 |
Last Catholic Monarchy Euthanized | |
|
Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg Silenced! |
Posted on 03/20/2009 1:28:51 PM PDT by GonzoII
|
Last Catholic Monarchy Euthanized | |
|
Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg Silenced! |
|
Brian McCall |
| REMNANT COLUMNIST, Oklahoma |
|
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 21st 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. |
It was a strong comment, but it was directed only at those who would forcibly establish an unelected dictatorial religious monarchy without the consent of the governed.
Obama is off to a heck of a start. The list of offenses is growing:
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Ping
...but those countries most strongly influenced by the Enlightenment were the ones that stood most strongly against communism in the 20th century.Not hardly. France embraced the red movement as did much of Europe. Socialism was rampant during the 20th Century. Still is.
thanks for this article
THank you, if this is not pinged out by tomorrow I will. Actually I will admit at heart I am a monarchist...
I am a monarchist because I am a Conservative and a Christian. Monarchism is the only divinely-ordained system of government, and the only system of government that is based upon Conservative principles.
Exactly right, my friend. The International Revolution is moving toward its final phase. Only after it crashes and burns will order be restored and Christendom be revived.
We have to let man's ugly attempt at self-deification play out to the bitter end.
Don't let that get out...(grin).
The point, which you seem to have missed, is this:
The drive-by-media and the other leftists pitched a fit because a conservative office-holder exercised the rights and duties of his office. The same leftist groups then stripped the conservative office-holder of his authrority, despite the popular sentiment of the people.
Doesn't sound all that divinely ordained to me.
Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." -1 Samuel 8:10-18
Doesn't sound all that pleasant either.
Both of you:
Well done.
“Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, ‘This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.
"He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.’ -1 Samuel 8:10-18”
Other than that the “king” now takes 4/10s of one’s “grain,” “vintage,” and “flock,” (unless you work for AIG, in which case he takes upwards of 9/10s) how is this much different than the present system?
Our republic, as established by the founders, was something of a bet, a gamble, that a people could truly govern itself with stability and that the nation-state of a self-governing people could be very long-lasting. The bet was that such a nation would not devolve into a democratic tyranny, an oligarchy or some sort of empire.
Here we are, a little more than two centuries later, and it seems that perhaps we will devolve into something that is a bit of all three.
sitetest
Ping to 95.
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.
You would be well advised to familiarize yourself with Plato's "The Republic" before casting insults like "extremely idiotic and stupid". Until then you describe no one but yourself.
Well, everything is wrong In his comment. Firstly Catholic Church is known from its respect to private property. So you could stay if you would wish. If you would see better alternatives for yourself aboard then you could vote by your foots. Of course if you would publicly question and contest his right to rule then your future become less colorful. In this case there is no difference between political systems, if you want to change status quo, you risk your life.
Secondary, this is really democratic illusion that you think that state is yours. I have a piece of advice for you. If this state is yours indeed, why don’t you change it as you wish??? Just don’t tell me about ‘public property’, this is slogan from communist handbooks.
Thirdly political science recognize monarchy and dictatorship to be separate political systems with various consequences in short-term and long-term perspective.
I think you should come visit a Texas gun show sometime. There's enough ammo here to kill millions of theocrats, and enough of us to make sure your King was dead before he crossed the Red River.
I’m not a theocrats, Catholic monarchs are secular rulers. I’m afraid that you imagine of tradition Catholic monarchy is far from reality. On other hand I support modern model upgraded by scientific achievements (on all fields) of modern times.
ping
ping
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.
(Posted 03/20/09