Is Catholic monarchy a common Traditionalist cause?

[InquisitorMax]

Most of the schools and hospitals in Ireland are under the control of the Catholic Church, and Catholicism is the official religion of the Irish state. Moreover, up until the late 20th century Catholic officials were able to ensure that Irish laws over things like birth control and marriage reflected Roman Catholic rules.

Sounds like theocracy to me.

And you know what: it was great while that was the case. Ireland is now manically chasing liberalism at a time when I think other western democracies are starting to see its flaws e.g. Illegitimate children and children of divorcees, with their ‘problems’, that they pass onto subsequent generations.

Having lost its Catholic identity, its nationalism derided by the intelligentsia and having its economy nuked, Irish people are now wondering just who or what they are, collectively.

Atheism is a negative: a non-belief in something. It offers nothing good personally and on a societal level can lead to people being treated as things: to be disposed of by the state.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

I know of no valid theologian that would support a Catholic Monarchy, where the Monarch has true governing power.

A Constitutional Monarch, yes. But this is NOT a belief of “traditional Catholicism”.

 

[GloriousOrder]

I am for a Catholic Monarchy because of its ability to enshrine tradition, solemnity, majesty, and a sort of grandeur about life. It makes the Catholic faith seem more real than the trashy populism of Democracy, or the secularised efficiency of Republicanism. Absolute Monarchy is an offense against God waiting to happen, I must say, for though there may be good dictator-monarchs, when one comes along who is truly evil there is no mechanism in place to stop him. Look at Louis XIV of France and Joseph I H.R.E. and Charles VI H.R.E. for big examples here.

In France, the absolute “Catholic” monarch was hell-bent on destroying the Church. Louis XIV was a huge proponent of Gallicanism, a sort of Anglican-esque system whereby the French Church would choose bishops and not Rome. The “Holy” Roman Emperors of the 1660-1740 era were constantly stealing Church lands. Reducing the size of the Papacy was the goal of most of the Catholic monarchs in the Baroque-Rococo era. It may have done us good to downgrade the Papacy from a temporal to a spiritual power, but the greed, arrogance, and vitriolic nature of the absolute monarchs was just ridiculous.

A constitutional monarchy entirely steeped in the Catholic faith is the best way to govern a nation. Give it republican efficiency, some democratic equality, a great sense of faith and tradition, a connection to the Catholic Church, and a sensible authority in its hierarchy. Let it resound with trumpets, sacraments, mysteries, and the Holy Mass. May the people be edified by its Christian kings and queens, and the military princes and dukes it produces. This great combination may be achieved, as we have seen with Blessed Karl I of Austria, a truly holy man.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

How then would you characterize nuclear war? It is an example of the democratic tendency to justify everything so long as it has arguable plurality support, over against all objections, including morality and common sense.

No one has ever fought a nuclear war.

Nuclear weapons have only been used to fight a war once, and that was at the very end of World War II.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

And you know what: it was great while that was the case.

Perhaps it was good for some people.

For children imprisoned in the Ireland’s Catholic industrial schools and reformatories where abuse, neglect, and even rape were common (relevant news source:magdalenelaundries.com/) and women punished with sentences to brutal Catholic workhouses like the Magdalene Laundries for crimes like being too flirtatious, attractive, or even raped (relevant news source: grailwerk.com/docs/nytimes15.htm) the height of Roman Catholic power and influence in Ireland was not a good time.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I am for a Catholic Monarchy because of its ability to enshrine tradition, solemnity, majesty, and a sort of grandeur about life. It makes the Catholic faith seem more real than the trashy populism of Democracy, or the secularised efficiency of Republicanism. Absolute Monarchy is an offense against God waiting to happen, I must say, for though there may be good dictator-monarchs, when one comes along who is truly evil there is no mechanism in place to stop him. Look at Louis XIV of France and Joseph I H.R.E. and Charles VI H.R.E. for big examples here.

In France, the absolute “Catholic” monarch was hell-bent on destroying the Church. Louis XIV was a huge proponent of Gallicanism, a sort of Anglican-esque system whereby the French Church would choose bishops and not Rome. The “Holy” Roman Emperors of the 1660-1740 era were constantly stealing Church lands. Reducing the size of the Papacy was the goal of most of the Catholic monarchs in the Baroque-Rococo era. It may have done us good to downgrade the Papacy from a temporal to a spiritual power, but the greed, arrogance, and vitriolic nature of the absolute monarchs was just ridiculous.

A constitutional monarchy entirely steeped in the Catholic faith is the best way to govern a nation. Give it republican efficiency, some democratic equality, a great sense of faith and tradition, a connection to the Catholic Church, and a sensible authority in its hierarchy. Let it resound with trumpets, sacraments, mysteries, and the Holy Mass. May the people be edified by its Christian kings and queens, and the military princes and dukes it produces. This great combination may be achieved, as we have seen with Blessed Karl I of Austria, a truly holy man.

Ah, so it is the pomp and circumstance that really appeals to you.

Well, at least you admit your real reasons.

 

[GloriousOrder]

Ah, so it is the pomp and circumstance that really appeals to you.

Well, at least you admit your real reasons.

Of course! What’s life without honesty? It would be a dreadful place to live if everyone was so dishonest and posturing all the time. Anyway, we can all agree that pomp and circumstance are the only reason to add a king to an efficient republican system. The people need someone to rally around properly. Most of us proles aren’t to be trusted to think for ourselves, so we require it!

 

[InquisitorMax]

Perhaps it was good for some people.

For children imprisoned in the Ireland’s Catholic industrial schools and reformatories where abuse, neglect, and even rape were common (relevant news source:magdalenelaundries.com/) and women punished with sentences to brutal Catholic workhouses like the Magdalene Laundries for crimes like being too flirtatious, attractive, or even raped (relevant news source: grailwerk.com/docs/nytimes15.htm) the height of Roman Catholic power and influence in Ireland was not a good time.

What people forget is all those quiet men and women who gave up everything to educate, nurse, teach, pray for and minister to Irishmen and women, for generations.

Yes, there were scandals. I think they got worse when standards of admission were lowered. People also forget that giving a child a whack for being bold or not learning their
lessons was considered normal, up to the mid 70’s.

If you are an orphan or an unwed mother you are simply more vulnerable, full stop. People
like to castigate the Church for its perceived failings. What they ignore is that these things happen in state and lay institutions as well. It’s just not as deliciously scandalous if a lay pervert is found out. If he is found out. Non-religious institutions close ranks too. And
the state has deep pockets when it comes to litigation.

Now we have programs on TV where parents are pleading with their children to behave. Coming from an old-fashioned upbringing myself, they make me laugh and get angry by turns.

I can see a time when people will pay thousands of euro a year and make sacrifices to get their kids into Catholic schools, like they do now in the UK. You don’t know what you had until its gone. Replacing Catholicism with Consumerism is spiritual death.

 

[Warrenton]

If you’re trying to be sarcastic in text form use emoticons.
No one can hear your tone of voice online.

Moreover, that was my point.
If they rebelled against a king over taxes, why wouldn’t they rebel over the issue of slaves?

Dear Angry: I am sorry you took it sarcasm. I was, in fact, agreeing with you on this point.

I am not certain you agree with me, but I think your observation highlights the use of a king: the king plus the people stand opposed to the aristocrats, or oligarchs, or capitalists in modern parlance.

I have many reasons to support a king. But one of them is not that the aristocrats might love him as much as me.

The reasons our aristocracy does not rebel is simple: why rebel from a system you own, lock, stock and barrel?

Again, I really am sorry if you thought my comment was sarcastic. I was hoping that you and I might find a little common ground there.

 

[Warrenton]

Do you deny that the rape of Black women was common in the antebellum and Jim Crow Southern United States?

Yes, I deny that it was common, or at least that it was so common that it explains the physical appearances of southerners today.

Even if violence was not used and the slave woman didn’t say no, was denying a master really an option?

How many bondwomen consented because they legitimately feared something bad would happen to them if they didn’t?

I take your point, but have an observation that I believe may partly answer it. Do not women tend to find men in positions of power attractive? Jack Kent Cook had a wife 40 or 50 years his junior, and the famous model for -was it the Guess line? - had a millionaire husband 50 or 60 years her senior.

Most men don’t want to have to hold the woman down and wrestle for a kiss. Neither do men tend to enjoy the experience when the woman clearly isn’t enjoying it. I doubt it was any different in 1700.

However, believing that human men wouldn’t sexually abuse women under their complete control (that were not even legally considered people) and that most such relationships were consensual, seems the height of naivete.

The relationships between the sexes, especially the sexes of different races when the races do not occupy positions of equality, is complicated. Black men did not want to admit that some black women preferred a white man, any more than white women wanted to admit that some white men preferred a black woman. The mixing of races threatens the perceived integrity of both races. Culture is linked to our race, including morals, beliefs, traditions and the rest. The North was never comfortable with the development of a distinct Southern culture, and neither were Black nationalists.

The myth of a “nation of rape” glosses a far more complex, and interesting, history.

Within this context, the better question would be “would the Southern aristocrats have broken with the British monarchs if the Stuarts had not been deposed?”

I don’t think they would have, because a Scottish king would have symbolized a continuity with the new culture and the old, the embodiment of clan loyalty, which as an ideal, survived in the South even as it was changing. The Hanoverians could not fulfill that function, and to a degree were symbolized its opposite. The Stuarts, certainly James II, as Catholics or crypto-Catholics, also commanded the loyalty of southern Catholics, who were much more numerous in the South than in the North.

There is a reason the Confederate flag has the cross of St. Andrew on it.

 

[Warrenton]

In France, the absolute “Catholic” monarch was hell-bent on destroying the Church. Louis XIV was a huge proponent of Gallicanism, a sort of Anglican-esque system whereby the French Church would choose bishops and not Rome. The “Holy” Roman Emperors of the 1660-1740 era were constantly stealing Church lands. Reducing the size of the Papacy was the goal of most of the Catholic monarchs in the Baroque-Rococo era. It may have done us good to downgrade the Papacy from a temporal to a spiritual power, but the greed, arrogance, and vitriolic nature of the absolute monarchs was just ridiculous.

To this I would add that even if the “absolute” monarchs competed with the Church, they did so because they recognized the importance of the Church. They never said that the Church exists at the whim of 51% of a legisltature put in place by 51% of the registered voters.

Democracy, we should recall, is a form of absolutism. Conceptually, there is no boundary to the democratic writ. The American Civil War makes the point: If 51% of the people want the other 49% of the people to remain in a given political status, they shall remain even if it takes the utter destruction of the land to carry out the plebicite. Ridiculous.

What democracy has done in practice is to render the Church irrelevant, by relegating it solely to the sphere of an individual’s conscience. The Church, free only to act on the individual, has precisely the power of an individual, which is next to nothing in a democracy.

Even corporations have more power, because they are favored creatures of the state, paying what amounts to a bribe for their perks and privileges.

A constitutional monarchy entirely steeped in the Catholic faith is the best way to govern a nation. Give it republican efficiency, some democratic equality, a great sense of faith and tradition, a connection to the Catholic Church, and a sensible authority in its hierarchy. Let it resound with trumpets, sacraments, mysteries, and the Holy Mass. May the people be edified by its Christian kings and queens, and the military princes and dukes it produces. This great combination may be achieved, as we have seen with Blessed Karl I of Austria, a truly holy man.

I am going to have this written on vellum in gothic script, illuminated, and placed in the front hallway of my home!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

At one time, Catholic monarchs ruled throughout Europe. Bad Catholic monarchs led to suppression of the Church (Henry VIII). Catholic country often fought Catholic country, for example, England before Henry Tudor was often at war with France. Portugal and Spain fought each other over Queen Isabel’s coronation.

A Catholic monarch is not going to happen in the USA. What we have here is a representative republic, for as long as we can keep it.

I want no part of a monarch in this world anyway.

Well, as a Catholic you are part of an “absolute monarchy” are you not?

As for “representative” anything, elected officials only truly represent those who vote for them.

The rest must submit to the person with the most votes.

That may be democratic, but one may argue whether it is truly representative.

A monarch, especially a Christian monarch, can be related to all his or her subjects in a way an elected official cannot.

The situation in the U.S. poses an entirely different problem where the head of state is also the head of government.

Some have argued that this is what ultimately caused the horrific U.S. civil war.

Alex

 

[DavidPalm]

Well, as a Catholic you are part of an “absolute monarchy” are you not?

Yes, under the Kingship of Christ. (Hopefully you weren’t referring to the papacy, which is not an absolute monarchy. )

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Of course! What’s life without honesty? It would be a dreadful place to live if everyone was so dishonest and posturing all the time. Anyway, we can all agree that pomp and circumstance are the only reason to add a king to an efficient republican system. The people need someone to rally around properly. Most of us proles aren’t to be trusted to think for ourselves, so we require it!

If you want to argue that you can’t be trusted to think properly I won’t dispute it

 

[AngryAtheist8]

What people forget is all those quiet men and women who gave up everything to educate, nurse, teach, pray for and minister to Irishmen and women, for generations.

Yes, there were scandals. I think they got worse when standards of admission were lowered. People also forget that giving a child a whack for being bold or not learning their
lessons was considered normal, up to the mid 70’s.

If you are an orphan or an unwed mother you are simply more vulnerable, full stop. People
like to castigate the Church for its perceived failings. What they ignore is that these things happen in state and lay institutions as well. It’s just not as deliciously scandalous if a lay pervert is found out. If he is found out. Non-religious institutions close ranks too. And
the state has deep pockets when it comes to litigation.

Now we have programs on TV where parents are pleading with their children to behave. Coming from an old-fashioned upbringing myself, they make me laugh and get angry by turns.

I can see a time when people will pay thousands of euro a year and make sacrifices to get their kids into Catholic schools, like they do now in the UK. You don’t know what you had until its gone. Replacing Catholicism with Consumerism is spiritual death.

Of course its more of a scandal when a group that holds itself up as a moral and spiritual authority fails to live up to its own standards. There’s the whole issue of hypocrisy, as well as the implication that the moral authority doesn’t really believe what it preaches.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Question has been answered. Thank you for participating.

CLOSED