If the Vatican is indeed a Sovereign Nation

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaMaMaXiMuS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DaMaMaXiMuS

Guest
What type of Government is it? Would it be a Monarchy of sorts?

Another question, is Democracy the only form of government the Vatican or Church rather, approves of or supports?

I know Communism and Facism are out, but I’m not sure of the other forms of government. I’m curious because I read how a Democracy and Republic are very different, which I didn’t realize. So I was wondering if the ideal form of government that the Church approves of is a “Republic”. Below is the supposed definition of a Republic and that of a Democracy.

(A Republic, by definition, has two principle elements,
First, it is controlled by Law, therefore it does not control Law.
Second, it recognizes the private independent sovereign nature of each person (man or woman) of competent age and capacity, therefore a Republic must be representative in its nature.
A Republic recognizes Law is unchangeable, or at least that it can only be changed by a higher source than government. In a Republic the concept of “collective sovereignty” cannot exist, except with recognition that the State or nation, as a body of sovereigns, can speak through one elected voice; though that one voice can never lawfully interfere with the private rights of the individual sovereigns.

“A Constitutional Republic” is a government created and controlled, at least, by the Law of a Constitution. The Constitution of the United States of America was, in Law, foundationally based on the Bible, the Magna Carta, and The Declaration of Independence. Those documents recognize man’s sovereignty, the divine nature of man’s creation and man’s divine right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the pursuit of happiness.)

(A Democracy, by definition, has two principle elements,
First, it recognizes sovereignty as the right of the collective body of the people, which sovereignty is appointed to a governing body that executes its will over its people; in other words, mob rule (Mobocracy).

Second, though each person has the privilege of casting their representative vote toward the sovereign collective body, a Democracy does not recognize independent sovereignty of any individual person.

Therefore, in a Democracy, the government can create and control its rules, regulations and what it calls “law” to suit the needs of what those in power call “common opinion” having no respect for private life, liberty, property or God.

The Founding Fathers of the United States of America were repulsed by Democracy, finding it to be the worst form of government possible.)

I found this on the following website:

teamlaw.org/

chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvdem.htm

Regards,

Nelson
 
Montesquieu spent twenty yrs. writing a book about law, the laws of politics so to speak.

Fundamentally, these are the following forms of governments and what contrasts them against other forms of governments, but to say it outright, categoricly: The Vatican is a monarchy, however, the process to elect a pope is democratic. Orders within the Catholic Church, subservient to the pope, nonetheless function as democratic forms of government.

There are three fundamental forms of governments: 1) Democracy 2) Monarchy 3) Despotic. A democracy is governed by a body of people. A monarchy is governed by a soveriegn, who rules in accord with laws established across time to the extent that each ruler and subjects have a reasonable means to evaluate their behavior–everyone has a reasonable idea about what to expect within a monarchy. Despotic governments are characterized by rulers that make things up as they go, or let their whims guide their powers.

You can ascertain within these three definitions that communism, socialism, etc. exist as democracies. You can see that the papacy is a monarchy, The Ten Commandments serve as the foundation for all law(s), with the infallibility of the Cat. of the Cath. Church following as well. Despots can be difficult to identify. Saddam Hussein was a bad despot as exemplified not only by his invasion of Kuwait, but also by his invasion of Iran. These two invasions took place for no other reason than he neither liked Kuwait, nor Iran at those times that he invaded them. Of course, the ruler of Singapore is a despot, too; however, he apparently is a very benevolent man. Theoreticly, it is unwise to oppose any form of government–what should be opposed are the abuses of power in whatever decisions cause harm to others. The body of decisions of a government and how they are brought into existence seems to be what defines a government. Many argue America exists to this day as a republic, a form of a democracy, because our power derived from a voting population is placed into the hands of those who represent the people. A true democracy would leave the power in the hands of the people, typicly, and therefore, no representation would be involved–such as what existed once in Greece. Democracies are given to being corrupt, when the status quo is Mob Rule; whereas, along the line of a republican government, a democracy can be corrupted to have the power in the hands of a few, ruling elite. It seems in college today, we learn that a sufficient body of decisions in our government attest to the arguement that we now exist in an oligarchical form of government: ruled by a select few that are very elite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top