What form of govt. do you think is best?

[Aloysius]

well, it's an odd thing to say when there's a discussion about who should have the governing responsibility and power, if you don't think the pope should have the governing responsibility... then you obviously have to support some form of government other than the papacy to rule the secular world.

giving the pope veto power over the secular governing body doesn't answer the question of what the secular governing body ought to be.

you have now come out in favor of a monarchial system... with a sort of oligarchial college of electors to pick the monarch rather than a hereditary monarchy.

so in this discussion you're not a "dirty papist," you're a monarchist. :

[avemaria40]

I could never support a monarchy, power to the people in my opinion is the most Christian form of govn't

[Tindomiel]

Ideally, I would love to live in a Catholic monarchy or a society modelled on the "communist" ideals of the early Christians, as elaborated on by St. Thomas More in "Utopia." However, for either of these systems to be practical, I think you'd need a predominently [i]Catholic[/i] population, an assurance of a saintly king, like Louis IX, or a very small country. I think in today's world, a Democratic Republic like the US is one of the most workable governments, although our particular system could do with some minor alterations IMO.

[Myles Domini]

I dont understand why Americans have such a dread fear of Kings. Personally, I do not think St Thomas More's Utopia is anywhere close to the best form of government. Its completely unworkable and for that reason bears a very apt name.

I see no problem though with having a King act to defend the constitution and the nations interests whilst an elected government headed by a Prime Minister sets the executive agenda which is then passed through the legislative.

I love the aura of monarchy. The ceremony, the stability, the symbolism of a strong dynasty. Moreover, as I said, I'd prefer a head of state independent of party politics and the third estate. Someone who does not need to depend on pleasing their sponsors or their faction and thus can refuse to sign bills that do not work in anyone's interest but a select few.

I'm not stupid enough to think that every King will act so devotedly but on the whole I think before the end of the Stuart Monarchy the English Kings did ok with it. Yes from Henry VIII onwards we had some silly regnants but the Kings of England, even those who were notoriously warlike like Edward I Longshanks, did much to codify laws to protect the peasants from their local magnates and create a well oiled central administration.

Perhaps admittedly much of their policy was not altruistic but designed in part to prevent themselves from being undercut by nobility. Yet at the same time one cannot underestimate that they also were assured of this: God had annointed them King and they would be judged for their performance in that role, thus they truly desired to be remembered as great rulers and part of that job was defending the commonwealth of the nation. If they were all merely greedy tyrants they would not have spent long hours touring the nation hearing appeals from judicial decisions etc.

They might not have been saintly (and indeed in their desire to be remembered as great Kings persued policies which are objectively evil e.g. assination of enemies and unprovoked warring) but one cant say the European monarchs were simply self seeking meglomaniacs. Granted there were those who truly were stuck up themselves but they usually incurred the wrath of their aristocracy and were deposed for it. One must remember the Medieval system employed no standing armies until very, very late on (and then only in select Kingdoms e.g. France). Had the Kings not been doing something right I'm sure they would've been chucked out long previously.

As it is the collapse of the European monarchist system only began with the advent of Masonic politics and the political crisis' of World War.

Edited February 14, 2006 by Myles

[Tindomiel]

[quote name='Myles' date='Feb 14 2006, 10:43 AM']I dont understand why Americans have such a dread fear of Kings. Personally, I do not think St Thomas More's Utopia is anywhere close to the best form of government. Its completely unworkable and for that reason bears a very apt name.
[right][snapback]886986[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree that it's completely unworkable. I said that you'd need a very small country, a generally moral population and not to mention near-perfect leadersto put it into practice. A monarchy would be very nice, because good laws could be made without all the hassle they require in America, but there's always the threat of a bad king who could just as easily be able to undermine these good laws. And honestly, hasn't history seen [i]way[/i] more bad or just incompetent kings and queens than really good ones?

[avemaria40]

The people of America would never stand for a king

[Tindomiel]

Nah, the whole ideas of the American Revolution have been too engrained in most people.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 14 2006, 07:51 AM']
[snip]

so in this discussion you're not a "dirty papist," you're a monarchist.  :
[right][snapback]886941[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[b]OFF WITH HIS HEAD![/b]



Oops, sorry, getting carried away again.

I would of course support a monarchie, but only one that is directly dependant upon the papacy for its legitimacy, sucession and authority. That is not to say that the oppe appoints a ruler from the clergy, but that no ruler can be named without the pope's approval.

The king or queen would be acting in the name of the people but under the authority of the pope. Thus I maintain the I am a papist.

I would also support a democracy IF the prime misniter or whatever you want to call him or her would be so acting under the authority of the pope.

I did not say that the pope would not have the authority to govern, but he would not make decisions concerning the little, essentially inconsequential things like parking meters and whatever what not. However, he should be able to 'veto' anything.

In Canada forexample, Queen Liz still has, under law, a right to veto ANY law in Canada. She doesn't though... but technically the law remains there. I say, give that power to the pope! And let him exercise it as he chooses. he would exercise it, of course, under extremem circumstances, like for abortion (which I definately consider an extreme circumstance) or same-sex 'marriage'. Thus the ulitmate authority lies in the papacy, and thus I say again;

I'm a dirty little papist!
I'm a dirty little papist!
I'm a dirty little papist!
I'm a dirty little papist!
I'm a dirty little papist!
And very serious about it too!

Long live the papa! Long rule Benedict XVI!

[Didacus]

[quote name='avemaria40' date='Feb 14 2006, 09:01 AM']The people of America would never stand for a king
[right][snapback]887006[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I would...

and I am an american.



though american-Canadien... last I checked Canada was still on the continent of North America. How come you US citizens have taken hold of the term 'american' for yourselves? very selfish if you ask me. Just for that our chicks will beat your chicks at hockey! AGAIN!!!! ahahahahahahhahhahaahahaha (evil laugh evil laugh)

[jezic]

i am beginning to wonder when people came up with the idea that liberty and freedom were good things. (i mean they are,but the way Americans act today, i wonder if we would be better off with a few less freedoms)

What if we did things in reverse, what if there was a bad government that constantly tried to destroy the faith, but the Church was still present and strong and gave people what they needed to live.

(Not that i would support these overly much, they are just thoughts. I am becoming more disgusted everyday with the idea that the so called "advanced" soceities of Europe had the right idea when they did things.)

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Tindomiel' date='Feb 14 2006, 09:24 AM']Ideally, I would love to live in a Catholic monarchy or a society modelled on the "communist" ideals of the early Christians, as elaborated on by St. Thomas More in "Utopia." However, for either of these systems to be practical, I think you'd need a  predominently [i]Catholic[/i] population, an assurance of a saintly king, like Louis IX, or a very small country. I think in today's world, a Democratic Republic like the US is one of the most workable governments, although our particular system could do with some minor alterations IMO.
[right][snapback]886961[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
you do realise that in his description of Utopia, St. Thomas More is not necessarily ADVOCATING that form of government. Far from it, he is very weary of it.

That's why Raphael Hythloday was a contradcition in terms. On the one hand, Raphael-- God's messenger, he seemed to have some sort of insight into matters. On the other hand Hythloday--Peddler of Nonsense, the Utopian's world was nonsensical.

St. Thomas More presented it as the extreme end of some tools that were helpful to government... but it was not necessarily a good place for him. Utopia, though modern context has it meaning some amazingly good place, needn't mean a good place. It only means a place that cannot and does not exist.

The point of More's book was to argue against himself struggling between two extremes as a public official-- the extreme of the state helping the people leads to the horrors Hylthloday describes of the Utopian world, the extreme of not helping the people leads to the problems Raphael describes wherein the state merely breeds criminals and then punishes them, and all that proper critique of England at the time.

But yeah, St. Thomas Moooore would be against the actual implementation of a Utopian state-- especially in a Christian society (he sometimes justified some of their practices as them not knowing any better being a pagan society)

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 12 2006, 04:35 PM']I happen to favor a representative democracy.  I believe that it is the most liberating form of government in society today.
[right][snapback]884974[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Couldn't have said it better myself

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='jezic' date='Feb 14 2006, 11:46 AM']i am beginning to wonder when people came up with the idea that liberty and freedom were good things. (i mean they are,but the way Americans act today, i wonder if we would be better off with a few less freedoms)
[/quote]
Liberty and freedom are indeed good things, but they must be properly understood and lived. Freedom is not doing what you want when you want. Christian freedom is possesing the ability to choose the good free from constraints and coercion while living with responsibility for your actions. Anything else is false freedom.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='jezic' date='Feb 14 2006, 05:46 PM']i am beginning to wonder when people came up with the idea that liberty and freedom were good things. (i mean they are,but the way Americans act today, i wonder if we would be better off with a few less freedoms)

What if we did things in reverse, what if there was a bad government that constantly tried to destroy the faith, but the Church was still present and strong and gave people what they needed to live.

(Not that i would support these overly much, they are just thoughts. I am becoming more disgusted everyday with the idea that the so called "advanced" soceities of Europe had the right idea when they did things.)
[right][snapback]887165[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The masonic forces behind the European Revolutions formed today's ideas of 'liberty, equality and fraternity'. What did it culminate in? The reign of terror! Wow, great...

[philothea]

I probably just agree with Myles and should leave it at that, but I'll add some details anyway.

Catholic Monarchy, with a few necessities and a lot of other flexible options (depending on the form the economy takes).

The monarch picks his (or her) heirs who can be properly trained for the role. The succeding heir is examined by the Church for approval before being crowned. The monarch is responsible for classic large-scale executive duties. Most day-to-day governance is done by local governments, in whatever way suits them.

There is also a Senate, either elected by region, or of major landowners, or of nobility, who advise the monarch and can depose and replace him (pending Church approval) if needed.