Just sayin...
Thanks for posting this..
Most of the footnotes got cut off. I’m interested in 32
"political thought and inspiration of the politico-religious revolt of the sixteenth century" = code for the Protestant Reformation?
I don’t believe that the church at that time actually believed as a matter of doctrine that there was a divine right of kings, but allowed the concept in order to keep the various monarchs in line.
I think it was more along the lines that kings supported by the church acted in the name of God, Christ, and the vicar of Rome. It was tolerated as a rule as long as it did not impinge on the actual control the church held over much of what went on and how life was conducted. If a monarch stepped outside of acceptable bounds they were threatened with excommunication which would lose them support among monarchs who held to church doctrine.
Henry VIII put the divine right concept and the power of the church on a downhill slide when he defied Rome by divorcing his wives and establishing his own religious doctrines. It took a while but the real political power of the church to control kingdoms and raise armies declined after that point.
The Byzantine notion of a God Ordained Emperor presiding over a Christian polity is an image, or better said, a foreshadowing, of heaven; not so bad a system. The economics of it are attractive as well. The Western notion of Divine Right is somewhat different, however.
In the internet age, there is no excuse to be ignorant of the foundations of American exceptionalism.
Render Unto Ceaser
“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”
What a pantload. So Sophie Scholl was resisting God with the anti Nazi white rose movement. I don’t believe this kind of sophistry for a moment. It has been carefully honed for 2000 years as a people control measure that it is unchristian to ever resist any civil authority.
A much better example is found in clearing the temple.
This apologetic data mining exercise misses one important point. None of the founders I am aware of used any of those sources, or at least it wasn’t explained in the article.
You cannot simply find a catholic thinker here and there that has a similar quote to a founder, and conclude that is the source for the principle expressed in the Constitution.
To make it more fun, it would be nice to know the context in which the catholic thinker made the remark. Was it a general epistle on freedom? Or was it something very specific to an issue they faced at that moment? Because the fact of the matter, is that the catholic leadership did not defend individual freedom during that era.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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!
Thank you for posting an interesting article.
The fundamental principle that must be understood is this, regardless of the form of government or the process of selecting who will govern; he who takes upon himself the care of the common good receives authority from God. It is that simple. The election can be by lottery, by vote, by contest, by birth. The governing body can be one man or a plurality acting as one.
The British had too strong a notion of the divine right of kings. To go against the King was to go against God’s authority. So when they found a Catholic attending mass, which was considered an act of defiance against the Crown, they had no problem drawing and quartering him on those grounds alone. But the Catholics were right, it was better for them to obey God rather than men. Henry and Elizabeth were dreadfully wrong. And insofar as they did not keep up the care of the common good they had NO authority. It did not matter that they were born to it. And they did not escape the fearsome judgment seat of Christ.
allowed?
I think, overall, it is true that the purest forms of monarchy are those that have strong property rights for everyone, and they are typical for the early Feudalism. It is unfortunate that when one thinks of monarchy today, the examples are of royal absolutism, that is, of aberrations of the monarchic principle.
I agree that the Church never approved of any particular form of government, but neither did Protestantism as a whole. The Church did, however, bestow the title of Catholic King, and it was a formal title or style, on some monarchs. Kind Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castile, I believe, are one example.
Not sure what point is attempting to be made by this folly, but the Founding Fathers soundly rejected monarchy, both the political and religious types, having known the disaster of both throughout European history. The Founders, many students of the Bible, realized that Liberty ultimately comes from God. The moment you place a leader between God and man, you have problems. They opted for the next best option, a Constitutional Republic. They rejected a religious state, as well as a pure Democracy for the obvious problems of both. Tyranny comes from the first, and anarchy comes from the latter.
A Constitutional Republic requires an educated and moral citizenry. As Noah Webster observed - “If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.”
He further observed:
“The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government…and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence.”
And...
“The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it.”
There is only one HEAD of the CHURCH, Jesus. The moment you place a man in place of Jesus, you quickly end up in the religious ditch. Believers are children of God, joint heirs of Jesus, made alive in Christ, seated in Heavenly places, Ambassadors for Christ in the world and Spiritual Brethren.
As Jesus said.
Luke 22:25-26 (AMP)
25 But Jesus said to them, The kings of the Gentiles are deified by them and exercise lordship [ruling as emperor-gods] over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors and well-doers.
26 But this is not to be so with you; on the contrary, let him who is the greatest among you become like the youngest, and him who is the chief and leader like one who serves.
And Paul added a key to those called to minister to the Body: (See also Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12)
2 Timothy 4:1-4 (KJV)
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And Peter added...
1 Peter 5:1-3 (KJV)
1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
God made it clear that when the children of Israel demanded a king, they were rejecting Him. He even told them what would happen with a king over them.
1 Samuel 8:7 (KJV)
7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
1 Samuel 8:11-20 (KJV)
11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;
20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
There is only one person qualified to be King, and his time is coming.