Royal Words for Life

"It is necessary to respect every living child, every child that has begun to live...And to be in favor of life is not backward, nor is it something confined to Christianity. It is to follow the natural law."

-HM Queen Sofia of Spain

Abortion and Why a Monarch is not a Messiah

In the United States at least, January is “Pro-Life Month” due to the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that ruled state laws prohibiting abortion to be unconstitutional; effectively making the barbaric practice legal nationwide. Today it is legal throughout almost every country in the western world, which says a great deal about not only how far we have fallen from traditional moral values but also the extent to which western civilization seems intent on eradicating itself. Being a quite reactionary sort there is much about modern society that displeases me but I do not think there is anything so widely accepted that is more blatantly immoral than abortion. It is a disgusting act of the most horrific cruelty and, even as bad as things are, it astounds me that anyone could ever think it to be acceptable. When I see people actually cheering the legality of abortion and the fact that it is so widely available, I cannot help but think of my sisters. They were two beautiful twin baby girls who were sadly stillborn. They had death certificates but no birth certificates. I think of them because, according to the pro-abortion crowd, they were not ever even considered human. I cannot comprehend that, especially seeing the pain my parents carry with them to this day over the loss of my sisters, even after several decades have elapsed. The hurt is real and it has never gone away.

My parents have had to bury three of their five children and that is something no legitimate human being would ever want anyone on earth to experience. Yet, it seems to me that a great many do not seem capable of understanding such suffering. The pro-abortion crowd, again, would say that my sisters never really existed. I never got to see them myself but I can see them in my mind, I can see their grave with their shared headstone with the phrase, “Budded on earth to bloom in glory” and it never fails to make me emotional. I do not see how any person could not understand this. I miss them. I never laid eyes on them, but I miss them more than I could say, just as I so badly miss my older brother who has crossed over that river, so badly that thoughts of him still bring tears to my eyes. I miss my sisters growing up with me, I miss not knowing what they would have done with their lives. There is a hole in me and in my family because of their absence. I wonder what they would be doing now, would they be married, would they have children of their own? The fact that they died in the womb makes absolutely no difference. I miss them. They were real and the pain is real because they are not here. Whenever I think of a child being aborted, I think of them and I think that there is one more child, just like my identical twin sisters who never got a chance and without whom the world is a poorer place. How on earth can anyone celebrate such a thing or try to wrap such cruelty in a cloak of righteousness?

It seems utterly perverse to me that an act as heinous as killing your own children, purposely inflicting the sort of pain my parents, I know, would have given their own lives to avoid, is considered a “human right” by so many people. I cannot understand it and I know I never will. It makes me admire all the more the monarchs like HM King Baudouin of the Belgians (RIP) and HSH Prince Alois of Liechtenstein who took a stand against such barbarism. However, those names seem rather lonely even among the greatly thinned ranks of the crowned heads of Europe. True enough, the queens of Britain, The Netherlands and Denmark and the kings of Spain, Norway, Sweden and even Belgium have all seen pro-abortion laws passed in their countries. Many traditionally minded people, even monarchists, have, I know, been outraged by this. I am saddened by it but not outraged, at least not so far as the monarchs are concerned. Abortion is only one (though perhaps the worst) symptom of a vastly more widespread disease. It is evidence of a sick, irresponsible, selfish and also self-hating culture. After all, it is not as though Spain, for example, was as solidly and devoutly Catholic as during the reign of Felipe II when the Cortes one day passed a law legalizing abortion and foisted it on the people. No, the public as a whole aided or allowed those who would do such a thing to be given power and approved of the decision because their traditional morals were lost, little by little, over time.

Yet, some still blame the King, just as some blame the monarchs in other countries. Even in the case of Belgium, though it astounds me, some still blame the King for not doing more because, unlike in Liechtenstein, the opposition of the monarch was not enough to stop abortion from becoming legal. I say, what more could he have done? When a bill is presented to the King, all he can do is sign or not sign and King Baudouin refused to sign. Even in Liechtenstein, things would be quite different if the public favored abortion or considered the principle of that to be of greater value than their monarchy. If the public there had been of the same mind as the Belgians, abortion would be legal there too but, I would think, it would also be a republic as the Princely Family would either be voted out or leave voluntarily if not allowed to rule as they please. Holding a monarch responsible for this would be like holding a parent responsible for their grown child committing suicide. At some point, people have to answer for their own decisions and we cannot expect a mere monarch to be a messiah and save us from our own wickedness. Even the absolute monarchs of eras past were not so powerful as to be able to control the hearts and souls of all.

How can any one person be expected to change the morals of an entire country? The case of St Joan of Arc comes to mind. Personally, I believe that young girl was touched by the hand of God for a specific purpose. To my mind, nothing else could possibly explain her remarkable life and the fact that a near illiterate peasant girl was able to defeat the magnificent power of the armies of England. Yet, even then, Joan of Arc could not have accomplished her mission were it not for the fact that those around her made a conscious decision to follow her and fight for her. She alone could not have forced the French knights to charge the English works at Orleans against their will. No government, no matter how democratic or tyrannical, can function if a majority of the people do not support it or at least accept it. A single monarch cannot turn a population of upright and moral people into a nation of murderers and a single monarch cannot turn an entire society that has turned away from God and traditional morality back to righteousness. That is expecting far too much of them, yet that is what some seem to expect.

Consider, for a moment, what those are saying who would hold their monarch responsible for the sad state of western civilization. The people vote into power the governments which propose laws that are totally repugnant to basic human decency and then some still blame the monarch for not stopping them from doing what they were elected to do. In effect, these people are saying that it is the monarch who should save the public from their own wickedness. A constitutional monarch is quite limited and yet some seem to still mistake them for God. Perhaps even more as even the Almighty gave humanity free will and did not force people to do the right thing. In a Christian context, this would be like blaming God for our original sin because He did nothing to stop Adam and Eve from eating the apple beyond warning them not to. He told them not to eat it but they exercised their own free will and ate the infamous fruit which resulted in very real consequences.

As I hope I have made clear, I will take second place to no one in my abhorrence of abortion, and there are other issues I could cite as well but that seems the most grievous to me, so I do not want anyone thinking I am trying to give a pass to monarchs who have assented to such laws because I do not consider the issue to be all that serious. However, I have to say, those who would heap blame on monarchs for these things seem rather hypocritical or lazy to me. It seems to me that they are really expecting their monarch to save them from actually having to do the work of changing the culture by converting those around them to traditional moral values. Are all of those who blame and accuse really doing everything in their power to convince those around them of the error of their ways, to build support for a government that would be better or are they simply cutting themselves off from the wicked world and blaming their monarch for not doing their job for them?

It is a hard job and it can certainly seem unfair that we have to bear the punishment for the decisions taken by those generations of long ago. However, we were not promised a life of ease and comfort and the struggle to stay on the path of righteousness is the most arduous and unending struggle of human existence. We have to do our part just as our monarchs must do their own as well. However, how they do is for the Almighty to judge and there seems something just slightly republican to me about those who would sit in judgment of their own sovereign and rule on whether or not they have done their duty to your satisfaction. Let God be the judge of princes and let each of us focus on our own duty, stop worrying about whether the King or Queen did all they could do and worry about whether we have done all we can do to restore our countries to the straight and narrow path. I will not condemn a reigning monarch for not being able to drag people into the temple of God but I will point to the example of those like the Prince of Liechtenstein and the late King of the Belgians and applaud them for their moral courage in standing up to an insidious evil. And though my own health seems to be worsening, so long as I am able, I will keep trying to convince people to return to traditional values and traditional authority until, if God has mercy on me, I am reunited with my departed loved ones. Until that day I shall remain … The Mad Monarchist.

Mad Analysis: Our Hypocritical Vice President

In the recent Vice Presidential debate, the moderator pointed out the historic nature of two Roman Catholics running for VP in the United States and followed this up by asking each of the candidates how their Catholic faith influences them on the issue of abortion. Congressman Paul Ryan, as most know, is pro-Life and opposes abortion while Vice President Joe Biden is pro-Choice and supports abortion being legal and readily available. Congressman Ryan said that he finds it impossible to separate your faith and your private life from your public life and that he believes abortion to be wrong both because his Church teaches that it is wrong but also because of, as he said, science and reason tell him life begins at conception and thus abortion is the taking of an innocent life. Joe Biden, on the other hand, answered that he believes you most certainly can separate your faith and private life from your public life. Biden said that he is a faithful, practicing Catholic and that he accepts the teaching of his Church that life begins at conception but that he still supports the legality of abortion because to do otherwise would be to impose his private religious views on the public at large. This, it should also be said, is the standard answer given by most Catholics in the Democratic Party which has in its platform the official position that abortion should be legal at all times, in all instances, for all people.

There is, however, a glaring, blatant problem with the position of Joe Biden and those like him. The problem is; why do these same Catholic politicians have no problem imposing their own moral views on the public at large on issues other than abortion? For example, Biden and many other Catholic Democrats have said over and over again that their support for a social safety net, for welfare programs, for higher taxes on the wealthy to support such programs aimed at benefiting the less fortunate all stem from their Catholic faith which teaches them to help the poor. So, why do they have no problem forcing, for example, certain people to pay more to the government to help the poor because of their faith but that they do have a problem with forcing people to either raise or give up for adoption a child they conceived? If a rich atheist does not believe in the morality of helping the poor, why does Biden force his Catholic belief in that regard on the wealthy atheist but he will not force his Catholic belief in the sanctity of life on an expectant mother? I presume that Biden also believes it is wrong to steal. The Church says it is wrong. So, why does he not call for the repeal of all laws against theft so as not to impose his view on the immorality of thievery on those people who may be communists or something, rejecting the very concept of ownership, who see nothing wrong with stealing?

Obviously, this is a position that makes no sense whatsoever. As some have also pointed out, the Obama-Biden administration obviously has no problem forcing religious institutions to cover artificial birth control in their healthcare plans even though Catholic institutions believe that the use of artificial birth control is immoral. In regards to the HHS mandate, Biden is supporting the use of government force to compel institutions to do something their faith and the faith he himself claims to hold says is wrong and immoral. The truth is, of course, that any government in existence passes laws and those laws apply to everyone, even those who may disagree with them. Democracy is no different, hence we have such terms as the “tyranny of the majority”. In the old days, the United States was somewhat limited in this regard because the country was a union of sovereign or at least semi-sovereign states. Many pro-Life Americans who see little hope in the complete criminalization of abortion or those who simply believe in the principle of states’ rights do not want the federal government to make abortion illegal across the whole country but simply wish that power to be returned to the states so that each state could decide for itself whether to permit abortion within its borders or not. Biden, and the rest of the pro-Choice Democrats, do not support this view. They want abortion to be legal in every state whether the people in each of the states like it or not. In other words, they support forcing their view on the goodness of abortion on those who believe it is wrong.

The same view holds true on a number of other issues as well. Congressman Ryan, made a limited statement in this direction during that very exchange, saying that the Romney-Ryan administration would prefer that the people decide on whether they want abortion to be legal or illegal rather than an unelected judge. This, of course, referred to the Democrats getting laws in individual states and across the whole country overturned by state supreme courts or the federal Supreme Court to legalize numerous things, including abortion. Finally, it is also evident that Biden is holding to a very blatant double-standard, as are those like him, because of their voting record. After all, if he truly believed abortion was wrong but did not wish to impose his views on others, he and those like him could simply abstain from voting on any legislation involving abortion. Personally, I would still think them cowardly for doing so, but that would allow their actions to match their words. President Obama voted “present” often enough in his brief career in the state and national legislatures. However, they do not. They vote in favor of abortion, not “no” and not “present” but a very clear and unequivocal “yes” to abortion. So, in effect, what Biden is saying is that he will not vote to impose a belief he holds on others but he will vote to impose a belief he claims NOT to hold on others.

Does that make sense to absolutely anyone? Can absolutely anyone say that is a clear and consistent position to hold? I think not. However, I am obviously not so morally developed as the Vice President as I could never believe that something is intrinsically evil and still cast a vote that would allow it to be carried out. So what do I know?

Hurrah for Prince Alois!

In something of a turnaround HSH Prince Alois of Liechtenstein, currently acting as regent for his father Prince Hans-Adam II, now says that the decriminalization of abortion in the little principality will not be happening. The government recently voted down a bill to legalize abortion in Liechtenstein but this was met with outrage by the pro-abortion crowd which claims that the majority of the public supports it, pointing to the numbers of women from Liechtenstein who leave the tiny country to have abortions done. They have called for a referendum to be held on the issue but they may decide not to bother as Prince Alois now says that he will use his veto power to overrule such a referendum if it is held and produces a favorable result for making abortion legal. Perhaps the rather public disapproval of the Bishop of Vaduz this last national day was effective in reminding everyone in the Liechtenstein government of their duty to God? The Principality of Liechtenstein is one of the few officially Catholic monarchies left in the world. The population is roughly 85% Christian (almost all of them Catholic) with the next largest religious group made up of Muslim immigrants. I salute Prince Alois for taking this stand and I hope he will stick to his guns and not back down on the issue. However, it is still a shame that anyone would Liechtenstein would favor such a thing to say nothing that enough would to have brought the issue this far.

Monarchies and Abortion: The Status

Given the recent uproar over the legalization (with restrictions) of abortion in Spain I thought it might be revealing to list the status of abortion in the modern monarchies of what was once Christian Europe. To be clear, The Mad Monarchist is staunchly pro-life and pro-monarchy but has been puzzled by the way it seemed Spain was singled out for not ‘going down with the ship’ on the subject of abortion. For those who will support no monarchy wherein abortion is in any way legal you may find yourself being a theoretical monarchist and a political nonentity as you will see:

Andorra: Recognizes a special relationship with the Roman Catholic Church but has no official state religion. Abortion is allowed only to save the life of the mother.
Belgium: The Royal Family is Catholic but there is no state religion. Abortion is available on demand.
Denmark: The Church of Denmark (Lutheran) is the state religion. Abortion is available on demand.
Liechtenstein: The Roman Catholic Church is the state religion. Abortion is allowed in cases concerning the life, health or mental wellbeing of the mother.
Luxembourg: The Grand Ducal Family is Catholic but there is no state religion. Abortion is legal to save the life of the mother and in exceptional related cases.
Monaco: The Roman Catholic Church is the state religion. Abortion is allowed only to save the life of the mother.
The Netherlands: The Royal Family is Dutch Reformed but there is no state religion. Abortion is available on demand.
Norway: The Church of Norway (Lutheran) is the state religion. Abortion is available on demand.
Spain: The Royal Family is Roman Catholic but there is no official state religion. Abortion is legal is cases of rape, fetal defects or in cases concerning the life, health or mental wellbeing of the mother.
Sweden: The Royal Family is Church of Sweden (Lutheran) but there is no state religion. Abortion is available on demand.
United Kingdom: The Church of England is the state religion. Abortion is available on demand.
Vatican City: The Roman Catholic Church is the state religion (obviously!) and abortion is illegal in any and all cases (there is also no hospital in the Vatican).

As you can see, the current state of affairs is not a pretty picture and those whose support for monarchy hinges on absolute opposition to all abortions, the only state to fit the bill is the Vatican (sorry Protestants). Obviously, the Vatican is a unique case in that the local monarch is the Pope, on the basis of religion it could never allow abortion by the very nature of the state itself and there is no hospital in the Vatican where an abortion or any other major medical procedure could be performed. It is also not exactly the sort of country one could move to and obtain citizenship. All of the monarchies in Europe other than the Vatican allow abortion in at least some cases even those which have official established state religions. Incidentally, the only sovereign, native monarchies outside of Europe with a predominately Christian population and Christian Royal Families (Catholic) Lesotho and (Protestant) Tonga both allow abortion if the life of the mother is threatened. I state these brutal facts not to discourage monarchism on the part of the pro-life, nor certainly to paint the pro-life movement as a lost cause to the monarchists reading but merely to point out that this is a problem far bigger than Spain and will require more than monarchs refusing royal assent to be corrected. Societies must be changed, governments must be changed but scrapping every monarchy but the Vatican (which would not overturn abortion laws anyway) is certainly not the answer.

Reminder: Spain IS a Constitutional Monarchy

The blog Royal World explains some of the facts of life about King Juan Carlos I, abortion and the constitutional monarchy in Spain. Why oh why do so many monarchists seem to show so much zeal tearing down monarchs and other monarchists rather than focusing on the real enemy?