God Save The Queen...err...or....wut!

[amarkich]

A Republic is a breakdown in the manifestation of external truths as far as government is concerned. A Kingship (which is not quite the same as a monarchy) is the ideal government, as is articulated by Saint Thomas Aquinas in [i]Of Kingship[/i]. A Republic often bases itself on the Social Contract which is condemned by the Church. For anyone who does not know, the Social Contract is an "Enlightenment" (I put the term in quotes because it is quite the contrary) idea proposed by several philosophers, most notably (and I believe, originally) by Jean-Jacques Rousseau who, by the way, is famous for saying: "Never exceed your rights, and they will soon become unlimited." I would go on forever about the disasterous Englightenment ideology, but I will stay on topic. As for the Social Contract, it is outlined fairly well (if you can call it well at all) in the Declaration of Indepedence which happens to be full of Enlightenment phrases (but even this Rationalist document refrains from using the "dignity of the human person" rhetoric, unlike some other prominent documents that we have received in recent times). As for the erroneous concept itself, the Social Contract states that the government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. In other words, the government receives the authority to make laws, to govern, to execute, etc, from the people of the country, the governed, not from God. This is untrue and denies the Almightiness of God. It is condemned by the Church, not to mention refuted by the Bible. It claims that there is no ultimate authority, that God does not grant authority to the civil authorities but rather that they have their authority only out of the fact that those whom they govern allow them to rule over them and to make laws and that all authority ultimately is vested in the people. Thus, if that is true, then the people have no obligation to obey legitimate authority (the Rationalists do not openly claim this, but it is to be inferred by their contradictory belief system regarding authority) and may practice civil disobedience (a concept advocated by other radicals such as Thoreau and even Martin Luther King, Jr.). This is contrary to the will of God as well as the explicit commands of Christ, Scripture as a whole, and the Church. In fact, the only civil authority that is not to be obeyed (barring that it command sin to be committed) is that of an apostate king. Saint Thomas Aquinas writes of this in [i]Of Kingship[/i], stating that it is the obligation of the governed to obey the civil authority even if he is a heretic. The only instance in which he should not be obeyed is when he is an apostate, leaving the True Church and forming a false one (this has been seen in England most notably). There is much to be said concerning the two systems (as well as other possible systems) but those which do not have a single, central authority from which all other authority is derived are faulty systems and incompatible with God's will. A king or a monarch are the most compatible with Catholic theology and Church teaching on government, a kingship being the best system. I would be glad to discuss more of the ideological and philosophical aspects of these systems as well as the practical concerns if anyone is interested in doing so. Does anyone have a philosophical defense for a Republic?

[Enda]

[quote name='amarkich' date='May 5 2004, 09:26 PM']A Republic is a breakdown in the manifestation of external truths as far as government is concerned. A Kingship (which is not quite the same as a monarchy) is the ideal government, as is articulated by Saint Thomas Aquinas in [i]Of Kingship[/i].[/quote]
Hmm, these two statements have me confused. What "external truths" are you talking about exactly, and where are they in Catholic doctrine? As for the difference between a monarchy and a kingship I was unaware one exsited. Please enlighten futher.

[quote]A Republic often bases itself on the Social Contract which is condemned by the Church. For anyone who does not know, the Social Contract is an "Enlightenment" (I put the term in quotes because it is quite the contrary) idea proposed by several philosophers, most notably (and I believe, originally) by Jean-Jacques Rousseau who, by the way, is famous for saying: "Never exceed your rights, and they will soon become unlimited."[/quote]
I'm not sure I see much of a problem with Rousseau's statement. Doesn't that actually value temperance?

[quote]As for the Social Contract, it is outlined fairly well (if you can call it well at all) in the Declaration of Indepedence which happens to be full of Enlightenment phrases (but even this Rationalist document refrains from using the "dignity of the human person" rhetoric, unlike some other prominent documents that we have received in recent times).[/quote]
I don't see what's wrong with talking about the "dignity of the human person" either. God has to love us for a reason ya know...

[quote]As for the erroneous concept itself, the Social Contract states that the government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. In other words, the government receives the authority to make laws, to govern, to execute, etc, from the people of the country, the governed, not from God. This is untrue and denies the Almightiness of God. It is condemned by the Church, not to mention refuted by the Bible. It claims that there is no ultimate authority, that God does not grant authority to the civil authorities but rather that they have their authority only out of the fact that those whom they govern allow them to rule over them and to make laws and that all authority ultimately is vested in the people.[/quote]
The Declartion of Independence metions God explictly three or four times in the first paragraph, the Constition says "all men are created equal", our national motto is "In God We Trust", and in the Pledge of Allgeince we say "One Nation/[b]Under God[/b](glares in defeiance at the 9th circut court of appeals). While not all of these were insitituted by the Founding Fathers it is still quite clear that they acknowledge God, and that the goverment's authority came from God. It's true that we need to trust God's law more, but a Republic or "the social contract", in essance is not anti-God, or anti-Christian. As a matter of fact, since minorites have rights it is imperative that they're be a higher power then the people, so to gaurentee the rights of all humanity.

[quote]In fact, the only civil authority that is not to be obeyed (barring that it command sin to be committed) is that of an apostate king. Saint Thomas Aquinas writes of this in [i]Of Kingship[/i], stating that it is the obligation of the governed to obey the civil authority even if he is a heretic. The only instance in which he should not be obeyed is when he is an apostate, leaving the True Church and forming a false one (this has been seen in England most notably).[/quote]
Are you saying the British governemtn right now has no authority what so ever because it's ruled by an apostate church? Seems ratehr ridiclous to me.

Keep in mind, Thomas Aquaius also denied the Immaculate Conception. Not everything he has to say is doctrine.

[quote]There is much to be said concerning the two systems (as well as other possible systems) but those which do not have a single, central authority from which all other authority is derived are faulty systems and incompatible with God's will. A king or a monarch are the most compatible with Catholic theology and Church teaching on government, a kingship being the best system.[/quote]
I vehemtly disagree. Is it not God's will that the people be protected and defended? Well of course, how could it not be? So how, then, is this best accomplished? By letting them vote on who their protectors should be, instead of being subjected to the will of some King or Monarch with absoulte power whom the people serve and grovel at the feet of.

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='May 5 2004, 05:21 PM'] 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 [/quote]
The Church "officially" as concerning the Pope in decrees and councils truly never was involved in the political process, but there were indeed Churchmen who spoke for the Church and misused their power for the sake of nationalism and politics and set very bad examples which were distorted even further by philosphers and revolutionaries beginning in the late 18th Century- this is what I was talking about.

The French Church specifically in Paris and the Versailles Court was especially corrupt before the Revolution, and the French reaction to their clergy and Cathedrals and Holy Shrines in Paris is all the evidence.

After visiting Paris, I have come to believe that there shouldn't be a national Church because there is too much room for corruption because people are way too flawed - unless the Pope himself was king and supreme head of state.

I can't agree that the majority of people would be good, but yes I would love to live in an ideal place like this. I truly believe a setting like this might have been possible before the Renaissance and the Ages of Enlightenment and Romanicism.

If this would be successful today it would literally have to be totally closed off.

Just to Note: The tiny nation-state of San Marino has been a "Catholic" Republic since 301 A.D. which makes it the World's oldest surviving Republic.

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='Enda' date='May 5 2004, 06:55 PM'] 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. [/quote]
Please elaborate - I've never heard of this before and this is interesting

I don't think it's kosher to diss ER2's FAITH in the UK; her extended family is wack, but I still think she is old school and still likes Jesus Anglican-style.

She "technically" has that power, like the President of the United States can "technically" devote all his time to outlawing abortion, when the topic rarely if ever comes up.

In reality her palace is a polished reliquary and she's the relic the Brits venerate on national holidays.

[PedroX]

It is true that a Pope had his predecessors remains exhumed to sit trial. One of them was an antipope, I believe. I will try to look it up.

Enda,

Have you studied modern British government? Do you seriously believe that the Queen has that power? No British monarch has dissolved parliament against its will in several hundred years. Additionally, please do not confuse the deism of the founding fathers with Christian ideals.

Republicanism seems to me to go against the natural order. Its kind of like the congregational model of churches, yes? What do you think?

peace...

[p0lar_bear]

[quote]46. The Church values the democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the participation of citizens in making political choices, guarantees to the governed the possibility both of electing and holding accountable those who govern them, and of replacing them through peaceful means when appropriate (Cf. Vatican II, [i]Gaudium et Spes[/i], no. 29; Pius XII, Christmas Radio Message on December 24, 1944: AAS 37 (1945), 10-20) Thus she cannot encourage the formation of narrow ruling groups which usurp the power of the State for individual interests or for ideological ends (Pope John Paul II, [i]Centesimus Annus[/i]).[/quote]

[ironmonk]

A Republic is what the Church has.

The Pope as the President... the Cardnials as the Senators.

SAME STRUCTURE.

Did you read ANYTHING I wrote?

The Church WOULD NOT be the government - the Church would approve of those that can run for government. There would be AMPLE information on those running.

They would have to be practical Catholics. If they where not, the people would know.

We are NOT writing about the dark ages... We are writing about NOW.

The Church was NOT has bad as you claim. There were areas of corruption, but NOT the Church. The Republic that I am writing of gives no direct power to the Church. If the Church had the power people would aspire to be Bishops for the wrong reasons... as it was in the dark ages. It ws the dark ages because people did not have information and uneducated.

This is the Age of Light.... information is everywhere, almost no one is kept in the dark... where there is a will, people will have access to the light (information).

God Bless,
ironmonk

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='May 6 2004, 09:42 AM'] A Republic is what the Church has.

The Pope as the President... the Cardnials as the Senators.

SAME STRUCTURE.

Did you read ANYTHING I wrote?

The Church WOULD NOT be the government - the Church would approve of those that can run for government. There would be AMPLE information on those running.

They would have to be practical Catholics. If they where not, the people would know.

We are NOT writing about the dark ages... We are writing about NOW.

The Church was NOT has bad as you claim. There were areas of corruption, but NOT the Church. The Republic that I am writing of gives no direct power to the Church. If the Church had the power people would aspire to be Bishops for the wrong reasons... as it was in the dark ages. It ws the dark ages because people did not have information and uneducated.

This is the Age of Light.... information is everywhere, almost no one is kept in the dark... where there is a will, people will have access to the light (information).

God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
I think the corruption of the "Church," as in the actions of individuals in the Church is arguable. The Church in it's principles and teachings was never corupt. Honestly I think this sounds good, but it is way too idealistic, and if it was attempted today the society and government would definitely be toppled unless there was something like a massive book burning campaign and re-education program. In time I'm sure it would probably evolve into something similar to an Islamic State. The Church isn't really a Republic because the Pope can't be toppled and he isn't elected by "humanity" and the Pope doesn't "technically" have to answer to anyone because he is the Supreme Pontiff. I'm Americanized so I like the Catholic Republic idea though.

[Deeds]

Ehh, I hate having a monarchy. Get rid of it, now!

The idea that a ruler should hold their position by mere virtue of their birth is absurd.

[Ellenita]

hehe.....Deeds....are you the MI5 spy? :ph34r:

You won't trap me into making negative comments about our dearly beloved Liz!!!!

[Crusader_4]

Perhaps...thats true. But i believe a monarch instills national pride. Its a symbol that one can relate to. Whether they be muslim, hindu, pagan, protestant, or Catholic. In Canada we need this. If we did not have one government figure to look up to as constant our multicultural society would topple us. In the states its not needed But if Canada is to advance and maintain as soon as it loses the monarchy it has lost its last real structure that defines the nation. Since Multiculturalism is a policy not an identity. I am not polish...hence why should i cebelbrate being a Pole...yet i have a queen whom i recognize much as the Pole will.

[Ellenita]

Why do you think that Canada would topple as a nation without the queen? The US is probably one of the most multicultural societies in the world isn't it and yet that multiculturalism and the lack of monarchy hasn't toppled the nation. The whole concept of nationality isn't built on having a monarch or arguably a president, since one perception of American national pride is that it is as strong in their flag as in their president....

.......it may be a little unfair of me to ask Elizabeth to pack up her (my!) castles and palaces at her age and emigrate to Canada, but you are more than welcome to have Charles.....in fact feel very free to take him before he succeeds to the throne, though I reserve the right to double check he hasn't packed (my!) crown jewels in his case before he goes!




[b]note[/b]: my taxes go towards the civil list which maintains the royal family and various hangers on...and their castles....and their jewels.....

Edited May 7, 2004 by Ellenita

[Crusader_4]

Well when ppl complain about how much the monarchy costs i laugh because in britain it was something ridicoulous last time i checked like 5- 25 cents per person. USA is different then Canada tho...it assimilate where as Canada tells people they do not nessacirly have to adapt or change their practices. Thus you virtually have mini countries within the nation with very little uniting them in some cases. Multiculturalism is Assimilation in the states not that one is better then the other they each have their own pros and cons.

[Katholish]

I am a changed man after reading St. Thomas Aquinas's [i]On Kingship[/i]. I almost think that it is impossible to form an intelligent position on the matter without hearing from him first. If you disagree with him, then you would need to directly refute his arguments. It is a fairly short work and I recommend it to everyone. I was won over to monarchy in the first 15 pages.

St. Thomas introduces a completely different worldview then what we pick up in today's secular society. I don't really think that we can be blamed for the most part for not understanding right away, we have been imbibing it since birth.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='amarkich' date='May 5 2004, 07:26 PM'] In other words, the government receives the authority to make laws, to govern, to execute, etc, from the people of the country, the governed, not from God. This is untrue and denies the Almightiness of God. It is condemned by the Church, not to mention refuted by the Bible. It claims that there is no ultimate authority, that God does not grant authority to the civil authorities but rather that they have their authority only out of the fact that those whom they govern allow them to rule over them and to make laws and that all authority ultimately is vested in the people. [/quote]
CCC #1901:

"If authority longs to the order established by God, 'the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens.'(GS 74 S 3).

"The divrsity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed."

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='Katholish' date='May 7 2004, 05:36 PM'] I am a changed man after reading St. Thomas Aquinas's [i]On Kingship[/i]. I almost think that it is impossible to form an intelligent position on the matter without hearing from him first. If you disagree with him, then you would need to directly refute his arguments. [/quote]
I don't feel the need to refute Aquinas, just quote John Paul II and the Council Fathers... (see my previous post)

[PedroX]

But Polar, please refute Aquinas! Just kidding, but it would be fun to see all those who think liberal republicanism is God's gift to us do so. I know that you don't, and I think your quotes are sufficient to prove that any government that does not violate moral (natural) law is OK. However, the next interesting question is "Since our modern, liberal republic passess laws that violate natural law, is it a just government?"

peace...

[p0lar_bear]

Hmm... Well, one would definitely have to say that those laws are unjust, but I'm not sure you could say that the government is unjust. I mean, what government hasn't passed an unjust law at some point or another? I don't think you could say as soon as a government passes an unjust law it automatically becomes invalid.

Did the French monarchy become invalid when they taxed their people into starvation? Did the British monarchy become invalid when their laws and activities lead to the Irish potato famine?

Besides, because we live in a democracy (of sorts), we, the people, have the power to make changes from within, without discarding everything.

Of course natural law trumps civil law, and civil laws that contradict natural law should not be followed. But that does nto invalidate all the civil laws of the state...the fact that the US government allows abortion doesn't mean we don't have to stop at red lights or that statutory rape laws don't apply anymore (both are based on civil, not natural law).

[Enda]

[quote name='PedroX' date='May 6 2004, 02:00 AM']Have you studied modern British government?  Do you seriously believe that the Queen has that power?  No British monarch has dissolved parliament against its will in several hundred years.[/quote]
No, but all British monarchs still have the power to do so.

[quote]Additionally, please do not confuse the deism of the founding fathers with Christian ideals.[/quote]
The argument was that a stable government must aknowledge a Surpreme Being, which the founding fathers did.

[quote]Republicanism seems to me to go against the natural order.  Its kind of like the congregational model of churches, yes?  What do you think?[/quote]
As long as the Consitiion prohibits violating the natrual law, how could it go against the natrual order?

[Pope Saint Pius V]

Just a few comments...first to say that the Church is a Republican model is not only wrong, but is absurd. The idea of the Church goes likes this. She models here on earth as closely as possible that which is in Heaven. So, theres a Heavenly Liturgy, there's also an Earthly Liturgy which strives to perfect itself to that Heavenly Liturgy. Moreover, in Heaven, it is a monarchy. God reigns supreme as Monarch and all of Heaven are His Subjects. Similarly, on Earth, all men are called to be subject of the Supreme Pontiff, who happens now to be Pope John Paul II. The "goverment" of the Church is monarchical, not in any way republican. Second of all, we must avoid the heretical notion that power is given by the people or that they are able to entrust authority and power. All power comes from above, not below. How shall the ruled give power to the ruler? By the very nature of their being ruled they cannot confer ruling power. St. Thomas is the model held up by the Church for philosophy and theology. The Council of Trent and many popes since then, including John Paul II have said the same. To not read Thomas and then quote John Paul II is foolish. How can you know what the Church means today if you don't look at it in light of her tradition. If John Paul II esteems Thomas the greatest of theologians, then why would we not look to Thomas On Kingship to see what the Holy Father must mean when he says things about government? Furthermore, Aristotle proves that Monarchy is the higest form of governemnt. True, they are all acceptable, but Monarchy is the higest form. The greatest minds in the Western Tradition have always held that, but now, since we've enshrined Milton, Rousseau and Jefferson as "saints" we change our minds.