St. Edward the Confessor
Posted on 06/12/2004 2:26:22 PM PDT by Conservative til I die
Certainly not! Was St. Louis evil? Charlemagne? All the many saints who occupied thrones? How about King David, or his descendant, Jesus Christ? Why do you suppose that the Bible tells us in the first Epistle of St. Peter (2, 13), to honour the King? Or that the Church composed ceremonies for the anointing and coronation of Kings, and declared that they ruled "by the Grace of God?" The Catholic concept of Monarchy was well defined by Archbishop John Healy of Tuam, Ireland, who wrote before his death in 1919:
The character of Kings is sacred; their persons are inviolable; they are the anointed of the Lord, if not with sacred oil, at least by virtue of their office. Their power is broad---based upon the Will of God, and not on the shifting sands of the people's will...They will be spoken of with becoming reverence, instead of being in public estimation fitting butts for all foul tongues. It becomes a sacrilege to violate their persons, and every indignity offered to them in word or act, becomes an indignity offered to God Himself. It is this view of Kingly rule that alone can keep alive in a scoffing and licentious age the spirit of ancient loyalty, that spirit begotten of faith, combining in itself obedience, reverence, and love for the majesty of kings which was at once a bond of social union, an incentive to noble daring, and a salt to purify the heart from its grosser tendencies, preserving it from all that is mean, selfish, and contemptible. (P.J. Joyce, John Healy, pp. 68-69).C.S. Lewis put the problem very well:
Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach---men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.
Indeed, indeed!
2. But what about all the corrupt monarchs who ruled in the Middle Ages?
But what about all the saints who also ruled? As Catherine Goddard Clarke put it in her Our Glorious Popes (p.59):
We have been slowly and deliberately taught that monarchies and kings are bad things, and papal supervision of any kind in government, even over its morals, is a very bad thing… …Indeed, the pages of both Dom Gueranger and Alban Butler, whose respective Liturgical Year and Lives of the Saints are true classics, are filled with accounts of Royal Sanctity.Scarcely anyone is ever told any more that France, Spain and Portugal, Poland and Hungary, England and Sweden, all had kings and queens who ruled their lands gloriously and brought untold happiness and well-being to their subjects.
There were, to be sure, corrupt Kings, just as there were and are corrupt clerics. But that does not change the fact that the institutions these fallible humans represent are capable of producing greatness in a way their alternatives cannot.
Examine the history of any republic you like; with the exceptions of such men as Garcia Moreno in Ecuador, Lucas Alaman in Mexico, Engelbert Dollfuss in Austria, and Heinrich Bruening in Germany (all of whom, coincidentally, were Monarchists who thought the time of restoration as yet unripe for their particular countries), it is a record of mediocrities at best, and monsters at worst. Hitler was elected, after all. Given its track record, perhaps the adherents of republics should stick to theory, and leave history be.
3. Isn't a king simply a dictator with a crown?
Certainly not. Every dictator is a self-made man. Having clawed his way to the top, he considers himself beholden neither to God nor man. His talent for acquiring power is generally unaccompanied by learning or skill in state-craft---hence the often crude and clownish impression made by such folk. Unbound by tradition, he may rule according to his own whim.
A Monarch, on the other hand, is bound by tradition and ceremonial to reign in a certain way. He has been trained for his role since infancy, and knows he owes his position to no talent of his own. In a word, a Monarch may just have a little room for humility; no dictator ever can.
4. Is the American Republic inherently evil?
In the sense that it was founded upon a bloody revolution, and in accordance with anti-Christian principles, yes. But God can bring good out of evil---the Fall of Man was redeemed by the Incarnation and Death of Our Lord. As Samuel Johnson observed, "Satan was the first Whig." In a sense, every revolution against a Monarchy, motivated by greed and envy is another Fall. But who can say what kind of redemption may not occur here? Certainly Americans have been capable of great good.
5. Are republics in general inherently evil?
Those which have been installed in accordance with the anti-Christian principles of 1776 and 1789 are. The few which existed prior to that in Christendom were almost all city-states owing ultimate allegiance to a Monarch. But our current set are all imbued with the evil principles mentioned: "A state without a King, and a Church without a Pope."
6. Is it better to have a Catholic republic or a Protestant Monarchy?
This is, in a sense, a false question. In Ireland, Portugal, Poland, and throughout Latin America there have been attempts at a "Catholic republic," by which is meant a republican state run according to Catholic principles. But what is involved here is really an anti-Catholic form of government, staffed by Catholics. Should the latter be replaced by a different sort of folk---as has happened in most of the places mentioned, the state and the local society rapidly become secularised. This is simply a case of the chickens coming home to roost, so to speak.
In the case of a Protestant Monarchy, the ones now extant (Great Britain and the Dominions---Canada, Australia, etc., Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands), as well as those overthrown (Prussia and the other Protestant German states), a basically Catholic institution was overlaid with a Protestant veneer. But the nature of the Institution is such that even in such a caseit can bring to the fore individuals reminiscent of their Catholic forebears: George III and Edward VII of Great Britain, Gustavus III of Sweden, and Frederick William IV of Prussia come to mind. The great stability these countries possess, even in the midst of social change and "quiet" revolution, may be laid to what remains of value in their Monarchies. In the case of a few countries, such as Saxony, where in the 18th century the Elector (later King) returned to Catholicism, the benefits to the people were swiftly made manifest.
Taking all of this into consideration, I would maintain that a truly Catholic republic is not possible; what we call by that name is not preferable to a Protestant Monarchy.
7. What if our King is a tyrant?
In a modern constitutional Monarchy, the tyrants are generally the politicians elected by the people, and the bureaucratic class who actually run the nation; these are of course unimpeachable, and must simply be obeyed. The King serves primarily to remind folk that it was not always so, and may not be again. If the politicians really muck things up, he might be able to get them out of the mess.
In the Middle Ages, if a King broke the law, the great men of the realm would oppose him for his own sake, ala Magna Carta. Did he go too far, the Church would excommunicate him.
8. The notion that people can simply inherit power over me bothers me. Isn't voting an effective tool for checks and balances? Doesn't it ensure competence?
I am sorry that you are bothered! After all, you have no control over the selection of your IRS auditor, and innumerable other folk who have more power over you than any Medieval King could have hoped to. But there are two answers to this first question.
The primary one is that, well, not to sound odd, but God gives the Kings a people deserve. The hereditary principle leaves the choice of paramount power to the Almighty; it has been claimed that an attempt to elect him is a denial of providence.
On a more mundane level, the truth is, it works better, and for longer periods. In the words of the saintly Spanish priest, Fr. Jaime Balmes, in his European Civilisation (p. 143):
Regarding things in the abstract, there is nothing more strikingly absurd than hereditary monarchy, the succession secured to a family which may at any time place on the throne a fool, a child, or a wretch: and yet in practise there is nothing more wise, prudent, and provident. This has been taught by the long experience of ages, it has been shown by reason, and proved by the sad warnings of those nations who have tried elective monarchy. Now what is the cause of this? It is what we are endeavouring to explain. Hereditary Monarchy precludes all hopes of irregular ambition; without that, society always contains a germ of trouble, a principle of revolt, which is nourished by those who conceive a hope of one day obtaining the command. In quiet times, and under an hereditary Monarchy, a subject, however rich, however distinguished he may be for his talent or his valour, cannot, without madness, hope to be King; and such a thought never enters his head. But change the circumstances---admit, I will not say the probability, but the possibility of such an event, and you will see that there will immediately be ardent candidates.Of course, the strife that conflicting parties cause is endemic to the modern state; the welfare of the people is always the first thing to be sacrificed in preparation for the next coup, election, or however the particular republic customarily changes its head of state. It is almost a maxim that those who strive for high office are the least worthy of it.
Elections, long experience shows, do not really provide checks and balances---reflect on the abortion question, as an example. Such a key issue, which goes to the very heart of the power of the State and the meaning of humanity, has never, in the United States, been referred to the ballot box. And even if it were, is the definition of human life something one wants decided by vote? Could it not be altered just as easily? In any case, important questions are rarely decided by the people.
9 . Wasn't serfdom in the Middle Ages a terrible thing?
As compared to what? The serf, like labourers everywhere and at all times, had a hard life. He also could not be forced off the land, worked about 30 days a year for his lord (as opposed to the average American‘s 167 for the IRS), and could NOT work on Sundays and the 30-odd Holy Days of obligation and certain other stated times. One may compare that to any current job description one wants to.
10. Hasn't the monarchy in England turned out to be a joke?
In comparison to the Clinton White House? While it has not been nearly as effective in some ways as one would hope, what government has? Moreover, Queen Elizabeth II, in her role as private adviser to the government, prevented such blunders as Harold Wilson‘s contemplated invasion of Rhodesia in 1965. Her Governor-General in Australia, Sir John Kerr, in 1975 dismissed the government of Gough Whitlam, who was threatening to fund his regime illegally after the Senate denied him supply. Her Governor-General of Grenada, Sir Paul Scoon, called in American troops after the government there collapsed in revolution and Cuban intervention seemed imminent. In all three cases, a republican government would have spelled disaster.
Much is made of the marital woes of the Royal Family, particularly of the Prince of Wales. But given the kid-glove treatment our own president has received in this area, can it not be asserted that the Prince‘s annoyance of many influential groups by his stand in such areas as architecture, the environment, and education has been at least a partial source of his woes? This appears from a revealing 21 January 1993 letter he wrote to Tom Shebbeare, director of the Prince's Trust (and quoted on pp. 493-494 of Dimbleby's biography):
For the past 15 years I have been entirely motivated by a desperate desire to put the "Great" back into Great Britain. Everything I have tried to do---all the projects, speeches, schemes, etc.---have been with this end in mind. And none of it has worked, as you can see too obviously! In order to put the "Great" back I have always felt it was vital to bring people together, and I began to realise that the one advantage my position has over anyone else's is that I can act as a catalyst to help produce a better and more balanced response to various problems. I have no "political" agenda---only a desire to see people achieve their potential; to be decently housed in a decent, civilised environment that respects the cultural and vernacular character of the nation; to see this country's real talents (especially inventiveness and engineering skills) put to best use in the best interests of the country and the world (at present they are being disgracefully wasted through lack of co-ordination and strategic thinking); to retain and value the infrastructure and cultural integrity of rural communities (where they still exist) because of the vital role they play in the very framework of the nation and the care and management of the countryside; to value and nurture the highest standards of military integrity and professionalism, as displayed by our armed forces, because of the role they play as an insurance scheme in case of disaster; and to value and retain our uniquely special broadcasting standards which are renowned throughout the world. The final point is that I want to role back some of the more ludicrous frontiers of the 60s in terms of education, architecture, art, music, and literature, not to mention agriculture! Having read this through, no wonder they want to destroy me, or get rid of me...!Like his Stuart ancestors, he would attempt to play the role of steward of the land; his interest in hunting for example, is very reminiscent of his predecessors': "Despite protests by anti-hunting groups, the Prince of Wales takes a close interest in the sport at all levels and has defended it as an effective form of sporting conservation of wildlife and its habitat in the British countryside," as we read in the Royal Encyclopaedia. So too with what the same source tells us about the Prince's farm at Highgrove:
A particular concern on the Home Farm is environmental conservation: straw is never burned; chemical fertilisers are being reduced as much as possible; and in keeping with the Cotswolds landscape, 548 metres of dry-stone walls have been rebuilt around the land. In 1985 the decision was taken to go organic on three blocks of land as part of a general move to what has been called biologically sustainable farming linked to conservation. The step to full organic status on the whole estate is said to be on line for 1996.The Prince‘s refusal to join the Masonic Order, and his denunciation of Henry VIII‘s split from Rome augur well for him as King Charles III---if he is allowed to reign by the powers-that-be.
11. How would our rights be guaranteed under a monarchy?
How are they guaranteed in any case? As Joe Sobran observed, "if voting actually changed anything, it would be illegal." The King is taught to think of himself as father of his people; the result of this has been that in modern times, Karl of Austria-Hungary; Nicholas II of Russia; Umberto II of Italy; Henri, Count of Paris, a claimant to the throne of France;Michael of Romania, and Constantine II of Greece; all chose abdication and/or exile rather than plunge their nations into bloody civil war. Compare this anxiety for the lives of their children to that of republican leaders from Lincoln to the present.
In the Middle Ages, the notion prevailed that even Kings were subject to the law; the interplay of King, Church, Nobility, Guilds, and landowners provided a great deal of personal freedom. Ultimately, the rights of a subject are bound up with his being a child of the God by Whose Grace the King reigns. In a "free" republic, of course, the citizen‘s rights are granted at the whim of the political class---or taken away (California smokers, take note!).
12. Who cares what you think? What is the Church's position on Monarchy?
Good question! I don‘t care myself! As for the Church, though, her position is clear. In her liturgy, as in her Bible, as in the actions of her Popes and Bishops, she endorses the institution. In his allocution on the death of Louis XVI, Pourquoi Notre Voix, Pope Pius VI declared that Monarchy is "the best of all governments." The Royal observances of the Church Calendar, Royal rituals such as the Coronation, and Royal patronage of the Church all reflect this. Monarchists in Catholic countries have always demanded a Catholic as well as a Royal State.
13. What is the Church's position on Republics?
The Church tolerates them, as she does all forms of government which allow her to operate. Leo XIII called upon Catholics to "rally to the (French third) republic." This was done for prudential reasons---namely, keeping the republic from voiding the concordat which paid clerical salaries. Apart from splitting the French Church, this had little effect, because the republicans broke it anyway.
14. I don't think its the form of government that matters. I think that what matters is what's in people's hearts. Are our problems going to go away if our form of government becomes a monarchy?
No. Without a firm religious base, the Monarchy cannot do much more than ameliorate problems to a degree. And even a full-blown Catholic Monarchy must deal with the fallen nature of King and Subjects.
15. How would we decide who our monarch should be?
Here, I have absolutely no idea. Without a firm moral and spiritual foundation in the hearts of our people, we already have the government we deserve.
16. Would it be a good idea for America to accept Queen Elizabeth as its Sovereign?
I suppose we could do worse. Given the answer to question 15, I don‘t suppose it would do much good, but it would perhaps be better than nothing. Even such a step on the part of the United States would require a spiritual reform of incalculable difficulty.
17. What's so holy about the Holy Roman Emperor?
What was holy about the office, apart from various of its occupants like Bl. Charlemagne and St. Henry, was its role. Gary Potter sums it up admirably in modern terms:
Words express ideas, and some of them now being quoted signify notions likely to be totally foreign to anyone unfamiliar with history prior to a few decades ago: "world emperor," "imperial office,"… This is not the place to lay out all the history needed to be known for thoroughly grasping the notions. However, the principal one was adumbrated by Our Lord Himself in the last command his followers received from Him: to make disciples of all the nations. In a word, the idea of a universal Christian commonwealth is what we are talking about.Of what interest could this ancient history be to us to-day? Well, as the "Russian Newman," Vladimir Soloviev put it, "For lack of an imperial power genuinely Christian and Catholic, the Church has not succeeded in establishing social and political justice in Europe." Nor anywhere else, one might add. Through such efforts as the United Nations and the European and other regional unions, secular man attempts, unconsciously, to rebuild some sort of unity among people. Many writers have attempted to sum up the importance of the Imperial office, and it too is reflected in the Church‘s liturgy.To date it has never existed. To-day there is not even a Christian government anywhere. However, from the conversion of Constantine until August, 1806 – with an interruption (in the West) from Romulus Augustulus in 476 to Charlemagne in 800 – there was the Empire. It was the heart of what was once know as Christendom. Under its aegis serious European settlement of the Western Hemisphere began and the Americas’ native inhabitants were first baptised, which is why the feather cloak of Montezuma is to be seen to-day in a museum in Vienna. After 1806 a kind of shadow of the Empire, the Austro-Hungarian one, endured until the end of World War I, when its abolition was imposed as a condition of peace by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. Since 1438, when Albert V…was crowned Roman Emperor, all the Emperors were Habsburgs. The last was Archduke Otto’s father, Karl.
18. But wasn‘t God angry at the people of Israel for wanting a King? Weren‘t Judges better?
The Judges of Israel were directly called by God, with neither acclamation by the people nor constitutional restraint. The fallen nature of the Israelites made such a government unfeasible for long---did not Our Lord complain that Jerusalem murdered the prophets? Having been chosen from all the Earth, the Israelites ought to been gratified that they had been given such a unique---and to our way of thinking, undemocratic---system of government. Instead, they demanded the natural manner of rule enjoyed by all other peoples---hence God‘s anger. But He nevertheless showed His approval of the institution both by having Samuel anoint Saul, and by establishing the dynasty of King David, whose last rightful heir according to the flesh, Jesus Christ, continues to rule by right over us all, whether we wish Him or not. It is by Him, and as a reflection of Him, that, as Pope Pius XI‘s hymn to Christ the King puts it, "Kings the Crown and Sceptre hold," as pledge of His supremacy.
In any case, the Judgeship is completely irrelevant to us to-day. Our republic is certainly nothing like it, and one cannot imagine whom God might choose to rule a heathen people like the Americans. (It is interesting that no such thing has ever happened in Catholic countries). Did we attempt such a thing, we would doubtless have a regime like the Mormons did in pre-Territorial Utah, or the colonists in New Haven, where the ministers would run things. One can imagine what the result would be. Such non-Catholic clerics would have the power of life and death over all citizens, Catholic or not --- and no constitutional or legal restraints on them. Even a non-Christian Monarchy, restrained by local traditions, would be far preferable.
19. But isn‘t Monarchy undemocratic?
In the sense of everyone not having a vote for King or Emperor? Certainly. But I am going to reveal a deep secret of reality --- no regime is, can be, or ever has been democratic! Some have been representative, in the sense that a majority of the population has some voice in the selection of their leaders (though virtually none in the policies those leaders carry out). But the larger the area to be governed, the less those votes matter. In reality, power is inevitably in the hands of those individuals and/or institutions in the given society whose money or land give them preponderant influence, as well as those who actually administer the State from day-to-day.
With our system, for instance, no one can be elected to national office who does not enjoy the support of one or more special interests ---- how could it be otherwise? It takes a great deal of money to be elected, and unless one is a millionaire oneself, how else to acquire it.
What makes such a system unfortunate is that, while maintaining the illusion of popular control, the real powers in the State are unaccountable for their actions. Thus, if a congressman votes for a bill disastrous to the interests of his constituents, he will be the object of their ire, rather than the employer of the lobbyist who suborned the legislator‘s vote. Correspondingly, said constituents will appeal to their representative for help, rather than to the company or interest behind him. Thus the real powers-that-be may exercise their power without any responsibility to the populace. It is ironic that this "un-democratic" way of doing business should be the stock-in-trade of all "democracies," but there it is. Perhaps replacing the House of Representatives with a House of Lobbyists would help make government more accountable.
That having been said, what is necessary in government is not "democracy," whatever that may be, but accountability and responsibility. As noticed earlier, modern Monarchs have felt so responsible they have often given up their thrones rather than shed their subjects‘ blood.
Charles Coulombe Archives
Opinion
Home
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, Au milieu des sollicitudes)
Edward the Confessor was buried in Westminster Abbey.
Edward the Confessor became the only English king ever to be canonized (officially named a saint) and was the builder of one of the most celebrated churches in the Christian world. Edward was next to the last of the Saxon kings. He married Edith, daughter of Godwin. On his deathbed, Edward named Edith's brother Harold to succeed him as king. But Harold could not hold the throne. Ten months after Edward's death, French from Normandy invaded England under William the Conqueror.
William's claim to the English throne was the result of an earlier invasion. When Edward was in his teens, the Danes invaded England and removed his father from the throne. Edward fled to Normandy, which was ruled by Edward's uncle. Edward actually spent a large part of his life in Normandy. He came under the influence of the Norman monks and led a devout life. He vowed to make a pilgrimage to Rome, but his half brother died and Edward suddenly was proclaimed king before he could fulfill his vow.
Edward was not particularly outstanding as a king, but he reduced taxes and lived on the income of his own lands. Despite turbulent times, he kept his nation at peace. However, he favored Normans over Saxons. This led to serious disputes with his father-in-law, Godwin. In anger at Godwin, Edward may have insulted his own wife, Edith.
It bothered Edward that he had not fulfilled his promise to make a pilgrimage to Rome. He asked the pope to release him from his vow, since the troubled condition of his land did not permit him to travel freely. The pope agreed to free Edward but only if he would rebuild the monastery of St. Peter at Westminster. The result--the Collegiate Church of St. Peter--is known today as Westminster Abbey.
The choir and part of the main worship area were dedicated on December 28, 1065. Edward was too sick to attend. The sixty-three-year-old king died just eight days later, on this date, January 5, l066. Claiming that Edward had passed the throne to him while sheltering in Normandy years earlier, William invaded England. On December 25, he was crowned King of England in Westminster Abbey. This famous church, rebuilt by later kings, has ever since continued to be the coronation church of the British monarchy.
Some time after Edward's death, Osbert of Clare and other monks of Westminster made claims that Edward had been a holy man. He was reported to have performed several miracles, touching people to heal them. King Henry II saw political advantages in strengthening the memory of Edward. He petitioned for Edward's canonization. Pope Alexander III obliged in 1161. And so Edward became an official saint of the Roman Church ninety-five years after his death.
Sources:
1. Adapted from an earlier Christian History Institute story by Diane Severance, Ph.D.
2. "Edward, Saint, the Confessor." Britannica. (1967).
3. "Edward the Confessor," and "Westminster Abbey." The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone. (Oxford, 1997).
4. Various internet articles.
13th October: Edward the Confessor, King of England
Edward was born in 1002, the son of English King Ethelred and his Norman wife Emma. Living in exile during the Danish supremacy, he was invited back to England in 1042 to become king. His reign was a balancing act between the influences of strong characters at court and overseas. He was concerned to maintain peace and justice in his realm, to avoid foreign wars, and to put his faith in practice.
Although he could be moody and snap at people, as his name implies, he always tried to get right with God afterwards. He was generous to the poor and hospitable to strangers and he began the royal patronage of Westminster Abbey. He died on 5th January 1066 and his remains were translated to the Abbey on this day in 1162.
Read this book, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0931888514/102-4976678-0692104?v=glance , and then come back and tell us whether you think: a) the idea of monarchy is "absolute crap;" and b) the author of the book is a "knee-kerk reactionary."
Nevski http://www.novaemilitiae.squarespace.com/
Amen.
Donning flame suit now, but this one trad thinks that the post-Vatican II Church is finding its way in this new democratic age haltingly but absolutely *necessarily*. I have no doubt whatsoever She will succeed.
And besides, on purely a personal note, I love both medieval history and American colonial history--the colonies, the frontier, the Indians. But the history of royal Europe post-1500, bores me almost to death--I think it's an American sensibility and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
any thoughts?
May he come some other way, some other place, some other time. That said, when he does come, we can have every confidence that certain faithful servants of the Church will remain and resist him until the very end.
Agree or disagree with monarchists, but I think you need to re-check your view of this "democratic" nation against the reality of the situation.
The nation you define as a "robustly Christian nation, (the most Christian in the world)" has long since left the Christian concept and adopted neo-paganism. Your "Christian nation" upholds the people's "right" to pornography, and spreads it to the 4 corners of the world (Playboy was one of the first things tossed on the Iraqi people after we "liberated" them), and refuses people the right to pray in schools, or display religious symbols on public grounds. It is one of the world leaders in the murder of babies still in the womb as well as contraception, and not simply in promoting these ideas the world over, but using federal funds (that's OUR money) to do so. This "most Christian nation in the world" is also one of 3 (I believe) in the world to now have legalized sodomite "marriages".
Yes, you are allowed to embrace the Catholic faith, but not too loudly, lest you offend someone else who is exercising their right to embrace Islam, Satanism, Sodomy, or any number of other things the Catholic faith denounces.
I think the comparison to what your rights would be in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia is somewhat irrelevent, though. As we are seeing in Iraq, your rights to practice Catholicism would be no better there if you were talking about a democracy in Saudi Arabia. In fact, we have recently seen that many Christians are fleeing Iraq now that a democracy is being established because the majority vote will now go to a group of muslims that are more extreme than Saddam Hussein, who allowed Christianity.
This is the major problem with democracy, it's laws are determined by the majority rule, not by an objective view of right or wrong- might makes right in a democracy. So, when the majority of people get holed into believing that it is ok to kill babies (or are at least brow beaten to the point where they won't stand up and fight it), suddenly baby murder is OK, sodomites are O.K., indeed anything is o.k. The only thing not tolerated is people who are "intolerant"- that being Catholics.
The reason the writer is so supportive of the monarchist form of government is that it mirrors the form of government that Christ established in His Church. Authority comes from the top down. Ideally, the monarch would be held in check by the Papacy, who is responsible before God for every soul in the World, and so ensures that the temporal rule of law does not contradict the Divine Law. In temporal matters the monarch is like a father to his nation, and is likewise responsible before God for his people.
The democracy is the inverse of this. It displays the anti-christian idea of authority coming from the bottom up. Each individual is himself the source of authority- echoing satan's "I will not serve." or satanist Anton Levy's verse "Do what thou wilt".
Plus, since the politician has as his goal to get elected, he is going to do what it takes to accomplish that, even if it is not in the best interest of the people. If a monarch is to leave the kingdom to his heir (presumably his child), he is going to be more likely to do what is best for the kingdom, so his heir doesn't simply inherit a bankrupt mess.
Clearly this does not mean we are doing something wrong by participating in the democratic process- provided we are voting for people who aren't opposed to God's laws. Right now that is all we can do.
One doesn't have to look around very long to see that this shining star of a republic is running down hill pretty quick, and drowning in the mire of it's own corruption. What happens next is simply a matter of history repeating itself, and it involves a head to head collision with Divine Justice. When a people continue to cry out for their liberty to practice self governance and the uninhibited pursuit of self gratification, God more often than not doesn't send a flood of water. He simply lets the people have their way, and they drown themselves in their own "liberty" and the filth of their inordinate desires.
Even leftist Steven Spielburg was able to point out that when given the right to choose their own leaders, man has most often ended up empowering a tyrranical dictator. You could consider that the power hungry court system now, or some as yet unknown event to take place not too far in the future- but a society which tosses off the authority of God will always fall under His judgement. In a democratic society, the whole of the populous bears the responsibility for that, not simply a king who is lording over God's people unjustly.
I think your selling America a little short on the religious thing. After all, we swear "So help me God," we light the National Christmas Tree, and attend church services with far more frequency than any other people. Really, I think this is the most Christian country in the world. I can't think of any other, can you?
All of this is not to say that democracy can not go horribly wrong. In Germany, Schroeder deliberately left "God" out of his oath of office. In England, Catholics STILL aren't allowed to be Prime Ministers. The Dutch regularly kill off Grandma. We can wear our crucifixes to work and school; but in France there's a law against it.
But America is definitely different. The PEOPLE of the United States are among the most resistant to abortion, gay marriage, etc. all the things you mention. The Justices of the Supereme Court, ( forget the presidency: these people are the closest people we have to monarchs in this country,) are responsible for our current situation. The people are not crying out for more liberty, or lisence, to destroy themselves. It is being forced upon them by a minority population of special interest groups and an unelected judiciary. This is a result of imperfect democracy. WE need more democracy, not less.
As far as the whole issue is concerned, I am not arguing that monarchy is necessarily a bad form of government, or that democracy is appropriate in all situations. I simply must insist that democracy can not be branded as anti-christian. I might go so far as to quote mr. scary evangelical himself, Attorney General Ashcroft: "We have no King but Jesus."
I am not saying America is the worst, clearly countries like those you mentioned are worse, so far. Also clear, though, is the fact that we are far worse than even 15 years ago. This country's values are eroding exponentially. Right now we may swear "So help me God." but for how long? Plus, I wouldn't say that's Christian, as any attempt to define that "God" would result in it's immediate dismissal from the oath. The state has already begun eliminating "one nation under God" from the pledge, the 10 Commandments were not so long ago removed from a court building (and so was the judge who tried to keep them there). There is a national Christmas tree, for now, but try to put a nativity scene up. The holiday of Christmas is now a secular holiday, divorced from it's religious significance, just like St. Valentine's Day, St. Patrick's Day, and even to a large extent Easter. The tree is something ambiguous enough not to offend (again, so far).
As for more Christian countries, I think I would have to take a number of them- though all of them are in the decline.
Ireland, for example, abortion is still illegal (though I think there was a "life of the mother" exception allowed in 1992 by the Courts which will inevitably lead to its complete acceptance). As a sign of it's impending plummit into indifference and then atheism, they have fairly recently joined the European Union and there is a push to be "more European" surging through popular culture.
The Republic of Malta- this is a small country, 390,000 people, but 91% Catholic. Mass attendance is near 65% (compared to US where I have seen numbers ranging from 25% up to 40%). It, too, is on the decline. I'm sure that 65% was much higher in a country that catholic even 40 or 50 years ago, and the rector of the archdiocesan seminary there has said the country is now facing a "crisis in values".
The principality of Liechtenstein- another small, mostly catholic country (76%), and still has a crown prince and royal family. The faith had largely survived here, due to the fact that the Royal Family is still Catholic, it's "national holiday" is Assumption Day on Aug. 15, if that tells you anything. However, it is probably on the decline, too. I think they have accepted a parliamentary type system under the Prince, which is controlled by the liberal party. And, as is always a sign of bad times on the horizon, the birth rate is 1.5 births per woman. Either the catholics are abandoning the faith, or that is the most sterile group of women in the world.
Poland had (from what I hear) maintained strong orthodoxy due to the fact that the Church was under persecution from the Communists. I don't think abortion is legal there yet, and I saw fairly recently where since Poland has joined the European Union on May 1st (will these countries never learn?), there is a growing support for sodomite unions and such. However, they are thus far standing against it. (here is a good article about this very issue http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/TFPCommentary/krakow_says_no.htm The down side- I just saw online that their fertility rate is now down to 1.5 births per woman also. This is national suicide, and a fairly good sign that the Church is not winning the battle in that country.
I'm sure there are many more. The US is, by and large, not even close. But that is not to say that the remaining holdouts of Christian Civilization are not following, they simply haven't degenerated as far as we have yet. We are all headed down the same road. You read the article on Denmark, you see France is closing the gap on them, but you don't see that we are walking the same path? In a pluralist democracy there is nothing to support the faith, especially when Bishops won't do their job. Indifference has set in, and led to a practical atheism. We now have a whole society of people who are of the "Personally opposed, but I'm not going to force my values on anyone else" variety. It doesn't matter if the people are largely against it personally, the longer they allow it to happen, the longer it just becomes the norm (and thus becomes more accepted).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.