Arguing with Canadian Republicans

In June 2013, I wrote an article entitled “Arguing with Australian Republicans” and with only two words of alteration, the same opening lines can be used for this article. Republicans are quite a nonsensical bunch no matter where in the world you find them and those infecting the great country of Canada are certainly no different. Their arguments are so full of holes and lack any credibility to such a great extent that they have so far been unsuccessful in their treasonous efforts in spite of having virtually the entire mainstream media, political establishment and university system all helping them push their agenda. Of course, the traitor crowd in Canada has not even managed to get as far as their fellow traitors in Australia but, because of all the powerful institutions mentioned, they continue to get far more attention than they deserve and so their ridiculous carping is a near constant irritant. Now, I am sure some may dispute me that all of these elite bodies are pushing republicanism but they are, they are just not always overt about it.

For example, not all professors in Canadian universities are actively trying to convert their students into being good, little republicans but they are certainly not teaching them about the Canadian constitutional monarchy or instilling in them a proper understanding of and loyalty to the Canadian Crown. As for the media, despite the fact that none of the major Canadian political parties embrace the cause of republicanism, despite the fact that no poll has ever shown a majority of Canadians to favor republicanism and in spite of the fact that sufficient public support for a republic has never been gained to even hold a referendum on the subject, the CBC continues to give air-time to Canadian republicans virtually every time a royal event is covered. And this bias reaches across the political spectrum. For example, one of the most famous (or infamous) “right-wing” Canadian media personalities, Ezra Levant, on October 29, 2013, told an American guest that one of the things he most admired about the United States was that Americans are “revolutionary in spirit”. This was on a segment discussing merging the USA and Canada into one country and never once did Levant say that Canada was a constitutional monarchy and that was preferable to being a republic with America. The CBC to Levant basically covers the left/right divide in the Canadian media. As for the political establishment, the instances of outspoken loyalty to the Crown have been relatively few.

Yet, Canadian republicans are, thankfully, a rather inept bunch and were it not for the woefully inadequate public education concerning the monarchy, they would almost certainly have no support at all. Their own arguments frequently contradict each other. They claim, for example, that none of the royal safeguards, royal titles, royal treaties or anything at all would be changed if Canada became a republic because Canada is a republic already in all but name yet, they still say it is vital that Canada become a republic in name as well. So they are at the same time arguing that the Canadian monarchy has absolutely nothing to do with Canada these days but that it is somehow still damaging enough to need to be abolished. Have they never stopped to ask themselves how an institution can be doing a disservice to Canada when they are the ones claiming it does not serve at all? A close look at their arguments shows almost nothing but a long list of everything that would NOT change if Canada became a republic and yet they still try to persuade that changing Canada into a republic is absolutely vital. It is truly astonishing that absolutely anyone with their faculties in order could ever be taken in by such a cause. However, again, as with republicans everywhere, when common sense fails they do not hesitate to resort to outright lies.

To demonstrate this, I shall respond to some of the posted “Frequently Asked Questions” on the website of the most prominent Canadian republican organization. Their very first “question” is a lie itself. “If Canada ends its constitutional connection to the British monarchy, doesn’t that mean we’d become a republic?” Their answer is “yes” but that this would only accomplish in name what already exists in fact, so, again, one would be tempted to ask, “then what’s the point?” right out of the gate -and this is only the first question mind you. However, the lie is in the question itself as technically (and they do like to get technical, so I will as well) Canada already ended its constitutional connection to the British monarchy. There is now a Canadian monarchy that is legally a totally separate entity from the British monarchy. First question, first lie.

Second question, “Wouldn’t we end up being a republic like the United States?” to which the Canadian republicans reply “no”, basically saying that they would probably be a parliamentary republic rather than a presidential republic like the United States. However, if Canada became a republic it would be a republic “like the United States” in that both would be republics. In fact, Canada would be more like the USA than any other republic because both Canada and the United States started out the same way, only becoming separate countries because the American revolutionary forces were defeated during the American War for Independence when they invaded Canada. The American “Founding Fathers” originally intended their new country to include all of the British Empire in North America, Canada included, but Canada resisted and when peace was secured the current division between Canada and the United States was first drawn. The fundamental difference between the USA and Canada is the monarchy. Other than that, most Americans and Canadians wear the same clothes, eat the same foods, speak the same language, listen to the same music, watch the same TV shows and movies, drive the same cars, have many of the same political arguments from environmental protection to abortion. Both countries sprang from the same root and both now have an equally diverse population representing various ethnicities and religions and so on. The only reason Canada and the USA are not the same country already is because colonial America rebelled against the King while colonial Canada remained loyal.

The third question asks, “Is it true that if we end the monarchy we’d have to rename the Mounties and lose all our other royal patronages?” to which the republicans answer, “Absolutely not. The criteria for the title “Royal” includes no reference to removing it if a country transitions from monarchy to republic. Ireland has been a republic for over sixty years and has many institutions with royal patronages.” Which is true, but this is not a case of republican honesty so much as an illustration of how republicans want to turn the whole of Canada into a lie. It is true, they would not have to rename the “Royal Canadian Mounted Police” if Canada became a republic just as it is true that they could choose to rename them the “Imperial Canadian Mounted Police” even though there is no “Emperor of Canada” which would make about as much sense as calling them “Royal” when Canada has no Royal Family. Do you see how absurd these people are? Are you starting to see a pattern here? The very next question & answer assures people that Canada would not have to leave the Commonwealth if they became a republic. That is true, though I wish it were not, but do you see the common theme here? So they want Canada to be a republic but not a republic like the United States, they want to keep their royal titles and royal patronages and they want to stay in the Commonwealth of which HM the Queen is the “head”. Do they have any idea how ridiculous they sound?

Another question asks about the monarchy providing stability. These oh-so “honest” republicans respond by pointing to revolts, plots and revolutions Britain has had over the centuries, the Irish problem and the upcoming vote on “independence” for Scotland. They also point out that Canada almost broke up as a monarchy, referring, I assume, to the secession vote in Quebec. Well, yes, congratulations republicans, no country is immune from treason and internal conflict as your very presence demonstrates that every barrel has some bad apples. However, perhaps a little perspective might be in order. Monarchies may not be free from internal conflict, but history has proven that republics are better at setting people to killing each other by far. The American Civil War remains the bloodiest war ever fought in the western hemisphere of the world -and that was in the republic that has worked better and survived longer than most any other in history. Russia had internal strife as an empire but nothing so bloody and brutal as the civil war following the downfall of the monarchy. France had civil wars as a kingdom but nothing close to the Reign of Terror that followed the Revolution, to say nothing of the massacres that followed it in royalist parts of the country.

There are a number of questions trying to explain away the lack of public outcry over the monarchy but it is the answer to the last question, basically, “why bother?” that displays yet another republican contradiction. They say, “Admittedly, for as long as there’s been monarchy, there have been those who oppose it for its inegalitarian and undemocratic nature. But now, Canadians are increasingly realizing that a country that has rejected titles and aristocracy many decades ago, and which triumphs merit over bloodline, deserves to have the same values mirrored in the highest office of the land.” Yet, in their own second question about becoming “like the United States” they themselves say about a Canadian President that, “Contrary to popular belief, the position need not be political or popularly elected.” So it seems they cannot even make up their own mind whether a democratically elected head of state is a good thing or not. They do not want an unelected monarch as head of state because they value democracy but at the same time they do want an unelected president as head of state because democracy makes things political.

Aside from all of that though, when you hear these traitors being interviewed or debated, they invariably fall back on the old whine that the monarchy is a hold-over from the colonial past, from the days of the British Empire and it prevents Canada from being viewed as a “real” country. As if the foundational institution of a country should be determined based on what the neighbors will think. Frankly, the only thing I see detrimental to Canada being considered a “real” country is dimwits like these republicans and the influence they have already had on the Canadian public. Even as it stands now, the Canadian monarchy is one of the few things that makes it clear Canada is a different country from the United States. However, when I am tempted to take Canadian nationhood less than seriously it is because of things like scrapping the national flag, the Canadian Red Ensign, in favor of a new, more “inclusive” model. Real countries are proud of their history, heritage and symbols and do not discard them for being ‘behind the times’. I am tempted to take Canada less than seriously when celebrated journalists like Diane Francis write books about why Canada should merge with the United States. Real countries do not want to become another country. I am tempted to take Canada less seriously when a Canadian says what they are most proud of about Canada is their respect for human rights and multiculturalism, in other words, the value of having no values. Ask an American, even when the party they oppose is in power, what they are most proud of about their country, and they will usually say “our form of government” which they think is the best in the world. If Canadians would say the same it would do more for their “image” than becoming just another republic.

Refuting Republicanism in Christianity Part III

Finally, we have those people who try to frame the argument about “Christian republicanism” versus monarchy in such a way as to neutralize whatever scriptural evidence you can present. They will try to argue that all the verses concerning kings and monarchy do not matter because monarchy was the only game in town back then and the people in the Bible had no conception of what a republic was. They then assume that if they had, surely they would have all been ardent republicans. First of all, you know when this argument comes up that it is time to move in for the kill because they have run slap out of ideas. So, let us begin shall we…

In the first place, God knows everything and if God had desired a republic He would have commanded his prophets to establish one but, we know that didn’t happen, they established a monarchy. Secondly, certainly by the time of the New Testament, the people of Israel (with whom most of the Bible is primarily concerned) certainly would have at least heard of things like the democracies of Greece and the Roman Republic. In fact, by the time of the New Testament they would have been intimately familiar with the workings of the Roman Republic as they had by then become a client state of the Roman Republic and there was already a Jewish population in the city of Rome itself. However, it is true that the word “republic” never appears in the Bible. However, there are a number of passages which describe what republics or democracies are all about and none of them refer to these things in a favorable way.

Hosea 8:4, in a listing of transgressions, says, “They have set up kings but not by Me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off”. Think about what that means. Is it not at least somewhat descriptive of a republic? What is a president but a man “the people” (a majority or some powerful faction) has set up in the place of a king? I think it is also no coincidence that these condemnations of setting up rulers without considering God is put in the very same verse as a reference to idolatry. If a monarchy brings down the danger of pride upon one, a republic brings down the danger of pride on everyone. Rather than submit to God the people sometimes set up idols to worship and in the same way, rather than submit to the monarch God has provided (via the miracle of birth) people sometimes set up their own “king” (a president) to rule them according to their whims and fancies.

We also see it made clear throughout the Bible that democracy (which is the real or claimed basis of every republic -though they are not the same thing) is spoken of in a very negative way. Probably the best known passage of this kind is Matthew 7:13 which says, “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat”. Again, pause for a moment and consider that passage. Read the rest of the chapter to get some context, politics is certainly not the subject here, but it makes a very critical point that is made numerous times throughout the Bible. The majority will usually do what is wicked, what is easy and wrong while only a few will choose the hard path of righteousness. Although this passage is not about politics, it nonetheless makes a critical point about the very nature of democracy and the idea that the majority is always right.

However, as always, the weapon of last resort is the personal attack and republicans will say that the “nice” things said in the Bible about kings were all about King David, who was a very virtuous and upright man, but every other king in the Bible was terrible. Surely, they will try to reason, the commands to obey the king apply only to the good kings that God favored (David being the only one they can usually name). In the first place, not all kings of Israel were bad, neither were the most celebrated (David included) completely perfect yet this never had an impact on their position or right to rule. God made a covenant with King David, the only unconditional covenant God ever made in fact, which stated that the “divine right”, if you like, of the House of David to rule would never be taken away. In II Samuel 7:12-17 God, by the prophet Nathan, told David that his line would endure forever and that if his descendants were wicked, God would punish them but that he would never remove his favor from them as He did from Saul for the sake of King David.

It is also clear from scripture that the personal morality of a monarch has no bearing on the duties a subject has to be loyal to them. Surely everyone knows the famous passage, Mark 12:17, when Jesus was asked about paying tribute to the Roman Caesar, “And Jesus answering, said to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marveled at him”. The fact of the matter is, when Jesus said that, the only Caesar in the world was the Emperor Tiberius who, by that time, had gone rather off the deep end and was living in paranoid debauchery on the island of Capri. Even at his best, Tiberius was a pagan and Jesus surely would not have approved of that, yet still the command was to be loyal and obey the law. Further, I Peter 2:17 states, “Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God and honor the Emperor”. This was, interestingly enough, written by St Peter during the reign of the Emperor Nero under whose persecution Peter himself was later martyred. Clearly, personal character has nothing to do with legal obligations so far as the Bible is concerned.

That is not to say, of course, that personal character did not matter but it is a clear indication of how far removed Christian principles are from endorsing republican revolution. Now, as we come to the end of this little series, consider the sheer amount of Biblical scripture we have covered (and I could list many, many more) dealing with the sacred nature of kingship and the commands to obedience of monarchs. When taken altogether we can see that many things today commonly held as fundamentally “Christian” actually have less Biblical support behind them than does the support for monarchy which also spans both the Old and the New Testaments. You can also read the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelations as many times as you wish and you will never find any endorsement of democracy, republicanism or indeed much of any good at all coming from the popular will of the majority. Whether it was the liberated Israelites howling for Moses to take them back to Egypt or the mob baying for the blood of Christ, when it comes to the Bible, the majority is usually wrong.

Perhaps the fundamental difference is that republics, even under the best of circumstances, are based on pride; the idea that “we” know what is best for us and that “we” will submit to no one higher than us or humble ourselves before anyone. Republican power is based on popularity at best or brute force at worst. Monarchial power, on the other hand, is based on the miracle of birth and the guiding hand of God. As God simply puts it in Proverbs 8:15, “By Me kings reign and princes decree justice”. Submission to the will of God or to selfish pride; those are, and always have been, the only two choices. Amen.

Refuting Republicanism in Christianity Part II

When it comes to Biblical support for monarchy, one is often tempted to wonder just how much proof some people need. The Bible commands obedience to kings. Shouldn’t that be the end of it? No, republicans will argue, because it also contains condemnations of kings. The Bible contains the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” and yet no one seems to think that divine commands for war, even wars of annihilation, countermand that simple commandment. Yet, when it comes to monarchy it seems the standards are always higher. No matter how much Biblical evidence one can point to there are always those who think that other passages countermand it. Of course, arguing with those sorts of people will get you nowhere fast. All I can recommend in that case is to point out a simple statement of logic. Either the Bible is the inerrant word of God or it is not. If it is not, there is no point in adhering to any part of it. If it is, then there can be no contradiction, only verses which must be taken together to balance each other out.

Among the Israelites, monarchy grew up naturally from the early patriarchs. If you think monarchy only started in the time of King Saul, guess again. In Genesis God promised that Abraham would be the father of princes and we see that from the very beginning, even before they were a unified nation, the Israelites had monarchial government for the individual tribes. Numbers 1:44 states, “These are those that were numbered, which Moses and Aaron numbered, and the princes of Israel, being twelve men: each one was for the house of his fathers”. We can safely assume that if God found monarchy inherently wrong he would have prevented this from happening. However, the tribes and their princes simply grew up naturally out of the obedience children had for their parents and extended family members toward their family patriarch. Given how long people tended to live in the early Old Testament, the descendants of one man would have easily been numerous enough to be considered a “tribe” in his own lifetime and that one man, according to natural filial piety, would have ultimately held authority over all of them.

It is also in the book of Numbers that we see the princes, ruling over “thousands” as having a place of not only political but spiritual importance. Numbers 7:84 states, “This was the dedication of the altar, in the day when it was anointed, by the princes of Israel: twelve charges of silver, twelve silver bowls, twelve spoons of gold:” and so on. So, it is important to keep in mind two things; monarchy existed on the tribal level from the very beginning and these princes had a temporal and a spiritual role from the beginning. So, let us move on to where things get controversial. When it comes to arguing monarchy from a Biblical perspective, someone will doubtlessly bring up the creation of the “united kingdom” of Israel under King Saul and how the Prophet Samuel seemed to think this was a terrible idea and, even worse, a rejection of God in favor of some sort of flesh-and-blood idolatry. Let us calm down and demolish this argument right now.

In I Samuel Chapter 8 we see hints that there was already some sort of hereditary theocracy in place. Samuel effectively ruled the people of Israel, as a pontiff, carrying out the commands God spoke to him. However, the people were worried because Samuel was getting old and, it seems, he was not the best father in the world to his own children as the people did not think much of the behavior of his sons (again, which makes it sound as though his pontifical office was hereditary). So, the people wanted a king and Samuel was rather upset by this. He prays to God and God basically says to give them a king but warn them of the dangers of having one and let them know that when they start to groan and complain about their king, God is not going to give them any sympathy. In I Samuel 8:11 we see the warning of Samuel about what “dangers” having a king will include. Essentially, it is the threat of conscription.

What is important to remember here is that the warnings Samuel gives are not unique to kings but would apply to any national government of any kind. A president would do the same things (as history shows). His actual warning is not against having a king as opposed to some other ruler but is really a warning against the downside of collectivism. Any time you band together in order to gain certain benefits you are also going to have to sacrifice some things too. However, the most important thing to remember, yet the one thing most don’t is that the bottom line is: God said to give them a king! They asked Samuel for a king, Samuel asked God about it and God said to let them have a king. Chapter 8, verse 9, God said, “Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them”. Despite the drawbacks, despite the inevitable downside of having any sort of national government, God said to give them a king. Plain and simple, thus says the Lord, give the rascals a king!

Now, it is time to get all reasonable and logical again. It was either right or wrong for Israel to have a king. If it was wrong, that would have to mean that God either made a mistake, acted against His own better, divine judgment or that the people with their incessant whining pushed God into allowing them to do something He really did not want them to do. For me, that line of thinking does not hold water. So, the only other option is that it was right, it was part of the plan and God was simply preparing the people for the pitfalls that would come with having a unified national government. I would think that anyone who believes in an omniscient and omnipotent God would have to choose option number two. It is also significant, since many people point out the many flaws of the first King of Israel, Saul, that it was God who directed Samuel to choose him. What people must not lose sight of is the fact that when God decided to allow a united government it was one based on His own style of leadership in which the choice of monarch lies with God rather than man, and that Saul, for all of his faults, was chosen by God to rule. According to 1 Samuel 9:17, “When Samuel saw Saul, God told him, ‘That is the man of whom I told you; he shall rule My people”.

It is made clear repeatedly that, while the people have demanded a king to fight for them, it is God who chooses who will fill that role. In chapter 12, Samuel points out that God’s anger is due to their loss of faith in Him, their failure to trust the God who delivered them in the past, to deliver them from their present enemies. Furthermore, it is made clear that kingship itself is not to blame since that is the way of God (verse 12, “God Himself is your king”) and the people are reminded that if they repent, trust and obey God, and their king with them, “all will be well” (14). God did choose to give Israel a king and had Saul anointed with holy oil by the prophet in a religious ceremony to formalize the bond between the earthly and Heavenly rulers of God’s people. This is an area in which many Christians fail to see the forest for all of the trees. All else aside, Saul was anointed and proclaimed king on orders from the Almighty.

This anointing was extremely important (and it would continue to be throughout most of the history of Christian monarchy) and was the public recognition that the king had a sacred duty to perform. The very word “Christ” means, ‘anointed one’. Among the Israelites it is significant that kings were included amongst the high priests, prophets and sacred objects used in worship that were anointed with holy oil. Every serious Christian should keep that in mind and not simply shrug off or dismiss the fact that the kings, starting with King Saul and King David, were anointed by the prophet (acting on behalf of God in his pontifical role) with holy oil. Remember that even after King Saul fell out of favor with God and was trying to kill David (who God favored) even when David had the chance to kill Saul, as his friends urged, he did not, saying, “The Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my master, the Lord’s anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the Lord” (I Samuel 23:6). So, we see clear Biblical evidence that, not only was the monarchy instituted by God, and the king chosen by God but that he had a sacred position and his person was sacrosanct and inviolable. There is simply no way to dismiss (because of the attitude of the people at the time and warnings about the nature of government) the sacred nature of monarchy clearly shown in the Bible.

The Bible is literally full of passages commanding obedience to kings (such as Ecclesiastes 8:2-5 or Proverbs 24:21-22), prayers for kings and the fact that kings reigned by the grace of God. Certainly this was true of Israel where the House of David was so sacred that the King was even called the son of God (I Chronicles 17:13). However, we also see in Daniel 5:18 that this applied also to Gentile kings such as the King of Babylon. However, when presented with this evidence one will likely hear that the Bible says something about not trusting princes. It says that right? Princes are bad and we should not trust them, right? Once again, no, it says nothing of the sort. What it does say, in Psalm 118:8-9 is that, “I would rather take refuge in God than rely on men; I would rather take refuge in God than rely on princes”. Psalm 146:3 also says, “Put not your faith in princes, nor in the son of man in whom there is no help”. These two verses are quoted often by republicans even though I could quote several verses for each of these not simply suggesting but commanding loyalty to kings and princes.

Notice how these verses are worded. They say nothing about obedience or loyalty but speak of trust and faith. Obviously, and no Christian monarchist would argue this point, we should only put our trust and faith in God and no one else. To do so would be to commit idolatry, however notice also that princes are not singled out in either verse but are grouped with any and all mortal men in general. Clearly these verses have nothing to do with monarchy really and are simply words of advice to put our trust in God rather than in any mortal man who will always disappoint us. This is no blow against monarchs. Every mortal man in the Bible, be it Abraham, Moses, King David or St Peter had their faults and at times failed in their duty because of their human weakness. That fact does nothing to take away from the important positions these men held but merely illustrates that no one is perfect, that we are all flawed and mortal man will always disappoint us at some point or another. These verses in no way contradict nor do they countermand the numerous other passages advising and even commanding loyalty and obedience to kings.

To be concluded...

Refuting Republicanism in Christianity Part I

As ludicrous as it may seem for anyone who knows Christian history or who has actually read the Bible, there are some out there who seem to think that not only does republicanism go hand-in-hand with Christianity but that one is even compelled to be a republican to be a Christian and that the religion is somehow opposed to monarchy. As with many such positions, this comes largely from an over-simplification of Christian history and the very selective reading of certain Biblical passages in order to fit a predetermined viewpoint. To get to the truth of the matter one has to do a little digging, just a little, though more than perhaps might result from an internet search (though perhaps I should not say that as when I tried it a previous post on Christian monarchy of my own appeared in the top slot!) and, as usual, one must keep everything in context. I know, that’s never fun but it is quite often necessary to get the complete picture.

To take the less sacred first, we shall start with the historical arguments. Among Orthodox Christians I have yet to find any who advocate republicanism from a religious standpoint (which is to the credit of the Orthodox). When it comes to Catholics and Protestants usually there is some historical prejudice that comes in to play. Most Catholic republicans who are serious Catholics, certainly in the English-speaking world, have obvious political prejudices for making them want to believe that Christianity is inherently republican. In places like North America or Australia this usually goes back to the plight of the Irish Catholics at the hands of the English and later British. The British monarchy is officially, legally and emphatically Protestant and anti-Catholic, they associate the monarchy of Britain with monarchy in general and therefore they condemn all monarchy as Protestant and evil and republicanism as good and Catholic -because the Irish Catholics founded a republic.

Obviously, such a simplistic viewpoint does not take a great deal of effort to refute. In the first place, when England first became involved in Ireland both countries were Catholic. In the second place, the worst atrocities ever carried out against the Irish were done when Britain was a republic (the Irish had supported the King believe it or not) and the original Irish rebels did not fight for republicanism but for a different (and Catholic) monarch. Furthermore, the original Irish republicans were following the example of the French Revolution, which was their inspiration, which was violently anti-Catholic. It may also surprise some to know that many if not most of the original Irish nationalists were Protestants or simply irreligious men when not. Robert Emmet, Wolfe Tone, the founders of the United Irishmen and Young Ireland and many other groups that later evolved into the IRA were Protestants. On the other hand, Dan O’Connell, an Irish Catholic and a nationalist, was horrified by the revolutionary French republic and advocated only a repeal of the Act of Union and political independence for Ireland and not the overthrow of the monarchy. The sectarian conflicts as we know them did not come until much later, mostly in the north and then mostly led by members of the IRA who were often socialists, communists and not in any sense good Catholics.

Other Catholics, in Latin America, again make a patriotic issue out of this, in a way putting nationalism before religion (and it is a shame when that happens because nationalism *always* wins). They remain Catholic but put aside the religious support for monarchy in order to oppose the imperial rule of Spain. The problem, of course, is that most of these countries, once becoming independent, eventually stopped being officially Catholic as well and in many cases even turned violently secularist. More intellectual types might take a broader historical view and turn to the many clashes between the Church and the Crown in numerous countries throughout history but seen most blatantly in Germany with the “Investiture Dispute”. Surely that shows Catholic opposition to monarchy since the Italian republics tended to support the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor and many of the aristocrats opposed the Pontiff? No, and quite obviously not as these people seem to overlook the fact that those aristocrats and those emperors were all Catholic as well! Moreover, at no time did the Pope ever try to abolish the Holy Roman monarchy, at most he tried to remove an anti-clerical monarch with a pro-clerical one. It was the Papacy that had first established the office of Holy Roman Emperor and at no time in any of the Church conflicts with the kings of Europe did they ever advocate having no king at all.

Finally, there are those who say that all of that may be true but all that really matters is the here and now and today the Catholic Church and all the recent pontiffs have supported republics and liberal democracy and opposed monarchy. Once again, those people would be wrong, though perhaps not as entirely wrong as I would like. Republicanism and liberal democracy is certainly the prevailing trend in the Catholic Church as in the world at large, however, their support for republicanism cannot countermand the past support of priests, bishops, pontiffs and saints for monarchy. Moreover, regardless of political pronouncements on this or that subject, recent pontiffs have actually never said anything against monarchy and probably had more ties to monarchy than one would think. Pope St Pius X was a staunch monarchist and Pope Bl. Pius XI famously instituted the Solemnity of Christ the King. The relationship of Pope Pius XII (a product of the old Roman “Black Nobility”) and the downfall of the Italian monarchy was complicated but suffice it to say that he regretted the loss of it. Even when papal pronouncements on freedom and democracy became the norm you had Pope John Paul II beatifying the last Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, something he certainly would not have done if he was anti-monarchy or felt monarchy was un-Christian.

For Protestants, the issue is difficult to tackle since there is no common Protestant doctrine; it is far too diverse an entity to address as a whole. Traditionally most placed their emphasis on the Bible alone and that subject will be addressed in Part II of this mini-series. However, most Protestant denominations today can be traced back to one of two sources: Martin Luther and the Lutheran Church he founded or the Church of England founded by King Henry VIII. These two are easy to address. Martin Luther was a staunch monarchist and that was one thing he never really wavered on throughout his life. He exalted the assorted princes of Germany and said that it was the monarchs (rather than the popes) who carried out the divine will on earth. In fact, when misconstrued teachings of his were taken up by a popular rebellion of the lower class he wrote one of his most controversial works calling on the princes to get to work wiping out the peasants! Rest assured, Luther was no republican and would have been horrified at such a suggestion. Evidence can also be seen in the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, the only countries in which Lutheranism is the official state religion, all are monarchies.

Finally, we have the Church of England. Today the Anglican Communion is rife with republicans even though there is probably no Christian tradition wherein this makes less sense than Anglicanism. The Church of England was founded by a monarch (Henry VIII), fully defined by another monarch (Elizabeth I) and had as its foundational principle non-interference with the royal power. Here is a case where the form of government is not decided by religion but where the religion itself came from a form of government. In other words, the monarchy did not come from the Church of England; the Church of England came from the monarchy. The King was recognized as the “supreme head on earth” of the church and supreme in religious matters. To this day, as far as I know, the Church of England is the only major Christian denomination wherein the supreme position is held by a hereditary monarch rather than a purely religious figure. This was also later extended somewhat in the Protestant community in the English-speaking world following the Toleration Act of 1689 which extended religious freedom to everyone except Catholics as a way of consolidating all English-speaking Protestants behind the monarchy.

King Henry VIII, who founded the Church of England, while not exactly a paragon of virtue, was a very religious man and quite a Biblical scholar. Both Luther and the leaders of the Anglican movement looked to Scripture to show that monarchy was the form of government God favored above all others. Christians of every sort did the same and in Part II of this refutation of Christian republicanism we will look into how utterly futile it is to try to use the Bible to justify republicanism.