I believe that, during the Spanish Inquisition, the lay government did most the burning at the stake and what not. Lay people probably are the ones that beat up adultresses and such and not the Church. Communication was not fast and arrogant Jesuits or the Spanish traders that brought them (probably mostly them) could bully Indians for some time. The Catholic Church would not be Iran or Saudi Arabia. The Church, too, has checks and balances. Due to special interests, in both, the wheels of justice can move slowly.
Code:
Who is to say that a government leader, with the help of a multi-national conglomerate, could not take little bites out of their nation till they can dissolve the government? I love Bush's appointments for Supreme Court justices and his not signing the Kyoto Protocols, which I hear even signing nations have not followed them, but, in many ways, he is selling the nation down the river--as if the conservative moves were just bones thrown to us.
If our Church does not control the world, by moral laws (not making everyone convert, which would be a paper conversion), the un-centralized Satanic church of the ego, commanded in a political sense, by the U.N., will. God is the king and the Pope is His P.M.. The Popes have scientific advisors to help him speak on religion and science and lead us in what we ought to think; why couldn't he do the same as a political leader? If he has evil advisors, well, he is the Pope and knows theology the best. He would not call a preemptive strike against a nation unless it were ready to attack it or did attack it. The Church running the world would have its problems and abuses, as it is run by humans and political decisions would not be infallible, but it would be the safest ruling body. If the Pope didn't do it, he could appoint a loyal Catholic as political leader (who would choose other loyal Catholics as advisors).
This, obviously, would require decades, if not a couple centuries, and bloody clashes like the kind St. Francis escaped. Thus, we probably would do more harm than good taking it back now politically.
There is the other option. We see our churches closed and destroyed, maybe, by atheists or terrorist-types. Priests would be executed or their activities, penalized by prison time. We would be like the underground Church suffering in China. That is equally possibly good, but not for the unborn or infirm, who would be deemed useless eaters by a one-world government that would only saves the rights of gays, rapists and pedophiles (because that depravity keeps societies demoralized and paralyzed. Can we morally allow an evil to occur for good to come of it? Maybe, but only if it happens because we are doing what we’re supposed to and nothing we’re not and not because something good may come of something evil. St. Francis got the Church of the Holy Sepulchre back from a theocratic leader, the Sultan of the area at the time, who respected his peaceful show of faith.
Dogmas declared in later times are true for earlier times. Was the bull formally declared in '65? Anyway, I never was talking about all converting to Catholicism). The Pope at the time of Lepanto, St. (I believe) Pius V had everyone pray to defend the Catholics and the lands declared for Christ, from the Muslim raiders. Thus, would it be a bad idea to at least set up a potential Catholic political machine, should enemies of it attack and run the Pope out of Rome, if it should happen as the prophesies predict? Should we allow a greater possible good, that of being the Church suffering, where Catholic people one living comfortably numb would return to a strong Faith, to happen by allowing a different enemy force to conquer Christian lands and destroy the unborn and crippled through groups like Unicef?
