Personally, I don’t think Theocracy in itself is bad so much as certain versions, though there are both pros and cons to even a good theocracy.
If a Theocracy enforced a spirit of Civil religion rather than private religion, I think it could work. In other words, such a theocracy wouldn’t be forcing everyone to be (or even live like) Catholics, but would rather be ensuring that in the public, media and in the affairs of the state, Catholicism was respected and not contradicted, perhaps maybe a religious requirement to hold public office or be in a position of authority in the media. In other words, in such a theocracy, a person could believe in whatever they wanted and do accordingly in the privacy of their own homes (thus they have free will), but a Catholic would never have to be subjected to it, since the Theocracy would revolve around making the nation’s public face, rituals, and media 100% Catholic friendly. Freedom of Speech would suffer, it is true, in favor of Public Respect for a particular religion, but one or the other is going to suffer no matter what you choose (the latter suffers in our nation, as the government couldn’t care less how insensitive the public atmosphere or media is to Catholicism or any religion for that matter; in a Theocracy, it’d be the former that would suffer; deciding which one is a worse idea seems purely a matter of opinion). The benefits of living in a civil religion theocracy mainly revolve around the fact that it is more friendly to those whose faith exists (and is enough so that, if maintained, they will go to Heaven) but is not strong or heroic. In a civil religion Theocracy, someone whose faith is hanging by a thread is not as likely to be broken by the fact that their very culture is trying to push them towards secularism and spiritual complacency. Likewise, those who are plenty faithful but by nature not very outspoken can thrive in such a theocracy, since living in such a society would not require a person to be outspoken in order to make a difference. For example, in our society, it is easy for a very shy or timid Catholic to despair unless he is bold enough to stand tall and publicly condemn the evils of abortion and such. Such a threat would not exist in a Catholic culture. The biggest danger to a Civil Religion theocracy, in fact, is that over time its leaders could get power hungry and enforce private religion, not only civil religion…which would easily lead again to trying to kill/imprison heretics and unbelievers, which of course is not good.
Even though I think a Civil religion Theocracy would be wonderful, I have to admit there is a significant religious benefit to living in a secular democracy. In a secular democracy, Catholics have a chance to really stand apart and shine. Also, you know exactly who your spiritual allies are, because nobody is wearing a mask simply to appease the Government. A secular democracy also works to separate the cultural Catholics from the true Catholics. Think about it by reflecting upon this example: In our society, if a Catholic man meets a passionate, outspoken Catholic woman (or vice versa), he knows she’s probably the real deal and thus marriage material. In being an outspoken Catholic, she is not conforming to what the nation demands, because the nation doesn’t. Nor is she a lax Catholic for whom being firm in the Faith is merely convenient, because in our secular democracy it isn’t. Nor is she merely pretending to be Catholic to climb the social ladder, because Catholicism is no requirement for that. In the Theocracy, she might have had any of these ulterior motives. In a secular democracy, it’s far more likely that she’s the real McCoy, as by definition she’s struggling against the current to maintain her Faith. Of course, we all know the dangers to a Secular Democracy. If enough people believe, say, killing unborn children isn’t really murder, it’s probably going to take a miracle to ever make it illegal again, and even then it will always be just under the surface, quite likely to be legalized again when those who favor it gain favorable circumstances.
One more thing to those who believe a Theocracy is inherently inferior. It’s true that Theocracy has hardly ever been handled well (for excessively long periods) historically. However, neither has democracy. Abortion ring a bell? In a Theocracy, abortion would never be sanctioned or legal. My point isn’t that Theocracy is wonderful and flawless, but rather my point is that the only reason it often fails–the reason that people would probably not stop at a Civil Religion theocracy and would probably make it into something harsh–is because of the human misuse of it…and democracy is just as prone to that. We who live in Democratic nations have been conditioned to believe democracy is inherently superior and that the disadvantages to Democracy (such as legalized abortion) are somehow less tragic or severe than the disadvantages to Theocracy, etc. I don’t buy that for a minute. Just because it is not grown men and women being “aborted,” for example, doesn’t mean that the oppression and slaughter of the unborn is any less barbaric than the most vicious witch-hunts or heretic burnings in Theocratic history. In fact, the numbers of deaths by legalized abortion are far greater.
So there you have it. Theocracy has pros and cons. Democracy has pros and cons. Some think they balance out. Some think one is better than the other. My personal opinion is that both are equally dangerous, given mankind’s fallen nature, although I personally prefer to deal with the possible dangers of a Catholic civil religion Theocracy than with those of a secular democracy–but that’s just my personal preference. The only perfect government would be when Christ returns and establishes His rule perfectly.
