This Place is a Cesspit
#51
(01-20-2012, 02:30 AM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote: Food for thought:
The majority of Catholics in the colonies tended to be loyalists.

As historians can't even decide what percentage of the population was loyalist I have no idea how they would figure that out. 
Reply
#52
(01-20-2012, 02:23 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: Exactly! And in other areas I greatly admire both Leo XIII and Pius XI, but their political 'wisdom' was non existent!

Your monarchism has always struck me as a little too vociferous. I've always wondered, I swore I've seen you write things indicating support for the current monarch: if so, how do you reconcile support for the royal family with the likes of Prince Charles, an avowed 'green,' envirofascist who has expressed hope for depopulation of the earth, etc.

Her Majesty is probably of the same ilk?
Reply
#53
(01-20-2012, 02:34 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(01-20-2012, 02:30 AM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote: Food for thought:
The majority of Catholics in the colonies tended to be loyalists.

As historians can't even decide what percentage of the population was loyalist I have no idea how they would figure that out. 

Most serious historians have come to the conclusion that about one third were 'patriots', about one third Loyalist and about one third, 'Leave me the hell alone to work my farm'. How that breaks down religiously, I have no idea and have not seen any estimates.
Reply
#54
(01-20-2012, 02:37 AM)Iuvenalis Wrote:
(01-20-2012, 02:23 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: Exactly! And in other areas I greatly admire both Leo XIII and Pius XI, but their political 'wisdom' was non existent!

Your monarchism has always struck me as a little too vociferous. I've always wondered, I swore I've seen you write things indicating support for the current monarch: if so, how do you reconcile support for the royal family with the likes of Prince Charles, an avowed 'green,' envirofascist who has expressed hope for depopulation of the earth, etc.

Her Majesty is probably of the same ilk?

As to HM's opinions I have no knowledge. As to the Catholic position that I take regarding the current Monarchy (recognised by the Holy See since 1766, before the American Revolution), I refer you to this thread, where I pretty well stated my opinions:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...944.0.html
Reply
#55
(01-20-2012, 02:38 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(01-20-2012, 02:34 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(01-20-2012, 02:30 AM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote: Food for thought:
The majority of Catholics in the colonies tended to be loyalists.

As historians can't even decide what percentage of the population was loyalist I have no idea how they would figure that out. 

Most serious historians have come to the conclusion that about one third were 'patriots', about one third Loyalist and about one third, 'Leave me the hell alone to work my farm'. How that breaks down religiously, I have no idea and have not seen any estimates.

That's what most people assume, but anyone who has tried to give us quantitative data results has failed.  Some historians are very skeptical that there were that many loyalists as the British Army had such a hard time finding loyalists to prop up the friendly governments they established in the colonies.  The ratio you gave makes sense, but it's just a guess.  There is really is nothing to back it up other than anecdotal evidence.  So given that we don't have hard numbers on loyalists....I have no idea how we can have hard numbers on loyalist Catholics!
Reply
#56
(01-20-2012, 02:16 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(01-20-2012, 01:27 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: Also, I think you're wrong to associate as you do the American Revolution with the French Revolution. The former was conservative and not hostile to religion, whereas the latter was radical and anti-religious.

Fought with minority support by 13  rebellious, traitorous colonies, in 11 of which our Holy Faith was illegal, led by freemasons, atheists and deists, and it was 'conservative'.? ! We obviously have radically different definitions of the word conservative.

As I understand it, one of the rallying causes of the rebellion was protest of the "Intolerable Acts" which included the Quebec Act.  According to Wikipedia:
Quote:The act removed references to the Protestant faith in the oath of allegiance, and guaranteed free practice of the Roman Catholic faith. . . . Many feared the establishment of Catholicism in Quebec, and that the French Canadians were being courted to help oppress British Americans.

While not as anti-Catholic as the French Revolution, it does seem to have been an element in the American.
Reply
#57
(01-20-2012, 12:37 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: I do think there is some connection between some strands of traditionalism and fascism, particularly as seen in places like France. However, mainstream American traditionalism (if such a thing can be mainstream!) seems to have more of a paleoconservative if not libertarian bent to it. 

The reason that many traditionalists tend to be fascistic or even bordering on anti-Semitic is the origin of the SSPX, which for years was the leading proponent of the TLM. Marcel Lefebvre and other foundational figures of the SSPX were highly influenced by French reactionary conservativism. In TLM groups unconnected with the SSPX, such as the institute of Christ the King, are much less likely to have members and followers with such ideologies. The Institute of Christ the King is and always has been more liturgical in focus. When the Institute has ventured into political territory, it has generally been more about ending abortion than restoring monarchy.

I hope that's not an attempt to smear either The Archbishops or the SSPX's good name.
Reply
#58
(01-20-2012, 02:32 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-20-2012, 02:16 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(01-20-2012, 01:27 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: Also, I think you're wrong to associate as you do the American Revolution with the French Revolution. The former was conservative and not hostile to religion, whereas the latter was radical and anti-religious.

Fought with minority support by 13  rebellious, traitorous colonies, in 11 of which our Holy Faith was illegal, led by freemasons, atheists and deists, and it was 'conservative'.? ! We obviously have radically different definitions of the word conservative.

As I understand it, one of the rallying causes of the rebellion was protest of the "Intolerable Acts" which included the Quebec Act.  According to Wikipedia:
Quote:The act removed references to the Protestant faith in the oath of allegiance, and guaranteed free practice of the Roman Catholic faith. . . . Many feared the establishment of Catholicism in Quebec, and that the French Canadians were being courted to help oppress British Americans.

While not as anti-Catholic as the French Revolution, it does seem to have been an element in the American.

The Quebec Act was something that upset the colonists.  The colonists had fought a series of wars against Catholic France over the past century so anti-Catholicism was one of the few things that united them.  However, the alliance with Catholic France during the Revolutionary War required Americans to seriously rethink their views on Catholicism.  But, the big change in attitudes toward Catholicism came with the French Revolution.  Many Americans were horrified at what the French State did to the Catholic Church and many began defending the Church.  I think few people realize what an affect the attacks on the Catholic Church in France had on Americans with regards to both their views toward Catholicism and the role of religion in society.  In 1776 all but one state prohibited Catholics from voting, but by 1800 all of them would lift those restrictions.  Protestant-Catholic relations after that would remain good until the mid-nineteenth century when an influx of Catholic immigrants from Italy and Ireland made Americans begin to question the Americaness of Catholics once again. 
Reply
#59
(01-20-2012, 02:42 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: As to HM's opinions I have no knowledge. As to the Catholic position that I take regarding the current Monarchy (recognised by the Holy See since 1766, before the American Revolution), I refer you to this thread, where I pretty well stated my opinions:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...944.0.html

Great thread Jovan, and great defense. So, it is fair for me to call you a monarchist then?

I've never been a great fan of democracy for its own sake either, but I wonder if 'the answer' is what system of government is implemented or if it is more a matter of the ruler than the form of rule. Do you understand my point?

I also don't understand in that thread why, if dominion appointed even Domitian as well as Constantine, couldn't that same argument be applied to the likes of a 'democratic' despot such as a president Obama?

I mean, should we, as Catholics, give a whit about which *system* of government is implemented in light of these problems?
Reply
#60
(01-20-2012, 02:58 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-20-2012, 12:37 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: I do think there is some connection between some strands of traditionalism and fascism, particularly as seen in places like France. However, mainstream American traditionalism (if such a thing can be mainstream!) seems to have more of a paleoconservative if not libertarian bent to it. 

The reason that many traditionalists tend to be fascistic or even bordering on anti-Semitic is the origin of the SSPX, which for years was the leading proponent of the TLM. Marcel Lefebvre and other foundational figures of the SSPX were highly influenced by French reactionary conservativism. In TLM groups unconnected with the SSPX, such as the institute of Christ the King, are much less likely to have members and followers with such ideologies. The Institute of Christ the King is and always has been more liturgical in focus. When the Institute has ventured into political territory, it has generally been more about ending abortion than restoring monarchy.

I hope that's not an attempt to smear either The Archbishops or the SSPX's good name.

I'm not going to pretend to be a fan of the SSPX or its archiepiscopal founder when I'm not one.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)