Traditional Catholics and Forms of Gov't

[Cojuanco]

Very curious how some Catholics may differ on ideas of gov’t. Please vote. If the choice is not represented, please reply with your thoughts. Or even if you vote on something, please share your thoughts.

Any government that renders to the Church what is due to it in justice, and ensures ordered liberty to its people. Whether that means a crowned head or not makes little intellectual differece to me, though there does seem to be something to be said for monarchy in the emotional, irrational sense.

 

[Holly3278]

Personally I would like to see the current government here in the United States undergo some major reforms. I’d also like to see society undergo some major reforms such as returning to better morality. Perhaps if the New Evangelization works out really well it would help with that.

 

[GangGreen]

Any of these forms of government can work well if you have a good leader. An absolute monarchy with a great and moral king/queen can be run better and more efficiently than most other forms of government. The problem is when you have a bad king/queen. Unfortunately, they are also there for life.

We see the same results in democratic republics of the world. In the US we have our three branches of government. However, they can easily be filled with people who don’t have the interests of the people in mind and do things that the majority do not agree with. They can be corrupted and they can be immortal.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

I’ve never understood the allure that catholic monarchy holds for traditionalists. It’s an impossible anachronism. Those that did exist were no more moral than republics or other representative forms of democracy. It seems like belief in a silly fairy tale to me.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

HOW MANY TIMES did Jesus say that his kingdom was not of this world?

The reign of God is in our hearts, no matter what form of government we live under, it is our responsibility to be holy. That comes from the inside out and cannot be legislated.

 

[AdDeum]

I voted “other” because I wasn’t exactly sure where it would fall in? I like the way our (US) government is SUPPOSED to be… A Federalist system.

In that form of government, powers are reserved to the States and only a few a delegated to the Federal govt. Not the other way around, where the Feds have all the power and delegate to the States. Unfortunately, the latter is what I think we’ve become here in these US

THEN AGAIN… as far as Church Government goes, maybe the opposite?

 

[Seamus_L]

I’ve never understood the fascination with monarchies either, and I’m a Latin Masser. I also remember that with royalty, a Godly man like King Hezekiah, can have a very evil father and son.

 

[YoungTradCath]

No country that allows the wholesale slaughter of it’s most vulnerable citizens can last.

This is a strange mix of Christianity and nationalism that I just don’t get.

And that, my friend, is precisely what it comes down to. The Supreme Court says there is a Constitutional “right” to slaughter one’s preborn child. If that is true, I could not possibly promise to, in good conscience, “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” If that is true–and I’m not 100% certain that it is, ie there could have been a royal mess up in 1973–then the Constitution is not worth protecting, not a bit.

However, they can easily be filled with people who don’t have the interests of the people in mind and do things that the majority do not agree with. They can be corrupted and they can be immortal.

Or the interests of the people could be corrupted and immoral.

 

[Tighty_Whitey]

Absolute Monarchy, with ME as the monarch!!!

 

[JaMc]

I’ve never understood the allure that catholic monarchy holds for traditionalists. It’s an impossible anachronism. Those that did exist were no more moral than republics or other representative forms of democracy. It seems like belief in a silly fairy tale to me.

I think it’s because, in Europe, republican movements generally attacked the Church. The Popes were thinking about the French Revolution, not peaceful transitions to democratic states with gurantees for the protection of the Church, which were unheard of at the time.

 

[clem456]

And that, my friend, is precisely what it comes down to. The Supreme Court says there is a Constitutional “right” to slaughter one’s preborn child. If that is true, I could not possibly promise to, in good conscience, “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” If that is true–and I’m not 100% certain that it is, ie there could have been a royal mess up in 1973–then the Constitution is not worth protecting, not a bit.
.

Right. The constitution in no way shape or form condones abortion. It is purely invented imaginary law, invented to exalt personal whims over objective morality. It is tyranny of the minority (a few court justices arrogating the law unto themselves).

And hypocrisy rules the day. How can our leaders talk of compassion out of one side of their mouths, while out of the other side comes support for the murder of the least among us. How can our president stand there and be moved by the Newtown murders while ignoring the underlying philosophy that he participates in, that makes it possible. That is a house of cards that will come down. I just pray it does not come down like other societies and governments throughout history that ended very, very badly.

And already we are seeing it come down. There have always been murderers in the name of anger or misguided ideology, but only recently have we seen large scale murders in the name of self-expression, exalting one’s passions above another’s life. This attitude says “your life has value only in light of my own passions. If my self expression demands your life, then you are a tool for my self gratification.” Utilitarianism. The fruit of abortion. This is not murder in the name of religion or politics or anger, which are also dead wrong, but something new.

Christianity,for me, is always first before any constitution or government. To the best of my ability I give my cooperation with civil authority, but there are some difficult calls to make.

 

[codefro]

I have grown skeptical of democracy lately. Not saying it can’t work. Yet, I notice how easy it can crumble or be usurped. I read this and it spoke truth:

"On the subject of survival of democracy, here is what Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, in 1887 had to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they… can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”

Even the Roman Republic, a pinnacle of all societies, was taken over by Caesar. I just feel that the quote above says it all.

Now, yes, all forms are flawed and we all know why. Yet, just interesting to note the forms that last longer than others. Sad the US has been a country for 230 years and has basically seen its peek and in a fast decline.

 

[Cojuanco]

I’ve never understood the fascination with monarchies either, and I’m a Latin Masser. I also remember that with royalty, a Godly man like King Hezekiah, can have a very evil father and son.

Same reason people (not just trads) like smells and bells and ritual - because monarchy is nothing if not rich in symbols.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Right. The constitution in no way shape or form condones abortion. It is purely invented imaginary law, invented to exalt personal whims over objective morality. It is tyranny of the minority (a few court justices arrogating the law unto themselves).

At the same time, however, we also have to be practical. If the SC says X is law, then it is law, and if they won’t reconsider it, then for all practical purposes, it is what it is. In such an unfortunate, but ultimately quite real, situation, then I’d here too maintain that the Constitution itself is flawed, if only by some secondary logic.

Bottom line: people believe the Constitution lets them kill their babies, so in practical reality, it does, because they and others believe it. So the Constitution is still a problem, if not in principle, then still in practice.

 

[Francoist]

I have grown skeptical of democracy lately. Not saying it can’t work. Yet, I notice how easy it can crumble or be usurped. I read this and it spoke truth:

"On the subject of survival of democracy, here is what Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, in 1887 had to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they… can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”

Even the Roman Republic, a pinnacle of all societies, was taken over by Caesar. I just feel that the quote above says it all.

Now, yes, all forms are flawed and we all know why. Yet, just interesting to note the forms that last longer than others. Sad the US has been a country for 230 years and has basically seen its peek and in a fast decline.

Good post.

I voted “distributist governemnt” because I take for my model Franco’s Spain. I support neither Socialism, which has never been anything but a horror show, nor laissez-faire Capitalism.

In short we need a government which respects personal responsibility and local institutions, which gives the Church pride of place in society and respects her institutions without devolving into a theocracy, and which instills and enforces the values of God, family and country. Currently the West is a land of weakness and vice. We need once again to claim our heritage as a land of strength and honor.

 

[Fairwinds]

…I voted “distributist governemnt” because I take for my model Franco’s Spain. …

I suppose a right wing thug like Franco is marginally better than a left wing thug like Stalin, but not so much that it makes a difference if you’re getting herded into a Spanish concentration camp or a Russian gulag.

A Catholic theocracy would be a good idea, at first. Then, because it would blend religious law into civil law, it would weed out the non-Christians, then the Protestants, then the not-good-enough-Catholics.

I’ll take a representative, constitutional government as the least offensive form.

F.

 

[JaMc]

I suppose a right wing thug like Franco is marginally better than a left wing thug like Stalin, but not so much that it makes a difference if you’re getting herded into a Spanish concentration camp or a Russian gulag.

The difference is, Franco wouldn’t be herding you into a Spanish concentration camp for being a faithful Catholic, whereas Stalin would be herding you off to a Russian gulag for that very reason.

 

[Francoist]

I suppose a right wing thug like Franco is marginally better than a left wing thug like Stalin, but not so much that it makes a difference if you’re getting herded into a Spanish concentration camp or a Russian gulag.

A Catholic theocracy would be a good idea, at first. Then, because it would blend religious law into civil law, it would weed out the non-Christians, then the Protestants, then the not-good-enough-Catholics.

I’ll take a representative, constitutional government as the least offensive form.

F.

General Franco was a hero. The people he punished were blasphemous enemies of Christ and anti-clerical mass murderers.

It would be my privilege and honor to serve such a man.

 

[devoutchristian]

How many of the respondants are from Canada or the UK? How many are from the US?

The opinions of foreigners are just as valid as the opinions of Americans.

Unless only US residents are allowed in this poll, it is not valid for the USA.

It’s a self selective poll, it’s not “valid” for anyone.

If the majority of US residents are for a monarchy in any form, I am appalled.

Oh my, they disagree with you about politics, they must be evil.

Either these people are rebelious adolescents, sandbagging this poll, or they are people who are abysmally ignorant of US history and traditions.

Insulting people doesn’t help your position.

Thousands of people sacrificed their lives in two wars in order that our country did not have a monarch.

That people were willing to throw there lives away in support of rebels and European dictators proves nothing.

If this response is truely from Americans, it makes me regret the 16 years I spent defending the country in the US Navy!

Seriously, get off your high horse.

General Franco was a hero. The people he punished were blasphemous enemies of Christ and anti-clerical mass murderers.

It would be my privilege and honor to serve such a man.

Oh you America hater, you need to bow down before the God of Classical liberalism, or you will be labeled “un-American”.

(sarcasm, in case anyone doesn’t get it)

 

[Fairwinds]

The difference is, Franco wouldn’t be herding you into a Spanish concentration camp for being a faithful Catholic, whereas Stalin would be herding you off to a Russian gulag for that very reason.

surely you’re not suggesting there are good or maybe less bad reasons to herd anyone into a concentration camp are you? is this another tu quoque argument?

F