Is Catholic monarchy a common Traditionalist cause?

So the usual suspect is saying that Catholic monarchy is the ideal form of government…is this a common belief among traditional Catholics? I think I remember John Zmirak once alluding to it. Let’s talk about just within the geographical territory of the United States. Is this a common hope for Traditionalists, the establishment of a Catholic Monarchical state? I didn’t originally see this as a common aspiration.

Agitating for such a thing in our own lifetimes is so…cart before the horse? Sure, our own founding fathers said that our Constitution is only suited for ruling a moral people (and as a whole, we aren’t). Sure, our failure to condemn slavery from the start doomed us to fail to live up to that, etc.

But Catholic monarchy? I’ve heard that the two largest religious groups in the U.S. are Catholics and former Catholics, but that’s a plurality, not a majority! And we all know that even just baptised Catholics have major issues as a whole. Many would say that most Catholics…aren’t Catholic.

So on what planet is this Catholic monarchy supposed to be founded? Because faithful Catholics, accounting for less than 1% of the US population, are not going to push this through, even if we all decided we liked the idea!

“The usual suspect”?

One quite excellent blog that I know of that makes the case for Catholic monarchy is Roman Christendom out of the UK.

As an American, I am committed to the republican form of government in the United States. However, there are two things that I don’t think can be denied: (1) that the enemies of traditional monarchies and the enemies of the Church are the same; and (2) that the world is decidedly not a better place since the abolition of most of the traditional monarchies.

I am not sure I follow you but…

If we are speaking mystically than every baptized person is Catholic. Whether they claim Baptist or Lutheran or Non-Denominational. Mystically speaking, from an RCC point of view, all Christians are Catholic. They are not distinguished in the mystical Church or the Body of Christ.

Because Peter received the Keys to bind in Heaven and on Earth he has the Primacy over the other Patriarchs. This office has continued with the Pope and so the Pope has tje power of the Keys and the Primacy of the Patriarchs. This is all regarding the Kingdom of Heaven both on Earth and Heaven. So, Jesus is our King and the Pope is His steward.

In this there is a Monarchy and all Christians must obey their King Jesus and the Pope is the Steward of the Kingdom.

Actually, members of these Protestant communions may possibly bear the mark of Baptism, but they are distinguished by the fact that they are separated from the Catholic Church, making intercommunion impossible (cf. CCC at 1600). Protestant ecclesial communions cannot even properly be called “churches” because they have abolished the priesthood and therefore have lost the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. For them to be perfect in their obedience to Christ the King, they would have to rejoin the Catholic Church.

I thought it was a simple enough question…is it common for American traditional Catholics to promote the formation of a Monarchy under a Catholic monarch?

It is common for American traditional Catholics to promote the formation of a Catholic confessional state that recognizes the Church as the one true faith. The form of government is open to interpretation, although monarchy is the most traditional and has been spoken about favorably by Church authorities.

I don;t knwo the answer to your question if I had to guess I would imagine there is nto a consensus on the topic as far as the US goes, however the traditional teaching of the doctors of the Church is that monarchy is the best form of government so I imagine many traditional Catholics do think that way in general, I don;t know any of them who are actively working to or who even interested in instituting a monarchy in the US though. Because the other thing is that God chooses and raises up monarchs its not somethign we the people do.

In general my opinion is that America is already slowly descending into a oligarchical form of government from what I am witnessing, it won;t be Catholics who end democracy in America but I believe it will be Catholics who eventually end up picking up the pieces left from the meltdown of society that is currently entering into its later stages, and perhaps Gods cure will be to raise up a monarch, He has used that solution in the past.

As far as virtue and government goes that links into monarchy, one of the arguments in favour of monarchy is that it is considered easier to find one virtuous man to be a king than it is to find a nation where the majority of people are virtuous, in such a nation democracy would be good but who can find such a nation? And would such a nation even need governing at all?

Why should we accept anything less than a state which is founded upon, accepts and confesses Christian principles?

As Plato observed, Democracy is only one step above Tyranny and exemplifies no virtues in its form of governance. In fact, inasmuch as the mob is weak, venal and stupid Democracy is always in danger of devolving into the worst immoralities.

Every year, the freedom to live and practice the Christian faith in America is chipped away. That is because the elites largely reject and even hate Christianity. The country and people are divided. It reminds me of Spain in the early 30’s. There, in Catholic Spain, the world saw the burning of churches and the slaughter of many thousands of clergy. Religion was outlawed and secularism was set up in its place.

But gallant men arose to defend the Faith. And the man who led them to victory, the pious General Franco, enshrined the Faith once more in the statutes of the state. When I think of a Catholic monarch in America, I do not think of some inbred blueblood scion of privilege. It is no longer necessary to rely on breeding and isolation to attempt to have a man of quality leading the state. The technologies of today give everyone access to excellent educational resources. Rather than suppose merit to follow upon good blood, we can nowadays find merit simply in itself.

Perhaps we should pray for a brave and noble Catholic statesman to rise to the fore. Do we pray enough for faithful Catholic statesmen?

No. Politics are not the domain of the Church.

The Founding Fathers thought so, too. In their mind, democracy was the same as mob rule. That’s why they set up a representative republic. The United States is not and never was meant to be a pure democracy. We have representatives whose duty is to stand between power and passion. (Instead, however, they amass power by stoking passions.)

Isn’t it? Catholic principles cannot be rooted out of politics without ending up with – well, the situation we have today, where the country is going to hell in a bucket.

When Catholic priests and bishops stopped standing publicly for Catholic values, we got, among other things, abortion on demand.

If only they had the foresight to work something in for Lobbyists. :slight_smile:

Pius XI, Dilectissima nobis (03/06/1933); Encyclical on the oppression of the Church in the Spanish Republic

  1. Nor can it be believed that Our words are inspired by sentiments of aversion to the new [republican] form of government or other purely political changes which recently have transpired in Spain. Universally known is the fact that the Catholic Church is never bound to one form of government more than to another, provided the Divine rights of God and of Christian consciences are safe. She does not find any difficulty in adapting herself to various civil institutions, be they monarchic or republican, aristocratic or democratic. Speaking only of recent facts, evident proof of this lies in the numerous Concordats and agreements concluded in later years, and in the diplomatic relations the Holy See has established with different States in which, following the Great War, monarchic governments were succeeded by republican forms. Nor have these new republics ever had to suffer in their institutions and just aspirations toward national grandeur and welfare through their friendly relations with the Holy See, or through their disposition, in a spirit of reciprocal confidence, to conclude conventions on subjects relating to Church and State, in conformity with changed conditions and times. Nay, We can with certainty affirm that from these trustful understandings with the Church the States themselves have derived remarkable advantages, since it is known no more effective dyké can be opposed to an inundation of social disorders than the Church, which is the greatest educator of the people and always knows how to unite, in fecund agreement, the principle of legitimate liberty with that of authority, the exigencies of justice with welfare and peace.

  2. The Government of the new Republic could not be ignorant of all this. Nay, it knew well Our good disposition, and that of the Spanish Episcopate, to concur in maintaining order and social tranquillity. With Us was in harmony the immense multitude not only of the clergy both secular and regular, but likewise of the Catholic laity, or, rather, the great majority of the Spanish people, who, notwithstanding their personal opinions and provocations and vexations by adversaries of the Church, kept themselves aloof from acts of violence and reprisals, in tranquil subjection to the constituted [republican] power, without having to resort to disorder and much less to civil war.

**Leo XIII, Au milieu des sollicitudes (16/02/1892); Encyclical on Church and State in France
14. Various political governments have succeeded one another in France during the last century, each having its own distinctive form: the Empire, the Monarchy, and the Republic. By giving one’s self up to abstractions, one could at length conclude which is the best of these forms, considered in themselves; and in all truth it may be affirmed that each of them is good, provided it lead straight to its end - that is to say, to the common good for which social authority is constituted; and finally, it may be added that, from a relative point of view, such and such a form of government may be preferable because of being better adapted to the character and customs of such or such a nation. In this order of speculative ideas, Catholics, like all other citizens, are free to prefer one form of government to another precisely because no one of these social forms is, in itself, opposed to the principles of sound reason nor to the maxims of Christian doctrine. What amply justifies the wisdom of the Church is that in her relations with political powers she makes abstraction of the forms which differentiate them and treats with them concerning the great religious interests of nations, knowing that hers is the duty to undertake their tutelage above all other interests. Our preceding Encyclicals have already exposed these principles, but it was nevertheless necessary to recall them for the development of the subject which occupies us to-day.

…]19. Consequently, when new governments representing this immutable power are constituted, their acceptance is not only permissible but even obligatory, being imposed by the need of the social good which has made and which upholds them. This is all the more imperative because an insurrection stirs up hatred among citizens, provokes civil war, and may throw a nation into chaos and anarchy, and this great duty of respect and dependence will endure as Tong as the exigencies of the common good shall demand it, since this good is, after God, the first sand last law in society.

  1. Thus the wisdom of the Church explains itself in the maintenance of her relations with the numerous governments which have succeeded one another in France in less than a century, each change causing violent shocks. Such a line of conduct would be the surest and most salutary for all Frenchmen in their civil relations with the republic, which is the actual government of their nation.* Far be it from them to encourage the political dissensions which divide them*; all their efforts should be combined to preserve and elevate the moral greatness of their native land.

  2. But a difficulty presents itself. “This Republic,” it is said, “is animated by such anti Christian sentiments that honest men, Catholics particularly, could not conscientiously accept it.” This, more than anything else, has given rise to dissensions, and in fact aggravated them… These regrettable differences** would have been avoided if the very considerable distinction between constituted power and legislation had been carefully kept in view**. In so much does legislation differ from political power and its form, that under a system of government most excellent in form legislation could be detestable; while quite the opposite under a regime most imperfect in form, might be found excellent legislation. It were an easy task to prove this truth, history in hand, but what would be the use? All are convinced of it. And who, better than the Church, is in position to know it - she who has striven to maintain habitual relations with all political governments? Assuredly she, better than any other power, could tell the consolation or sorrow occasioned her by the laws of the various governments by which nations have been ruled from the Roman Empire down to the present.

“The usual suspect” has apparently read Saint Thomas Aquinas, knows Catholic social teaching, and is one with the heart and mind of the Church.

All true: the Church can adapt herself to various civil institutions. But none of this speaks the question of which form of government is inherently most preferable, or which one best protects the divine rights of God or Christian consciences.

This greatly helped my understanding, thank you. America’s form of government is self-destructing. It would make sense for Catholics to “pick up the pieces” like after the fall of the Roman empire. I just wasn’t sure what Voris’s (the usual suspect, I didn’t mean to be so vague) time frame was, in his mind, but it could be one like Milesius suggests.

But the seeds of destruction lie not in our system of government per se but in our fallen nature. The reality is that we have bought into the false notion of freedom as license to do whatever we please. True freedom means freedom to do what is right. We have been unfaithful, and given ourselves up to vice, and it’s tearing apart the fabric of our society.

Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies.

[RIGHT]John Adams

I said politics are not the domain of the Church, not that politics were not the domain of people who were in the Church.

People associate all sorts of things with “traditional Catholics” as if it were somehow different from the Church. There is only one Church, it is holy, apostolic and traditional.

Other Catholics associate weird things with them which are not part of traditional Catholicism. I for instance am politically best described as an anarchist. Governments are built on people. People are fallible. Governments should be kept to an absolute minimum and seen as the undesirable institutions which they are. They come and go, and when they grow or last too long they become so corrupt and harmful, they need to be destroyed. A monarchy, no matter how perfect, will be reversed in its effects. The great Catholic monarchies ended up becoming the means of attacking the Church. The democracies and republics which arose from the ashes of the monarchies end up becoming monolithic corrupt kingdoms separated from the people which they claim to represent.

So, while traditional Catholics may find Catholic kingdoms admirable, the system of government is just as fallible as any other.

Ideally, I think the governments should be headed by a single, wise and strong leader, able to make proper decisions and control oneself. However, in such a perfect world, we wouldn’t need governments.

When Catholic priests and bishops stopped standing publicly for Catholic values, we got, among other things, abortion on demand.

Abortion isn’t “political”. The national symbol, tax rate on imports, lines on maps and enforcement of necessary laws are political. Reducing morality to political issues is one of the reasons why government is ultimately bad.

Some Greek philosophers and I agree with you completely on this point.

However, that is only an ideal. The world is not ideal, so, that form of government is not the best.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit