A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
A lot of people (including Catholics) would like for that to happen.
As long as the official religion was theirs.
- Status
As long as the official religion was theirs.
J
JaMc
Guest
The downside to a Catholic democratic regime is that, as the people’s faith become lukewarm, they elect governments who reflect their reduction in faith. Cases in point: Quebec after Maurice Duplessis and, to a lesser extent, Ireland after DeValera (legalized divorce, discussion of same sex “civil partnerships,” etc.).
The downside to a Catholic monarchy is that there is no way to GUARANTEE that it will stay a truly Catholic Monarchy. Remember, St. Edward the Confessor was eventually succeeded by Henry VIII, and St. Louis IX was eventually succeeded by Louis XIV.
Maybe an elective monarchy, like the Pope in Vatican City (the Papal States before that) would be the solution? Hard to say. But I think any potential Catholic regime would have to be compatible with the culture and traditions of society - the United States would never accept anything even remotely resembling a monarchy, whereas it may be an easier sell in parts of Europe.
The downside to a Catholic monarchy is that there is no way to GUARANTEE that it will stay a truly Catholic Monarchy. Remember, St. Edward the Confessor was eventually succeeded by Henry VIII, and St. Louis IX was eventually succeeded by Louis XIV.
Maybe an elective monarchy, like the Pope in Vatican City (the Papal States before that) would be the solution? Hard to say. But I think any potential Catholic regime would have to be compatible with the culture and traditions of society - the United States would never accept anything even remotely resembling a monarchy, whereas it may be an easier sell in parts of Europe.
W
Warrenton
Guest
As to abortion, true. That would presumably be made a crime under either the ecclsiastical courts or the civil courts. But, it was a civil crime in most of the US prior to 1973, and remains on the books even today in a number of states.
Enemies would certainly be made during this process, but all governments have some enemies. One cannot envision a Catholic government arising in the future without a substantially Catholic population.
But if the government is primarilly Catholic, and if membership in the Church is a hallmark of the members of the government, then the Church magisterium will have to be satisfied with that. There will be a back and forth between the Church and the State in that kind of arrangement, with both parts of government debating the role of the other. Sometimes different parts of the Church appeal to the civil power, and sometimes the civil government appeals to the Church. I would not envision a written constitution defining the parameters of each, but more of an unwritten constitution based on general principles common to the Church and the people of a given nation, like in England.
In a country like the US, the creation of a new government on Catholic principles would progress on the basis of leaving as much intact of the existing legal traditions and civic rights as possible. For example, one would not expect the second amenment to change much, or the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendments. Obviously, the understanding of the 1st amendment would change, but that would not by necessity require the suppression of non-Catholic churches.
W
Warrenton
Guest
The problem with this line of thinking is that if you follow it, conditions will never be improved. Catholics have got to have some goal to aim for.
True, Edward’s throne was eventually occupied by Henry VIII, but you cannot ignore a fine 530 year run.
Under the present system, we’re not getting very far, and even the favored churches, like our Anglican communion brethren, are suffering under the aimless drift of modern politics.
There are no guarantees on this earth. We do the best we can, or as A. Huxley quoted, “You pay your money and you take your chance.”
You are correct to say that any Catholic government should respect the traditions of the people. In the US, this would obviously require substantial privileges for non-Catholics for the foreseeable future. By that time, of course, the country will look and operate much differently than it does today.
D
dusty_david
Guest
You are correct to say that any Catholic government should respect the traditions of the people. In the US, this would obviously require substantial privileges for non-Catholics for the foreseeable future. By that time, of course, the country will look and operate much differently than it does today.
Hmmm… in your Catholic regime, we’ll be subjects with privileges rather than citizens with rights.
I thought a bunch of our ancestors came to the US to get away from that silly nonsense.
Hmmm… in your Catholic regime, we’ll be subjects with privileges rather than citizens with rights.
I thought a bunch of our ancestors came to the US to get away from that silly nonsense.
R
Reservoir_Dog
Guest
You catholics would turn on each other in short order if given a hint of political power. You’ think you’d eliminate protestant dissenters, but that’s just a start. The traditional catholics would go after the liberal catholics with the fervor of crusaders. Just look at this board for the level of intolerance likely.
R
Reservoir_Dog
Guest
It won’t.
A
AcolyteLector
Guest
You’d be surprised how many believers would be willing or even eager to accept a government ‘officially informed’ or connected with a religious tradition, than our present secular arrangement.
Some compelling examples:
(1) The Chabad-Lubavitch advocacy of the Noachide laws for the entire world–gentile and Jewish.
(2) The argument made by policy analysts that the enmity harnessed in Islamic fundamentalist movements is actually in response to the West’s secular and irreligious character, rather than a specifically Christo-Islamic civilization clash.
(3) The lament of the Soviet Union’s Islamic, Buddhist and heathen minorities that the Tsar’s ‘Holy Orthodox Russia’ was better and more permissive than the officially atheist or secular (I recognize that they’re different) Soviet state.
So, yeah, that little adage sounds pithy but collapses after about half a minute of critical thought.
R
Reservoir_Dog
Guest
not nearly as many as would take to the streets with rifles to prevent that.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
How would it collapse?You’d be surprised how many believers would be willing or even eager to accept a government ‘officially informed’ or connected with a religious tradition, than our present secular arrangement.
Some compelling examples:
(1) The Chabad-Lubavitch advocacy of the Noachide laws for the entire world–gentile and Jewish.
(2) The argument made by policy analysts that the enmity harnessed in Islamic fundamentalist movements is actually in response to the West’s secular and irreligious character, rather than a specifically Christo-Islamic civilization clash.
(3) The lament of the Soviet Union’s Islamic, Buddhist and heathen minorities that the Tsar’s ‘Holy Orthodox Russia’ was better and more permissive than the officially atheist or secular (I recognize that they’re different) Soviet state.
So, yeah, that little adage sounds pithy but collapses after about half a minute of critical thought.
You’re agreeing with me and supporting my argument.
I said that a lot of believers would like a theocracy, as long as theirs was the official religion.
W
Warrenton
Guest
A bunch of my ancestors came here for cheap land, slave labor and the chance to make a quick buck. Rights, in your understanding of the term, did not come into play until they bagan to chafe at having to pay the bill for the British army to safeguard the borders they themselves kept violating. Others came because they got hounded out of Britain. Rights did not have much to do with it.
As for the puritans, they came because they were so intolerable no one else could live with them. They showed their mettle in King Phillip’s War and the Pequot War.
If you want to talk about myths and legends, Catholics have plenty. But the democracy loving puritans, or the egalitarian gentlemen on Jamestown are not among them.
W
Warrenton
Guest
Actually, I think you are correct. I have no reason to believe that the intiation of a Catholic government in the US would be less peaceful than any the replacement of governments ever are. As you already know, I am not suggesting that Catholics are less greedy or vindictive than other people.
No matter what replaces the present regime, violence will ensue until the a new balance of power is acheived.
Internecine persecution would not likely occur as long as the structure of the Church holds for liberal and traditional Catholics. We do not really have the same kind of tradition that the COE has, with high and low branches shedding periodically to form their own sects, like the Methodists, and earlier, Congregationalists. Perhaps that is because ultimately, if the Pope commands a cessation of inter Church hostility, it usually settles down. Again, I am not claiming that the evil passions are lacking, merely that the Church has a more effective mechanism for dealing with that particular evil passion than other churches.
Of course, it the authority of Rome in religious matters would be acknowledged with respect to the ecclesiastical part of the new state. I would not expect any accompanying civil authority to arise however, such as the fealty that existed between the Norman kings and the papacy in England.
W
Warrenton
Guest
Hey Angry:
Right now, most western countries have your religion as the “official” one!
R
Reservoir_Dog
Guest
That’s what I’m worried about. Even civil matters can take on a moral dimension. Given that American constitutional government is limited in powers and certain liberties guaranteed against it, there are two problems:
- The government might not have the constitutional authority to legislate on issues that Rome holds immoral and should be legislated against.
- Appealing to Rome as the ultimate arbiter of rights and morality in the political arena obviously upsets the balance of powers that the constitutional law takes such pains to preserve. A bad idea if you’re an atheist, baptist or someone who thinks the power structure in this country works just fine.
W
Warrenton
Guest
Each of your three points here are correct.
The only problem our constitutional system has is that there is a growing rift between the governing class, the class that purchases the decisions of the governing class, and the Christians, who still form the biggest group within society.
The abortion issue highlights the rift, but there are other areas that show it also, like immigration, and increasingly, education, to name just two others.
When American society was “of a piece” and all classes at least shared a fundamental undertstanding of orthodox morality, the system worked well. That is why Catholics could support the government even though many within in were in the KKK, or avowedly anti-Catholic. Contrary to what the contemporary whiners say, “racism” or “bigotry” does not necessarilly mean the destruction or degradataion of the minority. In the case of Catholics, maintaining their distinction from the majority was healthy.
If I were going to pick the “high tide” of the American system, I would select the period between TR and the depression, minus Wilson. The condition of many Catholics, as a group, was better than it is now, certainly so from a moral standpoint. Catholics had little political power comparitively and that was good. They did not need it, the Christian consensus being sufficient to their needs. Would that arrangement had survived longer.
R
Reservoir_Dog
Guest
You know, you’d never be able to maintain a Catholic majority in congress or in the presidency without totally junking the government.
But let’s continue to pretend. Who would vet each candidate as being Catholic enough to run or stand for office?
But let’s continue to pretend. Who would vet each candidate as being Catholic enough to run or stand for office?
A
AcolyteLector
Guest
Hm. I was only pointing out that there is broader support for governments with religious components… even if the official religion isn’t the believer’s own. I would imagine that the same support could be found amongst atheists and committed secularists.
My point was, despite the old phrase that ‘religious government would be great, as long as its your own religion’, I think that people would be more willing to accept other religions into their government than you think.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Sort of ‘Catholics/Atheists/Jews for Sharia’ thing?
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Contrary to what the contemporary whiners say, “racism” or “bigotry” does not necessarilly mean the destruction or degradataion of the minority.
Racism or bigotry doesn’t harm the minority its being applied to
Can you back up that statement in any way?
Racism or bigotry doesn’t harm the minority its being applied to
Can you back up that statement in any way?
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Just a hint, if you had ‘quote’ in square brackets before what you’re quoting (followed, obviously by the ‘/quote’ in square brackets afterwards), then what you’re quoting would appear as a quote rather than a piece of your reply with an orphan at the end - it does get rather confusing sometimes.
- Status