www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Queen angers gay groups

Actually Spain's generals were not contemplating dropping the King - they were contemplating a renewed Franco-ite version of Fascism, fronted by the King. His Majesty called in the would-be leadership and told them that they had several choices:

a) they could kill the King and exile the Royal Family;
b) they could exile both the King and the Royal Family,
c) they could forget the whole thing and go home, with the King's personal word that there would be no reprisals, provide that there was no repetition of the offense, BUT
d) they could NOT run a Fascist regime in Spain in the name of the King. His Majesty would not permit it.

After some discussion, they went for option "c" - a wise decision, which has won the admiration of all democratic Spaniards and probably prevented another Civil War.

THAT is what a constitutional Sovereign Monarch is for - to hold things together when nobody else can. In order to be able to do this successfully, the King must be, and must be seen to be, completely neutral in matters of politics.

When the Madrid train station was bombed, the King and the Royal Family were among the first to arrive, to pitch in and give what help they could in caring for the victims. His Majesty went on radio and television, to assure all Spaniards that in such a most painful hour, the King and the Royal Family shared the suffering and pain of the nation. That too is what a constitutional Sovereign Monarch is for.

What the King is not there to do is to divide the nation. Spain has known more than enough trauma and hurt from the Revolution through the Franco years; they don't need any more. The example of what happened in Greece (and do not forget that the King of Greece is the father-in-law of the King of Spain) stands as a warning to any King who would be fool enough to step over the bounds.

So those in Spain who wish to support a political cause are, thanks to the King, at liberty to do so - among other things, they have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice. In Franco's time, they had no such freedoms - and anyone who would seriously claim that Franco was "pro-life" should look again at El Caudillo and his activities.

Fr. Serge

Franco was no angel, but he helped overthrow a government that seriously needed to be toppled from power. The Popular Front government was so un-popular in Catholic areas of Spain, that in some cities and towns there was an eruption of joy when it was learned that there had been an uprising against the Left Wing government.

Exactly. Is it censorship if someone accepts a position with the understanding that certain restrictions come with that position?
But as I have pointed out the political party named in the article is a conservative party that was opposed to SSM. They understand that the royal family must remain above politics if Spain's monarchy is to remain an effective instituion.

I see little point in arguing the politics of the dead. But attempts by the remaining Franco supporters (Franquistas) to gain electoral success have been damp squibs; Spain does not want a repeat performance, or another Civil War.

So, if one wants to overturn this or that measure enacted by the government of Spain, one does not attempt to drag in the King, nor does one start a shooting war - one runs candidates committed to the position one prefers.

Fr. Serge

Dear Friends,

First of all, - Father Archimandrite, thank you. You are more than correct. My memory only served to recall point a) of the alternatives. The King was opposed to ruling over a fascist state. However, I have it on good authority (a professor of Spanish history in Madrid) that some (if not all)the generals were planning to overthrow the monarchy since the king wouldn't go along with their scheme. This professor himself was given an order to ignite a bomb to destroy an historic, royal building which he, happily, disobeyed and reported the matter to the authorities immediately. That is what he said, that is what I relate here. What you said about the Monarchy keeping the people together and serving the nation - brilliant and that is why I am a constitutional monarchist - and hope that Holy Eire gets her Ard Righ back in due time.

Secondly, friends, the King did not, and would not, refuse to sign a piece of legislation that went through the legal, democratic channels. There is NO question about that - he just wouldn't do it. That has nothing to do with what his Consort said about gay marriage.

It IS the job of monarchies to uphold traditional values. At no time did the Queen deny gay couples any rights. She ONLY said that the definition of marriage should be safeguarded as consisting of a legal union between a man and a woman - period.

THAT is not taking a political stance on anything (perhaps in the U.S. it might be, I don't know). That is simply defending traditional values - as one would expect from a Catholic Queen.

The idea that a monarchy is totally passive and only exists to cut ribbons and entertain ambassadors at receptions is simply wrong and betrays a misunderstanding of the true role of a monarchy in contemporary times - which role Fr. Archimandrite has elucidated articulately above.

So, David, we will have to agree to disagree. So what if conservatives are involved in criticising the Royal family of Spain? Are they infallible? Perhaps they are nationalists who don't want the Royals as potential roadblocks in their way on route to govern.

As for Sophia - God save that Queen!

Alex

Yes, Homosexual persons are our brothers and sisters for whom we pray for forgiveness and enlightenment. In Christ? I don't know about that, one needs to accept Christ first to become a brother of Christ and His brothers no? And so one should go by Christ's ways and not "nature's" or "personal choices'" ways!
Homosexual people are my brothers and sisters in the sacred human body and who chose to ignore this fact and not follow the way of Christ. I love them for being my brothers, I pray for them because I love them, but in no way will I encourage them to continue their ways to prove my love and sympathy.


Oprah started her own new-age religion; Holly Wood knows how to darken the bright side of the church and Christianity, CNN et al can't wait to show what devils are them angry Christians (ohh, and we are always angry and as if no onne knows why! and anyone who dares be with us is torn).

Let us state the obvious, we fail to make a statement - we fail to reach the world.

My community is relevantly a conservative one - and yet when I work with teens I see how popular the "liberal" ideology is becoming (pro abortion, pro premarital sex, acceptance of homosexuality etc.)

I don't know how is it in your area, but in the Holy Land the church is aging and lingering. Christ amongst us - unfortunately - unnoticed!

Dear Eli,




This idealogy is being indoctrinated to youth from all angles, including schools, and it exists everywhere: in all churches and countries and continents. The worst thing about it is that most parents want don't want to know about it or feel helpless about it. Not to sound obsessive, but besides schools and universities that promote it, the media of music, magazines, art, entertainment, music videos, television, movies, etc...also promotes it, and entrenches it into the psyche, in an unprecedented way.

While the fight against abortion is a good one, the culture which creates situations for having them in young people, is not being fought against in the same manner (although I do give credit to some Evangelical groups which have tried.)

Both battles need to be equally fought, in an equally zealous way, in order to make any headway and be succesful, in my humble opinion.

One Hollywood executive has been quoted in the past as saying that they would push the limits of sexuality as far as they could. I don't think that anyone can deny that we see this with each year that passes...and what was unacceptable a year or two ago, suddenly becomes acceptable the next year: a homosexual kiss, etc.....

One only need hear the liberal reasonings of someone like Whoopi Goldberg who I heard speak on the subject of gay marriage the other day on the View, and even a conservative like me can get confused by how aptly she presents these matters as being in the spirit of liberty that Americans live by and how no one has a right to question it...but when confronted by her conservative co-host about why Christians cannot have this same liberty, she quickly changes the subject...

Is this the new 'hope' that Hollywood extols in the American administration change?

We are all passively allowing the culture of immorality (it has even gone past 'relative morality') and our young people are suffering, by living in what someone has coined 'an alternate universe'...and that universe has been exported by Hollywood and America to the world.

Personally, I think that this is what more people in foreign cultures should be angry at the U.S. about, rather than narrowly focusing only on matters of geopolitics. Instead, Europe and much of the rest of the world (excluding the Islamic world) greedily soak it up, admire and emulate it.

In Christ,
Alice