How Far to a Good Old-Fashioned Theocracy?

[St_Aloysius]

I think a lot of people here seem to be asking the same question in various forms without addressing the “meat” of it, so I will.

**How far can we as Catholics enforce “objective truth” before our society becomes a theocracy? **

For example: Contraception is a crime against nature in its opposition to life. Therefore, contraception should be outlawed.

Or a more complex and troubling example still: Atheism is an illogical and ultimately detrimental belief system that undermines the very Ultimate Reality that we know as “God.” Therefore, atheism should be outlawed.

Obviously, we as Catholics don’t want to see abortion permitted in our country. So we resolve to outlaw it. But do we want to see contraception or atheism? Should we outlaw these things because they’re wrong, then? (I think not! But where is the logic in this conclusion?)

If God created us as creatures of free will, doesn’t it only follow, then, that we are free [sic] to live as captives to sin?

How can we oppose abortion and homosexual unions and things of this sort in matters of social justice but not contraception, or religious liberty, or ANYTHING at all, really, that contradicts the truth of Christ’s Church?

Thoughts? (Make 'em good!)

 

[goofyjim]

Hope we never get to a theocracy. That’s not what this country was founded on.

 

[foolishmortal]

Our country, if you mean the US, was founded upon Masonic communistic teachings. Economic communism, capitalism and democracy were all ways to destroy the Church’s Holy Roman Empire. The guild system was the closest economic model for Catholics (much like fair trade, except a young man would work with a master craftsman, work would stay within the guild, they would be proud of their workmanship, and no guild tried to put another out of business with Walmart-like practices). A monarchy, a somewhat constitutional monarchy as the Pope is like His prime minister and he and his “voting house (the bishops plus the Pope, with bishops electing new Pope)” makes laws, was the natural political system as it’s God’s model for His Church.

If a nation has any king, he rules as a representative of God (Freemasons wanted to get rid of that problem of theirs with Holy Roman royalty who were doing that in the 19th century, still, like the leader of Austria).  If he oppresses his people, well, more people's souls are usually in better shape anyway under oppression, as they are more ready to meet their Maker (look at us in our Post-WW2 health and wealth culture) and priests are harder to find, thus they must be careful.

Catholic prophesies predict a great Catholic monarch who will convert most all people to the Catholic Faith before the Antichrist kills him and the endtimes ensues after a falling away. It’s not necessarily perfectly going to go like that, but it says something for monarchies.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Hope we never get to a theocracy. That’s not what this country was founded on.

Whom do you love more, America, or the Church? No man can serve two masters.

 

[goofyjim]

Whom do you love more, America, or the Church? No man can serve two masters.

I love the Church more but not enough to live under a theocracy. They would end up controlling every little detail of our lives and that is unacceptable.

 

[goofyjim]

Any theocracy is no good because that is imposing religion on people. Any religion must be freely chosen. Therefore a democracy works best.

 

[exoflare]

I love the Church more but not enough to live under a theocracy. They would end up controlling every little detail of our lives and that is unacceptable.

Has this been your experience with the Church so far? Do they really go out of their way to control every little detail of your life?

 

[goofyjim]

Has this been your experience with the Church so far? Do they really go out of their way to control every little detail of your life?

No because they are kept in check by opposing viewpoints. Theocracies don’t work.

 

[goofyjim]

Funny I thought St. Paul and St. Francis both believed that the Church was not inovlve itself in worldly affairs. A theocratic government would go against that principle.

 

[exoflare]

I didn’t say theocracies DID work.

Anyway this just came to my mind but I want to hear what other people think… isn’t Vatican City, for all practical purposes, a small theocracy?

 

[foolishmortal]

That’s funny Goofyjim, because Pope John Paul 2’s papacy, a king, though he’s not, would go against that as well as he went to the godless U.N. and was involved in ending economic communism (only it evolved to a Stalinist communism in hiding with a friendly image)–meanwhile we were losing Catholics to Fundies in South America, N. America and Europe because rogue bishops were allowed to run things there and priests were doing silly stuff at Mass and not teaching much of anything in their sermons.

I think the Vatican is like the Washington D.C. of Catholicism.

You don’t need to make everyone be Catholic in a theocracy; just run it by Catholic moral teaching. It works, because God entrusted His moral theology to the Church. The Masons blew our authority to the wind with democracies and economic communism. Of course, not all leaders are going to be righteous, but the model is right and correct reform of leaders can be done through it.

Nevertheless, the leader of Austria, its last of the Holy Roman Empire family, before it went democratic, ran the nation under Catholic moral teaching and people of other faiths got along. As the Jews wanted a human king in the Old Testament, and God reluctantly oked it (as He should have been their only king), so did the people of Austria crave for a democracy like the other Europeans. They shipped him out and the people of other religions, and faiths therein, started bugging each other.

That is what the Illuminati want, revolution. People doing what they want and voting for leaders to allow it. Secret societies choose their options and maybe even truly pick the winner and they help start wars using a dictator so that they can get people to think maybe they should have their lives subjugated to other people–they just happen to be a one-world government. We are sheep and most of us don’t think much, but we can choose our shepherd wisely with grace. Let’s let God’s Church be our government. Unfortunately, the last Pope went to them to work things out in the world. It’s far better than the Illuminati running the world, even if the Church leaders could become corrupt as humans can become.

In the end, it’s our religion or the world’s; it’s the Church or the U.N. for our one-world government. Pick one. Just know God is truth, God made everything, so the Church, I believe, has a right to rule over and make judgments about things God created. If St. Paul said we cannot in the Bible, I stand corrected, but t didn’t bother our best Popes in the Middle Ages.

 

[St_Aloysius]

These replies are as disturbing as they are ignorant.

Anyone else out there NOT looking to resurrect all the injustices and abuses of the Church when in power?

Pope Benedict has gone so far as to call the times when the Church has been a secular (governmental) power “tragic” before. I for one agree. He is a strong proponent of democracy. Theocracies don’t work because the people are subject to religious leaders (who tend to be sinners for some reason and thus abusers of their authority) and not God (the only true Monarch, and the only one that makes it work, what’s more).

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

meanwhile we were losing Catholics to Fundies in South America, N. America and Europe because rogue bishops were allowed to run things there and priests were doing silly stuff at Mass and not teaching much of anything in their sermons.

If you look at the recent history of the Church in Latin America, it is a class warfare issue. The Church has often sided with the elites in power during the proxy wars of the Cold War and into our post-Cold War flat economic model. The people feel the Church does not represent their interests and are leaving, not because the teachings are not harsh enough as you infer. This is the part of Liberation Theology that quite often gets glossed over and swept under the carpet.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

These replies are as disturbing as they are ignorant.

Yes they are, there was another thread on this a couple months ago along the lines of a Catholic Theocracy, it was a long thread and most people were against it yet we had those who were all for it.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

I think a lot of people here seem to be asking the same question in various forms without addressing the “meat” of it, so I will.

**How far can we as Catholics enforce “objective truth” before our society becomes a theocracy? **

For example: Contraception is a crime against nature in its opposition to life. Therefore, contraception should be outlawed.

Or a more complex and troubling example still: Atheism is an illogical and ultimately detrimental belief system that undermines the very Ultimate Reality that we know as “God.” Therefore, atheism should be outlawed.

Obviously, we as Catholics don’t want to see abortion permitted in our country. So we resolve to outlaw it. But do we want to see contraception or atheism? Should we outlaw these things because they’re wrong, then? (I think not! But where is the logic in this conclusion?)

If God created us as creatures of free will, doesn’t it only follow, then, that we are free [sic] to live as captives to sin?

How can we oppose abortion and homosexual unions and things of this sort in matters of social justice but not contraception, or religious liberty, or ANYTHING at all, really, that contradicts the truth of Christ’s Church?

Thoughts? (Make 'em good!)

Very good topic here.

The reason we Catholics believe that abortion should be outlawed is because it’s a crime against another human being. When you abort a fetus, you are killing a human. As such, it should be punishable under human law.

Making atheism illegal would go against Christian teaching, IMO. The Christian calling is to love God. Is love really love if it is forced upon you?

 

[goofyjim]

That’s funny Goofyjim, because Pope John Paul 2’s papacy, a king, though he’s not, would go against that as well as he went to the godless U.N. and was involved in ending economic communism (only it evolved to a Stalinist communism in hiding with a friendly image)–meanwhile we were losing Catholics to Fundies in South America, N. America and Europe because rogue bishops were allowed to run things there and priests were doing silly stuff at Mass and not teaching much of anything in their sermons.

I think the Vatican is like the Washington D.C. of Catholicism.

You don’t need to make everyone be Catholic in a theocracy; just run it by Catholic moral teaching. It works, because God entrusted His moral theology to the Church. The Masons blew our authority to the wind with democracies and economic communism. Of course, not all leaders are going to be righteous, but the model is right and correct reform of leaders can be done through it.

Nevertheless, the leader of Austria, its last of the Holy Roman Empire family, before it went democratic, ran the nation under Catholic moral teaching and people of other faiths got along. As the Jews wanted a human king in the Old Testament, and God reluctantly oked it (as He should have been their only king), so did the people of Austria crave for a democracy like the other Europeans. They shipped him out and the people of other religions, and faiths therein, started bugging each other.

That is what the Illuminati want, revolution. People doing what they want and voting for leaders to allow it. Secret societies choose their options and maybe even truly pick the winner and they help start wars using a dictator so that they can get people to think maybe they should have their lives subjugated to other people–they just happen to be a one-world government. We are sheep and most of us don’t think much, but we can choose our shepherd wisely with grace. Let’s let God’s Church be our government. Unfortunately, the last Pope went to them to work things out in the world. It’s far better than the Illuminati running the world, even if the Church leaders could become corrupt as humans can become.

In the end, it’s our religion or the world’s; it’s the Church or the U.N. for our one-world government. Pick one. Just know God is truth, God made everything, so the Church, I believe, has a right to rule over and make judgments about things God created. If St. Paul said we cannot in the Bible, I stand corrected, but t didn’t bother our best Popes in the Middle Ages.

Actually I will fight both one-world governments till the day I die, whether it be the Church or the UN. The Bible speaks of the nations submitting their authority to Christ. This would imply that they are individual sovereignties and not already subject to the Church or the UN.

 

[markomalley]

I think a lot of people here seem to be asking the same question in various forms without addressing the “meat” of it, so I will.

**How far can we as Catholics enforce “objective truth” before our society becomes a theocracy? **

For example: Contraception is a crime against nature in its opposition to life. Therefore, contraception should be outlawed.

Or a more complex and troubling example still: Atheism is an illogical and ultimately detrimental belief system that undermines the very Ultimate Reality that we know as “God.” Therefore, atheism should be outlawed.

Obviously, we as Catholics don’t want to see abortion permitted in our country. So we resolve to outlaw it. But do we want to see contraception or atheism? Should we outlaw these things because they’re wrong, then? (I think not! But where is the logic in this conclusion?)

If God created us as creatures of free will, doesn’t it only follow, then, that we are free [sic] to live as captives to sin?

How can we oppose abortion and homosexual unions and things of this sort in matters of social justice but not contraception, or religious liberty, or ANYTHING at all, really, that contradicts the truth of Christ’s Church?

Thoughts? (Make 'em good!)

You should read Boniface VIII’s Bull, Unam Sanctum. If you actually read the document (vice what others say about the document), it clearly identifies that the temporal power is to be separate from the spiritual power, but that temporal power is also to be subordinate to spiritual power.

Does that mean a theocracy? No. A theocracy is one where the spiritual leaders are also the temporal leaders. What Unam Sanctum advocates is one where the temporal leaders are held accountable by the spiritual ones.

Does that mean that Catholic doctrine on social justice be incorporated into the laws of the State? Yes. And, sorry, I don’t see a problem with that.

Does that mean that everybody will be compelled to become Catholic? I suggest that you review the VII declaration, Dignitatis Humanae, before making that assumption.* 2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.*
So to enforce or outlaw a religious faith (or lack thereof), a person would have to go against the official doctrine of the Church.

In an ideal world, I wouldn’t mind seeing an Unam Sanctum kind of existence (in this ideal world, though, there would be no heterodox bishops, either…). But a theocracy? No.

 

[KarenNC]

You don’t need to make everyone be Catholic in a theocracy.

No, you simply make those that aren’t part of the majority religion into second-class citizens (or worse) without the ability to ever participate in the society on an equal footing. You turn them into the “other”, the “outsiders” and, all too frequently, the convenient scapegoat.

It has happened over and over and over again throughout human history, regardless of which religion is the one in power.

 

[foolishmortal]

Oh come on! The illuminati came up with democracy. If the Church doesn’t rule the world, the churches of the ego will. It will be pre-Christian Christian persecution again. As I said, you don’t have to require all to be Christians or Catholics. Catholic moral laws work for all people of any or no faith because they came from God.

I am not talking about absolute monarchy. People love the British constitutional monarchy family even while deploring the weird stuff. Does England bully any country, at least anymore than our nation does, economically-speaking.

Whether the Church helped elites in South America is not an issue if certain clergy are acting against Church teaching. Liberation theology may have an explanation, but no excuse. The clergy knew/know the Faith and knew/know better. For all the problems caused by the Jesuits and other mendicant orders that became snooty and rich and then communistic liberation theologists (poor St. Ignatious Loyola), there were always saints who did not support communists or oppressive regimes.

Look at it this way: liberals rule (as would a Churchless one world government as has been building up since last century) and the unborn suffer; the Church rules and has some bad apples and people who can prepare their souls for death only suffer, because the Church does not believe in abortion or euthenasia. Only the crooked Catholics could cause trouble, as scandalous as that would be, but they still likey would not allow abortion or euthenasia in their land.

The liberals ran out the Holy Roman Empire and put in a democracy or communism. Those under both would be dumbed down spiritually so they would not vote wisely and vote in those who would start wars would occur so a one world government could be built to replace the Church as the moral authority of most people. Still, oppressed people are usually better, more focused, people with a renewed morale they had when they felt comfortable and wealthy. This new Roman empire could be good for the Church’s faithful, but we can not wish for evil that good may come of it. As God is truth and all things are created by God and all truth about Him and what He wants for His people is given to the Church, The Church needs to rule with the Pope as the Prime Minister. It’s the Church or the World in charge–pick.

It is shameful that the Pope goes to the U.N… The prophesies say a Pope will have to flee Rome. The U.N. will entertain the Pope as much as he is tolerable to them, but they will order things that will make the Church a nuisance to them. The Catholic Monarch may come then. It will take decades, though for all continents to be united and then united to a word governing party.

 

[foolishmortal]

I said that the Catholic moral order would be imposed on everyone; not the Faith. That is the temporal submitting to the spiritual. Ok, if the Pope isn’t to be the Prime Minister, bring back the Holy Roman Empire and have the Papal States returned that were wrongly taken from the Church. In any case, it’s the Church vs the World (well, there’s terrorists also, I guess, who are taking lands for Islam and there are Fundies, with various teachings for different communities, winning souls for God, but with a distorted understanding of the Bible). You want that? Goofy Jim? Fine. I prefer God’s order. At least marriages stay intact, and the infirm and the unborn live.
Are you saying, Markomalley, that the Popes of the time of Catholic domination were acting against God’s will by having theocracies? Well, their governing is fallible, yet Pope Benedict is beyond that when he says we should not have theocracies–unless, however, that means we should not have a kind where all have to be Catholics (not the case in my Austria example).