Hilarious headline department:
Pope praises Britain’s Queen Elizabeth’s “noble vision” of a Christian monarch
You don’t say!
Well he would, wouldn’t he. She’s praised his “noble vision” of a Christian pontiff, too, for the same kind of reason. They’re colleagues. They both work in the unelected unaccountable head of an absurd hierarchy business. They both draw their illegitimate magical pseudo-authority from a non-existent “god.” They both wear expensive outfits when appearing to worshipful crowds. They both tell people what’s what, based on nothing in particular.
In a message released Wednesday by the Vatican, Benedict said the British monarch has over the past 60 years been an “inspiring example of dedication to duty and a commitment to maintaining the principles of freedom, justice and democracy.”
Oh? What has she done in the way of maintaining the principles of freedom, justice and democracy? I don’t say she’s opposed them, particularly, but what does she do that makes any difference to them? Nothing I can see, except that her performance of monarchy is an implicit rebuke to democracy in the broadest sense.
Ah well, it was just a formula, like a Mother’s Day card.
I’m all for most of the post, but the nit-picker in me got stuck on this part:
“They both work in the unelected unaccountable head of an absurd hierarchy business.”
Keep in mind, I have no problem calling them the heads of absurd hierarchies. It should be noted, though, that the pope is actually elected; just not by the majority of Catholics but rather by (and from) the next tier down in the Catholic caste. It’s a rigged election, but it is an election.
[Also, from time to time the next monarch of the British crown was elected too, even if in a similarly rigged manner. See William III to see what I mean. Plus, the histories of both show them being held occasionally “accountable,” just not by voters at the booth.]
I was going to make the same point as Ryan, but with the difference that election by Electors (in the Holy Roman sense) is not election by the Electorate in the democratic sense, and if the Pope has now decided to jump on the democratic band-wagon (his words) Ophelia has every right to say that he isn’t (really) elected.
Benedict said the British monarch has over the past 60 years been an “inspiring example of dedication to duty and a commitment to maintaining the principles of freedom, justice and democracy.”
But but… what did democracy mean in the days when the Pope actually had political power? Then, democracy was equated with anarchy, and the demos was despised as corrupt and degraded. Democracy exists today only because kings have had their heads chopped off and thousands of people have been killed in battle. The pope naturally deplores the very idea of all those common people running around without him to tell them what to do and how to do it, and he reveals this attitude every time he opens his mouth. So why is he so concerned to pretend to supporting democracy? Because he is a cynical, manipulative monster? No no, it’s because he loves us all — in Christ, you understand — and he’s really very nice, and of course he loves democracy, as long as democracy means him telling us what to do.
And they both live in luxury while many of their subjects suffer in misery.
Why do the British put up with the Monarchy anyway? I suppose, as an American, I don’t really have a leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing other countries for poor decision making.
The usual meaning of “elected” is “democratically elected” and that’s what I meant. The pope isn’t elected by all Catholics or even all clergy; he’s elected by 135 (is that the number?) cardinals. That’s “elected,” not elected. The idea that 135 cardinals can confer legitimacy on someone who bosses a billion people is insulting to those people.
You’re being unfair to the Queen, here. I don’t think her role is comparable to the Pope’s, except in the most superficial sense. Yes, both are monarchs, but that’s more-or-less where the similarity ends.
And a brain surgeon and a homeopath both work in the “treating ailments” business, but that doesn’t mean their roles are comparable.
The Pope is an absolute monarch and the head of a worldwide church. He can, and does, issue pronouncements (often preposterous ones) on political and social issues. He can, and does, exercise serious political power. And the current occupant of the papacy happens to be an extreme conservative reactionary who is moving the church backwards rather than forwards in virtually every respect.
The Queen, by contrast, is a constitutional monarch, bound to act on the advice of her government. She is prevented by convention from expressing any views on controversial political or social issues. She exercises very little political power of any sort, and we know almost nothing about her personal views.
Except that no one today really believes that. Although the Queen’s title may still proclaim her to reign “by the grace of God”, I don’t know of many people in modern Britain who seriously believe in the Divine Right of Kings.
In reality, in our constitutional monarchy, the Queen reigns because she, and the monarchy as an institution, continue to have the support of the majority of the people. We are a democracy (of sorts; British democracy is highly dysfunctional in other respects, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand), and if the people really wanted to abolish the monarchy, they would undoubtedly get their way. But they don’t. The majority of British voters either support the institution or don’t care either way.
Except that the Queen is not really in the business of “tell[ing] people what’s what”. Indeed, she’s taken great pains throughout her reign to stay out of controversy as far as possible. By and large, she expresses no views whatsoever on the great political and social issues of the day. She supports no party, endorses no policy, and cannot say a word for or against the statutes which she is obliged to sign into law. She acts, as she is bound by convention to do, in accordance with the advice of her government. I can’t think of many public figures who are less prone to “tell[ing] people what’s what” than the Queen is.
If you’d criticized the Queen for failing to assert her authority or to stand up for principles, then that criticism would make more sense (though it would still be unfair, since the conventions of our political system don’t really allow the monarch much in the way of power or freedom). But alleging that she’s in the business of “telling people what’s what” is frankly bizarre.
She’s done her very best, given the limited role allowed to her. Sixty years of diplomacy, working to advance the cause of peace and good relations between nations, both as head of state of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth realms and as Head of the Commonwealth. (And I’d say her workload is pretty impressive, for a woman in her eighties. Sometimes her work really makes a huge difference; remember her historic state visit to Ireland last year, for instance.)
Has she single-handedly broken the chains of oppression and brought freedom to the globe? No. But it’s unfair to expect too much in this regard, because under our system she isn’t allowed to be a political figure, and doesn’t get to exercise her own judgment.
Sure, but if “democracy in the broadest sense” implies that everyone holding a position of authority ought to be popularly elected, then I’m not sure it’s a desirable goal. The American fetish for directly electing every public official, from state supreme court justices to the local dogcatcher, is not something I think it desirable to replicate in Britain. Democracy demands that ultimate power ought to reside with the people – and it does; as I said above, the monarchy has survived because it continues to enjoy widespread popular support – but it does not necessarily preclude there being a role for state officials who are appointed, hereditary, or chosen through some other non-elective method.
The advantage of the Queen’s position as a hereditary monarch is that she is not a politician, owes no allegiance to any political party or to any special interests, and did not choose of her own will to seek political office. I’d far rather have her as my head of state than any of the superannuated political hacks who generally fill the office of president in a parliamentary republic (when they’re not being forced to resign after a corruption scandal, a la Christian Wulff). Of course there have been outstandingly good presidents – Mary Robinson, for instance – but they’re the exception, not the rule. The Queen, by contrast, has been an exemplary head of state for sixty years; and may she have many more.
Or another way to put it is that “elected” generally means “by the people purportedly represented.” That in no way describes the pope. Catholics in general get no say whatsoever in who the pope is.
Walton I think you’re talking about the queen as a person, not the office. Priss Choss gives every indication that he will indeed tell people what’s what. He certainly does so eagerly and often now.
There is concern that this is unconstitutional, but it also appears that no one really knows how to make him stop. It’s not at all clear that that will change if and when he gets to be king.
(I forgot to acknowledge the other superficial similarity: the Queen is technically a religious leader, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. However, her role in the church is purely formal, and she exercises no power over it in practice. Although she technically appoints Church of England bishops, she does so on the advice of the Prime Minister, who in turn takes the advice of an independent commission.
She also has a formal role in relation to the Church of Scotland, but, again, exercises no power over that church in practice. In Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Commonwealth realms, none of which have an established church, the Queen does not have any religious role.)
@4: Well, yes. However obnoxious in principle a hereditary head of state may be, before spouting rubbish about the UK/Commonwealth monarchy being some horribly anti-democratic, anti-freedom institution, consider the following questions:
1) When was the last time the King or Queen of England (etc.) commanded that some poor sod be thrown in prison, just on their say-so, and lo, it was done?
2) When was the last time the elected President of the United States did that, and what was the outcome?
I rest my case.
Oi! I didn’t say the UK/Commonwealth monarchy is some horribly anti-democratic, anti-freedom institution – I asked what the queen has done in the way of maintaining the principles of freedom, justice and democracy. That’s a fair question isn’t it, given that the pope said she had (or at least had made a commitment to do so)? I don’t think the monarchy had anything to do with establishing the principles of freedom, justice and democracy and I don’t think it has much to do now with maintaining them. Ok, it’s powerless, but that’s not much of a recommendation, is it!
Considering Benny Ratzi is a practicing authoritarian, he actually could care less about maintaining “the principles of freedom, justice and democracy.”
Sorry, that wasn’t aimed at this thread, mostly just lingering irritation from the one at WEIT the other day.
Ah, whew, never mind then. :- )
Still, I was unfair to say that the queen tells people what’s what. She mostly doesn’t and when she does she’s usually speaking the words of the current PM. Like a lot of people, I’ve come to like her in comparison to her maudlin eldest son.
Well, as King he will be bound by constitutional conventions – the monarch is required to act on the advice of the government in most matters, to grant Royal Assent to bills passed by Parliament, etc. (If any of these conventions were violated, it would cause a constitutional crisis.) He will no doubt continue to be opinionated when it comes to farming, medicine, architecture, the environment and so forth, but his ability to act on his views will be very limited (probably more so than it is at the moment).
Personally, I quite like and admire the Prince of Wales, despite the fact that I disagree strongly with him on certain matters (such as the value of so-called “alternative medicine”). He acquired a platform of influence by the accident of birth, but he’s done his best to use it for good: over the past twenty years he’s worked tirelessly to promote environmental projects, conservation, sustainable farming and the like. (He even received the Global Environmental Citizen Award at Harvard Medical School a few years ago, presented by Al Gore.) I’m confident that he will be as good a King as we could ask for; certainly far better than any elected politician (not that that’s a high standard to meet).
Perhaps the Queen supports freedom, justice and democracy by not trampling them the way the Pope does.
I’m no royalist, but the queen doesn’t tell people not to use contraception, isn’t a misogynist (hopefully), and wouldn’t go out of her way to protect paedophiles (hopefully 2).
Having said that, the monarchy is an ugly anachronism (as is the Lords) and should play no part in a modern democracy.
Hmm. Joseph Ratzinger as “Joe”, I can see. But shouldn’t Elisabeth II be “Betty”, not Brenda?
But Walton (#9) is right: as the head of the Church of England (even if she has little actual power in it), the queen is technically a “colleague” of the pope in the sense that they are both “spiritual leaders”.
As for Charles, he’s not as careful as his mother to refrain from interfering in politics. His heart may be in the right place when it comes to protecting the environment or favoring local farmers over agribusiness, but when it comes to health and medicine, he’s been a force for woo for decades now. The good news is that his “charity” in charge of pushing “integrated health” (like integrating homeopathy to medicine, no thanks) has completely closed shop:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/prince-charles-alternative-medicine-charity-closes/
Brenda is a standing joke name for the queen – I forget via what – Spitting Image? Private Eye? Probably the latter.
It is the latter.
The Pope has better shoes…