Government run by the (secular) people?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zynxensar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fascism (that includes Franco) and Communism are both evil. He did not defend the faithful.That is nonsense.That is like the drug cartels who give money to the poor and build schools. It is designed to make people think they are good.Franco was not a hero. He was a fascist butcher.
Quite right. Fascism is just as self-regarding and Godless as Communism. In fact, Fascism is actually worse because, while Communists are quite open and honest about their atheism, Fascists pay lip service to the Church and pretend they are Christian, but their actions manifestly prove they are not.
 
Last edited:
Heaven is a fantasy created by people to soothe their existential dread.

That being said, even if there WERE a heaven, he didn’t end up there because of his political actions in the 20s, 30s, and 40s.

As for Franco, I should think a Catholic would know better than doing evil for the sake of good. No matter what Franco did for “good”, actions he took during his rule were vile and monstrous.
 
Last edited:
Catholicism is not a libertarian religion and ultimately rejects as erroneous and heretical Americanism. It has operated as autocratic for most of its time and supports hierarchy and order. However immoral laws that contradict God’s law may be disobeyed but moral laws must be obeyed even if the ruler himself is not very virtuous. Therefore we can disregard anti-clerical laws in Mexico but not murder laws even if the Mexican government is as corrupt and incompetent as it comes.
 
Catholicism is not a libertarian religion and ultimately rejects as erroneous and heretical Americanism. It has operated as autocratic for most of its time and supports hierarchy and order.
This reminds me of a coworker I had many years ago, while I was going through RCIA. She heard I was converting, and asked which parish I was in. When I told her, her response was ‘Oh, they’re not Catholic’. It transpired that she was a sedevacantist, and considered any parish that was in communion with Rome to be ‘not Catholic’. She kindly lent me some books to read, and I was horrified. One of them, by some old French authoress whose name escapes me, was a book-length rant about how the American Revolution was an evil and Godless war, and that if the thirteen colonies wanted to please Christ, they should have remained in lawful subjection to George III. I had never before encountered such treasonous sentiments, and told the lady, who was American-born and -bred, as much. To her credit, she was quite understanding, and accepted the return of her books with grace. But I am afraid I tried to avoid her after that. It was very disturbing to meet a fellow citizen who not only did not recognise our country’s right to exist, but actually considered that said existence contravened God’s law.
 
Last edited:
the Church will immediately revert to the symphonic approach with the emerging dictatorships and kingdoms.
There is no need to " spit" the word dictator as the passage says. All there is to do is walk the walk: pick a place with a dictator,move there and experience it.
In theory things may " sound “one way,but experiencing them is a different story. And not precisely " symphonic”…

There is a very minimum requirement when evangelizing and spreading the Good News we are called to spread: that those who hear the Good News are at least…alive.
We have to acknowledge excesses in dictatorships also. Don t you think so,Inquisitor?
 
Last edited:
Catholicism isnt libertarian, liberal, or conservative or any other political labels. However people that are catholic almost always can be described using one of those labels, so can the leaders of the church. The book that I am quoting from is showing you can be a libertarian and catholic without violating any of my catholic beliefs.

The leaders of the church may and can very reject Americanism, but many americans see america as the greatest nation and culture the world has ever known. We are all in some way a product of our environment. When those leaders reject such beliefs they are alienating these people. Most Popes clearly are influenced by their upbring. Just as JPII was influenced by his upbring in Poland when we get an African Pope or even an Pope from the USA that person will be influenced by their culture.

" Americanism is a set of the United States patriotic values aimed at creating a collective American identity, and can be defined as “an articulation of the nation’s rightful place in the world, a set of traditions, a political language, and a cultural style imbued with political meaning”

 
America is one of the most anti-Catholic nations to exist, just because modern huggy evangelicals are less inclined to scream that we are the whore of babylon doesn’t change this. I’m an old money American from a very WASPy family and I have been silently disowned by one side of my family for being Catholic. Out of fairness America has done some great things, chief amongst which was globally taking on the communists and conquering most of the best part of a continent (TAKE THAT CANADA). As a matter of religious and filial piety I am loyal to the nation whose soil contains generations of my family and their blood, sweat and tears, but this country is dying and I’m looking towards the next order of things.

As for your Wikipedia article, again here is some extra learning for you
Americanism is an officially condemned heresy of the Church Americanism (heresy) - Wikipedia

The Church does state certain political positions are unacceptable. A Catholic for example CANNOT be a Communist, and renders themselves an apostate by being such (See: Decree against Communism - Wikipedia) and the Church has stated that Classical Liberalism is not an ideology a Catholic can subscribe to in good faith (See: the 1864 Syllabus of Errors Syllabus of Errors - Wikipedia)
 
Last edited:
Some of the most corrupt and abusives times in Church history are when she was in bed with the monarchies and power structures of the time in Europe.

Cardinals and Bishops being quartered in the Kings palace and the high places given to the wealthy at Mass, is the opposite of what Jesus taught.

Jim
 
I reject sedevacantism as a heresy condemned by Holy Mother Church. I’m a monarchist but I’m not particularly a legitimist. What happened in good ol’ 76 happened and there’s no undoing that (not to mention I’d rather not be subject to the Windsor-Mountbatten house that has so wonderfully let their beautiful country crumble under a 1984 left wing surveillance state and a mass Islamic incursion) no I believe in a notion of new world, new kings. I love my country but it is dying and thus I must admit I plan for what happens as she is swept away by the sea of time into the graveyard of empires.
 
So abuses render something inferior or invalid? Hello Martin Luther! So what does that make this era of liberal homosexual clergymen engaged in pederasty and the Bishops and Cardinals knowing such but refusing to hand them over to the State because of separation of Church and State? Back in the days I describe such priests would have likely been made to labor for most of their lives or executed. The Church and her teachings on heresy and error do not change and the current arrangement is erroneous by such standards. It would be forgivable if the current set of clerics and bishops were against liberalism and merely do what they do out of dire necessity but they seem to believe in this liberal nonsense!
 
The subject of the thread is whether the government should be run by seculare people or the Church.

You seem to desire a theocratic form of government where the Pope and magisterium are in control of society.

History shows how disastrous this was.

Separation of Church and State is always the better in a democratic government.

Jim
 
I advocate for a Monarchy with Symphony of Church and State. Where did I say I wanted theocracy (which of course is a loaded term with little actual meaning)? Are you putting words in my mouth? The Church DOES have the absolute right to inform the morality of a society and the State is tasked with enforcing such. I do not support democracy. Democracy crucified Our Lord. That doesn’t mean I do not support certain rights however. How can you say that because of the Borgia Popes or other abusers that therefore this current age is better. You want to know the fruits of liberal democracy? Atheism, abortion, feminism, communism, usury, abuse of the poor, and the like. In those times both the abuses of the Pope and these things would be considered wrong. Today? It’s all hailed in the streets as a good.
 
It was a Theocratic Religion which took Jesus to the pagan government for Crucifixion

Even the pagan governor didn’t want him crucified.

A religion which dictates to the state with a level of power will abuse that power just as they did throughout history.

You can’t have the Church authorities in bed with government leaders, it then looses the tenets of what Jesus Christ intended.

There is no such thing as a monarchy living in symphony with the Church.

Humans are too greedy and flawed for this to not become a theocracy or dictatorship

If you want an example of a theocratic government, look at Iran.

Jim
 
Last edited:
and conquering most of the best part of a continent
How was that good? They killed many of natives in to take their land. It was armed robbery. Not a just war.

They should have bought the land, and evangelized to the Indians rather than simply killing to get what they wanted.
 
Last edited:
Amazing, every single word you just said was wrong

Just go ahead and say it was the Jews that killed Jesus. I know Nostrae Aetate has made that a booboo notion but it’s true. Jesus absolutely intended for his religion to rule the world. The Catholic Church is the Kingdom of Heaven for crying out loud, you think Jesus wanted it to stay underground forever? God willed its rise to flourishing power just as he took the nomadic slave driven Israelites and turned them into a might Kingdom. Of course God can diminish (though will never extinguish) the reach of the Church if her branches in a region do not produce good fruit. The Church has the absolute right to inform the morality of the civil government and the government has the duty of protecting the Church and the faithful. Most monarchs did live in a harmonious symphony with the Church, but we study the loud examples that were the exception (Henry VIII, Frederick II etc)

If there was never any symphony between Church and State, explain the Holy Roman Empire (you lose points if you quote Voltaire), Clovus I and the Merovingians, Carolus Magnus (Charlemagne) and his Grandfather and the Carolingians, the Hapsburgs, the Bourbans, etc. There was magnificent symphony between the two, you’re simply stuck in the modern day liberal frame of discourse.
 
In fairness they did both and most indians died from incidental disease they had no immunity to (and pox blankets is more myth than fact). The Anglosphere tended to utilize Babylonian tactics of conquest (expel people to disorient them and remove their morale and kill those that resist) where as the Spaniards utilized Assyrian tactics of conquest (marry into the hierarchy of the society and subjugate the lower classes while converting all to Catholicism) either way, one side loses and the other wins. Indians were not genocided either way.
 
I can’t believe Saint Padre Pio said such thing about Mussolini…

He was a communist that turned into an italian version of national socialism. Pope Pius XI condemned italian fascism. Even catholics were being persecuted by fascists for some time, until Mussolini started pretending he was protecting the Church (and inoculating the poisonous influence of his regime into Catholics…
 
Fascism is nationalist, Communism is internationalist, let us not confuse terms. Mussolini was far less racial than Hitler but he was indeed virulently anti-clerical until he realized that Catholicism was inseparable from Italian identity. He changed his tune, and ceded the Vatican back to the Pope and even had correspondences with St Padre Pio. I do not know his level of piety and do not endorse Italian Fascism (again I’m more an admirer of Franco who was an authoritarian reactionary and monarchist rather than a fascist) but I’m merely describing what St Padre Pio said. It can be considered a moral miracle.
 
In fairness they did both and most indians died from incidental disease they had no immunity to (and pox blankets is more myth than fact).
The americans may not have, the British did.
The Anglosphere tended to utilize Babylonian tactics of conquest (expel people to disorient them and remove their morale and kill those that resist) where as the Spaniards utilized Assyrian tactics of conquest (marry into the hierarchy of the society and subjugate the lower classes while converting all to Catholicism) either way, one side loses and the other wins.
Fascinating.
Indians were not genocided either way.
There were massacres. See: Genocide of indigenous peoples - Wikipedia

Regardless of how the war was fought, simply fighting it in the first place was wrong. It was not a just war.
 
Those massacres such a the ones carried out by that idiot Custer were indeed tragic
HOWEVER,
Let us not forget that most settlers were indifferent to the sparsely distributed Indians, and often would get their lands raided and their family’s attacked prompting retaliatory action by Posses or the U.S. Cavalry because these frontier regions were not under normalized law and order. Tribes such as the Commanche were brutal, utilizing gang rape, cannibalism and sex slavery in their battles against the mean ol’ white settlers. Tribes like theirs in due justice in many ways deserved to be put under the ban. Others did not. Either way their population was not subject to genocide but were second class residents such as the pagans under the rule of the Teutonic Knights during their battles in Lithuania.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top