Austria's last emperor nears sainthood

International Herald Tribune ^ | October 4, 2004 | Elisabetta Povoledo

[JB_90]

Pope John Paul II on Sunday put the last Austro-Hungarian emperor, Charles I, on the road to sainthood in a solemn beatification ceremony in St. Peter's Square, prompting angry reactions in Austria and splitting the Roman Catholic community there.

[RFT1]

And while Hitler was thrown in jail by the Republic in the 20s, if the Kaiser was left in charge, he would have either been in prison for life or execuated for subversion, not repleased and allowed to pursure his political goals.

[royalcello]

The "biblical" anti-monarchist argument was exhaustively refuted by B-Chan here on FR about four years ago. Unfortunately, I can't find the thread, which I believe was called "Monarchists Wanted."

Catholic monarchist Charles Coulombe also addresses this issue in his Monarchy FAQ:

But wasn‘t God angry at the people of Israel for wanting a King? Weren‘t Judges better?

The Judges of Israel were directly called by God, with neither acclamation by the people nor constitutional restraint. The fallen nature of the Israelites made such a government unfeasible for long---did not Our Lord complain that Jerusalem murdered the prophets? Having been chosen from all the Earth, the Israelites ought to been gratified that they had been given such a unique---and to our way of thinking, undemocratic---system of government. Instead, they demanded the natural manner of rule enjoyed by all other peoples---hence God‘s anger. But He nevertheless showed His approval of the institution both by having Samuel anoint Saul, and by establishing the dynasty of King David, whose last rightful heir according to the flesh, Jesus Christ, continues to rule by right over us all, whether we wish Him or not. It is by Him, and as a reflection of Him, that, as Pope Pius XI‘s hymn to Christ the King puts it, "Kings the Crown and Sceptre hold," as pledge of His supremacy.

In any case, the Judgeship is completely irrelevant to us to-day. Our republic is certainly nothing like it, and one cannot imagine whom God might choose to rule a heathen people like the Americans. (It is interesting that no such thing has ever happened in Catholic countries). Did we attempt such a thing, we would doubtless have a regime like the Mormons did in pre-Territorial Utah, or the colonists in New Haven, where the ministers would run things. One can imagine what the result would be. Such non-Catholic clerics would have the power of life and death over all citizens, Catholic or not --- and no constitutional or legal restraints on them. Even a non-Christian Monarchy, restrained by local traditions, would be far preferable.

I'd like to add: how can Christ be "King of Kings" if there are no earthly Kings for him to be King of? He is not "King of Presidents" or "President of Presidents."

[royalcello]

Excellent points!

[royalcello]

You mean the one where they couldn't stop slaughtering each other over religious differences for hundreds of years?

Such activities were hardly confined to the aristocracy. Funding and encouraging the development of great art, music, and architecture, however, largely were, in addition to the equally important role played by the Church.

that same European aristocracy were neck deep in WWI

So were businessmen, arms manufacturers, government ministers, politicians, and even (initially) the general population. The monarchs of 1914 cannot be fully exonerated of responsibility, but it would be even more unfair to single them out when so many other individuals and factors helped push Europe into war. The fact that the old order was partially responsible for its own downfall does not mean that the old order was a bad thing. If a person does something foolish which results in his own death, that doesn't mean he deserved to die.

[DManA]

That one section of Samuel explains why the monarchy and their collaborators in the Roman Church were so desperate to keep the scriptures out of the hands of the commons. It is a knife into the heart of the self-serving lie that monarchy, not liberty, is God’s perfect will for man.

[royalcello]

the self-serving lie that monarchy, not liberty, is God’s perfect will for man.

Not all advocates of liberty agree with you that the two are mutually exclusive. Here are five excellent pro-monarchy articles by libertarians, published in libertarian sources:

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Monarchy and War
Lew Rockwell, Why Hate Monarchs?
Sean Gabb, In Defence of the Monarchy
Carlo Stagnaro, In Honor of Franz Joseph
Leland Yeager, Monarchy: Friend of Liberty

...not to mention an entire book by economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy--The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order

[DManA]

Thanks for reminding me why I'm not a Libertarian.

[Guelph4ever]

To all of my fellow monarchists: I apologize for my delay in facing the latest Jacobin tirade, but like the Gonzales 32 (B-Chan knows'em I'm sure), 'I am come to share your fate".

Now, as to your uninformed comments Mr DManA, if you can tax your brain for a few minutes, I would be happy for you to read my look at this subject, all of it taken from the Bible directly at:
http://www.geocities.com/josephcrisp/godandking.html

Contrarily to what YOU in your great holy wisdom seem to think, God, in both Sacred Scripture and tradition did no less than COMMAND obedience to monarchs, even going so far as to say we are not to even THINK evil of them or to associate in any way with those opposed to them.

Blessed Charles of Austria, pray for us.
GOTT ERHALTE UNSER KAISER!!!

[royalcello]

Thought you'd be interested in this thread...

[Blessed Charlemagne]

God's will for man is salvation last time I checked, not liberty (such an ambiguous term). The question is, what form of government creates a social order most conducive to salvation? Democracy, where the will of man rules supreme? Don't think so.

[DManA]

A Catholic emporor being out of the question at this time, would you settle for a Muslim Caliph? What in principle is the difference?

[Blessed Charlemagne]

The truth.

[kjvail]

Thanks for the ping, don't see many monarchists here.

The mis-understanding comes from an incomplete knowledge of history, one that I think approaches being deliberate

Let's assume most people go to college, I don't know what the current statistics are on that but let's stipulate it for the purpose of argument.

I went to 7 years of college for 2 different degrees never had 1 credit hour in anything but American history. These classes touch on the conflict with the Protestant absolutist monarchy of England and perhaps the French Revolution but that's about it, one has to take it upon himself to learn anything further - like the 800 years of Catholic civilization that preceded the Protestant revolt.

Then you have classes, sometimes required, on "Classical civilization" which discuss the pagan monarchies and the Roman Empire.

If you never went to college then you have absolutely 0 chance of ever hearing any of it

You can turn on the History channel most any day of the week and see shows on Rome but when was the last time you saw any show in the popular media about Christendom or the Holy Roman Empire?

My guess is never..

The limited Catholic monarchs ruled over a society of totally different character than the "post-enlightment" absolutist monarchs. Absolutist political theory, started in practice by Henry VIII and formally promulgated by James I of England was a corruption of the monarchial system that had existed in Europe for nearly 1000 years.

I recommend the work of Harry Crocker, Hilaire Belloc and Christopher Dawson if you actually want a complete picture beyond the revisionist history of the post-enlightenment age.

[royalcello]

Excellent points; I am in full agreeement.

don't see many monarchists here.

No, unfortunately, especially since Zviadist was banned and Goetz_von_Berlichingen hardly ever posts. The few of us left continue to put up a fight--for what purpose, I'm not entirely sure.

The mis-understanding comes from an incomplete knowledge of history, one that I think approaches being deliberate

Yes. As "Goetz" put it, "The problem is that anti-monarchical Americans are like the abused children of a broken home, who then grow up and become ardent enemies of the family as an institution. Monarchy (allegedly) did not work for the thirteen colonies, so it can't possibly work anywhere else. Americans (allegedly) hated King George III, so people everywhere must also hate their kings."

You can turn on the History channel most any day of the week and see shows on Rome but when was the last time you saw any show in the popular media about Christendom or the Holy Roman Empire?

My impression is that the History Channel is almost always about World War II. They should just rename it the "World War II Channel."

You might enjoy perusing my archive of older FR monarchy discussions:

FReepers on Monarchy

[royalcello]

Harry Crocker

I have his Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church, and I like it a lot. However, there was one sentence that irritated me: "He [Pope John Paul II] saw that the old altar-and-throne model of Catholicism had died with the Habsburg Empire after World War I, though the Church had never conceded this." (pp. 420-1) True, perhaps, but why should the Church condone this?

Even as a non-Catholic, I for one will never give up on the "old altar-and-throne model."

[kjvail]

True, perhaps, but why should the Church condone this?

I don't know that She has, other forms of government are tolerated as long as the Church is permitted to operate.

Even as a non-Catholic, I for one will never give up on the "old altar-and-throne model." There is one organization on Earth that is guaranteed by the Lord of History to never fade away, long after the liberal regimes of the modern world are relegated to a few pages in a history book She will be there to pick up the pieces, again...

[DManA]

The truth is wherever power is concentrated, evil is attracted.

[royalcello]

So then why not abolish all governments and institutions?

[royalcello]

There is one organization on Earth that is guaranteed by the Lord of History to never fade away, long after the liberal regimes of the modern world are relegated to a few pages in a history book She will be there to pick up the pieces, again...

And perhaps someday I will come to share this conviction of yours, and join that organization. Stranger things have happened...

[DManA]

I prefer the Founder's sensible solution; diffuse the power, spread it out, distribute it into as many hands as possible.