Showing posts with label bossuet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bossuet. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Happy Birthday Bishop!
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Monarchist Profile: Bishop Jacques Bossuet
One of the most known religious defenders of monarchy, certainly in the Catholic Church, was the French bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet. Although he has to a large extent fallen out of favor today, mostly because of his staunch defense of absolute monarchy, he is still known for that which he was best known in his own time; as one of the greatest Christian orators of his era. He was born in Dijon on September 27, 1627 to a family of lawyers and judges. Given a proper Jesuit education he soon became fluent in Latin and Greek and developed a great love for Homer and Virgil as well as becoming a noted Biblical scholar. He entered the Church at a fairly early age and was guided toward the priesthood by none other than St Vincent de Paul and was ordained on March 18, 1652.
While living seven years in Metz he became known for his powerful sermons, his extensive study of the Bible and Church Fathers as well as holding fiery debates with Protestants. St Vincent de Paul finally prevailed upon him to move to Paris and devote himself to preaching as his oratory was considered his greatest gift. He was first consecrated as a bishop in 1670 but resigned from the post within a year and was elected to the French Academy and appointed preceptor to the Dauphin. Unlike other clerics at court he did not neglect his diocese or his numerous other duties while still tutoring the Dauphin, writing a number of works to prepare him to be a proper Christian monarch. He wrote the textbooks the Dauphin would on everything from kingship to philosophy to handwriting and held lessons three times a day.
Upon completion of this assignment he was appointed Bishop of Meaux in 1681. He took great care of his diocese and the people and religious communities there while never failing to give his usual powerful sermons, write and cross swords with the Jansenists and others. After 1700 his health began to fail but even as he lay on his deathbed he continued to teach, preach and argue by dictation until he finally passed away on April 12, 1704 in Paris. As Saint-Simon said, “he died fighting”. HM King Louis XIV had not originally favored bringing Bossuet to court but the oration he gave at the funeral of the Duchess of Orleans (as he had at the funeral of her mother Henrietta of France) the King summoned him without question.
Today he is often criticized as a Gallican (that is one who supported the King as the primary authority over the Church in France rather than the Pope). However, Bossuet was never a true Gallican, though he could at times sound like one. At the end of the day he was always adamant that the Catholic Church was universal, not divided along national lines, and under the ultimate earthly authority of the Pope alone. Though he is best known for stressing the divinely ordained nature of monarchy and the absolute power of kings, he was at times out of favor with Louis XIV as he did not hesitate to criticize the moral failings of the monarch. In the end the King would always have Bossuet back, typical of his overall relationship with the Church, pushing the limits as far as possible but never going so far as to break with Rome as King Henry VIII did in England.
Today Bishop Bossuet is still often regarded as one of, if not the, greatest preachers of all time. Yet, his stressing of the sacred nature of monarchy has caused him to be regarded as an embarrassment by many these days, particularly by that segment of the Catholic community which holds that the “Divine Right of Kings” was a totally Protestant innovation. However, as we have discussed here before, Bossuet stressed the difference between “absolute” and “arbitrary” power; it was all about the rule of law with Bossuet and his writings on this subject were all geared toward preparing the Dauphin to be the best Christian monarch he could be. Both the Church and society in general would be better off if they would take a second look at men like Bishop Bossuet and the things he taught.
While living seven years in Metz he became known for his powerful sermons, his extensive study of the Bible and Church Fathers as well as holding fiery debates with Protestants. St Vincent de Paul finally prevailed upon him to move to Paris and devote himself to preaching as his oratory was considered his greatest gift. He was first consecrated as a bishop in 1670 but resigned from the post within a year and was elected to the French Academy and appointed preceptor to the Dauphin. Unlike other clerics at court he did not neglect his diocese or his numerous other duties while still tutoring the Dauphin, writing a number of works to prepare him to be a proper Christian monarch. He wrote the textbooks the Dauphin would on everything from kingship to philosophy to handwriting and held lessons three times a day.
Upon completion of this assignment he was appointed Bishop of Meaux in 1681. He took great care of his diocese and the people and religious communities there while never failing to give his usual powerful sermons, write and cross swords with the Jansenists and others. After 1700 his health began to fail but even as he lay on his deathbed he continued to teach, preach and argue by dictation until he finally passed away on April 12, 1704 in Paris. As Saint-Simon said, “he died fighting”. HM King Louis XIV had not originally favored bringing Bossuet to court but the oration he gave at the funeral of the Duchess of Orleans (as he had at the funeral of her mother Henrietta of France) the King summoned him without question.
Today he is often criticized as a Gallican (that is one who supported the King as the primary authority over the Church in France rather than the Pope). However, Bossuet was never a true Gallican, though he could at times sound like one. At the end of the day he was always adamant that the Catholic Church was universal, not divided along national lines, and under the ultimate earthly authority of the Pope alone. Though he is best known for stressing the divinely ordained nature of monarchy and the absolute power of kings, he was at times out of favor with Louis XIV as he did not hesitate to criticize the moral failings of the monarch. In the end the King would always have Bossuet back, typical of his overall relationship with the Church, pushing the limits as far as possible but never going so far as to break with Rome as King Henry VIII did in England.
Today Bishop Bossuet is still often regarded as one of, if not the, greatest preachers of all time. Yet, his stressing of the sacred nature of monarchy has caused him to be regarded as an embarrassment by many these days, particularly by that segment of the Catholic community which holds that the “Divine Right of Kings” was a totally Protestant innovation. However, as we have discussed here before, Bossuet stressed the difference between “absolute” and “arbitrary” power; it was all about the rule of law with Bossuet and his writings on this subject were all geared toward preparing the Dauphin to be the best Christian monarch he could be. Both the Church and society in general would be better off if they would take a second look at men like Bishop Bossuet and the things he taught.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Monarchy Is Not Tyranny
There are many who, ignorantly or otherwise, equate monarchy with tyranny. Unfortunately, some ill-informed monarchists also push this point-of-view as a positive (since such people view totalitarianism as a good thing). This has been a plague for monarchism and I see it time and time again. It is engrained in the minds of so many people that a monarch is either a tyrant or a totally ceremonial waste of money. At one time the common model of the constitutional monarch could be used to counter this belief but even that model, which worked well for a time and became fairly widespread, has been reduced today because constitutional monarchy is today equated with a totally ceremonial monarchy since monarchs are threatened with extinction if they dare use those powers that are legally their own.
I know it confuses many people when I state that my ideal is a monarchy that is absolute but not arbitrary. This inevitably leads to confused looks and it can be rather difficult to explain. To get around that difficulty I point to the words of the French monarchist Bishop Jacques Bossuet who wrote extensively on the powers, the obedience owed to and the responsibilities of princes. After explaining in detail the absolute, sacred and inviolable nature of monarchy Bossuet addressed what he termed arbitrary power to which he attributed four things. These four attributes of arbitrary government were (I) that subjects are born slaves and none are free, (II) no one possesses private property, the prince controls all sources of wealth and there is no inheritance, (III) the prince can dispose of the property and the lives of all in his realm at his whim and finally (IV) there is no law but the will of the ruler.
For those who would advocate such a system so long as there is a monarch in charge rather than a republican leader one could be forced to split some minute hairs over what exactly constitutes a monarch. For example, the communist government of North Korea would fit every one of the above criteria for an arbitrary state and they are ruled by a hereditary leader chosen from a single family. Would this be considered a true monarchy? Would putting a crown on Stalin make him a Tsar? Monarchists must ask themselves if there is really anything more to their beliefs than titles and decorations. Once again, Bishop Bossuet explains it quite well:
“It is one thing for a government to be absolute, and another for it to be arbitrary. It is absolute with respect to constraint - there being no power capable of forcing the sovereign, who in this sense is independent of all human authority. But it does not follow from this that the government is arbitrary, for besides the fact that everything is subject to the judgment of God (which is also true of those governments we have just called arbitrary), there are also [constitutional] laws in empires, so that whatever is done against them is null in a legal sense [nul de droit]: and there is always an opportunity for redress, either on other occasions or in other times. Such that each person remains the legitimate possessor of his goods: no one being able to believe that he can possess anything with security to the prejudice of the laws - whose vigilance and action against injustices and acts of violence is deathless, as we have explained more fully elsewhere. This is what is called legitimate government, by its very nature the opposite of arbitrary government.”
We can see another explanation of this in the supposed trial of King Charles I of Britain, who was certainly held (by himself and his royalists) to be absolute, holding a sacred and inviolable position, but who stated at his trial that his use of absolute power was to defend his people against the arbitrary power of the parliamentary military forces of Cromwell. After being condemned Charles I addressed his enemies one last time saying, “I must tell you that the liberty and freedom [of the people] consists in having of Government, those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having a share in Government, Sir, that is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things. If I would have given way to an arbitrary way, for to have all laws changed according to the Power of the Sword, I needed not to have come here, and therefore I tell you…that I am the martyr of the people”.
Taken as a whole, it can be seen then a monarch, to fulfill their own obligations and duties before the Almighty, must not be constrained by the whims and fancies of passing majorities. As the martyred Tsar Nicholas II saw it, his absolute power was a divine imposition that he could not shirk by passing his responsibilities to others. At the same time however, such power cannot be arbitrary and holding all people as mere cattle for the ruler but must be exercised in upholding, as the Stuart king said, “those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own”. The ruler of a state in which all property and the entire public is in every way “owned” by that state is no true monarchy but is the very definition of the communist state whether the ruler wear a workers cap, a top hat or a crown. The true monarch, like many who have gone to their martyrdom for this principle, fight for their absolute power (or divine right if you like) not out of personal ambition but because in so doing they are fighting for the absolute right of every one of their people to all that is justly their own.
I know it confuses many people when I state that my ideal is a monarchy that is absolute but not arbitrary. This inevitably leads to confused looks and it can be rather difficult to explain. To get around that difficulty I point to the words of the French monarchist Bishop Jacques Bossuet who wrote extensively on the powers, the obedience owed to and the responsibilities of princes. After explaining in detail the absolute, sacred and inviolable nature of monarchy Bossuet addressed what he termed arbitrary power to which he attributed four things. These four attributes of arbitrary government were (I) that subjects are born slaves and none are free, (II) no one possesses private property, the prince controls all sources of wealth and there is no inheritance, (III) the prince can dispose of the property and the lives of all in his realm at his whim and finally (IV) there is no law but the will of the ruler.
For those who would advocate such a system so long as there is a monarch in charge rather than a republican leader one could be forced to split some minute hairs over what exactly constitutes a monarch. For example, the communist government of North Korea would fit every one of the above criteria for an arbitrary state and they are ruled by a hereditary leader chosen from a single family. Would this be considered a true monarchy? Would putting a crown on Stalin make him a Tsar? Monarchists must ask themselves if there is really anything more to their beliefs than titles and decorations. Once again, Bishop Bossuet explains it quite well:
“It is one thing for a government to be absolute, and another for it to be arbitrary. It is absolute with respect to constraint - there being no power capable of forcing the sovereign, who in this sense is independent of all human authority. But it does not follow from this that the government is arbitrary, for besides the fact that everything is subject to the judgment of God (which is also true of those governments we have just called arbitrary), there are also [constitutional] laws in empires, so that whatever is done against them is null in a legal sense [nul de droit]: and there is always an opportunity for redress, either on other occasions or in other times. Such that each person remains the legitimate possessor of his goods: no one being able to believe that he can possess anything with security to the prejudice of the laws - whose vigilance and action against injustices and acts of violence is deathless, as we have explained more fully elsewhere. This is what is called legitimate government, by its very nature the opposite of arbitrary government.”
We can see another explanation of this in the supposed trial of King Charles I of Britain, who was certainly held (by himself and his royalists) to be absolute, holding a sacred and inviolable position, but who stated at his trial that his use of absolute power was to defend his people against the arbitrary power of the parliamentary military forces of Cromwell. After being condemned Charles I addressed his enemies one last time saying, “I must tell you that the liberty and freedom [of the people] consists in having of Government, those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having a share in Government, Sir, that is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things. If I would have given way to an arbitrary way, for to have all laws changed according to the Power of the Sword, I needed not to have come here, and therefore I tell you…that I am the martyr of the people”.
Taken as a whole, it can be seen then a monarch, to fulfill their own obligations and duties before the Almighty, must not be constrained by the whims and fancies of passing majorities. As the martyred Tsar Nicholas II saw it, his absolute power was a divine imposition that he could not shirk by passing his responsibilities to others. At the same time however, such power cannot be arbitrary and holding all people as mere cattle for the ruler but must be exercised in upholding, as the Stuart king said, “those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own”. The ruler of a state in which all property and the entire public is in every way “owned” by that state is no true monarchy but is the very definition of the communist state whether the ruler wear a workers cap, a top hat or a crown. The true monarch, like many who have gone to their martyrdom for this principle, fight for their absolute power (or divine right if you like) not out of personal ambition but because in so doing they are fighting for the absolute right of every one of their people to all that is justly their own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
