Another Franco...?

[AcolyteLector]

[If this is not the appropriate place for a thread like this, I apologize in advance.]

Here’s the question: would a government (or ‘regime’, I guess) that is Catholic in form and makes Catholicism the center of social, cultural, and even political life do more to advance the interests of the Church? [for example, we can take Franco’s government–please don’t insult my intelligence by using Mussolini as another example]

Howabout as the religion of an overwhelming majority, without explicit government endorsement but with strong unofficial influence? [Ireland and Italy, I suppose, would be solid examples]

Finally, howabout as a relatively fervent minority in a plurality of religions? [as in America]

---

All opinions welcome, so long as there is a reasonable explanation for why you believe that one is more efficacious than the other.

 

[At_Trent]

I think Holy Mother Church is sufficient

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Philippines would be a good example. 80% Catholics, the Bishops have strong influence over government. However this doesn’t always work out well in favor of the Church. Since there is separation of Church and State, it always becomes an issue when the Bishops get involved in State affairs. There is a backlash from the people and this fuels the anti-Catholic agenda by the minority anti-Catholics.

Because of Church influence the Philippines is one of two countries in the world without legalized divorce. But the current issue of government sponsored population control is becoming a religious issue as people use the Church’s stance to attack them of dragging the country back into the past (a common secular argument against consevative thought).

So I do not think its helping the Church much. Politics is already a part of everyday Philippine life and in a very negative way. People are sick and tired of all the politics and the priests and bishops getting involved in it wouldn’t do much for the image of the Church.

I guess ultimately it would differ from situation to situation. It might work in a different country with a different setting.

 

[AcolyteLector]

I think Holy Mother Church is sufficient

I agree absolutely.

But on the other hand, there remains a further question: what should be the proper stance of the government, in order for the Church to perform its function (i.e., the salvation of souls, &c.) most efficiently. Of course, man proposes and God disposes, but I think we can agree that some governments hamper rather than help the holy mission of the Church.

My question is mostly a question for political philosophy.

I do not think it is a question that Catholics should shy away from, either: consider the massive backlash against the Church in ‘the Most Excellent Don’ Zapatero’s Spain. Although the Franco period appeared to provide fertile soil for the Church, it arguably might have impaired the Church’s work in Spain.

Another ironic twist is the extreme oppression the Church in Ireland faced. Even though the Church was openly outlawed, at its worst… and the government never became ‘clerical’ or ‘officially Catholic’, at its best–it still played an enormous role in Irish life at all levels. With the unintended consequence that its moral force in society remained unquestionable when at times it probably should have been placed under a little more scrutiny in its enterprises.

Just a thought.

 

[At_Trent]

I agree absolutely.

But on the other hand, there remains a further question: what should be the proper stance of the government, in order for the Church to perform its function (i.e., the salvation of souls, &c.) most efficiently. Of course, man proposes and God disposes, but I think we can agree that some governments hamper rather than help the holy mission of the Church.

My question is mostly a question for political philosophy.

I do not think it is a question that Catholics should shy away from, either: consider the massive backlash against the Church in ‘the Most Excellent Don’ Zapatero’s Spain. Although the Franco period appeared to provide fertile soil for the Church, it arguably might have impaired the Church’s work in Spain.

Another ironic twist is the extreme oppression the Church in Ireland faced. Even though the Church was openly outlawed, at its worst… and the government never became ‘clerical’ or ‘officially Catholic’, at its best–it still played an enormous role in Irish life at all levels. With the unintended consequence that its moral force in society remained unquestionable when at times it probably should have been placed under a little more scrutiny in its enterprises.

Just a thought.

Well, a 2009 study reported 73% there identified themselves as Catholic. I think the concern is worldwide rather than individual countries.

I’m really not informed enough in politics to contribute much here, so I’ll just lurk and learn.

God Bless

 

[Domnall]

You’re right OP, the term is regime.

I would love a Catholic regime to be in place within the frameworks of a Democratic state. We can take Iran as an example (I know, its crazy) of how this works. There would be a directly elected President and Legislature. However, the Church has it’s own legislature (a conference of Bishops maybe?) that would make sure that any laws passed by the public legislature are in concordance with Church law.

Thoughts?

 

[ConstantineTG]

You’re right OP, the term is regime.

I would love a Catholic regime to be in place within the frameworks of a Democratic state. We can take Iran as an example (I know, its crazy) of how this works. There would be a directly elected President and Legislature. However, the Church has it’s own legislature (a conference of Bishops maybe?) that would make sure that any laws passed by the public legislature are in concordance with Church law.

Thoughts?

To be honest, the Church and Democracy is not compatible. The Church is the pillar of truth, and the truth is not alway popular. Democracy is founded on popularity, whoever gets 50% +1 is the leader and whatever issue gets 50% +1 becomes the law or the norm. As we see in most democratic societies today, when enough people get to agree about certain things it doesn’t matter if it was right or wrong, the morality of the society is then shifted. If there is a Church body that would block what the majority wants, then dissent would come in and cause problems.

I think the best government for a religious state is Singapore. While they are mostly democratic with a Parliamentary Republic government, they are given a rating of 3 in the Democracy Index, meaning they have a hybrid regime, somewhere between a flawed democracy and an authoritarian state. Singapore is known for tough laws and the government will is strong. They also employ corporal punishment in the form of caning for many offenses. Its not your US type democracy with your US type freedom, I think its compatible to Church rule

 

[Tradycja]

Orestes Brownson proposed that there was a way that Catholicism could be the official religion in the United States because the Constitution, being changeable, needs to be based on something immutable.

Actually, the Social Reign of Christ the King is a dogma. Complete separation of Church and state is actually condemned by the Church.

 

[GloriousOrder]

In keeping with today’s glorious solemnity, I dare say I think all governments ought to be Roman Catholic monarchies. Separation of Church and State is the worst idea being pushed by philosophers in the last 105 years. Franco was alright, but he was no absolute Catholic king! What a shame the man he waited for (to take the throne) didn’t seem interested in this great responsibility.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You’re right OP, the term is regime.

I would love a Catholic regime to be in place within the frameworks of a Democratic state. We can take Iran as an example (I know, its crazy) of how this works. There would be a directly elected President and Legislature. However, the Church has it’s own legislature (a conference of Bishops maybe?) that would make sure that any laws passed by the public legislature are in concordance with Church law.

Thoughts?

If such a system works like Iran, whenever the political party favored by the Church appears to be in danger of losing an election the ruling elite would ‘fix it’ so that the correct side won.
If anyone dared to protest the fraudulent election, they would be violently suppressed.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

In keeping with today’s glorious solemnity, I dare say I think all governments ought to be Roman Catholic monarchies. Separation of Church and State is the worst idea being pushed by philosophers in the last 105 years. Franco was alright, but he was no absolute Catholic king! What a shame the man he waited for (to take the throne) didn’t seem interested in this great responsibility.

Protestants have often suspected that freedom, justice, and equality are incompatible with Catholicism. Views like yours among Catholics seem to confirm that.

 

[Warrenton]

Protestants have often suspected that freedom, justice, and equality are incompatible with Catholicism. Views like yours among Catholics seem to confirm that.

Ha! Ask the American Indians and East Indians about Protestant justice, freedom and equality! What a joke! And what does an atheist care about what Protestants think, anyhow?

The thread presents a few alternatives: (1) what is the best Catholic government in the absolute; and (2) what is the best in a country where Catholics are the minority?

Regards the first, probably a monarchy. But a monarch is first and foremost a military leader, and there are not many of those around right now. The Tsar of Russia Nicholas II was probably pretty close to the ideal as one might find in the last 100 years. Re-establishing that will be difficult, but God raises up a leader in his own time, as the story of King David shows. All He needs are five smooth stones, and one giant.

As to non-Catholic countries, Catholics must wait until they are the majority. This is inevitable over time, because the non-Catholics keep fracturing among themselves, except in the nations of the orient and within Islam. In the non-Catholic countries of the west, the best course for Catholics is to continue to work on the strength of the community of believers, including conversion of non Catholics, insist on our rights to educate children, run hospitals, and pursue our own line free of government interference. When these governments collapse, or at least start to collapse, we can then take over their functions more or less naturally. The non-Catholics, or at least many of them, will follow voluntarilly because they will prefer Catholic education, Catholic charity, and Catholic protection over none.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

As to non-Catholic countries, Catholics must wait until they are the majority. This is inevitable over time, because the non-Catholics keep fracturing among themselves, except in the nations of the orient and within Islam. In the non-Catholic countries of the west, the best course for Catholics is to continue to work on the strength of the community of believers, including conversion of non Catholics, insist on our rights to educate children, run hospitals, and pursue our own line free of government interference. When these governments collapse, or at least start to collapse, we can then take over their functions more or less naturally. The non-Catholics, or at least many of them, will follow voluntarilly because they will prefer Catholic education, Catholic charity, and Catholic protection over none.

In other words they should use the same tactics that neoconservatives often accuse Muslims of employing. Biding their time in liberal democracies as they increase their numbers and political power. Until their strong enough to take over and get rid of the liberal and democratic elements in those nations.

Using the freedom and tolerance of Western nations to ultimately destroy freedom and tolerance, as they do what they believe is justified to create theocracies.

On a related note, why can’t I post in the Franco thread anymore?
Has it reached the post limit?

 

[Warrenton]

.

In other words they should use the same tactics that neoconservatives often accuse Muslims of employing. Biding their time in liberal democracies as they increase their numbers and political power. Until their strong enough to take over and get rid of the liberal and democratic elements in those nations.

Using the freedom and tolerance of Western nations to ultimately destroy freedom and tolerance, as they do what they believe is justified to create theocracies.

On a related note, why can’t I post in the Franco thread anymore?
Has it reached the post limit?

I would not say we use freedom and tolerance of the west to destry freedom and tolerance. I deny that the governments of the west are particularly free or tolerant. There are freedoms, and some things are tolerated, but they are not necessarily important.

For example, people are not free to enter into a permanent marriage: one partner can simply veto the marriage at will. Marriage is less protected than a commercial contract in the west.

The unborn fetus in not free to be born; his existence can be vetoed at will by the mother.

The people of a country are not free to insist that the law respect their religious traditions and ethnic identity.

Parents are not uniformly free to educate their children, or even raise them.

Increasingly, churches are not free to preach their doctrine, as Canada’s threat to prosecute clergy for anti-homosexual speech, and San Francisco’s censure of the Church illustrate.

The standard of living acheived in the west has been at the price of beggaring much of the rest of the world.

These governments are in the process of destroying themselves. I am simply advocating preparing for the inevitable. These governments would not accept the help of the Church to survive even if they realized the danger, which they do not.

If they don’t care about the race suicide they are fostering through birth control and abortion, why would they care about anything else?

We agree that the bread is tasty, and that the circus is amusing, and we will both miss them when they are gone. But that is not enough reason to support a system of government that has always based as much on unmasked greed as any of the lofty notions printed on its coins and notes.

 

[Warrenton]

And on a related note, the other post is full. I think threads only last for a thousand pages more or less?

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Excellent question. The best thing for the Church to do is stay as far away from politics as possible. Otherwise, you’ll have to unwind the Constitution.

Or you’ll need a Department of Religious Affairs to supervise strict conformity with the Rules, and suppress all dissent.

 

[Warrenton]

Excellent question. The best thing for the Church to do is stay as far away from politics as possible. Otherwise, you’ll have to unwind the Constitution.

Or you’ll need a Department of Religious Affairs to supervise strict conformity with the Rules, and suppress all dissent.

As far as the US goes, you are correct. Many issues that were religious are becoming political, the most notorious is abortion. To a lesser extent, education is also taking on a political flavor. In these cases, the Church must speak, but preferably in a manner that does not require engagement in the party struggles.

I am not so sanguine on the future of the Constitution. In so many areas it is being circumvented by events in the extra-political world, such as international treaty. Also, there seem to be many people who simply do not understand the rights and limitations described in the Constitution. Your posts in the capital punishment thread, with which I mostly agreed, illustrate the point I have in mind.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

As far as the US goes, you are correct. Many issues that were religious are becoming political, the most notorious is abortion. To a lesser extent, education is also taking on a political flavor. In these cases, the Church must speak, but preferably in a manner that does not require engagement in the party struggles.

I am not so sanguine on the future of the Constitution. In so many areas it is being circumvented by events in the extra-political world, such as international treaty. Also, there seem to be many people who simply do not understand the rights and limitations described in the Constitution. Your posts in the capital punishment thread, with which I mostly agreed, illustrate the point I have in mind.

I give credit to a wholly Catholic government for standing by the requirements of the Catholic faith. So how could it not make civil law reflect the CCC?

 

[Warrenton]

If I lived in a wholly Catholic country, I would oppose the catechism being incorporated wholesale into the civil law.

The history of the Church in government illustrates a better way. The Church has its own courts to deal with strictly religious questions, and the discipline of its clergy. The government courts continue their work for the laity, and deal with ordinary crimes, contract disputes and most land questions.

Over time, one would expect their to be certain overlapping, but that would be a question of jurisdiction not unlike whether someone has the right to go to federal court or state court.

This historical model is better than the “theocractic” model (of which sharia is an example) because it is more flexible, and respects the reality that law is distinct from clergy, and that lawyers and judges need the freedom to design their system with their own ends in view, namely, justice in cases “between man and man.” Both systems are then left free to borrow from each other, which should lead to both being stronger. I think an example of this kind of symbiosis can be seen in the Magna Carta, which still stands as a monument to what can be acheived when civil and eccliastical authority cooperate.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

If I lived in a wholly Catholic country, I would oppose the catechism being incorporated wholesale into the civil law.

The history of the Church in government illustrates a better way. The Church has its own courts to deal with strictly religious questions, and the discipline of its clergy. The government courts continue their work for the laity, and deal with ordinary crimes, contract disputes and most land questions.

Over time, one would expect their to be certain overlapping, but that would be a question of jurisdiction not unlike whether someone has the right to go to federal court or state court.

This historical model is better than the “theocractic” model (of which sharia is an example) because it is more flexible, and respects the reality that law is distinct from clergy, and that lawyers and judges need the freedom to design their system with their own ends in view, namely, justice in cases “between man and man.” Both systems are then left free to borrow from each other, which should lead to both being stronger. I think an example of this kind of symbiosis can be seen in the Magna Carta, which still stands as a monument to what can be acheived when civil and eccliastical authority cooperate.

The CC has non-negotiable issues, right? abortion plus several others. If you had an wholly Catholic government, you’d have to shoehorn those issues into existing law. And you’d make many enemies that way.