Posted on 12/12/2004 8:54:32 AM PST by Land of the Irish
Governor OF THE CHURCH. You misinterpret your own citation.
Well, pardon me for thinking that there are some good points to democracy and human rights. I hope you enjoy your hierarchical, autocratic little fantasy world.
Oh yes, poor little Germany, put upon by all those evil democratic, popular regimes, including France, which the Hollenzollerns invaded and took land from by force. (I would note that the creation of the German Empire was not sanctioned by long prescription, but was a pure Realpolitik creation of the Chancellor Bismarck. In addition, they were not Catholic, so they don't even fit the Catholic monarch paradigm.) Yes, we shouldn't restrain the great German Uebermensch as it teaches a lesson to less advanced societies that don't practice autocratic monarchism, that most blessed of regime types! If you think democracy and America is so evil, I suggest you go live elsewhere if you are American, where your authoritarian and servile (if you are not a ruler or aristocrat) instincts will be better appreciated.
That's correct. It is.
"...a false supposition."
No it isn't.
Some very wise men, over 230 years ago, thought it was. They have been proven right.
Especially since 70% of the populace are ignorant morons.
Same attitude that kept blacks out of public life.
Loyalty to the United States constitution is contrary to Catholic doctrine? That is simply not true, and no pope has ever said that. That's just crazy!
The very fact that Emperor Joseph II, a man who attended mass daily and tried to bring the Protestant Prussians to heel, stands out as such an anti-Catholic is proof itself of just how good the Hapsburgs actually were. If Joseph II is the most radical anti-Church Hapsburg you can come up with, they must be doing pretty good.
As for the 30 Years War, the Hapsburgs fought damn hard throughout, and were everywhere victorious until some little bit of trickery turned the tables on them. Had Cardinal Richelieu cared a little more about Christendom than his own France, the Hapsburgs would probably have won. As for the Reformation, if the Pope would have taken seriously the repeated please of the Hapsburg Emperor Charles V to call a reform council, the Protestant rebellion might, God willing, have been nipped in the bud. The Hapsburgs were having to fight off the French, the Muslims and Lutheran rebels all at the same time. They beat the French, beat the Muslims, won the Knights War, put down the Peasants Revolt and yet you're still going to say they weren't trying just because the betrayal of Maurice of Saxony forced the Emperor to contain Protestantism rather than destroying it entirely? Why not just demand perfection while you're at it?
And, BTW, at the time of the Declaration of Independence, Catholicism WAS banned in all but one or two colonies. After that, it was quite easy for the US to be "tolerant" of Catholics, considering they were too few to even have a prayer of being an influential force. Anti-catholicism was one of the driving forces behind the American Revolution. When King George III allowed Quebec Catholic toleration, the Protestant sensationalists of New England immediately began to cry that George III was slipping into that "Roman religion" of royal absolutism and would bring back the Catholic Church to British lands. There was no truth to this of course, but it certainly shows what a paranoid and fanatic hatred of Catholics there was even in the idyllic American colonies. Catholics weren't even a majority in Maryland, and they founded the colony!
When Catholics did start to arrive in America in considerable numbers, the people who met them were far from tolerant as any historian can tell you.
Did I leave out anything? I'm sure I'll be told...
St Edward of England, St Louis of France, St Fernando of Spain, St Elizabeth of Portugal, St Hedwig of Poland, St Stephen of Hungary and Bl Charles of Austria, pray for us in our republican arrogance!
From Leo XIII's encyclical Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae against Americanism:
"The rule of life laid down for Catholics is not of such a nature that it cannot accommodate itself to the exigencies of various times and places."
Same encyclical:
"He alone could wish that some Christian virtues be adapted to certain times and different ones for other times who is unmindful of the apostle's words: "That those whom He foreknew, He predestined to be made conformable to the image of His Son."— Romans viii, 29."
Hahaha! Hey... could I adopt you as my Auntie Thesis?
No it isn't.
You are wasting your time with people who think that Prince Charles is more enlightened than Tony Blair.
There. I've covered my bases. You know how I detest ambiguity.
If I were a liberal, I would have been offended.
That was a hook.
You REALLY find polo-playing Charles to be a stronger leader than Tony Blair?
Nice "either / or" close.
You in sales?
Polo, anyone?
I'm just here to cancel out your efforts in such a manner as that the others may continue on with an intelligent conversation. About the Catholic Faith. I'm good like that.
I like the monarchists for the stunning irony they supply. Most, given their attitudes toward the pope, would make lousy subjects.
Where is the intelligent conversation? All I see are guys running around thinking it would be keen to put a queen at the head of the most powerful military on earth.
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.