Of cabbage heads and kings

  Pope Pius XI established the Solemnity of Christ the King in 1925. The creation of the feast is linked, in Catholic lore, to Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and the general totalitarian drift of Europe.
 But that's writing history back-to-front. Stalin had just gained power in 1922, and Hitler had just gotten out of prison in 1924, where he served eight months for the "Beer Hall Putsch," the serio-comic effort to overthrow the government. Mussolini chose 1925 to drop the pretense of democracy and acknowledge that he was a dictator.
The decision to honor Christ as king seems to be less prescient than nostalgic. The Habsbergs, Romanovs, Hohenzollerns and  Osmans had all lost their thrones as a result of the First World War. The Roman pontiff must have been starting to feel lonely as one of the few remaining absolute monarchs.
  It wasn't going to get better for kings. Ten years later, Edward VIII chose an American divorcee over the crown of England.
 In his encyclical establishing the feast, Pius XI also specifically cited anti-clericalism as one of the reasons for needing the solemnity.
 Things haven't gone well for kings in more than 100 years. I tried to attach to this a photo of King Farouk, the deposed monarch of Egypt cavorting voluminously on the Isle of Capri in a swimming suit straining to hold him in. Fortunately, if you are eating, I couldn't figure out how to give you a look. But the photo, in 1953, is indelibly etched in my brain and is the first thing I think of when the word "king" appears.
 Democracy is currently going through a rough patch. China, Russia, Poland, Hungary, Turkey and the United States have all turned to authoritarians. Yet none of them suggested bringing back kings.
 Things haven't gotten better for clericalism, either, come to think of it.
 In his encyclical, Quas Primas,  Pius XI did a workmanlike job of finding biblical references to Christ as a king. But he had to slide over the indications that God didn't think a king was a good idea for Israel. When the people asked Samuel for a king, Samuel was "displeased," and when he talked it over with God, the response wasn't a feast:
 (The Lord said in answer): "Grant the people's every request. It is not you they reject, they are rejecting me as their king. As they have treated me constantly from the day I brought them out of Egypt  to this day, deserting me and worshiping strange gods, so do they treat you, too."
 So the Israelites got their kings. Saul was... meh. David had his moments, and Solomon showed promise, but it was nearly all downhill from there. I mean, it's not a line you would want to fit Jesus into at first glance.
 It's a good idea to one Sunday a year to remind autocrats, their admirers and sycophants that worldly rule doesn't last forever and is subject to rule from above.  We need a cold bath of humility in high places now, more than ever.  But sticking a crown on Jesus doesn't seem like the best way, in this day and age, to make that point. Certainly not if you ever saw Farouk in exile.