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.
You have it backwards. The US Constitution was written on September 17, 1787 and ratified on June 21, 1788. The storming of the Bastille did not occur until 1789. It was the French who were (badly) trying to copy the ideas of the US Revolution.
I think you are confusing the return of Christ, and the establishment of His Kingdom, with going back to the days when the Roman Catholic Church both propped up, or placed upon a throne earthly kings, along with occasionally toppling them also.
I am under no such illusions.
If we accept that monarchy will be established on the ruins of previous system then this is obvious that the new king will be chosen by God who give him courage to act and inspire some group of faithful Catholics to back his claims. This is the best interest of all member of the Church of the Christ to achieve this goal faster than every other leftist idiot willing to establish some dictatorship.
I think that your heretical claims will prevent us from reaching any agreement.
I agree the French Revolution was terrible, taking its humanism too far and focusing on the wrong Enlightenment values (equality rather than liberty). But as I said, the Enlightenment was not one monolithic movement, with both classically liberal and liberal/equality-focused branches. There’s a lot of merit in the former.
I can’t advocate a monarchy where any mortal is the monarch. Men -will- fail. So it’s nice to have peaceful options to bring new folks in to leadership.
I am thinking something more along the lines of “term limits” rather than “monarchy”
If he tried to exert unelected authority over me, there would be only one decision for you and your Catholic followers to make about your monarch; closed or open casket.
I will adjust my aim accordingly.
Liberty means very little for most of Enlightenment worshippers. Their understanding of liberty is seriously flawed, this is rather libertine anarchy. Average citizen of late European kingdoms was freer than citizen of modern democratic state (or rather pseudo democratic, because if Switzerland would not exist I would say that democracy is a total utopia).
Read something from Hans Hermann Hoppe about “time preference” under monarchy and democracy (term limits).
I think that you would be free to vote by your foots...
The Lord's Kingdom is beyond the organizational & hierarchically bound & limited powers of men.
There are plenty in the Vatican who would not declare me a heretic for holding such views, nor would hurl the epithet for my speaking about various aspects of world history. Many there (I have faith) have deeper understanding of the Spirit, and the Word than I many times see exhibited here on FR threads, amongst certain [but not all] self-professing Catholics.
If you expect full agreement with what is your own limited understanding of true orthodoxy, then yes, we would most likely not be able to come to full agreement.
If that equates to "any agreement", it appears a shame that you would limit your own side of "things" so much.
I think you should come visit a Texas gun show sometime. There's enough ammo here to kill millions of theocrats, and enough of us to make sure your King was dead before he crossed the Red River.
PS thanks for giving gun shows a bad name. This from someone who goes to them often.
You are correct.
Thank you for the post Gonzo and thank you for the ping, Deb!
A theocrat who asserts his rule over me because he claims God crowned him monarch?
How could you expect me to not fight back.
I think it's amazing there's Freepers who believe this type of hokum. I'd just like to give the theocrats out there a heads up as to what will happen if you try to establish a dictatorial religious regime. You're no different than Ahmadinejad and you'll be dealt with as such.
Buzz off, jerk. I didn't assert anything about this fellow and God proclaiming his monarchy. And now you threaten me, after threatening him with an assassination?
Shut up, and go threaten someone who might be deserving.
"If we accept that monarchy will be established on the ruins of previous system then this is obvious that the new king will be chosen by God who give him courage to act and inspire some group of faithful Catholics to back his claims."
That's what my assassination comment was referring to.
My comments were in no way directed at the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, who in post #4 I called "a good guy."