Posted on 03/23/2015 2:34:33 PM PDT by walkinginthedesert
Refuting the Belief that the Catholic Church ever supported the notion of the Divine Right of KingsI this article I will help to refute the false belief that the Catholic Church ever supported the so called “Divine Right” of kings. I will show that the concept of “Divine Right” is actually not a Catholic and for most part a medieval concept, but rather a concept which derived from the Late medieval ages, and which found its way into complete acceptance in the Protestant Reformation. Similarly I will show that to much extent the Catholic Church actually helped develop much of democratic though, such as is found in Medieval thought.
Before I get into the whole concept of “divine right” of kings or even the Church’s contribution to a medieval concept of government including democracy, I will give a simple background on what the Church teaches regarding society, the state, and authority.
Society and civil authority
The Church does teach that civil authority comes from God. This belief comes from several aspects including Divine Revelation which includes various biblical verses. Some of these verses include (John 19:11) in which Jesus tells Pontius Pilate “You would have no power over me had it not been given you from above”. Another evident biblical verse regarding the origins of civil authority comes from (Rom 13) in which Saint Paul states “There is no power but from God and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he who resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God” Similarly the Church teaches that civil authority comes from God similarly on the basis that “God is the author of Nature, and Nature imperatively requires civil authority to be set up and obeyed.”25
The Church teaches that society just as marriage is a natural institution. In following Aristotle the Church states that man is a social creature, and this can easily be seen. Aquinas states “It is natural for man more than for any other animal to be a social and political animal, to live in a group”. It is specifically this reality why John Donne wrote his poem No Man Is an Island
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
Is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
Is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
Well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
Own were; any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
The bell tolls; it tolls for thee.For this reason authority then in the abstract is something that everyone loves, for it is in his nature to live in society and authority is what keeps society together.
Limitation of civil authority and Medieval political thought
It is specifically in this section in which I will help refute the idea that the “divine right” of kings originated with the Catholic Church, or that it was ever practiced during the majority of the Middle Ages. I should however quickly point out the fact that various ancient civilization prior to Christianity did in fact believe in a “divine right” of kings. The predominant reason for this is that there was no distinction between religion and the state. “All religions were localized to a particular nation, tribe or city, and the cult of the gods was bound up with the cult of the state- this was true in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Rome, everywhere. It was Christ who first introduced a distinction between the sacerdotium and regnum (Church and State) when He said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and God what is God's" (Mark 12:17)”26
For this reason it is that the “Divine Rights” of kings is incompatible with Catholic thought. According to the ‘divine rights’ “in a State once monarchical, monarchy is forever the only lawful government, and all authority is vested in the monarch, to be communicated by him , to such as he may select for the time being to share power. This ‘divine rights of kings’ (very different from the doctrine that all authority, whether of king or of republic, is from God), has never been sanctioned by the Catholic Church”27
In the High Middle Ages, the king did not have absolute power. Furthermore his creeds were not absolute, nor his commands. It could be stated that the deciding factor of each major decision rested upon the Grand Council. This council was a political entity made up of the king, as well as heads of the various noble families of that region, clergymen, commanding knights, and the sort. Furthermore they would vote on the particular issue at hand, putting a check on the power of the king. In the middle ages there was a strong belief that government is based on the consent of the governed.
Catholic sources of democratic thought and the Declaration of Independence
Something that many people might not realize is precisely the fact that much of democratic thought and furthermore the Declaration of Independence was influenced by Catholic theologians such as Saint Robert 
Bellarmine and Saint Thomas Aquinas. Although it is true that for most of the medieval ages the normal form of government was a monarchy, the reality is that the Catholic Church has always aloud various forms of governmental systems, so long as people recognize that the source of authority always comes from God. Michael Davis states:
The Church is not committed to any particular form of government, and despite the tendency of Popes to refer to ‘princes’ in their encyclicals, they were in no way opposed to democracy, if all that is meant by this term is that those who govern are chosen by a vote (based on either limited or universal suffrage). What the Popes maintain, logically and uncompromisingly, is that the source of authority is precisely the same in 18-century France, as in a country where the government is chosen in a democratic election in which every citizen has the right to vote, such as the United States today. In either situation papal teaching on the source of authority is clear and has already been stated: ‘All authority comes from God28Similarly Saint Robert Bellarmine a Catholic cardinal and theologian often spoke about the negative side effects of an absolute monarchy in the hands of man, and stated that a mixed government with some democracy in it was the most balanced:
Monarchy theoretically and in the abstract, monarchy in the hands of God who combines in Himself all the qualifications of an ideal ruler, is indeed a perfect system of government; in the hands of imperfect man, however, it is exposed to many defects and abuses. A government tempered, therefore, by all three basic forms (i.e., monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy), a mixed government, is, on account of the corruption of human nature more useful than simple monarchy29
The Declaration of Independence
This then leads us to the Declaration of Independence itself. Many people don’t realize that this important document has a lot of root in the thought of both Saint Thomas Aquinas and more specifically Saint Robert Bellarmine. It is true that some enlightenment thought made up the declaration of Independence but not as much as people think. The fact is that in terms of the Declaration of Independence for most part “the principles enunciated in it are identically the political thought and theory predominant and traditional among representative Catholic churchmen, and not the political thought and inspiration of the politico-religious revolt of the sixteenth century, nor of the later social-contract or compact theories”30
There is a good article written by Rev. John C Rager, titled Catholic Sources and the Declaration of Independence in which he convincingly argues that there is good evidence that Thomas Jefferson and several other prominent colonialist were familiar with the writings of Saint Robert Bellarmine
If you study the documents regarding the Declaration of Independence side by side with the statements of people such as Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Robert Bellarmine you will see a lot of similarities. Some of the most common examples are:
Equality of man
Declaration of Independence: “All men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”
Robert Bellarmine: “All men are equal, not in wisdom or grace, but in the essence and nature of mankind” (“De Laicis,” c.7) “There is no reason why among equals one should rule rather than another” (ibid.). “Let rulers remember that they preside over men who are of the same nature as they themselves.” (“De Officus Princ.” c. 22). “Political right is immediately from God and necessarily inherent in the nature of man” (“De Laicis,” c. 6, note 1).
Thomas Aquinas: “Nature made all men equal in liberty, though not in their natural perfections” (II Sent., d. xliv, q. 1, a. 3. ad 1).
The function of government
Declaration of Independence: “To secure these rights governments are instituted among men.”
Robert Bellarmine: “It is impossible for men to live together without someone to care for the common good. Men must be governed by someone lest they be willing to perish” (“De Laicis,” c. 6).
Thomas Aquinas: “To ordain anything for the common good belongs either to the whole people, or to someone who is the viceregent of the whole people” (Summa, la llae, q. 90, a. 3).
The source of power
Declaration of Independence: “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Bellarmine: “It depends upon the consent of the multitude to constitute over itself a king, consul, or other magistrate. This power is, indeed, from God, but vested in a particular ruler by the counsel and election of men” (“De Laicis, c. 6, notes 4 and 5). “The people themselves immediately and directly hold the political power” (“De Clericis,” c. 7).
Thomas Aquinas: “Therefore the making of a law belongs either to the whole people or to a public personage who has care of the whole people” (Summa, la llae, q. 90, a. 3). “The ruler has power and eminence from the subjects, and, in the event of his despising them, he sometimes loses both his power and position” (“De Erudit. Princ.” Bk. I, c. 6).
The right to change the government
Declaration of Independence: “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government...Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient reasons.”
Bellarmine: “For legitimate reasons the people can change the government to an aristocracy or a democracy or vice versa” (“De Laicis,” c. 6). “The people never transfers its powers to a king so completely but that it reserves to itself the right of receiving back this power” (Recognitio de Laicis, c. 6).
Thomas Aquinas: “If any society of people have a right of choosing a king, then the king so established can be deposed by them without injustice, or his power can be curbed, when by tyranny he abuses his regal power” (“De Rege et Regno,” Bk. I, c. 6).
The Protestant Reformation and the “Divine Rights” of kings
I have already pointed out the fact that ever since ancient times various civilizations already believe in some way or another in the “divine right” of kings. This is true regarding the Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and most other pagan civilizations. I also pointed out that Catholic thought rejected this axiom. However this is not to say that no one in the middle ages abused their power, or that there were not individual monarchs who actually believed this. During the late Middle Ages this is specifically what was going on. Many monarchs did in fact start abusing their power because of their lust for power and greed. However as Hilaire Belloc points out, it was not until the Protestant Reformation that the notion of the “divine rights of kings” came back into society. Hilaire Belloc states:
A Claim to absolute monarchy is one of the commonest and most enduring of historical things. Countless centuries of the old Empires of the East were passed under such a claim, the Roman Empire was based upon it, the old Russian State was made by it, French society luxuriated in it for one magnificent century, from the accession of Louis XIV till Fontenoy. It is the easiest and (when it works) the most prompt of all instruments. But the sense of an absolute civil government at the moment of the Reformation was something very different. It was a demand, and appetite, proceeding from the whole community, a worship of civil authority. It was deification of the State and of law, it was the adoration of the Executive31Furthermore one should not look any further for a clearer example of the practice of the “divine right” of kings during the Reformation than the cases of Martin Luther and the reign of King Henry the VIII. Starting off with Martin Luther, “Luther denied any limitation of political power either by Pope or people, nor can it be said that he showed any sympathy for representative institutions; he upheld the inalienable and Divine authority of kings in order to hew down the Upas tree of Rome”32 Lord Action in page 42 of his book History of Freedom stated that “Lutheran writers constantly condemn the democratic literate that arose in the second age of the Reformation… and Calvin judged that people were unfit to govern themselves, and declared the popular assembly an abuse.
The reign of King Henry the VIII used the axiom of the “divine right” of kings as much as the other reformers mentioned used it. We could actually say that during the reign of King Henry VIII this notion was used even more. The University of Dallas’ Gerald Wegemer argues very convincingly that the “divine right” of kings is a Protestant construct and not a Catholic one in the modern world. Gerald Wegemer states:
In 1528 Anne Boleyn (King Henry VIII’s illegitimate wife) exacerbated Henry’s lust for imperial power by giving him a book that justified everything he would ever want to do. That book was William Tyndale’s The Obedience of a Christian Man. More called this book “a book of disobedience” and diplomatically cautioned Henry about its content. Henry was already highly cautious about the author; he had, in fact banned Tyndale from England for advocating Luther’s revolutionary ideas. Nonetheless, he was soon educed by the claims of Tyndale’s book. This book is famous in the history of political thought because it gives the first jurisdiction in the English language for the divine right of kings.”33The last well known example of the notion of the “divine right” of kings comes from Robert Filmer who was the private theologian of James I of England. In his theory regarding the divine rights, he proclaimed that “the king can do no wrong”. All these notions presented above regarding the divine rights of king were not a Catholic concept. Rather it was a concept which for most part existed in the ancient world, and which the Protestant Reformation helped bring back. Now this does not mean that no monarchs in the Middle Ages and prior to the reformation did not abuse their power, but it simply shows that the notion and principal itself of the “Divine Right” of kings was never accepted in Catholic thought.
Ok monarchist. Who should be king of America, and how much power should they have? Must we bow to them and call them sir or lord? Should their title be passed down?
And should they have a cadre of nobles who surround and advise them? Or should they just be one old lonely monarch?
And should they be approved of in some way by a church? I mean, if they represent god, it seems like they shouldn’t be someone the church on earth disapproves of?
Im fascinated by the worldview of children who need a mommy and daddy to care for them. Tell me more.
And I see nothing good in long lasting administrations. Imagine a president who lived 50 years. S C R E W E D.
A government that never goes away, and cannot be changed except by force, or by rebellion against God.
I’m beginning to see the wisdom in beheading Louis XIV, and shooting Anastasia. It’s the only way you can get rid of those pests.
Sorry those are the wrong footnotes it should be
1) Joseph Rickaby “Civil Authority” (The Catholic Encyclopedia 1907)
2) Boniface “Political Authority’s Divine Origin”
3) Joseph Rickaby “Civil Authority” op. cit
4) Michael Davis “The Reign of Christ the King” (TAN Publishers, 1992) pg.12
5) REV. John C. Rager “Catholic Sources and the Declaration of Independence”
6) Ibid
7) Hilaire Belloc “Europe and the Faith” (TAN Publishers, 1920) pg.162
8) John C. Rager “Catholic Sources” op. cit
9) Gerard Wegemer, Thomas More: Portrait of Courage (Scepter, 1998), 131.)
Actually I don’t think a monarchy would work well here. Our historical background and the culture are probably just incompatible with monarchy. Of course that is the reverse of the normal American prejudice which is to insist that every country in the world become another America and adopt our system of government. Different countries are actually different. Government and politics should reflect the local culture and history. That’s why democracy is unlikely to ever work well in some countries and a monarchy in this country is virtually unimaginable.
There is not enough shared culture, values, religious belief and social cohesion for a monarchy to function here.
And longevity in a government wasn’t exactly celebrated by our founders. Jefferson mused about a revolt every 20 years or so.
They gave us a system by which we could modify the republic with amendments and constitutional conventions. They even left us with a right to battlefield weapons so if all else failed, we could shoot the SOBs out of power.
Longevity in government is really not a goal people need beyond a generation unless those people want it to continue. And if here is no way to dispose of a monarchy legally, you cannot know if anyone wants it.
“Of course that is the reverse of the normal American prejudice which is to insist that every country in the world become another America and adopt our system of government”
Inside those foreigners,, is an American, fighting to get out.
“I’m beginning to see the wisdom in beheading Louis XIV, and shooting Anastasia. It’s the only way you can get rid of those pests.”
That could be a direct quote from Lenin. Really you are starting to come across as a foaming at the mouth Jacobin or Communist.
Nope, more like a cider drunk Colonist who would have tarred and feathered and mocked, and maybe have used a belaying pin to crush the skull of any Monarch who claimed the slightest power over me. If they said the power was in the name of God, id hit em twice just on principle.
I’m not a European.
And many of your words could be a direct quote from a loyalist who would have passed word to the British about Minuteman plans.
That’s odd since your rhetoric is decidedly Marxist. I never heard of any colonists who called for the killing of children (Anastasia). You seem to be practically drooling at the thought of murdering the man without whose help we would be opening the Super Bowl every year by singing God Save the Queen. Louis XVI saved our necks. But I gather gratitude carries no weight if the person to whom we are indebted happened to wear a crown.
“And many of your words could be a direct quote from a loyalist who would have passed word to the British about Minuteman plans.”
This from a man who champions the murder America’s only ally. You would have ended our Revolution in British victory, all in the time it takes for a guillotine blade to drop.
I agree completely. Welcome to the FreeRepublic; please stay with us.
I might add: a libertarian will find more in common with a monarchist than with a democrat, simply because the king owns rather than rents the national infrastructure.
If you want to be on this right wing, monarchy, paleolibertarianism and nationalism ping list, but are not, please let me know. If you are on it and want to be off, also let me know. This ping list is not used for Catholic-Protestant, or any other confessional debates.
Here we are discussing finer points and distinctions of monarchism, and while they are, of course, inseparable from Christian theology they need not divide us as bitterly as some purely theological matters.
Add please. Thanks.
Agreed, the fire will be hot when it burns out.
“...the French Revolution is likely the worst disaster to befall Western Civilization since the black Death...”
Post of the day! Many (students in the American public schools, for example) are told that the French Revolution was a good thing and it was NOT!
Heaven is a hierarchy (Christ the King) and pure democracy will always play out to disaster since the average IQ is just above 100 and the people will vote for handouts eventually and the tyrants will keep the handouts rolling to stay in power.
A republic does work - but it WILL devolve into a fascist tyranny because of fallen human nature unless there are definite stops put into the laws; e.g. having to be a landholder to vote, etc. In this age, owning property may not be the best requirement filter, however something ought to be put in place so the completely clueless or illegal can’t vote until the prove they are properly informed on the issues; there should be a literacy of American History test required before someone can vote.
This is the exact reason that Obama and his evil ilk want to overwhelm the voting system with illegals. The most frightening aspect is that their plan is working.
Rather than debating monarchism vs. republicanism vs. democracy, I think that this is the secret of good government. A king or parliament that respects custom and the limits of its power will produce a good government. A king or parliament that does not produces tyranny.
Thank you for posting! Excellent article!
I am printing this out for my daughter who is a junior in high school and is currently taking AP U.S. History. She is a practicing Catholic who cares about her faith and will find this valuable!
But they have the best King possible, something this world won't have until the Second Coming.
“...they have the best King possible...”
Absolutely - excellent point - and ohe that I meant to be inherently understood ...
In the fallen world here, our forms of government will always be flawed, but we can certainly try. Power corrupts those at the top who hold the power due to our fallen nature; whether the power holder is a king, an Obama, etc.
The fact that heaven is a hierarchy suggests that a monarchy here (on earth) could work, but only insofar as the monarch can keep his or her tendency to the capital sins at bay in imitation of Christ the King. In other words, it is not the monarchy concept in and of itself that is off, any human in power can and eventually will be corrupted (look at Obama!) unless they are consciously and deliberately imitating Christ.
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.