H
HabemusFrancis
Guest
Was it? It was heavily anti Catholic and anti God but seemed to promote democracy.
It is a very peculiar thing. any ideas?
It is a very peculiar thing. any ideas?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
TheAmazingGrace
Guest
Reasonable intent, terrible execution (pun intended).Was it? It was heavily anti Catholic and anti God but seemed to promote democracy.
It is a very peculiar thing. any ideas?
T
TK421
Guest
In private revelation, there are warnings prior to the French revolution of France receding from the faith if it was not consecrated to the Heart of Mary (which it was not). So, if a person gives credence to that, then the French revolution was overall not a good thing. Many of the ideas that came out of the French revolution were hostile to the Church, and of course, many Catholics were martyred.
I don’t know if it’s possible for political revolutions to be wholly good or evil, but in my private opinion, the French & Soviet revolutions were primarily evil. The American revolution was somewhat evil but to a lesser degree imo, because it wasn’t explicitly anti-Catholic or anti-God, even if it was contrary to Catholic social teaching, especially on slavery, obedience to civil authorities, and the separation of Church and state. However, since it was revolting from a throne that was itself in several ways disobedient to the Holy See, it’s uncertain whether the impact was (relatively) good or bad. I think it was good in that separation from English autocracy allowed for more fertile soil for faiths to flourish, the impact of which can still be seen today, but bad in that it allowed certain toxic ideas to become established norms.
The French revolution may have provided a framework for a different way of governing, but this argument seems a little bit hollow to me because you have several countries in Europe that gradually socially evolved without the need for mass murder, or creating a vacuum to allow a megalomaniac emperor to rise to power.
Those are my brief thoughts, coming from an obscure nobody.
I don’t know if it’s possible for political revolutions to be wholly good or evil, but in my private opinion, the French & Soviet revolutions were primarily evil. The American revolution was somewhat evil but to a lesser degree imo, because it wasn’t explicitly anti-Catholic or anti-God, even if it was contrary to Catholic social teaching, especially on slavery, obedience to civil authorities, and the separation of Church and state. However, since it was revolting from a throne that was itself in several ways disobedient to the Holy See, it’s uncertain whether the impact was (relatively) good or bad. I think it was good in that separation from English autocracy allowed for more fertile soil for faiths to flourish, the impact of which can still be seen today, but bad in that it allowed certain toxic ideas to become established norms.
The French revolution may have provided a framework for a different way of governing, but this argument seems a little bit hollow to me because you have several countries in Europe that gradually socially evolved without the need for mass murder, or creating a vacuum to allow a megalomaniac emperor to rise to power.
Those are my brief thoughts, coming from an obscure nobody.
V
venite_adoremus
Guest
Did evil occur during the French Revolution? Of course it did. Was the Revolution itself evil? Depends on what you think about the forces of history directing the change. Was it under control? Was it an act of will? Was it anti-Catholic? Was it not anti-Catholic? Did the Revolution force anyone to make positive changes for the good? Did the Revolution conduct terror and murder in the name of liberty, fraternity, and equality? It’s complicated.
St Augustine’s City of God discusses the problems involved when historians try to imbue the course of worldly events with moral significance. Even if history is a straight road that leads us to the end of time, there are still going to be bumps along that road. You are in the world, but not of it. Our perspective on these things is different if we call ourselves Christian.
St Augustine’s City of God discusses the problems involved when historians try to imbue the course of worldly events with moral significance. Even if history is a straight road that leads us to the end of time, there are still going to be bumps along that road. You are in the world, but not of it. Our perspective on these things is different if we call ourselves Christian.
Swapping a monarchy for a republic is never a good idea.
Bloodshed is never a good thing.
Bloodshed is never a good thing.
The new revolutionary authorities suppressed the church; abolished the Catholic monarchy; nationalized church property; exiled 30,000 priests and killed hundreds more. As part of the campaign to dechristianise France, in October 1793 the Christian calendar was replaced with one reckoning from the date of the Revolution, and Festivals of Liberty, Reason and the Supreme Being were scheduled. New forms of moral religion emerged, including the deistic Cult of the Supreme Being and the atheistic Cult of Reason, with the government briefly mandating observance of the former in April 1794.
Under threat of death, imprisonment, military conscription, and loss of income, about twenty thousand constitutional priests were forced to abdicate and hand over their letters of ordination, and six thousand to nine thousand of them agreed or were coerced to marry. Many abandoned their pastoral duties altogether. Nonetheless, some of those who had abdicated continued covertly to minister to the people.
By the end of the decade, approximately thirty thousand priests had been forced to leave France, and others who did not leave were executed. Most French parishes were left without the services of a priest and deprived of the sacraments. Any non-juring priest faced the guillotine or deportation to French Guiana. By Easter 1794, few of France’s forty thousand churches remained open; many had been closed, sold, destroyed, or converted to other uses.
Victims of revolutionary violence, whether religious or not, were popularly treated as Christian martyrs, and the places where they were killed became pilgrimage destinations. Catechising in the home, folk religion, syncretic and heterodox practices all became more common. The long-term effects on religious practice in France were significant. Many who were dissuaded from their traditional religious practices never resumed them.
C
Catholic1954
Guest
Since when does murdering the King and Queen promote democracy? The French Revolution wiped out entire aristocratic families, priests and religious; it was called the Reign of Terror. What about it would anyone think was not evil?Was it? It was heavily anti Catholic and anti God but seemed to promote democracy.
It is a very peculiar thing. any ideas?
B
Blood_Angel
Guest
Turning point I guess, the start of a decline. WW1 and WW2 followed.
J
Jomann
Guest
Of course was evil! One hundred years after their positivist religion abolished the monarchy in Brazil sticking their motto in the imperial flag (order and progress). Brazil went downhill since then.
M
MaryHelp777
Guest
Yes.
In fact Jesus sent Our Lady with a message to a visionary in France telling King Louis to have a mass offered consecration France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and warning that if he didn’t, or if he delayed, that he would be beheaded by his enemies, atheism would run rife and the church would be martyred,
He delayed and delayed and by the time he got the mass offered it was too late, and the French revolution happened
To this day Catholic France is suffering the side effects of the revolution, not as strong a Catholic country ever since
In fact Jesus sent Our Lady with a message to a visionary in France telling King Louis to have a mass offered consecration France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and warning that if he didn’t, or if he delayed, that he would be beheaded by his enemies, atheism would run rife and the church would be martyred,
He delayed and delayed and by the time he got the mass offered it was too late, and the French revolution happened
To this day Catholic France is suffering the side effects of the revolution, not as strong a Catholic country ever since
M
minkymurph
Guest
All revolutions bring about radical change by radical means. They frequently come about in response to injustice, but where leaders of revolutions consolidate power they are often equally unjust.Was it? It was heavily anti Catholic and anti God but seemed to promote democracy.
It is a very peculiar thing. any ideas?
The French revolution came about in response to injustice, as did the revolt again British imperialist rule in America and Ireland.
Louis XVI was a tyrant, an unjust ruler and revolt inevitable.
He was no friend of the Pope. He reclaimed Papal states in France by force, contrary to the Pope declined to join the League of Augsburg, and supported James II in the Williamite wars in Ireland.
The French enlightenment challenged the Divine Right of Kings. Kings are not appointed by God and do not have a Divine right to rule.
French philosophers developed a concept of citizenship and rule by the people for the people that were embraced in Ireland. Such concepts were also being developed in the Americas in response to British imperialist rule. French revolutionaries joined American revolutionaries in their fight against British imperialist rule, and also Irish revolutionaries in the 1798 rebellion in the fight for emancipation of Catholics and an end to the Penal Laws.
French revolutionaries successfully established a nation state, but through a ‘Reign of Terror’ - this is ‘evil’ part.
In conclusion - history tells us injustice spawns revolution. Revolutionaries often have good ideas and challenge injustice, but revolution itself is a bloody business that involves great cost in terms of human life and suffering, and once it begins difficult to control as there are frequently shades of opinion among revolutionaries as to what is justifiable in achieving the end product and in fact what that end product should actually be. The 1798 rebellion in Ireland was unsuccessful, but the French Revolution provided a political mechanism to achieve this without resorting to bloody conflict. These mechanisms led to Catholic emancipation and an end to the Penal Laws. Thus, you initial statement the French revolution was heavily anti Catholic and anti God but seemed to promote democracy isn’t too far off the mark.
E
Exsanguin8
Guest
Every rejection of God results in a “Reign of Terror”. So, yes.
M
mikekle
Guest
Wouldnt any revolution that includes killing and violence be considered wrong though?
Biblicaly speaking, isnt it wrong to resort to killing and violence, even if done for the greater good?
Biblicaly speaking, isnt it wrong to resort to killing and violence, even if done for the greater good?
M
minkymurph
Guest
Not necessarily. In accordance with Catholic Just War Theory a despotic power may justifiably be overthrown where certain conditions are met. To use an extreme example a revolution against the Third Reich for the greater good would have been justified - not 'right as such but justified - even though it would inevitably have involved killing and violence.Wouldnt any revolution that includes killing and violence be considered wrong though?
Biblicaly speaking, isnt it wrong to resort to killing and violence, even if done for the greater good?
The problem with revolutions is once they kick off they can’t be controlled. Revolutions as a result of outrage against a chain of events, and emotions and the desire for revenge run high. All reason goes out the window. The French revolution started with the storming the Bastille. Leaders of the revolution had no control. Consider what the Italians did to Mussolini. Can you imagine what people in revolt would have done to Hitler and leading members of the Nazi party if a revolution had gathered serious momentum?
During one of the many Irish rebellions it was once said, ‘When the shooting starts those on the ground are deaf to the promptings of politicians.’
G
Goldenhope
Guest
A lot of answers in this thread are leaving me baffled. Has it ever occurred to anyone here that, without French revolution, there would still be monarchy? That free speech would be a crime, that classism would be far, far worse than today, that liquid society would not exist, that a king - or worse, a mad tyrant - could exploit us without us being able to say a word, unless we wanted to get killed? To all those who claim it brought only evil and so is democracy…watch your tongue. You have been raised in a free country. You do not - and most certainly do not want to - live under a king’s rule. And I am not talking abount Parliament controlled, British monarchy. I am talking real monarchy.
As for the OP…you must always look at things whithin their context. It was heavily anti religion, but that is because the Church often exploited and vexated, directly or indirectly, society’s lower classes. The violence that stemmed from it was most definately wrong, but it did not come out of nowhere.
As for the OP…you must always look at things whithin their context. It was heavily anti religion, but that is because the Church often exploited and vexated, directly or indirectly, society’s lower classes. The violence that stemmed from it was most definately wrong, but it did not come out of nowhere.
G
Goldenhope
Guest
How rebelling againist an evil, or at the very least incompetent government is rejecting God?Every rejection of God results in a “Reign of Terror”. So, yes.
What are some historical examples of Terrors caused directly by God rejection?
Rebellion, as long as the ruler is an oppressor, is justified.
G
Goldenhope
Guest
(In my opinion) Not really. The Bible is plenty of war, killing and violence, often by the Hebrews’ hands - and often justufied, if not commanded, by God himself. Remember, before “becoming” the Christian All-Loving Father, he was the vengeful God of the Armies.Wouldnt any revolution that includes killing and violence be considered wrong though?
Biblicaly speaking, isnt it wrong to resort to killing and violence, even if done for the greater good?
The greatest example of God “sponsored” rebellion? The Exodus. God Himself killed Egyptians drowning them in the Red Sea. As long as it is for the greater good (which tends to coincide with His will), God does not shy away from violence.
Jesus Himself, the prince of mercy and kindness, had his violent fits, like when He beated up the vendors in the Temple or when He cursed the fig tree…in order to fulfill His mission.
All in all, yeah: I think, within the right context, that Christians should use not so peaceful means if the greater good requires it.
E
Exsanguin8
Guest
One cannot rebel against tyranny armed with a set of arbitrary absolutes devoid of any acknowledgment of the source of right and wrong, God. Ask Robespierre how that worked out for him. Displacing God with a goddess of reason is pre-wired to fail.How rebelling againist an evil, or at the very least incompetent government is rejecting God?
What are some historical examples of Terrors caused directly by God rejection?
Rebellion, as long as the ruler is an oppressor, is justified.
Historical examples of terror caused by rejection of God? Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot…to the tune of 100 million souls in the 20th century alone.
M
MPat
Guest
“Promote democracy”? Well, it depends on what is meant by “promote” and what is meant by “democracy”…Was it? It was heavily anti Catholic and anti God but seemed to promote democracy.
French Revolution obviously hasn’t gotten anywhere close to a stable system with rule of law, respect of human rights and the like. And somehow, some other states that have gotten much closer to that (for example, Poland-Lithuania) ceased to exist during that period…
On the other hand, sure, God can allow evil so that some good will result from it.
James II died in 1701. Louis XVI was born in 1754. The “relevant” French king would be Louis XIV (died in 1715), but didn’t he support Jacobites against James II? I think you have mixed up something…Louis XVI was a tyrant, an unjust ruler and revolt inevitable.
He was no friend of the Pope. He reclaimed Papal states in France by force, contrary to the Pope declined to join the League of Augsburg, and supported James II in the Williamite wars in Ireland.
It is not that simple. Catechism paragraph 2243 (vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7W.HTM) says: “Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.”.How rebelling againist an evil, or at the very least incompetent government is rejecting God?
What are some historical examples of Terrors caused directly by God rejection?
Rebellion, as long as the ruler is an oppressor, is justified.
M
minkymurph
Guest
The rationale of the French revolution was not rejection of God. Rejection of the Church yes but that was a side effect, and let’s not pretend the Church was blameless in terms of attracting criticism. That is not to say the assault on the Church was justified.One cannot rebel against tyranny armed with a set of arbitrary absolutes devoid of any acknowledgment of the source of right and wrong, God. Ask Robespierre how that worked out for him. Displacing God with a goddess of reason is pre-wired to fail.
Historical examples of terror caused by rejection of God? Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot…to the tune of 100 million souls in the 20th century alone.
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot - French revolutionaries did not advocate communism nor dictatorship.
The French revolution cannot be considered a failure. The revolutionaries sought to establish a nation state, and equality, liberty and fraternity. They did not fail. France and Germany are the economic power houses of Europe. They have an excellent health service and education system. That is not to say their methods left a lot to be desired to say the least, or that France is a utopia, but it cannot be said it is a failure.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.