Post by hibernicus on Oct 20, 2021 22:09:40 GMT
This article, which is pretty clearly by a TFP supporter (note the citation of Plinio and the claim that Revolution and Counter-Revolution are polar opposites, with the latter entirely demonic) is a good example of the problems with TFP ideology.
I don't think it's entirely wrong - it does seem to me that Leo XIII went beyond his authority in commanding, rather than advising as a matter of prudence, French Catholics to support the Third Republic. The problems are:
(1) The author clearly thinks that OPPOSING the Third Republic was a matter of Catholic obligation, so that one could not be both a Catholic and a Republican. It is also fairly clear from the article that Leo XIII's actions were partly motivated by the fact that this view was being widely propagated at the time.
(2) Those familiar with the history of the various monarchical regimes of C18 and C19 France will know they fell short of perfection, to put it mildly. Similarly, the counter-revolutionary Right of the Third Republic had certain unpleasant features.
(3) It is a well-established principle of Catholic theology that a legitimate ruler may lose the right to rule when unable to fulfil the duties of a ruler towards his subjects/citizens, and that an usurper may be legitimised by carrying out those duties. It is quite widely agreed that by the time of Leo XIII's Ralliement there was no prospect of restoring the monarchy; monarchists had lost their last chance by internal divisions in the early 1870s, and after 1877 were defeated in successive elections.
(4) The French Third Republic was a flawed regime and did engage in some forms of religious persecution, but it did not persecute with anything like the scale or intensity of Communist China, past and present (Chairman Xi's regime has, for example, rewritten the Gospels to comply with regime ideology and prohibited the originals; it has obliged congregations to replace religious images with pictures of Xi for veneration.) It is grotesque to equate the two.
onepeterfive.com/leo-xiii-first-liberal-pope-who-went-beyond-his-authority/
I don't think it's entirely wrong - it does seem to me that Leo XIII went beyond his authority in commanding, rather than advising as a matter of prudence, French Catholics to support the Third Republic. The problems are:
(1) The author clearly thinks that OPPOSING the Third Republic was a matter of Catholic obligation, so that one could not be both a Catholic and a Republican. It is also fairly clear from the article that Leo XIII's actions were partly motivated by the fact that this view was being widely propagated at the time.
(2) Those familiar with the history of the various monarchical regimes of C18 and C19 France will know they fell short of perfection, to put it mildly. Similarly, the counter-revolutionary Right of the Third Republic had certain unpleasant features.
(3) It is a well-established principle of Catholic theology that a legitimate ruler may lose the right to rule when unable to fulfil the duties of a ruler towards his subjects/citizens, and that an usurper may be legitimised by carrying out those duties. It is quite widely agreed that by the time of Leo XIII's Ralliement there was no prospect of restoring the monarchy; monarchists had lost their last chance by internal divisions in the early 1870s, and after 1877 were defeated in successive elections.
(4) The French Third Republic was a flawed regime and did engage in some forms of religious persecution, but it did not persecute with anything like the scale or intensity of Communist China, past and present (Chairman Xi's regime has, for example, rewritten the Gospels to comply with regime ideology and prohibited the originals; it has obliged congregations to replace religious images with pictures of Xi for veneration.) It is grotesque to equate the two.
onepeterfive.com/leo-xiii-first-liberal-pope-who-went-beyond-his-authority/