Is republicanism a sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jjje1995
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jjje1995

Guest
I hate to ruin the fairytale but, here in England, there are quite a few people who are republicans. Obviously, I’m not talking about the Grand Old Party, rather, the idea we should abolish the monarchy. Would it be a sin to support this as it could be rebellious, treasonous or both? I should mention you’re free to advocate a republic in this country. I know American republicanism was different because their cause was just as the monarchy at the time was oppressive. This is an objective question so I’m not saying whether I hold or reject republican sentiments.

What do you think?

Thanks in advance 🙂
 
People are free to hold their own views about what form of government would be best for their country. I don’t see how it could be sinful to think “we’d be better off without the monarchy.”
 
Last edited:
The monarchy is very expensive. This waste of money could be used to provde housing to the homeless and feed those who need it.
 
It is more likely a sin to support the illegitimate monarchy.
 
Aww, from the title I came here looking for a real fun knock-down-drag-out fight.

Oh well.

The Church does not give a hard answer on which form of government is the “best”

Of course, keeping in mind the usual disclaimers about protection of life and religious liberty et cetera
 
Last edited:
Do you know why a German prince was placed on the throne ahead of a hundred more legitimate heirs? Because they were Catholic.
 
But they were not more legitimate heirs. The legitimacy of an heir to the British throne is determined by Act of Parliament. Current appropriate Acts are the Act of Settlement, the Bill of Rights, the Abdication Act and the Succession to the Crown Act.

You may think other candidates would have been preferable. That would not have made the legitimate heirs illegitimate.
 
The only problem with Britain’s monarchy is that they let parliament and subjects strip them of their power.

That and not being Catholic.
 
Last edited:
They also generate huge amounts of tourist income, and the Queen has voluntarily paid taxes on her private income, from her estates, for decades. I bet you anything it’s a net gain.
 
Absolutely monarchies have rarely existed. I remember reading a paper arguing that modern US presidents have more power than King George III did at the time of the US Revolution. Throwing off the “tyranny” of a king is a nice story but in reality Britain was effectively an oligarchy in many ways with the ministers in Parliament running the government.
 
You’re on a Catholic website asking whether it is a sin to oppose a monarchy that by Act of Parliment is forbidden from having a Catholic monarch, in order to keep the formerly-Catholic country’s monarch from ever submitting to the authority of Rome?

I’m pretty sure that the Catholic Church wouldn’t consider that a sin, LOL.
Brucejlb said:
The monarchy is very expensive. This waste of money could be used to provde housing to the homeless and feed those who need it.
Click to expand...
That is a matter of debate. Some think Britain would lose tourism dollars and prestige if they abolished the monarchy.

Looking at other countries who abolished their monarchies, I would not conclude that the poor were the main beneficiaries. The poor in the United States are not better off than the poor in Britain. The privileged class still exists and is still super-wealthy. It just doesn’t pretend to have any duties to the nation.

Having said that, I’m not so sure that everyone in the Royal Family (with the possible exception of Prince Charles) wouldn’t be relieved if the monarchy were abolished when the Queen dies. I’m pretty sure Prince Harry is pleased to see that William has produced heirs to stand in line in front of him!!

I guess we’ll have to wait and see…
 
Last edited:
I understand that. I don’t have a problem with lords and nobles and king forming a coalition government of sorts.

What I have distaste for is every person capable of drawing breath over a certain age getting a say.
 
twf said:
Absolutely monarchies have rarely existed. I remember reading a paper arguing that modern US presidents have more power than King George III did at the time of the US Revolution. Throwing off the “tyranny” of a king is a nice story but in reality Britain was effectively an oligarchy in many ways with the ministers in Parliament running the government.
Click to expand...
The colonies that became the United States threw off the control of Parliament, too.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
I understand that. I don’t have a problem with lords and nobles and king forming a coalition government of sorts.

What I have distaste for is every person capable of drawing breath over a certain age getting a say.
Click to expand...
There was a time during which monarchs were in effect the families of successful generals and feudal lords. They didn’t continue as royal families for very long if the heir to the throne wasn’t capable in that capacity.

That is not what monarchs do any more. Modern royal families essentially run advertising firms.
 
Yes, George’s powers were essentially (a) over which ministers he would accept in the Government (and he wasn’t always able to exercise that power); (b) the power to block legislation (he blocked Catholic emancipation for years); (c) the power to provide jobs for his relatives.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top