Honest question to you Mr. Wright. Can one still be an integralist and be republican? As in a republic without the separation of church and state. I come from the states. But I find it hard to found a monarchy in a country that has never had that in its history.
You could say the English crown, but I am more so referring to history after the separation from England.
Is integralism limited to just monarchical views or can the possibility of a republic be considered from a integralist viewpoint?
Catholic Social Teaching does note quire a monarchy. In Immortale Dei, Pope Leo XIII wrote:
"The right to rule is not necessarily, however, bound up with any special mode of government. It may take this or that form, provided only that it be of a nature of the government, rulers must ever bear in mind that God is the paramount ruler of the world, and must set Him before themselves as their exemplar and law in the administration of the State. For, in things visible God has fashioned secondary causes, in which His divine action can in some wise be discerned, leading up to the end to which the course of the world is ever tending. In like manner, in civil society, God has always willed that there should be a ruling authority, and that they who are invested with it should reflect the divine power and providence in some measure over the human race."
An elective monarchy, or a mixed constitution like ancient Israel and the English constitution, or a republic of some description – all these are legitimate forms of government, and you can prefer one or the other for various reasons. In principle, monarchy is generally considered to be the best; a mixed constitution is considered to be the best in practice. St Thomas discusses rule by one (monarchy/tyranny), rule by many (aristocracy/oligarchy) and rule by all (polity/democracy), and concludes:
“[T]here is a form of government made up of all these, and which is the best: and in this respect we have law sanctioned by the ‘Lords and Commons,’ as stated by Isidore.”
As I mentioned, this is the form of government in the English constitution. The Crown is the source of all legal authority in the nation, be it executive, legislative or judicial – but, as we know from the Faith, that authority is itself derived immediately from God.
The problem with the American conception of this (shared by many other constitutions) is that it sees power/authority as vested in the people, and shared with the branches of government. But, Scripture teaches that authority comes from God, and what happens in an election etc. is that the person to receive that authority is designated by the electors, not empowered by them.
I see a slightly different take on the issue in America than your last paragraph but perhaps I am too nuanced, misunderstanding your reply and happy to be corrected if so.
In the Constitution of the Republic of the USA, the latter of which no longer exists with practical abrogation of the 9th and 10th amendments, it seems to me that the problem is not that power/authority is vested in the people rather than derived from God, but rather that the people are forbidden from imposing the authority of God upon the body politic. Specifically, Article VI Clause III prohibits the use of any religious test as a qualification for office, which extends not just to federal elections but also to any governmental office including state and local.
The "authority" vested in the people was to establish a government with its powers justly designated in a way that was derived from/conformed to the consent of the governed, as the Declaration of Independence states. This charge did not per se exclude that the primary authority of that governance comes from God, nor did it exclude governing/legislating according to His Will. The initial establishment and adherence to a monarchy similarly rests on the consent of the governed (or by brute force) and not to the exclusion of the ultimate authority of governance that way coming from God.
If the people could vest within the republic that authority from God in such way to be in accordance with His Will by a religious test, then the designated powers from the consent of the governed within the three branches of government could certainly be conformed to the Social Kingship of Christ. Said result is contrary to the notion that vesting that particular "power/authority" in the people, to establish the type government as they see fit, is the problem.
However Article VI Clause III is in place precisely to prevent that, a tribute to the Masonically inspired freedom from religion which makes the First Amendment, freedom of religion, meaningless. It thus allows only reason, individually and collectively, to be the arbiter of rights and judgments, or the will of the people over the Will of God when the latter is used as a basis for decisions. The outcome is really no different from a monarch who applies his will and refuses to apply the Will of God to his/her decisions, a la good old Henry. This seems to me to be the laicization problem mentioned in the article.
I believe that the Constitution as the foundational document of our government is radically flawed, because it makes no mention of God, the Blessed Trinity, Jesus Christ, His Church and the absolute subjection of our country and laws to Him. On the other hand, placing this foundation on "the will of the people", which according to the scriptures is "like the sand of the seas", not upon "The Rock" which is Christ; and we all know what happens when a storm comes and the water and wind beat against the house built upon sand; the house falls and the ruin becomes very great.
Perhaps I was not clear in my response. I do not find the "will of the people" in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States but I might have missed it. What I read in the former is the right, or vesting of power/authority in the people, of forming a government according to the consent of the governed and the latter is that product. That the product does not mention God is not necessarily because of the power, authority, ability, or right to choose what form of government and what laws it can or can not make, but only because they chose not to. That is only what I wanted to clarify about the term "authority is vested in the people" meant in the context of those two documents.
The power/authority vested in the people to form any particular form of government they choose, including a constitutional republic, is not intrinsically opposed to following the Will of God, of being subservient to His authority in a Catholic State. Ours is flawed as you say because it did not make that choice, although honestly it likely never could have given the make up of the populace and its predominately Masonic leadership at that time.
The 'little way' of Christendom's marketplace is Monasteries as in the Medieval model. Nothing like the suggestion of 'two cities' which is 'we "the people" can'. The Medieval model was the result of Christendom's mission. Without a pope, what 'two cities' is preaching is Judeo-Kristian 'power to the people'. Let's 'reverse engineer Christendom...'
The vacancy of the Holy See does not dissolve or suspend the obligation of Catholics to strive to build Christendom. To think that it does is to fall prey to apocalypticism and, all too usually, to de facto become external liberals. Where else can we start from than from where we are now?
I have always been clear that my proposals are "crisis measures." Yet, the crisis in the order of grace (the Church) does not prevent us from improving the order of nature. The Church crisis does not stop us forming faithful families, communities, economies and culture. This tilling of the soil of nature will make for a more perfect restoration once the grace of authority in the Church returns.
"civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants."
Honest question to you Mr. Wright. Can one still be an integralist and be republican? As in a republic without the separation of church and state. I come from the states. But I find it hard to found a monarchy in a country that has never had that in its history.
You could say the English crown, but I am more so referring to history after the separation from England.
Is integralism limited to just monarchical views or can the possibility of a republic be considered from a integralist viewpoint?
Catholic Social Teaching does note quire a monarchy. In Immortale Dei, Pope Leo XIII wrote:
"The right to rule is not necessarily, however, bound up with any special mode of government. It may take this or that form, provided only that it be of a nature of the government, rulers must ever bear in mind that God is the paramount ruler of the world, and must set Him before themselves as their exemplar and law in the administration of the State. For, in things visible God has fashioned secondary causes, in which His divine action can in some wise be discerned, leading up to the end to which the course of the world is ever tending. In like manner, in civil society, God has always willed that there should be a ruling authority, and that they who are invested with it should reflect the divine power and providence in some measure over the human race."
An elective monarchy, or a mixed constitution like ancient Israel and the English constitution, or a republic of some description – all these are legitimate forms of government, and you can prefer one or the other for various reasons. In principle, monarchy is generally considered to be the best; a mixed constitution is considered to be the best in practice. St Thomas discusses rule by one (monarchy/tyranny), rule by many (aristocracy/oligarchy) and rule by all (polity/democracy), and concludes:
“[T]here is a form of government made up of all these, and which is the best: and in this respect we have law sanctioned by the ‘Lords and Commons,’ as stated by Isidore.”
As I mentioned, this is the form of government in the English constitution. The Crown is the source of all legal authority in the nation, be it executive, legislative or judicial – but, as we know from the Faith, that authority is itself derived immediately from God.
The problem with the American conception of this (shared by many other constitutions) is that it sees power/authority as vested in the people, and shared with the branches of government. But, Scripture teaches that authority comes from God, and what happens in an election etc. is that the person to receive that authority is designated by the electors, not empowered by them.
I see a slightly different take on the issue in America than your last paragraph but perhaps I am too nuanced, misunderstanding your reply and happy to be corrected if so.
In the Constitution of the Republic of the USA, the latter of which no longer exists with practical abrogation of the 9th and 10th amendments, it seems to me that the problem is not that power/authority is vested in the people rather than derived from God, but rather that the people are forbidden from imposing the authority of God upon the body politic. Specifically, Article VI Clause III prohibits the use of any religious test as a qualification for office, which extends not just to federal elections but also to any governmental office including state and local.
The "authority" vested in the people was to establish a government with its powers justly designated in a way that was derived from/conformed to the consent of the governed, as the Declaration of Independence states. This charge did not per se exclude that the primary authority of that governance comes from God, nor did it exclude governing/legislating according to His Will. The initial establishment and adherence to a monarchy similarly rests on the consent of the governed (or by brute force) and not to the exclusion of the ultimate authority of governance that way coming from God.
If the people could vest within the republic that authority from God in such way to be in accordance with His Will by a religious test, then the designated powers from the consent of the governed within the three branches of government could certainly be conformed to the Social Kingship of Christ. Said result is contrary to the notion that vesting that particular "power/authority" in the people, to establish the type government as they see fit, is the problem.
However Article VI Clause III is in place precisely to prevent that, a tribute to the Masonically inspired freedom from religion which makes the First Amendment, freedom of religion, meaningless. It thus allows only reason, individually and collectively, to be the arbiter of rights and judgments, or the will of the people over the Will of God when the latter is used as a basis for decisions. The outcome is really no different from a monarch who applies his will and refuses to apply the Will of God to his/her decisions, a la good old Henry. This seems to me to be the laicization problem mentioned in the article.
Mike,
I believe that the Constitution as the foundational document of our government is radically flawed, because it makes no mention of God, the Blessed Trinity, Jesus Christ, His Church and the absolute subjection of our country and laws to Him. On the other hand, placing this foundation on "the will of the people", which according to the scriptures is "like the sand of the seas", not upon "The Rock" which is Christ; and we all know what happens when a storm comes and the water and wind beat against the house built upon sand; the house falls and the ruin becomes very great.
Perhaps I was not clear in my response. I do not find the "will of the people" in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States but I might have missed it. What I read in the former is the right, or vesting of power/authority in the people, of forming a government according to the consent of the governed and the latter is that product. That the product does not mention God is not necessarily because of the power, authority, ability, or right to choose what form of government and what laws it can or can not make, but only because they chose not to. That is only what I wanted to clarify about the term "authority is vested in the people" meant in the context of those two documents.
The power/authority vested in the people to form any particular form of government they choose, including a constitutional republic, is not intrinsically opposed to following the Will of God, of being subservient to His authority in a Catholic State. Ours is flawed as you say because it did not make that choice, although honestly it likely never could have given the make up of the populace and its predominately Masonic leadership at that time.
Heaven is a monarchy. Hell is a democracy.
The 'little way' of Christendom's marketplace is Monasteries as in the Medieval model. Nothing like the suggestion of 'two cities' which is 'we "the people" can'. The Medieval model was the result of Christendom's mission. Without a pope, what 'two cities' is preaching is Judeo-Kristian 'power to the people'. Let's 'reverse engineer Christendom...'
The vacancy of the Holy See does not dissolve or suspend the obligation of Catholics to strive to build Christendom. To think that it does is to fall prey to apocalypticism and, all too usually, to de facto become external liberals. Where else can we start from than from where we are now?
I have always been clear that my proposals are "crisis measures." Yet, the crisis in the order of grace (the Church) does not prevent us from improving the order of nature. The Church crisis does not stop us forming faithful families, communities, economies and culture. This tilling of the soil of nature will make for a more perfect restoration once the grace of authority in the Church returns.
"civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants."
- St Pius X