We live in a world that for the most part is governed by a Democratic political system, this is one of the United States of America’s greatest contributions to the world at large. Thus, I ask you the reader, is it for the better or for the worst that we live in a Democratic age? Whenever, I am asked about politics and I mention the word Monarchy, it never ceases to amaze me the reactions that I receive from people (unless of course they are orthodox/traditional minded Christians) as if I told them that I believed that the moon was made out of cheese. I am sure that if you said to someone at any period of time prior to the French Revolution that Democracy would replace Monarchy around the Globe as the preferred political system, they would think you were a bit mad. Ironically, it is the opposite today when someone says that Monarchy is the ideal political system and will eventually replace the Democratized world we live in again.
So recently while I was on the Trans-Siberian Railway on my way from Novosibirsk to Abakan, Russia I struck had an interesting conversation with a young man. He told me how he felt that Democracy was a dishonest system because it gave the people the illusion that they had power where in fact they didn’t and actually it made those in power less effective as they give the motions of pandering to the people. Whereas, in a Monarchy the Power is known and visible and complete in the monarch and he doesn’t need to give the airs of false promises and can in his lifetime try and achieve his goals but in a Democracy the sitting President only has a brief decade more or less to set in motion his efforts which are further slowed down by bureaucracy and or by a future siting President. Most importantly, is the fact the Monarchy is understood and undeniably connected to the Church and the King is given his authority from God to reign. Indeed, an interesting perspective.
So what’s a Catholic to do in the 21 Century? Stick to the Democracy of Religious Freedom, Separation of Church and State, contraception, abortion, divorce, cohabitation, gay marriage, liberalism, relativism, etc. or to bring back the Catholic Monarchy of yesteryear?
I being born in California, was continually told the “divine” truth of how America was providentially selected to bring democracy and freedom to the world and how it threw off the chains of Monarchial oppression from abroad, a backwards and archaic system. Now to be sure, America has mainstreamed many important innovations and technologies that I shudder at the thought of not having today eg. Indoor plumbing, the internet, etc. (to but only name a few)
Indeed America has inherited a providential luxury that has never been experienced in such a global way with the closure of the First Great War (1914-1918), Europe was affected in every way imaginable. With over 38 million male causalities: there were over 17 million deaths and 20 million wounded, economic despair, International borders changed, etc.. Although, Europe was deeply scarred by the war, the American experience was quite contrary as a whole as the countries economy was greatly improved by the war and approximately 800,000 total immigrants from 1920 -21 alone came to the US able and willing to work. This put America in an important international stage post war that it would never have received before. This period was known as the roaring Twenties, think of the Great Gatsby and it lasted up to the end of October 29′ when the Great Depression hit. The Depression lasted till the dawn of World War II and was felt much harder in post war Europe.
After the Second World War, Europe lost a further estimated of total dead ranging from 50 million to more than 80 million. The higher figure of over 80 million includes deaths from war-related disease and famine. Civilians killed totaled 50 to 55 million, including 19 to 28 million from war-related disease and famine. Not to mention further economic devastation and infrastructure damage in almost all major continental European cities. Bear in mind that the bubonic plague (Black Plague) that inflicted Europe in the mid-14th century only killed about 25 million people in five-year period from 1347 to 1352.
Thus within as little as 2 generations Europe had lost not only its regal soul but conservatively over 100 million people and was in a state of delirious shell shock as a result of. This would have the consequential affect of undoing centuries of saints and soldiers and bring in an unprecedented age of relativism and liberalism. What the enemies of the faith couldn’t accomplish in over a millennia, would be handed to them with a silver spoon following the war. Once again, the United States was to play an essential part and its influence was to go further than at anytime prior to with the advancement in technology and a growth in its economy that would see it become a Superpower on a global scale. As a result, the American experiment has grown from an idea to becoming an American Global influence, but is this influence ultimately good or bad? And what is this American influence on the faith?
Well first lets look at an Encyclical from Pope Leo XIII on the heresy of Americanism, which was received with rolling eyes and dissapointment by the likes of Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop Ireland of Minneapolis/Saint Paul as a “phantom” heresy (and the only heresy to date named after a country). In truth, it is unlikely that they had much interest in such ideas, as they were builders and doers, not theorists, and they wanted to be loyal to the Church and to the Pope.
But there’s more to the story than that. Better than Leo XIII or anyone else could have known at the time, the opinions condemned in the papal letter have turned out to be widely held among American Catholics today.
To be clear, it is not an encyclical condemning American people or America, rather the denial of the influence of the Church’s social doctrine in the civil domain. It’s ultimate consequence is the denial of the rights of God and the supernatural order. It is a denial of the supernatural order established by God. This heresy is called “Americanism” because Pope Leo XIII wrote his encyclical (Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae) to Cardinal James Gibbons, condemning the false notion of Catholicism that he was working to establish in the newly founded continent of America which was founded by non-Catholics. This meant that Cardinal Gibbons and a number of other prelates tried to compromise with the false principles as were enshrined in the American constitution. It is more than ever important to remove the blind fold in this regard since many Catholics while claiming to be Catholics are not Catholic but “Americanists” who deny the influence of Christ and His Church in the social sphere. For this reason Americanism leads to the Public denial of Christ the King and ultimately to the destruction of society since there can never be a true peace without Christ, the Prince of Peace.
But lets look at some excerpts from this largely forgotten encyclical and see if it is relevant today.
“The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind. The Vatican Council says concerning this point: “For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.” —Constitutio de Fide Catholica,Chapter iv. …..
….. Let it be far from anyone’s mind to suppress for any reason any doctrine that has been handed down. Such a policy would tend rather to separate Catholics from the Church than to bring in those who differ. There is nothing closer to our heart than to have those who are separated from the fold of Christ return to it, but in no other way than the way pointed out by Christ. ….
… But, beloved son, in this present matter of which we are speaking, there is even a greater danger and a more manifest opposition to Catholic doctrine and discipline in that opinion of the lovers of novelty, according to which they hold such liberty should be allowed in the Church, that her supervision and watchfulness being in some sense lessened, allowance be granted the faithful, each one to follow out more freely the leading of his own mind and the trend of his own proper activity. They are of opinion that such liberty has its counterpart in the newly given civil freedom which is now the right and the foundation of almost every secular state.…
… We, indeed, have no thought of rejecting everything that modern industry and study has produced; so far from it that we welcome to the patrimony of truth and to an ever-widening scope of public well-being whatsoever helps toward the progress of learning and virtue. Yet all this, to be of any solid benefit, nay, to have a real existence and growth, can only be on the condition of recognizing the wisdom and authority of the Church. …
… From the foregoing it is manifest, beloved son, that we are not able to give approval to those views which, in their collective sense, are called by some “Americanism.” But if by this name are to be understood certain endowments of mind which belong to the American people, just as other characteristics belong to various other nations, and if, moreover, by it is designated your political condition and the laws and customs by which you are governed, there is no reason to take exception to the name. But if this is to be so understood that the doctrines which have been adverted to above are not only indicated, but exalted, there can be no manner of doubt that our venerable brethren, the bishops of America, would be the first to repudiate and condemn it as being most injurious to themselves and to their country. For it would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive and would have the Church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world. …
…. To you, and to all the faithful of America, we grant most lovingly, as a pledge of Divine assistance, our apostolic benediction.“
I will allow you to draw the conclusion of whether or not this was a phantom heresy or something that is inflicting the Church today and if it is, has it spread beyond the borders of the United States? If you are of the latter opinion, then it can be certainly argued that following the Second World War it was allowed to spread with an unprecedented acceptance globally. So what is the solution, not Republican or Democrat, nor Labor or Conservative, the answer is a Catholic Monarch and to the defense of this ideal, I turn to none other than St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church.
Without question one of the the greatest of all contemporary exponents of monarchy over other forms of government in his much neglected book De Regno and in the classic Summa.
“Furthermore, it is evident that several persons could by no means preserve the stability of the community if they totally disagreed. For union is necessary among them if they are to rule at all: several men, for instance, could not pull a ship in one direction unless joined together in some fashion. Now several are said to be united according as they come closer to being one. So one man rules better than several who come near being one.“
“Again, whatever is in accord with nature is best, for in all things nature does what is best. Now, every natural governance is governance by one. In the multitude of bodily members there is one which is the principal mover, namely, the heart; and among the powers of the soul one power presides as chief, namely, the reason. Among bees there is one king bee’ and in the whole universe there is One God, Maker and Ruler of all things. And there is a reason for this. Every multitude is derived from unity. Wherefore, if artificial things are an imitation of natural things’ and a work of art is better according as it attains a closer likeness to what is in nature, it follows that it is best for a human multitude to be ruled by one person.“
Noteworthy : The head animal is not a Queen Bee but rather a King (male)
This is also evident from experience. For provinces or cities which are not ruled by one person are torn with dissensions and tossed about without peace, so that the complaint seems to be fulfilled which the Lord uttered through the Prophet [Jer 12:10]: “Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard.” On the other hand, provinces and cities which are ruled under one king enjoy peace, flourish in justice, and delight in prosperity. Hence, the Lord by His prophets promises to His people as a great reward that He will give them one head and that “one Prince will be in the midst of them” [Ez 34:24, Jer 30:21].
“I answer that, We must of necessity say that the world is governed by one. For since the end of the government of the world is that which is essentially good, which is the greatest good; the government of the world must be the best kind of government. Now the best government is the government by one. The reason of this is that government is nothing but the directing of the things governed to the end; which consists in some good. But unity belongs to the idea of goodness, as Boethius proves (De Consol. iii, 11) from this, that, as all things desire good, so do they desire unity; without which they would cease to exist. For a thing so far exists as it is one. Whence we observe that things resist division, as far as they can; and the dissolution of a thing arises from defect therein. Therefore the intention of a ruler over a multitude is unity, or peace. Now the proper cause of unity is one. For it is clear that several cannot be the cause of unity or concord, except so far as they are united. Furthermore, what is one in itself is a more apt and a better cause of unity than several things united. Therefore a multitude is better governed by one than by several. From this it follows that the government of the world, being the best form of government, must be by one. This is expressed by the Philosopher (Metaph. xii, Did. xi, 10): “Things refuse to be ill governed; and multiplicity of authorities is a bad thing, therefore there should be one ruler.“
It goes without saying that Saint Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church (In fact he has 3 titles : the Common Doctor, the Angelic Doctor, and the Doctor of Humanity), believed that Monarchy was without question the best and only Political system for the faithful. Now to be sure, history is riddled with examples of inadequate and even wicked monarchs and to this Saint Aquinas does say :
“Just as the government of a king is the best, so the government of a tyrant is the worst.”
“So, considering these evil effects of tyranny King Solomon says [Prov 28:12]: “When the wicked reign, men are ruined” because, forsooth, through the wickedness of tyrants, subjects fall away from the perfection of virtue. And again he says [Prov 29:2]: “When the wicked rule the people shall mourn, as though led into slavery.” And again [Prov 28:28]: “When the wicked rise up men shall hide themselves”, that they may escape the cruelty of the tyrant. It is no wonder, for a man governing without reason, according to the lust of his soul, in no way differs from the beast. Whence Solomon says [Prov 28:15]: ”As a roaring lion and a hungry bear, so is a wicked prince over the poor people.” Therefore men hide from tyrants as from cruel beasts and it seems that to be subject to a tyrant is the same thing as to lie prostrate beneath a raging beast.”
So what to do ??? Choosing to crown a Catholic Monarch that could possibly become a tyrant certainly isn’t appealing to our modern senses. One only has to watch an episode of Game of Thrones to see the possibility of what a tyrant can do right? Wrong, although it is an engaging work of fantasy is is still just that … fantasy. The monarchy that Saint Aquinas is writing about is a Catholic Monarch, not pagan, nor protestant, Saracen or any other non Christian type.
“Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”
Often, I hear it being said that we should choose between the lesser of 2 evils, presently (2016) with the US elections ahead of us that would appear to mean either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. But what about between a tyrannical monarch or a corrupt aristocracy?
“When a choice is to be made between two things, from both of which danger impends, surely that one should be chosen from which the lesser evil follows. Now, lesser evil follows from the corruption of a monarchy (which is tyranny) than from the corruption of an aristocracy.”
“Group government [polyarchy] most frequently breeds dissension. This dissension runs counter to the good of peace which is the principal social good. A tyrant, on the other hand, does not destroy this good, rather he obstructs one or the other individual interest of his subjects—unless, of course, there be an excess of tyranny and the tyrant rages against the whole community. Monarchy is therefore to be preferred to polyarchy, although either form of government might become dangerous.”
Moreover, in point of fact, a polyarchy deviates into tyranny not less but perhaps more frequently than a monarchy. When, on account of there being many rulers, dissensions arise in such a government, it often happens that the power of one preponderates and he then usurps the government of the multitude for himself. This indeed may be clearly seen from history. There has hardly ever been a polyarchy that did not end in tyranny. The best illustration of this fact is the history of the Roman Republic. It was for a long time administered by the magistrates but then animosities, dissensions and civil wars arose and it fell into the power of the most cruel tyrants. In general, if one carefully considers what has happened in the past and what is happening in the present, he will discover that more men have held tyrannical sway in lands previously ruled by many rulers than in those ruled by one.
The strongest objection why monarchy, although it is “the best form of government”, is not agreeable to the people is that, in fact, it may deviate into tyranny. Yet tyranny is wont to occur not less but more frequently on the basis of a polyarchy than on the basis of a monarchy. It follows that it is, in any case, more expedient to live under one king than under the rule of several men.
So for better or for worse through thick and thin, Saint Aquinas makes it abundantly clear that for Catholics, the best form of government is Monarchy.
“If an unjust government is carried on by one man alone … such a ruler is called a tyrant … If an unjust government is carried on, not by one but by several, and if they be few, it is called an oligarchy. That is, the rule of a few … If, finally, the bad government is carried on by the multitude, is is called democracy, i.e. control by the populace … In like manner we must divide just governments. If the government is administered by many, it is given the name common to all forms of government, i.e. polity … If it is administered by a few men of virtue, this kind of government is called an aristocracy … And if a just government is in the hands of one man alone, he is called a king.”
Monarchs derive their authority from God …
“Sing praises to our God, sing ye: sing praises to our king, sing ye. For God is the king of all the earth: sing ye wisely. God shall reign over the nations: God sitteth on his holy throne.“
… who is King of all that is made and unmade, in consequence it is the Church, the Bride of Christ, who administers them with this authority and it is through his vicar on earth the Pope that said power is confirmed. This has the natural advantage of ensuring that all the Kings subjects in his realm are Christian (Catholic), that the laws that are passed are in accordance with the laws and teachings of the Church and consequently this brings about a unity in the community and hopefully leads to more souls entering heaven.
Lastly, we have to only look at the office of the Pope to see that the Pope is the recognized and “Absolute” Monarch (King) of the Vatican State, as recognized by the UN, and the Vicar of Christ to all of us Catholics. Prior to the 1929 Lateran Treaty made between Pope Pius XII and Mussolini which officially brought the present Vatican State into existence, the Pope was the secular head of the Papal States, which covered vast territory throughout Italy. The Papal States lasted from 465 – 1870, ending with Pope Pius IX.
The King of Vatican City has absolute, unchecked power (in theory) within the country’s borders and his presence makes Vatican City one of only six remaining absolute monarchies in the world, including Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Swaziland. The King’s absolute power is why Vatican City can’t join the European Union because only democracies are allowed.
Now with that said, here is a ….
[S]cience alone cannot provide us with a definitive and binding interpretation; it is unable to offer us, in its interpretation, that certainty with which we can live and for which we can even die. A greater mandate is necessary for this, which cannot derive from human abilities alone. The voice of the living Church is essential for this, of the Church entrusted until the end of time to Peter and to the College of the Apostles.This power of teaching frightens many people in and outside the Church. They wonder whether freedom of conscience is threatened or whether it is a presumption opposed to freedom of thought. It is not like this. The power that Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors is, in an absolute sense, a mandate to serve. The power of teaching in the Church involves a commitment to the service of obedience to the faith. The Pope is not an absolute monarchwhose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary: the Pope’s ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism.Pope John Paul II did this when, in front of all attempts, apparently benevolent to the human person, and in the face of erroneous interpretations of freedom, he unequivocally stressed the inviolability of the human being and of human life from the moment of conception until natural death. The freedom to kill is not true freedom, but a tyranny that reduces the human being to slavery.The Pope knows that in his important decisions, he is bound to the great community of faith of all times, to the binding interpretations that have developed throughout the Church’s pilgrimage. Thus, his power is not being above, but at the service of, the Word of God. It is incumbent upon him to ensure that this Word continues to be present in its greatness and to resound in its purity, so that it is not torn to pieces by continuous changes in usage.
Historically, there are 2 Church records in favor of a Papal Absolute Monarchy, the first being the
…. However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: “There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God” [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other. ….
…. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: “Behold today I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms” and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: “The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man” [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven” etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Decrees of the First Vatican Council, First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ : Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff – 18th July 1870
“…Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world. …
… So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.”
There is also a huge list of Monarchs that are shining examples in every country of Europe who reigned justly and were strong faithful Catholics and several who have been canonized Saints. Below is not an exhaustive list and includes some Orthodox Christians.
- Amadeus IX, Duke of Savoy
- Canute IV of Denmark, known as “St. Canute”
- Charles I, Count of Flanders, known as “St. Charles the Good”
- Constantine I 272-337 Roman Emperor. Also known as “Constantine the Great,” and ” Constantine, Equal-to-the-Apostles” (“Κωνσταντίνος Α’ Ἰσαπόστολος”).
- Constantine IV c.652-685 Roman Emperor. Also called “Constantine the New.”
- Constantine XI 1405-1453 Roman Emperor. Also known as “Constantine XI Palaiologos”, “The Marble Emperor,” “The Last Roman Emperor.” Not officially recognized by either the Orthodox or Byzantine Catholic churches, he is popularly regarded in both as the national patron saint, known as Ethnomartyr” (“Ἐθνομάρτυρας”‘), meaning “national martyr.”
- David I of Scotland; son of Saint Margaret of Scotland
- Edmund the Martyr of East Anglia
- Edward the Confessor of England
- Edward the Martyr of England
- Edwin of Northumbria, known as “St. Edwin”
- Eric IX of Sweden, martyred May 18, 1161, as he was leaving Mass. His cultus grew immediately, but was forbidden by Pope Alexander III in 1172; although never formally canonized, he is revered as a patron saint of Sweden, and is referred to in passing as “St. Eric” in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
- Æthelberht of Kent
- Æthelberht II of East Anglia
- Ferdinand III of Castile; also known as “St. Ferdinand” or “Ferdinand III the Saint”, Spanish “San Fernando“or “Fernando III el Santo“.
- Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor
- Hermenegild of the Visigoths
- Humbert III of Savoy
- Jadwiga of Poland, also known as “St. Hedwig of Poland” or “St. Hedwig Queen of Poland”
- Ladislaus I of Hungary, canonized in 1192
- Louis IX of France, known as “St. Louis”
- Ludwig IV of Thuringia, husband of Elisabeth of Hungary
- Nicholas II of Russia
- Nikephoros II c.912-969 Roman Emperor.
- Olaf II of Norway, known as “St. Olav” or “St. Olave”
- Oswald of Northumbria, martyred August 5, 642
- Sigismund of Burgundy
- Stephen I of Hungary, canonized as “St. Stephen of Hungary”
- Vladimir I of Kiev, first Christian ruler of Kiev
- Wenceslaus I, Duke of Bohemia, martyred September 28, 935
- Karl I of Austria, last kaiser (Emperor) of Austria and király (King) of Hungary; beatified October 3, 2004; known as “Blessed Karl I” or “Blessed Karl of Austria”, or sometimes as “Blessed Charles I of Austria”
- Charlemagne, King of the Franks and founder of the Holy Roman Empire, who secured and protected the Papal States and contributed greatly to the spread of Catholicism in Europe. He was canonized by Antipope Paschal III; this decree was never confirmed by the Church; his cultus, however, was permitted at Aachen.
So, in regards to the present US elections as a Catholic I choose neither, as neither are Catholics nor are they in any kind of way a reflection of a just government, never mind a holy one. Rather, let us live our faith as it was meant to be lived in a Catholic land in fidelity to God, King and his vicar on earth the Pope, a triune society is the clearest way to reflect our Triune God’s love on earth, in both mercy and justice. If this land is doesn’t exist near you, then it is up to you, me , us …. Catholics to do so.
John 17 : 14-21
“ I have given them thy word, and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world; as I also am not of the world.  I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from evil.
 They are not of the world, as I also am not of the world.  Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth.  As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.  And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;
 That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”
When God’s people fall from the faith and remain unrepentant, the people reap what they sow, often this comes in the form of wicked and unjust rulers and sadly has been repeated time and time again throughout history. Western “culture” has fallen into gross depravity that would have been inconceivable 2 generations ago eg. Contraception, abortion, euthanasia, divorce, gay marriage, a celebration of transgender … to name but a few.
 And I will give children to be their princes, and the effeminate shall rule over them.  And the people shall rush one upon another, and every man against his neighbour: the child shall make it tumult against the ancient, and the base against the honourable.
As Saint Augustine wrote so many centuries before, we must choose what city we are to live in, the City of God or the city of man, the City of the Faithful or the city of the fallen.
The City of God, XIV, 1 :Two loves make two cities
Literal Commentary on Genesis, XI, 15,20
“These are the two loves: the first is holy, the second foul; the first is social, the second selfish; the first consults the common welfare for the sake of a celestial society, the second grasps at a selfish control of social affairs for the sake of arrogant domination; the first is submissive to God, the second tries to rival God; the first is quiet, the second restless; the first is peaceful, the second trouble-making; the first prefers truth to the praises of those who are in error, the second is greedy for praise, however it may be obtained; the first is friendly, the second envious; the first desires for its neighbor what it wishes for itself, the second desires to subjugate its neighbor; the first rules its neighbor for the good of its neighbor, the second for its own advantage; and these two loves produce a distinction among the angels: the first love belongs to the good angels, the second to the bad angels; and they also separate the two cities founded among the race of men, under the wonderful and ineffable Providence of God, administering and ordering all things that have been created: the first city is that of the just, the second is that of the wicked. Although they are now, during the course of time, intermingled, they shall be divided at the last judgment; the first, being joined by the good angels under its King, shall attain eternal life; the second, in union with the bad angels under its king, shall be sent into eternal fire.”
In conclusion, I am a monarchist, I am a sinner, I am a penitent sinner, I am fallible .. I am a Catholic. My allegiance is to my God and his Bride the Church, my country of birth has great beauty and some amazing people that I am privileged to call friends but borders change, governments come and go. But our faith is eternal and this world we live on was created by our God for us, let us take the great commission seriously.
 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying:All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
For more information about Richard Metzger