How do Catholics support a Democracy?

[GregoryPalamas]

Since a Catholic Monarchy is natural to Catholic thought how do we rationalize supporting a secular democracy? Is it simply considered to be the least destructive system outside a Catholic Democracy? I’m somewhat familiar with the history I just have not seen much a recent vintage.

CDL

 

[Evan]

Since a Catholic Monarchy is natural to Catholic thought how do we rationalize supporting a secular democracy? Is it simply considered to be the least destructive system outside a Catholic Democracy? I’m somewhat familiar with the history I just have not seen much a recent vintage.

CDL

Why is a Catholic Monarchy natural to Catholic thought? I would think more natural would be a Catholic anarchy! Everyone lives a perfect Christian life, or possibly the Commune style of govt.

What family would be the aristocats in the Monarchy? Yours? Mine? Any why would the heirs be worthy of being monarchs?

 

[edward_george]

Since a Catholic Monarchy is natural to Catholic thought how do we rationalize supporting a secular democracy? Is it simply considered to be the least destructive system outside a Catholic Democracy? I’m somewhat familiar with the history I just have not seen much a recent vintage.

CDL

I read Leo XIII and ask myself the same question…over and over…

-ACEGC

 

[AHapka]

What family would be the aristocats in the Monarchy? Yours? Mine? Any why would the heirs be worthy of being monarchs?

In Heaven, Jesus as King and Mary as Queen. No heirs.

In this world, democracy is the best form of govt.

 

[ribozyme]

Why is a Catholic Monarchy natural to Catholic thought? I would think more natural would be a Catholic anarchy! Everyone lives a perfect Christian life, or possibly the Commune style of govt.

What family would be the aristocats in the Monarchy? Yours? Mine? Any why would the heirs be worthy of being monarchs?

Are you influenced by Dorothy Day? It sounds like the ideas you advocate ideas that are similar to hers.

I suppose it would be a better world if eveyone acted like her, and it would be a better alternative to the welfare state if certain assumptions on human nature were correct.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

In Heaven, Jesus as King and Mary as Queen. No heirs.

In this world, democracy is the best form of govt.

It seems to me that since King Jesus is both God and man that a Monarchy, the rule of one, is a natural fit.

CDL

 

[Genesis315]

Sure, a saintly Catholic King is the best form, so if you can find one and get him in power that’s great. But the fact is since the 1800s the ruling class has become increasingly antagonistic to religion and the Catholic Church is in a position closer to the ante-Nicene situation than, say, the situation around the time of Lateran IV.

A democracy is less likely to destroy the rights of the faithful than a tyrant (like Stalin, Diocletian, certain Arian Gothic kings, etc.) Leo XIII himself taught that any form of government is fine as long as they govern according to true principles.

However, Catholics should not support godless government–it is not a true principle. As the Holy Father stated over and over again during his visit to the US, faith cannot be excluded from the public and civil sphere.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Why is a Catholic Monarchy natural to Catholic thought? I would think more natural would be a Catholic anarchy! Everyone lives a perfect Christian life, or possibly the Commune style of govt.

What family would be the aristocats in the Monarchy? Yours? Mine? Any why would the heirs be worthy of being monarchs?

Divine Right of kings is a secular idea not a Catholic one. The monarch was chosen in the Catholic monarchies.

CDL

 

[Genesis315]

Here’s the quote from Leo XIII’s Diuturnum:

1. There is no question here respecting forms of government, for there is no reason why the Church should not approve of the chief power being held by one man or by more, provided only it be just, and that it tend to the common advantage. Wherefore, so long as justice be respected, the people are not hindered from choosing for themselves that form of government which suits best either their own disposition, or the institutions and customs of their ancestors.[3]

 

[Evan]

Divine Right of kings is a secular idea not a Catholic one. The monarch was chosen in the Catholic monarchies.

CDL

Examples of Catholic Monarchies. I’m not up on how Kings were chosen. Were the following Catholic Monarchies?

Spain (1200) France (1200) England (1200).

As I recall, the king was crowned by the Bishop, but it was the heir to the throne who was crowned, not some elected (via God? the Church? the People?) king.

 

[drafdog]

The Holy Spirit speaks equally throughout the whole Church. He is not confined to just a handful of ordained men. Even papal infallibility is finally subject to the acceptance of the faithful at large. One member, one vote: democracy.

Matthew

 

[Holly3278]

In Heaven, Jesus as King and Mary as Queen. No heirs.

In this world, democracy is the best form of govt.

Jesus and Mary would definitely be the best rulers that any government could have. I hope I make it to Heaven!

 

[Genesis315]

The idea that a monarchy is best comes from Aristotle and it was then taken up by St. Thomas Aquinas. But they both also said that the government of one had the potential to be the worst. There is, however, freedom of opinion on this as Pope Leo explained in my post above. In the Church, however, papal infallibility assures that the governance of one will not become tyranical, in that it will not be able to “kill the soul” or many souls by shepherding the Church into perdition.

The Holy Spirit speaks equally throughout the whole Church. He is not confined to just a handful of ordained men. Even papal infallibility is finally subject to the acceptance of the faithful at large. One member, one vote: democracy.

Matthew

The bolded is not true. As the First Vatican Council stated,
Pastor Aeternus:

Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Likewise, the Second Vatican Council says the same:
Lumen Gentium:

And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.

The Holy Spirit speaks to the whole Church in different ways–different charisms are given to different members of the Body. He does lead the whole Church into all truth (but He doesn’t carry it). And He leads the Church by pastors–since it is He who makes men bishops to govern the Church of God as St. Paul tells us.

The Doctor of the Church, St. Francis de Sales, explains this well here:
Catholic Controversy:

But he cannot err when he is *in cathedra *, that is, when he intends to make an instruction and decree for the guidance of the whole Church, when he means to confirm his brethren as supreme pastor, and to conduct them into the pastures of the faith. For then it is not so much man who determines, resolves, and defines as it is the Blessed Holy Spirit by man, which Spirit, according to the promise made by Our Lord to the Apostles, teaches all truth to the Church, and, as the Greek says and the Church seems to understand in a collect of Pentecost, conducts and directs his Church into all truth: *But when that Spirit of truth shall come, he will teach you all truth *or, will lead you into all truth (John xvi. 13). And how does the Holy Spirit lead the Church except by the ministry and office of preachers and pastors? But if the pastors have pastors they must also follow them, as all must follow him who is the supreme pastor, by whose ministry Our God wills to lead not only the lambs and little sheep, but the sheep and mothers of lambs; that is, not the people only but also the other pastors: he succeeds S. Peter, who received this charge: Feed my sheep. Thus it is that God leads his Church into the pastures of his Holy Word, and in the exposition of this he who seeks the truth under other leading loses it. The Holy Spirit is the leader of the Church, he leads it by its pastor, he therefore who follows not the pastor follows not the Holy Spirit.

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/papacy/fds_pope14.html

The *sensu fidei *definitely has its place as the Second Vatican Council also stated:
Lumen Gentium:

Christ, the great Prophet, who proclaimed the Kingdom of His Father both by the testimony of His life and the power of His words, continually fulfills His prophetic office until the complete manifestation of glory. He does this not only through the hierarchy who teach in His name and with His authority, but also through the laity whom He made His witnesses and to whom He gave understanding of the faith (sensu fidei) and an attractiveness in speech(200) so that the power of the Gospel might shine forth in their daily social and family life.

But it is always subject to the pastors of the Church, especially the chief pastor (which itself is subject to the ultimate authority, the triune God). From the Second Vatican Council once more:

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. his religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.

 

[DL82]

Let’s not forget that it was formerly Catholic monarchs who were responsible for much of the destruction of the Church, for example King John and later Richard II under the influence of John Wycliffe in England, Gustavas Adolphus of Sweden, the first Protestant monarch, Henry VIII in England, and the increasing claims for the right to appoint clergy and control the Church made by the French monarchy from Louis XIV onwards. The Church had gone far too far in asserting the spiritual as well as temporal authority of the monarch and as a result Catholic monarchs began to damage the Church by claiming absolute power in spiritual as well as temporal matters. In the end, the Church became so caught up with the defence of corrupt monarchies that people had to fight against the Church in order to depose unjust rulers, witness the anti-clericalism of France and Spain in their respective revolutions. I don’t think the experiment that was Catholic monarchy was a particularly successful one.

[edit - I realise the Spanish socialists in the Civil War can’t really be called revolutionaries, as they were the elected government and the revolt came from the Fascist side]

 

[goofyjim]

I support a democracy. Catholic monarchies have failed because some are still looking for a warrior Jesus in a worldly sense. Those who did that 2,000 years ago missed his first coming. Now I do not support the idea of enforcing democracy on other countries. This becomes imperialism and was England’s downfall and will be ours as well even if it is under the guise of spreading democracy. It works fine in a country such as ours but certain countires must remain a theocracy.

 

[JesuXPIPassio]

Since a Catholic Monarchy is natural to Catholic thought how do we rationalize supporting a secular democracy? Is it simply considered to be the least destructive system outside a Catholic Democracy? I’m somewhat familiar with the history I just have not seen much a recent vintage.

CDL

I’m a Historical/Political Studies and Christian Studies Major, and I don’t really see much basis in saying that the form of a Catholic monarchy is more natural than a democracy.

France and Italy are considered to be the Daughter and Son of the Church, yet neither has had a monarch in quite some time now. The relationship between Italy and the Vatican is especially strong. Italy provides for the Vatican. It provides larger security for the Pope, and if someone commits a crime in the Vatican (happens a lot, since the visiting tourists are easy prey to pickpocketers), Italy lets the Vatican use its jails and judicial system.

The Church strongly champions democratic freedoms. Think of John Paul II’s work against the Communists.

Now, it might be true that Catholic monarchs have certain traditional privileges with the Pope that other heads of state do not, but those are just traditions, and they don’t really reflect things in terms of actual Vatican policy. Much of it is because the Pope is, and has long been, himself a monarch. In Europe, monarchs were almost always related to each other. It still remains true today, as all European Royals now are related by blood. As a monarch, the Popes had similar secular obligations and traditions. Many of those traditions continue to this day, but they are nothing more than remnants of the past. It doesn’t mean that the Vatican supports Catholic monarchs more than it does other leaders.

And even then, remember that the Pope is an elected official too.

 

[Wirraway]

… In the Church, however, papal infallibility assures that the governance of one will not become tyranical, in that it will not be able to “kill the soul” or many souls by shepherding the Church into perdition…

what does papal infallibility have to do with, say, building codes, hunting regulations, zoning laws or any traditional government function?

would papal infallibility permit first amendment freedom of dissent? or freedom of worship for non-Catholics?

 

[Wirraway]

It seems to me that since King Jesus is both God and man that a Monarchy, the rule of one, is a natural fit.

CDL

do you mean a constitutional monarchy like the UK or Spain or an absolute monarchy like that of the Tsars, Kaisers or the Imperial Japanese? because the absolute monarchies have been on the decline for the last ten centuries and the constititional ones aren’t nearly as much fun.

 

[John_Augustine]

do you mean a constitutional monarchy like the UK or Spain or an absolute monarchy like that of the Tsars, Kaisers or the Imperial Japanese? because the absolute monarchies have been on the decline for the last ten centuries and the constititional ones aren’t nearly as much fun.

I’d beg to differ. Did you read about Juan Carlos shouting at the Venezuelan president?

 

[Wirraway]

I’d beg to differ. Did you read about Juan Carlos shouting at the Venezuelan president?

the King’s got style, for sure.

but monarchs of all stripes have been either ditched or their absolute powers drastically curtailed since the 13th century. so I’d say that, contrary to the assertion of the OP, monarchies are not a perferred state of mankind.