Monarchy?

[Probius]

I am told by Catholics that men have a fallen nature.  Well if so, then wouldn't a king have a fallen nature as well?  How should the fallen lead the fallen?

Do you think Barney Frank or Chuck shumer think themselves beholden to God? Barrack Obama? Nancey Pelosi? Hillary Clinton?
Yes all have fallen...and king or Pope we will be lead by the fallen. The Difference being a single King who fears eternal Justice and has some connection to his people will be better then hundreds of servile politicians in showing concern for them. Why should congress give a rats ass about people except for polls?

Congress doesn't care about people at all.  But if they stray, we can get rid of them at the polls instead of through war.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

I am told by Catholics that men have a fallen nature.  Well if so, then wouldn't a king have a fallen nature as well?  How should the fallen lead the fallen?

Do you think Barney Frank or Chuck shumer think themselves beholden to God? Barrack Obama? Nancey Pelosi? Hillary Clinton?
Yes all have fallen...and king or Pope we will be lead by the fallen. The Difference being a single King who fears eternal Justice and has some connection to his people will be better then hundreds of servile politicians in showing concern for them. Why should congress give a rats ass about people except for polls?

Congress doesn't care about people at all.  But if they stray, we can get rid of them at the polls instead of through war.

Kings are more easily rid of then a us senator. Im beginning to think your not much past high school in your history education.

[LouisIX]

I am a monarchist, but keep in mind that our conception of monarchy involves respect for the Church's teaching on subsidiarity.

[Probius]

I am told by Catholics that men have a fallen nature.  Well if so, then wouldn't a king have a fallen nature as well?  How should the fallen lead the fallen?

Do you think Barney Frank or Chuck shumer think themselves beholden to God? Barrack Obama? Nancey Pelosi? Hillary Clinton?
Yes all have fallen...and king or Pope we will be lead by the fallen. The Difference being a single King who fears eternal Justice and has some connection to his people will be better then hundreds of servile politicians in showing concern for them. Why should congress give a rats ass about people except for polls?

Congress doesn't care about people at all.  But if they stray, we can get rid of them at the polls instead of through war.

Kings are more easily rid of then a us senator. Im beginning to think your not much past high school in your history education.

There is no need for personal attacks.  And for your information, I have a college degree.

Kings are difficult to get rid of, and when one goes down it creates a mad struggle for power.  With congress we get to choose our representatives.

[Probius]

I am a monarchist, but keep in mind that our conception of monarchy involves respect for the Church's teaching on subsidiarity.

What is the Church's teaching on subsidiarity?

[LouisIX]

I am a monarchist, but keep in mind that our conception of monarchy involves respect for the Church's teaching on subsidiarity.

What is the Church's teaching on subsidiarity?

A simple response here wouldn't suffice so I'd recommend the encyclicals Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno.

[The Harlequin King]

I'm generally in favor of monarchy, but not the same kind nor for the same reasons as most of the ones that have been posted here.

For example, I'll pick on Penelope for a moment:

This will be just one answer among many, but a monarchy is the system of government that best mimics the hierarchy of Heaven. Likewise, the Church militant (the segment of the Church that exists on earth) is a hierarchy, from the pope down to the laity. Again, we want to mimic the structure that God has already created.

Sure, but the logical conclusion of this is not monarchy as a general idea, but 17th century-style absolutism in particular. A parliamentary monarchy, or even a medieval-style feudal monarchy, does not mimic heaven as well as one where the king's will is absolutely obeyed at every level of government.

In fact, if the government of the Church is an ideal model, then under this argument, an absolute elective monarchy (what most of us just call a dictatorship in the 21st century context) is better than a hereditary parliamentary one in the style of the Windsors because the Papacy is an elected but absolute office.... in theory, if not in practice. However, no modern western monarchy is absolute even in theory.



As for whether a monarchy is more effective than a republic at serving justice and the rest, that's the wrong way to go about the question. The form of government isn't as important as the men who fill the offices. Why were the American Founding Fathers so much more successful at building a republic than pretty much all the republics of Africa and Latin America (or France, for that matter)? Because, frankly, those who are brought up in upper middle-class WASP culture are going to be much more amenable to the civil exchange of ideas than people from less developed societies, or countries where the classes are far more stratified. And in the Middle Ages, the republics were found chiefly in city-states which had much larger and more educated middle classes than those regions which were more entrenched in feudalism.

In other words, as the middle class grows, there are more and more people whose intelligence and talent will rival the average king's, and thus, absolute governments become less and less tenable. In the modern age, it was England's middle class that first grew to prominence, so it was a historical inevitability that England's absolute monarchy would be the first to fall. The English royal family (William III and the Hanovers) were smart and collaborated with Parliament to ensure that the Crown would stay in "business", as it were. The royal families of the other European nations have, for the most part, proven much less savvy, hence why most of them now lead bourgeois existences in obscurity, rather than on thrones.

[Maximilian]

I'll put it this way: why would it be preferable to have an authority over you rather than to be your own authority?

Is it better for a child to have an authority over him or to be his own authority?

[Probius]

I'll put it this way: why would it be preferable to have an authority over you rather than to be your own authority?

Is it better for a child to have an authority over him or to be his own authority?

It doesn't work for children.

[Greg]

I'm not pro-monarchy.  And plenty of Trads are not either.

I don't think a majority of Trads are pro-monarchy.  That is not my perception anyway.

France might be an exception.  French Trads would in the most part like a Catholic King back on the throne of France.

[Maximilian]

I'll put it this way: why would it be preferable to have an authority over you rather than to be your own authority?

Is it better for a child to have an authority over him or to be his own authority?

It doesn't work for children.

What doesn't work for children?

[Probius]

I'll put it this way: why would it be preferable to have an authority over you rather than to be your own authority?

Is it better for a child to have an authority over him or to be his own authority?

It doesn't work for children.

What doesn't work for children?

Total liberty is only for adults.  Children have parents as authority figures, adults do not.

[Maximilian]

Total liberty is only for adults. 

"Total liberty" for adults is a fiction. It does not exist in reality. Like unicorns and the libertarian state.

Children have parents as authority figures

And for that reason they survive. Authority gives them life. Authority gives them education. Without authority children degenerate into savagery and then death follows quickly. Authority is just as necessary for life as air and water.

adults do not.

As a statement of fact, this is false. Adults do have authority over them. As a statement of theory it is also false. Without authority life is "nasty, poor, brutish and short," for adults as well as for children. There is no magic line one crosses that makes a child into an adult.

[Probius]

Total liberty is only for adults. 

"Total liberty" for adults is a fiction. It does not exist in reality. Like unicorns and the libertarian state.

Children have parents as authority figures

And for that reason they survive. Authority gives them life. Authority gives them education. Without authority children degenerate into savagery and then death follows quickly. Authority is just as necessary for life as air and water.

adults do not.

As a statement of fact, this is false. Adults do have authority over them. As a statement of theory it is also false. Without authority life is "nasty, poor, brutish and short," for adults as well as for children. There is no magic line one crosses that makes a child into an adult.

I had parents and I obeyed them.  They did what they did out of a pure love for me, yet I resented it a little bit, and I think most young people do.  How much more then, would I resent politicians acting like a parent to me?  They are representatives, not authority figures.  An authority tells me what to do, a representative represents me.

[ts aquinas]

I have known a few Traditional Catholics in the past, and it seems the desire for monarchy is very prevalent among Traditional Catholics.  Is that true, do Traditional Catholics want a monarchy and if so, why?  What do you think would be the advantage to monarchy?

I'm in an extreme minority but I rather see an oligarchy occupied by intelligent philosophers of good will that operate for the common good of society, a sort of Platonic Republic. It's lesser than a monarchy when it comes to motion but the higher security against despotism makes it on par with a monarchy, in my opinion, and vastly greater than a democracy in terms of faster motion of achieving common goods and if ever a motion of no confidence, easier to replace a minority and maintain the fluidity of the system during and after transfers. But that's just my dream world 

Why do you think a monarchy or a oligarchy would have security against despotism?  Wouldn't a monarchy be despotic by definition?

An oligarchy would be self evident. It is harder to corrupt a few rather than one. My ideal would be more accurately called an aristocracy with democratic elements (Aristotle's ideal form) and a distributist economy. The only security in a monarchy would be Aquinas' ideal monarchy that would be limited by an aristocracy and have democratic elements.