The European kings were in power because of the Roman Church gave them legitimacy; the concept of “seperation of Church and State” completely foreign in the era of the “Divine Right of Kings.”
As a result, your anaology is false, as your denomination readily admits.
Do you reject the teachings of your denomination so easily? I thought that was the whole thing about being Roman Catholic — you had to buy the whole enchilada.
Or are you one of those Mel Gibson Roman Catholics that think the current pope is a pretender?
I am not sure where you are getting your information. The European kings from 500 to the 1900s were in power through a complicated mix of factors that had nothing at all to do with the Divine Right of Kings, which came to the fore with a few absolutist monarchs of the 1600s, most of whom were Anglican. Don’t forget the Roman Church was pretty well ensconced with the Roman Empire until all of a sudden these barbarians come in and appoint themselves kings, dukes, etc. The Church was not terribly successful in shaping the political situation.
Actually, I do buy the whole enchilada. And part of the whole enchilada, as I’m trying to demonstrate here, is that forced Baptism is immoral and sinful.