Is republicanism a sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jjje1995
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I do admit that I have often flirted with the romanticism of government by monarchy and nobility. It is prone to abuse, but so is democracy in many ways.
Of course St Thomas Aquinas taught that the ideal government is an elected monarchy, where the electors are men of true virtue. This is what the Church attempts to emulate with the College of Cardinals and papal elections.

I am probably a rare breed in thinking this, but I sometimes regret that here in Canada we retained the monarchy without establishing our own Peerage.
 
Yep. People have a habit of behaving like people, don’t they. It messes up history something awful. 🙂
 
Yes. Whatever form of civil government there is, keep the priests and bishops out of it. They have far more important fish to fry, so to speak, and civil authority has only ever gotten in the way, in spite of what theory would argue.
 
Last edited:
Well, we did our best by handing out British peerages to Canadians. Lord Strathcona, for instance, and Lord Beaverbrook come to mind. We even let one of your lot become British prime minister (Bonar Law). And you Canadians could always start up a peerage of your own if you wanted. Might attract some more tourists from south of the border, 🙂
 
True. But that isn’t the common narrative. Decades after the US revolution, the British Empire learned from its mistakes and started establishing local parliaments with real power. A good example being the establishment of the Province of Canada (modern day Ontario and Quebec), in 1841 with its own elected parliament.
 
Yes, our earlier Governors General were also British Peers, though in recent decades they have been Canadian citizens. We even had a Princess as our “First Lady” for a time… Princess Alice as viceregal consort to the Earl of Athlone.
 
And on the subject of British Governors General of Canada who were given peerages, there is the very distinguished example of John Buchan.
 
Am I incorrect in pointing out that the “Defender of the Faith” is obviously required to defend the Church of England which she heads from the influence of Rome? I made my comment tongue-in-cheek, but it ought to be fairly clear that it couldn’t be a sin to oppose something that so pointedly stands in opposition to the reunification of the Church of England with Mother Church.
 
Ecumenical relations have been very positive for decades. There’s a lovely photo out there of a younger Queen Elizabeth dressed and veiled in black, as befits a non-Catholic Queen, when meeting Pope St John Paul II.
 
With the kind of history that England has, i am glad that they are not as powerful as before.
 
What kind of history is that? What specifically do you not like?
 
I didn’t suggest the laws governing the monarchy kept anyone in Britain from being Catholic…well, other than the monarch herself (as the law has been changed to allow the monarch to have a Catholic spouse, correct?)

I’m just saying that it is hardly possible that the Roman Catholics would consider it a sin to oppose the continuation of the British monarchy. I did not mean to imply it was a moral imperative that they oppose it. Let’s face it: the British monarch will allow the Church of England to do what the Church of England wants to do, provided Parliament consents. That is what the monarchy does. I am only saying there is no reason to believe the Church would consider this political position to be a sin.
 
Last edited:
The OP said nothing about refusing to show respect to the Queen. I don’t know of any republicans who are proposing to overthrown the monarchy by use of violence against the Queen or the Royal Family, either. Do you? It’s all proposed as a political matter, entirely bloodless and not even depriving the Royal Family of their personal wealth…at least that is how it is discussed publically. They’re just talking about a decision made by the people within the boundaries of the authority of the electorate to choose their own form of government by means of legitimate elections and votes of Parliament.

Honestly, I’m not so sure Prince Charles wouldn’t want a permanent seat for himself and his family in the House of Lords, where he could be free to speak his mind instead of being confined to an “advisory” role that doesn’t allow for much in the way of public advising.

It sounds as if not even the current Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury consider republicanism as a sin, per se, but more as advocacy for a decision they would rather not see the electorate make.
 
Last edited:
Oh my! This was merely philosophical! I already know it’d be a hideous sin to use violence to overthrow the royal family or wish them any ill will!
 
Depends on what results you want to achieve. And is it really worth shaking up? The Queen and the monarchy in the UK have almost no political power.
 
Well, let’s put it this way. Would the english monarchy remove someone from the crown if they become a Catholic? If the answer is yes, then I would say the monarchy ought to be removed. Even if it is good entertainment for some.
 
Or, said Monarch could mobilize an army and enforce their claim.
 
Right. Done any numbers crunching here to find out exactly what is ‘wasted’ by ‘the monarchy’ per year, and what will need to be spent to replace it?

Think about it. it’s not as if once you toss out the Queen, Prince William, etc. that the jobs they do will no longer be 'necessary.

Think about the thousands of people who are employed in some capacity to serve to monarchy. What will happen to THEM? If they lose the jobs that are paid in part or full by monies paid ‘the monarchy’ NOW, where will they go? What will they do?

How about money for upkeep of buildings? If you toss the Queen from Buckingham Palace (quite the tourist draw), what will you do with it? It will still need to be heated, lit, maintained. . .

Sometimes I just wonder about how people will just knee-jerk on ANY topic with, "oh get rid of it’ without having any kind of short-range or long range plans, any kind of real assessment of what is being proposed to be jettisoned, what will be needed to replace it, how long it will take, who will be responsible, what to do when things start to go wrong (they will), how to ‘fix’ something which is major but somehow wasn’t thought of, etc. etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top