The Jews did that for themselves, the UN just accepted what the Jews had already created it just like happened in the Balkans with Bosnia also.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.
But it would seem that the Establishment Clause would still prohibit the United States government from professing, promoting, and protecting the Catholic Faith as the Church teaches any State should: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.
The reason the Mormons went to Utah was because they were run out of other states and there was nothing in Utah at the time.And in America Utah is pretty much a Mormon State seems to me, why not a Catholic state like that?
§21]But it would seem that the Establishment Clause would still prohibit the United States government from professing, promoting, and protecting the Catholic Faith as the Church teaches any State should:
Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide-as they should do-with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. [Leo XIII, *Libertas
i like the idea, lets make Abp Aymond ‘King of America’ you think i am playing, not really (and i only say Abp Aymond cause hes my Archbishop)So the usual suspect is saying that Catholic monarchy is the ideal form of government…is this a common belief among traditional Catholics? I think I remember John Zmirak once alluding to it. Let’s talk about just within the geographical territory of the United States. Is this a common hope for Traditionalists, the establishment of a Catholic Monarchical state? I didn’t originally see this as a common aspiration.
Agitating for such a thing in our own lifetimes is so…cart before the horse? Sure, our own founding fathers said that our Constitution is only suited for ruling a moral people (and as a whole, we aren’t). Sure, our failure to condemn slavery from the start doomed us to fail to live up to that, etc.
But Catholic monarchy? I’ve heard that the two largest religious groups in the U.S. are Catholics and former Catholics, but that’s a plurality, not a majority! And we all know that even just baptised Catholics have major issues as a whole. Many would say that most Catholics…aren’t Catholic.
So on what planet is this Catholic monarchy supposed to be founded? Because faithful Catholics, accounting for less than 1% of the US population, are not going to push this through, even if we all decided we liked the idea!
I’m sure his excellency is busy. I’ll do it.i like the idea, lets make Abp Aymond ‘King of America’ you think i am playing, not really (and i only say Abp Aymond cause hes my Archbishop)
Then you must not have read the whole thing. There are authentic threats to your freedom, but they aren’t on this thread.This is a scary thread.
What an obfuscated apology. It would be like a newspaper printing, “The ninth sentence of column 2 on page B8 of last Monday’s Herald was misstated. Our apologies for any confusion.”
But where, how? What’re we supposed to do, all move to Montana or some other sparsely settled area? Btw Maryland was a Catholic colony.And in America Utah is pretty much a Mormon State seems to me, why not a Catholic state like that?
Rhode Island is already 60% Catholic. And States were at one time States in the true sense and still have many of the rights you would expect to find in a sovereign state.But where, how? What’re we supposed to do, all move to Montana or some other sparsely settled area? Btw Maryland was a Catholic colony.
PS, just to make sure we don’t confuse with terminology, I’ve been using the term “state” as a synonym for country/nation/etc, as I’m used to doing from political science and geography courses, not in the American sense of province/territory.
I think there is some misunderstanding here. The teaching of the Catholic Church is that the Church and State are two separate powers and that they have responsibilities proper to their own sphere. The matters of criticisms of the NO, V2, as well as the scandals you mentioned are Church matters. So it would not belong to the State to regulate such things.This is a scary thread. As an American I cherish my freedom. What would be the practical effect of what you guys are proposing? Don’t you think that your own criticisms of the New Mass, Vatican 2, etc., would be censored? And wouldn’t any scandals involving the Catholic Church be hushed up? “Be careful what you wish for; you might get it.”
I know Solange Hertz was a proponent of the Catholic Monarchy. She considered herself a monarchist. I think the idea comes from the Kingship of Christ which means that Christ should rule over all nations. In the days of Catholic Kingdoms, the monarchy and the church both worked together for the good of souls. Now, governments and churches work against each other. What has saved this country so far was the body of christian law that was inherited from, ultimately, Catholic Europe. In other words, it’s not democracy that’s so great because this is nothing but mob rule. Over the years, this body of Christian law has been chipped away at by the Supreme Court to the point that lawlessness is coming. When you look at what’s happening today in America, monarchy looks pretty good. What gave the monarchies a bad name was the protestant kings who, like Henry VIII, had absolute power over the government and the church. With a Catholic Monarchy you would have the power of the church as a check and balance. Hope this helps a little.So the usual suspect is saying that Catholic monarchy is the ideal form of government…is this a common belief among traditional Catholics? I think I remember John Zmirak once alluding to it. Let’s talk about just within the geographical territory of the United States. Is this a common hope for Traditionalists, the establishment of a Catholic Monarchical state? I didn’t originally see this as a common aspiration.
Agitating for such a thing in our own lifetimes is so…cart before the horse? Sure, our own founding fathers said that our Constitution is only suited for ruling a moral people (and as a whole, we aren’t). Sure, our failure to condemn slavery from the start doomed us to fail to live up to that, etc.
But Catholic monarchy? I’ve heard that the two largest religious groups in the U.S. are Catholics and former Catholics, but that’s a plurality, not a majority! And we all know that even just baptised Catholics have major issues as a whole. Many would say that most Catholics…aren’t Catholic.
So on what planet is this Catholic monarchy supposed to be founded? Because faithful Catholics, accounting for less than 1% of the US population, are not going to push this through, even if we all decided we liked the idea!
I know such Catholics and I agree with them. Monarchy is the best form of government and if the U.S. still had the Crown, it can be argued that the Civil War might never have had to happen.I thought it was a simple enough question…is it common for American traditional Catholics to promote the formation of a Monarchy under a Catholic monarch?
The enemies of communism and Western democracy were the same too during World War II.“The usual suspect”?
One quite excellent blog that I know of that makes the case for Catholic monarchy is Roman Christendom out of the UK.
As an American, I am committed to the republican form of government in the United States. However, there are two things that I don’t think can be denied: (1) that the enemies of traditional monarchies and the enemies of the Church are the same; and (2) that the world is decidedly not a better place since the abolition of most of the traditional monarchies.
I know this story.Why should we accept anything less than a state which is founded upon, accepts and confesses Christian principles?
As Plato observed, Democracy is only one step above Tyranny and exemplifies no virtues in its form of governance. In fact, inasmuch as the mob is weak, venal and stupid Democracy is always in danger of devolving into the worst immoralities.
Every year, the freedom to live and practice the Christian faith in America is chipped away. That is because the elites largely reject and even hate Christianity. The country and people are divided. It reminds me of Spain in the early 30’s. There, in Catholic Spain, the world saw the burning of churches and the slaughter of many thousands of clergy. Religion was outlawed and secularism was set up in its place.
But gallant men arose to defend the Faith. And the man who led them to victory, the pious General Franco, enshrined the Faith once more in the statutes of the state.