Monarchs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leo33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I imagine it depends? There are many types of Monarchy. Absolute monarchies, elective monarchies, and others. What do you think?
 
I guess it would depend on if the monarch were a Pope catholic or a Pelosi catholic. It still wouldnt fly in the US tho
 
I think it is generally good. As an American, I know that hereditary monarchy is against our nature. What could work is government by a single party of a confessionally Catholic constitution. The leader of such a party would essentially be a monarch, but not hereditary. I think that the best of the old system of nobility can be preserved in a meritocratic system. National syndicalism is an attractive option which charts a middle course between the sinful excesses of capitalism and communism.

Let us not forget that we already have a monarch over us all: Jesus Christ. We can truly proclaim that our king is the King of Kings. Viva Cristo Rey!

Now if the Divine government is on the lines of what we call monarchy, should not our earthly government imitate this as far as it is able? Only we do not favor an “absolute” monarchy because the only absolute is God.
 
It seems to me that the best government is a balanced, checked monarchy over what is basically a republic. This system, or at least the ideal of its Roman antecedents, was established very well in the United Kingdom from 1707-1760, or so. George III came in and upset the balance, however, so the system is not always perfect. Before that unfortunate monarch came in, George I and George II were ideal men to fulfill the throne of a “republic with a crown”. They were steadfast and calm men, always at the field of battle (until 1743, at least) with the men, and acting as symbols for the nation.

No matter how corrupt and base politicians become, a monarch remains the stoic banner of a society’s history, culture, and outlook. Please remember that in republics and democracies, every president or leader is chosen from an already-existing political position he has held prior to premiership. Barack Obama was a Senator; Bush Jr., Clinton, and Reagan were governors. Presidents never come from ‘the people’ they claim to represent, but always from a seat already held. Kings, on the other hand, have historically been forbidden from holding any political office except that which is in their birthright. This ensures a balance. Modern Britain has slid too far into pleasing “the people”, just as Robert Cecil warned in 1895.

I do believe there must be at least a few republics around on Earth. No matter how glorious and mirroring of God monarchs may be, there is always the chance of corruption (thank Satan… :mad:). In this context, a few republics are good for accepting refugees from a corrupted monarchy. On the other hand, when republics become too feel-good, and simply fall to the disorganised mob, the stability of monarchies would be all around them for their benefit. The world is an integrated whole of human beings, each one meant for Heaven, union with God, and divinisation. We should only pursue governments which most perfectly protect each human life with the reverence due our divine origin.
 
Leo33 said:
Is a catholic monarchy good or bad?
Click to expand...
Depends on the monarch. The Church has no definitive position on the form of government, as long as that government is just and is subject ultimately to truth (ie it’s rule must be consonant with that of the King of kings). You’ll find Popes and theologians favoring one or the other of the various forms and that’s just fine.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, a monarchy has the greatest potential for good, but it also has the greatest potential for evil (a tyranny). A democracy on the other hand has less potential for good, but also less potential for evil (democracy breeds mediocrity, to paraphrase de Tocqueville), although he was also of the opinion that a democracy could be exploited and changed into a tyranny (Pope John Paul II expressed the same opinion in Centesimus annus, 46).
 
kamaan said:
Vatican City is a Catholic, absolute monarchy 👍
Click to expand...
Good point!

I don’t think anyone considers a monarchy in the U.S. to be a plausible idea.
I just mean is a monarchy better because we can be protected more from relativism?
 
Leo33 said:
Good point!

I don’t think anyone considers a monarchy in the U.S. to be a plausible idea.
I just mean is a monarchy better because we can be protected more from relativism?
Click to expand...
Assuming the monarchy remains Catholic in heart, not just name. At the time of the French revolution, the king was known as a Catholic Monarchy, but was far diffrent a ruler than Louis IX (aka St. Louis)
 
The question strikes up against the wall that has always been acknowledged by the great theologians, namely the separation of the abstract and the concrete. The verdict is in that, under perfect conditions, monarchy is the best form of government. The question remains to negotiate, however, what must be done to accomodate human weakness, both natural and moral. The Thomistic tradition has always considered monarchy the best form even in the general concrete, although with certain admixtures of aristocracy and democracy in order to place checks upon moral weakness. This would have a Catholic king elected for his virtue and intelligence, under whom served provincials/governors, etc., who were sovereign in their own sphere and similarly selected for personal qualities. It’s a sort of federalized monarchy of the good. Still, this remains but one prudential judgment about the form of government that can best promote the common good in the fallen conditions in which various nations find themselves, all of which will be different. An important change to note is that one of the points against aristocracy and democracy, in this tradition, is the impracticability of gathering the lords or the people for deliberative voting, whereas modern technology has GREATLY reduced the force of that criticism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top