Catholic Political Systems

[addictedkoala]

Ever since I gave up Objectivism because it is contrary to Catholicism (the whole atheism thing and such), I’ve been searching for a political system which is consistent with Catholic teaching and acceptable for me. Of course the truth is irrelevant to what I find acceptable, but I figured there must be something at least close. I now believe that it does not exist, and here’s the thinking I’ve been going through. Whenever someone makes the argument that they are personally against something, for example abortion, but don’t want to force their morality on others through legislation…

No I do not support legal abortion, it is just an example

…then the argument is made that that is just what all laws are and what if someone didn’t want to force the morality of stealing upon others. This argument makes perfect sense, but it got me to consider just what we should legislate against. Catholics are for illegal abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, and human cloning. The 5 non-negotiables. It is said that a government cannot encourage falsehoods, like a false morality. But I’m wondering why are there only five non-negotiables? There are plenty more things which are immoral according to Catholic teaching and hence immoral to Catholics like myself. Why do we not attempt to ban and legally prevent or punish blasphemy, premarital sex, contraception, or sacrilege?

Now, because we can legitimately ban all immoral activities in the state we must use a political system that can accomplish this. A democracy (the political science definition) cannot work because people can overturn whatever they want. Anarchy and minimalism/libertarianism also do not fit for obvious reasons. There are only two options I can think of. A republic, democratic or not, which writes the morality into the constitution and makes it unchangeable, or a clerical monarchic or fascist state. (Not the racist kind of fascism of course). I cannot ascend to either of these two philosophies and thus cannot rightfully be called in line with Catholic teaching as far as I can discern.

Now, clearly most or all of you think I am wrong because I don’t believe Catholics here supports this conclusion, but it seems to be a completely logical follow through on the implications of a Catholic nation and the arguments made to support legally affecting the 5 non-negotiables or other immoral activities. So we don’t get off topic, I should mention I have no problem with Catholic morality, and I would vote against abortion and the like, I’m just really having a hard time with this. I believe Catholicism is 100% true, but I sometimes, more often than I should, don’t like it. This does not lead to a healthy spiritual life.

 

[St_Francis]

I think I understand where you are.

I consider myself to be at the beginning of studying Catholic political thought. What I have learned so far is that *all *of current American political thinking stems from the so-called Enlightenment (except for the possible influence of Catholic principles on the US Founding Fathers). Both political parties and all the groups swirling around all base their philosophy on principles which are not only not Catholic but anti-Catholic.

One idea which addresses one of your concerns is the Catholic view of tolerance, which is permitting an evil to exist because trying to get rid of that evil would cause a disproportionate disorder.

Reading about history and how the Church interacted with the State in medieval times, the social justice encyclicals, etc., has helped me to see that the main thing is not the system, because any system can be perverted; the main thing is that the underpinning be Catholic and that the people follow a common Catholic morality, more or less (considering that no one will follow it perfectly).

 

[addictedkoala]

One idea which addresses one of your concerns is the Catholic view of tolerance, which is permitting an evil to exist because trying to get rid of that evil would cause a disproportionate disorder.

Interesting concept, but what would be the evil created through making, say contraception, illegal?

Reading about history and how the Church interacted with the State in medieval times, the social justice encyclicals, etc., has helped me to see that the main thing is not the system, because any system can be perverted; the main thing is that the underpinning be Catholic and that the people follow a common Catholic morality, more or less (considering that no one will follow it perfectly).

That sounds acceptable, but I think it can be demonstrated historicly that people tend to drift away from Catholic morality (fallen nature and the like) unless there is a strong government authority enforcing Catholic morals such as the monarchies in medieval Europe. Essentially it seems we need a Catholic state, and I can’t see any way around this. Or maybe I’m crazy, but if that’s true that’s what I’m trying to snap myself out of.

 

[St_Francis]

Interesting concept, but what would be the evil created through making, say contraception, illegal?

Well, contraception might not be one of those things. No Christian denomination accepted abc until 1930, and in the US, there were legal restrictions on it til the 1960s.

As an example, lying is a sin. But would it be even possible to legally prosecute every or even most instances of lying? If everyone who called in sick was investigated to make sure he wasn’t lying, if every child with a weird reason for not having his or her homework was investigated? Etc.

That sounds acceptable, but I think it can be demonstrated historicly that people tend to drift away from Catholic morality (fallen nature and the like) unless there is a strong government authority enforcing Catholic morals such as the monarchies in medieval Europe. Essentially it seems we need a Catholic state, and I can’t see any way around this. Or maybe I’m crazy, but if that’s true that’s what I’m trying to snap myself out of.

First let me say if for no other reason that others may be reading this and not understand it, that we need to deal in truth, and we need to base our decisions on truth. Excluding an entire class of truth makes for dysfunction in any social situation.

What the Church believes and used to be more open about explicitly stating, is that the government should be Catholic in that it should follow Catholic mores and be subject to the Church–if the Church corrects the government the government should be responsive. The Church does not advocate “theocracy” in the sense of priests and bishops being in charge of the government as well as the Church, but does advocate Catholicity in the government.

people tend to drift away from Catholic morality (fallen nature and the like) unless there is a strong government authority enforcing Catholic morals such as the monarchies in medieval Europe.

This is an interesting point, because I think that when people are in a Catholic society, raised, educated, and immersed in Catholicism, that there is a lot of support for maintaining morality, but you are right, concupiscence pulls always. What I am saying is that the government has a role in enforcing morality, but only a partial one. The Church and others around a person also have a role, and one might say a more immediate (in the philosophical sense) role, since we are all enjoined to help those around us to attain salvation.

The government’s role is a little more to maintain order and encourage a situation in which it is easier to attain salvation, by, for example, not allowing bad media–in a Catholic society most of what is shown on the air would not be allowed, and that would be enforced by the government, and blasphemy and heresy would be prosecuted. But whether the government would be able to enforce, say, reception of the sacraments, almsgiving, and the like… not necessarily.

(The other point that I have been mulling over is that back then the government was in some ways more flexible. They didn’t have mandatory prison sentences, and they had more ways of disciplining wrong-doers. And it seems that the really horrendous stuff, like hanging for stealing bread, occurred more in non-Catholic situations–but I haven’t seriously investigated all this, so it is more a thought than definite knowledge.)

Anyway, my overall thought about the Church and the government is that almost any form of government will work if it’s Catholic, and almost any form will fail if it is not Catholic.

 

[DPMartin]

Ever since I gave up Objectivism because it is contrary to Catholicism (the whole atheism thing and such), I’ve been searching for a political system which is consistent with Catholic teaching and acceptable for me. Of course the truth is irrelevant to what I find acceptable, but I figured there must be something at least close. I now believe that it does not exist, and here’s the thinking I’ve been going through. Whenever someone makes the argument that they are personally against something, for example abortion, but don’t want to force their morality on others through legislation…

No I do not support legal abortion, it is just an example

…then the argument is made that that is just what all laws are and what if someone didn’t want to force the morality of stealing upon others. This argument makes perfect sense, but it got me to consider just what we should legislate against. Catholics are for illegal abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, and human cloning. The 5 non-negotiables. It is said that a government cannot encourage falsehoods, like a false morality. But I’m wondering why are there only five non-negotiables? There are plenty more things which are immoral according to Catholic teaching and hence immoral to Catholics like myself. Why do we not attempt to ban and legally prevent or punish blasphemy, premarital sex, contraception, or sacrilege?

Now, because we can legitimately ban all immoral activities in the state we must use a political system that can accomplish this. A democracy (the political science definition) cannot work because people can overturn whatever they want. Anarchy and minimalism/libertarianism also do not fit for obvious reasons. There are only two options I can think of. A republic, democratic or not, which writes the morality into the constitution and makes it unchangeable, or a clerical monarchic or fascist state. (Not the racist kind of fascism of course). I cannot ascend to either of these two philosophies and thus cannot rightfully be called in line with Catholic teaching as far as I can discern.

Now, clearly most or all of you think I am wrong because I don’t believe Catholics here supports this conclusion, but it seems to be a completely logical follow through on the implications of a Catholic nation and the arguments made to support legally affecting the 5 non-negotiables or other immoral activities. So we don’t get off topic, I should mention I have no problem with Catholic morality, and I would vote against abortion and the like, I’m just really having a hard time with this. I believe Catholicism is 100% true, but I sometimes, more often than I should, don’t like it. This does not lead to a healthy spiritual life.

Addictedkoala

I would tend to disagree, with your view expressed, almost completely.

If it is given to the Church to rule the world, then the Lord would give the Church rulership. What is to rule the world is the respectful response to the Truth in the world. In the agreement of Truth. It is the job of the Church in service to the God of Truth to remain in the Hope and Trust of the fulfillment of the Truth, in the world.

If you want to look to the mediaeval times, the Church in it’s service to the God of Truth, in the world picked up and carried the ball on the need for civilized percepts and statutes, after the authority of “empire” namely roman, diminished, until the societies that grew from that could recognize the Mercy and Judgments necessary for civilized execution of governing. It is the Church’s disrespect that it did not want to let go of the control it once had and the control given to it was for the sake of the world, not something that was to kept by the Church. In some cases such control was violently removed. Percepts and statutes of Mercy, Righteousness and Judgment is of God, which at the time the Church was to hold on to, not hold on to control of the world. The ethics and politics of the Kingdom of God is the Truth in the world, in His Mercy. The Truth never bends, but the God of Truth has Mercy to Forgive.

Hence the Church being the Church agrees with the Truth to follow and express the Truth in the world to the world for the world’s sake. If governments agree in the Truth, then they will respectfully respond to the Truth, how ever they may be empowered to do so. Look at how Pharaoh and his court responded to Joseph’s answer to the Pharaoh’s concerns. Then look at Pharaoh’s response to the request of Moses in face of what was the, apparent destruction of his own kingdom. The Lord God effecting both situations, that His Will be done.

To think that the Church is to be in control of the world is instinctively inherent to the wishes of one’s own kingdom, domain, power to control. But to realize that one is not to be against, and is to be for the Kingdom of God. Then one seeks the Will of God respectively. It’s not about your kingdom, it’s about God’s Kingdom, that has no end.

 

[Feanor2]

Notice that Benedict has wisely removed the three-tiered tiara from his coat of arms in favor of the simple bishops mitre. Our astute Holy Father has demonstrated that temporal power is no longer the aim of the Church. These times are in the pasts.

 

[TenBobNote]

Anarchy and minimalism/libertarianism also do not fit for obvious reasons.

Could you please explain why, in your opinion, libertarianism is anti-Catholic?

 

[DPMartin]

Notice that Benedict has wisely removed the three-tiered tiara from his coat of arms in favor of the simple bishops mitre. Our astute Holy Father has demonstrated that temporal power is no longer the aim of the Church. These times are in the pasts.

If I may say in laymen’s terms, I would agree that Pope Benedict XVI “is a lot smarter then he looks”, in a astute understanding of what is in the future for the Church, in it’s respective place with the Lord in the world. It seem to me, at least, if your paying attention to what he says and does. Then you might be as some would say “reading between the lines”. He’s the captain of the ship for sure, but the ship is in need a rudder. He can say go this way, but how shall it go, without the rudder?

 

[manualman]

I think it is an important distinction to recognize the difference between laws that protect basic rights and laws intended to enforce compliance with moral issues NOT directly related to a human right.

Abortion, stem cell research and similar issues affect the most basic of humanrights - the right to live itself.

Contraception (presuming we are talking about methods not primarily based upon direct abortion) does not have that same issue. While it is entirely appropriate to try to make contraception illegal, it is not a moral imperative to do so, and is likely counterproductive to the spreading of the gospel to attempt it in a culture where the issue is so poorly understood as ours is. First the culture must be largely converted, THEN such a law can be passed.

I suggest reading the encyclical “Rerum Novarum” and possibly some of GK Chesterton’s ideas about a governmental philosophy called “Distributism” (which differs rather markedly, IMO, from the “Distributism” advocated by Dorothy Day. Read enough to learn the difference.)

 

[Feanor2]

I much prefer Dorothy Day, who has been nominated for sainthood and has been declared a “Servant of God”.

 

[Tide210]

Could you please explain why, in your opinion, libertarianism is anti-Catholic?

I’d like an explanation, too. One of my best friends is both Catholic and Libertarian, as are Ron and Rand Paul.

 

[Tide210]

Could you please explain why, in your opinion, libertarianism is anti-Catholic?

I’d like an explanation, too. One of my best friends is both Catholic and Libertarian, as are Ron and Rand Paul.

 

[manualman]

I much prefer Dorothy Day, who has been nominated for sainthood and has been declared a “Servant of God”.

And even when/if she is canonized, that will be a reflection of her personal holiness, not necessarily an endorsement of her economic theories. Ms. Day’s approach worked very well in environments where there was a critical mass of people with well formed consciences and healthy catholic virtue. I am not at all sure that will translate to general society. Much like religious orders are not necessarily a good model for how to set up a small town.

 

[fkjuliano]

I’d like an explanation, too. One of my best friends is both Catholic and Libertarian, as are Ron and Rand Paul.

I don’t believe you’re correct about Ron and Rand Paul. I read somewhere that Rand Paul was a Protestant of some kind, and Wikipedia lists him as a Presbyterian and his father as a Baptist.

As far as the larger question, it seems to me that libertarianism is incompatible with Catholicism because it calls for a radical separation of Church and State, even more thorough than the current one, which opens the door wide for abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. In fact, American-style separation of Church and State has been formally defined as a heresy.

 

[Geowitz]

Subsidiarity, Subsidiarity, Subsidiarity.

As I’ve posted before this catechism directive is key - #1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. **The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. **They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

In other words, the maximum absence of regulation and force is the best way to govern. This also means my right to be free includes my right to be free from you. We are called to be charitable, but out of our own free will.

 

[Black_Rose]

And even when/if she is canonized, that will be a reflection of her personal holiness, not necessarily an endorsement of her economic theories. Ms. Day’s approach worked very well in environments where there was a critical mass of people with well formed consciences and healthy catholic virtue. I am not at all sure that will translate to general society. Much like religious orders are not necessarily a good model for how to set up a small town.

If you are going to use that reasoning to reject Dorothy Day’s economic views, then one could also use the same reasoning for not being enthusiastic about “forcing” religiously influenced, anti-abortion policies in secular society.

[self plagiarism]

I just do not think it is politically possible to abolish abortion; furthermore, I do not believe abortion should be used as a cudgel to force people to disregard other important issues because of their moral ambiguity (or more likely the differential impact on varying people’s self interest causing people to take views consistent with their self-interest)

I believe abortion is best dealt with repressive social institutions not rule of law which is a Confucian position. Abortion should be discouraged through social taboos and inculcated morality, not draconian rule of law.

From the Analects of Confucius:

Guide them by edicts, keep them in line with punishments, and the common people will stay out of trouble but will have no sense of shame. Guide them by virtue, keep them in line with the rites, and they will, besides having a sense of shame, reform themselves.”

Some political axes are influenced by religion; for instance, those who oppose abortion, homosexuality, and embryonic stem cell research are almost always those who embrace Christian theology with atheists and agnostics being insignificant exceptions to this general rule. The converse, however, is not valid since a nominal Christian/Catholic identity does not translate into opposition against the aforementioned issues. As I journey through the Catholic Church as I become catechized (my parents already had me baptized by I was never raised Catholic), I expect to adopt the orthodox Catholic position on these issues, but I have no intention to project my views in a moralistically imperialist fashion. Instead, I see Church teaching as a “code of rites” regulating individual conduct that is voluntarily adhered but not universally applicable. Church teaching does not dictate the rule of law which is universally applicable to all citizens and adherence is not optional. This approach is pragmatic because it respects people’s differing values in a diverse multicultural society and fosters an environment of tolerance although such diversity may erode social capital since people do not share the same homogeneous views. While abortion is considered acceptable within the rule of law, those bound by the “code of rites” are prohibited from procuring abortions. However, this should not be mistaken as complacency towards abortion. Because I am relying on an analogy based on an oriental (Confucianism Ru Jia) instead of an occidental understanding of social conduct, I will post this to facilitate comprehension.

The Confucian Code of Rites (Liji) is expected to be the controlling document on civilized behavior, not law. In the Confucian world view, rule of law is applied only to those who have fallen beyond the bounds of civilized behavior. Civilized people are expected to observe proper rites. Only social outcasts are expected to have their actions controlled by law. Thus the rule of law is considered a state of barbaric primitiveness, prior to achieving the civilized state of voluntary observation of proper rites. What is legal is not necessarily moral or just.

The ideal state rests on a stable society over which a virtuous and benevolent sovereign/emperor rules by moral persuasion based on a Code of Rites rather than by law. Justice would emerge from a timeless morality that governs social behavior. Man would be orderly out of self-respect for his own moral character rather than from fear of punishment prescribed by law.

atimes.com/atimes/China/EG24Ad01.html

From the Catholic perspective, one voluntarily abides by its “Code of Rites”, not because one fears punishment from a wrathful God but from one’s desire to meaningfully signal their greater love for God over themselves.

[/self plagiarism]

 

[St_Francis]

Could you please explain why, in your opinion, libertarianism is anti-Catholic?

Libertarianism in and of itself is anti-Catholic because it is not Catholic; therefore, it would militate against the proper lfowering of the fullness of Truth within society and reduce the ability of a Catholic to be fully and entirely Catholic.

Libertarianism in and of itself is un-Catholic and goes against Catholic social teaching because it does not acknowledge the Kingship of Christ, violates the principles of social justice, which balance out the principle of subsidiarity, and is another utopian attempt to so set up society as to perfect the humans within it.

Moreover, libertarianism is highly unrealistic in its most pure forms and so wouldn’t work. In its less pure form, it is simply a minimalization of government, but that’s how we started out and look where we ended up.

 

[Schrode]

Ever since I gave up Objectivism because it is contrary to Catholicism (the whole atheism thing and such), I’ve been searching for a political system which is consistent with Catholic teaching and acceptable for me. Of course the truth is irrelevant to what I find acceptable, but I figured there must be something at least close. I now believe that it does not exist, and here’s the thinking I’ve been going through. Whenever someone makes the argument that they are personally against something, for example abortion, but don’t want to force their morality on others through legislation…

No I do not support legal abortion, it is just an example

…then the argument is made that that is just what all laws are and what if someone didn’t want to force the morality of stealing upon others. This argument makes perfect sense, but it got me to consider just what we should legislate against. Catholics are for illegal abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, and human cloning. The 5 non-negotiables. It is said that a government cannot encourage falsehoods, like a false morality. But I’m wondering why are there only five non-negotiables? There are plenty more things which are immoral according to Catholic teaching and hence immoral to Catholics like myself. Why do we not attempt to ban and legally prevent or punish blasphemy, premarital sex, contraception, or sacrilege?

Now, because we can legitimately ban all immoral activities in the state we must use a political system that can accomplish this. A democracy (the political science definition) cannot work because people can overturn whatever they want. Anarchy and minimalism/libertarianism also do not fit for obvious reasons. There are only two options I can think of. A republic, democratic or not, which writes the morality into the constitution and makes it unchangeable, or a clerical monarchic or fascist state. (Not the racist kind of fascism of course). I cannot ascend to either of these two philosophies and thus cannot rightfully be called in line with Catholic teaching as far as I can discern.

Now, clearly most or all of you think I am wrong because I don’t believe Catholics here supports this conclusion, but it seems to be a completely logical follow through on the implications of a Catholic nation and the arguments made to support legally affecting the 5 non-negotiables or other immoral activities. So we don’t get off topic, I should mention I have no problem with Catholic morality, and I would vote against abortion and the like, I’m just really having a hard time with this. I believe Catholicism is 100% true, but I sometimes, more often than I should, don’t like it. This does not lead to a healthy spiritual life.

IMHO, it sounds like what you’re looking for is a theocracy. That’s going to be difficult to find or even try to enforce anywhere where there is a democracy, especially where there is religious freedom that will allow almost any type of religion. If you’re really looking to have what you’re talking about, look at some of the countries on Eath where religion is backed by the state. Take some of the Islamic countries - in some of these countries, a woman can pay with her life if there is pre-marital sex (even if it was against her consent - as it is generally almost impossible to prove and also the family in some situations would shun their own daughter) - do you really want to be part of a society that is willing to kill a woman for going against the religion and having pre marital sex? If not, how would you 1st. find out and 2nd punish the female and male? If pre marital pregnancy occurs and is one of the tools you will use to see if someone has had pre marital sex then that’s really not fair because that really only looks to the women - also you will almost deffinately increase the abortion rate because the girls/women don’t want to be punished for what they did regardless of if they considered it wrong or not.

I’ve heard people say that it would be great if there were Catholic laws - but to me, it sounds like you’re giving religion too much- Lord Acton is famous for having said to a Bishop Creighton in the 1880’s: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I’m not trying to put the Church down or anything - just trying to point out some historical facts - when the Church was involved in enforcing religion, there were inquisitions, there was no free speech (at least with regards to religion- especially if you had a problem with it) - there are so many examples, I don’t even want to try to list them all

I understand and agree with what you said regarding " I sometimes, more often than I should, don’t like it" referring to Catholicism. There are certain things I just don’t get and for those things, I do my best to pray for guidance and understanding. I guess that’s really what we have to do if we want to be “followers” of Christ - since Christ is the “Leader” He’s the one that gets to decide whats Catholic and what isn’t. One instance I see repeated on here many times is the situation where although rare, it is said that in the case of a pregnancy where neither the mother or the baby will live even if aborting the baby will save the mother you’re not supposed to do it. I don’t know i’d be able to follow that teaching because I can’t see anything coming from two dying instead of just one. That’s just one example but I understand where you’re coming from.
I hope you’ll receive understanding from the Holy Spirit the Father and Christ. I hate the way this sounds because well I just don’t - We’re unfortunately not called to agree with or like all of the Church’s policies - but we are expected to try to follow the policies. It reminds me a little to much of a parent saying “clean your room” and the child saying “why” and the parent then saying “because I said so”.
God Bless
Schrode

 

[MariaTS]

I’m quite content with keeping faith out of politics. Also, the only reason why the church opposes objectivism is because they want the brain-washed masses to blindly follow them without bothering to do any research on their own. Objectivism is not contradictory to Catholicism, the current actions of the church leadership are contradictory to Catholicism.

 

[MariaTS]

Ever since I gave up Objectivism because it is contrary to Catholicism (the whole atheism thing and such), I’ve been searching for a political system which is consistent with Catholic teaching and acceptable for me. Of course the truth is irrelevant to what I find acceptable, but I figured there must be something at least close. I now believe that it does not exist, and here’s the thinking I’ve been going through. Whenever someone makes the argument that they are personally against something, for example abortion, but don’t want to force their morality on others through legislation…

No I do not support legal abortion, it is just an example

…then the argument is made that that is just what all laws are and what if someone didn’t want to force the morality of stealing upon others. This argument makes perfect sense, but it got me to consider just what we should legislate against. Catholics are for illegal abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, and human cloning. The 5 non-negotiables. It is said that a government cannot encourage falsehoods, like a false morality. But I’m wondering why are there only five non-negotiables? There are plenty more things which are immoral according to Catholic teaching and hence immoral to Catholics like myself. Why do we not attempt to ban and legally prevent or punish blasphemy, premarital sex, contraception, or sacrilege?

Now, because we can legitimately ban all immoral activities in the state we must use a political system that can accomplish this. A democracy (the political science definition) cannot work because people can overturn whatever they want. Anarchy and minimalism/libertarianism also do not fit for obvious reasons. There are only two options I can think of. A republic, democratic or not, which writes the morality into the constitution and makes it unchangeable, or a clerical monarchic or fascist state. (Not the racist kind of fascism of course). I cannot ascend to either of these two philosophies and thus cannot rightfully be called in line with Catholic teaching as far as I can discern.

Now, clearly most or all of you think I am wrong because I don’t believe Catholics here supports this conclusion, but it seems to be a completely logical follow through on the implications of a Catholic nation and the arguments made to support legally affecting the 5 non-negotiables or other immoral activities. So we don’t get off topic, I should mention I have no problem with Catholic morality, and I would vote against abortion and the like, I’m just really having a hard time with this. I believe Catholicism is 100% true, but I sometimes, more often than I should, don’t like it. This does not lead to a healthy spiritual life.

Dear sir, I hope you realize that Nietzsche, the father of Fascism, was an Atheist. Also Fascism is a type of representative republic, if you go by the true teachings of Nietzsche, not the false beliefs of Hitler.