Responses to Questions on Monarchism from Traditional Catholics, Part II

from Martin Luther King Junior (FishEaters, January 11-14, 2006)

I would also like to point out...that it would not be logical for any monarchist who truly thought things through thoroughly to support anti-discrimination laws or admire Martin Luther King. Because if it is always wrong to discriminate against people based on factors beyond their control, then it is also always wrong to discriminate in favor of people based on factors beyond their control. And surely a hereditary monarchy discriminates rather spectacularly, as no one chooses whether he or she is born royal, aristocratic, or common.

I would maintain that the movement led by Martin Luther King was ultimately derived from the same erroneous idea as anti-royalism: the dangerous lie that one's parentage, ancestry, or ethnicity should not be allowed to significantly influence one's role in society. If we oppose this evil egalitarian tendency in Europe where it has sought the destruction of monarchies, we must also oppose it in our own country.

[QUOTE=tradcatholicmom] That being said, this quote is exactly why I cannot quite be a monarchist.  Why should the poor be forced to remain poor? 

Monarchy does not force anybody to remain poor. Standards of living rose steadily in Europe prior to 1914, when virtually all countries were monarchies.

Why should men and women not be allowed to marry who they like because their dowry isn't sufficent or however it used to be? 

This is not necessarily a requirement of a monarchical system, nor have arranged marriages been confined to monarchies. However, with 50% of all marriages ending in divorce, I'm not convinced that things are so much better today.

Why should some people struggle for the basics of life while the others glut themselves on the work of those people?

...which can also happen in a republic. But let me repeat the words of Pope St. Pius X:

I. Human society, as established by God, is made up of unequal elements; to make them equal is impossible and would be the very ruination of society.

II. The equality between various members of society consists solely and exclusively in the fact that all men originate from God, have been redeemed by Christ, and must, according to the exact measure of their merits and demerits, be judged, and rewarded or punished, by God.

III. Consequently, it is in conformity with the order established by God that there should be in society rulers and subjects, employers and workers, men educated and uneducated, an upper class and a lower class, all of whom united in the bonds of love are to help one another to achieve their final destiny in Heaven, and their material and moral well-being on earth.

But I do think there needs to be some limits on the wealthy and the business owners, and the provision of a living wage, etc., is also in accord with Catholic doctrine.

Monarchists would not necessarily disagree. Many monarchists are also advocates of Catholic social teaching and "distributist" economics.

The concept of a forced class system seems directly opposed to Catholic doctrine to me. 

How can it be, given what St. Pius X had to say about the legitimacy of "an upper class and a lower class"? Pope Pius VI in 1793 declared monarchy to be "the best of all governments." Why would the martyrs of the Vendée during the French Revolution have died for Altar and Throne if the ideals of the ancien regime were truly in conflict with Catholic doctrine?

I don't mean to sound combative- maybe I'm missing something?

I would suggest perusing the writings of Catholic monarchist Charles Coulombe to develop an understanding of how beautifully monarchism and Catholicism are connected. Since Charles is controversial for unrelated reasons, I will also quote traditional Catholic blogger Nicholas Wansbutter on "The Sublimity of Monarchism":

A monarchy best reflects the hierarchical reality of heaven. When we pray the Pater Noster we say: fiat volúntas tua, sicut in cælo, et in terra (thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven). By this very phrase we pledge our support of monarchism as heaven (the Church Triumphant) is a monarchy with God as the head, just as the Church Militant has the Pope as its monarchial head. It is because of this that I call monarchism sublime. Monarchies, some might think ironically, also afford citizens much more freedom than democratic states. In lands where mob rule and popularity determine the course a goverment takes, it is never long before the masses realise that they can vote themselves a share of their neighbour's goods. This leads to the socialistic welfare states we see today and the "salary equalisation" taxes. Furthermore, monarchs are always tightly bound by tradition, custom, and law. They tend to have much smaller bounds than the ever-expanding powers of democracies. In the Middle Ages, if a King broke the law, the great men of the realm would oppose him for his own sake as was done with the famous Magna Carta. If the king went too far, the Church would excommunicate him. On the other hand, democracy has given us the likes of Hitler and on a much lesser scale we see the impunity with which some modern democratic leaders act. Admittedly, local ordinaries and popes willing to exercise their office on such leaders are necessary for a monarchy to function properly and would probably help with the current situation to a degree. Pope Leo XIII said in Rerum Novarum, that "if society is to be healed now, in no other way can it be healed save by a return to Christian life and Christian institutions". One such Christian institution is that of the Catholic monarchy. A Catholic republic is paradoxical, for it is really an anti-Catholic form of government staffed by Catholics. The principles that underly "democracy", those of 1776 and 1789, are absolutely incompatible with Catholicism.

Responses to Questions on Monarchism from Traditional Catholics