Showing posts with label constitutional republic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitutional republic. Show all posts
Friday, February 13, 2015
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Social Reign Of Christ The King
The "Blog for Dallas Area Catholics" has a post on the "Social Reign of Christ the King". I've seen writings like this in the past. In my opinion, this is one of the areas in which good people can disagree regarding the form of government. As you watch the video embedded therein (and click here if you cannot see embedded video), you notice the narrator describing what he perceives as the problems of a constitutional republic, but he never quite gets around to offering any suggestion for practical replacement. The Dallas blogger also falls short in that respect. He opines (right before the video) that "the republican form of government in the US is not ideal from the standpoint of traditional Catholic dogma". All this begs the question, "well, what would be ideal in your opinion? Do tell!" I believe they have no idea.
The video narrator quotes some Scripture, including St Paul's exhortations to "honor the king" for all authority comes from God. Then he excoriates the US founding fathers for not inserting Christianity into the US Constitution. I wonder what he thinks of the "kings" who, according to St Paul, operated under God's authority. Remember - they were Roman officials and most likely paid public homage to all the Roman deities.
Many folks I know who are adverse to the US form of government (for the same reasons as the video maker) seem to think that a centralized monarchy is more in line with God's will. I would suggest to these folks that they read closely 1 Samuel 8 - the entire chapter. It's evident that God took a dim view of the Isrealites' request for a king. In my opinion, that trashes this idea of the "divine right of kings" or whatever this theory is called.
Now again the following is my opinion; I do not claim any special revelation or doctrine as the basis of my opinion. Similarly though, the Magisterium does not define what it considers to be the "ideal" form of civil government. The US form of government is that of a constitutional republic. It is NOT a pure democracy - never was and (hopefully) never will be. The Founding Fathers were very wary of a pure democracy, realizing that it would be no more than gentrified mob rule. Thus they derived the Constitution (after much toil and yes, strife among themselves). It delineates what the federal government can do and more importantly, what it cannot do. Among other things, it cannot interfere with the free exercise of religious beliefs. It may not be perfect, but it works much better than all other options currently on the table.
If there are those among my readers who don't vote because of a disdain for our governmental system (ostensibly in favor of "social kingship"), hie thee hence to a confessional with all possible haste.
The video narrator quotes some Scripture, including St Paul's exhortations to "honor the king" for all authority comes from God. Then he excoriates the US founding fathers for not inserting Christianity into the US Constitution. I wonder what he thinks of the "kings" who, according to St Paul, operated under God's authority. Remember - they were Roman officials and most likely paid public homage to all the Roman deities.
Many folks I know who are adverse to the US form of government (for the same reasons as the video maker) seem to think that a centralized monarchy is more in line with God's will. I would suggest to these folks that they read closely 1 Samuel 8 - the entire chapter. It's evident that God took a dim view of the Isrealites' request for a king. In my opinion, that trashes this idea of the "divine right of kings" or whatever this theory is called.
Now again the following is my opinion; I do not claim any special revelation or doctrine as the basis of my opinion. Similarly though, the Magisterium does not define what it considers to be the "ideal" form of civil government. The US form of government is that of a constitutional republic. It is NOT a pure democracy - never was and (hopefully) never will be. The Founding Fathers were very wary of a pure democracy, realizing that it would be no more than gentrified mob rule. Thus they derived the Constitution (after much toil and yes, strife among themselves). It delineates what the federal government can do and more importantly, what it cannot do. Among other things, it cannot interfere with the free exercise of religious beliefs. It may not be perfect, but it works much better than all other options currently on the table.
If there are those among my readers who don't vote because of a disdain for our governmental system (ostensibly in favor of "social kingship"), hie thee hence to a confessional with all possible haste.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Vortex Follow-Up On "Catholic Politics"
Real Catholic TV posted this video today in response to some of the comments that they've received from avowed atheists. (Click here if you can't see embedded video).
As far as the vitriol that he reports, I can attest to that. Upon doing some googling, I found an article and some discussion on the pharyngula blog (run by the professor who drove a rusty nail through the Eucharist). I saw some of the comments.
When I wrote about Judge Vaughn Walker taking pot-shots at the Church in his ruling, I received a number of comments. In utilization of some tools, I noticed that they were linking from a comment on the pharyngula blog. WIth one regretable exception, the comments on my posting were relatively tame, but not so on the pharyngula blog. I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of the venomous coments to the Vortex post came from that blog.
All that being said, I still differ from Real Catholic TV on this matter. I do not hold the opinion that differences between democracy and republic are "hair-splitting" in the least; such a dismissive attitude towards that distinction is really quite ignorant. Now Voris does state plainly that he favors a "Catholic monarchy". He opines that "civilization would be better off if it were a Catholic monarchy. How this comes about? I don't know." What???!!??! That's almost as bad as Pelosi saying that "we have to pass health care to find out what's in it." The devil is in the details - and I think sometimes quite literally!
History tried Catholic monarchies; their successes or failures were clearly dependent on the one occupying the throne. History has proven that such dependence on one individual is not acceptable. Do I say that what we have now is perfect? No, it isn't. However, much of the current morass is due to too many people looking for a de facto king to take the reigns. I might suggest a close study of 1 Samuel 8 in the Old Testament. The people clamored for a king. It seems to me that the Lord granted their request, albeit reluctantly.
What Voris is suggesting is somewhat similar to an idea that floats about in some sedevacantist circles, called "divine right of kings". They somehow think of the days of Charlemagne as being the "glory days of Catholic civilization". One such proponent is a lady named Solange Hertz. I read a book of hers some years ago called "Star-Spangled Heresy". If my quotes from this book are not 100% accurate, it's because I pitched it in the trash. She sees only a Catholic monarchy, preferably a French monarchy, as being the only legitimate form of government. She also opines that the Bill of Rights is all wet. In her book, she completely opposes freedom of speech for the average citizen. Now think about it. She trashes the First Amendment and the American system - in a book that she was free to write precisely because of the First Amendment. Am I the only one who sees the irony here? An important aside to my sedevacantist friends - Satan wants all to leave the Church, and he doesn't particularly care if you exit "stage left" or "stage right"; it's all the same to him. Come back to Rome, lest you imperil your own immortal souls!
I agree that self-governance is hard work, one for grown-ups. The answer is not to regress to a monarchy. As I asked earlier, what would be the checks and balances? What redress would the people have in the case of a corrupt monarch? Real Catholic TV, please do take more care to think these proposals through before you broadcast them.
As far as the vitriol that he reports, I can attest to that. Upon doing some googling, I found an article and some discussion on the pharyngula blog (run by the professor who drove a rusty nail through the Eucharist). I saw some of the comments.
When I wrote about Judge Vaughn Walker taking pot-shots at the Church in his ruling, I received a number of comments. In utilization of some tools, I noticed that they were linking from a comment on the pharyngula blog. WIth one regretable exception, the comments on my posting were relatively tame, but not so on the pharyngula blog. I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of the venomous coments to the Vortex post came from that blog.
All that being said, I still differ from Real Catholic TV on this matter. I do not hold the opinion that differences between democracy and republic are "hair-splitting" in the least; such a dismissive attitude towards that distinction is really quite ignorant. Now Voris does state plainly that he favors a "Catholic monarchy". He opines that "civilization would be better off if it were a Catholic monarchy. How this comes about? I don't know." What???!!??! That's almost as bad as Pelosi saying that "we have to pass health care to find out what's in it." The devil is in the details - and I think sometimes quite literally!
History tried Catholic monarchies; their successes or failures were clearly dependent on the one occupying the throne. History has proven that such dependence on one individual is not acceptable. Do I say that what we have now is perfect? No, it isn't. However, much of the current morass is due to too many people looking for a de facto king to take the reigns. I might suggest a close study of 1 Samuel 8 in the Old Testament. The people clamored for a king. It seems to me that the Lord granted their request, albeit reluctantly.
What Voris is suggesting is somewhat similar to an idea that floats about in some sedevacantist circles, called "divine right of kings". They somehow think of the days of Charlemagne as being the "glory days of Catholic civilization". One such proponent is a lady named Solange Hertz. I read a book of hers some years ago called "Star-Spangled Heresy". If my quotes from this book are not 100% accurate, it's because I pitched it in the trash. She sees only a Catholic monarchy, preferably a French monarchy, as being the only legitimate form of government. She also opines that the Bill of Rights is all wet. In her book, she completely opposes freedom of speech for the average citizen. Now think about it. She trashes the First Amendment and the American system - in a book that she was free to write precisely because of the First Amendment. Am I the only one who sees the irony here? An important aside to my sedevacantist friends - Satan wants all to leave the Church, and he doesn't particularly care if you exit "stage left" or "stage right"; it's all the same to him. Come back to Rome, lest you imperil your own immortal souls!
I agree that self-governance is hard work, one for grown-ups. The answer is not to regress to a monarchy. As I asked earlier, what would be the checks and balances? What redress would the people have in the case of a corrupt monarch? Real Catholic TV, please do take more care to think these proposals through before you broadcast them.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Vortex On "Catholic Politics" - With My "Sed Contra"
As I've said before on a few occasions, it isn't often when I disagree with Michael Voris and Real Catholic TV, but sometimes that happens. In fact, no two entities will always find themselves in complete agreement. I debated whether or not to post my disagreement with this Vortex, but because I post so many of them with my concurrence, I was concerned that my silence regarding this one would be interpreted as tacit agreement. My disagreements in this matter are rather substantial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
