Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2023 9:06:56 GMT
Constitutional crisis in Andorra - Prince-Archbishop Vives i Sicília might resign. The Principality of Andorra is one of those little remnants of an age when Europe was divided into fiefdoms ruled by local barons. Andorra, a small nation between France and Spain, is co-ruled by the President of France and the Catholic Bishop of Urgell. The Diocese of Urgell covers all of Andorra and part of the adjacent Catalonia region of Spain. The Catholic Bishop of Urgell is always the co-ruler of the small country. Since his appointment as Bishop of Urgell by Pope John Paul II in 2003, Archbishop Joan Enric Vives i Sicília has ruled as Co-Prince of Andorra. Given the President of France has bigger priorities, most of the ceremonial aspects of state life in Andorra are carried out by Archbishop Vives, who balances the rule of 200,000 Catholic believers in his diocese and 81,000 residents of the Principality of Andorra. Unfortunately, the democratically elected Andorran parliament wants to pass a law legalising abortion. Such a law would require the signature of Archbishop Vives, which, given such a law would be a grave moral evil, Archbishop Vives has stated he would rather resign than sign. This would throw Andorra into constitutional crisis and possibly lead to an end to the co-rule of the local Catholic bishop. According to some sources, Pope Francis himself "threatened" to withdraw the Catholic Church from the ancient agreement that the Bishop of Urgell governs Andorra, if the law is passed. The Catholic Bishops of Urgell have served as Co-Princes of Andorra continuously since 1278. In practice, the country is governed by an elected Prime Minister.  His Excellency, The Most Reverend Prince-Archbishop Joan Enric Vives i Sicília, Bishop of Urgell, Co-Prince of Andorra. |
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Sept 15, 2023 13:16:43 GMT
1. I don't think Archbishop Vives i Sicilia should sign the bill if it is passed by the Andorran General Council. He's a Catholic bishop and it would be impossible for him to sign this into law.
2. In the 21st century I think perhaps it's time for Andorra to have its own properly elected head of state rather than two joint heads of state one of which is appointed by the pope and the other elected by the French electorate.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 15, 2023 16:13:11 GMT
Simple. Just don't sign it. Let the chips fall where they may.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2023 18:20:26 GMT
Simple. Just don't sign it. Let the chips fall where they may. I agree. Some have compared this to what happened when King Baudouin of Belgium refused in 1990 to sign off abortion legislation as a devout Catholic. He asked parliament to declare him incapacitated so that the monarchy could be preserved without him having to sign it. If I were him I likely would have refused either to sign it or to step down in any way. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 16, 2023 2:55:17 GMT
Simple. Just don't sign it. Let the chips fall where they may. I agree. Some have compared this to what happened when King Baudouin of Belgium refused in 1990 to sign off abortion legislation as a devout Catholic. He asked parliament to declare him incapacitated so that the monarchy could be preserved without him having to sign it. If I were him I likely would have refused either to sign it or to step down in any way. And this is why there need to be Catholic monarchies "with teeth", with a veto power over parliaments and electorates gone wrong, but sadly, that's not possible in today's world (unless Vatican City State counts). To the naysayers who would respond "but that would be forcing Catholic morality onto unwilling subjects of different faiths", I ask, then why outlaw murder at all? Or stealing, or perjury, or assault and battery, or a million other things, for that matter? Though not all sins are crimes (nor should they be), some behavior happens to be both sinful and criminal at the same time. Or is a Catholic monarchy only supposed to concern itself with things that do not have a moral nexus, or only with those crimes on which all good men agree? The latter is a Masonic mindset. |
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Sept 16, 2023 12:56:56 GMT
And this is why there need to be Catholic monarchies "with teeth", with a veto power over parliaments and electorates gone wrong, but sadly, that's not possible in today's world (unless Vatican City State counts). Because that's called tyranny. It's what might have been expected from Henry VIII or Louis XVI. Many monarchies are modern democracies where the monarch is a ceremonial figurehead. Would you like to live in a USA where its president could overrule Congress? |
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Sept 16, 2023 13:00:16 GMT
Some have compared this to what happened when King Baudouin of Belgium refused in 1990 to sign off abortion legislation as a devout Catholic. He asked parliament to declare him incapacitated so that the monarchy could be preserved without him having to sign it. If I were him I likely would have refused either to sign it or to step down in any way. I think what Baudouin did was a disgrace. He claimed to be a devout Catholic therefore unable to sign the bill to bring it into law. However, rather than refuse to sign it or abdicate he used this lie to avoid direct involvement. He remained the king and the bill became law. Exactly the same outcome as if he had signed it while pretending he had nothing to do with it. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 16, 2023 17:37:04 GMT
And this is why there need to be Catholic monarchies "with teeth", with a veto power over parliaments and electorates gone wrong, but sadly, that's not possible in today's world (unless Vatican City State counts). Because that's called tyranny. It's what might have been expected from Henry VIII or Louis XVI. Many monarchies are modern democracies where the monarch is a ceremonial figurehead. Would you like to live in a USA where its president could overrule Congress? If Congress passed a law legalizing abortion, euthanasia, summary execution of illegal immigrants, retail sale of methamphetamine on demand, or something like that, and if the president (regardless of his religion or lack thereof) were able to stop it, yes. But that is obviously a two-edged sword. I have in mind that a Catholic monarchy would be a clement, gentle one recognizing the principle of subsidiarity, and that such a Catholic monarch would sense his obligations before Almighty God. To paraphrase Charles Coulombe (who, aside from the thing with the tarot cards, is my "brother from another mother"), I'd rather be ruled by a king who fears he will go to hell if he doesn't rule me well, than by a legislature to whom I am no more than a commodity akin to a cow that gives milk. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2023 18:41:21 GMT
Some have compared this to what happened when King Baudouin of Belgium refused in 1990 to sign off abortion legislation as a devout Catholic. He asked parliament to declare him incapacitated so that the monarchy could be preserved without him having to sign it. If I were him I likely would have refused either to sign it or to step down in any way. I think what Baudouin did was a disgrace. He claimed to be a devout Catholic therefore unable to sign the bill to bring it into law. However, rather than refuse to sign it or abdicate he used this lie to avoid direct involvement. He remained the king and the bill became law. Exactly the same outcome as if he had signed it while pretending he had nothing to do with it. That's what I always thought. He wanted to preserve the Belgian monarchy and that was why he choose not to block it. Of course, the bill was signed on his behalf. The Vatican did praise him for this but I agree it really didn't make a difference to the fact that he let a genocidal bill pass through anyway. Cardinal Daneels, the Primate of Belgium, purportedly convinced the King to do this. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 16, 2023 18:59:26 GMT
I think what Baudouin did was a disgrace. He claimed to be a devout Catholic therefore unable to sign the bill to bring it into law. However, rather than refuse to sign it or abdicate he used this lie to avoid direct involvement. He remained the king and the bill became law. Exactly the same outcome as if he had signed it while pretending he had nothing to do with it. That's what I always thought. He wanted to preserve the Belgian monarchy and that was why he choose not to block it. Of course, the bill was signed on his behalf. The Vatican did praise him for this but I agree it really didn't make a difference to the fact that he let a genocidal bill pass through anyway. Cardinal Daneels, the Primate of Belgium, purportedly convinced the King to do this. I'm not sure that it was a lie to have himself declared "incapacitated". That word can mean any one of several things, including "not able to reign as king at this time", which, though it's a bit of a stretch, could be thought of as true. Without knowing more of the particulars, I'd be hesitant to condemn his action (or that of the Belgian parliament) as a willful untruth (which is what a lie is). Also, nobody was deceived by this, everyone knew precisely what was going on. |
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Sept 17, 2023 12:18:38 GMT
Because that's called tyranny. It's what might have been expected from Henry VIII or Louis XVI. Many monarchies are modern democracies where the monarch is a ceremonial figurehead. Would you like to live in a USA where its president could overrule Congress? If Congress passed a law legalizing abortion, euthanasia, summary execution of illegal immigrants, retail sale of methamphetamine on demand, or something like that, and if the president (regardless of his religion or lack thereof) were able to stop it, yes. But that is obviously a two-edged sword. I have in mind that a Catholic monarchy would be a clement, gentle one recognizing the principle of subsidiarity, and that such a Catholic monarch would sense his obligations before Almighty God. To paraphrase Charles Coulombe (who, aside from the thing with the tarot cards, is my "brother from another mother"), I'd rather be ruled by a king who fears he will go to hell if he doesn't rule me well, than by a legislature to whom I am no more than a commodity akin to a cow that gives milk. Does that mean you do not want to live in a democracy? If a country's legislature has voted something into law then the head of state shouldn't be able to prevent it becoming law. If one man or woman can overrules the legislature that isn't democracy.
You're assuming that a Catholic monarch would act in the way you describe. However, that cannot be guaranteed. Just because a monarch is Catholic that doesn't make the monarch a good Catholic or a good statesman.
|
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Sept 17, 2023 12:24:35 GMT
That's what I always thought. He wanted to preserve the Belgian monarchy and that was why he choose not to block it. Of course, the bill was signed on his behalf. The Vatican did praise him for this but I agree it really didn't make a difference to the fact that he let a genocidal bill pass through anyway. Cardinal Daneels, the Primate of Belgium, purportedly convinced the King to do this. I'm not sure that it was a lie to have himself declared "incapacitated". That word can mean any one of several things, including "not able to reign as king at this time", which, though it's a bit of a stretch, could be thought of as true. Without knowing more of the particulars, I'd be hesitant to condemn his action (or that of the Belgian parliament) as a willful untruth (which is what a lie is). Also, nobody was deceived by this, everyone knew precisely what was going on. I think it was. He was not incapacitated or not to the extent that he couldn't discharge his duties as head of state. It was done so that he could continue claiming he was a good Catholic because he hadn't signed into law something that was very much contrary to Catholic teaching whilst being able to retain his postion as King of the Belgians.
I don't care who praised him. It was a deception. He knew that it would become law, he could remain king and claim his hands were still clean.
I'm not at all surprised Cardinal Danneels persuaded him to do this. Cardinal Danneels would make Joe Biden look like some reactionary, ultraconservative.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 17, 2023 18:18:16 GMT
If Congress passed a law legalizing abortion, euthanasia, summary execution of illegal immigrants, retail sale of methamphetamine on demand, or something like that, and if the president (regardless of his religion or lack thereof) were able to stop it, yes. But that is obviously a two-edged sword. I have in mind that a Catholic monarchy would be a clement, gentle one recognizing the principle of subsidiarity, and that such a Catholic monarch would sense his obligations before Almighty God. To paraphrase Charles Coulombe (who, aside from the thing with the tarot cards, is my "brother from another mother"), I'd rather be ruled by a king who fears he will go to hell if he doesn't rule me well, than by a legislature to whom I am no more than a commodity akin to a cow that gives milk. Does that mean you do not want to live in a democracy? If a country's legislature has voted something into law then the head of state shouldn't be able to prevent it becoming law. If one man or woman can overrules the legislature that isn't democracy.
You're assuming that a Catholic monarch would act in the way you describe. However, that cannot be guaranteed. Just because a monarch is Catholic that doesn't make the monarch a good Catholic or a good statesman.
I want to live in a social order that promotes the Social Reign of Christ the King, whether that be a monarchy, democracy, or what have you. Such a social order would have safeguards against such things as legalizing abortion. Ultimately, the "safeguard" would be the popular will, conformed to the Mind of Christ, and led by people who are likewise conformed, all una voce dicentes.In the meantime, we hobble along with democracies (a form of government that Bellarmine defended) as well as monarchies that may or may not be Christian, and in the best case are notionally Catholic, such as Belgium or Spain, with little or no actual power. Seems there is no immanentizing the eschaton anytime soon. |
|
|
|
Post by theguvnor on Sept 17, 2023 18:56:47 GMT
Democracy is not the best, it is the least worst but I don't wish to live under a theocracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 17, 2023 19:16:15 GMT
Democracy is not the best, it is the least worst but I don't wish to live under a theocracy. Church and State have two different roles to play, but in a Catholic social order, the state, at the very least, would not oppose the Church, nor have any laws that were contrary to her teachings. |
|
