Scary quote from Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange

[utunumsint]

Hi,

This is on Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Legrange’s “REALITY—A Synthesis Of Thomistic Thought”

He distinguishes, further, good government from bad. Good government has three forms: monarchical, where one alone rules, aristocratic, where several rule, democratic, where the rule is by representatives elected by the multitude. But each of these forms may degenerate: monarchy into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy, democracy into mob-rule. The best form of government he finds in monarchy, but, to exclude tyranny, he commends a mixed constitution, which provides, at the monarch’s side, aristocratic and democratic elements in the administration of public affairs. [78] Yet, he adds, if monarchy in fact degenerates into tyranny, the tyranny, to avoid greater evils, should be patiently tolerated. If, however, tyranny becomes unbearable, the people may intervene, particularly in an elective monarchy. It is wrong to kill the tyrant. [79] He must be left to the judgment of God, who, with infinite wisdom, rewards or punishes all rulers of men.

**On the evils of election by a degenerate people, where demagogues obtain the suffrages, he remarks, citing St. Augustine, that the elective power should, if it be possible, be taken from the multitude and restored to those who are good. **St. Augustine’s words run thus: “If a people gradually becomes depraved, if it sells its votes, if it hands over the government to wicked and criminal men, then that power of conferring honors is rightly taken from such a people and restored to those few who are good.” [80].

Will there ever come a point where North American democracies are simply no longer a good option? And if yes, by what means could power “…be taken from the multitude and restored to those who are good.”? npatrol: :knight2::slapfight:

This is a frightening discussion. But it makes me think, democratic governments are not unilaterally endorsed by the Catholic Church… I am not from the United States, and my knowledge of American history is fairly limited, so I would be interested in Catholic arguments against monarchy and aristocracy as the best option. Perhaps any statements from the church would also be interesting to look at. I know, at least in the last century and the current one that the church does not advocate one for of government over another… but… has it ever written about the duty of people to overthrow democracies ? Seems very Fascist. When you look at how the church is governed, it seems to follow the lines of papal Monarchy, with an elected/appointed Aristocracy of cardinals and bishops… I don’t see much evidence of democracy in the church.

God bless,
Ut

 

[BartholomewB]

Garrigou-Lagrange is here summarizing a commentary on Aristotle’s Politics that Aquinas wrote in 1268. Is it still scary, so many centuries later?

 

[Casilda]

The United States of America was instituted as a Republic, not a true democracy. The masses have been indoctrinated over a hundred years by misinformation by way of a substandard educational system. There are a precious few who have freed themselves and think, and learn for themselves. John Adams, our 2nd president, was quoted as saying:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

So where immorality and the non-religious reign, anarchy rules. In our society today, when a law abiding citizen is targeted by immoral and non-religious entities, there is no one to turn to. We no longer have rights as spelled out in the Bill of Rights. See if a cop cares, or a judge, if you have enough money for a lawyer. Yeah, land of the free. Americans are no longer free.

 

[dmar198]

Hi,

This is on Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Legrange’s “REALITY—A Synthesis Of Thomistic Thought”

Will there ever come a point where North American democracies are simply no longer a good option? And if yes, by what means could power “…be taken from the multitude and restored to those who are good.”? npatrol: :knight2::slapfight:

This is a frightening discussion. But it makes me think, democratic governments are not unilaterally endorsed by the Catholic Church… I am not from the United States, and my knowledge of American history is fairly limited, so I would be interested in Catholic arguments against monarchy and aristocracy as the best option. Perhaps any statements from the church would also be interesting to look at. I know, at least in the last century and the current one that the church does not advocate one for of government over another… but… has it ever written about the duty of people to overthrow democracies ? Seems very Fascist. When you look at how the church is governed, it seems to follow the lines of papal Monarchy, with an elected/appointed Aristocracy of cardinals and bishops… I don’t see much evidence of democracy in the church.

God bless,
Ut

Royalty, democracy, and aristocracy, all have roots in Catholic tradition. The oldest democracy in the world is San Marino, which was founded as a monastery in 301 A.D. The Abbot was elected by vote, which is true of a vast number of monasteries throughout history. Eventually a lay community formed around the monastery, and the Abbot had authority over them. That community became a town, then a city, and the leader is still elected by vote, and basically always has been.

Venice, Florence, Pisa, and Flanders had republican forms of government as early as the 1100s, at the beginning of the Age of Catholic Glory.

As far as defences of democracy go, I hear St. Robert Bellarmine was a huge fan of democracy, and he is a doctor of the Church. Unfortunately, his book on the subject has not been translated into English. But he was attacked by Protestant England over it, and Francisco Suarez wrote a book defending him on the subject. The title is Defense of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith Book 3 Chapter 2. Look there and you’ll find a section called “How democracy is said to be by right of nature.” That’s from 1613 A.D.

 

[utunumsint]

Garrigou-Lagrange is here summarizing a commentary on Aristotle’s Politics that Aquinas wrote in 1268. Is it still scary, so many centuries later?

I suppose I find it natural to think of populist democratic movements overthrowing tyrannical rulers or oligarchies. Seems strange to me of thinking of somehow overthrowing a decadent and corrupt populace because they keep electing bad rulers who make bad laws. The very idea of a populace becoming so corrupt that the few would seek to overthrow the many seems antithetical to modern ways of thinking where truth seems to equate with popular opinion or at least what is presented as popular opinion by the media.

But it seems that scenario is quickly becoming the reality in North America, where the populace seem to have lost their moral compass.

God bless,
Ut