Here's A Thought

[dustthouart]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1548282' date='May 29 2008, 02:21 PM']You obviously have never heard of Blessed Emperor Karl of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. And take a look at the twentieth century, the most democratic century of them all. And the most bloodiest. The fall of the monarchies did not pave the way for a better good.

Yeah, we real enlightened right now.

We could be worse off of course...
We could have Anarchy.[/quote]

Of course I've heard of the many royal saints. My goddaughter's patron saint is St. Elizabeth of Hungary, and my patron saint is St. Dymphna. However one thing you'll notice with most royal saints is that from a secular standpoint they didn't have much effect: either they were women whose husbands and sons ignored them, or they were martyred by power-hungry relatives.

If you have a good king, then monarchy is great. But it didn't happen that often.

Also, I'm not saying that we are better off now in all ways. We are better off in some ways and worse off in others.

In my personal opinion, it is good for the Church to be opposed outright by society. Nobody would become the Pope now, for example, in search of secular power and wealth. Where does the Church grow the fastest, throughout history and today? In places where she is persecuted. When Church and state become intertwined, the Church is suffocated from within by materialism and indifference.

However times and places where the Church is persecuted are bad for everyone living in that time or place--it's not comfortable or safe or free. But it's a recipe for saints.

[Galloglasses]

[quote name='dustthouart' post='1549144' date='May 30 2008, 05:33 AM']Of course I've heard of the many royal saints. My goddaughter's patron saint is St. Elizabeth of Hungary, and my patron saint is St. Dymphna. However one thing you'll notice with most royal saints is that from a secular standpoint they didn't have much effect: either they were women whose husbands and sons ignored them, or they were martyred by power-hungry relatives.


If you have a good king, then monarchy is great. But it didn't happen that often.

Also, I'm not saying that we are better off now in all ways. We are better off in some ways and worse off in others.

In my personal opinion, it is good for the Church to be opposed outright by society. Nobody would become the Pope now, for example, in search of secular power and wealth. Where does the Church grow the fastest, throughout history and today? In places where she is persecuted. When Church and state become intertwined, the Church is suffocated from within by materialism and indifference.

However times and places where the Church is persecuted are bad for everyone living in that time or place--it's not comfortable or safe or free. But it's a recipe for saints.[/quote]

And that's different compared to vicious smear campaigns against democratic rivals how? Sure they don't die, but they can become a wreck and their lives can be ruined onwards. And in a secular veiwpoint, you're forgetting something, its secular. Today's secular interpretation tries to downplay or demonise Religious effect on policy making of past Saints who held power. Also, you are forgetting that Royal women had HUGE influence in the past ages, not over society but definately in the family. A mother nearly always had the ears of their sons and daughters even when they grew up, and wives played pivotal roles. A famous example is the first Christian king of the Franks, he was Pagan and about to go to war, his wife, a Roman Princess who was Christian, begged him to wear a crucifix, he reluctantly agreed out of love for her altough he didn't think much of the Christian God. Mid battle he was losing and he tried praying to the New God, he won an astonishing victory and suddenly took Christianity alot more seriously. So did the Franks, upon a meeting with his nobles, before he opened up his mouth, his nobles begged him to allow them to convert. All from the suggestion of one woman, his wife. History is full of such examples were women, while not allowed any real power, pulled massive influence in history through manipulating or influencing their family members. And no, alot of these royal Saints made huge differences

Also note, that the Church and State as close as the were back in those days, were very, very, very contentious, so much so that when the reformation came about, many German Prinicipalities succeeded from the Holy Roman Empire for the secular oppurtunities it came with, (and to stick it to the Emperor himself, who was staunchly Catholic at the time)

Also it is not good that the Church by opposed outright by society, sufferring bears much good fruit for the Church and God. This does not mean we should WANT to suffer, or relish it, souls are LOST through the persecutions, (on the persecutors side), it is better that society should love the Church if at all possible. Suffered should only be offered up to God once received, it should not be sought after.

Also, I must point out, that the Church was suffocated with indifference and materialism after the French Revolution, (or in the age of Enlightenment altogether, which DID NOT get kick started by the Reformation Nor the Renaisence, it happened roughly a century after the 'start' of the Reformation, even it did not start when Luther posted his paper to the Cathedral door, despite popular belief), so much so that the Church began to teach a cold hard faith to an already cold and hard world. So much so warrenting Jesus revealing his Sacred Heart. Also, this was a period marked by stringent secularism and anti-clericalism, there was very little intertwining of Church and State, even in the monarchist nations, so you point is not always the case.

And not neccesarily, persecution should not be sought after, suffering is bad, it just can be used for Good, and everyday life is a recipe for Saints, if only people could turn everything they do into an act of Prayer.

I can see your point on how things are today, somethings are better, some are worse, but that can be interpreted as a poor arguement, mainly because, well, its so easy to flip. How wrong would a person be if he advocated the opposite, "In monarchist times, some things were better, some things were worse" What would be the difference? Also, none of us here know anything other then democracy, that and coupled with political socialisation, (if you don't know it, wiki it, too long to explain), how can we see nothing but bad in any other form of government?

Edited May 30, 2008 by Galloglasses

[kujo]

[quote name='mortify' post='1548592' date='May 29 2008, 09:07 PM']I don't think you have any idea what life was like for those living under monarchs.[/quote]

IAWTP

[Galloglasses]

I feel like a total noob asking this, but what does IAWTP mean?

[kujo]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1551106' date='May 31 2008, 05:44 PM']I feel like a total noob asking this, but what does IAWTP mean?[/quote]

I Agree With That Person

[Galloglasses]

Ah