 |
Last Catholic Monarchy Euthanized | |
|
Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg Silenced! |
Posted on 03/20/2009 1:28:51 PM PDT by GonzoII
|
Last Catholic Monarchy Euthanized | |
|
Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg Silenced! |
|
Brian McCall |
| REMNANT COLUMNIST, Oklahoma |
|
Luxembourg was the last European nation to be governed by a real monarch. Although the tiny nation has had a parliamentary chamber, that body functioned as parliaments were originally designed to function. It was an advisory body to the Grand Duke. After new legislation was voted on by the Chamber of Deputies, Article 34 of the Constitution stated: “The Grand Duke sanctions and promulgates the laws. He makes his resolve known within three months of the vote in the Chamber.” This provision permitted the Grand Duke to perform the proper function of a monarch in a mixed form of government. He served as a check on the potential excesses of political parties legislating when they encroached on the principles of the natural law. As a hereditary ruler for life, the Grand Duke is immune from elector politics. He can thus serve as an outside supervisor of the results of the legislative process. This is exactly what he did last year in an act which precipitated the March 12 vote. In 2008, the Chamber of Deputies voted to approve a law which authorized the intentional killing of human beings, commonly referred to by its morbid proponents as euthanasia. Such a law is contrary to the natural law. For, as St. Thomas observed in his Summa the civil law can not always punish everything that the natural law forbids but it may never sanction such evil. Now we know both by reason and divine authority that euthanasia is prescribed. It violates the first principle of the natural law - self preservation. The Church has confirmed this deduction of reason on several occasions by pronouncing euthanasia to be immoral. Even the sensus Catholicus of this overwhelming Catholic nation was clear; the populace of Luxembourg opposed the bill pushed through by the Socialist and Green parties. Henri, the current Grand Duke, fulfilled his moral obligation as a good Catholic monarch and refused to sanction this evil legislative act. As a reward for doing the right thing, the so called “conservative” Prime Minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, called for an amendment to the Constitution stripping the Grand Duke of his authority to sanction laws passed by the Chamber of Deputies. The March 12 vote approved the removal of the word “sanctions” from Article 34. Prime Minister Juncker made clear the intention was to remove the right of the Grand Duke to approve of or reject laws. According to Juncker he must be required to promulgate all acts passed by the Chamber. The Luxembourg monarchy has thus entered the realm of Walt Disney monarchs inhabited by the remaining figure heads of Europe such as England, Spain and Belgium. They can parade around for tourists in quaint costumes and live in nice palaces, but they have no authority to protect and defend their nation by governing it. The old sly tactics of the spirit of Liberalism were visible in the way this final act unfolded. The press and politicians called the Grand Duke’s prevention of this immoral euthanasia legislation a “constitutional crisis.” Now a constitutional crisis occurs when an official violates the norms and rules constituting the mode of government of a civil society. In this case the Grand Duke did not violate a single provision of the existing written constitution. He merely exercised his legitimate and rightful authority to withhold his sanction from a proposed civil law which is contrary to the natural law. And the reaction of Liberalism to his exercise of his legitimate right – strip him of that right! Liberalism has always been willing to grant freedom and rights so long as the recipients only exercise that freedom in accordance with the wishes of Liberalism. Post French Revolutionary Liberalism claims to stand for the “rule of law,” a phrase that purports to mean that rules are not to be changed merely to reach a desired outcome. The established rules of the game, Liberalism claims, are sacrosanct. In reality, the rules are changed whenever Liberalism does not get its way. Like a spoiled child, it picks up its toys, which it previously claimed to have given away, and goes home. A few years ago after several nations clearly voted to reject the proposed European Constitution, the forces of Liberalism decided that the right to vote on the proposed Constitution was no longer necessary. The Constitution was repackaged as a treaty needing only the approval of the governments of the member states, not a vote of the population at large. Ireland stood as the only exception and allowed the Irish people to vote and they said no. Even this vote did not stop the forces of Liberalism who vowed to find another way. Likewise, when Grand Duke Henri uses his legal right to withhold his sanction from a law, the right he thought Liberalism had conceded to his ancestors, the modern Constitution is seen for the illusion it is. He has the right for only so long as he does not actually use it. This pattern of give and take rights is as old as the French Revolution which began by proclaiming Liberty for all and then proceeded to guillotine those who did not use that Liberty in the way the Committee for Public Safety thought they should (i.e. by apostatizing from the Faith). Liberalism means the right to be Liberal (as defined and redefined by the reigning generation of Liberals). Fortunately for Grand Duke Henri, his confrontation with the old enemy cost him only his legitimate governing authority and not his head. Some Liberals have at least learned that the messy business of liberally severing heads always seems to turn on them, literally. Still, the Grand Duke is to be commended for his fortitude. One can only imagine the subtle voices of temptation that were poured into his ears by the Machiavellian politicos. “Just sanction the euthanasia law and avoid a ‘constitutional crisis.’ and conserve your rights.” “You can compromise by expressing your personal disapproval but still promulgate the bill as the ‘will of the legislature.’” “This is not an issue worth loosing your privileges and rights over.” But no, Grand Duke Henri’s Catholic conscience was too well formed for these deceits. He refused and was duly reprimanded. Again, in an absurdity of contradiction, the new “liberal” article 34 will prevent the Grand Duke from acting in accordance with his conscience. Its terms require him to promulgate all laws, even those that violate his well formed conscience – so much for “freedom of conscience!” In lieu of tossing flowers to the Grand Duke as he makes his final bow on the decaying ruins of the theater of Christendom, I suggest all Remnant readers instead offer a rosary for His Highness that God, whose divine law leaves no good deed unrewarded and no evil deed unpunished, will bless him for his courage. While you are doing that, perhaps you can utter a prayer for the tiny population of Luxembourg who are now defenseless against the enactment of euthanasia laws and all the other gruesome ordinances of 21st Century Liberalism. These will all be possible now despite the will of their Grand Duke and, as in this case, even their own overwhelming sentiments. Libera nos ab potestate tyrannico liberalismi, Christus Rex. |
I stopped reading when the author wrote “prescribed” instead of “proscribed”...
I've read the Republic. Excuse me, please point out where I lobbied for pure democracy?
Your post is the biggest non-sequitur that I've ever read.
As our founders knew all too well, democracy can only succeed when voters put their own limited self-interests behind those of future generations.
That's why they gave us a Constitutional Republic. I will not live under a Catholic monarchy, no matter how much you try to lobby for it.
If they can and did legalize killing unborn children in the womb they are and will continue through the courts to legalize the killing off of the expensive unproductive aged generation under the guise of “assisted suicide.”
That’s going to be the way Obama, Pelosi and Reid et al will continue to fund their socialist agenda while “selectly reducing” the those with memories of freedom needing Social Security, medicare and medicaid benefits.
What goes around, comes around. One day Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Felos and Judge Greer will become old or disabled.
I never claimed that you lobbied for a pure democracy (nice try at sneaking in a fallacious straw-man argument, though). While not contesting the truth of your dubious claim of having read Plato despite all of the ill-informed comments you have made here on this thread, you did claim in post #12 that anyone who advocated for a monarchical form of government was "extremely idiotic and stupid" in obvious comparison to our democratic form of government.
Your post is the biggest non-sequitur that I've ever read.
If that is true then you clearly have no understanding of Plato or even basic logic. On which comparative form of government were you boldly basing your low assessment of the intelligence of those who advocated monarchical governance?
That's why they gave us a Constitutional Republic.
Which, of course, they themselves wrote of as a type of democracy.
I will not live under a Catholic monarchy, no matter how much you try to lobby for it.
That's the second fallacious straw-man argument you have attempted in your short and poorly formed post. I've lobbied for no such thing. I have merely pointed out how utterly foolish you were to have attempted to make a blind assessment of the intelligence of those who do. Unfortunately, your rebuttal post has done nothing other than to further demonstrate that your insults of "extremely idiotic and stupid" apply to no one better than to yourself.
Perhaps, but, based on the context, it seems like proscribed (forbidden) was intended...
"Extremely idiotic and stupid" describes people who reject the Enlightenment and the political and economic freedom that followed as "anti-Christian", and lobby for a return to a religious monarchy. If you want to defend an idea, then go ahead and do so. I'm not interested in getting involved in another one of your insult sessions.
So publicly questioning and lobbying for religious freedom would get me a trip to the Inquisition?
What if I were to publicly question Catholicism? Would that also lead to persecution by this Catholic monarch?
What if a non-Christian wished to seek the monarchy? Would he be automatically disqualified?
If he was a good Monarch, he’d call out the armed forces and disband “Parliment,” by force if necessary.
Oh, well.
Now THAT'S funny coming from the same poster who did nothing but that same thing in post #12! I, of course, have done nothing of the sort and since then I've made a solid case pointing out the utter foolishness of your assertions there.
"Extremely idiotic and stupid" describes people who reject the Enlightenment and the political and economic freedom that followed as "anti-Christian", and lobby for a return to a religious monarchy.
This statement of yours is nothing other than "throwing ad hominems without staking out a position"! You just attempted to falsely accuse me of this same thing, immediately above, in this same post!!! Come on, this must be some kind of joke, nobody could be this dense!
If you want to defend an idea, then go ahead and do so.
That is EXACTLY what I did in my post #97 to you. By the way, you never responded directly to ANY of my points in that post and instead attempted to stick me with two fallacious straw-man arguments. There can be no better proof of the weakness of your argument and the feablemindedness of your reasoning than to fail to even attempt a rebuttal.
I'm not interested in getting involved in another one of your insult sessions.
All you have done on this thread is sling insults and make fallacious attacks! Hypocrisy, thy name is GunRunner!!!
Your post about the Founders distrusting pure democracy is defense of an idea?
Wow, that's rich. I made a statement about people who reject the entire Enlightenment, which helped form the representative and limited government that we have in the Western world today, and you respond with "As our founders knew all too well, democracy can only succeed when voters put their own limited self-interests behind those of future generations."
Color me impressed. Yes, I think everybody knows that the Founders did not want the US to be a direct democracy, and didn't want it to succumb to mob rule. It was totally irrelevant to what I said. Thanks for showing us the depths of your intellectual capacity. Maybe you should have added "Puppies are cute" to show us more deep thinking.
My comments were directed at those who would abandon a representative republic for an unelected religious monarchy. You attacked me for calling that position "idiotic". Yet you haven't made any arguments as to where why rejecting our republic for an unelected monarchy is superior. Is it not idiotic? Tell us why.
Come on hot shot. Tell all of the Freepers here why they should abandon the United States Constitution for an unelected monarchy. Show us that you're capable of a single original thought.
I'm not holding my breath.
Hypocrisy, thy name is GunRunner!!!
I love it when my enemies say my name. Say it again shlemiel!
Good article, but ditto on your post. The Remnant is an, IMO, over-the-top Catholic rag w/ way too much holier-than thou attitude.
I think that this is pretty obvious that monarch have God given legitimacy to rule. So he wont allow anybody to publicly claim that this God doesn’t exist. You would indirectly question his position.
What if a non-Christian wished to seek the monarchy? Would he be automatically disqualified?
There are plenty of monarchies around the word, most of them non-Christian.
It's a thorough defense of the idea that you were utterly foolish in casting your baseless insults in post #12.
Wow, that's rich. I made a statement about people who reject the entire Enlightenment, which helped form the representative and limited government that we have in the Western world today, and you respond with "As our founders knew all too well, democracy can only succeed when voters put their own limited self-interests behind those of future generations."
You merely made a statement about the intelligence of those people. My statement completely refuted your far more simplistic point.
Color me impressed.
I would normally take that as a complement, but based on what you have written on this thread, it's likely that impressing you isn't very hard to do.
Yes, I think everybody knows that the Founders did not want the US to be a direct democracy, and didn't want it to succumb to mob rule.
They also stated that even an indirect democracy would be doomed to failure if voters put their own limited self-interests ahead of those of future generations, as I already wrote to you in post #97.
It was totally irrelevant to what I said.
Well since you merely made a false and baseless claim against the intelligence of those who disagreed with you, you left no relevant basis for a meaningful discussion. I took it upon myself to try to make your post intellectually coherent enough to refute.
Thanks for showing us the depths of your intellectual capacity.
You're welcome, but I'll be modest enough to admit that anyone would probably look good with you as their opponent.
Maybe you should have added "Puppies are cute" to show us more deep thinking.
Although that would certainly be something you would find more interesting based on the depth of intellect you have shown on this thread, I doubt anyone else would find that very interesting.
My comments were directed at those who would abandon a representative republic for an unelected religious monarchy.
No, your post #12 was merely a false and baseless assessment of their intelligence with no specified audience.
You attacked me for calling that position "idiotic".
Actually your precise phrase from post #12 was "extremely idiotic and stupid."
Yet you haven't made any arguments as to where why rejecting our republic for an unelected monarchy is superior.
Actually I made several points and a reference in my post #97 as to why you were wrong. By the way, you still haven't even made an attempt to refute any of them.
Is it not idiotic? Tell us why.
Again, see post #97 and respond to it.
Come on hot shot.
I hope that you realize that your writings here are only furthering the negative opinion any objective reader of this thread has already developed of you.
Tell all of the Freepers here why they should abandon the United States Constitution for an unelected monarchy.
I am content merely to tell them, as I already have on this thread, why you are such an utter fool for what your have written here.
Show us that you're capable of a single original thought.
Any of my posts on this thread should be quite sufficient for that.
I'm not holding my breath.
I would never encourage anyone of your obvious deficits to hold their breath. It would simply be too dangerous.
I love it when my enemies say my name. Say it again shlemiel!
Is that Yiddish? If that is indeed the language of your ethnicity than you are an even more extreme example of the low end of an otherwise higher intellectual bell curve. Your very existence must be like being an intellectual midget amongst giants. You have my condolences.
The Pope certainly would not - he is catholic, a manarch of an European state, strongly anti-abortion...
And the Pope is the Absolute Manarch of the Vatican. If he had ordered the guard to put Pelosi’s head on a pike, it we be decorating Ste. Peter’s Square right now.
So post #97 was your defense of a monarchy? I'll let other Freepers scroll back to it to see your impassioned response. It was quite impressive if you're an 8th grader.
You have admitted that there is good reason a good reason to ditch the Constitution and return to a religious monarchy. Thankfully, more intelligent Freepers on this thread have actually mapped out their reasoning for this, and have have said that it would include religious repression of those who don't support the church. Everyone now knows where you stand on religious freedom. Congratulations.
Oh, and if your little fantasy comes true, and the clerical authorities come to my home to arrest me for speaking out against the church and the monarchy, I hope they send you. Although I doubt you’d have the stones.
Have you read any of my posts? Here you go again, trying to fallaciously pin a straw-man position on me which I never took. My only purpose on this thread was to show what a fool you were for what you wrote in your post #12. Everything you have posted since then has only furthered that observation!
I'll let other Freepers scroll back to it to see your impassioned response.
My reply to your utterly foolish and completely baseless assertions in post #12 can be found in my post #97.
It was quite impressive if you're an 8th grader.
You having a lesser grade schooler's perspective would do much to explain this comment and the rest of your juvenile posts on this thread.
You have admitted that there is good reason a good reason to ditch the Constitution and return to a religious monarchy.
There you go again, trying to fallaciously pin yet another false straw-man position on me which I never took. These desperate attempts to fraudulently cheat in this debate only add to the conclusion that you have already conceded all of my actual points (to which you still have yet to respond).
Thankfully, more intelligent Freepers on this thread have actually mapped out their reasoning for this,
Are you still making baseless assessments of people's intelligence on this thread? Your simplistic and unsubstantiated insults are so juvenile that I am starting to believe that you really just might be a grade school student!
and have have said that it would include religious repression of those who don't support the church.
Although this is clearly outside my point, I will add that almost all of the religious repression of the last century occurred in countries with democratic constitutions.
Everyone now knows where you stand on religious freedom. Congratulations.
That would truly be amazing since I haven't yet commented on the subject. You appear to be deluded on a number of different levels.
Oh, and if your little fantasy comes true,
So in addition to remotely assessing other people's intelligence you are now also divining their innermost desires? Your psychic powers must be incredible!!!
and the clerical authorities come to my home to arrest me for speaking out against the church and the monarchy,
You certainly have a grade schooler's imagination...
I hope they send you.
Awe, that's sweet of you!
Although I doubt you’d have the stones.
Probably not, I'm really not interested in stoning the people I disagree with. I find it much more enjoyable to publicly expose them as the fools they are, just like what I am doing with the opportunity you are providing me here!
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.
(Posted 03/20/09