S
Stuckinavortex
Guest
Not at all true.
- Status
D
Darryl_Revok
Guest
The question was about absolute monarchies and their tolerance for pluralism. I picked the two most absolute monarchs off the top of my head. You can’t get more absolute than Louis XIV.
Like most rationales given by all governments, such excuses are BS. The fact that such excuses were given by Catholic monarchs doesn’t make them any more true than those given by our own governments.
Most religious persecution undertaken by medieval/early modern monarchs was due to economic concerns more than anything else. You think it’s a coincidence that the Jews–more often than not a target of such persecution–were the biggest moneylenders in Europe?
And yet a hundred years after Nantes, the Bourbon king and his bride ended up with their heads in baskets.
D
Darryl_Revok
Guest
Might as well go really retro and bring back the yellow badge.
S
SWolf
Guest
A little off topic, but I am currently reading Democracy: The God That Failed by Hoppe, and he makes a very good case for monarchy (though the author is more of an anarchist himself).
C
codefro
Guest
You strike a point regarding the economic retaliation in medieval governments, and on that I 100% agree with you. Not only were the Jews persecuted for that, but also that is what wiped out the Templars, who were an amazing order. The proof is in the exoneration that the Pope wrote to them when it was already too late and they were all wiped out. So in that regard, I think that is a complete injustice and a kind of tyranny.
Yes, that injustice is not absent in any form of government. So while I agree with you in that regard, it doesn’t remove one spec from the defense of Monarchism as the best form of government.
I highly recommed reading St.Thomas Aquinas’ book “De Regno”. Thomas Aquinas gives a logical defense as to how in Monarchism you have the potential for the greatest, and the worst form of government. A king who rules by virtue and has absolute rule can create a great society, and a king who oppresses his people is then distinguished as not really a monarch, but a tyrant (the worst form of gov’t. Thomas argues for why putting limits on a monarch can also hurt a society.
St. Thomas then argues why monarchy is even better than a republican, or oligarch form of government. Give it a try, I cannot do it justice. At the very least, you may just have better reasons to disagree with a monarchist form of gov’t.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
That is how it worked a long time ago in a very different context.
C
codefro
Guest
:clapping:
C
codefro
Guest
Also for those thinking that DH is the “new law of the land”, the great Fr. Hunwicke has this to say:
The Have Uncrowned Him (5) (this is his 5th blog in this series so read all of them if you’re interested
"In practical terms, the difference between the new teaching of Dignitatis humanae, and the previous doctrine, is not great; it is so technical that those who can live without fine distinctions can certainly live without considering this fine distinction! Because, in practice, the settled principle of the Church was that states may legislate for religious liberty for everybody and are not obliged always to maintain laws oppressive to non-Catholic minorities. (I was interested to discover, at Avignon in the Papal States, a synagogue built there when the French Kingdom, just across the Rhone, discouraged Jewish worship but the Papacy allowed it; and B Pius IX boasted to Mgr Dupanloup that Rome itself contained a Synagogue and a ‘Protestant Temple’). The only disagreement concerns the theological principle upon which this freedom to pass laws guaranteeing religious liberty is based. We are not discussing whether a rigorously Catholic Parliament at Westminster would pass a law to prevent Methodists from expanding their over-packed chapels or whether a devoutly Catholic James IV would feel obliged to Revoke whatever may be the British equivalent of the Edict of Nantes! S Bartholomew’s Day need hold no terrors for our Presbyterians!
The ‘fine distinction’ is this. The Council declared that “the human person has a right to religious freedom”. It went on to declare that “the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person”. But the earlier Magisterium taught that the State - if it were a Catholic State - should “protect the citizens against the seductions of error, in order to keep the City in the unity of faith, which is the supreme good”, and may regulate and moderate the public manifestations of other cults and defend its citizens against the spreading of false doctrines which, in the judgement of the Church, put their eternal salvation at risk". This teaching (I am quoting, incidentally, from the curial draft which was put before the Fathers but discarded) went on, however, to say that, because of Christian charity and prudence, a desire to draw dissidents to the Church by kindness, to avoid scandals or civil wars, to obtain civil cooperation and peaceful coexistence, “a just tolerance, even sanctioned by laws, can, according to the circumstances, be imposed”.
In other words, non-Catholics in a Catholic state may and perhaps should for good reasons be granted an immunity from coercion. It is not, as the Council asserts, a natural right founded in the dignity of the human person.
…]
Another factor which should not be forgotten is that the Council admitted that Scripture provides no basis for its own novel teaching. Indeed it does not: the entire Old Testament is a consistent assertion of the corporate Judaism state, with nation and cult coterminous. This admission perhaps offers a way ahead. Here we have one of the many respects in which the life of the people of Israel before the Christian era, and belief in the Christendom State, are in close agreement. We have much to learn from our Hebrew inheritance. The integration of Scripture into this dialogue constitutes another piece of unfinished Conciliar business.
…]
What must be accepted is the Right of Christ to rule and the unlawfulness of secular legislation which contradicts his Law. Legislation against the will of God is legislation which the Christian is not simply not bound to obey; it is something which he is obliged to disobey. Christ is King and, as S Paul told the Philippians, our politeuma is from above. It will become all the more important to teach this and to preach it, as the social and legal framework of secular society becomes ever more, year by year, a grotesque and Diabolical inversion and parody of the Civitas Dei. Daily, they uncrown him. Thank God for every archbishop or bishop who has bravely made this point, for every priestly or lay society which has preached Christ as King.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) There can be no doubt that the new teaching given in Dignitatis humanae may be taught and upheld in the Catholic Church. It is embodied in a Conciliar document ratified by the Roman Pontiff (and, according to his biographer, signed by Archbishop Lefebvre together with an overwhelming majority of the Fathers). But those who do promote this teaching will be performing a suppressio veri if they fail to state, as the Council did, the abiding authority of the previously established teaching. Because:
(2) The same Council with the same authority reasserted the teaching of the previous Magisterium, without qualification. Thus any suggestion that those, such as Mgr Lefebvre’s followers, who continue to lay great emphasis upon the teaching of the previous Magisterium, are opposing the Magisterium of the post-Conciliar Church, would itself be a clear denial of the Council’s authority and would seem to me to merit a formal Magisterial correction. And:
(3) The Council itself gave no guidance about how two positions, both asserted but both prima facie in opposition to each other, are to be reconciled. If this is not a simple absurdity, it can only mean that both are to be held within the Church, in creative and courteous tension, until by the Grace of God a consensus is reached.
This is the context within which I commend Mgr Lefebvre’s book* (although, to be honest, not all its rhetorical hyperbole) as essential reading in pursuing the tasks which the Council bequeathed to us."
The Have Uncrowned Him (5) (this is his 5th blog in this series so read all of them if you’re interested
"In practical terms, the difference between the new teaching of Dignitatis humanae, and the previous doctrine, is not great; it is so technical that those who can live without fine distinctions can certainly live without considering this fine distinction! Because, in practice, the settled principle of the Church was that states may legislate for religious liberty for everybody and are not obliged always to maintain laws oppressive to non-Catholic minorities. (I was interested to discover, at Avignon in the Papal States, a synagogue built there when the French Kingdom, just across the Rhone, discouraged Jewish worship but the Papacy allowed it; and B Pius IX boasted to Mgr Dupanloup that Rome itself contained a Synagogue and a ‘Protestant Temple’). The only disagreement concerns the theological principle upon which this freedom to pass laws guaranteeing religious liberty is based. We are not discussing whether a rigorously Catholic Parliament at Westminster would pass a law to prevent Methodists from expanding their over-packed chapels or whether a devoutly Catholic James IV would feel obliged to Revoke whatever may be the British equivalent of the Edict of Nantes! S Bartholomew’s Day need hold no terrors for our Presbyterians!
The ‘fine distinction’ is this. The Council declared that “the human person has a right to religious freedom”. It went on to declare that “the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person”. But the earlier Magisterium taught that the State - if it were a Catholic State - should “protect the citizens against the seductions of error, in order to keep the City in the unity of faith, which is the supreme good”, and may regulate and moderate the public manifestations of other cults and defend its citizens against the spreading of false doctrines which, in the judgement of the Church, put their eternal salvation at risk". This teaching (I am quoting, incidentally, from the curial draft which was put before the Fathers but discarded) went on, however, to say that, because of Christian charity and prudence, a desire to draw dissidents to the Church by kindness, to avoid scandals or civil wars, to obtain civil cooperation and peaceful coexistence, “a just tolerance, even sanctioned by laws, can, according to the circumstances, be imposed”.
In other words, non-Catholics in a Catholic state may and perhaps should for good reasons be granted an immunity from coercion. It is not, as the Council asserts, a natural right founded in the dignity of the human person.
…]
Another factor which should not be forgotten is that the Council admitted that Scripture provides no basis for its own novel teaching. Indeed it does not: the entire Old Testament is a consistent assertion of the corporate Judaism state, with nation and cult coterminous. This admission perhaps offers a way ahead. Here we have one of the many respects in which the life of the people of Israel before the Christian era, and belief in the Christendom State, are in close agreement. We have much to learn from our Hebrew inheritance. The integration of Scripture into this dialogue constitutes another piece of unfinished Conciliar business.
…]
What must be accepted is the Right of Christ to rule and the unlawfulness of secular legislation which contradicts his Law. Legislation against the will of God is legislation which the Christian is not simply not bound to obey; it is something which he is obliged to disobey. Christ is King and, as S Paul told the Philippians, our politeuma is from above. It will become all the more important to teach this and to preach it, as the social and legal framework of secular society becomes ever more, year by year, a grotesque and Diabolical inversion and parody of the Civitas Dei. Daily, they uncrown him. Thank God for every archbishop or bishop who has bravely made this point, for every priestly or lay society which has preached Christ as King.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) There can be no doubt that the new teaching given in Dignitatis humanae may be taught and upheld in the Catholic Church. It is embodied in a Conciliar document ratified by the Roman Pontiff (and, according to his biographer, signed by Archbishop Lefebvre together with an overwhelming majority of the Fathers). But those who do promote this teaching will be performing a suppressio veri if they fail to state, as the Council did, the abiding authority of the previously established teaching. Because:
(2) The same Council with the same authority reasserted the teaching of the previous Magisterium, without qualification. Thus any suggestion that those, such as Mgr Lefebvre’s followers, who continue to lay great emphasis upon the teaching of the previous Magisterium, are opposing the Magisterium of the post-Conciliar Church, would itself be a clear denial of the Council’s authority and would seem to me to merit a formal Magisterial correction. And:
(3) The Council itself gave no guidance about how two positions, both asserted but both prima facie in opposition to each other, are to be reconciled. If this is not a simple absurdity, it can only mean that both are to be held within the Church, in creative and courteous tension, until by the Grace of God a consensus is reached.
This is the context within which I commend Mgr Lefebvre’s book* (although, to be honest, not all its rhetorical hyperbole) as essential reading in pursuing the tasks which the Council bequeathed to us."
J
JimmyG88
Guest
Very interesting blog
C
codefro
Guest
which blog?
J
JimmyG88
Guest
Yours!
C
codefro
Guest
Thank you! Hope you check back often.
V
Vouthon
Guest
The Church has tended to have problems with absolutist monarchies, mainly because they lead to a “deification” of the state and restrict the freedom of the Church. The “liberty of the Church” has always been essential for the papacy, ever since the Gregorian reform of the 11th century.
So greatly did the papacy come into conflict with the absolutist pretensions of the French monarch Louis XIV in 1688 (who called himself “the Sun King” because he believed that everything ‘orbited’ around him) that Blessed Pope Innocent IV entered into a military alliance against him with William of Orange, as did other Catholic monarchs such as Leopold I of the elective Holy Roman Empire and King Charles II of Spain. It was called the “Grand Alliance”, comprised of Protestant and Catholic nations united (for the first time) in a common front against the absolutist hegemony of Louis’ France.
Now the pope, who was later beatified, had to have a pretty darn good reason to ally himself with the Calvinist Prince of Orange. It is still a controversial “dirty secret” in Catholic history, owing to the fact that the Prince of Orange defeated Louis’ client king James II of England at the Battle of the Boyne, which is infamous in Irish memory for cementing the ‘Protestant Ascendancy’. That same year, special *Te Deum *masses were held in the Catholic cathedrals of Austria and Spain in honour of King William’s crushing defeat of James II (and by implication Louis XIV) despite the fact that it boded very ill for Irish Catholics. So greatly was absolutism feared, that Protestants and Catholics were willing to put aside their differences. The pope and these Catholic monarchs were even willing to sacrifice a Catholic King - indeed a staunchly Catholic country in Ireland - to stop the tyrant’s ambitions.
So is absolutism good? If it is so awful as to compel a pope to ally himself with the Prince of Orange and tacitly support the overthrow in England of a Catholic king because he was a client of the dictator, I’d have to say a definite “no”.
A far better kind of monarchy for Catholics would be the Polish-Lithuanian one, which was a constitutional regime far ahead of its time:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commonwealth#Demographics_and_religion
The Catholic King of the Polish-Lithuanian state Jan Sobieski III, leading a free Commonwealth controlled by nobles who strong circumscribed the powers of their monarch, defended the West at the Gates of Vienna in 1683 against the Ottomans:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna
Jan Sobieski was the ideal Catholic monarch, not absolutist - in fact the very opposite:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_III_Sobieski
V
Vouthon
Guest
Not quite ‘Catholic monarchist’ but I’d like to bring to the attention of posters an excellent BBC television series named By the Sword Divided that aired in the early-to-mid 1980s. All the episodes from the first series are available to view in youtube, as well as most from season 2.
It is set during the English Civil War and charts the trials which befall a fictional royalist family called the Laceys, as they are divided by the civil war of the 1640s between supporters of the Parliament and supporters of King Charles I.
The family are “High Anglicans” or Anglo-Catholics but the eldest daughter marries a Puritan (Calvinist) who endorses the Parliamentarian cause, which ultimately splits the family when the civil war breaks out in 1642.
The 30,000 Catholics who lived in England at this time all fought on the side of the Royalist cause, namely because it was led by a High Anglican King sympathetic to Catholicism (his son Charles II actually converted to the Catholic faith on his deathbed) while the English Parliament was dominated by Calvinist Puritans who were vociferously opposed to “popery” and believed that there was an international “papist” plot to subvert law and order (hysteria).
Here is a quotation from King Charles I, who was tried and executed by Parliament in 1649 when it triumphed in the civil war (the first time in European history that a king was put on trial and executed by his own people):
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England
Likewise, while Parliament wins the civil war, executes the monarch and establishes a Republic in 1649, the regime degenerates quickly into a military dictatorship under General Oliver Cromwell in 1652. By 1660 the Republic collapses and the people are desperate for the return of the monarchy.
That same year, the executed King’s son is crowned Charles II of England in an event known as the “Stuart Restoration”. The people all celebrate wildly, since the Republic had become deeply unpopular as a result of Puritan theocracy and militarism. Years later, he dies on his bed as a Catholic.
And Britain has been a monarchy ever since…
The TV series charts the entire history of the Civil War, execution of the King, Republic and Restoration of the monarchy.
It is set during the English Civil War and charts the trials which befall a fictional royalist family called the Laceys, as they are divided by the civil war of the 1640s between supporters of the Parliament and supporters of King Charles I.
The family are “High Anglicans” or Anglo-Catholics but the eldest daughter marries a Puritan (Calvinist) who endorses the Parliamentarian cause, which ultimately splits the family when the civil war breaks out in 1642.
The 30,000 Catholics who lived in England at this time all fought on the side of the Royalist cause, namely because it was led by a High Anglican King sympathetic to Catholicism (his son Charles II actually converted to the Catholic faith on his deathbed) while the English Parliament was dominated by Calvinist Puritans who were vociferously opposed to “popery” and believed that there was an international “papist” plot to subvert law and order (hysteria).
Here is a quotation from King Charles I, who was tried and executed by Parliament in 1649 when it triumphed in the civil war (the first time in European history that a king was put on trial and executed by his own people):
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England
So I think this TV series qualifies. Catholics and Anglicans overwhelmingly fought on the Royalist side in the civil war, against overwhelmingly Calvinist Parliamentarians. The TV series is in a sense “pro-Royalist” (to an extent) in that the viewers identify and sympathise with the Royalist Laceys.
Likewise, while Parliament wins the civil war, executes the monarch and establishes a Republic in 1649, the regime degenerates quickly into a military dictatorship under General Oliver Cromwell in 1652. By 1660 the Republic collapses and the people are desperate for the return of the monarchy.
That same year, the executed King’s son is crowned Charles II of England in an event known as the “Stuart Restoration”. The people all celebrate wildly, since the Republic had become deeply unpopular as a result of Puritan theocracy and militarism. Years later, he dies on his bed as a Catholic.
And Britain has been a monarchy ever since…
The TV series charts the entire history of the Civil War, execution of the King, Republic and Restoration of the monarchy.
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
Might be worth watching CROMWELL with Richard Harris as well, and maybe WITCHFINDER GENERAL with Vincent Price (about Matthew Hopkins during the English Civil War).Not quite ‘Catholic monarchist’ but I’d like to bring to the attention of posters an excellent BBC television series named By the Sword Divided that aired in the early-to-mid 1980s. All the episodes from the first series are available to view in youtube, as well as most from season 2.
It is set during the English Civil War and charts the trials which befall a fictional royalist family called the Laceys, as they are divided by the civil war of the 1640s between supporters of the Parliament and supporters of King Charles I.
The family are “High Anglicans” or Anglo-Catholics but the eldest daughter marries a Puritan (Calvinist) who endorses the Parliamentarian cause, which ultimately splits the family when the civil war breaks out in 1642.
The 30,000 Catholics who lived in England at this time all fought on the side of the Royalist cause, namely because it was led by a High Anglican King sympathetic to Catholicism (his son Charles II actually converted to the Catholic faith on his deathbed) while the English Parliament was dominated by Calvinist Puritans who were vociferously opposed to “popery” and believed that there was an international “papist” plot to subvert law and order (hysteria).
Here is a quotation from King Charles I, who was tried and executed by Parliament in 1649 when it triumphed in the civil war (the first time in European history that a king was put on trial and executed by his own people):
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England
So I think this TV series qualifies. Catholics and Anglicans overwhelmingly fought on the Royalist side in the civil war, against overwhelmingly Calvinist Parliamentarians. The TV series is in a sense “pro-Royalist” (to an extent) in that the viewers identify and sympathise with the Royalist Laceys.
Likewise, while Parliament wins the civil war, executes the monarch and establishes a Republic in 1649, the regime degenerates quickly into a military dictatorship under General Oliver Cromwell in 1652. By 1660 the Republic collapses and the people are desperate for the return of the monarchy.
That same year, the executed King’s son is crowned Charles II of England in an event known as the “Stuart Restoration”. The people all celebrate wildly, since the Republic had become deeply unpopular as a result of Puritan theocracy and militarism. Years later, he dies on his bed as a Catholic.
And Britain has been a monarchy ever since…
The TV series charts the entire history of the Civil War, execution of the King, Republic and Restoration of the monarchy.
“Civil War” always struck me as an oxymoron, incidentally.
V
Vouthon
Guest
Those are both excellent films about the English Civil War. Matthew Hopkins was an especially ghastly figure, in some ways I find him more terrifying than the Salem Witch Trials in America.
Nevertheless, while Witchfinder General does not put the Parliamentarians or the Puritan cause in a good light, what with all the mad witch-murdering hysteria, its not really “monarchist” either. Cromwell is even less so - it has always struck me as a very sympathetic portrayal of the Lord Protector. I would call it a “pro-Parliamentarian” film (or “Roundheads” as they were known).
I would recommend these movies to anybody interested in the Civil War era in England but in terms of what the OP is looking for, these are not pro-royalist films.
And I get your point about “civil wars” - they are among the most uncivil of wars, which is already uncivil by its very nature. Odd term but there you go.
Historians argue that more Britons died during our Civil War in the 1640s per percentage of population than UK losses in WWI. It was a very brutal conflict, especially in Ireland - the Irish theatre being known as the “the Irish Confederate War”.
V
Vouthon
Guest
On the Irish theatre of the “British Civil War”/“War of the Three Kingdoms”/“English Civil War”:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Confederate_Wars
bcw-project.org/military/third-civil-war/cromwell-in-ireland/index
Cromwell’s devastating invasion of Ireland at the end of the war was depicted in an episode of another great BBC television program about the Civil War The Devil’s Whore. Here’s the relevant episode on youtube, if you go 29 minutes in you’ll see Cromwell’s siege of Wexford (I think):
youtube.com/watch?v=nCLfJEwySRg
This TV series aired in 2008.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Confederate_Wars
See:
bcw-project.org/military/third-civil-war/cromwell-in-ireland/index
It was an interesting conflict.
Cromwell’s devastating invasion of Ireland at the end of the war was depicted in an episode of another great BBC television program about the Civil War The Devil’s Whore. Here’s the relevant episode on youtube, if you go 29 minutes in you’ll see Cromwell’s siege of Wexford (I think):
youtube.com/watch?v=nCLfJEwySRg
This TV series aired in 2008.
P
patrick457
Guest
I have no problem with a ‘monarchy’ per se, but ideally, I agree that an ideal monarchy is the one that’s described here. And (this is important), a monarchy that is not based on blood or dynasty. For all its weakness, I actually think the Chinese concept of the Mandate of Heaven - where Heaven bestows its mandate to a just and able ruler; if he does not fulfill his obligations and falls from grace, then he loses the mandate and it transfers to a more suitable and righteous person - is better (and in a number of ways more Christian) than the whole ‘Divine Right of Kings’ thing. The right to rule is to be based on capability and talent, not on blood or clout.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
FYI Catholicism has had the theological idea of “right to tyrannicide” for many centuries.
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
True. It was part of the discussions Pope Pius held regarding his support for the Catholic assassination plots against Hitler.
- Status