A resurgent right (Germany's Extreme Right Gathers Strength)

Forgive my tardiness in replying , as I have been somewhat busy on the last couple of days. I wasn’t going to since I was so much later than I thought I would be. Then again I said I would so here it is.

Thanks for the question, I been looking all morning for St. Thomas Aquinas' On Kingship online, if anyone has a link for it please drop me a freepmail.

Anyways. What is the law and why is it eternal? The Angelic Doctor answers:

a law is nothing else but a dictate of practical reason emanating from the ruler who governs a perfect community. Now it is evident, granted that the world is ruled by Divine Providence, as was stated in the I, 22, A1,2, that the whole community of the universe is governed by Divine Reason.

Wherefore the very Idea of the government of things in God the Ruler of the universe, has the nature of a law. And since the Divine Reason's conception of things is not subject to time but is eternal, according to Prov. 8:23, therefore it is that this kind of law must be called eternal.

Understand that my formal education ended forty years ago and was meager at best. So I ask you to suffer with me as I seek to state my views concerning the information offered. They are mine and subject to error and a lack of understanding.

I am not familiar with the above source but find some points of disagreement which may be because I’m not sure as yet as to what law or laws we are talking about i.e.: moral, civil , or physical.

I certainly agree that the Creator is outside of time and not subject to it or the other physical laws of the universe. If He where He could not be eternal.

I do not agree that God does not conceive of time or subject things to them as all of the universe and the things contained therein are.

I find I cannot agree with the conclusion reached above concerning the law because I do not know what law or type of law is being addressed. If it is the physical laws of the universe such as time then these laws are certainly not eternal.

I say this because they are part of the universe that had a beginning and has an end and so do those physical laws that govern it .

This is also the reason have a problem with certain religions that say God is in everything and everything is God. Well if He is He is not eternal and he is limited and cannot be the God of the Bible..

Prima Secundæ Partis 91,1 Further man participates in this eternal law thru the light of natural reason - this participation is called the natural law. From that natural law proceeds the human law.

The process of applying these laws to human acts is called causitry (see Thomas Fleming's Morality of Everday Life for a full discussion of causitry as it was practiced in the Middle Ages). In short the law cannot be changed by man because man did not create it What and who holds this monarch accountable if they violate this law?

The Monarch is accountable for acts under pain of sin. This is why the traditional Catholic monarchies are to be preferred for the Church provided a real and substantial check on the power of the monarch.

This is of course broken in Protestant monarchies particularly where the King assumes the role as the head of the national "church".

In such cases, and in addition to the Church in the case of Catholic monarchies, the power of the King is held in check by the aristocracy who thru pure self-interest are committed to restraining the authority of the central government, this check is damaged in absolutist monarchies.

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Since all are under the “penalty of sin” I do not see any reason for a catholic monarch to be subject to greater restraint by it than any individual Christian regardless of denomination.

I also do not see how a monarch who is one, who by inheritance rules an autocracy which is “ A political theory favoring unlimited authority by a single individual” could be restrained by any individual or group of individuals over who he has complete authority.

The King is also accountable to his own family. A monarchy is in essence a privately-owned government. The King owns the state, he may sell parts and he may bequeath it to his heirs.

The current monarch stands in a long line of individuals who have at the least preserved if not increased the value of their holding and his family expects him to do the same.

In the thesis of Hoppe his self-interest will cause him to act conservatively so as not to depreciate the value of his holdings and inciting the public to rebellion thru brutal tyranny would do just that.

The fact is most "bad" monarchs were assassinated by members of their own families who had a vested interest in preserving their status and power and bequeathing it to the next generation.

That kings have been greatly influenced by their families [and their advisors who have with their on motives] is true.

That they have been killed by their family members and others around them for their injustices and replaced by those who where “good” is also true.

How ever the reverse , where good ones were murdered by their wives and their heirs in order that they may obtain the throne.

I find that history does not validate the idea of a smooth transition from “king to son” or that the said transition will result in a continuation of good administration or the replacement of a bad one.

History is full of all kind of plots and schemes sparked by sibling rivalries with their mothers cheering them on. This leads to a very unstable environment around the throne .

For example King Herod in Josephus”s “Wars Of The Jews” Book 1 Chapters 27 and 33 has his only two sons and put to death by strangulation and a later a grandson who was to succeed him killed by his guards while he lay dying all of them for perceived plots . He only lived five days afterward.

Around 70A.D. you had the Roman Empire change hands four times in less than two years and I do not believe any where from the same bloodline.

Both of the paragraphs of the thesis above makes reference to the fact that the King and those around him would be influenced to a large degree by self-interest.

As history bears this out I heartily agree with the statement.

That the fact that this selfish behavior would be good a large majority of the time and therefore would be a reliable reason to choose this form of government I would not agree.

There are many instances in all forms of government where the people and the government where thrust aside and harmed because of the self-interest of those in power or those with access to it caused grievous harm to the people and state even to their destruction.

History is always subjective, it is quite literally written by the winners. One has to dig a little (or alot) to find "the other side of the story" if it any longer exists at all. Some writers to investigate - Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihin, Hilaire Belloc, Christopher Dawson and Harry W. Crocker III.

What you say about history is true to a certain degree, but since everything we know from today back is history, as you say we have to do the best we can.

We have too hope that most historical writers cared enough about the future of their kinsmen and the survival of the human race to leave us a record of not only our triumphs but of our failures in order that we may benefit from their experiences.

The Holy Roman Empire and related Catholic monarchies of Europe circa 800 AD - 1900 AD.

I hoped not to go here into too great of detail since this history of the Church and Papal rule is fairly well known, some good and some not so good.

There are those that feel that their Church is picked upon and are offended at the mention of things that transpired during this period and that is something I have no wish to do.

I will simply say that I do not see anything from that form of government to cause me to desire it’s return by whatever religious belief it might come in on.

I do not believe it is mission of the followers of Christ in any denomination to rule or reign in place of Him, only to rule and reign with Him after His return.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

I guess as of now I still see as I first said that any form of government that is administered by man is subject too and will be overtime decayed through corruption.

The best government that I see offered to man while he is still inhabited by his old nature that makes him susceptible to sin is that offered in the millennium .

That of a Theocracy where Christ rules with a rod of iron and even that fails for the same reason.

Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

I am not familiar with the above source but find some points of disagreement which may be because I’m not sure as yet as to what law or laws we are talking about i.e.: moral, civil , or physical.

Sorry I shouldn't have used the somewhat obscure Catholic name given to St. Thomas Aquinas (The Angelic Doctor). The passage is from his Summa Theologica . In which he discusses the Divine Law, the Natural Law and Human law and their relationship to each other.

. A political theory favoring unlimited authority by a single individual” could be restrained by any individual or group of individuals over who he has complete authority.

Your definition here is flawed since the power of the monarch was not unlimited, but rather strictly limited by all the factors in my first post (tradition, the aristocracy and the Church chiefly).

History is full of all kind of plots and schemes sparked by sibling rivalries with their mothers cheering them on. This leads to a very unstable environment around the throne .

The charge of instability is a curious one to make, since stability is one of the chief benefits of the monarchial government. With one exception, the Swiss cantons, democracies are inherently far more unstable. The oldest existing mass democracy (the aforemnetioned Swiss system could not be called "mass" democracy, each canton is virtually independent and consists of thousands not 100s of millions) is the US which has stood for 240 years give or take. The governments of Europe only a fraction of that. Democracies always contain the element of the the legistlative authority resulting in the constant production of positive law to justify it's existance. This in turn leads to legal uncertainity

Pardon me but that's an incredibly naive assumption. Every writer of history has an idealogy, consciously and unconscious he is immersed in the events and current of the day. It is easy enough to say John Smith did such and such on this date, that is empirical. But an analysis of history asks why he did such and such and absent direct testimony from the individual that interpetation tells us more about the writer than the actor.

All that assumes the writer was trying for objectivity, it is more common that history is written explicitly for propoganda purposes. "Control the past and you control the future".

I hoped not to go here into too great of detail since this history of the Church and Papal rule is fairly well known, some good and some not so good.

Actually I would argue it is not well known since it is so often misrepresented, which is why I referred to those particular authors.

Sorry I shouldn't have used the somewhat obscure Catholic name given to St. Thomas Aquinas (The Angelic Doctor). The passage is from his Summa Theologica.

Went to your link. I do not see a sound reason for basing your support on this writing by this man.

I cannot for the simple reason that after some sort of divine revelation he left off writing or finishing and when question as to why give this reason the year before his death.

"I cannot go on...All that I have written seems to me like so much straw compared to what I have seen and what has been revealed to me."

Now if a man after a revelation, and later reflection sees his writings as basically useless why should I you or anyone else give them more consideration than he.

Your definition here is flawed since the power of the monarch was not unlimited,

The definition was not my own which were the reason for the quotation marks. It was from a dictionary program for which I can't seem to find the source. However here is one from Webster's 1828 edition.

Monarch: The prince or ruler of a nation, who exercises all the powers of government without control, or who is vested with absolute sovereign power; an emperor, king or prince invested with an unlimited power.

Democracies always contain the element of the the legislative authority resulting in the constant production of positive law to justify it's existence. This in turn leads to legal uncertainty

The same can be said to be true of monarchs by the fact that they issue decrees some permanent and some time-limited.This was [is] done at times on a daily basis.

The same occurs in a Church monarchy when changes in, or new doctrines or polices are issued on various subjects ie: birth control, abortion, way if salvation etc.

Pardon me but that's an incredibly naive assumption. Every writer of history has an ideology, consciously and unconscious he is immersed in the events and current of the day.

...it is more common that history is written explicitly for propaganda purposes. "Control the past and you control the future".

No offense taken, or any intended... But this is where I find the greatest difficulty with your reasoning and logic.

You find fault with me for relying on historical writers for my source of information and condemn them as unreliable at best as in both of your previous post for the reasons you mention.

Then you proceed straightway to these same unreliable sources ie: history writers, and use them to support your point of view.

This seems to me to defy all the rules of logic and common sense reasoning.

Actually I would argue it is not well known since it is so often misrepresented,

If it was not for wrongs in the history of the Catholic Church, then what was the public apology made by the Pope on March 3, 2000 for?

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.