist in 1900 when our Constitution was written and so there was no need to elaborate).

From 1953, onwards, the Queen within Australia has been known as the Queen of Australia (until 1973, "Queen of Australia, the United Kingdom, and Her Other Realms and Territories", since then as "Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth".

[Lukasz]

I look like you don't really follow international politics. After collapse of Soviet empire western Europe turned to be more communistic than former soviet satellites. But western establishment already had a recipe how to solve such competition. They spent a lot of cash for propaganda purpose to convince people in the east that the EU is a second heaven. They want to bring all eastern European states on the board.

While Russia and Asian countries were always ruled by a despot. From their perspective commies were not so special. They belong to different civilization and should not be compared with European countries.

Democracies always degenerate, so is the US, once Republic turned to be pathetic democracy. The problem is that unlike in monarchies were aristocracy degenerate and might be replace by new cadres, in democratic system whole society degenerate and there is nobody to replace them.

[tbw2]

To paraphrase from the Dune Series, one advantage of monarchy: “Good king = good government, bad king = bad government, solve bad government by killing the bad king”.

[Arguendo]

While Russia and Asian countries were always ruled by a despot. From their perspective commies were not so special. They belong to different civilization and should not be compared with European countries.

And why do you think that is? Eastern Europe was also Christian, albeit their brand of Christianity was one that placed a lower value on reason. The Englightenment was just one part of a long Western tradition that has valued reason and humanism (which are not inherently in conflict with Christianity), and it was this tradition that resulted in our freedom.

[Lukasz]

I see you are yet another Catholic monarchist.

Yes, number of Catholic monarchists growing slowly but steadily.

No matter how much you may wish, and fantasize, there will be no return to the days when it was "Popes" and Roman Catholic Church officers/politicians, who get to pick who is king, and who is not.

Before monarchies will be restored we will witness period of social-democratism turning into leftist totalitarianism. However the Holy Church of the Christ will overcome all obstacles as usual.

[GunRunner]

Please explain how this Catholic monarch will be chosen, and who will do the choosing.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

There are several prophecies of the Great Catholic Monarch who will win the coming Civil War in Europe and rule 30-40 years until the coming of antichrist. Most all the saints say his name is Henri. He will be a military man of French and Belgium heritage although not necessarily a citizen of either country. He is estimated to be around 40 years old and may walk with a slight limp.

The Grand Duke fits the criteria except for the last two items. He is 53 y.o. and I don’t know about the limp. It may indicate a future injury if this is him. He is of the House of Bourbon-Parma which, IIRC, is one of two contesting for the rightful throne of France. Not sure about the last part. I will have to go back and read again.

Just an interesting thought that occurred to me now. He is one to watch for the future.

http://www.luxembourg.com.ua/en/grandduke.html

http://www.gouvernement.lu/dossiers/famille_grand_ducale/chregneuk/infobase/cvhenri.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri,_Grand_Duke_of_Luxembourg