Crusader_4 Posted May 5, 2004 Posted May 5, 2004 Whats your guys thoughts on this one i am a staunch monarchist for a number of reasons...and i am not just talking about the British Monarchy but rather the idea of one. Let's hear your thoughts on this matter first.
Hananiah Posted May 5, 2004 Posted May 5, 2004 The precise form which civil authority takes is relatively unimportant. What is more important is that it be subjected to the social reign of Christ the King and Mary His Immaculate Queen. Between a monarchy under the Kinship of Christ and a republic under the same, I suppose I would prefer the republic.
Crusader_4 Posted May 5, 2004 Author Posted May 5, 2004 My opinnon on this matter is its far easier to have a Monarch who believes in God then a republic. I.E. Elizabeth 2 is not Catholic but a very strong Christian in the same sense and when she speaks continually quotes the bible and other christian documents. For example in her Christmas address she said St. Ignatius' Prayer of Genoristy. Imagine if a president or even PM did this. I am not saying monarchy is the best but it is far easier for Christianity to flourish in my opinnon in a Monarch that supports it.
crusader1234 Posted May 5, 2004 Posted May 5, 2004 depends on the ruler. technically the pope is sort of our earthly king... jusr with papal succession instead of birthright
M.SIGGA Posted May 5, 2004 Posted May 5, 2004 I would like a dictatorship where the dictator is a close family member so I can get free tuition and new rims. Seriously, my kingdom is in heaven and this dump is finite so I really don't care, but I really like the Federal Republic I live in (YaY USA!) It would also be cool if the place had a nice beach.
ilovechrist Posted May 5, 2004 Posted May 5, 2004 [quote name='crusader1234' date='May 4 2004, 11:12 PM'] depends on the ruler. technically the pope is sort of our earthly king... jusr with papal succession instead of birthright [/quote] bingo. now, if Henry VIII were ruler today---NO!! but Liz seems to be doing ok.. it really depends on the person--i like the idea of a monarchy that has papal succession instead of birthright... that's not a bad idea... even though i kinda took it from your post crusader... and i'm writing a research paper right now.. YAY that is going to help me reach the word limit!
ilovechrist Posted May 5, 2004 Posted May 5, 2004 wait a sec.. that doesn't make sense.... the ruler of England succeeded by a Pope? hm.. gotta rethink this..
BeenaBobba Posted May 5, 2004 Posted May 5, 2004 It doesn't really matter to me, as long as the government is faithful to the natural moral law. A monarchial form of government can be a double-edged sword, I think. For example, I think it'd be [b]ideal[/b] to be under a faithful Catholic king or queen. On the other hand, however, monarchs have been oppressive at times, especially if their power goes unchecked. (Ex: Elizabeth I of England.) A drawback to this is the emphasis on birthright, a highly defined and perhaps even cemented class system, and what [i]could[/i] be a tendency towards snobbery. I'm not sure how I feel about complete autocracy. I think it depends on the situation. I study late Imperial Russia, and I have to say that autocracy was outdated in Russia at the time of the Revolution. It failed to serve the people. And whenever a form of government fails to serve the people, then I think that reform is needed. God bless, Jennifer
BeenaBobba Posted May 5, 2004 Posted May 5, 2004 Just for the record, the Communism that followed the fall of the Imperialist regime in Russia is not my idea of reform. In fact, I think it was far worse than the autocracy under the Russian Tsars. God bless, Jennifer
ironmonk Posted May 5, 2004 Posted May 5, 2004 Human kings have to much power. Power corrupts.... i.e. England - Henry, James, etc... A Republic of good Catholics, that are scrutized like Bishops and must know the faith and live the faith would be the best form of Government. If they get excommunicated, they loose their seat. Basically our current government, lead by real faithful Catholics would be ideal. Some of course will get corrupted, but when they fall from obeying what the Church says (i.e. abortion, adultery, etc...), then they loose their place in government. They are still voted on, but for them to run for a seat in government they would have to prove themselves through years of good Catholic work and service to the Church. God Bless, ironmonk
ilovechrist Posted May 5, 2004 Posted May 5, 2004 ironmonk, isn't that kinda what we have here at PhatMass? sure looks like it.. i didn't think James was too bad of a leader, aside from his homosexual views.. course i have my book for English History class right in front of me.. *goes off to do hw*
Ellenita Posted May 5, 2004 Posted May 5, 2004 James I was complicit in the murder of his Catholic mother in order that he could succeed to the throne of England....he doesn't get my vote as a good leader on that fact alone, and don't even get me started on what he did to Scotland! The problem is that all monarchies are fallible and ultimately open to corruption and since they have in the past had complete rule they have not needed to be answerable to anyone. As we know, in some cases they have rather arrogantly extended this 'not answerable to anyone' to include 'not answerable to God'....... I agree Elizabeth II appears to have a Christian faith and I believe that this has probably influenced the manner in which she has conducted her reign (MI5 please take note if you're listening in ) however Charles doesn't appear to have the same belief.....and of course none of the British monarchs can be Catholic. :angry: Am I arguing for a republic? It's difficult, since my country is very identified with the monarchy and I am rather fond of Liz, but Ironmonk's Republic does sound rather wonderful......
Crusader_4 Posted May 5, 2004 Author Posted May 5, 2004 What if... There was a monarch that was chosen by the council of Bishops in a given country?
ironmonk Posted May 5, 2004 Posted May 5, 2004 [quote name='Crusader_4' date='May 5 2004, 12:41 PM'] What if... There was a monarch that was chosen by the council of Bishops in a given country? [/quote] One man is not good. Even if chosen by the Bishops... One man is ruling, he could turn around and take the power of the Bishops away, fall from the Church and make his own church, then we're back to the whole problem. With a Republic, one or two can go bad and be replaced before they can take the power away from the Church. God Bless, ironmonk
M.SIGGA Posted May 5, 2004 Posted May 5, 2004 History has proven that when the Church has been involved in the political process, the following Revolutions turn really really ugly.
ironmonk Posted May 5, 2004 Posted May 5, 2004 [quote name='M.SIGGA' date='May 5 2004, 05:34 PM'] History has proven that when the Church has been involved in the political process, the following Revolutions turn really really ugly. [/quote] I disagree. The Church wasn't "involved" in the political process. There were kings that used the Church to get the people to follow them. It would work if the Church gave the OK for people to run for Senate. The ok would mean that the person running was a practical and loyal Catholic. With two senators from every state, giving us 100 senators total, all proven practical Catholics, and the laws would match Church teaching... if a senator tried to push a law that went against Church teaching that senator would be removed and replaced with another. It's the same concept of the Councils of the Church, yes, a few men will go bad, BUT the majority will be good. That would be the ideal government. God Bless, ironmonk
Enda Posted May 6, 2004 Posted May 6, 2004 [quote name='ironmonk' date='May 5 2004, 07:21 PM']I disagree.[/quote] Please study the Dark Ages. The Church was so corrupt politically one Pope even had a former Pope exumed from his grave and stand before a Church tribunal. While this makes for an excellent proof that the Holy Spirit gaurds the Church so that she will never fall, it doesn't make for a very good from of government, or very good Church leadership. It just makes the Church's sacred offices of priest, bishop, and Pope as nothing more than a means to political power. It also is much more charitable to refuse Holy Orders to any curroppt government offical. The more Sacaraments one has on his soul when he goes to Hell the worse his suffering is. Finally, it occupies Church officals in matters of politics, when they should be occupied in matters of faith and morals. My view is if Jesus wanted the Church officals to be a part in any sort of political institution He would have ruled the world Himself. I'm a bit fuzzy on what type of government you want ironmonk. Do you want a type of government where the natrual law is written in stone, or one where all the politicans have to follow the natrual as a code of conduct in their personal lives? Since the American Republic was founded on the natrual law, one could make an argument that we already have such a system, being that it's written in the Constittion, but in either case it could be added in there with admendments. If you wanted one that required polticans to follow the natrual law as a code of conduct, I don't see much of a point, aside from maybe the President (I really don't want to have to go through the shame that Bill Clinton and Monica Lewisky brought to the nation again anyway). To those of you who think an earthly monoarhcy will work, well yes, an absloute monoarch [i]would[/i] be the best leader, and as a matter of fact that's what Jesus is, but to expect a human person to be so perfect as to fullfill that requirement is not going to happen. I mean, there really hasn't been an age where absoulte monarchies have actually worked. Even way back in the day when monarchies were in their Golden Age in Europe they followed what's called "penal law", which was basicly tradition, handed down, kinda like a Constition actually, that was will of the people. It was when Kings and Queens started to ignore penal law that the people started to rebel against them and get more power, and we started to see things like Parliament and what not show up. So, in other words, when the people don't get the type of government they want, they just start revlotions and get the type of government they want anyway. So, just have a republic, where leaders are elected, that way people don’t have to die if those in power start to do something that really ticks the them off. Instead they can just vote them out of office; totally bloodless. History shows the people won't tolerate a government that's not by them, for them, and of them if the first place. Why not just give it to them and be done with it? As for Queen Elizabeth II, I've never heard she's much of a Christian, but even if says is she's not much of one in my opinion. She has the power to disolve the entire constition and just declare herself to be an absoulte monarch where she could outlaw abortion and all the other carp that affects the UK. Kinda reminds me of all of our "Catholic" polticans who say they "personally oppose abortion, but I condone it's legality". Keep in mind, our Congress begins every session with a prayer, does that make them religious? Of course not.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now