Catholicism and Monarchy

TradCath.org ^ | Unknown | Charles Coulombe

[Conservative til I die]

I have no idea as to the motives of TradCath.com or the author of the piece, but I thought this article would be a good springboard for discussion on the topic of monarchy as form of government.

[gbcdoj]

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 Church tolerates [republics]

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)

[Salvation]

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.

[Salvation]

St. Edward the Confessor

[Lilllabettt]

In my opinion, this whole thing is absolute crap. Of course monarchy is not inherently evil, but neither is democracy. I found the proposition that the American Revolution was evil rather funny, particularly coming from a Catholic. Seeing as how English Royalty at the time were particularly keen on oppressing Catholics. Sounds like it comes from a knee-jerk reactionary who gives those in the Traditional movement (the vast majority of whom have their heads screwed on quite straight,)a bad name.

[Nevski]

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/

[Lilllabettt]

a. I did not say the "idea" of monarchy is absolute crap. In many societies, it works quite well. In other places, it is the the only reasonable,humane choice available. What is absolute crap is the theory that democracy is essentially evil and anti-Christian. I find it wrong headed because here I am, living in a robustly Christian nation, (the most Christian in the world,) which is also a vigorous republic (the foremost in the world.) Here, in this democracy, I am free to enthusiastically embrace the Catholic faith. Perhaps if I I lived under a King, say in Saudi Arabia, I would not be so lucky. b. I did not say Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn was a knee-jerk reactionary. I don't know anything about him, or his book. I was merely hurling insults at the author of this article, (who, incidentally, is NOT identified as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.)

[sinkspur]

What is absolute crap is the theory that democracy is essentially evil and anti-Christian.

Amen.

[Claud]

Count me as one traditionalist Catholic who is also a republican. Not that I have ANY theoretical problem with monarchy or monarchists, but for better or worse, the old Europe model of altar and throne is gone now and I see zero indication that it is coming back. The Church adapted in the transition from Imperial Rome to the barbarian kingdoms. She adapted to tribal cultures in the Jesuit Reductions of Paraguay, which near as I figure was something like a theocratic communist (small "c") Republic. The North American Jesuits said themselves that the poor Huron and Algonquin Christians in the forests were, as a whole, more devout and religious than the average Frenchman back home under Louis XIV. The holiness of the Christian people seems not to depend on the form of governance.

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.

[Claud]

any thoughts?

[Lilllabettt]

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.

[Mark in the Old South]

There are several errors and even more false assumptions. First off "Hitler was elected"; Not true the Nazi party never won the general election in Germany. Hitler was appointed Chancellor.
The American Revolution was based on Anti-monarchy feeling. It is true some fit that description but not all John Adams wanted a monarchy as did Hamilton at one point. Some say the French Kings as an option and the Southern colonies were very resistant to give up on the King. It was the violation of their "TRADITIONAL" rights as Englishmen that motivated most. There was an attitude shift in England toward their Colonies that turned "us" in to a "them".
As to the value of Kings and Queens well that is harder to say. The author mad very correct points about the failure of Democracies. Read the Federalist Papers and you will see those failures and risks laid out more clearly and yet it supports a republic. Humility and Kings do not mix, which is another error the author made.
Bottom line every form of government can work or fail, it is the Godly virtues and wisdom of those in charge and the values of the governed that matters most. Do not put your faith in the works of man (that includes Kings).

[bonaventura]

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.

[Conservative til I die]

I think the comparison to what your rights would be in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia is somewhat irrelevent, though.

Not just somewhat, completely. We're talking about Christian kingdom's here, based on Christian, preferably Catholic values. Islamic kingdom's are based on a different worldview completely.

[Lilllabettt]

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."

[bonaventura]

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).