Posted on 03/23/2015 2:34:33 PM PDT by walkinginthedesert
Bellarmine helped persecute Galileo. I highly doubt he was the inspiration for Madison, Jefferson, and our other founders who were devotees of science, the enlightenment, and of the age of reason.
Please show any founders references to Bellarmine who had no problem telling Galileo that heliocentricism was not allowed to be pursued or defended after the council of Trent. I see no works of his defending the right of the individual over despotism, which of course is the bare essence of the constitution.
The article is weak for that error.
You are correct. Neither Bellarmine nor Aquinas were liberals (in the classical sense of term). Both strongly supported the concept of enlightened monarchical rule and took a generally dim view of Democratic government, as did most educated people from that period. They were after all students of history and knew that Democracy has a very poor long term track record. Aquinas in particular, while conceding a right to depose a truly egregious tyrant, believed that bad rulers, even very bad rulers should be tolerated because their authority came from God (as distinct from a Divine Right to rule). He believed that revolt was morally permissible only in the most extraordinary cases of gross and intolerable tyranny. A position similarly held by Edmund Burke the father of modern conservatism. If you have not read them, I strongly recommend his reflections on the French Revolution.
I am not sure exactly what is meant by “Divine right of Kings” however the Bible clearly teaches that rulers were placed into their positions by God.
Romans 13 “All of you must obey the government rulers. Everyone who rules was given the power to rule by God. And all those who rule now were given that power by God. 2 So anyone who is against the government is really against something God has commanded.”
“legitimate Christian monarchy there is a proper respect for tradition including the rights of the people and some limits on power. But perhaps most importantly there is an acknowledgment that all authority comes from God.”
As Thomas Paine pointed out, if a monarch was actually in power by the authority of God, then there would not need to be a Magna Charta. Trying to check the power of Gods King, would be like checking Gods will.
No, monarchs do not come from God.
Historically, this has been the source of much anti catholic bigotry in America prior to 1900 and even after. That European catholics were very prone to accepting a monarchy. And that was an anathema to the early Americans. Today, not so much.
But its sad to see so many otherwise sane people who would obey and respect a monarch.
If me and QEII walked up to the counter at McDonalds at the same time, the only reason she should go first is cause she’s a woman in her 80s.
While I agree that all government power is exercised at God's discretion, monarchies generally hold no appeal to me. Even a king like David, a man after God's heart, had his excesses which if you happened to be the target, left you a little short on appeals.
Under the prophets and judges scenario, there wasn't any doubt about from where the authority came. However, the initial response was in answer to your comment that monarchy is the only form of government really found in Scripture. Clearly God's initial arrangement was different. The Roman emperors eschewed the title of King.
The question is always “who watches the watchers.”
But the answer comes from asking, “who is being watched?”
If subjects are watched, then the manner of government is always feudal, no matter what it is called. Artistocrats (no matter what they are called) owning people, land and property feuding amongst themselves, inevitably electing some sort of sovereign for political purposes - their political purposes. So nobody watches the watchers, because the kind is jus another integrated part of those who need watching - the aristocracy. And from that, flows nothing but corruption and degredation because of the innate flaws inherent in the small pool of self-centered and self-eroding aristocrats.
If, however, free human beings with natural or negative God-given rights are being watched, it’s a whole different ballgame. Because those people, and their plands and properties, are not the properties of the aristocracy. In fct, there is no genuine aristocracy. Nevertheless, a hierarchy is needed for government, and from that arises feudal temptations and actions. So who watches the watchers there? Well in America, the People watch their own watchers. That, as Lincoln observd, is the “great experiment.” People are often shocked that some wanted Washington to declare himself king, but they were worried about the ability of the people to watch the watchers. And look around - they were right to worry.
So if a divine king actually came about, the common - free - people would have little to do with him. His purpose would be, rather, to “watch the watchers.” To be the People’s representative against the powers of government getting out of control - of voting themselves exemptions and tax breaks and immunities and lack of investigations and prosecutions and the whole host of outrages with which we have all, unfortunately, become far to familiar. The purpose of a divine king is to make to powerful tremble, and the people smile.
” and took a generally dim view of Democratic government,”
As does every sane person from ancient Greece on. We are talking about a constitutional republic. There is no place in one for a monarch.
And though bloody and filled with errors, the French revolution ended their monarchy, and the church’s close association with that monarchy.
France would not be better today if there was Louis XXXV, closely associated with Rome, running the country.
I am no fan of Enlightenment liberalism or Whig Historiography so I will see your Paine and raise you one Voltaire. I fear we shall have to agree to disagree.
---------------------------
The question is always “who watches the watchers.”
But the answer comes from asking, “who is being watched?”
If subjects are watched, then the manner of government is always feudal, no matter what it is called. Artistocrats (no matter what they are called) owning people, land and property feuding amongst themselves, inevitably electing some sort of sovereign for political purposes - their political purposes. So nobody watches the watchers, because the king is just another integrated part of those who need watching - the aristocracy. And from that, flows nothing but corruption and degredation because of the innate flaws inherent in the small pool of self-centered and self-eroding aristocrats.
If, however, free human beings with natural or negative God-given rights are being watched, it’s a whole different ballgame. Because those people, and their lands and properties, are not the properties of the aristocracy. In fact, there is no genuine aristocracy. Nevertheless, a hierarchy is needed for government, and from that arises feudal temptations and actions. So who watches the watchers there? Well in America, the People watch their own watchers. That, as Lincoln observed, is the “great experiment.” People are often shocked that some wanted Washington to declare himself king, but they were worried about the ability of the people to watch the watchers. And look around - they were right to worry.
So if a divine king actually came about, the common - free - people would have little to do with him. His purpose would be, rather, to “watch the watchers.” To be the People’s representative against the powers of government getting out of control - of voting themselves exemptions and tax breaks and immunities and lack of investigations and prosecutions and the whole host of outrages with which we have all, unfortunately, become far too familiar. The purpose of a divine king is to make to powerful tremble, and the people smile.
Let it also be noted that NONE of those Enlightenments philosophers supported any kind of democracy with universal suffrage. Only men of sufficient wealth could vote.
Actually the Bourbon monarchy kept Rome at arms length. The overthrow of the monarchy allowed the Papacy to reassert control over the French (Gallican) Church to a degree that would never have been possible otherwise. Beyond which the French Revolution is likely the worst disaster to befall Western Civilization since the Black Death. All three World Wars are a direct outgrowth of the idiotic ideology that sprang from it. Its victims direct and indirect number in the tens of millions, at the least. Communism is the bastard child of the French Revolution.
A point well made.
Astounding to see a conservative site with so many fawning over fat farting potentates, ready to kneel at their feet. And how do we know when this king was appointed by god? The most common answer seems to be simply that he has found a way to seize power.
This must be the wing of conservatism that really despises freedom, and only craves power to be the guardians making the rules.
Wouldn’t that be a form of limited monarchy?
Fair enough. I am rarely dogmatic in matters of politics and I freely admit that monarchy, as with all human systems of governance, has its flaws and shortcomings. But I find that with the passage of time so called democratic (or if you prefer “republican”) forms of government are no less susceptible to corruption and abuse. Arguably they are more so. Few Republics have lasted more than three centuries and there are worrying signs about the direction this one is heading in.
Not really. I mean compared to almost every democracy in existence today, the monarchies of yesteryear look like libertarian utopias. size of government has only grown since the death of monarchy.
And the point is that the Catholic church allegedly does not support a divine right monarch. And I guess that comes from the pope, as he sits in one of the finest castles in Europe, representing God?
Got it./
Well that’s something you can take up with the Romans. As someone who is a monarchist, and who is also not a Roman Catholic, I will bow out.
Most monarchys don’t last more than a few centuries either. They are usurped by kings (other guys also apparently appointed by god) they are usurped by passing the crown to illegitimate bastard heirs from cheating queens, and by bloodlines simply ending.
Tudor, Stuart, then the Hannover bunch came in. And this story is repeated everywhere there have been kings.
Monarchs are about as long lived as republics.
Actually monarchy as a system of government has held up quite well. Individual dynasties come and go, some for good reasons, others not. But certainly with far less frequency and the often drastic changes in policy attendant upon a change in administration in a republic.
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.