What is the relationship between Catholicism and Monarchy?

[The_Walrus_1]

Should Catholics be inclined to support political systems based on monarchic succession over the system of a secular republics that uses democratic ballots for political recruitment?

Some observations:

1. The Kingdom of God is a Monarchy. Shouldn’t a good Catholic society make its government a pars pro toto and reminder of the Kingdom to come at the eschaton?
2. The Trinity is pro-family. Monarchies are pro-family.
3. There is a sense in which a monarchy is “above politics”. To be a good Catholic politics has to be totally subservient to the salvation of souls and Christian mission.
4. A monarch is not concerned with democratic support. As such, a monarch (who is a pious Catholic) is not distracted in his ministry to sanctify the world through his public offices after the reception of graces.
5. Christian theology is given not elected. In a democratic republic the principle of majority support decides the appointment of lawmakers. The consequence will be the loss of traction of Christian virtue in public life and social institutions.

 

[andyklein]

All of your claims make equivocations between the kingdom of God and his “kingliness” and secular societies. It’s like saying that A has a trait B; C has assumed trait B; therefore, C must do whatever A does.

All of your claims also beg so many questions.

Also, monarchy is not a natural condition of the secular state.

Also, you assume all monarchs are equally just.

Also, FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY. How could we use the name of God to call those concepts worse than monarchy?

 

[Bob_Schiffer]

Should Catholics be inclined to support political systems based on monarchic succession over the system of a secular republics that uses democratic ballots for political recruitment?

Some observations:

1. The Kingdom of God is a Monarchy. Shouldn’t a good Catholic society make its government a pars pro toto and reminder of the Kingdom to come at the eschaton?
2. The Trinity is pro-family. Monarchies are pro-family.
3. There is a sense in which a monarchy is “above politics”. To be a good Catholic politics has to be totally subservient to the salvation of souls and Christian mission.
4. A monarch is not concerned with democratic support. As such, a monarch (who is a pious Catholic) is not distracted in his ministry to sanctify the world through his public offices after the reception of graces.
5. Christian theology is given not elected. In a democratic republic the principle of majority support decides the appointment of lawmakers. The consequence will be the loss of traction of Christian virtue in public life and social institutions.

Historically, that was more or less the justification of absolute monarchy in Europe, starting from Emperor Constantine. But later on, as the power of the Crown waned, countries eventually converted to either republics or constitutional monarchies.

In the modern world, there is the Papacy, which serves as the pars pro toto kingdom of God, with the Pope being the absolute monarch. But as for numbers 2 and 4, I disagree as the early church never based their succession on family members, and always held councils to vote on large decisions.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

You make incorrect assumptions:

1. The Trinity is pro-family. Monarchies are pro-family.

in fact, many monarchs are amoral and promiscuous.

1. There is a sense in which a monarchy is “above politics”. To be a good Catholic politics has to be totally subservient to the salvation of souls and Christian mission.

1. A monarch is not concerned with democratic support. As such, a monarch (who is a pious Catholic) is not distracted in his ministry to sanctify the world through his public offices after the reception of graces.

A constitutional monarch may be “above politics.” But such a constitutional monarch has no power to use government to promote Catholicism.

1. Christian theology is given not elected. In a democratic republic the principle of majority support decides the appointment of lawmakers. The consequence will be the loss of traction of Christian virtue in public life and social institutions.

If the voters are Christian, they will elect lawmakers compatible with their beliefs. If the public is not Christian, the government cannot convert them. Only the Church can.

 

[TK421]

The Kingdom of God is the very most pure absolutism, but that is between a perfect Creator and his perfect creation.

There are grave responsibilities attached (which mankind was not and is not fully prepared for) to a democratic republic system, but setting aside the world’s continued inability to master sin, I think some kind of democratic model is ultimately more in line with Christian thought than a monarchy. It’s an affirmation of the ontological value and inherit dignity belonging to each human being. That isn’t very well demonstrated with a clear-cut class system between commoners, nobility, and royalty.

It is true that the Papacy is not and will never be ruled by open democracy, but that is because what is popular is not always what is right, and because unlike civil governance, any Catholic believes that the Papacy is the one institution on earth whose appointment is divine, and not established by men. You can’t really translate its model to everyday civil government.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Historically, that was more or less the justification of absolute monarchy in Europe, starting from Emperor Constantine. But later on, as the power of the Crown waned, countries eventually converted to either republics or constitutional monarchies.

In the modern world, there is the Papacy, which serves as the pars pro toto kingdom of God, with the Pope being the absolute monarch. But as for numbers 2 and 4, I disagree as the early church never based their succession on family members, and always held councils to vote on large decisions.

Actually, this is a misrepresentation of the role of the Pope. The Pope is considered to be the prime minister or chief steward of the Kingdom of God. Christ is the true King following the line of David. Christ handed on the keys to Peter, signifying that Peter and his successors were to play the same role as Eliakim in the Kingdom of Israel

“I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on Eliakim’s shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut when he shuts, no one shall open. I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family.” ( Is 22:19)

 

[The_Walrus_1]

The Kingdom of God is the very most pure absolutism, but that is between a perfect Creator and his perfect creation.

There are grave responsibilities attached (which mankind was not and is not fully prepared for) to a democratic republic system, but setting aside the world’s continued inability to master sin, I think some kind of democratic model is ultimately more in line with Christian thought than a monarchy. It’s an affirmation of the ontological value and inherit dignity belonging to each human being. That isn’t very well demonstrated with a clear-cut class system between commoners, nobility, and royalty.

It is true that the Papacy is not and will never be ruled by open democracy, but that is because what is popular is not always what is right, and because unlike civil governance, any Catholic believes that the Papacy is the one institution on earth whose appointment is divine, and not established by men. You can’t really translate its model to everyday civil government.

Good response