Democracy: the enemy of the faith

  • Thread starter Thread starter pjn6444
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pjn6444

Guest
Democracy as the enemy of the faith? The Church is a monarchical structure. Christ is the King of kings. Is democracy un-Christian? Christ made Peter the head of the Church. He did not say you 11 faithful apostles you are rocks and I shall build my church upon your democratic agreement. Democracy asserts that all people are equal in much more than just dignity. Isn’t this against Church teaching? Why should a state trust its governance to the average person? Does not a state have responsibility to God before the people? Democracy has led to horrible evils. The concept of democracy spawned the concept of communism. Since communism (in its idealistic form) is a democracy with no private property. Democracy led to the execution of kings and countless numbers of other people. Democracy led to legalized abortions. Where will democracy lead us next? Some might say that it is the best system around. The modern liberal democratic state has been around for only 221 years. I am tracking from 1787, the year the US constitution was adopted. Then there was the French Revolution which was vehemently anti-Catholic. The revolutions throughout the 19th century, and then the Russian Revolution. What good has come from liberal democracy? Is democracy leading to a renewal of anti-clericalism? Is it making people think they are just as high as the priest? Does it make people not respect the bishops anymore?
 
I think there is a book on this very question. I do not remember if it was on Medved or Kresta that I heard about it.
 
Yes, you are most correct, democracy is an enemy of the faith and has always been taught to be such into the first half of the 20th Century. If you doubt it, read Pius IXth’s Syllabus of Errors or read what Leo XIII had to say about Religious Liberty. Prior to Vatican II, the church taught emphatically that the State had a moral duty to support and promote the only true faith, the Catholic Church. We are never told this anymore, not even by the “church”.
 
God gives us the spiritual free will to choose Him (or not). Democracy gives us the political free will to choose Him (or not). Ergo, without judging any specific democracy or specific political reality, I would say that democracy in and of itself is not an enemy of the faith.
 
Democracy has certain advantages- however, it carries the risk of eventaullt bringing about a view that, somehow, moirality can be decided by a majority vote.

Keep in mind: the U.S. is not a democracy; technically, it’s a republic.
 
Let me clarify the definition of “democracy” for purposes of this discussion (since the context is Religion, specifically, whether it is opposed to the faith) to mean religious liberty or religious indifferentism on the part of the state. It is absolutely undeniable that this is evil. Its highest value is not “truth”, its highest value is “tolerance”. Respect for all opinions, ultimately human respect, which as Catholics, we are taught to avoid seeking as it generally conflicts with what is pleasing to God. It is very simple if you put aside all the tripe we’ve been fed about diversity and look at it logically. Are we to condone and encourage error or are we to chastise the error in charity? Yet our “democratic” values have led to a world in which the Gospel is now considered by many “hate speech”. But we don’t even need the logic. Prior to Vatican II the Church taught that Religious Liberty was an “insanity”. Religious liberty is a heresy.
 
The Church is not a monarchy; it’s a bureaucracy. It was not intended to be that way, it’s just that people tend to do that when left to themselves.

Matthew
 
mulligan59 said:
Let me clarify the definition of “democracy” for purposes of this discussion (since the context is Religion, specifically, whether it is opposed to the faith) to mean religious liberty or religious indifferentism on the part of the state. It is absolutely undeniable that this is evil. Its highest value is not “truth”, its highest value is “tolerance”. Respect for all opinions, ultimately human respect, which as Catholics, we are taught to avoid seeking as it generally conflicts with what is pleasing to God. It is very simple if you put aside all the tripe we’ve been fed about diversity and look at it logically. Are we to condone and encourage error or are we to chastise the error in charity? Yet our “democratic” values have led to a world in which the Gospel is now considered by many “hate speech”. But we don’t even need the logic. Prior to Vatican II the Church taught that Religious Liberty was an “insanity”. Religious liberty is a heresy.
Click to expand...
But the State doesn’t know which religion to follow. Ergo, it tries to make as many religions as possible able to coexist. Plus the state shouldn’t impose religion on people, which is basically what you’re suggesting, since then it wouldn’t be freely chosen.
 
mulligan59 said:
Let me clarify the definition of “democracy” for purposes of this discussion (since the context is Religion, specifically, whether it is opposed to the faith) to mean religious liberty or religious indifferentism on the part of the state.
Click to expand...
Ummm, with respect, that definition of “democracy” is so totally at odds with what democracy actually means as to suggest that this thread is very mislabeled. You can have an authoritarian or monarchical state that allows religious liberty or is religiously indifferent. Likewise, you could (in theory and in 19th century America in practice) have a democracy where there is in fact a state religion (In America it was Protestantism in general).
It is absolutely undeniable that this is evil. Its highest value is not “truth”, its highest value is “tolerance”. Respect for all opinions, ultimately human respect, which as Catholics, we are taught to avoid seeking as it generally conflicts with what is pleasing to God. It is very simple if you put aside all the tripe we’ve been fed about diversity and look at it logically. Are we to condone and encourage error or are we to chastise the error in charity? Yet our “democratic” values have led to a world in which the Gospel is now considered by many “hate speech”. But we don’t even need the logic. Prior to Vatican II the Church taught that Religious Liberty was an “insanity”. Religious liberty is a heresy.
Click to expand...
With respect, there is a difference between the state granting religious freedom and with us attempting to correct errors.

Should we, as Catholics, work towards a Catholic World? Sure. Should we demand the end to state sponsored religious toleration or deny basic human respect to others who believe differently? Absolutely not. If history has taught us nothing, it is that Catholics have often been the ones denied the freedom to worship. America, for example, still has more Protestants than Catholics. Would we like a world where the United States banned the Catholic Church?

Now, this does not mean that I believe that the extremes that have been taken in the name of “religious liberty” in this country have been acceptable and rational. To a certain extent, there is a fairly large number of enemies of Christianity today who would essentially like to see a state with freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion.

–
Bill
 
Democracy is essentially pluralism – it suffers, and indeed supports, everyone’s right to believe as he chooses.

Socialism and Communism are essentially statism – to take everyone’s earnings and redistribute them requires the state have absolute power. Therefore these ideologies are ultimately athiestic – because they cannot allow people to believe in any power higher than the state.
 
Refer to God’s opinion on this matter.

from the earliest history and for the longest part of history and then only recently humanity has known kings and kingdoms
correlate the prophesy of Revelatons and the rise of satan unbound for a time with a world that no longer accepts aristocratic authority:(
Now tell us what God’s opinion is on the matter of acceptable human self-governance.

Refer to the Bible for further relevance.

in the history of the jews from moses
the jews wanted a king like all the other nations
God said NO with the mouth of the prophets because you the jews are a special people to me you are my example to the world
with audacity towards God the jews insisted on having a king and God said with the mouth of the prophets and maybe even with the arc of the covenant that only God could make any one of the jews a king to them and over them :eek:
in the Bible see the story of saul who would have been king and david the first king of the jews for reference.
Now argue with that! Because you would rather argue something that cannot be argued? So many of the topics at these forums are like this. Clarifying an issue or subject is alright. However most of these arguements have been intellectually argued and are a part of the historical documents of the Mother Church in Rome written by the First Fathers of the Catholic Church for future generations? Why did they write all the arguements for and against God and his prescribed way of life for humanity? It would seem likely that they not only discussed these things, but wrote them as well, so that you would not have to waste your time argueing them all over, and over and over and over again.🤷

What a waste of such a valuable resource such as these forums are.
Of course there must be some interest in some topics such as this one or why would this reply to the post be here?

We Pray to you GOD, Our Lord Almighty to save us from the trivial, and to grant us that which we require to satisfy our needs as You Lord, Our Great Provider have given Your Faithful these Blessed Forums. With all of our Gratitude, let this be our supplication to You, Our Father and Saviour.:signofcross:

That should help a little.😉
 
mulligan59 said:
Yes, you are most correct, democracy is an enemy of the faith and has always been taught to be such into the first half of the 20th Century. If you doubt it, read Pius IXth’s Syllabus of Errors or read what Leo XIII had to say about Religious Liberty.
Click to expand...
No, those Popes, especially Leo XIII maintained that no form of government is better than another as long as thye follow certain principles. As long as those who govern (whether it be a king or the masses) act in a way that is consonant with the rule of God, who gives them authority, then the government is just.

The enemy of faith is not democracy per se, but democracy based on anti-faith principles–of course, a monarchy can be based on anti-faith principles too (see the communist dictatorships or the shahs of the middle east, for an example).
 
BlaineTog said:
But the State doesn’t know which religion to follow. Ergo, it tries to make as many religions as possible able to coexist. Plus the state shouldn’t impose religion on people, which is basically what you’re suggesting, since then it wouldn’t be freely chosen.
Click to expand...
Again: The State does or should know what religion to follow, the Catholic religion, the only true religion, the only one in which anyone can be saved. These notions are both irreformible dogmas of the Church (pre-Vatican II). Man does not have the “right” to choose error. Now error may be tolerated if toleration avoids a greater evil (civil war) but it is very different to say that man has a right to chose any religion. Rights come from God and He does not give you the right to chose wrong. He tolerates it (ie does not prevent it / free will) but your sin will still damn you. Do you need citations from the Magisterium? This whole modern notion of religious liberty essentially elevates respect for the opinions of man over respect for God’s truth. It isn’t that hard is it? You think God likes the fruits of it all?
 
mchale said:
Ummm, with respect, that definition of “democracy” is so totally at odds with what democracy actually means as to suggest that this thread is very mislabeled. You can have an authoritarian or monarchical state that allows religious liberty or is religiously indifferent. Likewise, you could (in theory and in 19th century America in practice) have a democracy where there is in fact a state religion (In America it was Protestantism in general).

With respect, there is a difference between the state granting religious freedom and with us attempting to correct errors.

Should we, as Catholics, work towards a Catholic World? Sure. Should we demand the end to state sponsored religious toleration or deny basic human respect to others who believe differently? Absolutely not. If history has taught us nothing, it is that Catholics have often been the ones denied the freedom to worship. America, for example, still has more Protestants than Catholics. Would we like a world where the United States banned the Catholic Church?

Now, this does not mean that I believe that the extremes that have been taken in the name of “religious liberty” in this country have been acceptable and rational. To a certain extent, there is a fairly large number of enemies of Christianity today who would essentially like to see a state with freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion.

–
Bill
Click to expand...
Look, there is a difference between religious toleration (i.e. let’s not round up and burn the heretical protestants) and religious indifferentism (gee, we don’t know what is true so let’s make sure everyone is encouraged to follow whatever fool thing they chose). I’m not saying we should burn the synagogues tomorrow, but neither should they be allowed to poison the culture. And as you seem to agree, they have poisoned the culture. You have to understand what the Church has traditionally taught in this respect. Read Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X. Yes, we should work for a Catholic World.
 
PS - I wasn’ t defining democracy, I did not start this thread. I was clarifying what I meant in a prior response because although the person who opened the thread used the term “democracy”, he obviously meant “religious liberty”.

Also, we’ll never get that Cahtolic World unless we have the faith and courage to say that Christ is the ONLY way and Christ only founded ONE church and STOP saying all religions are of value, praying with Jews, Moslems, etc. This whole ecumenism thing is deeply evil and at the root of so much confusion.
 
mulligan59 said:
Again: The State does or should know what religion to follow, the Catholic religion, the only true religion, the only one in which anyone can be saved. These notions are both irreformible dogmas of the Church (pre-Vatican II).
Click to expand...
The Second Vatican Council affirms this when it says it expressly states that it intends to leave the traditional obligation of individuals and societies to the Catholic religion untouched.
Man does not have the “right” to choose error. Now error may be tolerated if toleration avoids a greater evil (civil war) but it is very different to say that man has a right to chose any religion. Rights come from God and He does not give you the right to chose wrong. He tolerates it (ie does not prevent it / free will) but your sin will still damn you. Do you need citations from the Magisterium? This whole modern notion of religious liberty essentially elevates respect for the opinions of man over respect for God’s truth. It isn’t that hard is it? You think God likes the fruits of it all?
Click to expand...
Man also has a right to come to the faith freely–he has the right to not be coerced into worshiping God and having the proper faith. That is what the Second Vatican Council is primarily concerned with (and the corresponding right that man must be free to fulfill His duty to God). The rest is generally prudential concerning how best to protect both these rights given contemporary circumstances. Again, if you read the posts I wrote for another forum that I linked to in a previous post, you will see this is the case. They trace the teaching on this subject and lastly include the Second Vatican Council, the relatio, and commentary from Pope Benedict XVI where he affirms my interpretation above (which is also in the relatio) which shows that the Council deals primarily with practical considerations in protecting the two rights I mentioned above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top