Sunday, March 18, 2007

Prospects for a Catholic Monarchy
in the Modern World

As regular readers (or even the occasional reader) of my blog know, I am a traditional Catholic monarchist, and support the restoration of traditional monarchies in Europe or the establishment of entirely new monarchies where none have existed or it is impractical to restore a defunct monarchy. But what are the prospects for a monarchy in the modern world, in particular a Catholic monarchy? I have asked myself this question many times, and although it is not an impossible task, it is a daunting one.

One reason for the daunting nature of this task is modern conceptions of human rights. How the modern world now defines human rights in many ways is in direct contradiction to what many of us monarchists would like to see.

Point one: the modern definition of democracy as a human right. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights' website has this to say about democracy: "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly in 1948, elaborated on this original commitment to democracy by proclaiming that 'the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government' and guaranteeing to everyone the rights that are essential for effective political participation. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the Assembly in 1966, conferred binding legal status on the right of individuals to participate in the processes that constitute the conduct of public affairs, and further strengthened the protection accorded to participatory rights and freedoms" (quote found here). Many Catholic monarchists (although by no means all) subscribe to the Catholic version of absolutist monarchy, whereby the monarchy has near absolute governmental powers. How can such a monarchy be established in the face of such world-wide approval of popular participation in government? My personal view is that when a government gives the people the right to participate in government, such a government naturally evolves into immorality; when the people get to define what is lawful and what is not, the natural sinful nature of man tends to kick in and what is immoral is eventually defined as a right (i.e. pornography, homosexual marriage, abortion, etc.). When a Catholic monarch (guided by the Church) has near absolute governmental powers he determines what is lawful and what is not, regardless of the "will of the people." The king is the father of his people, and he must do what is right for his children even if they don't like it. With democracy ingrained upon the minds of the world's population as a human right, to form a system of government which is the direct antithesis of democracy is most assuredly an uphill struggle.

Point two: the modern definition of "reproductive rights of women" as a human right. On the website of the Division for the Advancement of Women of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, I found the following declarations from the Forth World Conference on Women (Beijing, China - 1995): "17. The explicit recognition and reaffirmation of the right of all women to control all aspects of their health, in particular their own fertility, is basic to their empowerment;" and "30. Ensure equal access to and equal treatment of women and men in education and health care and enhance women's sexual and reproductive health as well as education;" (full declaration found here). If women have the human right to control all aspects of their fertility, they have the right to use contraception and the right to have an abortion. One of the functions of a Catholic monarchy is to uphold the Church's teachings within secular law; the Church defines what is moral and immoral and the king upholds this in the secular sphere (to a point; I do not believe, for example, that fornication should be illegal, but fully believe it to be a mortal sin). It follows that a Catholic monarch must uphold the Church's teachings on the dignity of human life and make all forms of abortion and contraception illegal within his realm. Just like democracy, with contraception and abortion ingrained into the minds of the world's population as a human right, the formation of a Catholic monarchy where such murderous practices are illegal would face international opposition.

In conclusion, the formation of a Catholic monarchy--either the restoration of a defunct monarchy or the establishment of a new one--within the modern world is a daunting task. I must point out that while a difficult task, it is not an impossible one. "With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible" (St. Matthew, 19:26).


Anonymous said...

It may more nearer than we think. The church continues to endure while western liberal democracy continues to decline.

Anonymous said...

You say that while you agree fornication is a mortal sin, you don't think it should be a crime. Yet in your "My Ideal Monarchy" post, you say that the king's constitution should make contraception illegal. Is the former under the current law, while the latter under your ideal system? How am I wrong?

Nick said...

I do not think that every mortal sin should be a crime, partly due to the inability of the government to enforce measures against such mortal sins. When determining what mortal sins should be crimes, the government must look to enforcability and moral importance. The government can certainly forbid the manufacture and selling of contraception. Also, since many contraceptives involve the destruction of the fertilized egg (i.e. a human being) it is the government's duty to protect the life of that human by outlawing its destruction. While fornication is a mortal sin, it would be virtually impossible for the government to enforce laws against it, and no one gets killed by fornicating.

Anonymous said...

Alright. Thanks for explaining that.

Anonymous said...

No one gets killed by fornicating, (except in some cases where disease is spread,) but if the sinners involved die unabsolved, with their mortal sins unconfessed, they are damned. Should not a king and father figure attempt in some significant way to prevent the loss of souls to the devil?

You said no one is killed in the act of fornication. Is not the damnation of the soul far more tragic than the death of the body???

Nick said...

While I want a confessional state, the state is not the Church. What good would it do to put people in jail if they fornicate? If every mortal sin were illegal, a lot of the citizens would be in prison, or at the very least the courts would be helplessly clogged.

Anonymous said...

A 16 years old girl looses her virginity so she can be popular among other girls or make her boyfriend very happy. She did it in the name of freedom of choice (free will).
By choosing to do a mortal sin either because of carnal desire or need of social acceptance or both, she is basically being enslaved by her own free will. She is willingly doing a sin; her ability to differentiate right and wrong and the ability to do the right thing --- [the trait of humanity] are being imprisoned by her own free will. The American revolution took place to free us from a tyrant, they say. But by doing so 3 centuries later we are the prisoner of our own heart ---[a tyrant only can imprison one’s body not heart / soul]. So this is the irony of the American revolution, scared by the roar of a distant lion they run into crocodile infested water.
Concerning fornication; I think there is a way for a religious [catholic] state to prevent it; that is by regulating marriage. All marriage must be legalized by the church. In old days only a virgin can wear white gown on the altar, the state can reinstitute that practice.

Anonymous said...

Vessel on the ocean of life
Save passage or waterly grave
Compass, captain, and passenger
Mother, father, and child

Katholik said...

Nick, have you seen this Catholic monarchy forum? Perhaps you could link it:

Here is their main site (also Catholic!)