Featured Post

For Those Who Disregard Prophecy

People who snub prophecy bewilder me. They say, "I'm not obligated to pay any attention to private revelation. The strict teachin...

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

The Kingdom of Católica America 11a: St. Bellarmine Loved Monarchy

So, here's a silly little snipe attack from the comments box:
Have you ever read Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine's "De Laicis" ? He says God entrusts political power to people who entrust it to a government of their choosing.
By the way, his feast day is Sept. 17th which is Constitution Day here in the U.S.  Alt-rights live in the 1776 past?  Catholic monarchists live in an even more remote past.
This guy is right, we need to talk about St. Robert Bellarmine.  I have witnessed that Bellarmine is discussed a lot in sedevacantist circles.  But let's put his writings to work in one of this blog's most cherished subjects, Catholic Monarchy.

Bottom line: Cardinal Bellarmine loved monarchy over all forms of government.

King Washington?
No doubt, the commenter above is probably one of those Catholics who think that everything America ever did was fantastic, that this nation is inheritently Christian, and that Catholicism helped pave the way for the miracle that is America.  In this way, the commenter can take an ecumenical stance with Protestant America's vision of "A City on a Hill," standing shoulder to shoulder with the Hebraic Puritans who were more Jewish than Christian.  For him, as long as Catholics like him have a seat at the table, there's no need to delve into the details of history.

Let's call his bluff and check out St. Bellarmine.  In fact, let's explore Bellarmine in a series of posts on this topic.

De Controversiis On The Roman Pontiff

In the very beginning of De Controversiis, Bellarmine squarely asks a question.  What is the best system of government in its purest form?  The options he chooses from are monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy.  His answer is immediately: monarchy.  "If some simple form of government must necessarily be chosen, without a doubt monarchy should be chosen."  Clearly, the man had an opinion on the subject.
"But where governance is in the hands of aristocrats, indeed the people have their own order when they are subjected to the aristocrats, but the aristocrats have none among themselves.  Democracy lacks order in a far greater degree, since all citizens are of the same condition, and they are all judged to be of authority in the commonwealth."  
Democracy is a fine thing if your nation state is small, orderly, and everyone is on the same page as far as their belief systems are concerned.  It has the most potential for chaos, however.

Aristocracy has a few degrees more order within it than democracy does.  However, there is then the danger that the aristocracy will suddenly become an oligarchy that can never be dislodged from power (as we have in the United States).

Monarchy, however, is the form of government required for when things are out of control, and there is a great need for order and clarity.  When the people need a purpose and a mission—when a nation requires a father—a king will be the most ideal leader to guide the masses out of their own darkness.

Democracy

If Bellarmine were to consider the modern American's emotional concept of democracy, he would reply:
"[T]he end of government, however, is the unity of the citizens among themselves, and peace, which that union appears principally to be centered on, that all might think the same, wish the same and follow the same.  They will obtain it much more certainly and easily if one must be obeyed, rather than many..."
Unity.  What a completely foreign concept for DiversityKult.  What an absolute insult to the archons of vibrancy and pluralism.  Today's sophists rant and rave about how wonderful our time bomb of a nation is with so many different religions, belief systems, ethnicities, and even hyphenated nationalities.  Unable to draw any lessons from history or modern-day Europe, the United States is on a suicidal crash course that will wreck the world.

Currently the president of Russia is joking that Americans have lost their minds.  And he is absolutely correct.  There is no unity in this country.  As a people, we are schizophrenic sociopaths.  Order is ridiculed and quickly torn down.  The Left wants to destroy everything and everyone, and the Right is happy to shoot their own in the back of the head when anyone tries to take the reins and lead.

We do not think the same.  We do not wish for the same things.  We do not follow the same people.  It is uncertain that we will ever obtain any unity at all, and if we ever do, it will be tremendously difficult.

Bellarmine stated that democracy often falls into a state of sedition.  And do we not see this with the attempts of the deep state to cooperate with the media to destroy our current sitting president, Donald Trump?  Do we not see sedition when we witness the insane mob terrorism of violent antifa thugs in our major cities?
"It is a stronger state, in which there is a greater peace and concord among the citizens, indeed the combined strength dissipated among them is itself stronger: but a greater unity is where all depend upon one, than where they depend upon many, as was proved above, therefore, monarchy makes both a stronger state, and itself is the best government."  
It is more difficult for a monarchy to be divided.  There are less black swan emergencies in a monarchy.  A monarchical government is stable and less changeable—which is precisely what the sane remnant of America has been thirsting for.  It is less easily torn apart under the rule of one man.  But it is easily torn apart when the nation depends on a multitude of 300 million people agreeing as one body.

Aristocracy

The ultimate evil end of aristocracy is oligarchy.  And oligarchy is precisely what we have in the United States.  

We are controlled by the media, by Hollywood, by Marxist international interests (George Soros, Bilderbergers, and a plethora of Leftist NGOs), by the military industrial complex, by corporations, by the pornography industry, by the Monsanto corporation, by the Deep State, and so many other interests.  And might I also mention that Jews are in charge of most of these?  Just saying.  

Bellarmine points to the example of the kingdom of the Scythians to be the oldest of all kingdoms, which had remained for thousands of years, and he points to the fact that no republic had ever been stable enough remain around for so long.

Many Americans will point out that our democratic republic is great because it is fashioned in a manner after the Roman republic.  How great was the Roman republic according to St. Bellarmine?  
"Certainly the most powerful republic of the Romans could scarcely count 480 years, as many years from the expulsion of the kings even to the reign of Julius Caesar.  But under the monarchs in the east from Caesar even to the last Constantine, it endured for 1495 years without interruption, in the west, however, from the same Caesar even to Augustulus around 500 years, and from Charlemagne even to the present emperor it has been nearly 800.  But for the 480 years that democracy flourished in the Roman Empire, the republic was not always ruled in the same manner: from the beginning yearly consuls were created, a little after they added tribunes, then the consuls and tribunes were taken up, creating the decemviri; after a year these were thrown out, and again the consuls and tribunes were recalled not rarely, even dictators and as many military tribunes were brought in with consular power.  Therefore, no one form endured long, nor could they all reach the age of noble kingdoms together."  
Rome was an absolute mess.  The entire empire was like a wild pig rolling around in mud, goring whatever came near it.  The Huns put the wild beast out of its misery.  If you ever want to watch the slow-motion destruction of an organization, then begin to have that entity make its decision through committees.  You will swiftly see the withdrawal of justice and common sense.  

It is easier to find one good man.  But it is hard to find many good men.  And yet, we have 535 members of Congress.  And that's our federal government alone.  535 minds who want nothing to do with one another unless there is a mutual self-interest involved.  How noble.  How are the 300 million American citizens of this continent supposed to respect and honor over 535 men and women?  
"[M]agistracies which take turns, and govern a state for a short time, are often compelled first to lay aside a duty than plainly recognize the business of the state; on the other hand, a king who always exercises the same office, even if from time to time he is of a meager intelligence, nevertheless by use and also experience is better than many others.  In like manner , yearly magistracies look after a business of the state, which is not their own, but common, as foreign; a king does so as properly his own.  It is certain that it is not only easier, but even more thorough for one to care for his own things, than for others."
Our senators and representatives do not look at the political system as theirs.  The legislative branch of government and its functions in tandem with the executive and judicial branches of government are one big game.  I'd recommend House of Cards if the show wasn't filled with lewd and pornographic imagery.  But the show was a perfect encapsulation of the Democrat struggle for power—particularly in the case of Hillary Clinton.

If our bureaucrats look at the political system as their own in any kind of a manner, it is only in the manner of an object that is there to be used and manipulated to achieve their own anti-Christian ends.  They do not look at the system and say: "Our poor system is broken.  We must patch it up and fix it."  Heavens, no.  Just look at the neglect our immigration system has endured since 1980 for a swift answer on that note.

In fact, the broken parts of our system are merely loopholes and opportunities for the most vile and wicked people in our oligarchy to take advantage of.  Never let a serious crisis go to waste, after all.  St. Bellarmine would agree:
"Where there are many who rule, it can hardly be the case that there would be no rivalry, ambition and contention present, and in point of fact it does not rarely happen that some impede others, and effect that, those who govern the affairs at hand, will administer the commonwealth badly, in such a case it is better for themselves that when they exercise the magistracy, they receive glory in abundance.  But monarchy, which does not have anyone it might envy, or with whom to contend in governance, more easily moderates all things."
Rivalry, ambition, and contention?  Let's put it this way.  In the headlines this week is news of a play that portrays a grisly assassination of President Trump.  Though some advertisers have pulled out of sponsoring the play, the liberal talking heads love it.  I've never seen politics so contentious in my entire life.  Nor has my 93-year old grandfather.

Do various forces in our government impede one another?  Consider that our president has the full right to control the immigration into this country in order to protect American citizens.  And then consider that various courts have been taking turns at rejecting his executive order for a travel ban.  These powers would rather enjoy calling Trump a racist and risk a terrorist event.  The three branches of government are supposed to be checks and balances for one another.  And yet, the judiciary is completely overstepping its bounds and taking a stab at the executive branch.  By complying with the court rulings, Trump is unwittingly creating a new precedent that the courts have the power to dictate the extent of president's authority when it comes to immigration.  We never saw this under their darling, President Obama, who overstepped his bounds many times.

Our "commonwealth" is administered to badly, due to the careerism and pure hate of the vile Left and the fearful conservatives on the Right.  The Left will happily "exercise the magistracy" and "receive glory in abundance" when it is on their terms.  But the interest of the nation is not in their interest.
"Lastly, to the extent that in great households, where many servants are assigned to the same duty, they manage their business badly because one shall leave behind a common duty to another: thus even where there are many heads of state, one looks to another, and while each one throws back the burden on his colleagues, no one sufficiently employs diligent care to the state.  A king, however, that knows all things depend upon himself alone, is compelled to neglect nothing."
Monarchy is superior to aristocracy.  The aristocracy oligarchy that has controlled this country has run it into the ground.  There is an endless list of items and policies that have been neglected.  It is hard to bring the United States down because the land mass is so vast and there are so many people who live such wonderful first-world lives when compared to the rest of the globe.  Also, there are two enormous oceans on each side of the continent.  Finally, it takes time to tear something down that took so long to build up.  The America that we know did not suddenly come into being, after all.

America is waiting for the payload of a long train of neglect that has stretched back to its inception.  It takes a long time for an entire continent to go mad.  But we're finding out what it looks like in the 21st century.  There is no unity, no sanity, no understanding, no assurance of long-term peace between citizens, no stability, no cooperation, no morality, no respect, no selflessness...no order.  Millions of different voices screaming to be heard, and all the while, nothing sensible is being done.

Conclusion

St. Bellarmine states that:
"Since simple monarchy in the empire of God and Christ holds place, and moreover the best things ought to be attributed to God and Christ, therefore, the best government must be simple monarchy."  
Of course, if you can't handle the best—if you're only capable of tolerating second best, or even third or fourth place—well, at least you tried.  Not everyone can be #1, after all.

Many Americanist zealots fiercely argue that "if America is so bad, then why is everyone pouring over our borders?"  America is the hottest attraction for the world, so why try to do any better than this?

By settling for the current form of America that we now live with, we are settling for less-than-best.  Yes, perhaps the United States is the top dog right now in a lot of ways when compared to other countries.  But again, that could change quickly in our chaotic world.  Is this the best we can do?  Is this ramshackle setup, built on the ideology of Jewish-inspired heretics, the most we can hope to achieve?  Have we passed the top of the bell curve, and we're now headed for a dip?  Will we still be fiercely defending our democratic republic when, fifty years from now, the nation has become a stew pot of mongrels with no concerns whatsoever to our past?

Monarchy is what is needed now.

1 comment:

  1. Yes, monarchy sure beats anarchy which is what we are witnessing now in so many ways. Unfortunately, the kind of monarchy we are likely to get is the Muslim variety given the nearly total lack of resistance to the evils of Islam whose history, especially for Catholics, is well documented. Where is the Catholic Church when we need moral leadership?

    ReplyDelete