Posted on 01/25/2005 2:58:28 PM PST by csbyrnes84
I guess Iraq was better off with Saddam in charge, huh?
We can agree to disagree on the merits of monarchy. I grant that it has some, as you will grant that the US model has some.
There are demerits to both, as well.
Que sera, sera.
Iraq was better off with King Faisal II (murdered in 1958) in charge. Saddam was one of history's countless examples of how the abolition of a monarchy always makes things worse.
However, I am still amazed that you Bush loyalists can continue to defend the Iraq war in light of the appalling situation there. I see that 37 US troops died yesterday. For what purpose?
Clearly Iraq's Christians, who are now blamed by Islamic fundamentalists for happening to share the same religion as the invaders, are currently in a worse situation than they were under Saddam.
Wouldn't the same argument apply in reverse to the Roman Empire, which was brought about by the destruction of the Roman Republic?
Would it be okay to invade Iraq for the purposes of restoring the monarchy (such as was threatened by the Declaration of Pilnitz)?
And George W. Bush's inaugural address must have given you major diaper rash.
I do approve of the Iraq War. We fight them there, or we fight them here.
Pluralism is "In everything that is not a matter of Faith," according to that quote.
I doubt that we would have the "reasonable prospect of success" needed to justify such an act. One of the many truths this war has exposed is the hopeless inadequacy of the United States to comprehend the alien complexity of Iraqi politics and life in general. We're interfering in something we don't understand.
Perhaps, but since the Roman Empire, unlike the modern republics I mentioned, no longer exists, I don't spend too much time worrying about its origins.
I prefer monarchy to republicanism in theory, but concede pragmatically that republicanism may be acceptable in practice when it is more compatible with a particular country's heritage and traditions.
It does not follow from the fact that I oppose the transformation of monarchies into republics that I am obliged to oppose the transformation of republics into monarchies with equal vehemence. The Netherlands was once a republic, but now that it has been a kingdom for almost 200 years I would prefer that it remain one.
No. A monarchy imposed by force and invasion would not last very long.
The issue is more what is the source of law and authority, regardless of the form of government. Democratic republics tend towards the understanding of law articulated by b-chan "vox populi, vox dei". The "will of the people" is supreme. This is theologically unsound as it denys the effects of original sin which darkens the intellects of men not to mention the power of modern propoganda which reduces all issues to sound bytes for consumption by the lowest common denominator. Law must be understood as antecedent to government - this idea is even expressed in the US constitution, tho I am not a fan of that document or it's theory. In the Catholic monarchy and even in the Protestant and "absolutist" variants of the 17th thru the 19th century the King was beneath the law. As de Jouvenal wrote in On Power...
This is a very rough paraphrase granted, I don't have the text in front of me. The point being that Kings had no more and no less rights than everyone else, they were held under the law the same as every man because law was eternal and immutable. The Kings of the ancien regime acted as judges, applying the law case by case not creating it out of thin air as legislatures in modern democratic republics do.
I interpet the writings of Leo XIII in Diturnum and Immortale Dei to mean that any society which recognized the immutability of law and conformed its actions to the natural law would be legitmite in the eyes of the Church. Which virtually every Pope upto and including Pius XII weren't strongly pro-monarchist. It is undeniable they certainly were.
I object to the modern (and largely American) idea of linking democracy with freedom as if the two were inseparable. I would argue precisely the opposite, never in the history of man has the state had so much power over the lives of it's citizens than now in this age of "freedom and democracy". The illusion that "we are the government" causes us to overlook the most egegrious violations. No monarch in history would have dared confiscate 40% of someone's earnings, presume to have the authority to print fiat money, indoctrinate the children of their subjects in "state approved circulumn" or reach into private homes and remove the children "for their own good". We live in a totalitarian society and most don't even know it because they labor under the illusion that "we are the government".
Finally we have the ridicoulous notion that somehow a democracy that elects a monster can suddenly and retroactively be considered not a democracy. So the Weimar republic that elected Hitler was a democracy one day and not the next??
There are a thousand other arguments for monarchy and interestingly virtually none for democracy
saradippity wrote:
"Martin in an Art Bell interview,(I believe his last) told a "white witch" who called in to ask it she would go to heaven that she would. He proceeded with the same unCatholic gobbledy gook that the new-agers do. "Good person,loves god blah-blah,yada,yada." But I guess Fr. S's purpose was to impugn Opus Dei,not Malachi Martin."
I know the interview very well. You're confusing several callers as one. Martin made a distinction between what is called "White wicca" as being "Nature worship" contrasting it with out and out Satanism. He stated prudently that "white wicca" has other liabilities attached to it. But many people come out of it through seeing God's creation and concluding that there must be what for all intents and purposes is the "uncaused cause" as Aquinas describes it.
Martin acted with traditional Catholic prudence in those interviews. He only had a limited amount of time to deal with them and mostly he was dealing with people in positions of atheism and "anti-religious" sentiment. He even explains to one of the callers that he would need hours to accurately explain the proper theological position.
Fr. Martin, you'll notice if you study him thoroughly was always capable of speaking to people on their terms. (many people are speculating from listening to his interviews and the testimony of those that knew him that he had the gift of discernment) He could speak "modernist lingo" as he did in 3 Popes and the Cardinal and Jesus Now. He could explain things to the everyday person (There is still love) and he could explain the world in terms of geopolitics. But in each of these circumstances he, like a prophet of old would lead the conversation back to solid Catholic ground.
Not at the cost of so many lives, especially when it is far from clear that the republic envisioned by Bush will actually take shape. An Islamic theocracy is more likely.
George W. Bush's inaugural address
...was nauseating. As the refreshingly honest neoconservative Robert Kagan admitted, "The goal of American foreign policy is now to spread democracy, for its own sake, for reasons that transcend specific threats. In short, Bush has unmoored his foreign policy from the war on terrorism. This is where Bush may lose the support of most old-fashioned conservatives. His goals are now the antithesis of conservatism. They are revolutionary." [my emphasis]
We fight them there, or we fight them here.
Huh? Please explain how it is that we would be fighting "them" [presumably the Iraqi insurgents] here if it were not for the invasion. Why not just control our own borders and reform immigration policy to exclude Muslims so that we don't have to fight them at all?
Iraq deserves a proper, Catholic monarch. Were I in charge, I would restore Iraq's Hashemite dynasty and place the country under the mandate of a Catholic power. (The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg fits the bill, and is a NATO member state as well.) Putting Iraq under mandate to Luxembourg would allow it self-government under the auspices of a non-representative Catholic monarchy; it would also bring Iraq under the NATO defense umbrella, allowing it to be garrisoned by troops from the several NATO nations. The King of Iraq could then manage his country from Baghdad, with oversight from Luxembourg, and with a permanent contingent of rotating NATO troops stationed in-country to keep the towelheads from going on a jihad (or another Tikriti gangster from seizing the works.)
The mistake democrats make is in assuming people want to rule themselves. On a personal, everyday level of course they do - but politically most people prefer a ruler, someone who rules, not just a ceremonial rubberstamp for a parliament of fools. It comes from having parents: people naturally want order, structure, and tradition; they want a prince, a "father to his country", a man sanctioned by the Church who will wield the sword in defense of culture, borders, and law. What they don't want are corrupt politicians, endless plebiscites, and leaders whose hands are cound by bureaucracy and constitutional red tape.
In short, at the deepest level people want a father-figure -- i.e. a King. It's only natural. Barring that, I suppose a representative democracy is the least evil alternative.
Me, a Saddam supporter? Honestly, Sinky, I don't know where you get this stuff. I look forward to watching the bastard hang by the neck until he is dead, dead, dead.
I forgot to add in regards to Baptism, most (or all?) of the exorcisms prayers were removed in the new ritual.
The only mystery is why you haven't been banned for the poison which spews from your keyboard.
I don't think I or anyone else said that it did, though I do agree with Jeff Culbreath that "no Catholic can be an anti-monarchist" in the sense of believing that all monarchies everywhere ought to be abolished.
Thanks as always for your excellent points.
Under democratic republican idealogy "we" are the government therefor it is "we" that declare war on "them". The effect is the a massive increase in barbarity and scale of warfare. It is under this theory that conscription is justified - since "we" enjoy the benefits of a "free" society "we" have a responsibility to defend it. Wars by democratic powers tend to become idealogical crusades, such as Iraq now is and in fact nearly all the wars of the 20th century have been. This results in total wars of annhiliation - for you cannot be sure if you have "converted" the enemy to your idealogy unless he is dead, and the enemy is not the rival government but the rival nation.
A midieval monarch or citizen would find these idea ridiculous. A monarch was responsible for his own wars if he chose to engage in them - he risked for them, he funded them. No monarch in history had anything like "war bonds", conscription or the vicious propoganda machines of democratic powers. Wars were terroritorial disputes or disputes of inheritence, with a definite goal. Soldiers were professional, expensive and virtually irreplaceable so the last thing you actually wanted to do was fight a battle. By the end of the 17th century war had become such an art form that whole campaigns were conducted without firing a shot. In fact this was considered the epitome of strategy, to force your enemy to capitulate without actually killing anyone. This is the essence of the idea of "privately owned government".
Contrast this with the two great conflagarations of the 20th century - driven by nationalism and complete with conscription, mass murder and unmentionable atrocities committed by both sides .
From what I have read, Escriva had a lot of Talmudic Judaism ideology which he channeled into Opus Dei. I was and am still shocked by the openness of the quote. I guess at a certain point, those in a quest for power feel confident enough to begin revealing their true natures.
And here I thought Christ's sacrifice on the Cross was about salvation.
This group gets scarier and scarier. It is not Catholic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.