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

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Crusader_4' date='May 5 2004, 12:41 PM'] What if... There was a monarch that was chosen by the council of Bishops in a given country? [/quote]
One man is not good. Even if chosen by the Bishops... One man is ruling, he could turn around and take the power of the Bishops away, fall from the Church and make his own church, then we're back to the whole problem.

With a Republic, one or two can go bad and be replaced before they can take the power away from the Church.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[M.SIGGA]

History has proven that when the Church has been involved in the political process, the following Revolutions turn really really ugly.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='M.SIGGA' date='May 5 2004, 05:34 PM'] History has proven that when the Church has been involved in the political process, the following Revolutions turn really really ugly. [/quote]
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

[Enda]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='May 5 2004, 07:21 PM']I disagree.[/quote]

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. While this makes for an excellent proof that the Holy Spirit gaurds the Church so that she will never fall, it doesn't make for a very good from of government, or very good Church leadership. It just makes the Church's sacred offices of priest, bishop, and Pope as nothing more than a means to political power. It also is much more charitable to refuse Holy Orders to any curroppt government offical. The more Sacaraments one has on his soul when he goes to Hell the worse his suffering is. Finally, it occupies Church officals in matters of politics, when they should be occupied in matters of faith and morals. My view is if Jesus wanted the Church officals to be a part in any sort of political institution He would have ruled the world Himself.

I'm a bit fuzzy on what type of government you want ironmonk. Do you want a type of government where the natrual law is written in stone, or one where all the politicans have to follow the natrual as a code of conduct in their personal lives? Since the American Republic was founded on the natrual law, one could make an argument that we already have such a system, being that it's written in the Constittion, but in either case it could be added in there with admendments. If you wanted one that required polticans to follow the natrual law as a code of conduct, I don't see much of a point, aside from maybe the President (I really don't want to have to go through the shame that Bill Clinton and Monica Lewisky brought to the nation again anyway).

To those of you who think an earthly monoarhcy will work, well yes, an absloute monoarch [i]would[/i] be the best leader, and as a matter of fact that's what Jesus is, but to expect a human person to be so perfect as to fullfill that requirement is not going to happen. I mean, there really hasn't been an age where absoulte monarchies have actually worked. Even way back in the day when monarchies were in their Golden Age in Europe they followed what's called "penal law", which was basicly tradition, handed down, kinda like a Constition actually, that was will of the people. It was when Kings and Queens started to ignore penal law that the people started to rebel against them and get more power, and we started to see things like Parliament and what not show up. So, in other words, when the people don't get the type of government they want, they just start revlotions and get the type of government they want anyway. So, just have a republic, where leaders are elected, that way people don’t have to die if those in power start to do something that really ticks the them off. Instead they can just vote them out of office; totally bloodless. History shows the people won't tolerate a government that's not by them, for them, and of them if the first place. Why not just give it to them and be done with it?

As for Queen Elizabeth II, I've never heard she's much of a Christian, but even if says is she's not much of one in my opinion. She has the power to disolve the entire constition and just declare herself to be an absoulte monarch where she could outlaw abortion and all the other carp that affects the UK. Kinda reminds me of all of our "Catholic" polticans who say they "personally oppose abortion, but I condone it's legality". Keep in mind, our Congress begins every session with a prayer, does that make them religious? Of course not.

[Enda]

bump

[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!!!!