Replies

"Thing is, your "monarch" gets to determine what God's pleasure is, doesn't he?"

I will repeat the natural order of things, as you, Sinkspur, seem to be rather confused on this point: Christ is the head of the body, that entity being the Roman Catholic Church; The state, represented by its sovereign Catholic head, that being the King, rules in submission to the Roman Catholic Church--and the laws of the Church; The Catholic faithful are in submission to the King. That is the proper order of things, and whether you appreciate or approve of the arrangement is of little merit.

I belive, Sinkspur, that you are inhibited from realization of what is just and proper in this temporal sphere because of an over-stimulated sense "individualism." Your ego-centric pride, has been well-inflated by Protestant political theory, ideals which are distilled from Protestant theology--a theology centered upon the idea that Man has the supreme "right" to a total freedom of action; and the supreme "right" to a personal interpretation of both the Creator and all Creation, whether such topics revolve around a self-defined scripture, or a self-defined "church," or a self-defined freedom."

"I'll trust the will of the electorate over the "enlightenment" of an individual in matters political, no matter how "enlightened" he, or you, think he is."

So you will trust Man over God, just because the issue may be political? You will trust the electorate over the Church, simply out of spite? So, according to your philosophy, the "electorate" is more "enlightened" than the Church, or the King who speaks through the authority of the Church. This line of thought must naturally include the Pope, as he is head of the Church. By your words, there must be the corollary that the electorate is always right, even when all are wrong. So, if the "electorate decides that abortion is good, then they must be right. If the "electorate" decides that homosexual marriage is good, then they must be right. If the "electorate" decides that euthenasia is good, then they must be right. After all, the "electorate" is the majority, and in a democracy--even one that is supposedly "tempered" through the etablishment of a representative republic--the majority usually rules.

The problem is that the majority can be wrong. If everybody is doing the wrong thing, that does not make the wrong thing right.

So, according to your philosophy, the "electorate" is more "enlightened" than the Church, or the King who speaks through the authority of the Church. This line of thought must naturally include the Pope, as he is head of the Church.

Yes. Witness the recent rousting of Saddam Hussein from power, an action taken by duly elected heads-of-state, in contravention to the will of the Pope. In your world, Hussein would still be in power, not only in Iraq, but in Kuwait, too, as the Pope opposed the Gulf War in 1991.

The Pope was wrong about the rightness of both.