I'm curious, was Queen Isabella a curse upon Spain?  How about Saint Adelaide, Empress of the Roman Empire?  Or the Servant of God Empress Zita of the Austro-Hungarian Empire?  Was France cursed because of St. Joan of Arc?  Queen Mary 1 (Mary Tudor) restored the Catholic Church in England during her reign.  Was that a curse?  When protestant Scotland was ruled by Catholic Mary Stuart, who protected the rights of the Church, was that a curse?  ... just wondering.

These were Catholic Monarchs- nobody voted them in and with Saints like Joan of Arc, God actually raised them up. In any case, the exeption proves the rule. 
But to actually allow women to vote in elections where " majority" rules is a recipe for disaster, as we are currently living it . 
I prefer to use our Lady as an example- I could never imagine her as a sufferagette.LOL

These were Catholic Monarchs- nobody voted them in and with Saints like Joan of Arc, God actually raised them up. In any case, the exception proves the rule.

I never said anything about voting (reference Reply #14).  I was replying to this statement: "Orestes Brownson said that any time a woman ruled, it was a curse upon the nation".  I gave examples of Catholic women who had ruled (again, NOTHING about voting) and asked if the nations they governed had been cursed.

It was a simple, legitimate, and honest question.  Please work on your reading comprehension.

While I don't believe that voting is required, I also don't believe abstention is required.  That does not mean, however, that I believe that one can vote for evil candidates simply because they're the LESSER evil ... a grave error circulating far and wide (because people want to vote for certain candidates) even among Trads.

Yes, I agree that the voting system has been completely rigged and controlled, but I could go there and write someone in (as I did last election) where that doesn't mean that I believe in the legitimacy and fairness of the voting system, especially since I know my vote is just symbolic, since my writein candidate has zero chance.  In casting that vote I would not be endorsing the system, almost counter-endorsing it, just as some people will do things like vote for "Porky Pig" to express their disdain for the candidates ... but I think that in any other type of scenario, where you're going around pretending that the vote mattes, putting up signs for a candidate, promoting the candidate, etc. ... if you're gonig that far, then I think that OP's points are well taken.

I'm not a believer in absolute hereditary Catholic monarchy either ... for the same reasons that St. Thomas wrote that, yes, it might be ideal in some respects (not sure about the hereditary part even then), but it's fraught with problems due to our not living in an ideal world due to Original Sin.  We had scuм like Henry VIII take an entire country into schism and heresy, just because he could.  We've had many tyrants cause people to hate the Church and rebel.  We've had many incompetents that have ruined their countries.  We've even had insane mentally imbalanced types, sometimes due to inbreeding ... just because they had the right "blood line".


Here's how I would lay out an ideal form of government ...

Monarchy ...
Constitutional Limits on Power ...
... including Veto Power given to Church (bishops of the country, and state could appeal to Pope)

Then there should be representation of the People to prevent the elite from becoming tyrannical (even when they haven't crossed the line into measures that would be vetoed by the Church)

In addition, there should be some kind of a representative body that people would vote for, similar to an aristocracy, and these would exert veto power over a Monarch that's more aligned with what's good for the people rather than moral questions that the Church might veto.  So this group too would have veto power.

Prospective Candidates would be required to pass certain intellectual qualifications, and also take an oath of loyalty to the Church in addition to loyalto tot he State.

Each Candidate would be permitted to issue a video or two, with equal time alotted to candidates, on a single centrally-hosted website, where they can explain themselves in summary, and then they can list some of their positions on the website.  No private campaigning will be permitted that would allow people to buy their way into office.  Candidates must have the endorsement of their Catholic pastor, and can be vetoed or rejected by the bishops.

Prospective Voters would be required to pass certain tests, including some quizzes about the positions of the different candidates, before being permitted to vote ... this to prevent the vote of some informed and thoughtful individual to be canceled out by some moron who votes due to name recognition.

Only men will vote, but a man who's the head of a household willl have as many votes as are in his household, since a man representing a wife and 10 kids should have more weight than a single guy.  That's one of the many crimes of the current system.  Minors can't vote, but some old jackass in an apartment can vote to go to war and his vote counts as much as that of a father with 10 children, 4 of whom might be drafted to go fight said war.  Voters must also swear loyalty to the Church (in addition to the state) and be certified by their pastor as being orthodox practicing Catholics.

Then once the Aristocrats are seated by this voting, they would elect the "Monarch" or Autocrat who runs the country from among themselves.  Again, this selection can be vetoed by the Church.  In addition, once seated, the Monarch can also be removed by the Church (the bishops) or by the aristocratic body.