What form of govt. do you think is best?

[Resurrexi]

[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...  [/quote]

liberty, equality, and fraternity were written all over the walls of a crappy pub in Calais in the book [i]The Scarlet Pimpernel[/i] which is about France and Enlgand during the Reign of Terror.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

You have to look at history. When was the Catholic Church at its height? When was Christendom at its strongest? It was the age of Catholic monarchies. The collapse of the Church's temporal power coincides with the collapse of monarchy and the rise of "democracy" (really republicanism).

The unparalled wonderful-ness of democracy is one of the biggest American shibboleths, with this stuff we are pumped full of from birth about the great, herioc, morally impeccable, semi-godlike "Founding Fathers" on their marble pedestals defeating oppressive "Mad King George" and the evil Parliament, "no taxation without representation, "I regret I have but one life...", cherry trees and whites of their eyes, the Liberty Tree!, "for the People, of the People, by the People, with the People, on the People" blah blah blah blah. Well, remember that most of those founding fathers were the aristocrats of the colonies, anyway; they weren't these scrappy underdogs fighting against tyranny. Most of them were big Enlightenment secularists or, at best, Unitarian and Congregationist type Protestants. Very few could possibly be considered friends of the Church. And besides all that "liberty and freedom" propaganda from these utterly unoppressed slaveholders, the biggest thing they could find to rouse the colonists (1/3 of them anyway) was raised taxes! Read the American history books and you'd think the stamp tax along was sending everyone into destitution! Nowadays, in our oh-so-Enlightened republic, we pay far more taxes than Parliament in the 18th century could have ever dreamed of, and part of the reason is that our government can always soothe us as it picks our pockets and nannies us to death by claiming that a single vote between to lousy candidates is a "voice". The Voice of the People! Which has given us "the best government ever to arise since the dawn of history", the same government that supported race-based chattel slavery as "democratically decided" and now supports foeticide as "democratically decided".

This "Great Democracy" myth is, of course, connected to the myth of the Medieval period as a hellish, dystopic gulf between the glorios pagan Roman Empire and the glorius secularist Renaissance and Enlightenment. Don't you that, according to the party-line view of history, the periods when the Catholic Church was most persecuted are times of learning, progress and sophistication and the period when it was at it's height was "the Dark Ages"? This is because history is written by the winners and, for the past 500 years, the winners have either been Protestants or secularists, who've had vested interest in disparaging the Catholic past and portraying their own personal Utopian projects as shining cities on a hill, breaking the shackles of the oppressive Dark Ages and marching onward and upward to the glorious, glittering future. Not only is it half-truth at best, but it engenders an un-Catholic mentality that prefers novelty and socially engineered "progress" to tradition, constancy, and an organic view of society.

Now, don't get me wrong, I do believe Catholic republics can be perfectly viable things and history shows us this with entities like Switzerland and the Italian city-states of Florence and Sienna. This would probably be the best choice for the U.S.A. in which republicanism now such an integral part of the heritage (so there's no need for apocalyptic Americanophilic ejaculations like "AMERICA'S a DEMOCRACY!!! We don't want some KING!!! LIBERTY LIBERTY LIBERTY!!!"). Nonetheless would it really be so bad if the U.S., like Canada or Australia, was part of the queen's Commonwealth?

In any case, whatever government you take should be Catholic. Non-Catholic governments tend to go awry, at least those not deeply rooted in a heritage and tradition of their own that tends to check their power with custom. However, manmade engineered governments are the worst and grow directly out the modernist Enlightenment-type idea that man can create a society not rooted in any greater truth than his own philosophy. In the Cromwell's Commonwealth, France's First Republic, the Italian unification, and the Russian Revolution we can see that such movements often have a strain of anti-Catholic and/or anti-religious sentiment at their core. Counterrevolutions are almost invariably more sympathetic to Catholicism. Also notice that these modern governmental seem to have a far greater drive to increase their own size and power than traditional Catholic governments. To discover this, one only has to compare the size and power of current governments to past ones. Our federal republican goverments (or monarchical governments in which the monarch has little to no political power) have between enormous centralized bureaucracies that seem to feel entitled to regulate and micromanage the populace in whatever way they wish, including the American goverment, in spite of all the safeguards the founding fathers put in place to try to prevent this. And many powerful individuals feel that this still isn't enough, "enlightened, progressive" folks in positions of great power who are actively working to inaugurate one-world globalism through even larger, more centralized entities like the UN and EU. Is that democracy? Is the UN a democratic protector of liberty and freedom? And yet this is the sort of mentality a blind love of a fictitious ideal called "democracy", unrooted in any kind of larger truth, often tends to generate.

Sorry for this verbose and sometimes snide post, especially since I'm such a newbie, but this is one subject I do feel very strongly about. I just get upset at how so many orthodox, devout Catholics seem so ambivalent about the civilizational patrimony of Christendom, when their own Church was at the hieght of its power and prestige on Earth, in favor of the fruits of ideologies that, from a historical standpoint, seem to have been intrinstically anti-Catholic from the beginning.

[Era Might]

[quote]The collapse of the Church's temporal power coincides with the collapse of monarchy and the rise of "democracy" (really republicanism). [/quote]

God's providence is mighty, indeed.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='Feb 15 2006, 06:39 AM']You have to look at history. When was the Catholic Church at its height? When was Christendom at its strongest? It was the age of Catholic monarchies. The collapse of the Church's temporal power coincides with the collapse of monarchy and the rise of "democracy" (really republicanism).

The unparalled wonderful-ness of democracy is one of the biggest American shibboleths, with this stuff we are pumped full of from birth about the great, herioc, morally impeccable, semi-godlike "Founding Fathers" on their marble pedestals defeating oppressive "Mad King George" and the evil Parliament, "no taxation without representation, "I regret I have but one life...", cherry trees and whites of their eyes, the Liberty Tree!, "for the People, of the People, by the People, with the People, on the People" blah blah blah blah. Well, remember that most of those founding fathers were the aristocrats of the colonies, anyway; they weren't these scrappy underdogs fighting against tyranny. Most of them were big Enlightenment secularists or, at best, Unitarian and Congregationist type Protestants. Very few could possibly be considered friends of the Church. And besides all that "liberty and freedom" propaganda from these utterly unoppressed slaveholders, the biggest thing they could find to rouse the colonists (1/3 of them anyway) was raised taxes! Read the American history books and you'd think the stamp tax along was sending everyone into destitution! Nowadays, in our oh-so-Enlightened republic, we pay far more taxes than Parliament in the 18th century could have ever dreamed of, and part of the reason is that our government can always soothe us as it picks our pockets and nannies us to death by claiming that a single vote between to lousy candidates is a "voice". The Voice of the People! Which has given us "the best government ever to arise since the dawn of history", the same government that supported race-based chattel slavery as "democratically decided" and now supports foeticide as "democratically decided".

This "Great Democracy" myth is, of course, connected to the myth of the Medieval period as a hellish, dystopic gulf between the glorios pagan Roman Empire and the glorius secularist Renaissance and Enlightenment. Don't you that, according to the party-line view of history, the periods when the Catholic Church was most persecuted are times of learning, progress and sophistication and the period when it was at it's height was "the Dark Ages"? This is because history is written by the winners and, for the past 500 years, the winners have either been Protestants or secularists, who've had vested interest in disparaging the Catholic past and portraying their own personal Utopian projects as shining cities on a hill, breaking the shackles of the oppressive Dark Ages and marching onward and upward to the glorious, glittering future. Not only is it half-truth at best, but it engenders an un-Catholic mentality that prefers novelty and socially engineered "progress" to tradition, constancy, and an organic view of society.

Now, don't get me wrong, I do believe Catholic republics can be perfectly viable things and history shows us this with entities like Switzerland and the Italian city-states of Florence and Sienna. This would probably be the best choice for the U.S.A. in which republicanism now such an integral part of the heritage (so there's no need for apocalyptic Americanophilic ejaculations like "AMERICA'S a DEMOCRACY!!! We don't want some KING!!! LIBERTY LIBERTY LIBERTY!!!"). Nonetheless would it really be so bad if the U.S., like Canada or Australia, was part of the queen's Commonwealth?

In any case, whatever government you take should be Catholic. Non-Catholic governments tend to go awry, at least those not deeply rooted in a heritage and tradition of their own that tends to check their power with custom. However, manmade engineered governments are the worst and grow directly out the modernist Enlightenment-type idea that man can create a society not rooted in any greater truth than his own philosophy. In the Cromwell's Commonwealth, France's First Republic, the Italian unification, and the Russian Revolution we can see that such movements often have a strain of anti-Catholic and/or anti-religious sentiment at their core. Counterrevolutions are almost invariably more sympathetic to Catholicism. Also notice that these modern governmental seem to have a far greater drive to increase their own size and power than traditional Catholic governments. To discover this, one only has to compare the size and power of current governments to past ones. Our federal republican goverments (or monarchical governments in which the monarch has little to no political power) have between enormous centralized bureaucracies that seem to feel entitled to regulate and micromanage the populace in whatever way they wish, including the American goverment, in spite of all the safeguards the founding fathers put in place to try to prevent this. And many powerful individuals feel that this still isn't enough, "enlightened, progressive" folks in positions of great power who are actively working to inaugurate one-world globalism through even larger, more centralized entities like the UN and EU. Is that democracy? Is the UN a democratic protector of liberty and freedom? And yet this is the sort of mentality a blind love of a fictitious ideal called "democracy", unrooted in any kind of larger truth, often tends to generate.

Sorry for this verbose and sometimes snide post, especially since I'm such a newbie, but this is one subject I do feel very strongly about. I just get upset at how so many orthodox, devout Catholics seem so ambivalent about the civilizational patrimony of Christendom, when their own Church was at the hieght of its power and prestige on Earth, in favor of the fruits of ideologies that, from a historical standpoint, seem to have been intrinstically anti-Catholic from the beginning.
[right][snapback]887969[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[avemaria40]

Yeah, but people were uneducated and ignorant, which is why it was easier for them to subscribe to Protestantism and secularism. It was a very superstitious time, and nobody could work their way up the laddr through social mobility. And I think that history can speak volumes of where the religious people are. America was founded by Protestants who wanted religious freedom and we have a very liberating form of govn't. Catholicism is the largest religious group in the country and we have more ppl in my generation standing against gay marriage and abortion. While in other countries that were ruled by Divine Right, secularism is the norm, I am told.

If anyone tried to Institute a theocracy or monarchy in America, they would be met with so much opposition.

BTW, many devout Christians had stoold against slavery and we haven't had it for over 100 years. Our country was never accused of being perfect but it works. I'd rather have this govn't where I can speak what's on my mind and believe what I want to believe and the ability to choose my work and move as far up or down thae social ladder that I want. That's the beauty of democracy, you have choices!

I'm not for unrestricted freedoms either, I will be celebrating the day they make abortion illegal, and there are many things we should change. B/c abortion is an abuse on the fundamental right to life. I stand for life and freedom and will die the day someone tries to take the freedom from this country.

Edited February 15, 2006 by avemaria40

[jezic]

has there ever been a "good" republic style of government?

Has the freedoms and the ability to choose ever given Christians what they asked for?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='jezic' date='Feb 15 2006, 09:24 AM']has there ever been a "good" republic style of government?

Has the freedoms and the ability to choose ever given Christians what they asked for?
[right][snapback]888122[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yes, The Republic of The Untied States of America.

[Era Might]

Monarchy, true monarchy as it existed in Christendom, went out with the dinosaurs.

People who advocate a monarchy are harmless, God love them, but they're living a fantasy.

Democracy is here to stay.

[Aloysius]

people during the age of monarchies thought monarchies were there to stay as well... and they had a couple more millenia to back them up on that idea than we do for democracies

a "democracy" is no more stable, in fact it is probably much more fragile, than a monarchy. think what you will, but 200 years is a blink of the eye in history... one never knows what might happen after a blink.

[Era Might]

Ok. In 2,000 years, I'll consider monarchy ripe for a return.

[Aloysius]

lol... you're assuming the fragile democratic system can last 2000 years... we shall see.

[avemaria40]

But isn't it true that the USA is the most powerful nation in the world? I know, our country is still a baby, but I think we're doing pretty well. We've also left a powerful legacy, our Declaration of Independence has lead to other countries to demand freedom as well. Many immigrants come to this country every year because this is the land of opportunity and we have such freedoms. I like being able to vote for who will be our leaders, because I have a choice on who I want in office based on how his or her policies affect my life and the lives around me. BTW, what if a king was pro-abortion and we couldn't do anything about it? In the US, we can vote for prolife candidates. If you have a king or a queen, you have to wait until they die. I like being able to have a say and I like having the choice to improve my conditions. WHen people were living in Europe during the colonial times, they didn't have a say, they were born into a social class and that's where they died. Here, you can change that through education and hard work. Yes, our country has a strong history of racism(mistreating the Native Americans, enslavement of African Americans, China exclusion act, etc.) but at the same time, many Americans have used their fundamental rights to fight against racism. We're currently fighting a war in Iraq against tyrranny and a war on terror, proclaiming that we have the right to freedom, and the right to security. Our govn't isn't perfect but it's the most liberating, the most Christian, and it works.

[Paphnutius]

Shall we place bets gentlemen?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 15 2006, 02:23 PM']Shall we place bets gentlemen?
[right][snapback]888309[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Will we be allowed into Heaven if we're still waiting to collect on a bet?

Edited February 15, 2006 by Era Might

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 15 2006, 05:17 PM']Monarchy, true monarchy as it existed in Christendom, went out with the dinosaurs.

People who advocate a monarchy are harmless, God love them, but they're living a fantasy.

Democracy is here to stay.
[right][snapback]888245[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What exactly is true monarchy? There have always been several varieties of monarchy thus I cannot think of how it can be correct to speak of a true monarchy. If you date Christendom from the conversion of the Germanic tribes to Christianity which would be shortly after the reign of Charlemagne since he was still carrying out the forceful evangelisation of the Saxons in his lifetime then you cannot provide a true form of monarchy because elected monarchy and hereditary monarchy co-existed in France and Germany thereafter. Feudal monarchy was a product of Norman conquest and caught on at the start of the next millenia but even feudal monarchy underwent huge alterations at the start of the 14th century when the exchange of lands for service became gradually replaced with the exchange of goods for services and the advent of household retainers. Thus it would be hard to characterise Christenom as having one true form of monarchy.