Ever since when was the Church supposed to be apolitical?

[mschrank]

Most of you know the history of how the Church lost her political influence. So that’s a given.

I just don’t understand how we are expected to live, neither do I know where to start.

We have a political system fathomed by a few protestant and freethinking Englishmen, a bunch of libertine Frenchmen and a few odd Germans. The international political system we live under can hardly be called Catholic.

Of course, I know how it got to be that way, we lost power. They sucessfully secularized everything. They beat us, they won. Fine.

What I don’t get is the insistance by the Church, or should I say Church officials, that this is the way things out to be and that the Church should be a completely ephermeral, spiritual, otherworldly institution with no real worldly power.

Is our faith safer from being corrupted by Borgia Popes, geopolitics and fat bishops who live in palaces with concubines and all the usual Chick-Tract stuff that indeed does have some truth behind it. Yes!

However, I’m not just understanding the historical break. For over 1500 years armies march under the banners of Jesus and Mary, states and rules are Annointed, the laws reflect the good (i.e., what’s moral) and political legitimacy is conferred by the Pope. I could go on. Then everything changes, and now the Church is supposed to be something totally airy-fairy and in the clouds, instead of the substantial Kingdom of Christ on earth (Christendom).

We’re less corrupt, but we’re being attacked by radical secularism on every side (look at Spain to see an extreme case). Society is going to hell (literally) and sure we’ve got less fat bishops with concubines living in mansions but we’ve got millions of abortions and other horrible things that probably outweigh any good we’ve gotten out of being stripped of political power.

I think the current decline is often painted as an inevitable slide kind of thing, but to be honest, people will believe whatever they are told.

The vast majority of people simply do not think.

Tell them there is a God, they’ll pray. Tell them there isn’t, they wont. Tell them abortion is murder, they’ll think so. Tell them it isn’t, they’ll vote for Obama. We’ve neglected the cold hard facts of the necessity of political power and we’ve lost it in all the places where culture is reproduced (courts, schools, media, even Church etc).

So it’s not an inevitable slide, it’s that not only have we lost power, but the Church (well, her OFFICIALS) doesn’t even try to get it back- we’re told that politics and religion don’t mix. What?

So we were making mistakes from the 4th century up to the 19th?

Sheesh, I don’t know…

 

[Cajetan]

Bump.

This is the best post I’ve been on this website in a long time. I shall save it and think hard on it; the message is that important.

 

[AaronK88]

I agree. And I wish the homilies at Mass reflected a bit of this more too.

 

[Ahimsa]

So we were making mistakes from the 4th century up to the 19th?

I’d rather make mistakes from the 4th to the 19th centuries, than make mistakes from the 1st to the 3rd.

 

[Starwynd]

Why should religion have any political clout at all?

Religion is not meant to control people without the return of God. Only God on earth is supposed have any kind of rule, not power hungry human beings who misuse religion to their interests.

Religion was meant to offer people a better way of life and hope for a better life, not to force people to worship God at the point of a gun or sword.

That’s one of the reasons for the hostility most non religious people ffel towards the religious is because most people attempt to coerce people into living by their standards.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why should religion have any political clout at all?

because the history of atheistic societies has led to the murder of tens of millions of innocents, just in the last century. thats one reason.

though abuses have occurred from either side of the theism, non-theism divide, those abuses created far more horror on the secular side. secularism run amok is a relativistic monster that allows for murder in the name of ethnic cleansing, collectivization, and plain old convenience, because without G-d people have no intrinsic value, their only value is what is assigned to them by the ones in power and as we see from the killing fields of pol pot, to stalins gulag, to hitlers auschwitz and treblinka, relativism allows for the value of human life to be relative also, that is why societies need a moral basis apart from what people see as relative to their beliefs

Religion is not meant to control people without the return of God.

religion is meant for the purpose of salvation, that salvation is directly tied to the cooperation with G-ds purpose for us

Only God on earth is supposed have any kind of rule, not power

thats a new one on me, i thought G-d was supposed to have all power all the time, everywhere

hungry human beings who misuse religion to their interests.

unfortunately separating man from his sinful nature is a continuing process that will not be fulfilled until the final judgement. modern politicians are just as corrupt as they always have been, in every time and place.

Religion was meant to offer people a better way of life and hope for a better life,

religion is meant to help us please G-d, we exist after all for the fulfillment of His desires, whatever they may be

not to force people to worship God at the point of a gun or sword.

forced worship is not true worship, what would be the point of that, conversion by the sword is more an islam thing.

That’s one of the reasons for the hostility most non religious people ffel towards the religious is because most people attempt to coerce people into living by their standards.

we believe in an objective morality given by G-d, though one may argue that morality, we still believe that it is not a matter of personal choice, if it offends G-d, like idolatry it should be dealt with.

only recently in the last century or so have we come to an idea that moral relativism, or secular government is a good idea, and tens of millions have died for it, i suspect the great experiments of the republic and relativism will eventually die much the way they did in Rome, with the fall of the republic and the rise of the emperors. the current situation is not likely to last, if it follows historical trends. and it is seemingly already on that path.

 

[mschrank]

I’m not too interested in this becoming yet another religion vs. atheism thread. Personally, I am not at that point anymore and I do not care to waste any more time on it. There are plenty of threads on here where people can continue to beat that dead horse.

I would like those who, like me, have made up their minds in favor of Catholicism, why or even how we started accepting the seperation of Church and State as a norm… an ideal that was a protestant and humanist creation, as part of our worldview.

Secondly, if we accept it- where does law come from? If not natural and divine law, then what- a social contract (again, a non-catholic ideology developed by a protestant englishman).

 

[Neil_Anthony]

What I don’t get is the insistance by the Church, or should I say Church officials, that this is the way things out to be and that the Church should be a completely ephermeral, spiritual, otherworldly institution with no real worldly power.

There was always separation of church and state. There was always emporer and pope, two separate offices.

The church is supposed to advise the state on matters that are in the sphere of religion, and the state is supposed to protect the church.

 

[mschrank]

Then maybe we need to refine our terms a bit. By separation of Church and state I suppose I mean the idea that laws should not be based on religion and that Church officials should not hold any official government positions nor should the government or laws go to the Church for legitimacy.

Is there a better term for it?

 

[MindOverMatter]

thats a new one on me, i thought G-d was supposed to have all power all the time, everywhere

Im not sure whether this is a sarcastic joke, or that you merely failed to understand what he meant. But your reply made me laugh. This is a very rare event indeed, and i cherish all of them.

I mean no disrespect. Thank you and God bless.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Then maybe we need to refine our terms a bit. By separation of Church and state I suppose I mean the idea that laws should not be based on religion and that Church officials should not hold any official government positions nor should the government or laws go to the Church for legitimacy.

Is there a better term for it?

Well those are two separate things…

Church officials should not hold government positions - thats what the church means by separation of church and state.

On the other hand, we believe that the government should do certain things that are required by the natural law. And the church teaches what those things are. But the church does not have authority to force the government to do those things, and I don’t think the Church ever did have that authority.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Im not sure whether this is a sarcastic joke, or that you merely failed to understand what he meant. But your reply made me laugh. This is a very rare event indeed, and i cherish all of them.

I mean no disrespect. Thank you and God bless.

no unfortunately, i think i just misunderstood but im glad someone got a tickle, all i got was this:blush: