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.
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.