Is Catholic monarchy a common Traditionalist cause?

[Andreas_Hofer]

As far as virtue and government goes that links into monarchy, one of the arguments in favour of monarchy is that it is considered easier to find one virtuous man to be a king than it is to find a nation where the majority of people are virtuous, in such a nation democracy would be good but who can find such a nation? And would such a nation even need governing at all?

The flipside, of course, is that there must be a system which can reliably find that one person and legitimately place him in power. That’s why Thomas’ monarchy was actually a sort of “republic of virtue” where only the virtuous got a vote and they deliberated together to install the most virtuous among them as their monarch. But even this will be, over the long haul, susceptible to the same pressures as any institution run by fallen men. That’s why the flipside argument in favor of constitutional republicanism is that, no, a republic is not a better form of government (it is far less efficient than a virtuous monarchy), but it is better at checking the abuses of the vicious. You sacrifice effect for protection. I think because most of the better-read traditionalists realize the pros and cons of the various systems you wind up getting a spectrum, as another poster said, wherein traditionalists as a whole favor a confessional state but differ as to which system is most practical in “real world” terms for bringing that about.

 

[DavidPalm]

However, that is only an ideal. The world is not ideal, so, that form of government is not the best.

I agree. To quote St. Robert Bellarmine (Doctor of the Church):

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 monarchy. (De Romani Pontificis Ecclesiastica Monarchia, Bk. I, c. 1; cited in J. C. Rager, “Catholic Sources and the Declaration of Independence”)

I do think it’s an area of very fruitful discussion, but I think the pining for monarchy in certain traditionalist circles may have more nostalgia than analysis behind it.

 

[Milesius]

The flipside, of course, is that there must be a system which can reliably find that one person and legitimately place him in power. That’s why Thomas’ monarchy was actually a sort of “republic of virtue” where only the virtuous got a vote and they deliberated together to install the most virtuous among them as their monarch. But even this will be, over the long haul, susceptible to the same pressures as any institution run by fallen men. That’s why the flipside argument in favor of constitutional republicanism is that, no, a republic is not a better form of government (it is far less efficient than a virtuous monarchy), but it is better at checking the abuses of the vicious. You sacrifice effect for protection. I think because most of the better-read traditionalists realize the pros and cons of the various systems you wind up getting a spectrum, as another poster said, wherein traditionalists as a whole favor a confessional state but differ as to which system is most practical in “real world” terms for bringing that about.

The governmental form we see in the Church is the most perfect, it most matches what St. Thomas talks about does it not?

There is no perfect form for the precise reason that any government of the imperfect by one or many of the imperfect will be imperfect itself, however there is a best form.

At the same time the actual best form may not be the practical best form to govern all peoples according to Aristotle as different nations have different characters and respond best to different forms of government, though I am not sure just how big the differences are in our day thanks to globalisation.

With regards to America the form of government has actually changed over the course of her history through the changing of the criteria a person had to meet to be eligible to vote.

During much of the eighteenth and nineteenth century voting was reserved for white, male, property owners 21 years of age or older, the American Republic was essentially governed by a land owning aristocracy.

Clearly that has changed with America becoming far more democratic and such a huge change influences every election and every governmental decision that has occurred ever since.

 

[Stylites]

“Thy kingdom come . . .”

 

[stceolfrithtx]

It just seems to me that the actions that are “necessary” to keep a Monarch in power could be immoral. Even England today doesn’t have true free speech, for instance.

 

[Victorious]

It just seems to me that the actions that are “necessary” to keep a Monarch in power could be immoral. Even England today doesn’t have true free speech, for instance.

What does the monarchy have to do with the lack of free speech in England? The sovereign authority lies in Parliament.

 

[Adeodatus]

It just seems to me that the actions that are “necessary” to keep a Monarch in power could be immoral. Even England today doesn’t have true free speech, for instance.

Why is curtailing freedom of speech necessarily immoral? Most people admit certain restrictions (shouting fire in a movie theatre, walking into a synagogue dressed like a Nazi, threatening someone). I’m fine with those restrictions, anyway… they seem perfectly moral to me.

In objectively true reality, God exists and is good. Why should we then allow blasphemy? It is objectively wrong, it is bad for people to hear it and it does nothing good for any individual or for the state. Likewise, should a book of pornography or witchcraft be allowed to be owned or sold? Its contents can only hurt people and clearly offer no benefit to any individual or to the state. So let it be committed to the flames.

Restricting speech too much and burning too many books is obviously bad. But there is a mean of censorship. I think we have only to look around to see what it looks like when you don’t restrict speech enough and when you don’t burn enough books. Just like practically everything else, there’s a line between excess and deficiency and you walk it guided by good old fashioned Prudence, which virtue is available to everyone by Divine infusion at your local parish confessional.

 

[bobrec]

Regardless of the type of government, it was the population whose self-restraint and consciences dictated what was acceptable.

Social ostracism used to be a very wide-spread and effective means of enforcing morality within Western culture until the rise of relativistic secularism.

People guilty of everything from profanity to sexual promiscuity were avoided and considered low-lifes by society. That type of behavior was deemed immoral and unacceptable and most people simply refused to associate with persons who practiced such behavior. It went a long way to enforce the morality of the entire culture.

If this were suggested today, its proponents would be accused of being “unfair”, “intolerant”, and/or “judgmental”; the three cardinal sins of our liberal American society.

 

[Catholic87]

I’d be up to living in a country with the pope as the president…like the papal states…

 

[stceolfrithtx]

I’d be up to living in a country with the pope as the president…like the papal states…

Are you kidding? He doesn’t have the time to directly govern the state, he’d delegate a lot of that. I know that a lot of his cardinalatial appointments have been good, but not all. No thanks. Not until a time where the Pope has the confidence to fire entry-level bishops. That day is not today.

 

[stceolfrithtx]

Why is curtailing freedom of speech necessarily immoral? Most people admit certain restrictions (shouting fire in a movie theatre, walking into a synagogue dressed like a Nazi, threatening someone). I’m fine with those restrictions, anyway… they seem perfectly moral to me.

They basically all boil down to threats, that’s valid.

In objectively true reality, God exists and is good. Why should we then allow blasphemy? It is objectively wrong, it is bad for people to hear it and it does nothing good for any individual or for the state. Likewise, should a book of pornography or witchcraft be allowed to be owned or sold? Its contents can only hurt people and clearly offer no benefit to any individual or to the state. So let it be committed to the flames.

The apostles bid converts to burn their own spellbooks, etc. They didn’t begin rounding these up from those outside. They encouraged people to choose to reject their old lives and people could make the decision freely, totally, faithfully…out of love for God. I guess junk and trash like witchcraft and pornography doesn’t have to be legal for converts to retain this ability to freely reject what is in error upon converting, though.

But on the witchcraft front, what religions are tolerated. Are cults and other harmful groups simply deported? Or worse? Not to use a charged term, but an inquisition could be necessary.

I think we have only to look around to see what it looks like when you don’t restrict speech enough and when you don’t burn enough books.

It isn’t necessary to do these in all cases. Outlawing pornography would be a relief to many who want to be rid of it. But regarding other kinds of media, a faithful people are simply a law unto themselves. Books aren’t printed except in anticipation of selling them and a faithful people wouldn’t want the bad ones.

 

[stceolfrithtx]

The biggest problem is that I don’t know where this imaginary people is who could be formed together in a sufficient concentration to form a state where faithful Catholics are of a sufficient majority. And I don’t think the UN is going to carve out a state for us like they did for the Jews.

 

[Onegin]

It just seems to me that the actions that are “necessary” to keep a Monarch in power could be immoral. Even England today doesn’t have true free speech, for instance.

The United Kingdom isn’t a pure Monarchy, though. It is a Constitutional Monarchy and functions very differently from the Monarchy envisioned in a Catholic State. So I don’t believe your comparison is entirely fair.

Anyways, I think a big misconception today is the idea that God doesn’t care about whether his law is the foundation for the laws of society and is embraced by all people. A secular state cannot be compatible with a Catholic state. And while a secular state may be tolerable (as mentioned, the Church will exist in any hostile environment - we need look no further than to the Roman and modern-day martyrs for evidence of this), the concept that a secular state is just as preferable as a Catholic state is dead wrong.

The problem is that we are all being raised by a relativist culture to believe that one religion is just as good as another and that all ideas must be equally accommodated. Nothing could be further from the truth. I urge readers here to explore a long-lost concept, namely the Social Kingship of Christ which, at least until modern times, was generally well-accepted by the Church as being an absolute necessity for society to affirm. Pope Pius XI especially stressed this point in the encyclical Quas Primas which established the Feast of Christ the King:

“While nations insult the beloved name of our Redeemer by suppressing all mention of it in their conferences and parliaments, we must all the more loudly proclaim his kingly dignity and power, all the more universally affirm his rights.” - P.Pius XI, Quas Primas, 1925

I will refrain from comment on the Monarchy as a specific form of government but will instead say - from my traditional, Catholic perspective - that any government which attempts to create an artificial separation between Church and state directly interferes with Catholic truth which states precisely the opposite - that the Church has a divine right (because of Christ’s Social Kingship) to be involved in all areas of life which include the governmental sphere. Therefore, measures which attempt to deny this right ought to be rejected and those that affirm it ought to be promoted.

“The rebellion of individuals and states against the authority of Christ has produced deplorable consequences…we lament them today: the seeds of discord sown far and wide; those bitter enmities and rivalries between nations, which still hinder so much the cause of peace; that insatiable greed which is so often hidden under a pretence of public spirit and patriotism, and gives rise to so many private quarrels; a blind and immoderate selfishness, making men seek nothing but their own comfort and advantage, and measure everything by these; no peace in the home, because men have forgotten or neglect their duty; the unity and stability of the family undermined; society in a word, shaken to its foundations and on the way to ruin.” - Quas Primas

 

[Adeodatus]

It isn’t necessary to do these in all cases. Outlawing pornography would be a relief to many who want to be rid of it. But regarding other kinds of media, a faithful people are simply a law unto themselves. Books aren’t printed except in anticipation of selling them and a faithful people wouldn’t want the bad ones.

Well I think this is terribly naive. A lot of faithful people don’t necessarily know which way is up, philosophically speaking. Think of all the people who get seduced by the likes of Mill or Kant or Marx or Smith or even Hegel. Think of all those taken in by Freud! Many otherwise good Catholics end up holding gravely erroneous viewpoints because they are influenced by clever and persuasive errors.

And how can you say that any man is a law unto himself? Sounds like a Kantian formulation to me. It practically presupposes Liberalism right out of the gate.

Good people with good intentions buy bad books all the time. And if those good people are not also innately brilliant and shrewdly clever (most people are neither), then like as not they will be swayed into serious and potentially very damaging error. Why let vast numbers of people be damaged in this way? Merely on principle?

 

[Lycorth]

I think the Traditionalist preference is for Catholic government, regardless of what particular form it takes. Monarchies are merely the most traditional form of Catholic government, but not necessarily the only form civic leadership can take.

At the end of the day, seeing that the laws of a nation are shaped according to Catholic moral and social teaching is the one, single end goal of many, if not most or even all, traditionalist Catholics. To me at least, so long as this is secured, it doesn’t matter what form the government takes, as any government that blesses God will be blessed by God in return.

 

[stceolfrithtx]

And how can you say that any man is a law unto himself? Sounds like a Kantian formulation to me. It practically presupposes Liberalism right out of the gate.

Ooh, thanks for the catch, actually. I thought I was making a biblical quote…now I need to dig up where it came from. You may be right: an initial Google search is not encouraging. Something for me to take care of at a better hour.

I remember the idea being that a man who loves God surpasses His law in holiness, not in some liberal way! That the man doesn’t even need the law not to murder, for instance, because love leaves him never wishing to commit the sin. It wasn’t from a liberal source, directly. But let’s not get sidetracked as I figure it out.

 

[DavidPalm]

The biggest problem is that I don’t know where this imaginary people is who could be formed together in a sufficient concentration to form a state where faithful Catholics are of a sufficient majority. And I don’t think the UN is going to carve out a state for us like they did for the Jews.

I agree that’s not going to happen. I think that we’re going to have to make Catholic nations the old-fashioned way, evangelism.

I know that people often say that it’s impossible to have a Catholic nation today, but I always find that sort of pessimism very strange, especially when it comes from faithful Catholics. After all, every single one of the now-formerly Catholic nations were once non-Catholic nations, in fact, they were utterly pagan and sometimes terribly immoral. They became Catholic nations through evangelism, through conversion of the majority of their populations to the Catholic faith. I don’t really see that anything fundamental has changed today. People are still people, pagans are still pagans. They need Jesus Christ and the light of the Gospel. If they submit themselves to Christ in sufficient numbers, the nation becomes Catholic.

 

[DavidPalm]

I think the Traditionalist preference is for Catholic government, regardless of what particular form it takes. Monarchies are merely the most traditional form of Catholic government, but not necessarily the only form civic leadership can take.

At the end of the day, seeing that the laws of a nation are shaped according to Catholic moral and social teaching is the one, single end goal of many, if not most or even all, traditionalist Catholics. To me at least, so long as this is secured, it doesn’t matter what form the government takes, as any government that blesses God will be blessed by God in return.

I agree with this completely. Many forms of government are compatible with the Catholic faith. But I would argue that State has an obligation publicly to profess, protect, and promote the Catholic Faith and that this has been taught infallibly through the ordinary Magisterium. I think that a republic (if it can still be called that) like ours is perfectly compatible with Catholicism, but I don’t think that the separation of Church and State as it is constituted in the United States is compatible with the Church’s teaching. I laid out the case in an article that was slated for the New Oxford Review but ended up being hosted on the Seattle Catholic site. It’s here if anybody’s interested. But perhaps that’s for another thread.

 

[Lamafacaja]

If you have a good Catholic king, nothing could be better than a monarchy. Unfortunately, if you have a bad Catholic king, nothing could be worse than a monarchy. So there’s the problem. As has been said, no government is going to be perfect because of sin.

 

[Lycorth]

I agree with this completely. Many forms of government are compatible with the Catholic faith. But I would argue that State has an obligation publicly to profess, protect, and promote the Catholic Faith and that this has been taught infallibly through the ordinary Magisterium. I think that a republic (if it can still be called that) like ours is perfectly compatible with Catholicism, but I don’t think that the separation of Church and State as it is constituted in the United States is compatible with the Church’s teaching. I laid out the case in an article that was slated for the New Oxford Review but ended up being hosted on the Seattle Catholic site. It’s here if anybody’s interested. But perhaps that’s for another thread.

Amen. We are obliged to profess and defend the Catholic faith, and the concept of separation of church and state (ie, forced secular government) is not found in the Constitution but rather in a private letter which is in no sense a legally-binding document. It’s like folks who take radical modern liberties with Church teaching and practice and cite the “spirit of Vatican II”, when no such spirit exists, or cite the Council to justify such abuses when the Council didn’t call for such abuses to begin with. In either case, secularists and modernists use the Constitution or the Council to justify abuses and heresies found in neither.