Monarchism

[EphelDuath]

Traditionalist Catholicism has often been associated with absolutism, especially the Counter-Revolutionaries during the French Revolution like Joseph de Maistre. I don’t really seem to get the vibe that anybody here is a neomonarchist (though I could be mistaken), but I am curious as to what the Church’s position on republicanism versus monarchism throughout the ages.

I suppose it could be argued that St. Jeanne d’Arc’s canonization is an indication that God wanted Charles VII to be King of France, though this could also be indicative that God did not want England and France to be unified for some reason and have nothing to do with monarchy. On the other hand, the Papacy didn’t have any hostility towards the U.S., as far as I can tell; in fact, Pope Pius VII praised the U.S.'s victory over the Barbary Pirates.

I’ve heard the claim that monarchs were more likely to protect and enforce the Church’s teachings, such as people like Charles X of France – who, after the French Revolution was nearly ousted from the throne after he passed an anti-sacrilege act, contrary to the wishes of the people. But this obviously swings both ways, as absolute monarchists like Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor used his kingly authority to reduce the influence of the Church.

Any thoughts?

 

[PhanxicoXavier]

Traditionalist Catholicism has often been associated with absolutism, especially the Counter-Revolutionaries during the French Revolution like Joseph de Maistre. I don’t really seem to get the vibe that anybody here is a neomonarchist (though I could be mistaken), but I am curious as to what the Church’s position on republicanism versus monarchism throughout the ages.

I suppose it could be argued that St. Jeanne d’Arc’s canonization is an indication that God wanted Charles VII to be King of France, though this could also be indicative that God did not want England and France to be unified for some reason and have nothing to do with monarchy. On the other hand, the Papacy didn’t have any hostility towards the U.S., as far as I can tell; in fact, Pope Pius VII praised the U.S.'s victory over the Barbary Pirates.

I’ve heard the claim that monarchs were more likely to protect and enforce the Church’s teachings, such as people like Charles X of France – who, after the French Revolution was nearly ousted from the throne after he passed an anti-sacrilege act, contrary to the wishes of the people. But this obviously swings both ways, as absolute monarchists like Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor used his kingly authority to reduce the influence of the Church.

Any thoughts?

“In fact, after having abolished the monarchy, the best of all governments, it [the French Revolution] had transferred all the public power to the people — the people… ever easy to deceive and to lead into every excess…” (Pourquoi Notre Voix, 17th June 1793, Pope Pius VI)

I am a supporter of absolute monarchy. I was influenced mainly by the writings of Joseph de Maistre, and reading about the lives of Catholic monarchs.

 

[dmfette]

Traditionalist Catholicism has often been associated with absolutism, especially the Counter-Revolutionaries during the French Revolution like Joseph de Maistre. I don’t really seem to get the vibe that anybody here is a neomonarchist (though I could be mistaken), but I am curious as to what the Church’s position on republicanism versus monarchism throughout the ages.

I suppose it could be argued that St. Jeanne d’Arc’s canonization is an indication that God wanted Charles VII to be King of France, though this could also be indicative that God did not want England and France to be unified for some reason and have nothing to do with monarchy. On the other hand, the Papacy didn’t have any hostility towards the U.S., as far as I can tell; in fact, Pope Pius VII praised the U.S.'s victory over the Barbary Pirates.

I’ve heard the claim that monarchs were more likely to protect and enforce the Church’s teachings, such as people like Charles X of France – who, after the French Revolution was nearly ousted from the throne after he passed an anti-sacrilege act, contrary to the wishes of the people. But this obviously swings both ways, as absolute monarchists like Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor used his kingly authority to reduce the influence of the Church.

Any thoughts?

…peace be with you…really…

…the entire history of st. joan d’arc is fascinating…mark twain wrote an essay and considered it his best work…i wonder if he had secret desires to be catholic…there are many primary resources re: her trial and the eventual/complete reversal of the church re: her standing with God…taken in its entirety, the history reveals that high or low, great or small, as individuals and as nations, mankind and time are the stuff that God uses in expressing the poetry of salvation…political power, whatever form it may take, is given at Divine discretion and according to the mysterious Wisdom of the Creator in that context…

…i agree with the lyrics of the “police” - “…there will be no political solution to our troubled evolution…”…that being said, the church stradles two worlds, the temporal and the hidden…the history of joan d’arc is an excellent example of how that balance often plays out…contemporary thought re: “liberation theology” is yet another example of the dance of political/spiritual relation…today’s ballet may prove to be tomorrow’s danse macabre…

…i wonder if our democracy will ultimately be recorded as a failed endeavor as it was for the athenians…do you speak chinese?..

…peace—>mark

 

[PhanxicoXavier]

…peace be with you…really…

…the entire history of st. joan d’arc is fascinating…mark twain wrote an essay and considered it his best work…i wonder if he had secret desires to be catholic…there are many primary resources re: her trial and the eventual/complete reversal of the church re: her standing with God…taken in its entirety, the history reveals that high or low, great or small, as individuals and as nations, mankind and time are the stuff that God uses in expressing the poetry of salvation…political power, whatever form it may take, is given at Divine discretion and according to the mysterious Wisdom of the Creator in that context…

…i agree with the lyrics of the “police” - “…there will be no political solution to our troubled evolution…”…that being said, the church stradles two worlds, the temporal and the hidden…the history of joan d’arc is an excellent example of how that balance often plays out…contemporary thought re: “liberation theology” is yet another example of the dance of political/spiritual relation…today’s ballet may prove to be tomorrow’s danse macabre…

…i wonder if our democracy will ultimately be recorded as a failed endeavor as it was for the athenians…do you speak chinese?..

…peace—>mark

I’m not entirely sure as to who that question was addressed, or if it was really a question, but my answer is no. I do speak Vietnamese though.

 

[Timothysis]

I am a supporter of absolute monarchy. I was influenced mainly by the writings of Joseph de Maistre, and reading about the lives of Catholic monarchs.

There were many, many kings and emperors over the past 1,000 or so years of European history; being Christian did not, apparently, make them role models for anyone.

 

[corsair]

A Monarchy is ONLY as good as the Monarch. If the King is benevolent, then you’ve lucked out. However, too often, Monarchs as NOT benevolent. I’ll take our Republic any day.

 

[EphelDuath]

So if you’re a monarchist; what do you say to 1 Samuel 8, where God tells Samuel that by demanding a king, they have denied him?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Traditionalist Catholicism has often been associated with absolutism, especially the Counter-Revolutionaries during the French Revolution like Joseph de Maistre. I don’t really seem to get the vibe that anybody here is a neomonarchist (though I could be mistaken), but I am curious as to what the Church’s position on republicanism versus monarchism throughout the ages.

Pope Leo XIII wrote an excellent encyclical on this topic. He wrote it to the Catholics of France about 100 years after the French Revolution At the time, the French Catholics were arguing amongst themselves over the best form of government. The Pope told them that the Church accepts any form of government, as long as it is based on Christian principles.

Some of the Catholics at the time thought they were unable to accept the new Republic since it was based on such anit-Catholic principles (separation between Church and State, etc.). The Pope made the distinction between 1.) the form of government (Republic, Monarchy, Democracy, etc.), 2.) those in charge of the government, and 3.) the legislation of the government

He said the form of government didn’t matter and Catholic were allowed to hold their own opinion on which form was best. He said Catholics were required to accept those in authority, but also had a duty to fight against bad legislation., but said Catholics had a duty to fight against bad legislation. He asked the Catholic to stop fighting over the form of governement and unite in their efforts to purify it of bad legislation, and infuse into it Catholic principles.

Here’s a link to the encyclical: AU MILIEU DES SOLLICITUDES

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Traditionalist Catholicism has often been associated with absolutism, especially the Counter-Revolutionaries during the French Revolution like Joseph de Maistre. I don’t really seem to get the vibe that anybody here is a neomonarchist (though I could be mistaken), but I am curious as to what the Church’s position on republicanism versus monarchism throughout the ages.

I suppose it could be argued that St. Jeanne d’Arc’s canonization is an indication that God wanted Charles VII to be King of France, though this could also be indicative that God did not want England and France to be unified for some reason and have nothing to do with monarchy. On the other hand, the Papacy didn’t have any hostility towards the U.S., as far as I can tell; in fact, Pope Pius VII praised the U.S.'s victory over the Barbary Pirates.

I’ve heard the claim that monarchs were more likely to protect and enforce the Church’s teachings, such as people like Charles X of France – who, after the French Revolution was nearly ousted from the throne after he passed an anti-sacrilege act, contrary to the wishes of the people. But this obviously swings both ways, as absolute monarchists like Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor used his kingly authority to reduce the influence of the Church.

Any thoughts?

The political effects of a Saint’s life, if any, are not what are canonised - canonisation means only that a person with a reputation for holiness is among the Saints in Heaven & can safely be venerated by the entire Church as one of them. To discern from the events of her life that “God wanted Charles VII to be King of France” isn’t possible, unless one has the gift of prophecy: otherwise, one is falling into the error of historicism, and trying to interpret the meaning of history from extremely limited information. After all, in the Bible God sometimes exalts men, that He may cast them down.​

I’ll settle for constitutional monarchy. Those of us who who live under a monarchy, albeit a constitutional & limited one, are perhaps a little less inclined to see monarchism through rose-tinted spectacles. To wish for absolute monarchy now, is to ignore the reasons no such thing now exists in Europe. IMO, such a desire arises from insecurities about the present which can be more effectively assuaged by less drastic means.

The US has a monarchy as it is; who rules, without reigning. Whereas the crowned heads of Europe reign, without ruling.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Ultima Ratio
The Pope told them that the Church accepts any form of government, as long as it is based on Christian principles.

Rory
In his letter to the King of Cyprus, St Thomas Aquinas says the same thing outlining the weaknesses and strengths of the various forms of government.

My recollection is that he affirms that a good king is better than a good democracy and a bad king is worse than a bad democracy. There is more potential for good or bad by the government of one.

I have been accused of being a monarchist because I disagree with the idea that monarchy is tyranny. Many kings and queens have been very holy and recognized as such by canonization in the Catholic Church. I imagine that I would prefer saintly kings over saintly elected officials. But if we must have bad men, democracy seems the safer route.

 

[Timothysis]

Many kings and queens have been very holy and recognized as such by canonization in the Catholic Church.

Conversely, many kings and queens have been anything other than holy. How many bad kings and queens should the multitude suffer through until they get a good one?

 

[EasterJoy]

Conversely, many kings and queens have been anything other than holy. How many bad kings and queens should the multitude suffer through until they get a good one?

If the people discern themselves to be best governed by a monarch, a monarch is fine. If they discern themselves best governed by a republic or a direct democracy, that is fine. The main thing is that they not be treated as slaves, but as free people, who give their consent freely to be governed by some legitimate civil authority, an authority which strives for justice and peace among the people, even if imperfectly.

A legitimate government is only as legitimate as its governing is. It is the duty of Catholics to oppose laws that do not support a moral and Christian life. If a government in authority supports and does evil, not by honest mistake but by willful disdain of the good, and will not cease doing evil without being forced out of power, then it may be discerned that the authority must be forced out of power. (Not that good ends justify any means.)

The King we must serve above all is the Lord; that is the command to love neighbor as ourself and to love God above all. After that, render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, with no regard to the form Caesar takes: “Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, or it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.” Rom. 13:1-8

This is one of the great moral advantages of representational government: the opportunity for a peaceful transfer of power. Nevertheless, that doesn’t make monarchies wrong.

 

[nordskoven]

The only monarchies in the prophetic future are the ten kings of the Antichrist. God did reprove the people who called on Samuel to beg God for a king, a form of government that was alien and inimical to the sacredness of culture. God has given us free will, and gave them their king after dire warnings of abuses to come. Christ has fulfilled all in His incarnation, including kingship as the King of Kings. That earned for Him a crown of thorns and a sign over His crucified Body: Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.

Kingship of old used to be determined by who was married to the EN, the Woman of Grace rooted in Genesis 3:15. This EN would dwell in her sacred tabernacle-home-storehouse. The man would approach her in the Ancient Sacred Wedding Rite, leaving his home as Genesis 2 demanded, and cleaving to her in leaving his family. Property was distributed through her, and the little statue/idol that Rachel stole was a property title inherited through her mom and alienated from her and her sister by her dad. The alien kings wanted to marry Sarah, an EN, and this word is rooted in our world for woman/gyne/gwena/queen. To marry Sarah would affirm rocky kingship.

Look to the Woman of Grace, even she who is Full of Grace, to define kingship as the Queen-Mother of the King of Kings. No political system will save us. Our Lady of the Rosary said the “only” means of peace was for the Bishops, united under Peter, to solemnly, publicly and at one time in their respective cathedrals to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart. The evils in the political systems today can be combatted only by the spiritual solution given at Fatima. “God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart.”

There is a group and their sub-groups and splinter groups that promotes elitism and monarchism: TFP/Tradition, Family & Property aka America Needs Fatima; and its splinter group, TIA/Tradition in Action. They are at odds with Peter and disdain the priesthood and promote the elite of the world, not God’s elect. Their special claim to knowledge and secrecy and love of the self-styled elite mark them as a Babylonian Mystery Religion, not an orthodox Catholic group. TFP flogs Mary for money but says the Litany to Dona Lucilia, their Brazilian founder’s mom, and her picture appears in their homes, not the Virgin Mary’s. Beware.

“Pray the daily Rosary for peace.” --Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima, Portugal

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

So if you’re a monarchist; what do you say to 1 Samuel 8, where God tells Samuel that by demanding a king, they have denied him?

Hi EphelDuath.

First, I am only a monarchist in the sense of Pope Leo and Thos. Aquinas who disagree with the anti-monarchist that might insist that monarchies are incompatible with the Catholic faith. They both insist that there are strengths and weaknesses in every form of human government. This is my position. I cannot see how a Catholic can say that it has been revealed by faith or reason that of all the forms of government, monarchy is in every respect the least desirable. The evidence in my opinion, points to a moderate point of view which permits monarchy among the possible forms of good government. I suggest that monarchy is one of several forms of human government which may be practised with the blessing of the Church.

As for I Kings (I Sam) 8, it reads as follows:

Then all the ancients of Israel being assembled, came to Samuel to Ramatha. And they said to him: Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: make us a king, to judge us, as all nations have. And the word was displeasing in the eyes of Samuel, that they should say: Give us a king, to judge us. And Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel: Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to thee. For they have not rejected thee, but me, that I should not reign over them.

—v. 5-7

Prior to this time God had raised up great generals as judges, not human governments “as all nations have”. They rejected the theocracy as it existed by asking for a monarch. They were not trusting God for their security. In chapter twelve of the same book we see that the problem wouldn’t have been solved by asking instead for an elected representative body with a chief executive and two houses of legislation. God was not offended because of the form of human government for which they asked, but because fearing their enemies, they lost faith that God would protect them:

And Samuel said to the people: It is the Lord, who made Moses and Aaron, and brought our fathers out of the land of Egypt. Now therefore stand up, that I may plead in judgment against you before the Lord, concerning all the kindness of the Lord, which he hath shewn to you, and to your fathers: How Jacob went into Egypt, and your fathers cried to the Lord: and the Lord sent Moses and Aaron, and brought your fathers out of Egypt: and made them dwell in this place. And they forgot the Lord their God, and he delivered them into the hands of Sisara, captain of the army of Hasor, and into the hands of the Philistines, and into the hand of the king of Moab, and they fought against them. But afterwards they cried to the Lord, and said: We have sinned, because we have forsaken the Lord, and have served Baalim and Astaroth: but now deliver us from the hand of our enemies, and we will serve thee. And the Lord sent Jerobaal and Badan, and Jephte, and Samuel, and delivered you from the hand of your enemies round about, and you dwelt securely. But seeing that Naas king of the children of Ammon was come against you, you said to me: Nay, but a king shall reign over us: whereas the Lord your God was your king.

—I Kings (I Samuel) 12:6-12

Note toward the end where Samuel comments upon how they dwelt securely without a king. It was faithflessness that drove Israel to ask that God be replaced with human government. I would also answer the passage referenced by pointing out that among the Church’s canonized saints are many kings and queens, and not one political leader from a modern republic or democracy. It seems significant that once Israel asked for a king, God continues to give them kings many of which, especially in Judah, were holy. There is not a hint that Hezekiah, David, Solomon, or Jehu were supposed to renounce their thrones and call for an election of executive or representative bodies. It does not seem to me to be revealed in Scripture or Tradition that faithful Catholics can declare that among the forms of human government, monarchy is somehow most offensive to God, or incompatible with the Reign of Christ the King. Monarchy has strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Layman]

I think a king could take the place of a president in a Republic. He could be the one who open and closes parliament, heads the armed forces and assents to the winning party in an election forming the government.

You get the benefit of the continuity of kingship with the benefits of voting bad politicians out of office.

In Thailand, I think, the king is revered. Every so often, corrupt politicians have to go to him to beg forgiveness when they go too far. The king there is loved by the people so the politicians can’t touch him, but I don’t think he has much political power. He is a figure of stability in a changing world but without the potential for tyranny. Looked like a good arrangement to me.

 

[m134e5]

Traditionalist Catholicism has often been associated with absolutism, especially the Counter-Revolutionaries during the French Revolution like Joseph de Maistre. I don’t really seem to get the vibe that anybody here is a neomonarchist (though I could be mistaken), but I am curious as to what the Church’s position on republicanism versus monarchism throughout the ages.

I suppose it could be argued that St. Jeanne d’Arc’s canonization is an indication that God wanted Charles VII to be King of France, though this could also be indicative that God did not want England and France to be unified for some reason and have nothing to do with monarchy. On the other hand, the Papacy didn’t have any hostility towards the U.S., as far as I can tell; in fact, Pope Pius VII praised the U.S.'s victory over the Barbary Pirates.

I’ve heard the claim that monarchs were more likely to protect and enforce the Church’s teachings, such as people like Charles X of France – who, after the French Revolution was nearly ousted from the throne after he passed an anti-sacrilege act, contrary to the wishes of the people. But this obviously swings both ways, as absolute monarchists like Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor used his kingly authority to reduce the influence of the Church.

Any thoughts?

 	 Many consider themselves monarchists as well. It seems to me this is because they aren't happy with the current state (moral, political, or otherwise) of the world, and think going back to something older- something that society has largely abandoned- will solve their problems.  In other words, they think running away is the answer.  That seems like an attempted justification of one's personal fear of power, of knowledge, of overcoming weakness, and of earning greatness.  Mankind should keep what is good in tradition, throw out the bad (while trying to make something better in its place).

Those who are willing to work hard can work hard for what is right, and they can accomplish great things. Those who want to can learn. They can choose to work hard, and make a name for themselves. They can hold positions of authority, and have a big impact on society. It doesn’t matter what situation we were born into (though some may have to work harder than others, and some may have fewer chances than others). Though capitalism is not perfect, I will take it over monarchy any day. I would rather trust my mind rather than my lineage with my potential for greatness.

 

[historyb]

So if you’re a monarchist; what do you say to 1 Samuel 8, where God tells Samuel that by demanding a king, they have denied him?

I would say that 1 Samuel 8 is not our time and that was specific to Ancient Israel because they were to be a theocratic society

 

[PAboy57]

Having a monarchy is only good if the king is wise and loves his people. I’ll stick with USA democracy as I don’t know of anything better.

 

[dmfette]

Many consider themselves monarchists as well. It seems to me this is because they aren’t happy with the current state (moral, political, or otherwise) of the world, and think going back to something older- something that society has largely abandoned- will solve their problems. In other words, they think running away is the answer. That seems like an attempted justification of one’s personal fear of power, of knowledge, of overcoming weakness, and of earning greatness. Mankind should keep what is good in tradition, throw out the bad (while trying to make something better in its place).

Those who are willing to work hard can work hard for what is right, and they can accomplish great things. Those who want to can learn. They can choose to work hard, and make a name for themselves. They can hold positions of authority, and have a big impact on society. It doesn’t matter what situation we were born into (though some may have to work harder than others, and some may have fewer chances than others). Though capitalism is not perfect, I will take it over monarchy any day. I would rather trust my mind rather than my lineage with my potential for greatness.

…peace be with you…really…

…what is “greatness”?..today’s gospel (10/18/09) gives an answer…
…“work hard for what is right”…does this mean, doing the will of the Father?..
…do we “make names for ourselves”?..does this mean that by doing the will of the Father we are stationed in positions that draw attention to His grace through us?

…while “capitalism” is a system of economy within social organization, it is not per se a system of government - we have seen what “god” is trusted by some and what it did to many in the u.s. in the recent economic downturn…a dangerous master is mammon…

…trust…?

…the mind?..

…my mind will betray me if it does not serve what is True, Good, and Beautiful - God is all of these…

…my lineage?..

…honor thy mother and thy father…you write:

Mankind should keep what is good in tradition, throw out the bad (while trying to make something better in its place).

…your lineage gives both gift and burden…how you use and carry them in loving God and serving your fellow man transcends both “nature and nurture”…miracles happen all the time…but not without the grace of God…

…these things are what i believe anyway…i could be wrong…if so, it seems i cannot help it…

…peace—>mark

 

[Ghoti]

Some have it both ways.

Simeon Borissov Sakskoburggotski was Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria (1943-46) until he was ousted by the Communists. In 2001 he was elected Prime Minister of the fledgling Bulgarian democratic republic.

On the other hand, Ahmed Zogu, elected President of Albania, became King Zog I (and Only). Napoleon, elected and confirmed by referendum as First Consul, manoeuvred enough political power to himself to be named Emperor.

The you have Miklós Horthy, admiral of a nation without a navy and regent of a kingdom without a king.

It might or might not be easier to shift out a bad “elected” leader than a “monarch” – it depends on how much political power said leader has accumulated, and how many qualms (if any) s/he has in using them. The main diff is that, generally speaking, there is often an apparatus to remove a leader of a non-monarchy (recall, impeachment, term limits, non-confidence motion, etc). Generally the only way to remove a (ruling) monarch is a coup.