AH Challenge: Patron Saint of Democracy

Very lovely little package there. :)

I too very much enjoyed "I am king not by grace of God, but by my own splendor!" All hail King Anton Szandor LaVey!

But...eh...my two cents. *Ahem*

The Enlightenment was really only possible because of, not in spite of, the monarchial tendency toward religious fanaticism. Religion + State = Bad. (Very simplified. Very, very simplified.) Religion dictates that this guy is king because God says so. One king in heaven, one king on earth, etc. Religion dictates that this other guy is a serf because God says he is a serf and must ensure the longevity and power and glory of God's representative (ie, the King) in France, Prussia, Austria, Rome, etc.

Therefore, if you suddenly have a bunch of Western European monarchs adopting the Enlightenment's ideals of egalitarianism and fraternity, the very structure of society and government must be rethought. You suddenly have the French Revolution butterflied away. Louis XIV ruling by his own splendor must have a reason why he is better able to lead than that serf guy, and the metaphysical explanation of divine right and blue blood suddenly doesn't cut it. So he needs to garner popular support which means curbing the excesses of the French court and allowing the puppet National Assembly some actual power, or he'll go the way he did IOTL the same way that Nicholas II did.

Therefore, you have enlightenment-influenced governments as early as the seventeenth century progressing towards a new paradigm by the 19th century, and the major upheaval that was the French Revolution doesn't offer the Church a catalyst to rail against the Enlightenment.

Vis-a-vis, Enlightenment must be inherently anti-religious (or at least anti-establishment) for the Enlightenment to even exist, and any existing monarchs suddenly embracing the Enlightenment, especially the French monarchy, would butterfly away the late-18th century revolutions except in the most extreme cases.

Now, a very plausible case would be in places in Northern Germany where Catholicism, being the minority, was still devoutly practiced yet heavily persecuted. You have the industrial revolution making things miserable for everybody who isn't a landowner, especially minority groups. Let's push the revolutions of 1848 back a little bit to....say.....1830. This same year you have the Polish rebellion against Russia, the French invasion of Algeria, and the recognition of an independent Belgium. Lots of things going on around Germany that prevent any outside aide to flow in to put down the revolutions. Now we prolong the revolutions beyond a single year and let's say by 1835 you have the successful establishment of a Catholic German state in Northern Germany (it'd be small and probably would cause another big old European war prior to WWI and definitely would affect relations between Germany and Austria later). One of its war-heroes or the first president or some such institutes democratic institutions, works for social justice, and promotes the cause of Catholicism both at home and abroad. Miracles are attributed to him, and badda bing badda boom, you have some one revered within the country though he would probably be canonized only in the 20th century. But still, he'd be the de facto patron saint of this country, and under the great democrat himself Pope John Paul II, he could very well become the de jure patron saint of democracy.
 

Skokie

Banned
I was thinking Russia might be a good place to have a superstitious saint's cult mixed with Enlightenment liberalism.

They managed to recently depict Stalin in an icon of the St. Matrona. It hung in a church for a while until the international media got a whiff of it.

stalin_icon.jpg


Maybe if les lumières got a hold of the Russian Orthodox Church instead of the KGB...
 
Last edited:
Non-celibate saint

What about St Augustine - "Dear God, make me celibate - but not yet!"
Or St Louis of France?
 

Skokie

Banned
St. Peter doesn't count. He's in the Bible. He knew Jesus and was a loyal disciple. Easy as pie to recognize his sainthood.

St. Augustine was in orders and a celibate by the time he died. He also promulgated anti-sex views.

Ya got me with St. Louis of France. He was super-devout and close to Rome, but he did have sex at least a couple times, it seems. Though I think it puts him on a lower rung.

I *think* the ranking of saints goes something like this:

1. Virgin Mary (virgin "before/during/after" birth of Christ, "spotless," bodily in heaven)
2. Angels 'n' heavenly hosts (no genitalia)
3. Jesus' family (VIP box)
4. Hebrew patriarchs/prophets (pre-Christian; Jesus had to rescue them from hell, possibly because they had sex)
5. Twelve apostles, plus disciples, evangelists (VIP box II)
6. Holy Innocents (babies)
7. Martyrs (VIP box III)
8. Bishops 'n' confessors (celibate)
9. Doctors of the church (celibate)
10. Priests 'n' Levites (celibate)
11. Monks 'n' hermits (celibate)
12. Virgins 'n' widows (celibate)
13. And the rest, usually unmentioned in litanies (repentant sex-havers?)
 
One of the major problems with this whole post, is that it is approaching the whole matter backwards.

If one wants a Patron Saint of X, one doesn't find a prominent practitioner of X and get him canonized. That's not how it's done. What one does is go through the EXISTING catalog of saints and say.... Hmmm.... we could make THIS guy applicable if we squint really hard and convince ourselves.

So for instance, someone wanted a Patron Saint of Advertising, so they looked through Vitae and found
St. Bernardine of Siena
who wandered around getting people to put up IHS (the first three letter of Jesus, in Greek), in place of factional signs, etc. Sort of advertising, not really.
 
Seeing as I am both a practicing Roman Catholic and a fan of democracy, I feel obligated to stir myself from lurker-ism and bring the full force of my rigorous, Jesuit-led religious education to bear on this issue.

If my memory serves me, the OP is looking for a modern-ish figure to serve as a Patron Saint (i.e., Catholic or Orthodox) for Democracy.

My first thought, and give me some feedback on this because I don't know how well-known this guy is outside of my "papist" circles, is:

Oscar A. Romero (1917-1980), Archbishop of San Salvador (1977-1980)

Father Romero was, indeed, a spiritual stud and has an impressive resume for the coveted title of Patron Saint of People Power.

A high ranking church official in Latin America (see "Archbishop), Father Romero spoke and acted out against both the entrenched, tyrannical upper class that controlled the government as well as fellow members of the Catholic Church in El Salvador who had decided that it was easier to buddy up with the politicians than stand for the poor; as Father Romero did.

3 years after assuming taking charge of the Archbishopric of San Salvador, Oscar Romero was shot by a right wing reactionary, shortly after delivering his homily at Sunday Mass.

Today, Father Romero is remembered around the world for his dedication to the poor and to social justice; and "in many ways Romero was closely associated with Liberation Theology and he openly condemned both Marxism and Capitalism."

"In 1997, a cause for beatification and canonization into sainthood was opened for Romero, and Pope John Paul II bestowed upon him the title of Servant of God."

Father Romero is also recognized outside the Church. "He is one of the ten 20th century martyrs who are depicted in statues above the Great West Door of Westminster Abbey in London. In 2008, he was chosen as one of the 15 Champions of World Democracy by the Europe-based magazine A Different View."




If anyone should be Patron Saint of Democracy; my vote is for Archbishop Oscar A. Romero.
 
One of the major problems with this whole post, is that it is approaching the whole matter backwards.

If one wants a Patron Saint of X, one doesn't find a prominent practitioner of X and get him canonized. That's not how it's done. What one does is go through the EXISTING catalog of saints and say.... Hmmm.... we could make THIS guy applicable if we squint really hard and convince ourselves.

That's correct. That reminds me of the patron saint of astronauts
(St. Joseph of Spain, who has been said to hover a little distance over the floor
when meditating).
But anyway, the core of the challenge seemed to me to have the Catholic Church
(I took that choice) to appreciate democracy as a good thing at some point significally
earlier than 1960.


Oscar A. Romero (1917-1980), Archbishop of San Salvador (1977-1980)

You're right, he's definately good candidate.



That was awesome. "I am king not by grace of God but by my own splendor." :D
Very lovely little package there. :)

It's nice that you liked it.

The Enlightenment was really only possible because of, not in spite of, the monarchial tendency toward religious fanaticism. Religion + State = Bad. (Very simplified. Very, very simplified.) Religion dictates that this guy is king because God says so. One king in heaven, one king on earth, etc. Religion dictates that this other guy is a serf because God says he is a serf and must ensure the longevity and power and glory of God's representative (ie, the King) in France, Prussia, Austria, Rome, etc.

Therefore, if you suddenly have a bunch of Western European monarchs adopting the Enlightenment's ideals of egalitarianism and fraternity, the very structure of society and government must be rethought.



Of course, I am aware of the philosophical interrelations.
But I don't agree that the situation is so clear-cut as you depict it.

First of all, this in not the Middle Ages any more.
Divine Right was a serious conviction in the 15th century and a hollow phrase in the 19th century -
so what was it in the 18th?
It was a fundamental assumption to vindicate their reign for some of the monarchs no doubt.
But there are certainly alternatives.
Look at the philosophers of the Enlightenment.
Voltaire was a popular guest at the Berlin court and familiar in Versailles (though not so popular there).
Kant certainly had many sons of princes among his students.
The Enlightenment as a philosophy was much more easily accessible to the nobility
than to the humble people.
And: Enlightenment does not necessarily imply "egalitarianism and fraternity" -
see Friedrich the Great of Prussia, who was called an "Prince of the Enlightenment" and
absolutistic at the same time.
(Philosophies often wear out to some degree when facing reality.)







1. Virgin Mary (virgin "before/during/after" birth of Christ, "spotless," bodily in heaven)
2. Angels 'n' heavenly hosts (no genitalia)
3. Jesus' family (VIP box)
4. Hebrew patriarchs/prophets (pre-Christian; Jesus had to rescue them from hell, possibly because they had sex)
5. Twelve apostles, plus disciples, evangelists (VIP box II)
6. Holy Innocents (babies)
7. Martyrs (VIP box III)
8. Bishops 'n' confessors (celibate)
9. Doctors of the church (celibate)
10. Priests 'n' Levites (celibate)
11. Monks 'n' hermits (celibate)
12. Virgins 'n' widows (celibate)
13. And the rest, usually unmentioned in litanies (repentant sex-havers?)

I guess the holy innocents go at the bottom,
and the patriarchs/prophets might also fall below the saints of the New Testament,
but otherwise seems OK ...
 
You beat me!

Erasmus,like you a practising Catholic, I was also going to suggest St Oscar (or Romero) of the Americas, but you beat me to it. Bugger!
Now if only Rome would get a move on and accept what the wider Church has already decided!
 
Top