Posted on 12/12/2004 8:54:32 AM PST by Land of the Irish
I have never been into a single mass in this country in which the liturgy was anything remotely like that picture. A cheap shot, once again.
Yes he does. He can work to convince a majority of Americans to his views. Or, do you assume that other Americans should just roll over because you are "enlightened"?
I'd rather have a head of state who no one chose than a head of state who others voted for but I did not.
You would, in essence, prefer a tyranny, as long as that tyrant agreed with you.
You have very intelligently elucidated the very real cause for the Catholic Monarchial state, and the sad disapperance of it thanks to American Imperialism in WWI, etc.
You comment about having a non elected king as sovereign is quite spot on.
One more very important point: in a monarchy there is no such thing as "politics" for the average man. He only needs to kn0ow one thing: "God save our Christian King!". Politics did not exists for the masses - and to a very great extent this was a good thing. Great things were left for great men to decide - and a king, historically, had to rule with equity. It was his duty, and what he was rasied to do. The state/monarch was to protect the comman man, so that he need only concern himself about living his life.....not how to fund mass transit! That was the job of hte king.
Since the dissolution of Western Monarachies over the past century man has experienced nothing but war and political madness and instability. to change the government every few years (i.e. US, Israel) is sheer madness. It by itself does nothing to contriubute to political stability, and peace of mind for the citizen.
A simple reality check would assure any American that his opinion does not count, and that there really is no such thing as representative government (at least not as it functions here at present).
Regardless of any good an noble intentions in the US Constitution, real political power is very far removed from the average man - he truly has no redress of greivances; merely the very flimsy apperance of the same.
The king - like a US President or any leader - only governed because the will of Christ allowed him to. No man has power, except it is allowed by Christ. The difference is that a king - unlike a US President - is crrowned by a bishop (or the Pope in former times), and pledges his service to his nation by an oath to Almighty God, ackknowledging that his power comes from above.
Of course freedom comes from God, but it certainly helps to have a state that has laws that will implement true religious freedom , particularly as a Catholic confessional state is a practical impossibility in the modern day.
No. I accept that the United States was founded as a republic and will in all likelihood remain one. To get back to the original topic of this article, what I object to is the belief that the American model is ideal or should necessarily be exported to other countries. This is the idea that inspired Woodrow Wilson's evil crusade to "make the world safe for democracy" in 1917-18, with disastrous results.
Oh yes, modern Europe has such a great record on religious freedom for Christians. The Swedes have imprisoned a pastor who dares to speak out against homosexual activity. "Hate" speech laws are spreading like wildfire, outlawing expression of Christian doctrine. Buttiglione is denied political office solely because of his Catholic views. Sorry if I don't think the Europeans are in any position to judge the US on this matter.
Convincing a king might be easier. And as I point out above, the support of a majority of Americans hasn't helped the cause of immigration reform.
You would, in essence, prefer a tyranny, as long as that tyrant agreed with you.
Since I do not equate Monarchy with Tyranny, and in fact believe that historically Tyranny has generally been the consequence of abolishing Monarchies, no, I would not.
I'm not. That's why I'm surprised at your opposition to democratizing the Muslim world. However imperfect that effort, it is far superior to the never-ending slaughter that your segregation would entail.
Perhaps I'm naive. I believe this American experiment to be beneficial, not only to Americans, but to the rest of the world as well.
You would do far better to appeal to the better angels of your fellow Americans with your ideas than to pine for some worldly savior.
Seems that Jesus dispelled the notion that we are going to create a worldly kingdom.
If "Americanism" meant support by Catholics of the United States constitution, why is not every single Catholic in the United States from Leo XIII onwards who is loyal to this country and its constitution excommunicated as a heretic? Americanism was a much more circumscribed notion. You paint with too broad a brush.
None of these were democracies. I guess you simply don't understand what a democratic constitution is.
US, Everything you describe is deplorable, but I fail to see how TRC's remarks could possibly be construed as condoning that situation. The point is that even if American pluralism is preferable to European secularism, neither is ideal. Look at the campaign against Christmas in this country. Happy Holidays.
An American Catholic monarch would allow unlimited immigration, legal and illegal, since that is now, and has always been, the position of the Church.
Maybe we could have Teddy Kennedy king. After all, he is a member of a prominent "Catholic" family that the media have certainly made into an aristocracy. Yeah, that's just the ticket for our "Catholic morachy"! He can pronounce on his royal throne, "We are personally against abortion, but ..."
Dear royalcello,
"The point is that even if American pluralism is preferable to European secularism, neither is ideal."
Ideal government awaits only in Heaven.
Here on earth, we are required to choose between different models, all flawed.
Some are intrinsically evil. Some merely tend to disorder because of original sin. Even the Founders recognized this.
Finally, anyone who makes a totality of any human system of social ordering, whether political or economic, cultural, or otherwise, creates a false idol, and moves toward totalitarianism.
sitetest
You are right about that, the US will have to complete their journey to totalitarianism before they will again be willing to embrace true liberty. With the exception of Franco's Spain monarchies cannot be established by force, they are organic systems - the natural order of society without idealogically driven constitutions and revolutions.
Are you going to get a bunch of brownshirts together and have an antidemocratic putsch?
Thanks for bringing up the brownshirts - too bad you have no idea what you are talking about. Hitler was a "man of the people" and they dearly loved him.
The Catholic Church can thrive under a regime of true freedom of religion, and has done so in the past, even here in the United States, whose constitutional structure you so despise
Have you ever read anthing written prior to 1965? It can function in religiously pluralistic states, although the evidence is ancedotal considering those types of states have been the exception not the rule. However this is nowhere near the ideal for the Church, as for rejecting the authority of the Pope - how about this pope?
14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit"[22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.
Gregory XVI
Or this one?
Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced.
The Church, indeed, deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion,
Leo XIII
Or this one?
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-"Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur." He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. -- "Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere.... Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error."[1]
VEHEMENTER NOS St. Pius X
Ferdinand and Isabella were very pious and certainly did a lot of good in many ways, but their stoking the fires of the Inquisition and the expulsion of the Jews are certainly not models of respect for human rights. I suppose you don't believe in human rights. I'm a bit more sympathetic with the expulsion of the Moslems, as the context was after the War of Grenada, and such persons simply would not have been assimilable or loyal to a Christian state at that time.
Actually, not much would really change.
Please cite the specific infallible teaching of the Church that proclaims this. I thought Catholics were obliged to obey the laws of the country in which they live unless doing so would be a sin. You cannot seriously claim that complying with immigration law is a "sin."
Your glorious Catholic "monarchs" in Belgium and soon in Spain have allowed laws with abortion on demand as well as homosexual marriage. Wake up and smell the coffee -- Catholic monarchy is neither a panacea for modern problems nor is it remotely practical, at least in the United States.
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.