In America we did have some examples of “political Catholicism” in the cities of the North where bishops openly identified with the Democratic party’s political “machines”, which were dominated by Irish Americans. These machines tolerated organized crime and bigotry toward black Americans.

Nor is the danger only on the Right; Le Sillon’s attempt to align Catholic Action with the labour movement was equally dangerous and was also roundly condemned by the Holy See in Notre Charge Apostolique, which could be read with profit by some (politically) progressive Anglophone Catholics, as well as more recent condemnations of Liberation Theology.

The danger arises whenever loyalty to a political ideal – the restoration of the monarchy, the establishment of the Church – is seen as, not merely compatible with, but demanded, by the Faith itself. It also manifests itself in a denial of the legitimacy of any political authority that refuses to accede to its demands.

The spiritual mission of the Church was gravely hampered, during the first 70 years of that period, by the open hostility of most Catholics to the Republic, which neatly matched the anti-clericalism of the bouffeurs de curé. Leo XIII had exhorted Catholic to “rally to the Republic,” explaining that a distinction must be drawn between the form of government, which ought to be accepted, and its laws which ought to be improved, only to be accused by the Catholic press of “kissing the feet of their executioners.” In 1940, alas, too many Catholics rallied, not to the Republic, but to Vichy. After the Liberation most of the leaders of the Catholic parties were in jail, a few were shot and the rest fled abroad. It was De Gaulle and the Fifth Republic that began to heal the divisions. Certainly in France, some elements of the Society of S Pius X are resisting the new settlement.

The state of the Church in France today owes much to this bitter legacy of turning faith into faction.

It is precisely their different histories that make American and British Catholics less alert to the dangers of the politicising of religion.

My point is that the belief you are attributing to some Catholics is in reality held by almost all Catholics who understand that the mass and the way it is said is profoundly important for the life of the church. At the same time, I doubt there are any Catholics who think that the way the mass is celebrated is the only thing that affects the church’s life and mission. To believe that any mass, old or new, had the power to effect automatic change or to magically solve problems would be superstitious.

As for the claim that Latin Mass supporters beliefs are based in nostalgia, I can only say this strikes me as a profoundly unfair thing to say. They have publicly stated their criticism of the New Mass for 40 years in great detail. They have always argued based on their belief about what they think is right. I do not see any evidence that nostaglia is a motivating factor at all.

I have no interest in defending Lefebvre’s position’s regarding various regimes although I would point out that none of the ones you cited were Catholic monarchies. My interest was in refuting the claim that Catholic monarchs were all unjust and that a form of government’s legitimacy can be deduced from the fact that it sometimes act unjustly. I support democracy but I would not be able to defend it on those grounds.

According to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Lefebvre#Political_positions

Archbishop Lefebvre supported Vichy France and the military dictatorships of Chile and Argentina during the 1970s. Was he right to do so? Did his views then mean anything to the SSPX today?

I am not in favor of a monarchy in the United States and I am not aware that the SSPX is either. I was responding to Cbalducc’s statement that Catholic monarchs were all unjust. The SSPX disagrees with the claim that a person has a right to religious liberty.They ground this in an appeal to the previous teachings of the church on this subject which they believe are binding on the faithful. They do not disagree that religious liberty can be justified by reference to the common good or charity.

Botolph,

All I can say is that the SSPX disagrees with you. From their website:

“Despite the canonical issues which were woven into the events, nevertheless, it was clear that the heart of the matter rested with the issue of the Mass.

In the three weeks before the ordinations to be held on June 29, 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre was approached by Rome as many as six times with the request that he establish normal relations with the Vatican and that he give proof of this by saying a Mass according to the new rite. He was told that if the ordination Mass on the 29th would be with the Missal of Pope Paul VI, then all opposition would be smoothed over.”

Generalizations and ‘semi-sarcastic’ comments about the Novus Ordo (?): the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite or ‘the Latin Mass’: the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite need to be calmed down.

I also have to say that generalizing statements that the Society desires a monarchy in this country is very innacurate [never mind directly opposed to the very nature of our country]. As I understand their ‘criticisms’ of Vatican II [in its actual documents] there are three [I will stand corrected on this if I am wrong]:
1) principle of collegiality
2)declaration on Religious Liberty
3)principle of ecumenism

At this point when reconciliation is being attempted certainly by the Church and the leadership of the Society I believe it is important to bring more light and less heat, truth with charity for the unity and communion of the Church.

Now this is a better direction to take this conversation. What is the proper basis of authority? Well, let’s think about what government is. Human beings are inherently social animals who tend to live together. We are also weak and sinful animals, so in order to protect ourselves from each other while still enjoying each other’s company we had better lay down some ground rules and have someone to enforce them. In other words, we need authority. This is what government is. A group of people have the authority to make rules and the rest of us follow them.
Notice the second part of that sentence: obedience. That is what government depends on. Now, there are two ways to get people to obey you. Either they consent to obey you, or you force them to. Forcing people to obey you is a simple matter as long as you have enough guns and no moral scruples. We have a word for it: tyranny.
Now monarchy is not always tyrannical. In the middle ages, we had kings because the people consented to the idea of kings. They did this either out of a sense of allegiance, a belief that the king was appointed by God, or for some other reason. Many theories like the divine right of kings to the general will have been thrown around over time, but in the end their efficacy in creating a political order depended on the ability to get the people to consent.
Now let’s talk about monarchy and liberal democracy. Starting in the middle ages, the kings got tired of the fuedal system that left so much power to local aristocrats that they started centralizing the state. They would often raise up the general populace in order to find talent not in the aristocracy, who they were actually trying to weaken. However, as the kings like Louis XIV and Frederich the Great got more powerful and the rest of society more equal, something unexpected happened. People realized that a king is completely unaccountable. An absolute monarch never has to have his actions approved by anyone: not the people, not the nobles, and not the church. You may ask “Why not just make him accountable to the church?” Well, the Church, since its beginning, has not shown that much interest in statecraft other than to keep the government at bay. An idea of Christendom was present during the Middle Ages, but the popes were never able to exercise that much force because, as Stalin famously pointed out, they don’t have any divisions.
Having an unaccountable monarch is fine if that monarch rules over a fuedal system where his power is quite limited. However, as the state became centralized, particularly in places like France and Prussia, it became a little more important to make sure this growing state was actually accountable to people. Imagine if we could never vote Barack Obama out of office.
After several bloody wars, Europe has now transitioned to democracy, as has much of the rest of the world. If you look around, you see two types of governments in the world: liberal democracies and military dictatorships. It is true that liberal democracies often do unjust things. That could be said of all government. But given the current state of things, can you think of some other government that the average guy on the street would give his thumbs up to?
In my earlier post, I said I found the SSPX political platform absurd and impractical. While it is true that I think their recommendations are substantively bad, I find them impractical because I cannot imagine the public willingly accepting a state religion and a monarch at this point in history. This is particularly true of America. It is one thing to argue that Poland should have such a government. Poland is a predominantly Catholic country that has been ruled by monarch as recently as the early 20th Century. The SSPX want Catholicism to be the official religion in the U.S., a predominantly Protestant country founded by Calvinists and Anglicans. They want a monarchy in a country that really has never had one unless you count the British monarchs who never took a step on American soil. This is not reactionary. It is imaginary.

Your first question seems like a strawman. Do teachers think that teaching every child to read means that they will automatically be geniuses? Do doctors give people health advice because they think that nobody will ever get sick or die?

I could turn the question around? Do critics of the SSPX think that forbidding the Latin mass will automatically make everyone a good Catholic? Do they think that the Novus Ordo will make automatically make everyone a good Catholic? Maybe the argument is more subtle than that.

The question of whether the Tridetine mass should be available is one of justice. It was never suppressed. The Pope has stated that. Why should it not be available to the faithful?

As to your final question, were all Catholic monarchs unjust? What about the ones who are venerated as saints? Do liberal democracies always govern justly? Haven’t they often done unjust things? To ask questions about the proper basis of authority and the true basis of rights is not the same thing as supporting tyranny.