Catholic Monarchy Anyone?

[Sparkythedog]

I came across a video a few days ago by Michael Voris from the website realcatholictv.com. In it, he states that the problems with democracy arise from “ignorant” people being allowed to vote and that the only way a democracy can flourish would be to restrict the vote to Catholics. Understanding that even this type of democracy would be problematic, Voris then states that the best idea would be to replace it with a “benevolent dictatorship” or “Catholic Monarchy”.

Voris doesn’t explain who the benevolent monarch would be, where they would come from or how they would rule and keep order. Would there be religious tolerance? Would everyone have to convert? What would be the punishment for breaking moral laws?

To me Michael Voris’ views sound extreme, but I’d like to hear what other Catholics think. Do you think a benevolent Catholic monarchy would be a better form of government than a democracy…or is there another option not yet mentioned?

Here’s a link to the video - (Real Catholic TV seems to have removed it from youtube so this is a mirrored version)

youtube.com/watch?v=a3IyrJoQAqA

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[James1215]

Apologies for being an atheist. Nevertheless, doesn’t salvation depend upon consent with the Divine, not compulsory obedience to a Catholic government or even to Catholic practices? No amount of prayer, decade counting or confessions would mean anything without genuine belief, and belief is not so easy to legislate. But if you could beat people into genuinely believing, perhaps this would serve God’s will after all! The Good Life is not what Catholicism seeks anyway, so if abortion was lowered that might mean nothing. Salvation is perhaps still possible in a society of believing mass murderers who confess at the end of their lives

 

[Sparkythedog]

Apologies for being an atheist.

Don’t apologize for being an atheist unless you feel there’s something wrong with it.

Nevertheless, doesn’t salvation depend upon consent with the Divine, not compulsory obedience to a Catholic government or even to Catholic practices? No amount of prayer, decade counting or confessions would mean anything without genuine belief, and belief is not so easy to legislate. But if you could beat people into genuinely believing, perhaps this would serve God’s will after all! The Good Life is not what Catholicism seeks anyway, so if abortion was lowered that might mean nothing. Salvation is perhaps still possible in a society of believing mass murderers who confess at the end of their lives

I don’t think Voris’ point for instituting a monarchy was to save souls or make people believe. His point was that a monarchy will enforce a moral code to stop the country from falling into what he feels would be hedonistic destruction.

 

[Rence]

I came across a video a few days ago by Michael Voris from the website realcatholictv.com. In it, he states that the problems with democracy arise from “ignorant” people being allowed to vote and that the only way a democracy can flourish would be to restrict the vote to Catholics. Understanding that even this type of democracy would be problematic, Voris then states that the best idea would be to replace it with a “benevolent dictatorship” or “Catholic Monarchy”.

Voris doesn’t explain who the benevolent monarch would be, where they would come from or how they would rule and keep order. Would there be religious tolerance? Would everyone have to convert? What would be the punishment for breaking moral laws?

To me Michael Voris’ views sound extreme, but I’d like to hear what other Catholics think. Do you think a benevolent Catholic monarchy would be a better form of government than a democracy…or is there another option not yet mentioned?

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut!

I wouldn’t want to live in a “benevolent Catholic monarchy”. I rather like the government we have right now. We elect our representatives and our other politicians, and by lobbying, we can make changes. If they don’t do what we need them to do, we vote them out of office the next election.

When you give so much power to one group of people, the others suffer. Our country is home to many different people, with many different religions and even no religion. If we lived in a “benevolent Catholic monarchy” would eathing meat on Fridays be against the law? Would the truant officer pick up those who don’t show up to Mass each Sunday? Would people be “put to the question” and detained like in the past when rulers of countries aligned their laws with the Catholic Church and it was a crime to break a rule of the Church? Would non-Catholic Christians be free to practice their religion? What about Jews and muslims? What about athieists?

We are more free than any other country in the world. It may not be a perfect country, but it’s the best country IMOHO. Instead of people complaining that so-and-so isn’t following the rules of the Church, maybe they should be grateful that they, in fact, have the right to follow their religion without anyone stopping them. There are theocratic countries that kill Christians simply for being Christian, because their religion makes it acceptable. There are theocratic countries that kill women, and make up reasons why she deserves death, because their religion makes it acceptable. There are theocratic countries that allow men to kill rape victims because of the “shame” brought to the family because she was raped, because their religion makes it acceptable.

No, I wouldn’t want to live in any country whose rules and laws were defined by any one particular religion, even a Catholic one. I want to live in a country that fairly represents all of its citizens and gives all of its citzens the freedom to practice their own religion.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Oh dear, I’m not even going to watch the video because of how outlandish that claim is (and I’ve read it in passing on a number of occasions).

Firstly, I’m Catholic. I’m not an extremist. Anyone who proposes for a Catholic Monarchy is an extremist - period. It isn’t different from a Muslim who wants to institute Shariah Law. What makes one better than the other? An extreme Catholic would obviously believe a Catholic monarchy is acceptable, and an extreme Muslim obviously believes Shariah Law is acceptable. To accept one and deny the other is the height of hypocrisy. I sometimes ponder as to whether we could just put extreme Catholics and extreme Muslims on an island of their own and let us rational people live in peace…

A Catholic monarchy will never work because it presupposes that God is directing the monarchy’s decisions. In philosophy/politics, we call this the “Divine Command Theory”, and historically it’s never worked. It always boils down into nothing more than outright corruption. We need not look further than the Borgia Popes to witness the threat such governmental system poses to society. It never works because it is clearly anti-Biblical:

“Do not put your trust in princes,
in mortal men, who cannot save.
When their spirit departs, they return to the ground;
on that very day their plans come to nothing.” (Psalm 146:3-4)

What the above Psalmist is telling us is that we should not put our trust in men, since salvation does not come from Man. Salvation comes from God alone. Men are only mere dust particles who are fallible. Men who say they were appointed by God are almost always lying. Indeed, Satan himself can “cite scripture for his purpose” (The Merchant of Venice, William Shakespeare) and can appear as an “angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14).

A Catholic monarchy is also inherently contradictory because the Church teaches that all public revelation ceased at the death of the last apostle (around 100 A.D). What this means is that God has completed all He has to say concerning faith, salvation and morals. We won’t receive anything new until the Second Coming. That puts all current revelation today as “private revelation” (for example, messages from Our Lady at Fatima). Catholics aren’t required to believe private revelation, but they are required to believe public revelation (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition). The reason a Catholic monarchy is inherently contradictory is because it is based on the logic that public revelation still exists. But the Church has declared that public revelation no longer happens today. Therefore, any proposal of a Catholic monarch finds itself in an ironic twist of going against the central tenets of the Church.

If I were you, I wouldn’t look at such videos. Most Catholics have no desire to force (which is what a monarchy will do) our religion on anyone else. No doubt you’ll get certain users cheering him on, but I guess that’s the consequence of online anonymity.

 

[ChadS]

The Catholic Monarchy in Voris thinking has only existed in one place in history and that has been in people’s heads. Sure there may be good men or women that would make excellent monarchs, but they too pass on and somebody else takes over. Europe’s history is full of monarchs that were otherwise Catholic and some did things more successfully than others. Most monarchs had no problem though with doing things the Church frowned upon to ensure their or their progeny’s survival and right to rule.

Our form of government is certainly not perfect. However, it seems a better guarantor of people’s freedoms than anything a monarch, Catholic or otherwise, has provided ever for their people.

ChadS

 

[TheWatcher]

I came across a video a few days ago by Michael Voris from the website realcatholictv.com. In it, he states that the problems with democracy arise from “ignorant” people being allowed to vote and that the only way a democracy can flourish would be to restrict the vote to Catholics. Understanding that even this type of democracy would be problematic, Voris then states that the best idea would be to replace it with a “benevolent dictatorship” or “Catholic Monarchy”.

Voris doesn’t explain who the benevolent monarch would be, where they would come from or how they would rule and keep order. Would there be religious tolerance? Would everyone have to convert? What would be the punishment for breaking moral laws?

To me Michael Voris’ views sound extreme, but I’d like to hear what other Catholics think. Do you think a benevolent Catholic monarchy would be a better form of government than a democracy…or is there another option not yet mentioned?

Here’s a link to the video - (Real Catholic TV seems to have removed it from youtube so this is a mirrored version)

youtube.com/watch?v=a3IyrJoQAqA

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut!

Another atheist commenting. I’ve watched many of his videos over time; I was surprised to read that this one was removed from the official channel.

I think he wants the Church to control the monarchy. A Catholic Church appointed position, ultimately answering to the Pope. A King? An Arch-Bishop?

I cannot comment on the question directed specifically towards Catholics. I am, however, very interested in reading their responses!

 

[Joe_5859]

Was it Churchill who said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried?

We’re simply not going to have a perfect government this side of heaven. Certainly, in theory, if this world were a Utopian paradise, a Catholic monarchy may have its advantages. But I can’t see it working in our present world, certainly not long term.

I suspect Voris is being intentionally provocative to make a point about the problems in our current government. I would be surprised if he seriously advocated this as a course of action to be actively pursued.

 

[Rascalking]

Was it Churchill who said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried?
.

If I was living under any monarchy, I’d look around for another Oliver Cromwell.

 

[Sparkythedog]

If I were you, I wouldn’t look at such videos. Most Catholics have no desire to force (which is what a monarchy will do) our religion on anyone else. No doubt you’ll get certain users cheering him on, but I guess that’s the consequence of online anonymity.

Although I agree with the majority of your response I get stuck on this particular part. I believe it is important to try to understand other people views regardless of how extreme they are. Michael Voris obviously has some sort of following and my main interest here was to see how prevalent his views are in the Catholic community.

I understand that there is a diversity of views amongst Catholics and I wouldn’t want to paint everyone with a broad brush. But I also will not ignore an opinion just because it is offensive or extreme. We need to be able to discuss these ideas to show those who believe in them how truly flawed they are.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I came across a video a few days ago by Michael Voris …

Our democracy is an experiment, from our viewpoint the murder of millions of innocent children delegitimizes this form of government, much like the governments of Germany, Uganda, Rwanda, Syria, China are delegitimized by their atrocities. One off the main purposes of a government is to protects its citizens, if democracy doesn’t do this it isn’t much of a method of governing. Our democracy has allowed a determined enough group of people to legally commit the largest genocidal murder of innocents outside of China, in world history. We already limit the franchise to people we feel are entitled, namely adults over 18 without a felony. So the idea it is wrong to limit the franchise for reasons of ignorance or morality is false, we already do exactly that. The only question is who should be granted the the franchise and who shouldn’t. A difficult, probably irresolvable question but I would opine that we could limit the franchise to people of an appropriate morality, given that men making morality always leads to the justification of evil, then only religious people who depend on G-d for a common moral instruction should be allowed the franchise. We are not perfect by any means, but we wouldn’t allow the murder of millions of innocents were moral people in charge. I don’t think we should limit the franchise to Catholics certainly, but people who would vote to allow the murder of children, are clearly of such an immoral nature that they should have no more say than the felons that we restrict from voting. So I guess I am saying that we certainly couldn’t do any worse if Christians, Jews, and Muslims were in charge of the political machinery and the cultural institutions of this republic.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

… Anyone who proposes for a Catholic Monarchy is an extremist - period…

That’s hardly extreme, compared to the number of functional democracies, there have been many more Christian Monarchies. We just don’t happen to be living in one now. Not too long ago, the world was covered in Christian monarchies. Not that it was perfect by any means, but its definitely not extreme.

 

[Sparkythedog]

The only question is who should be granted the the franchise and who shouldn’t. …I would opine that we could limit the franchise to people of an appropriate morality, given that men making morality always leads to the justification of evil, then only religious people who depend on G-d for a common moral instruction should be allowed the franchise. …we certainly couldn’t do any worse if Christians, Jews, and Muslims were in charge of the political machinery and the cultural institutions of this republic.

So those who hold viewpoints that you find morally repugnant would not be allowed to vote? What if they don’t act on them? Suppose someone supports abortion but doesn’t ever have or perform one, are they restricted as well? How would you ever know if they held those viewpoints? Would they take a test first? This sounds a lot like thought crime legislation.

Also, the three religious groups that you’d like to put in charge have vast differences in their moral viewpoints, including those of abortion. Aside from that, how would you work out fun subjects like women being seen in public, eating lobsters and bacon, and which day to keep holy? And what of the other religions…are they excluded too? I’m not even going to ask what happens to atheists.

It seems to me that there isn’t much of a point to living in a country where you have no say in its governance. Maybe we can work out a “no taxation without representation” clause in your new theocracy - but even with that incentive I’ll probably still pass.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So those who hold viewpoints that you find morally repugnant would not be allowed to vote?

We already do that by restricting felons from poll.

What if they don’t act on them? Suppose someone supports abortion but doesn’t ever have or perform one, are they restricted as well?

Supporting genocide is immoral. Whether they ran the ovens, or worked in the front office at Auschwitz, or just went to meetings to express their support of the SS, the propagandist is as responsible for the genocide as the camp guards were. If you were some kid on campus that uttered the words “It’s not a baby” in public, then you are as morally culpable for the genocide as the direct actors because you participated in the dehumanization of another human being in support of their murder. Surely you would agree that people that participate in genocide in any way are not fit to be active members of the body politic?

How would you ever know if they held those viewpoints? Would they take a test first? This sounds a lot like thought crime legislation.

You wouldn’t. Restricting the permissible candidates is how its usually implemented.

Also, the three religious groups that you’d like to put in charge have vast differences in their moral viewpoints, including those of abortion. Aside from that, how would you work out fun subjects like women being seen in public, eating lobsters and bacon, and which day to keep holy? And what of the other religions…are they excluded too? I’m not even going to ask what happens to atheists.

We all share a common morality from the Decalogue. I am sure we could work something out.

It seems to me that there isn’t much of a point to living in a country where you have no say in its governance. Maybe we can work out a “no taxation without representation” clause in your new theocracy - but even with that incentive I’ll probably still pass.

You don’t really have any say in our nations governance now. You are only 1/310,000,000 of the electorate. Your individual vote may be personally satisfying, but its not really say in its governance in any meaningful way.

 

[StevieD]

Salvation is perhaps still possible in a society of believing mass murderers who confess at the end of their lives

Confession means nothing without contrition (as any parent will tell you).

 

[Sparkythedog]

We already do that by restricting felons from poll.

We restrict felons from voting because they have been convicted of a crime. Their involvement in a particular crime may have nothing to do with their views on any other issues.

Personally, I find it wrong to restrict felons’ voting rights. They should at least be allowed to vote again once they have paid their debt. Voting is a basic right in our society, or should be anyway. But that’s neither here nor there…

Supporting genocide is immoral. Whether they ran the ovens, or worked in the front office at Auschwitz, or just went to meetings to express their support of the SS, the propagandist is as responsible for the genocide as the camp guards were. If you were some kid on campus that uttered the words “It’s not a baby” in public, then you are as morally culpable for the genocide as the direct actors because you participated in the dehumanization of another human being in support of their murder. Surely you would agree that people that participate in genocide in any way are not fit to be active members of the body politic?

Uh oh, it’s a loaded one! Lets take the hot button issues out and try to deal with it in more generalized terms.

In your scenario someone commits a crime on their own (no accomplisses) and is caught and punished. A second person, unrelated to the convicted, goes out into the street and says he supports the convicted person’s crime. In your opinion that person is now equally culpable for the same crime?

How should that work? How far removed from the convicted do you have to be to not be considered a supporter? How will you make that determination?

Your last question is meant to evoke an emotional response. It’s a bit like me saying “Would you want to be governed by an organization that protects child rapists from prosecution?” Someone who commits a crime must pay for it in the way that society sees fit. Would I trust someone who participated in genocide? Probably not. Would I vote for that person? Probably not. But that’s my decision. How the law is structured is a whole other debate in itself.

That being said, your question is meaningless to me, seeing as how we do not agree on what it means to “participate” in a crime. You’ll have to be more specific next time.

You wouldn’t. Restricting the permissible candidates is how its usually implemented.

If you’re going to just choose the candidate for me why should I bother voting. We should just go full monarchy.

We all share a common morality from the Decalogue. I am sure we could work something out…

Why not, it works so well in the real world…

You don’t really have any say in our nations governance now. You are only 1/310,000,000 of the electorate. Your individual vote may be personally satisfying, but its not really say in its governance in any meaningful way.

I take it you don’t bother voting?

I have just as much say as any of the 309,000,000 people who vote. (barring any political corruption, of course) If you say that to me then you have to say it to everyone. Does everyone else not have any say as well?

Back to your view of culpability - by stating your support for the idea of the installation of theocratic government doesn’t that make you guilty of treason…?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

We restrict felons from voting because they have been convicted of a crime. Their involvement in a particular crime may have nothing to do with their views on any other issues.

The choice to violate the law is a moral choice. It’s not so easy to divorce morality from felony disenfranchisement.

Uh oh, it’s a loaded one! Lets take the hot button issues out and try to deal with it in more generalized terms.

I am not interested in generalizations, I don’t have general reasons for my thoughts, I have specific reasons that I have mentioned. were it not for that, I might have an entirely different position, I don’t know.

If you’re going to just choose the candidate for me why should I bother voting. We should just go full monarchy.

The candidates are chosen for you now.

Why not, it works so well in the real world…

It hasn’t really been tried in the real world in this situation that I know of, usually one group simply doesn’t offer the other any say or pretty much ignores them. The idea of cooperative morality is interesting.

I take it you don’t bother voting?

A valid Tu Quoque is a difficult argument to make.

I have just as much say as any of the 309,000,000 people who vote. (barring any political corruption, of course) If you say that to me then you have to say it to everyone. Does everyone else not have any say as well?

I need not address the whole set for it to be clear that any element of the set is a mere fraction of the total.

Back to your view of culpability - by stating your support for the idea of the installation of theocratic government doesn’t that make you guilty of treason…?

To the exact same degree that supporting infanticide makes one guilty of murder, I suppose.

 

[josephback]

Sure. Have Jesus as King and the Pope as His Chancellor running the government Catholic monarchy right there:thumbsup:

I don’t think the present world would stand for being told what to do by a king. Just look at the revolt against Jesus’ government as it is

 

[BigFellaMick]

We already live in a Catholic monarchy. Rome is the capital of the world and Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior is the King of Kings. His Holiness the Pope is the Steward to the throne of God. This whole world is God’s kingdom whether those of other faiths or those without faith are inclined to disagree it changes nothing. That man’s views are really extreme. His heart is in the right place but he, like myself, often lacks the proper word usage to illustrate his beliefs appropriately. If he would just look around him he would see we were born into the kind of world he seeks. Granted it’s not so easy to see nowadays with so much sin clouding the world. God Bless all!

 

[exnihilo]

I’m actually a monarchist and believe democracy to be a terrible form of government. I’ve read and thought a lot about this topic. Believe it or not there is a book by Hans Hermann Hoppe title Democracy, the God that Failed that thoroughly examines the failings of democracy and the advantages of monarch. You can even find free essays by the same author covering the topic.

All government will be imperfect because it is run by men. And no government rules solely by the will of the ruler. Even in a monarchy the rulers will is not sufficient to do anything. The ruler depends on the obedience of the ruled since the ruled far outnumber the one ruler.

The fatal flaw of democracy is that it has a short term focus. The rulers are interested in getting the most out of the system for themselves, making it appear that things are working well now, and defer as many costs as possible to the future. Democracy is much like the modern corporation.

Monarchy is more like, and almost literally, family property as in a business or land. The monarch is usually more future oriented. He will want to grow the kingdom for his family. He is not concerned as much with popular opinion. He can make tough decisions without worrying as much about losing his power.

You can see American democracy (empire) turning into a monarchy of sorts just as the Roman Empire did. A few families actually run it (very clear with the Bushes). I often wondered why it was the Roman Senate allowed the Emperor to have his power and why the US Congress allows the President to now have so much extra-constitutional power.

You can see it with the current debt debate. The US Congress has all the power to make the budget. The President can advise but his real job is just to execute the law. But the politicians in Congress dont want to be held responsible for their decisions. So they defer to the President. So democracy inevitably leads to the rule by one. But it is a terrible form since the leader only cares about at most his eight years in office. He gains nothing by American growing stronger but can gain personally by sacrificing our future.

The monarchy is kept somewhat in check by the lesser nobility and the heirs. If the monarch does anything outrageous and dangerous to the future wealth of the nation those below him will oppose him. No king was ever completely safe. If you look at the Roman Empire the royal family would kill off the emperors when they turned bad. Or in the case of Caligula his own guard did it. So monarchy does not mean that the monarch has absolute power in a long term sense.

I’ve very incompletely and most inadequately explained the ideas. But I suggest reading that book or essays by the author. The idea is reflexively rejected but if you learn more you might at least start to question the ingrained notion that democracy is the best system. Looking at Americas current situation it is hard for me to see this system as in any way superior in its outcome.