What form of govt. do you think is best?

[avemaria40]

[quote name='Nathan' date='Feb 12 2006, 06:31 PM']Non-Catholic democracy -- non-Catholic as in, not governed by the Church or exclusively by Catholics. But firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics and values.

In a word, America.
[right][snapback]884972[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Me too. I believe that a non-Catholic Republican Democracy is the best form of govn't and the most Catholic(belief that people are basically good, free will, "Give to Caesar's what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's...) Obviously, I'm against abortion and can't support gay marriage, I'm anti euthanasia, anti death penalty, anti embryonic stemcell research, etc. and believe they interfere with the basic and most fundamental human right, that to live. I love my country and i think this is the best govn't. We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness(so long as that last one doesn't interfere with the first two) and all I can say is I'm proud of America and proud to be an American!

BTW, I'm a staunch Catholic and refer to Queen Elizabeth I as Queen Elizabeth I. Yes, she had many Catholics killed under her reign and it wasn't right for her to do it, but neither was it right for Queen Mary to kill Protestants.

"I'd rather live with men than kill them" Tiberius from "Kingdom of Heaven"

Edited February 13, 2006 by avemaria40

[Didacus]

Which option is a dirty papist like myself suppose to choose?

[KnightofChrist]

Where is the opition of a Catholic lead Republic Democracy? The United State is a Republic Democracy. I see nothing wrong with the Pope being able to run for president. I'd vote for him. And if the bishops formed "The Catholic party" and became the majority party in the house and senate, that be cool too. [color=red]But no King but Christ.[/color]

[Aloysius]

Monarchy, like alcohol, is both one of the greatest inventions of man and one of the worst.

I think the hereditary monarchy can be the best form of government because a ruler is raised from birth to be a good leader. Where it usually falls apart is when the rule of primogeniture causes only one son to be raised to be a leader and there arise circumstances that prevent him from being leader, then you have a king who was not prepared from birth and anything can happen.

In hereditary monarchy, the gauntlet the leader must undergo to become leader is one of education and raising. In democracy, the gauntlet they must undergo is to please the people.

I think the best way to acheive a Chestertonian "democracy of the dead", therefore, is to have a hereditary monarchy in which all the sons of the king are, from birth, schooled in the wisdom of those who came before us. The people can and should have their voice, they've always had it in the form of the mob and any land ownership or family status; but if needbe it can be in the form of a republican system. But the king's voice should be the governing force. The king can still respect and/or fear the people's voice; but he is the one who makes decisions.

That's the only type of government where the living-impaired citizens get a say in things, because they help to raise the leader through the literature they produced in their lives. And it's the only type of government where unpopular decisions can be made when they are necessary.

But of course, I would support such a system in a Catholic country, a secular country, a country with a chinese folk religion, a buddhist country, a muslim country, a protestant country, et cetera. It's a good system that keeps the government learning from its traditions and its past. Of course the optimal religion for a society to have is Catholocism, but that's another question entirely.

[Church Punk]

Non- Catholic Dictatorship and totalitarianism.


























Just KIDDING!

[Didacus]

the papacy!!!


nothing but the papacy!!!


SFD!!! (sorry)

[b]
[i][color=red]The papacy the papacy the papacy!!! [/color][/i][/b]

I tend to get carried away.... dirty papists do that sometimes.




back to you Bob

Edited February 13, 2006 by Didacus

[Aloysius]

A true papist doesn't believe the papacy should govern the world. A true papist would listen to the quotes of the popes that say there should exist another governing body. No matter what age, whether they were supporting the monarchy of Charlamagne or the democratic ideals of the modern western world, no pope has never attempted nor wanted to attempt to govern the whole world. He has held the traditional title of king over the whole world, and rightly so, but he does not nor should he ever hold the governing responsibilities of the world.

Now, if you are, in some interesting way, supporting a system where all the rules that are applied to the election and reign of a pope are applied to the governing officials... that is very compelling indeed. I suppose the ruler (shall we call him the 'pope' of the country? hmm... perhaps he could take on some sort of father-like role... but in the secular realm of governing I'd still feel more comfortable if he were called a king) would name a college of cardinals who would have to elect his successor. The ruler would be required to be celibate so he could completely devote himself to governing the country... and every non-religious aspect of the papacy would be applied to him in relation to that country rather than the Church.

If that's a system you're advocating, I'm very much interested in it. However, it would be a form of monarchial rule with a bit of an oligarchial college of electors of the monarch.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='avemaria40' date='Feb 13 2006, 01:19 PM']Me too.  I believe that a non-Catholic Republican Democracy is the best form of govn't and the most Catholic(belief that people are basically good, free will, "Give to Caesar's what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's...) Obviously, I'm against abortion and can't support gay marriage, I'm anti euthanasia, anti death penalty, anti embryonic stemcell research, etc. and believe they interfere with the basic and most fundamental human right, that to live.  I love my country and i think this is the best govn't.  We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness(so long as that last one doesn't interfere with the first two) and all I can say is I'm proud of America and proud to be an American!

BTW, I'm a staunch Catholic and refer to Queen Elizabeth I as Queen Elizabeth I.  Yes, she had many Catholics killed under her reign and it wasn't right for her to do it, but neither was it right for Queen Mary to kill Protestants. 

"I'd rather live with men than kill them" Tiberius from "Kingdom of Heaven"
[right][snapback]885642[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I must say on the whole the Tudor's were a pathetic bunch. There was precious good about any of them apart from Henry VII who was a wonderful administrator. Some people like to call him a miser but Henry's system of financial exactions made the crown strong again after the disasterous Wars of the Roses which had left the nobles able to dictate to the King. When Henry VII took the throne the country was unstable and the prestiage and power of the English throne had fallen. Henry's genius in perfecting the models of government utilised by the Yorkists and regaining crown lands through acts of resumption left the crown able to live off of its own and if not for Henry VIII's madness which caused his dependance upon Parliament the crown would've grown in power over the 16th century. Plus I love the way he managed to extract an annual pension out of the French for not invading France. There was no way we could've won and the fact that Henry VII convinced them that we would be nuisance enough to get cash out of them was pure class. Moreover, he had the insight to land a marriage alliance with the new Spanish Kingdom as its star began to rise over Europe. He was a political genius. Not only that but there is no evidence that Henry VII was ever unfaithful to his wife.

His children and grandchildren were all idiots and the only descendant of his that I have any compassion for is Mary I. Being made the lady in waiting to your Father's new 'Queen' and your sister whilst being banned from seeing your Mother even as she died of cancer is sad. Mary had been a princess and the next day she was an illigitimate court lady whose father had no time for her and whose heart was broken that she could not see her Mum. She did what she could and she had able ministers in Cardinal Pole who was the first to institute a seminary system in this country a recommendation the Tridentine Council would later make canonical. But she mad some idiotic descisions just like her siblings--though the evidence suggests that Edward VI was a child prodigy and would've turned out to be something of a cross between his Grandpa and Father for he had a warrior like nature. No doubt he would've become the Protestant lion of the north for he was one zealous calvinist.

On the whole though the Tudors are a let down. Besides Henry VII they all particularly the idiot Henry VIII were completley reliant upon their ministers. None of them had the intelligence or shrewdness to fill the shoes of Henry VII most of the reforms completed under Dizzy Lizzy were started by Northumberland under Edward VI and completed by his staff e.g. Winchester under the reign of Edward's sisters. Moreover, where Elizabeth is concerned one cannot overestimate the contribution of the Cecil's and their men of business in the Parliament.

On the subject of killing heretics. I think its grossly unfair to place a 21st century notion of tolerance onto the 16th century. After all there was a revolt during Mary's reign on the part of the Protestants to place her sister on the throne, though Elizabeth denied her involvement and Mary didnt have the heart to kill her own blood. In those days religious pluarlism was unimaginable. To quote the old French dictum 'un roi, un loire, un foi' there was no diversity. Diversity meant divsion and division meant war as we see in both 16th century France, Spain, Belgium, Holland, Germany and Poland. What people seem to forget about the Middle Ages and the early modern period is that the heretics came with ARMIES. In 1566 the zealous and iconoclastic Calvinists of Antwerp sacked 400 churches in one day!! Heresy=civil unrest and civil unrest was accordingly punished. Tolerance at that time was a recipe for war the Augsburg agreement of 1555 certainly didnt stop the religious wars of the 17th century did it? Politically, one cannot blame the monarch's of Europe for their ruthlessness in dealing with people who did not share their faith.

PS) No a true Papist is not a theocrat
PPS) The best form of government is a limited monarchy--with a Catholic King (women to succeed only the absence of male heirs who must undergo military training)

Edited February 13, 2006 by Myles

[Resurrexi]

[QUOTE]the papacy!!!


nothing but the papacy!!!


SFD!!! (sorry)


The papacy the papacy the papacy!!! [/QUOTE]

That's cool. IMO, the Papal States were osm!

[QUOTE]The people can and should have their voice, they've always had it in the form of the mob and any land ownership or family status; but if needbe it can be in the form of a republican system. But the king's voice should be the governing force. The king can still respect and/or fear the people's voice; but he is the one who makes decisions.[/QUOTE]

that's right.

[QUOTE]PS) No a true Papist is not a theocrat[/QUOTE]

that's untrue.

[QUOTE]PPS) The best form of government is a limited monarchy--with a Catholic King (women to succeed only the absence of male heirs who must undergo military training)[/QUOTE]

I agree with everthing except the word "limited."

[QUOTE]A true papist doesn't believe the papacy should govern the world. A true papist would listen to the quotes of the popes that say there should exist another governing body.[/QUOTE]

one of the crowns on the Papal Tiara represents secular power.

[QUOTE]Where is the opition of a Catholic lead Republic Democracy? The United State is a Republic Democracy. I see nothing wrong with the Pope being able to run for president. I'd vote for him. And if the bishops formed "The Catholic party" and became the majority party in the house and senate, that be cool too. But no King but Christ.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but I think democracy is messed up. And the "No King but Christ" is so untrue. Ever heard of St. Louis IX, St. Edward the Confessor, St. Ferdinand (no not Isabella's husband), St. Olaf, St. Wenceslaus? Were they evil because they were great kings? NO!

[QUOTE]Which option is a dirty papist like myself suppose to choose?[/QUOTE]

Catholic Theocracy.

[QUOTE]Me too. I believe that a non-Catholic Republican Democracy is the best form of govn't and the most Catholic[/QUOTE]

haha! democracy is in no way Catholic unless its offoical religion is Catholicism and its regnant(s) are all Catholic.

[QUOTE]Obviously, I'm against abortion and can't support gay marriage, I'm anti euthanasia, [b]anti death penalty[/b], anti embryonic stemcell research, etc. [/QUOTE]

The death penalty was supported for hundreds of years by the Church and is a good and valid pracitce. I would say murders, sodomites, and heretics all deserve the death penalty, as it was in centuries past. Just because the [i]personal opinion[/i] of the Late Holy Father was against the death penalty, it does not mean that it is not a good practice.

[QUOTE]and believe they interfere with the basic and most fundamental human right, that to live. I love my country and i think this is the best govn't[/QUOTE]

our govt. is horrid.

[QUOTE]and all I can say is I'm proud of America and proud to be an American![/QUOTE]

I, too, am patriotic of my country, but not of my government.

[QUOTE]BTW, I'm a staunch Catholic and refer to Queen Elizabeth I as Queen Elizabeth I.[/QUOTE]

Bloody Lizzie was by no means a queen. The rightful queen of England was Mary Queen of Scots. As proof, let me give you a direct quote from the Bishop of Rome.

[QUOTE]POPE PIUS V'S BULL AGAINST ELIZABETH (1570)




Pius Bishop, servant of the servants of God, in lasting memory of the matter.

He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and earth, has committed one holy Catholic and apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely to Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter's successor, the pope of Rome, to be by him governed in fullness of power. Him alone He has made ruler over all peoples and kingdoms, to pull up, destroy, scatter, disperse, plant and build, so that he may preserve His faithful people (knit together with the girdle of charity) in the unity of the Spirit and present them safe and spotless to their Saviour.

1. In obedience to which duty, we (who by God's goodness are called to the aforesaid government of the Church) spare no pains and labour with all our might that unity and the Catholic religion (which their Author, for the trial of His children's faith and our correction, has suffered to be afflicted with such great troubles) may be preserved entire. But the number of the ungodly has so much grown in power that there is no place left in the world which they have not tried to corrupt with their most wicked doctrines; and among others, Elizabeth, the pretended queen of England and the servant of crime, has assisted in this, with whom as in a sanctuary the most pernicious of all have found refuge. This very woman, having seized the crown and monstrously usurped the place of supreme head of the Church in all England to gether with the chief authority and jurisdiction belonging to it, has once again reduced this same kingdom- which had already been restored to the Catholic faith and to good fruits- to a miserable ruin.

2. Prohibiting with a strong hand the use of the true religion, which after its earlier overthrow by Henry VIII (a deserter therefrom) Mary, the lawful queen of famous memory, had with the help of this See restored, she has followed and embraced the errors of the heretics. She has removed the royal Council, composed of the nobility of England, and has filled it with obscure men, being heretics; oppressed the followers of the Catholic faith; instituted false preachers and ministers of impiety; abolished the sacrifice of the mass, prayers, fasts, choice of meats, celibacy, and Catholic ceremonies; and has ordered that books of manifestly heretical content be propounded to the whole realm and that impious rites and institutions after the rule of Calvin, entertained and observed by herself, be also observed by her subjects. She has dared to eject bishops, rectors of churches and other Catholic priests from their churches and benefices, to bestow these and other things ecclesiastical upon heretics, and to determine spiritual causes; has forbidden the prelates, clergy and people to acknowledge the Church of Rome or obey its precepts and canonical sanctions; has forced most of them to come to terms with her wicked laws, to abjure the authority and obedience of the pope of Rome, and to accept her, on oath, as their only lady in matters temporal and spiritual; has imposed penalties and punishments on those who would not agree to this and has exacted then of those who perserved in the unity of the faith and the aforesaid obedience; has thrown the Catholic prelates and parsons into prison where many, worn out by long languishing and sorrow, have miserably ended their lives. All these matter and manifest and notorius among all the nations; they are so well proven by the weighty witness of many men that there remains no place for excuse, defence or evasion.

3. We, seeing impieties and crimes multiplied one upon another the persecution of the faithful and afflictions of religion daily growing more severe under the guidance and by the activity of the said Elizabeth -and recognising that her mind is so fixed and set that she has not only despised the pious prayers and admonitions with which Catholic princes have tried to cure and convert her but has not even permitted the nuncios sent to her in this matter by this See to cross into England, are compelled by necessity to take up against her the weapons of juctice, though we cannot forbear to regret that we should be forced to turn, upon one whose ancestors have so well deserved of the Christian community. Therefore, resting upon the authority of Him whose pleasure it was to place us (though unequal to such a burden) upon this supreme justice-seat, we do out of the fullness of our apostolic power declare the foresaid Elizabeth to be a heretic and favourer of heretics, and her adherents in the matters aforesaid to have incurred the sentence of excommunication and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ.

4. And moreover (we declare) her to be deprived of her pretended title to the aforesaid crown and of all lordship, dignity and privilege whatsoever.

5. And also (declare) the nobles, subjects and people of the said realm and all others who have in any way sworn oaths to her, to be forever absolved from such an oath and from any duty arising from lordshop. fealty and obedience; and we do, by authority of these presents , so absolve them and so deprive the same Elizabeth of her pretended title to the crown and all other the abovesaid matters. We charge and command all and singular the nobles, subjects, peoples and others afore said that they do not dare obey her orders, mandates and laws. Those who shall act to the contrary we include in the like sentence of excommunication.

6. Because in truth it may prove too difficult to take these presents wheresoever it shall be necessary, we will that copies made under the hand of a notary public and sealed with the seal of a prelate of the Church or of his court shall have such force and trust in and out of judicial proceedings, in all places among the nations, as these presents would themselves have if they were exhibted or shown.

Given at St. Peter's at Rome, on 27 April 1570 of the Incarnation; in the fifth year of our pontificate.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Yes, she had many Catholics killed under her reign and it wasn't right for her to do it, but neither was it right for Queen Mary to kill Protestants. [/QUOTE]

Her Majesty Mary I Queen of England did have the right to kill protestants. Heresy was considered an offense against the Crown.

[QUOTE]I must say on the whole the Tudor's were a pathetic bunch.[/QUOTE]

Not really, if you count being a Tudor by marrige, Her Majesty Catherine of Aragon Queen of England was a great and pious queen and a great Tudor. Oh, and Queen Catherine's daughter, Her Majesty Mary I Queen of England was also a great and pious queen who was the best monarch of the time.

[QUOTE]There was precious good about any of them apart from Henry VII who was a wonderful administrator. [/QUOTE]

Henry VII also was a great Tudor and a great King. But you are forgetting some other great Tudors: Mary (not queen) Tudor, HM Mary I Queen of England, HM Catherine of Aragon Queen of Enlgand, HM Elizabeth of York Queen of England, HRH Arthur Prince of Wales, and I could go on.

[QUOTE]Plus I love the way he managed to extract an annual pension out of the French for not invading France.[/QUOTE]

lol. That's funny.

[QUOTE]There was no way [b]we [/b]could've won and the fact that Henry VII convinced them that we would be nuisance enough to get cash out of them was pure class. [/QUOTE]

excuse me, but some of us (e. g. me) are decended from the French, not English.

[QUOTE]he had the insight to land a marriage alliance with the new Spanish Kingdom as its star began to rise over Europe.[/QUOTE]

Very true (I presume you are speaking of HM Catherine of Aragon Queen of England?)

[QUOTE]Not only that but there is no evidence that Henry VII was ever unfaithful to his wife.[/QUOTE]

that's cool.

[QUOTE]His children and grandchildren were all idiots and the only descendant of his that I have any compassion for is Mary I.[/QUOTE]

It sounds like you are calling HM Mary I Queen of England an idiot. Well, she was actually very smart.

[QUOTE]Being made the lady in waiting to your Father's new 'Queen' and your sister whilst being banned from seeing your Mother even as she died of cancer is sad. Mary had been a princess and the next day she was an illigitimate court lady whose father had no time for her and whose heart was broken that she could not see her Mum.[/QUOTE]

He life is so sad, I know.

[QUOTE]She did what she could and she had able ministers in Cardinal Pole who was the first to institute a seminary system in this country a recommendation the Tridentine Council would later make canonical.[/QUOTE]

Cardinal Pole was really osm. I <3 the Council of Trent.

[QUOTE] But she mad some idiotic descisions just like her siblings--[/QUOTE]

like what?

[QUOTE]On the whole though the Tudors are a let down.[/QUOTE]

Henry VII and Mary I, half of the Tudor monarchs (Jane Grey and Bloody LIzzie were not true monarchs) were wonderful!

[QUOTE]On the subject of killing heretics. I think its grossly unfair to place a 21st century notion of tolerance onto the 16th century. After all there was a revolt during Mary's reign on the part of the Protestants to place her sister on the throne, though Elizabeth denied her involvement and Mary didnt have the heart to kill her own blood. In those days religious pluarlism was unimaginable.[/QUOTE]

Very true.

[QUOTE]one cannot blame the monarch's of Europe for their ruthlessness in dealing with people who did not share their faith. [/QUOTE]

and one should not blame them, for they were doing good.

[Aloysius]

like I said, it is correct to say that the Pope is king over the whole world. The nuance is that the governing responsibilities of all states should not be upon him. The pope has never even wanted those governing responsibilites.

Yes, the pope has secular power. No, he shouldn't be ruling over all Catholic countries. Some papal states... sure that'd be fine. But the papacy has always acknolwedged the need for another body to govern the secular world overall.

[Myles Domini]

One thing 'Thomas'. Since you're 12 don't try to correct me when I tell you about the history of my country. I studied that period for two years and got 100% for 5 out of 6 papers the later was still an A grade and now I'm studying at Oxford University.

I stand by my judgement of the Tudors. I see nothing remarkable about Arthur at all. The lady Elizabeth was a good woman but a quiet one which makes little interesting history. The lady Margaret Beaufort was a much brighter star in terms of biography. As for Catherine of Aragon she was a good woman and she was wronged, she loved her husband and she was willing to put up with his infidelity, she held the throne for him whilst he was campaigning in France and under her government the Scottish King was killed his head sent to Henry VIII as a present. On those fronts she did good. However, when it came to make the sacrifice she refused.

The Cardinal legates asked Catherine to enter a nunnery (where she would've lived in luxury as an abbess). Had she done so her marriage would've been automatically annuled and the dark forces surrounded Henry VIII at court e.g. Cranmer and Cromwell would not have gained the upper hand. Yet she refused. Naturally, she had every right to. But given that Henry VIII had stopped sleeping with her years before and was openly having his way with the Boleyn sisters (yes he had kids by both of them) she could've done it. She would not have wasted away in a grotty castle, Mary still would've been legitimate heir, and England would not have become schismatic. The options were laid out for her and she refused because she could not bear loosing her silly crown and status. The Church lost England because Catherine could not bear to loose her title.

As for Mary as well prepared intellectually as she and all of Henry's children were they certainly weren't wise. Socrates realised that for knowledge does not equate to wisdom and I would suggest you heed his words dear friend. Excellently prepared as they were intellectually, the 3rd generation Tudors were capricious partial to their whims and easily swayed. This is shown in the fact that Cecil lost control over the 1595 Parliament when the lower house complained about the shameless monopolies Elizabeth had been coating her favourites with. The Tudors were on the whole exceptionally lucky they had such a wonderful group of beaurecrats under them because apart from Henry VII not one had a talent for governing.

The biggest error Mary made was marrying Philip II. Philip didnt love her, he didn't want her, and when he left the country never returned again. It was stupid of her to marry Philip. She should've married one of the English nobility to secure nationalist support and one of the English nobility who would give her a Catholic heir. When Mary married she allowed her political sense to be clouded by her fantasied image of Spain, which I suppose was natural given that Charles V (Carlos I) had been the rock upon which she'd leant in the absence of her Mama.

But once again like Catherine, her Mum, she sacrificed the good of the Church for her capricious whims. She should've got a good young English husband--preferably a weak one so she could dominate him--one virile enough to give her a baby to be trained by a good Catholic tutor and all would've been well. As it was anti-Spanish feeling led to a pro-Protestant revolt against her, Philip never gave her a baby and dragged us into a war with France during which we lost Calais our last outpost on the continent: HUGE blow to English national pride. Catholicism became associated with foreigness, Romishness, popery and patriotism because associated with Protestantism thanks to her unpopular foreign policy and her failure to stop the Protestant propaganda wheel or encourage the reborn Catholic Church to write tracts answering their charges.

I'm sorry I cant think how you can maintain the Tudors were good rulers. Henry VII was the best and only Tudor of any quality. Catherine of Aragon proved an able leader in Henry VIII's absence but she was not of his blood and she proved overly proud when we needed her humility most. The rest, bah...bring back the Plataganets!

Edited February 13, 2006 by Myles

[Resurrexi]

[quote]One thing 'Thomas'. Since you're 12 don't try to correct me when I tell you about the history of my country.[/quote]

This is an internet forum. Besides for my word, you have no proof that I am 12.

[quote]I see nothing remarkable about Arthur at all.[/quote]

he was a good person

[quote]The Cardinal legates asked Catherine to enter a nunnery (where she would've lived in luxury as an abbess). Had she done so her marriage would've been automatically annuled and the dark forces surrounded Henry VIII at court e.g. Cranmer and Cromwell would not have gained the upper hand. Yet she refused. Naturally, she had every right to. But given that Henry VIII had stopped sleeping with her years before and was openly having his way with the Boleyn sisters (yes he had kids by both of them) she could've done it. She would not have wasted away in a grotty castle, Mary still would've been legitimate heir, and England would not have become schismatic. The options were laid out for her and she refused because she could not bear loosing her silly crown and status. The Church lost England because Catherine could not bear to loose her title. [/quote]

you don't understand. SHE LOVED HENRY! SHE LOVED HIM SO MUCH! in her last letter to him she wrote "Mine eyes desire thee only. Farewell."

Dont say "Mary still would have been legitimate heir." She would have, but Henry would have, and did, produce a male heir. Catherine was trying to protect her daughter.

I cant believe you would tell a queen, who loved her husband, to go become a nun! That was not her vocation, or her desire!

Titles are not silly and niether is a crown!

I cant believe you are blaming such a pious person for making England go into schism.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 13 2006, 11:10 PM']This is an internet forum. Besides for my word, you have no proof that I am 12.
he was a good person
you don't understand. SHE LOVED HENRY! SHE LOVED HIM SO MUCH! in her last letter to him she wrote "Mine eyes desire thee only. Farewell."

Dont say "Mary still would have been legitimate heir." She would have, but Henry would have, and did, produce a male heir. Catherine was trying to protect her daughter.

I cant believe you would tell a queen, who loved her husband, to go become a nun! That was not her vocation, or her desire!

Titles are not silly and niether is a crown!

I cant believe you are blaming such a pious person for making England go into schism.
[right][snapback]886347[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

She loved him and...? He was not living as her husband anyway. She could've loved him from a convent. Heloise did that for Aberlard as the letter to her from Abbot Peter of Cluny proves.

Again you're talking without being fully aware of all the facts. Mary's legitimacy was declared null and void by an act of Parliament and then shortly before his death Henry restored her which cast doubt upon the succession upon Edward's death. Northumberland almost snatched control of the country with Jane Grey in tow thanks to Henry VIII casting doubt on the lawfulness of Mary's claim (enchanced in no small part by Edward VI's toying with the succession too). But even then nobody knew whether Mary and Lizzy should be in line or not.

Had Catherine simply gone to a convent that wouldn't have happened. Catherine was not trying to protect her daughter because Henry VIII spelt out clearly what would happen and Catherine refused to budge leading to Parliament declaring her marriage and its fruits illigitimate.

Moreover, why shouldn't I tell a Queen to go become a nun? Even Charles V the Holy Roman Emperor retired from politics to a monastery. Moreover, how do you know it was not her vocation? Its not unheard of that God calls people to do many things in their lives e.g. St Gregory of Nanzianzen who clearly did not want to be a Bishop but a monk and yet was dragged out of seclusion constantly against his will for the good of all. As it was Providence had St Gregory in the see of Constantinople at the time of the Second Ecumenical Council and his clear teaching on the Holy Spirit helped defeat err's. What if he would've turned around and said 'no, its not my vocation I am a monk'? I'm not saying Queen Catherine's choice was easy just that she made the wrong one.

Edited February 14, 2006 by Myles

[avemaria40]

If Mary hadn't killed all those Protestants, they might have come back to the Church, or at least wouldn't have come to kill Catholics later on. But seeing members of their own faith burned at the stake, they had decided that martyrdom was glorious and they hated the Church.

I'd rather live with a govn't that lets people choose what they believe and gives them freedom, than one where i have nothing, am considered man's property, and where i have to worry about losing my head or being turned into ashes. Popular sovereignty rules! By the people, for the people:)

Not to say I don't want abortion or anything else that unnecessarily takes life illegal, because I do. We all deserve the right to live, the right to dignity, and the right to mercy.

Edited February 14, 2006 by avemaria40

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Feb 12 2006, 11:44 PM']Parliamentary Democracy, with a Catholic Monarch.
[/quote]

Two out of three ain't bad