Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 6     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   Next
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,676
Reply with quote  #61 
I don't feel that I make gratuitous attacks on the Catholic faith. I have in the past debated such topics as the Immaculate Conception, veneration of the saints and so forth, but to me I was having intellectual arguments and they weren't gratuitous, nor did I introduce the topics. I admit to attacks on the Catholic Church, but they were not gratuitous but rather retaliatory; the Church is a dangerous (and unprovoked, so any gratuitousness lies on its side) enemy of me and all people like me, that wreaks great harm including death, with the suicides and deadly assaults that its attitudes and public condemnation have led to.

The previous two long-reigning Popes in particular seemed to be at war with gay people. Pope Francis on the other hand has been humane, compassionate and Christian in his comments. I know you don't like him, but I certainly do and I hope he manages to make a difference. I like you too, a great deal, and have missed you here. I know we disagree on many things, but disagreement is no basis for dislike, especially if you love an argument as much as I do! KYM I know can be irritating but I think he is essentially good-hearted, has a good range of knowledge and can make interesting and insightful comments, and of course takes a vocal interest in my genealogical work, which would endear anyone to me.

I hope you will reconsider your participation, or rather non-participation, and in any event remain your friend,

Peter
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,775
Reply with quote  #62 

Teaching that homosexual acts are sinful does not make the Catholic Church an "enemy" of gay people any more than teaching that fornication and adultery are sinful makes it an enemy of the much larger number of straight people who are sexually active before marriage, or of straight people caught in unhappy but undoubtedly valid marriages. You can disagree with that teaching, but it's not fair to misrepresent it. There are after all gay Catholics who strive to follow their Church's teachings and I don't think they would agree that their own Church is their enemy. No one has ever died from not having sex.

Papal reigns tend to be shorter than royal ones, but even by papal standards eight years (2005-13) is not a particularly long reign. I for one wish Benedict XVI (whose health seems from photos to remain just fine) had not abdicated and were still reigning. Only a tiny fraction of his public writings and comments concerned homosexuality. His attention to beauty in the liturgy was much more important, and is what I miss. The current Pope does not seem to be very "humane and compassionate" towards Catholics who have been devastated and alienated by the liturgical chaos of the past fifty years. Briefly under Benedict XVI it seemed like things might finally be shifting in the other direction, but traditionalists since 2013 have been cruelly disappointed.

I do strongly dislike and resent the sort of Catholic "conservatism," common in the United States, that accepts or even embraces many of the modern things I hate (contemporary styles of "music" at mass, hideous modernist architecture, the proliferation of republics and glorification of Democracy and Equality) while remaining fiercely opposed to abortion and homosexuality. But I don't think that describes Pope Benedict XVI.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,676
Reply with quote  #63 
It does indeed make them an enemy, as they teach that even faithful and lifelong partnerships are sinful, and the only option is celibacy (though not under vows, as Benedict XVI banned even celibate gay men from the priesthood). The Catholic Church, along with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints with which it has at times formed a not particularly holy alliance on the question, is the most vocal attacker of gay people today, and besides that vigorously campaigns against any kind of equality legislation and for moves like proposition 8, spending vast sums of money in the process. If that's not an enemy, I don't know what is. I broadly sympathise with your liturgical and musical concerns and actually think the Latin mass makes a great deal of sense for what claims to be the universal Church, but being gay am far more concerned with the harm the Church does to people like me.

You are right that eight years is not an especially long Papal reign, though there have been a fair few that were far shorter. John Paul II's twenty-six years was long though, and despite the respect in which he is rightly held for his genuine achievements his attitude to gay people was execrable. And unprovoked, what harm have we as a group ever done? The Church even acknowledges that homosexuality is not a choice but is in the inherent nature of a minority of people, but condemns it still. Its attitude is beyond reason, inexcusable and unconscionable. Long live Pope Francis, I say, even if that makes me a lonely voice on the forum.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,775
Reply with quote  #64 
As a monarchist I hate the very idea of "equality legislation." No such thing should exist, with regard to sexuality or any other topic. "Equality" is not a legitimate objective of legislation and there has been far too much talk of it in Western societies ever since the diabolical French Revolution. (If possible after my visit to France I hate the French Republic and its ideology more than ever.) In general the modern Catholic Church does not oppose the lie of "Equality" vigorously enough! (I was appalled when I went to mass at Westminster Cathedral earlier this month that the finest Catholic choir of men and boys in the world was preceded in procession by a female thurifer and two little altar girls, as if to say, "don't worry, we may not have women priests or girl choristers, but we do as much as we can.") The fact that the UK now has something called an "Equalities Minister" is abhorrent to me. It seems to me that there is no reason why a gay person could not reject both egalitarianism and gay marriage--I have an openly gay right-wing British friend who does--but very few have the independence of mind to do so. Jonathan doesn't see the Catholic Church as an enemy; why should you? What has the Catholic Church done to you, living in 21st-century Britain?

It does bother me that the Church fully accepts the existence of republican governments in so many countries that used to be ruled by Catholic monarchies. That is an utter abomination that dwarfs every sexual sin in history put together.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,676
Reply with quote  #65 
As I've observed before, when you actually belong to a minority it gives you a different perspective on equality legislation. A gay person can though reject both equality and gay marriage; I felt myself that while marriage was the ultimate goal it would be better to just let people get used to civil partnerships for a while first before working round to the prize. Others felt differently, went for it and in a number of countries including here got it. I am glad. In the news recently has been the story of a Church of England priest who married his male partner and was deprived of his licence, effectively defrocked, and in consequence lost a planned promotion in his teaching work. I hope he sues, wins and gets plenty, and am happy that the law affords him that opportunity to rectify injustice.

The Catholic Church in Britain while antagonistic is not generally speaking as vigorous against gay people as the Church is in the US and other places. But I read about its activities wherever in the world and it makes me mad. No, it does not directly affect me but it does people like me, and naturally I have sympathy with them. I don't, as you know, share your abhorrence of republican governments, even in former monarchies. While I feel, and have made abundantly clear in my writings here, that all these countries and their peoples would be better off under restored monarchies, I acknowledge the Fifth and other republics as legitimately sovereign. As for equality, it is an ultimately unattainable goal, that is true.

Equality, I spoke their word as if a wedding vow
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now

Thus Bob Dylan, in his 1964 song 'My Back Pages'. And he's right, equality is not the be-all and end-all. But the removal of unreasoning and unjustified discrimination against minorities, whether on grounds of race, religion, sex (though women are hardly a minority) or sexuality is surely right and I support it strongly. It is after all no more than an extension of the Golden Rule, which we all should follow.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,775
Reply with quote  #66 

I'm not sure a Church that "ordains" women can logically exclude gay men or anyone else. As you know I strongly support "discrimination" against women with regard to both the priesthood and cathedral choirs, which is not in any sense "unreasoning" or "unjustified," but the problem is, who determines what is? Earlier this month in Gloucester I was surprised to find myself shaking hands with the woman who is going to become the CofE's first female diocesan ordinary. Don't worry, I was civil. But I wouldn't take Communion at a Eucharist she celebrated.

 

royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,775
Reply with quote  #67 
And there is no minority more marginalized and powerless than American monarchists. If we're not actively persecuted, it's only because there aren't enough of us to constitute a threat and most people aren't even aware we exist.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,676
Reply with quote  #68 
I would never doubt that you would be civil. And while I feel that, like on so many other things, Scripture has an ambiguous message on women's priesthood (and I have read and thought about every single relevant passage), I acknowledge that the weight of tradition is entirely against it, and also acknowledge your concern about the timbre of voices. I do nevertheless support both female ordination and female bishops and archbishops, although since I am not a member of any church perhaps my views don't matter very much. On cathedral and other choirs I am entirely with you. Boys with the requisite natural gifts and given training are different to and also markedly superior to girls given the same opportunities. And furthermore, unlike girls they do not have a lifetime to explore their soprano voices, but only a few short years. So that is one area where I am all for sex discrimination. Adult female singers are different to adult male singers, but I would never dream of saying that the best males are better than the best females, they are all wonderful. In this particular sphere, though, it is just a fact that the best boys leave the best girls in the dust, and their gifts should be celebrated, not suppressed in the name of ideology.
KYMonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,368
Reply with quote  #69 
Theodore, American monarchists are not persecuted b/c the American government is forbidden under the Constitution from oppressing people due to their political beliefs, and America nowadays applies that more consistently and more better than it has ever done so in its history. And gay people in Iran, Saudi Arabia, northern Nigeria, Somaliland, Brunei, Yemen, Sudan, and under ISIL rule would like a word with you about various degrees of persecution. Also, Theodore, what is your opinion about equality under the law?

Jovan, please link me to the post or posts where I used my Asperger's Syndrome as an excuse for my behavior, as I've no recollection of ever doing that. As a matter of fact, I rarely ever mention it on this forum.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,775
Reply with quote  #70 

It will be interesting to see how tolerant the U.S. government is of opponents of gay marriage in the years ahead.

Obviously there are many horrible places in the world, especially where certain varieties of Islam hold sway, but that shouldn't be the standard, should it? Life is no picnic for Christians in those areas either. I have never understood the idea from either Left or Right that because things are worse elsewhere we can't talk about problems where we actually are.

"Equality under the law" is such a broad and nebulous concept that it is impossible for me to say what my opinion of it is without further clarification. Certainly in modern times it has been used to justify things I do not agree with. In the strict sense absolute equality under the law does not exist in the United Kingdom since the Sovereign cannot be arrested, and I'm fine with that. I have no problem with certain legal distinctions that used to exist in hierarchical societies (such as nobility having the right to be tried by their peers in the House of Lords rather than by ordinary courts).

 

 

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 992
Reply with quote  #71 
I am not sure in what sense the Scripture gives support to women priests, as all old testament priests are male and so were the disciples, from whom the bishops and priests descend. I would add, to the Scriptural example and tradition, the Orthodox view that the priest is an icon of Christ, as understood in the theology of icons. and that in this theology form matters. I would think, for a start, to use Scripture to support women priests, one would have to jettison the Orthodox, Catholic, Assyrian, Anglican, and Lutheran interpretations of Scripture to support a sacramentally ordained episcopacy, standing in the apostolic succession and administering the sacraments. I would think you would have to, rather, accept a radical Protestant interpretation of priests as little more than elders or respected teachers an community leaders. I have always said the argument for women priests is much easier if one is a radical Protestant and doesn't accept things like sacraments, sacramental ordination, symbolism, and so on as important.

On homosexuality, there are two questions. One of the legitimacy of the Roman Church's moral opinions on the issue, based in Scripture, tradition, and (as is often forgotten) natural law teaching. The other is how to treat homosexuals if one accepts the current teaching. It is a little silly to complain of the Church condemning  homosexual acts and relationships as immoral unless one addresses its arguments on these position (and I mean its actual arguments - not strawmen - and in a proper way) - if you wish your complaints to carry any force and not just register your own personal feelings -, but one can certainly question whether, even if it is correct, it can still be more compassionate towards homosexuals.

Personally, I don't get the antipathy towards KYMonarchist. Yes, he is a left-liberal but he I harmless enough.

On the right of parliament to decide on English monarchs. I think this is often overemphasised. The traditional role of parliament has been regulative in this area, not performative or constitutive. That is, it was never held that parliament had the right to decide without qualification who could be monarch. Parliament's usurpation of Charles the Martyr's crown was unconstitutional. If parliament had given the crown to Cromwell or his son, neither would be rightful King. Parliament was, rather, in extraordinary circumstances or when there was liable to be conflict and discord in a possible succession, used as something like the voice of the nation to guide the nation through the situation.


Indeed, until into the Stuart age, the right of parliament to be the sole legislative adviser to the monarch, or legislative body the monarch worked through, was not recognised. If Henry VIII wanted to make a law or declaration, he might do it though parliament, but he might also use the Council of the North or Star Chamber or various other means. Into the Tudor age, a monarch could pass a bill through parliament without the concurrence of one or either of the houses, somewhat like the way a French King could force the parlement to act on his instructions.

When it comes to tyrants, I think it is always wise to remember that often the historical evidence can be one sided, especially if a powerful group is put off side. Though I cannot claim any expertise in knowledge of his reign, I think Richard II is an example of this. He certainly annoyed important sections of the nobility, but whether he was a tyrant to the people at large is a greater question. Indeed, often monarchs and rulers can offend powerful groups and yet benefit the nation at large and the greater part of the nation.

Dutch William shows this process in reverse. He was supported by many Whig lords and gentry and he proceeded to hand the nation over to the rule of the squires and, especially, the Whig merchants, financiers, and magnates who continued to rule the nation, more or less, for nearly a hundred and fifty years. The rule of the Whig oligarchs and squires continued the exactions of the landed and monied classes, increasing their weight, that had grown up since the civil war and before, such as the Laws of Settlement and the enclosures. The Bank of England and other privileges for the Whig merchants and financiers also increased the power of the urban commercial part of the gentry over the landed interest, weakening this latter group's stability, and therefore its role in supporting a stable and happy rural society. By the end of the Whig Oligarch's rule, the peasantry and yeoman, and a good many squires, had been ruined, uprooting England's rural society wholesale (when enclosure came to a village it was common for 30% to be dead within a year or two). The outcome of Dutch William's reign was far more oppressive to the peasantry and yeoman than James II's.  

Incidentally, James II was certainly stubborn and foolish as a ruler, but I don't think he can be called a coward. He was definitely hesitant and wavering in 1688, but this was, as I recall, especially noteworthy because of its contrast with his hitherto resoluteness.

ItalianRoyalist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #72 
I'm aware this is an old topic but I certainly hope this site sticks around. It hasn't been easy locating a true traditionalist/monarchist website. Most of the so called "right wing" websites are filled with adamant republicans who want to tear down true traditionalist forms of government such as monarchy and replace them with republics that just do conservative things as opposed to leftists ones without realizing that republicanism itself is leftist in comparison to monarchy. In the past, especially hundreds of years ago, it was always the radical leftists who were republicans and the conservatives who were the monarchists, contrary to what many Americans may tell you.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,775
Reply with quote  #73 
Hear, hear! Glad to have you.
governor_general

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 30
Reply with quote  #74 
"Is the forum dying?" I sure hope not! I just got here :L
__________________
"long may we say god save the Queen , because nothing will save the governor general"
American_NeoLoyalist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #75 
I certainly hope this forum does not die out. I became a constitutional monarchist relatively recently, and that was only supporting existing monarchies. I only began to toy with the idea of a modern American monarchy in the United States a month or so ago, and only started considering myself a Loyalist about a week ago, perhaps even more recent. Most of the time I do not talk about my views on the topic, not very much online, and none at all in real life, not even with family. This forum looks like a great place to discuss my views on the subject openly, and I hope to see it's popularity grow while I'm here.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: