Last Catholic Monarchy Euthanized - Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg Silenced!

(Posted 03/20/09 www.RemnantNewspaper.com) The last act of the French Revolution came to a close on March 12, 2009, but hardly anyone was watching. The demonic forces unleashed over two hundred years ago took on the aim of destroying all monarchial authority in Europe. The rulers of the once Christian nations of Europe, or at least their governing authority, had all been executed, except for the tine nation of Luxembourg. On March 12, without much fanfare, the parliament of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg voted to end government of their small nation by the Grand Duke.

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 21^st 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.

Have you read any of my posts?

Yes, in fact the only post that actually staked out any ideological point said that "A democracy of self-centered "idiots" will be far worse than any benevolent monarchy". That's it.

That's the only point you've made, and it makes the assumption that said monarchy would be benevolent, a relative term at best since some monarchists on this thread see a theocratic monarch who stifles freedom of relgion as "benevolent".

So in effect, you really haven't made any point at all.

Your comment was aimed at one sentence I wrote; that people who rejected the Enlightenment and the political and economic freedom that followed and replacing it with an unelected monarchy were being idiotic.

You said that calling this position idiotic was itself, idiotic. So any thinking individual would surmise that you see some sort of merit to the position of ditching a modern republic!

But no, you don't support monarchy. Or maybe you do.

You don't support ditching the ideas of the Enlightenment. Or maybe you do. Who knows?!

You haven't really said anything; you've just used the thread as an opportunity to swim in my wake again.

Probably not, I'm really not interested in stoning the people I disagree with

Ha! Wrong kind of stones, genius. Try again.

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!

The opportunity to show yourself as nothing but an ideologically challenged potshot artist is your own making.

You would think that attacking someone who supports the ideas of Kant, Burke, Franklin, Paine, Jefferson, and Locke over the divine right of kings would merit some sort of passionate defense. But you've given nothing, no indication as why you think the latter is superior.

This is all we get:

A democracy of self-centered "idiots" will be far worse than any benevolent monarchy. As our founders knew all too well, democracy can only succeed when voters put their own limited self-interests behind those of future generations. Those who do not understand the need for sacrifice in self-governemnt vote in the welfare-state or socialistic fascism that inevitably destroys it.

Wow, brilliant rebuttal to the Enlightenment. I'm sure everyone's mouths are watering for your next defense/non-defense of monarchy, whichever it is.

On second thought, no one cares.

"So post #97 was your defense of a monarchy?" - "Have you read any of my posts?" Yes, in fact the only post that actually staked out any ideological point said that "A democracy of self-centered "idiots" will be far worse than any benevolent monarchy". That's it.

Fallacious straw-man argument #1 of this post (#5 for this thread). I never said I had "staked out any ideological point", I merely made a still unrefuted case that you were a fool for making and sticking by your baseless and mindless assertions in post #12.

That's the only point you've made,

No, my only point has been to successfully expose you as the fool you are for making the completely baseless assertions you have made on this thread.

and it makes the assumption that said monarchy would be benevolent,

I have made no such assumption. The only assumption I have made is that you are an utter fool for writing what you did in post #12 and subsequent posts.

So in effect, you really haven't made any point at all.

Your fallacious straw-man argument was not my point.

Not at all. My comment was aimed at explaining what a fool you were for making a baseless claim about other people's intelligence.

You said that calling this position idiotic was itself, idiotic.

You are certainly getting warmer, but you still appear to be failing to see the point.

So any thinking individual would surmise that you see some sort of merit to the position of ditching a modern republic!

Since you are obviously not a "thinking individual", any conclusion you might make about what we would or would not surmise is irrelevant.

But no, you don't support monarchy. Or maybe you do.

In either case it has no bearing on the the case I have made about your utter foolishness for making a baseless claim about other posters' intelligence.

You don't support ditching the ideas of the Enlightenment. Or maybe you do. Who knows?!

At least you do know that I believe that you are a fool for what you have written here.

You haven't really said anything; you've just used the thread as an opportunity to swim in my wake again.

Hardly, I have made a compelling and sustained case that you are are a poorly reasoned and foolish poster whose writings should not be taken seriously.

"Probably not, I'm really not interested in stoning the people I disagree with" Ha! Wrong kind of stones, genius. Try again.

So now in addition to making completely baseless assessments of other people's intelligence (post #12) and divining their innermost desires (post #118), you are now making claims about their anatomy? You are a joke that never gets old!

The opportunity to show yourself as nothing but an ideologically challenged potshot artist is your own making.

The opportunity I had to publicly expose and ridicule a fool and blowhard with their own words was entirely of YOUR making!

You would think that attacking someone who supports the ideas of Kant, Burke, Franklin, Paine, Jefferson, and Locke over the divine right of kings would merit some sort of passionate defense.

Any objective reader of this thread would doubt you understand the words of any of them based on what you have written here. Several of my points (none of which you have even attempted to refute) were based directly on some of their writings.

But you've given nothing, no indication as why you think the latter is superior.

Not true. I think you are a fool for what you have written here, and I have used your own arrogant words and faulty reasoning to prove it.

Wow, brilliant rebuttal to the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment was far more than the mere political proposal your believe it to be. My statement is a concise refutation of your misinterpretation of it, however.

I'm sure everyone's mouths are watering for your next defense/non-defense of monarchy, whichever it is.

I am, in fact, sure that several of the continued readers of this thread who are corresponding privately with me are in fact enjoying my use of your continued words against you. Seeing a arrogant and ill-informed blowhard getting taken to school is great entertainment!

I never said I had "staked out any ideological point", I merely made a still unrefuted case that you were a fool for making and sticking by your baseless and mindless assertions in post #12.

Good, I'm glad you admit that you have no point, and were only trying to make a passing insult, which refuted nothing.

No, my only point has been to successfully expose you as the fool you are for making the completely baseless assertions you have made on this thread.

You haven't identified any assertions I've made as baseless. I was referring to the theoretical 'conservatives' that want to take the United States back to a monarchy and see the Enlightenment as anti-Christian, a combination of positions that no one on this entire thread has adopted. You're not coming to the defense of anyone here, but spouting off like an ass on a dead thread.

I have made no such assumption [about a benevolent monarchy].

Yes you did. You said "benevolent" monarchy as an argument against my criticism of it as a political system.

Not at all. My comment was aimed at explaining what a fool you were for making a baseless claim about other people's intelligence.

I'm not convinced that these so-called anti-Enlightenment monarchist conservatives exist. But again, you've explained nothing other than you really have no point of view at all, and nothing to add to the discussion. I've asked you numerous times to explain why I should consider rejecting the Enlightenment as something reasonable, but I get nothing but endless uses of the word 'fallacious' (which describes every post I've seen from you). It's time for a thesaurus.

In either case it has no bearing on the the case I have made about your utter foolishness for making a baseless claim about other posters' intelligence.

Wow, you are getting tiresome, but once again, no other poster has adopted the positions I made a comment about.

You haven't made any points relevant to my original comment. By your own admission you have not staked out an ideological position. You have stood up to defend those who see the Enlightenment as anti-Christian and want to return to a monarchy, which so far describes no one on this thread that I can see. There are some monarchists, but none that go as far you're willing to go in your defense rejecting classical liberalism and the Age of Enlightenment.

No, just yours. It's not always a question of anatomy though, as there are 12 year old girls with more guts, intelligence, and wit than you. I'm not sure about your innermost desires, and don't care.

The opportunity I had to publicly expose and ridicule a fool and blowhard with their own words was entirely of YOUR making!

You clamoring away on a dead thread about the benefits of monarchy must mean you have a very limited view of 'public exposure'.

I'm glad you have a bunch of little coward groupies 'corresponding with you privately.' Maybe you can start your own fan club. I don't know what's more pathetic, your immature little drama queen indignation about anti-Enlightenment monarchists, or the fact that at 10pm on a Friday night, when the rest of the world was out enjoying their lives, you were home trying to come up with clever zingers to me on a thread about a European monarch.

Lots to envy with you, there is.

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.

	Last Catholic Monarchy Euthanized
	Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg Silenced!