That’s a bit of a stretchMany Catholics would argue that “Catholic Monarchist Triumphalist” is a contradiction in terms.
Uh get a clue. There currently are Catholic Monarchs today and non act as you describeAs in, a film glorifying a Catholic monarch who is an absolute ruler over all the lands he/she controls, who imposes the Catholic faith on all subjects and forbids freedom of religion? That kind of film?
Also, you speak about religious freedom in a way the Church doesn’t believe. Actually read Dignitatis Humanae before you get on the Internet.As in, a film glorifying a Catholic monarch who is an absolute ruler over all the lands he/she controls, who imposes the Catholic faith on all subjects and forbids freedom of religion? That kind of film?
I don’t think Tinseltown specializes in that type of film subject matter.Since my conversion to Catholicism, I too am beginning to become a bit of a Catholic Monarchist myself. But, I don’t know of any specific movies that are “Catholic Monarchist Triumphalist.”
Most Catholic movies I’ve seen generally oppose monarchism. See “Becket” and “A Man For All Seasons.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vend%C3%A9e#FilmThe uprising in the Vendée was the subject of an independent feature film from Navis Pictures. The War of the Vendée (2012), written and directed by Jim Morlino, won awards for “Best Film For Young Audiences”, (Mirabile Dictu International Catholic Film Festival - at the Vatican) and “Best Director” (John Paul II International Film Festival - Miami, FL).
It would definitely **not **be a good thing. Now, I am Catholic and I live in a democratic monarchy, which I support. But an absolute monarchy is a very dangerous thing, and the Catholic Church is completely opposed to people being forced to be Catholic."That being said- were they to, that would be a good thing. "
How so? It would go completely the teaching of the Church.Sure it would
- This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
Thanks AZ! I’ll have to check those out.Try “Constantine and the Cross” (1960) starring Cornel Wilde and Christine Kaufman, directed by Lionello De Felico; there is also a French film about St. Louis the King (Louis IX of France), “Saint Louis ou La royauté bienfaisante” (1982).
If one is honest, and truly applies the Catholic faith into one’s thoughts in all aspects, one is brought to the monarchist form of government. So that’s awesome you’re coming around, it’s actually regaining a bit of popularity which is a great thing. Not all Catholics seem to apply their faith as well, like condoning relativistic forms of govt or philosophies.Since my conversion to Catholicism, I too am beginning to become a bit of a Catholic Monarchist myself. But, I don’t know of any specific movies that are “Catholic Monarchist Triumphalist.”
Most Catholic movies I’ve seen generally oppose monarchism. See “Becket” and “A Man For All Seasons.”
Absolute monarchy does not necessarily require everyone to be the same religion as the monarch.It would definitely **not **be a good thing. Now, I am Catholic and I live in a democratic monarchy, which I support. But an absolute monarchy is a very dangerous thing, and the Catholic Church is completely opposed to people being forced to be Catholic.
There have been Catholic monarchs for ages throughout the Roman Empire, and you cite two edicts from two different monarchs in suppressing insurrection? Your claim is false if you are merely citing two instances and saying that it is “usually” how it pans out.
Also, DH is not a magisterial document. It can be editted, amended, or even thrown out as a document completely. So, while it is meant to put barriers on pluaralistic societies and communist regimes, it doesn’t really speak to whether Catholic Monarchies were to reemerge as a common form of gov’t and how they should maintain order in their society.There have been Catholic monarchs for ages throughout the Roman Empire, and you cite two edicts from two different monarchs in suppressing insurrection? Your claim is false if you are merely citing two instances and saying that it is “usually” how it pans out.
Also, make note, Dignitatis Humanae is written in context to pluralistic societies being the norm now, but also it was written with the scare of communism very real during Vatican II. The document itself makes the claim that every government is obligated to have public worship to God, it also says that no person has a right to be in error. It merely says that no person should be coerced in joining one faith or another.
It says nothing of Catholic governments having an official religion, and passing laws to protect that religion in that society. As a matter a fact, in these old Catholic kingdoms, heretics were the ones also trying to overthrow the gov’t and establishment, and were punished accordingly.
This was answered on CAL this last Tuesday. The first caller for Tim Staples asked this very question. Tim answers very well. His point is that no person can generally be coerced into and out of the faith, yet that doesn’t necessarily mean officially Catholic governments cannot protect their own society and traditions.
So, generally, these Catholic monarchies were right to try to suppress heresy and maintain the status quo.