Can someone tell me why theocracy is bad

[EasterJoy]

Jesus didn’t attempt to abolish slavery or prostitution either. Does this mean that we should just leave these things go? I don’t think we should. I don’t think we could call ourselves Christians if we did. Like I stated before, we’re not looking for some petty, temporal power. We just want to make sure that men like Obama don’t get in office and are allowed to legislate in favor of MURDER and state-sanctioned sodomy because the majority are either stupid or spiritually apathetic We just want to make sure that whether or not the state is going to spit in God’s face for 4 years isn’t left up to majority vote. Why would any Christian oppose that?

I’m not to sure what connection there is between your post and mine?

First let us treat your first objection: “Go and sin no more” doesn’t sound like a carte blanche in favor of prostitution to me. Moreover, the New Testament is full of condemnations of prostitution and sexual sin of every kind. And the way the New Testament treats slavery makes it very clear that human beings, even where their labor may be owned, may not be treated as chattel. So yes, the Apostles most definitely did condemn slavery as it was conducted in the United States. That the Church still holds these to be sinful today was not a later invention. I don’t know where you got the idea that I thought otherwise.

That the Church does not want theocracy does NOT mean that Catholics are free to be apathetic with regards to politics. In a democracy, Catholics have a duty to live the demands of citizenship in keeping with the demands of the Gospel. We are duty-bound to work for laws that reflect the justice of God.

Faithful Catholics holding office isn’t a theocracy. Laws that reflect moral law do not constitute a theocracy. As far as that goes, natural law opposes abortion. Hippocrates opposed abortion as incompatible with the office of healer! He wasn’t even a monotheist. Putting natural law into law does not require a theocracy of any kind, let alone a Christian theocracy.

That does not mean that we are duty-bound to throw homosexuals into prison, by the way (not that you implied that we should: I assume you mean the push for state-sanctioned unions of homosexual partners.) This is what the Church means when she teaches, as quoted in my post of July 11 that “On the level of concrete political action, there can generally be a plurality of political parties in which Catholics may exercise – especially through legislative assemblies – their right and duty to contribute to the public life of their country. This arises because of the contingent nature of certain choices regarding the ordering of society, the variety of strategies available for accomplishing or guaranteeing the same fundamental value, the possibility of different interpretations of the basic principles of political theory, and the technical complexity of many political problems. It should not be confused, however, with an ambiguous pluralism in the choice of moral principles or essential values.”

As for the Republicans and the Democrats, I have come to this conclusion: the two parties used to defend differing virtues. Now I think the two defend differing vices, and, as for virtue, let the devil take the hindmost. If there were a party set up to coincide with a Catholic understanding of politics, I’d be all for it. I’m certainly not happy with either party as they work right now.

Let us be very clear, though: if a theocracy is set up in the United States, it is hardly likely that it will be a Catholic theocracy. In Oregon, the KKK and like-minded individuals got a law passed in 1923 forbidding teachers in public schools from wearing religious garb. This law was aimed at preventing priests or nuns from teaching in public schools. Do I need to remind anyone that the KKK considered itself to be an entirely Christian group?

Be careful what you wish for, people. If the USA becomes a theocracy, there is no reason to believe it will be theocracy friendly to the Catholic faith.

 

[Angel7]

God gave the people of Israel a king because they stubbornly insisted on it. It didn’t work out particularly well for them. They had some really lousy kings, in fact.

They wanted to make Jesus a king, too, and He didn’t go for it. That isn’t the kind of kingdom He was interested in establishing. Neither did the Apostles look to establish that kind of a Church. There is no reason to believe that God has the least interest in the establishment of Christian theocracies. The Old Testament gives one example after another as to why it is a bad idea, the New Testament doesn’t teach it, and the Church doesn’t teach it.

If God does not want it, why would we?

“Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar…”

Actually, G-d wanted a Republic (am i Correct? I think I might be wrong)
Like the book of Judges. They Used Judges instead.

 

[mdgspencer]

I don’t feel that you read my post, or did you? I talked about the law of Moses, which the Old Testament shows coming from God, which became the law of the country, Israel.
The fact of their having a king wasn’t promoted by God like the law of Moses. I think this matter is well worth consideriing.

God gave the people of Israel a king because they stubbornly insisted on it. It didn’t work out particularly well for them. They had some really lousy kings, in fact.

They wanted to make Jesus a king, too, and He didn’t go for it. That isn’t the kind of kingdom He was interested in establishing. Neither did the Apostles look to establish that kind of a Church. There is no reason to believe that God has the least interest in the establishment of Christian theocracies. The Old Testament gives one example after another as to why it is a bad idea, the New Testament doesn’t teach it, and the Church doesn’t teach it.

If God does not want it, why would we?

“Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar…”

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t feel that you read my post, or did you? I talked about the law of Moses, which the Old Testament shows coming from God, which became the law of the country, Israel.
The fact of their having a king wasn’t promoted by God like the law of Moses. I think this matter is well worth consideriing.

I think it is safe to say that the New Testament supercedes the Old, and not worry about the fact that the laws were different back then.

For instance, Jesus bluntly says that it was because of the stubbornness of the people that Moses allowed divorce. Sts. Peter and Paul both taught that we were released from the Jewish dietary laws.

We know we are no longer bound by the law of Moses. The Bible is very clear about this, to anyone who cares to read it honestly.

 

[edwest2]

The following is an excerpt from Christian Principles and National Problems:

“A study of the social problems of American life under the guiding light of the social doctrine of the Church must constitute a vital part of the education of our Catholic high school students today. It will be largely through a well informed Catholic populace that American public opinion will be directed toward the acceptance of the Christian solution of contemporary social evils.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

I’m not to sure what connection there is between your post and mine?

First let us treat your first objection: “Go and sin no more” doesn’t sound like a carte blanche in favor of prostitution to me. Moreover, the New Testament is full of condemnations of prostitution and sexual sin of every kind. And the way the New Testament treats slavery makes it very clear that human beings, even where their labor may be owned, may not be treated as chattel. So yes, the Apostles most definitely did condemn slavery as it was conducted in the United States. That the Church still holds these to be sinful today was not a later invention. I don’t know where you got the idea that I thought otherwise.

Just because they were condemned does not mean the Lord or the Apostles tried to overturn or illegalize the practices as a whole. And just because they didn’t doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. In the same way, just because our Lord did not attempt to found a theocracy dictated by His law and His will doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. Jesus didn’t give us a specific manifesto, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try it or that it’s in any way contrary to His will.

That the Church does not want theocracy does NOT mean that Catholics are free to be apathetic with regards to politics.

***And I never said that it did. Unfortunately, any other system than a theocracy gives error a voice equal to that of the truth. God did not give error rights. The Episopalian or Buddhist vote at the ballot box counts just as much as the Catholic one, and, if enough non-Catholics vote in favor of, say, gay marriage, it has to happen because that’s what the American system is all about. The majority vote. Not truth, not God, but the will of the millions who may or may not find themselves on the side of the Almighty. ***

Faithful Catholics holding office isn’t a theocracy. Laws that reflect moral law do not constitute a theocracy. As far as that goes, natural law opposes abortion. Hippocrates opposed abortion as incompatible with the office of healer! He wasn’t even a monotheist. Putting natural law into law does not require a theocracy of any kind, let alone a Christian theocracy.

And suppose the majority doesn’t agree with the natural law? Do we just let them have their way? Like I said earlier, we’re leaving the possibility of whether or not the government is going to reject God in public policy up to the will of the people, a people, mind you, who are quite possibly the most hedonistic, and, dare I say, practically atheistic as any that has ever walked the face of the earth. We can see that with the election of the current POTUS.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

God did not give error rights.

Depends on what you mean. He gave “free will” but obviously no heavenly benefits to error.

And suppose the majority doesn’t agree with the natural law? Do we just let them have their way? Like I said earlier, we’re leaving the possibility of whether or not the government is going to reject God in public policy up to the will of the people, a people, mind you, who are quite possibly the most hedonistic, and, dare I say, practically atheistic as any that has ever walked the face of the earth. We can see that with the election of the current POTUS.

I agree with everything else you said. People can point to democracy all they like and I can say look at where we are now…

Theocracy in one form or another is absolutley imperatively necessary.

Pax.