Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

What are your thoughts about the Catholic monarchism common among a lot of traditionalists?

The Monarchy Is the Best Regime, for It More Easily Favors Peace

It is fitting to add some representative texts of Saint Thomas Aquinas to the pontifical texts quoted in testimony of the Churchs social doctrine on the subject of Monarchical regimes given the prominence of his thinking in traditional Catholic teaching.

In De Regimine Principum, having set forth these preliminary points, it behooves men to live in society and therefore it is indispensable that a ruler govern them correctly, Saint Thomas goes on to say:

We must now inquire what is better for a province or a city: whether to be ruled by one man or by many. Now this may be considered from the very purpose of government. For the aim of any ruler should be directed towards securing the welfare of whatever he undertakes to rule. The duty of the pilot, for instance, is to preserve his ship amidst the perils of the sea and to bring it to the port of safety.

Now, the welfare and safety of a multitude formed into a society is the preservation of its unity, which is called peace, and which, if taken away, the benefit of social life is lost and moreover the multitude in its disagreement becomes a burden to itself.

The chief concern of the ruler of a multitude, therefore, should be to procure the unity of peace: and it is not legitimate for him to deliberate whether he shall establish peace in the multitude subject to him, just as a physician does not deliberate whether he shall heal the sick man that is charged to him. For no one should deliberate about an end that he is obliged to seek, but only about the means to attain that end. Wherefore, the Apostle, having commended the unity of the faithful people, says: Be ye careful to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3). The more efficacious, therefore, a government is in keeping the unity of peace, the more useful it will be. For we call that more useful which leads the better to the end. Now, it is clear that what is one, can more efficaciously bring about unity than what is several; just as the most efficacious cause of heat is that which is by its nature hot. Therefore the rule of one man is more efficient than the rule of many.

Furthermore, it is evident that several persons could by no means keep a multitude from harm if they totally disagreed, for a certain union is necessary among them if they are to rule at all. Several men, for instance, could not pull a ship in one direction unless joined together in some fashion. Now, several are said to be united to the extent that they act as one. So one man rules better than several who come near being one.

Again, whatever is in accord with nature is best, for in all things nature does what is best. Now, every natural governance is governance by one. In the multitude of bodily members there is one that moves them all, namely, the heart; and among the powers of the soul one power presides as chief, namely, the reason. Even among the bees there is one queen and in the whole universe there is One God, Maker and Ruler of all things and this is reasonable. For every multitude is derived from unity. Wherefore, artificial things imitate natural things and since the work of art is better according as it attains a closer likeness to what is in nature, it necessarily follows that it is best, in the case of a human multitude, it is that one person rule it.

This is also evident from experience; for provinces or cities which are not ruled by one person are torn with dissensions and are tossed about without peace so that the complaint seems to be fulfilled which the Lord uttered through the Prophet: Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard (Jer. 12:10). But, on the contrary, provinces and cities, which are ruled under one king enjoy peace, flourish in justice and delight in prosperity. Hence, the Lord by His prophets promises to His people as a great reward that He will give them one head and that one Prince will be in the midst of them.

The eminent Thomist, Fr. Victorino Rodriguez, O.P., adds the following comment to this explanation of the Angelic Doctor, which he enriches with other texts of Saint Thomas:

On preferring monarchy to preserve the peace of societyIt is undeniable that peace, in the positive, dynamic sense of tranquil liberty (Cicero, II Philipp., chap. 13, 1), is the single most important factor for the common good, if not a synthesis of all its constituents and the aspiration of any honest government. Now then, insofar as peace partakes of order or unity, in and of itself it has a more direct and straight connection with a unitary or monarchic form of government than with other more pluralist or dispersed forms. This is one aspect of government that is stressed in these chapters; for intrinsic reasons of unity, through analogy with the natural order, from the lessons of history and because it is in accord with theocratic government. Later we will see also how a democratic government offers advantages for the peace of society.

Now, the best government is government by one. The reason for this is that government is nothing but the directing of the things governed to their proper end, which consists in some good. But unity belongs to the idea of goodness, as Boethius proves (De consolatione, iii.) from this, that all things desire good, so do they desire unity; without which they would cease to exist. For a thing exists in so far as it is one. Whence we observe that things resist division, as much as they can, and the dissolution of a thing arises from some defect therein. Therefore the intention of a ruler over a multitude is unity, or peace. Now the proper cause of unity is one. For it is clear that several cannot be the cause of unity or concord, except so far as they are united. Furthermore, what is one in itself is more apt and a better cause of unity than several things united. Therefore a multitude is better governed by one than by several.

Plinio Corra de Oliveira, Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites in the Allocutions of Pius XII: A Theme Illuminating American Social History(York, Penn.: The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property, 1993), Appendix IV, pp. 397-399.

www.tfp.org
LOCKED
Jan 10th 2013 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: What are your thoughts about the Catholic monarchism common among a lot of traditionalists? The M...
(Quote) John-220051 said: What are your thoughts about the Catholic monarchism common among a lot of traditionalists?

The Monarchy Is the Best Regime, for It More Easily Favors Peace

It is fitting to add some representative texts of Saint Thomas Aquinas to the pontifical texts quoted in testimony of the Churchs social doctrine on the subject of Monarchical regimes given the prominence of his thinking in traditional Catholic teaching.

In De Regimine Principum, having set forth these preliminary points, it behooves men to live in society and therefore it is indispensable that a ruler govern them correctly, Saint Thomas goes on to say:

We must now inquire what is better for a province or a city: whether to be ruled by one man or by many. Now this may be considered from the very purpose of government. For the aim of any ruler should be directed towards securing the welfare of whatever he undertakes to rule. The duty of the pilot, for instance, is to preserve his ship amidst the perils of the sea and to bring it to the port of safety.

Now, the welfare and safety of a multitude formed into a society is the preservation of its unity, which is called peace, and which, if taken away, the benefit of social life is lost and moreover the multitude in its disagreement becomes a burden to itself.

The chief concern of the ruler of a multitude, therefore, should be to procure the unity of peace: and it is not legitimate for him to deliberate whether he shall establish peace in the multitude subject to him, just as a physician does not deliberate whether he shall heal the sick man that is charged to him. For no one should deliberate about an end that he is obliged to seek, but only about the means to attain that end. Wherefore, the Apostle, having commended the unity of the faithful people, says: Be ye careful to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3). The more efficacious, therefore, a government is in keeping the unity of peace, the more useful it will be. For we call that more useful which leads the better to the end. Now, it is clear that what is one, can more efficaciously bring about unity than what is several; just as the most efficacious cause of heat is that which is by its nature hot. Therefore the rule of one man is more efficient than the rule of many.

Furthermore, it is evident that several persons could by no means keep a multitude from harm if they totally disagreed, for a certain union is necessary among them if they are to rule at all. Several men, for instance, could not pull a ship in one direction unless joined together in some fashion. Now, several are said to be united to the extent that they act as one. So one man rules better than several who come near being one.

Again, whatever is in accord with nature is best, for in all things nature does what is best. Now, every natural governance is governance by one. In the multitude of bodily members there is one that moves them all, namely, the heart; and among the powers of the soul one power presides as chief, namely, the reason. Even among the bees there is one queen and in the whole universe there is One God, Maker and Ruler of all things and this is reasonable. For every multitude is derived from unity. Wherefore, artificial things imitate natural things and since the work of art is better according as it attains a closer likeness to what is in nature, it necessarily follows that it is best, in the case of a human multitude, it is that one person rule it.

This is also evident from experience; for provinces or cities which are not ruled by one person are torn with dissensions and are tossed about without peace so that the complaint seems to be fulfilled which the Lord uttered through the Prophet: Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard (Jer. 12:10). But, on the contrary, provinces and cities, which are ruled under one king enjoy peace, flourish in justice and delight in prosperity. Hence, the Lord by His prophets promises to His people as a great reward that He will give them one head and that one Prince will be in the midst of them.

The eminent Thomist, Fr. Victorino Rodriguez, O.P., adds the following comment to this explanation of the Angelic Doctor, which he enriches with other texts of Saint Thomas:

On preferring monarchy to preserve the peace of societyIt is undeniable that peace, in the positive, dynamic sense of tranquil liberty (Cicero, II Philipp., chap. 13, 1), is the single most important factor for the common good, if not a synthesis of all its constituents and the aspiration of any honest government. Now then, insofar as peace partakes of order or unity, in and of itself it has a more direct and straight connection with a unitary or monarchic form of government than with other more pluralist or dispersed forms. This is one aspect of government that is stressed in these chapters; for intrinsic reasons of unity, through analogy with the natural order, from the lessons of history and because it is in accord with theocratic government. Later we will see also how a democratic government offers advantages for the peace of society.

Now, the best government is government by one. The reason for this is that government is nothing but the directing of the things governed to their proper end, which consists in some good. But unity belongs to the idea of goodness, as Boethius proves (De consolatione, iii.) from this, that all things desire good, so do they desire unity; without which they would cease to exist. For a thing exists in so far as it is one. Whence we observe that things resist division, as much as they can, and the dissolution of a thing arises from some defect therein. Therefore the intention of a ruler over a multitude is unity, or peace. Now the proper cause of unity is one. For it is clear that several cannot be the cause of unity or concord, except so far as they are united. Furthermore, what is one in itself is more apt and a better cause of unity than several things united. Therefore a multitude is better governed by one than by several.

Plinio Corra de Oliveira, Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites in the Allocutions of Pius XII: A Theme Illuminating American Social History(York, Penn.: The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property, 1993), Appendix IV, pp. 397-399.

www.tfp.org
--hide--

The reason for the Catholic preference for Monarchy over revolutionary republics is that the Catholic conception of the origin of power sees authority as coming from God. This principle is a Gospel one; Jesus said this in answer to Pilate:

Pilate therefore saith to him: Speakest thou not to me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and I have power to release thee?

Jesus answered: Thou shouldst not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above. Therefore, he that hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin.

The Church and the Crown have a unity with separate spheres, organic but distinct. The Church is seen as the soul of society, just as the state is seen as the head, and the other aspects of civic life the organs of society.

The secular conception of power is that it comes "from the people" through a "social contract." Those to whom that contract is given have the power to discern, with others such as the colleges, the Popular Will, which may or may not be what people actually want (the upcoming gun grab by Obama being a five-star case-in-point!). Also note that in secular societies, this social contracted government does not recognize God, the Church, or her perogatives except perhaps via a Concordat (and later treaty, thus the emphasis on diplomacy after VII).

A book just released tells of the history of this issue and the problems that have grown out of the false conception of liberty and power is Christopher Ferrara's "Liberty: The God that Failed"

distributistreview.com

You can also see another video here that poses the question of whether, in a liberal "Democracy", the people really rule, or are ruled by those that are given consent to discern the "Popular Will" in their own desires. The parable of the "Tiny Dot," about the power of the "Gang of 545" over the throng of 311 Million.

www.youtube.com

LOCKED
Jan 11th 2013 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: What are your thoughts about the Catholic monarchism common among a lot of traditionalists? The M...
(Quote) John-220051 said: What are your thoughts about the Catholic monarchism common among a lot of traditionalists?

The Monarchy Is the Best Regime, for It More Easily Favors Peace

It is fitting to add some representative texts of Saint Thomas Aquinas to the pontifical texts quoted in testimony of the Churchs social doctrine on the subject of Monarchical regimes given the prominence of his thinking in traditional Catholic teaching.

In De Regimine Principum, having set forth these preliminary points, it behooves men to live in society and therefore it is indispensable that a ruler govern them correctly, Saint Thomas goes on to say:

We must now inquire what is better for a province or a city: whether to be ruled by one man or by many. Now this may be considered from the very purpose of government. For the aim of any ruler should be directed towards securing the welfare of whatever he undertakes to rule. The duty of the pilot, for instance, is to preserve his ship amidst the perils of the sea and to bring it to the port of safety.

Now, the welfare and safety of a multitude formed into a society is the preservation of its unity, which is called peace, and which, if taken away, the benefit of social life is lost and moreover the multitude in its disagreement becomes a burden to itself.

The chief concern of the ruler of a multitude, therefore, should be to procure the unity of peace: and it is not legitimate for him to deliberate whether he shall establish peace in the multitude subject to him, just as a physician does not deliberate whether he shall heal the sick man that is charged to him. For no one should deliberate about an end that he is obliged to seek, but only about the means to attain that end. Wherefore, the Apostle, having commended the unity of the faithful people, says: Be ye careful to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3). The more efficacious, therefore, a government is in keeping the unity of peace, the more useful it will be. For we call that more useful which leads the better to the end. Now, it is clear that what is one, can more efficaciously bring about unity than what is several; just as the most efficacious cause of heat is that which is by its nature hot. Therefore the rule of one man is more efficient than the rule of many.

Furthermore, it is evident that several persons could by no means keep a multitude from harm if they totally disagreed, for a certain union is necessary among them if they are to rule at all. Several men, for instance, could not pull a ship in one direction unless joined together in some fashion. Now, several are said to be united to the extent that they act as one. So one man rules better than several who come near being one.

Again, whatever is in accord with nature is best, for in all things nature does what is best. Now, every natural governance is governance by one. In the multitude of bodily members there is one that moves them all, namely, the heart; and among the powers of the soul one power presides as chief, namely, the reason. Even among the bees there is one queen and in the whole universe there is One God, Maker and Ruler of all things and this is reasonable. For every multitude is derived from unity. Wherefore, artificial things imitate natural things and since the work of art is better according as it attains a closer likeness to what is in nature, it necessarily follows that it is best, in the case of a human multitude, it is that one person rule it.

This is also evident from experience; for provinces or cities which are not ruled by one person are torn with dissensions and are tossed about without peace so that the complaint seems to be fulfilled which the Lord uttered through the Prophet: Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard (Jer. 12:10). But, on the contrary, provinces and cities, which are ruled under one king enjoy peace, flourish in justice and delight in prosperity. Hence, the Lord by His prophets promises to His people as a great reward that He will give them one head and that one Prince will be in the midst of them.

The eminent Thomist, Fr. Victorino Rodriguez, O.P., adds the following comment to this explanation of the Angelic Doctor, which he enriches with other texts of Saint Thomas:

On preferring monarchy to preserve the peace of societyIt is undeniable that peace, in the positive, dynamic sense of tranquil liberty (Cicero, II Philipp., chap. 13, 1), is the single most important factor for the common good, if not a synthesis of all its constituents and the aspiration of any honest government. Now then, insofar as peace partakes of order or unity, in and of itself it has a more direct and straight connection with a unitary or monarchic form of government than with other more pluralist or dispersed forms. This is one aspect of government that is stressed in these chapters; for intrinsic reasons of unity, through analogy with the natural order, from the lessons of history and because it is in accord with theocratic government. Later we will see also how a democratic government offers advantages for the peace of society.

Now, the best government is government by one. The reason for this is that government is nothing but the directing of the things governed to their proper end, which consists in some good. But unity belongs to the idea of goodness, as Boethius proves (De consolatione, iii.) from this, that all things desire good, so do they desire unity; without which they would cease to exist. For a thing exists in so far as it is one. Whence we observe that things resist division, as much as they can, and the dissolution of a thing arises from some defect therein. Therefore the intention of a ruler over a multitude is unity, or peace. Now the proper cause of unity is one. For it is clear that several cannot be the cause of unity or concord, except so far as they are united. Furthermore, what is one in itself is more apt and a better cause of unity than several things united. Therefore a multitude is better governed by one than by several.

Plinio Corra de Oliveira, Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites in the Allocutions of Pius XII: A Theme Illuminating American Social History(York, Penn.: The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property, 1993), Appendix IV, pp. 397-399.

www.tfp.org
--hide--
That would only work if the ruler is a caring ruler who has morals. If not there will only be order, by force and not buy moral laws.

LOCKED
Jan 11th 2013 new

(Quote) Thomas-699657 said: That would only work if the ruler is a caring ruler who has morals. If not there will only be or...
(Quote) Thomas-699657 said:

That would only work if the ruler is a caring ruler who has morals. If not there will only be order, by force and not buy moral laws.

--hide--

The same criticism applies to "democracies" as well. They can, in fact, devolve into a mob-ocracy, and eventually falls into oligarchy where, if there is order, it is the orders of men making rules in secret for thier interests.

Oh wait! That sounds like what we got! mischievous knight-errant stir the pot! Its getting cold!

LOCKED
Jan 11th 2013 new

(Quote) Thomas-699657 said: That would only work if the ruler is a caring ruler who has morals. If not there will only be or...
(Quote) Thomas-699657 said:

That would only work if the ruler is a caring ruler who has morals. If not there will only be order, by force and not buy moral laws.

--hide--

Also, the Catholic rulers of old were not absolute dictators as we would known them because there was a sphere above them they recognized, and that was the Church. They knew that their regency came from God (in France, the kings were annointed with a special sacramental from the time of Clovis to Louis XVI) and that they were accountable to God and to the Church.

Our republics do not recognize or give worship to God (they can, since they are collections of people), and believe that power comes from a contract and that they can discern what's "in the people's interests" without regard to God or even to Natural Law. Between the two, the modern President is far more tyrannical than the Catholic king, as even Libertarian writer Herman Hoppe acknowledged in "Democracy: the God that Failed."

LOCKED
Jan 11th 2013 new
(Quote) Steven-706921 said: The same criticism applies to "democracies" as well. They can, in fact, devolve int...
(Quote) Steven-706921 said:



The same criticism applies to "democracies" as well. They can, in fact, devolve into a mob-ocracy, and eventually falls into oligarchy where, if there is order, it is the orders of men making rules in secret for thier interests.



Oh wait! That sounds like what we got!

--hide--


Indeed. Dr. Robert Cialdini, a social psychologist, suggests that group dynamics control how people act and think.

Cialdini's analysis shows democracy or mobocracy's inherent weakness.

jonestown.sdsu.edu
LOCKED
Jan 11th 2013 new

(Quote) Steven-706921 said: Also, the Catholic rulers of old were not absolute dictators as we would known them bec...
(Quote) Steven-706921 said:

Also, the Catholic rulers of old were not absolute dictators as we would known them because there was a sphere above them they recognized, and that was the Church. They knew that their regency came from God (in France, the kings were annointed with a special sacramental from the time of Clovis to Louis XVI) and that they were accountable to God and to the Church.

Our republics do not recognize or give worship to God (they can, since they are collections of people), and believe that power comes from a contract and that they can discern what's "in the people's interests" without regard to God or even to Natural Law. Between the two, the modern President is far more tyrannical than the Catholic king, as even Libertarian writer Herman Hoppe acknowledged in "Democracy: the God that Failed."

--hide--
Yes and the English were at war with the French and both thought they had God on there side. Henry
the eighth and Napoleon changed that. In our republic you are right we have a sort of tyranny of the majority at the moment.

LOCKED
Jan 11th 2013 new

(Quote) Steven-706921 said: Also, the Catholic rulers of old were not absolute dictators as we would known them bec...
(Quote) Steven-706921 said:

Also, the Catholic rulers of old were not absolute dictators as we would known them because there was a sphere above them they recognized, and that was the Church. They knew that their regency came from God (in France, the kings were annointed with a special sacramental from the time of Clovis to Louis XVI) and that they were accountable to God and to the Church.

Our republics do not recognize or give worship to God (they can, since they are collections of people), and believe that power comes from a contract and that they can discern what's "in the people's interests" without regard to God or even to Natural Law. Between the two, the modern President is far more tyrannical than the Catholic king, as even Libertarian writer Herman Hoppe acknowledged in "Democracy: the God that Failed."

--hide--

You forget, as it appears most politicians and most people today also forget, that one of our founding documents does in fact recognize God explicitly.

LOCKED
Jan 11th 2013 new

(Quote) Thomas-699657 said: Yes and the English were at war with the French and both thought they had God on there side. Hen...
(Quote) Thomas-699657 said:

Yes and the English were at war with the French and both thought they had God on there side. Henry
the eighth and Napoleon changed that. In our republic you are right we have a sort of tyranny of the majority at the moment.

--hide--

To me it appears that the reality in the US today is not tyranny of the majority but a tyranny by a very vocal and activist minority; i.e. an over educated with no wisdom intellectual group of pinheads, gays and others of their ilk.

They continue in power because the vast majority pays virtually no attention, and is poorly educated by those same pinheads and are abetted by the general media.

LOCKED
Jan 11th 2013 new

I will go with St. Robert Bellarmine's idea of a mixed regime as best in actual practice. Monarchs are not always beholden to their nobler callings.

As Bellarmine said, Monarchy is in danger of devolving into Tyranny. Democracy is in danger of devolving into mob rule. And, Aristocracy is in danger of devolving into elitism. Our Constitution essentially goes with Bellarmine's notion. The Presidency is the Monarchy, the House of Reps the Democracy, and the Senate the Aristocracy (originally appointed by the President, not elected).


www.hprweb.com

LOCKED
Posts 1 - 10 of 194