Is a Theocracy more Moral than a Democracy?

[BobObob]

Part 1/1

First, as you’ve now pretty much admitted, you do not hold to the Church’s teaching on the role and nature of government.

“Admitted”! You say that as if that was an inherently bad thing. I know this analogy isn’t perfect, but it’s like saying that Galileo “admitted” to not holding the Church’s position on the interpretation of what Scripture says about the cosmos.

It’s not like I’m disagreeing with the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals. Sure, politics is morally relevant.

BTW, what’s funny is that Dr. Scott Hahn, who is orthodox, briefly mentioned disagreeing with previous authoritative, although not infallible, teachings of the Catholic Church today (Tuesday) in my grad class. He certainly wasn’t encouraging disagreeing with non-infallible teachings of the magisterium, but he indicated that at the graduate level of study it may be necessary to do so. He said that he would be more straight-foreword and simple in his undergrad classes, but for graduate study, where students are more mature, he doesn’t consider carefully disagreeing with non-infallible, yet authoritative teachings, out of bounds. He also pointed out that it would cause great suffering if all authoritative, but non-infallible teachings from over a century ago were still considered binding today. He was briefly talking about this in the context of discussing an encyclical on Scripture.

And the argumentation you have deployed is pretty much identical to that of a dissenter on, say, contraception. The teaching on contraception is not formally infallible so my dissent is permissible. But even if it were taught infallibly, I’ve determined by my private judgment that the effects of not contracepting are in some instances worse than the effects of contracepting, so by invoking the principle of double effect I can contracept.

No. My argument is not similar to any valid argument on issues like contraception.

I believe I already stated that the Church’s moral teaching (one of the requirements for infallibility) on contraception is infallibly taught by the magisterium.

Also, you don’t seem to understand the principle of double effect because. The thing about effects of contraception is not valid for contraception. No evil may be done so that good may come from it. However, in a situation of double effect, an evil may be passively permitted so that evil may not be done. For contraception, one actively does evil, while the opposite is true of a restricted government.

It seems to me you go beyond even the dissenter on contraception by claiming that a government constituted contrary to the Church’s teaching is always better than one in line with that teaching.

Galileo was thought to have been violating something that was considered a matter of faith or morals as well.

It’s not always evil to disagree with the prevailing thoughts in the CC on issues not themselves faith or morals. For example, the Vatican recently said something along the lines of “if you look at the facts and still don’t hold the evolution is true, you’re stupid”, yet for a long time the CC was at least hostile to the idea of evolution.

I think it has been adequately established that this is a matter that falls within the purview of faith and morals, not least according to the Popes themselves. Pope Leo XIII, for one, clearly intended his teaching to be definitive: "This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the constitution and government of the State” (Immortale Dei §36).

Saying “this is the teaching of the Catholic Church” is not to say that it falls under faith and morals.

This discussion at this point seems ridiculous because it has gone way off-topic and we are likely to just keep going around in circles.

It seems to me you go beyond even the dissenter on contraception by claiming that a government constituted contrary to the Church’s teaching is always better than one in line with that teaching.

I didn’t say that a secular government is always better than a religious one (I searched the thread for the word “always” to verify). A secular government, such as many communist governments, can be extremely evil. A government that is formed with an official religion for the purpose of enforcing morality, in practice, will cause greater evil than it prevents.

I think it has been adequately established that this is a matter that falls within the purview of faith and morals, not least according to the Popes themselves. Pope Leo XIII, for one, clearly intended his teaching to be definitive: "This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the constitution and government of the State” (Immortale Dei §36). I guess I don’t consider dissent from the Church’s teaching to be “ridiculous”.

I know this will seem argumentative to you, but saying that "This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the constitution and government of the State” is not the same thing as saying “we decree that matters of the state are themselves matters of faith and morals”.

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01111885_immortale-dei_en.html

Not every teaching of the Catholic Church is infallible. That doesn’t mean they should be disregarded though.

 

[BobObob]

Part 2/3

BobObob;7010134:

Treating the idea of government as something which derives it’s power from God is a dangerous idea which popes have held. It’s an idea that elite have used too many times in history to justify tyrannical rule and gathering too great of power. This view is erroneous because governments, with the exception of ancient Israel, were created by men, and thus derived there power from men (hopefully from the men they govern, rather than the elite).

To call this view “erroneous” places you on the opposite side of Tradition and Scripture. St. Paul teaches this “erroneous” view in the inerrant Rom 13:1-4 and the Church has upheld it ever since, in numerous pronouncements. As CCC §1918 states, plainly: “There is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God” (Rom 13:1).

Listing statements by popes does not make something a teaching of Tradition.

Regarding Romans 13, the context of it being specifically addressed to the Romans needs to be taken into consideration. The Romans, at that time (before the persecution) allowed freedom of religion and help protect Christians from some Jewish leaders with malevolent intent. If context was not considered when reading Scriptures, than one might conclude from reading Scriptures that stoning disobedient children (Deut 21:18-21), killing the children of all of one’s enemies (1 Sam 15:3 and many other places), and sacrificing one’s daughter (Judges 11:31-40) are all moral. Surely you don’t think those things are moral, do you? Just like those are interpreted in a historical and cultural context, so should Rom 13:1-4 (especially since it was addressed to the Romans in particular).

Also, the meaning of “authorities” isn’t as clear as one might think.

Please note, very importantly in sections 1918ff., that the Church teaches that governments are to uphold the “common good”, not merely temporal “peace”. In traditional Catholic teaching, the common good is much broader than mere “peace”. So again, I submit that you are not thinking with the Church on this issue.

Exactly how the government can best uphold the “common good” is debatable. Certainly if government attempting to enforce morality or to uphold one particular religion creates more evil than good, than in doing so it isn’t upholding the “common good”.

In keeping with their Catholic character and the teaching of the Church, in centuries past the Catholic governments of the world have major feast days into national holidays (Holy Days), so that public honor as a nation could be given to God and His work of redemption. What evil resulted from this that eclipsed the good that came of it?

Could you cite specific governments and show that those governments weren’t abusing power in trying to be a largely Catholic government?

Due to the agitation of those like you who believe in purely secular government, the production and distribution of pornography is now essentially unrestrained.

How about pornography is widespread due to the internet, and to attempt to have an official government censorship would require the government to take on great amount of power. A seldom remembered fact is that alcohol prohibition gave the government power to poison and kill people without warrant. In fact, the government killed at least 10,000 people this way (slate.com/id/2245188/?wpisrc=eDialog ).

You have pointed to what I consider to be rather anemic examples of isolated instances of political censorship, supposedly predicated on the censorship of pornography. Beyond these pale examples, what other evil was brought about by the illegality of pornography during those centuries, that was worse than the shattered innocence of millions of children, the broken marriages, the child abuse, the sexual crime, the seduction of the young to serve as actors/actresses, etc. now that it is unrestricted?

So Communist China and Communist Poland (pre-internet) were “pale examples”. I’m sure I could find a lot more examples if I spend the time and try. Would you want me to? Nazi Germany did so. So did most (probably all) communist countries to varying degrees.

How about parents not only try to censor, but also teach their children to avoid such material and to reject it if they find it. Having a strong internet filter on a centrally located computer in the home would cause far less evil than an official government censorship of the entire internet.

 

[BobObob]

Part 3/3

What evil occurred during the time that contraception was illegal that is now abated by the allegedly lesser evils of widespread marital infidelity, objectification of women, abortion, and other effects that Pope Paul VI predicted would take place if contraception became widespread?

I’m not aware of contraceptives being illegal in very many countries in the past. Could you reference a specific example?

Also, even if contraceptives are illegal, I’m sure it wouldn’t be difficult for people to find something that could effectively function as a condom. Also, people don’t necessarily need a contraceptive device to illicitly avoid conception (Onan from the OT comes to mind).

Let me remind you that much of the evil in the effects of legislation isn’t very obvious. In order to have something be illegal, the government needs a certain amount of power. Having that power could cause problems in part because it creates the precedent for government to accumulate more power, which is more and more likely to corrupt those in power (absolute power corrupts absolutely).

I don’t mean for these examples to eclipse the central problem, namely, rejection of the Church’s teaching on the nature of government. But I’m truly interested in your take on these specifics as well.

I’m disagreeing with aspects of the CC’s teaching on social matters that do not strictly fall under infallibility. By saying “rejection of the Church’s teaching” you make it sound like I’m attacking the magisterium or being “anti-Catholic”, which is probably how you perceive me.

A question for your consideration: would it be necessarily against CC teaching to have no government at all? I’m no anarchist and can’t stand anarchists, but if people living in a certain geographical location , who were of different religions, were able to not have a government and also not have crime, wouldn’t they be able to do so? What if when new people came into that geographical region who did commit crime, they decided to set up a public security force? Would that public security force, for those people of different religions, have to set up this security force in such a way that it is bias toward the Catholic Church?

 

[elts1956]

This is why a thoroughly Catholic government would be best. Because we, as Catholics, KNOW that Holy Mother Church is the One True Church, everyone who chooses to live in Catholic-Land must agree to support and defend the Church or leave, but heresy within her borders will not be tolerated. It would be a government by Catholics for Catholics.

It was problematic because it was founded on sandy soil…Protestantism!

The morality of civil law depends on having Church and state making decisions based on canon law. I don’t see a problem there. We are not living in the dark ages when human rights and temperence were nonexistent. You participate in a gay pride march, you get a citation and pay a fine. You do it again, you go to jail. A law is a law. I believe, with the right Constitution and, thus, the right form of God-centered government, these issues could be dealt with humanely but sternly.

There will ALWAYS be too much government interference because our form of government is flawed. It separates Church and state. When the laws are secular in nature, it is only a matter of time before the land becomes secular.

That isn’t a fair comparison. Torture was considered an effective form of interrogation by all state governments from Roman times through the dark ages. It was considered a tool of the state. We are far more humane today…more so than at any time in human history. A Catholic government, if formed properly, would be unable to resort to torture and murder…oppression of heresies, certainly, but not the cruel and torturous methods of the dark ages. If you want to compare barbaristic societies, be sure to include early American treatment of the Native American tribes, women and slaves. Many of the “barbarians” were catholic. Many of their explorations included priests. Not saying the priests colluded with the explorers, but they and their faith could not deter the misguided explorers.

If you want to see the consequences of a representative republic that separates church and state at ALL levels, look at Roe V. Wade, the Homosexual legal battles, the plethora of heresies and the thousands of Protestant churches leading people in thousands of different directions. Look at the smut and rubbish on TV. Our country is begging for an attitude adjustment from God on the order of Sodom and Gomorrah.

You have got that right. I am constantly watching people who seem to be totally oblivious of the immoral state of this county. I always shake my head and wonder just what they are aware of. The next Real TV drama?

This is why a thoroughly Catholic government would be best. Because we, as Catholics, KNOW that Holy Mother Church is the One True Church, everyone who chooses to live in Catholic-Land must agree to support and defend the Church or leave, but heresy within her borders will not be tolerated. It would be a government by Catholics for Catholics.

Welcome to Saudi Arabia. You have got to be kidding. Even the Church can’t save sinners from sinning. As far as separation of Church and State, the intentions of the founding fathers were to protect religion FROM Goverrnment. Sadly and tragically the Constituion is being ignored now.

Sorry to say, but a “Catholic” government would not survive in any form of purity, BECAUSE of human inclination to sin. Just because one is a member of the Catholic Church, or specifcally the clergy, doesn’t mean one’s intentions and actions are always Christ like. Wouldn’t work, uh uh. Humans are human and will always be weak especially in the area of having power.

Also the Church will be strong again ONLY when people are willing to return spiritual power to them. They aren’t doing that now. Now it is primacy of conscience for most. Thank Cardinal Bernadin and the USCCB for that.

"Because we, as Catholics, KNOW that Holy Mother Church is the One True Church, "

Maybe you know and I know, but it would take a great deal of catechesis and the discipline of the 40s and 50s clergy and laity to make a turn around from what we now have. Ever heard of Cafeteria catholics. I have the impression they outnumber the conservative Catholics 10 to 1.

 

[DavidPalm]

It’s not like I’m disagreeing with the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals. Sure, politics is morally relevant. BTW, what’s funny is that Dr. Scott Hahn, who is orthodox, briefly mentioned disagreeing with previous authoritative, although not infallible, teachings of the Catholic Church today (Tuesday) in my grad class…Galileo was thought to have been violating something that was considered a matter of faith or morals as well.

When you have a chance, could you take a moment, either in class or privately, without reference to any specific topic, to ask Scott whether matters which are logical deductions from matters of faith and morals are or are not themselves proper subjects of infallibility and let us know what he says?

Also, you don’t seem to understand the principle of double effect because. The thing about effects of contraception is not valid for contraception. No evil may be done so that good may come from it. However, in a situation of double effect, an evil may be passively permitted so that evil may not be done. For contraception, one actively does evil, while the opposite is true of a restricted government.

But, the counter-argument goes, that contraception is intrinsically evil is not itself infallibly taught by the Magisterium, so the principle of double effect does apply.

I’m not disagreeing with you that there are plenty of topics on which Popes have taught which do not in fact fall into the realm of faith and morals. What I’m arguing is that they clearly saw the obligations of the State to God and the one true Faith to be part of the realm of faith. You reject that, but not on any solid grounds that I can see–simply calling it “politics” has been shown to be insufficient. Rather, we are talking about logical deductions from matters of faith. Those, I hold, are themselves proper subjects of infallibility. If you would critique that premise, that may be a fruitful path forward.

It’s not always evil to disagree with the prevailing thoughts in the CC on issues not themselves faith or morals. For example, the Vatican recently said something along the lines of “if you look at the facts and still don’t hold the evolution is true, you’re stupid”, yet for a long time the CC was at least hostile to the idea of evolution.

Bob, O Bob, examples like this make you seem to be grasping. “the Vatican recently said something…” is on par with the repeated, solemn teaching of the Popes on what they, at least, clearly understood to be a logical deduction from a matter of faith? This just doesn’t help your case.

I didn’t say that a secular government is always better than a religious one (I searched the thread for the word “always” to verify). A secular government, such as many communist governments, can be extremely evil. A government that is formed with an official religion for the purpose of enforcing morality, in practice, will cause greater evil than it prevents.

Okay, I don’t mean to misrepresent you. What you said was, “In practice, a secular government has been shown to have been most effective at keeping the peace and also most moral. . . . Any time the government does anything more than to keep the peace, it creates more evil than it eliminates. I invite people to cite a situation to the contrary” (my emphasis.)

I read that as meaning that, in your opinion, any government that was constituted according to the teaching of the Church (i.e. the encyclicals of Leo XIII, Benedict XV, Pius XI, et al. left “untouched” by Dignitatis Humanae) would always end up being less moral and creating more evil than a secular government which governed purely on the basis of maintaining temporal peace.

Also, the meaning of “authorities” isn’t as clear as one might think.

The context of Romans 13 is civil government. The way the Church has consistently drawn upon Romans 13 has been in the context of civil government, including the section I cited from the most recent Catechism. Again, I’m afraid you seem to be grasping.

Could you cite specific governments and show that those governments weren’t abusing power in trying to be a largely Catholic government? . . . [comments on pornography and contraception] . . . Let me remind you that much of the evil in the effects of legislation isn’t very obvious.

Again, I’m not trying to misrepresent your views. But I do have to point out that I am able to cite very open, systemic, specific evils, that exist both in secular dictatorships and the so-called secular democracies that represent the vast majority of the governments of the world today. When I asked you please to point out the evils that were allegedly perpetrated by Catholic governments that would eclipse these, you tell me that much of it “isn’t very obvious.” So I remain unconvinced of your statement that, “In practice, a secular government has been shown to have been most effective at keeping the peace and also most moral.” It’s your view, I have tried to show that it’s contrary to the visible evidence (not to mention the teaching of the Church), so I’d submit that you have the burden to show otherwise.

A question for your consideration: would it be necessarily against CC teaching to have no government at all?…

See CCC §1898-1899.

 

[DavidPalm]

Don’t mean to pile on here–lots of back and forth and you’ve been a great sport–but one aspect of your position does trouble me in particular. It seems that your rejection of the Church’s teaching on this matter is derived pretty much exclusively from observation, “experience” if you will. It’s why I’ve asked if there is any magisterial basis for your view (you replied in the negative). Because observation, experience seems to be a very tenuous ground on which to overthrow or oppose Church teaching–especially so since these are hardly scientific observations which admit of objective reproduction by different observers. It just seems an incredibly flimsy ground on which to oppose the solemn pronouncements of the Popes.

And this discussion also has me wondering…would not this ideal secular government you propose have to allow polygamy, child pornography, recognize homosexual unions, recognize bestial unions, and so on? All societies censor and place limits on behavior–the question really is, on what basis are those decisions made? Is it based simply on the preservation of temporal peace, or is it based on a higher law?

It would seem that such a list of things that don’t disturb the “peace” and do not violate the moral code of various non-religious or at least non-Christian citizens would have to be left alone by a secular government. The slippery slope argument really does seem to apply.

 

[Adeodatus]

There are a lot of dangerous modernist ideas floating around here. “Freedom from religion”… really? That’s the exact opposite of freedom.

The basic facts controlling the discourse of political science are these:

1. Human beings are conditioned by original sin.
2. Statistically, the majority of people in a given polity are weak, venal and stupid.
3. The moral responsibility of government is to both promote virtue and destroy vice. That is how it protects and nourishes its citizens.
4. The only good end of a man’s life is eternal friendship with God.

The truth of the Catholic faith must be acknowledged before any moral science is fulfilled, because only when man is considered in the full context of reality can the conditions obtaining to his governance be understood.

Likewise, in the order of philosophical consideration, Logic is first, then Physics, then Psychology, then Metaphysics, then Ethics, and then Politics (and lastly, Rhetoric).

You cannot have a coherent Politics until you have a scientifically correct Ethics. How could it possibly be otherwise? Does anyone seriously propose that men could be governed well before it is even know what is actually good for them? Such an assertion beggars belief.

The only government that can consistently and effectively promote virtue and destroy vice is one that overtly confesses the Catholic faith; civic loyalty must be above all to Jesus Christ.

Modernism and the Enlightenment seek to overthrow God and set “Man” up as the new object of worship and moral authority. This is true of Kant and enters its grossest dimensions with Hegel and ultimately Marx. Enlightenment political theories represent a rejection of the Catholic faith and no Catholic ought to have any part of them.

The next question is whether “the will of the people” can be a sufficient political mandate in a polity which confesses the Catholic faith. But we all know very well how easily corrupted is the will of the people. Would the majority ever vote to ban pornography? Possible, but unlikely and unlikely to last. People need leadership so that they can be taught, by example, what is good for them. It’s of little use merely to preach at them and even less to attempt to appeal to their better nature.

People need to be shown the heroic life. Shown justice and valor and patriotism. Deeds and righteous examples are what are convincing. These things are largely impossible in a democracy, especially with post-Information Age in play. People today largely have no morals… if you hear them speaking, they talk like madmen. A madman does not know what is good for him. Physicians and their assistants have to hold down a madman and force him to ingest medicine and even food. They do this not for their own good, but for the good of the madman. The physicians and their assistants are the strong authority of a noble and patriotic government. Their “Hippocratic Oath” is the Catholic Faith. The medicine is the destruction of immorality, and the food is the work of a virtuous life.

 

[BobObob]

Part 1/3

When you have a chance, could you take a moment, either in class or privately, without reference to any specific topic, to ask Scott whether matters which are logical deductions from matters of faith and morals are or are not themselves proper subjects of infallibility and let us know what he says?

State matters themselves are not themselves logical deductions from matters of faith and morals, although they are relevant to them.

BTW, he was talking with regard to an encyclical which was talking about the inerrancy of Scripture, and exactly what it meant, which is definitely, I think, a matter of faith and morals. Would you concur?

But, the counter-argument goes, that contraception is intrinsically evil is not itself infallibly taught by the Magisterium, so the principle of double effect does apply.

The principle of double effect basically says that a moral evil may be permitted if it isn’t more evil than the evil it eliminates, or that something that has an evil effect may be done if the good (or the prevented evil) does not come after the evil effect and is not lesser than the evil effect (provided the evil isn’t intended). This has nothing to do with whether the evil has been infallibly taught…

I think the fact that sex outside of marriage is a moral teaching of the CC which is infallibly taught by the ordinary magisterium. The fact that this is infallibly taught does not mean that the principle of double effect does not apply in the situation in which a woman is being violated by an armed rapist. In that situation, that woman may morally passively allow the rapist to copulate with her as opposed to getting shot in the head for refusing.

What I’m arguing is that they clearly saw the obligations of the State to God and the one true Faith to be part of the realm of faith. You reject that, but not on any solid grounds that I can see–simply calling it “politics” has been shown to be insufficient. Rather, we are talking about logical deductions from matters of faith. Those, I hold, are themselves proper subjects of infallibility. If you would critique that premise, that may be a fruitful path forward.

Faith! All this time I thought you saw obligations of the state to be part of the realm of morals. If I had known this I would have changed my focus.

I need to ask you, what is your conception of “faith” (I mean objectively, rather than the virtue)? Newadvent says about “faith” in it’s article of “rule of faith:

Since faith is Divine and infallible, the rule of faith must be also Divine and infallible; and since faith is supernatural assent to Divine truths upon Divine authority, the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself.

newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm

I added emphasis to point out that the object of faith is divine. It’s supernatural, rather than natural. Matters regarding the state cannot themselves be “Divine truths”.

BobObob;7015133:

It’s not always evil to disagree with the prevailing thoughts in the CC on issues not themselves faith or morals. For example, the Vatican recently said something along the lines of “if you look at the facts and still don’t hold the evolution is true, you’re stupid”, yet for a long time the CC was at least hostile to the idea of evolution.

“the Vatican recently said something…” is on par with the repeated, solemn teaching of the Popes on what they, at least, clearly understood to be a logical deduction from a matter of faith? This just doesn’t help your case.

The idea of evolution is compatible with Catholicism, however many understood the following statement (in link) from Vatican I as nearly infallibly, or at least strongly authoritatively, stating that evolution is wrong:

dailycatholic.org/history/20ecume2.htm#1. On God the creator of all things (section, “On God the creator of all things”)

JPII later said that evolution is true (biblelight.net/darwin.htm).

My point with all this is that simply that the appearance of going against an apparently essential teaching of the CC isn’t necessarily so.

 

[BobObob]

Part 2/3

I read that as meaning that, in your opinion, any government that was constituted according to the teaching of the Church (i.e. the encyclicals of Leo XIII, Benedict XV, Pius XI, et al. left “untouched” by Dignitatis Humanae) would always end up being less moral and creating more evil than a secular government which governed purely on the basis of maintaining temporal peace.

My opinion is, I guess one could say, “against the Church” in the same sense that others who disagreed with non-infallible teachings of the CC. Some of those disagreeing individuals were correct (and are recognized as correct), some not.

When I said, “Any time the government does anything more than to keep the peace, it creates more evil than it eliminates. I invite people to cite a situation to the contrary,” I should have made it past tense. I also should have said “defend civil rights” rather than “keep the peace”, which would be more accurate. There is no absolute reason why it isn’t theoretically possible for the government going beyond protecting rights doing more good than evil. However, I’ve never seen what I would consider a conclusive example. Although I do admit that there is probably at least a few legitimate examples of cases involving local governments in the last few millennium. I emphasize local because power is a little less likely to be abused at the local level. Also, it is nearly impossible in practice in part because to do so would be giving men, who are prone to abuse power, more power.

Regardless, giving government more power than is absolutely essential has almost always been an eventual cause of evil.

The context of Romans 13 is civil government. The way the Church has consistently drawn upon Romans 13 has been in the context of civil government, including the section I cited from the most recent Catechism. Again, I’m afraid you seem to be grasping.

The specific context was Roman civil government.

If you think Romans 13 applies to all governments, than how do you think it applies to a government which was founded by men, and run by men elected by men? Would those men be deriving their power by God or be ministers of God? What about applying Rom 13 to a scenario, like one I proposed earlier, where people in a certain location which previously had no government decided to create a public security force?

Again, I’m not trying to misrepresent your views. But I do have to point out that I am able to cite very open, systemic, specific evils, that exist both in secular dictatorships and the so-called secular democracies that represent the vast majority of the governments of the world today. When I asked you please to point out the evils that were allegedly perpetrated by Catholic governments that would eclipse these, you tell me that much of it “isn’t very obvious.” So I remain unconvinced of your statement that, “In practice, a secular government has been shown to have been most effective at keeping the peace and also most moral.” It’s your view, I have tried to show that it’s contrary to the visible evidence (not to mention the teaching of the Church), so I’d submit that you have the burden to show otherwise.

This is a strawman.

First, you never (at least that I can remember) asked me “to point out the evils that were allegedly perpetrated by Catholic governments that would eclipse these, you tell me that much of it ‘isn’t very obvious.’”

I’m not defending governments that happen to be secular, but rather the lack of religious bias in government.

Obviously, there are countless examples of bad governments which where non-religious. Communist China, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany are starters. However, these governments weren’t bad because of their lack of religious bias. It was rather the ideologies, such as Marxism, Nazism, etc., which accumulated and abused power. Of course, many governments that don’t obtain or abuse as much power have problems as well, and that’s for a wide range of reasons, including taking on too much power, then abusing it.

Would a government with elected people in power be better or worse in practice by being bias toward Catholicism? You and I can easily see some of the problems with governments in the Middle East being bias toward Islam, even if Catholicism is somewhat allowed.

See CCC §1898-1899.

FWI, although the CCC is a great tool for teaching catechism (which is its primary intended purpose), Catholic theologians generally agree that the CCC did not make anything that was not already infallibly taught infallible. Of course, there are infallible teachings contained in the CCC, but it wasn’t the CCC that made them infallible.

 

[BobObob]

Part 3/3

It seems that your rejection of the Church’s teaching on this matter is derived pretty much exclusively from observation, “experience” if you will. It’s why I’ve asked if there is any magisterial basis for your view (you replied in the negative). Because observation, experience seems to be a very tenuous ground on which to overthrow or oppose Church teaching–especially so since these are hardly scientific observations which admit of objective reproduction by different observers.

It sounds really bad when you say “overthrow or oppose Church teaching”. Although I cannot name a lot, I’ve been told, and Dr. Hahn yesterday implied, that there were times in the past in which individuals disagreed with non-infallible teachings of the CC, in both scientific, non-scientific, and even theological ways, who are now considered correct. Most of these cases, I believe, were relatively trivial, but I cited Galileo because it’s a major, well known case.

Generally, when I hear of a case in which government took on the power to enforce morality, I can eventually find, in either some well known or in a forgotten way, how that lead to a greater evil than it prevented. If that’s the case over 50 percent of the time, than government should probably not be given power to enforce morality. If that’s the case 99 percent of the time, government certainly should not be given power to enforce morality, even if there is a small chance that it will be an exception.

And this discussion also has me wondering…would not this ideal secular government you propose have to allow polygamy, child pornography, recognize homosexual unions, recognize bestial unions, and so on? All societies censor and place limits on behavior–the question really is, on what basis are those decisions made? Is it based simply on the preservation of temporal peace, or is it based on a higher law?

It would seem that such a list of things that don’t disturb the “peace” and do not violate the moral code of various non-religious or at least non-Christian citizens would have to be left alone by a secular government. The slippery slope argument really does seem to apply.

I should have done a better job accurately explaining my view. My views on the purpose of government, more accurately, is that government exists to protect the rights of individuals. Roughly 99 percent of the time protecting right entails keeping the peace. A child has a right not to be a sexual object.

Marriage in general is something done by the Church, not government. It is in part because government took the role of defining and carrying out marriages away from religious institution and on itself that many are pushing for the recognition of homosexual unions (a church can only carry out a marriage once the government has issued a marriage certificate).

Regarding polygamy and other illicit sexual unions, people will generally do them even if they are illegal. Also, to criminalize these things would mean spending at least tens of billions of dollars a year on law enforcement, and putting millions of people into a jail system (in America) which already has over half the prison population of the world’s inmates. Doing so would also require the government to be intrusive enough to know what’s going on in one’s bedroom to effectively enforce it. If it cannot be effectively enforced, than it shouldn’t be a law because laws that lend themselves to selective enforcement tend to be abused.

 

[BobObob]

There are a lot of dangerous modernist ideas floating around here. “Freedom from religion”… really? That’s the exact opposite of freedom.

What do you mean by “freedom”?

How is allowing people to follow whatever religion they think is correct “the exact opposite of freedom”?

There are a lot of dangerous modernist ideas floating around here. “Freedom from religion”… really? That’s the exact opposite of freedom.

The basic facts controlling the discourse of political science are these:

1. Human beings are conditioned by original sin.
2. Statistically, the majority of people in a given polity are weak, venal and stupid.
3. The moral responsibility of government is to both promote virtue and destroy vice. That is how it protects and nourishes its citizens.
4. The only good end of a man’s life is eternal friendship with God.

I agree that human beings have original sin and that most human beings are weak, venal and stupid. But isn’t every government composed of human beings? If so, why would you expect government to be any better, considering that power, especially large amounts of power, tends to corrupt?

If you would expect government to be composed of men no greater than the average man, don’t you think that giving them the great amount of power necessary to promote virtue and destroy vice might lead to greater problems than it eliminates?

You cannot have a coherent Politics until you have a scientifically correct Ethics.

I agree.

Would you say that it’s ethical to use the force of government to force your religion onto others? That would be forcing someone to potentially violate their conscience, which would be wrong even if your religion was right.

Does anyone seriously propose that men could be governed well before it is even know what is actually good for them? Such an assertion beggars belief.

Are you actually suggesting that individuals should learn what is good for them and what is not from government? Why would government, an institution composed of men, better know what is good for others than the individuals themselves?

Modernism and the Enlightenment seek to overthrow God and set “Man” up as the new object of worship and moral authority.

A government that exists as a public security force to protect people’s rights neither endorses any object of worship, nor prohibits individuals from worshiping their god.

People need leadership so that they can be taught, by example, what is good for them. It’s of little use merely to preach at them and even less to attempt to appeal to their better nature.

So do you propose using police powers to change people’s hearts and minds? Last time I checked, using police powers cannot make someone believe something. If I tortured you, could you honestly believe that 2 plus 2 equals 5? This reminds me of Winston Smith being tortured in the fictional 1984.

People today largely have no morals… if you hear them speaking, they talk like madmen. A madman does not know what is good for him. Physicians and their assistants have to hold down a madman and force him to ingest medicine and even food. They do this not for their own good, but for the good of the madman. The physicians and their assistants are the strong authority of a noble and patriotic government.

Are you seriously saying that your religion should be forced upon others like a physician forcing someone to take medicine?

I hope I misinterpreted you.

 

[Adeodatus]

(Part 1 of 2)

I have enjoyed your responses.

What do you mean by “freedom”?

How is allowing people to follow whatever religion they think is correct “the exact opposite of freedom”?

There is no such thing as “freedom from religion” because life without true religion is slavery. If someone does not have true religion, the orthodoxy of the Catholic Faith, then he embraces either a false religion or no religion. Both of these are forms of slavery, because his life will be mired in vice. The virtue of religion is a part of the overarching virtue of Justice. To live without that virtue is to live in an unjust mode, and no one who knows what justice is could say that such a life is free. Freedom exists as part of justice, not apart from it.

I agree that human beings have original sin and that most human beings are weak, venal and stupid. But isn’t every government composed of human beings? If so, why would you expect government to be any better, considering that power, especially large amounts of power, tends to corrupt?

If you would expect government to be composed of men no greater than the average man, don’t you think that giving them the great amount of power necessary to promote virtue and destroy vice might lead to greater problems than it eliminates?

Government should not be composed of men no greater than the average man. It should be composed of the best. These men can be found because they will act in an exemplary fashion displaying their merit. The most meritorious men will be elevated. They will of course be required to continue to maintain their lives of heroic virtue and patriotic valor.

If these men receive the sacrament of confession regularly, are daily communicants, and are monitored closely then the possibility of their corruption is relatively small, especially when compared to the very frequent corruption of a democratic official.

Would you say that it’s ethical to use the force of government to force your religion onto others? That would be forcing someone to potentially violate their conscience, which would be wrong even if your religion was right.

No. I think there is no prospect of forcing religion upon a person. Truly religious life requires belief, which depends upon an assent of the will. I agree that a ‘forced conversion’ is really no conversion at all and really only encourages dishonesty among citizens.

Are you actually suggesting that individuals should learn what is good for them and what is not from government? Why would government, an institution composed of men, better know what is good for others than the individuals themselves?

If the government is confessionally Catholic (and by that I mean orthodox and not heretical, of course) then of course it is competent to instruct the citizens in virtue. An added bonus is that if a government functionary fails in his duties to instruct proper morality, he can be sanctioned in a much harsher fashion than a mere volunteer catechist (as a convert myself, I know all about volunteer catechists!).

A government that exists as a public security force to protect people’s rights neither endorses any object of worship, nor prohibits individuals from worshiping their god.

But that’s simply not true. Atheists and other enemies of God will always pervert secular powers to supress religion. And an officially secular state cannot be just because its methods of governance presuppose a flawed moral and cosmological outlook.

So do you propose using police powers to change people’s hearts and minds? Last time I checked, using police powers cannot make someone believe something. If I tortured you, could you honestly believe that 2 plus 2 equals 5? This reminds me of Winston Smith being tortured in the fictional 1984.

No. Changing people’s minds requires long labor and very honest and rigorous education. It cannot be done by the police! As far as changing people’s hearts… I’ll leave that up to God. I wouldn’t even know where to start with that.

I’m glad that you brought up 1984; it’s one of my favorite books. It represents the exact opposite of what I’m advocating. It is a parody of state power (and aimed at the vile Marxists!) because the state tries to erase truth. The state of Oceania is relativist to the extreme; I on the other hand advocate extreme Realism, especially in Ethics. The state of Oceania is trying to control men’s hearts and minds, to control what is inside them. But the state has no business controlling those things… the state’s business is to control what is outside and performative: right action.

 

[Adeodatus]

(Part 2 of 2)

Are you seriously saying that your religion should be forced upon others like a physician forcing someone to take medicine?

I hope I misinterpreted you.

You did misinterpret me. I tried to make my analogy as precise as I could. I said that the “Hippocratic Oath” of the physician-policeman is the Catholic Faith. In other words, it makes up the founding moral principles that form the basis of his practice and his orientation toward the patient. The medicine, as I said, is the destruction of immorality (whereas the food, which some madmen will take willingly and others will not, is good work).

When the pornographic emporium is boarded up and set for demolition, when the abortionist and his cronies are on the point of the American soldier’s bayonet, when the sodomite is learning social responsibility through community service, when the houses of witchcraft and deviltry are put to the torch, and when all the books of witchcraft and pornography are aflame in the city center, that is medicine. It is a medicine which is a balm for the souls of Catholics and unbelievers alike.

What is morally good is of benefit to everyone, including the morally bad. You cannot change a man’s heart through force. But you can and should use state power to destroy what is objectively evil. That’s what it means to live in a just and good polity.

Viva Cristo Rey!

 

[SalesianSDB]

What I love about this country is civil liberties. I may not like something, but if a person wants to do something in the privacy of their own home without hurting anyone, let them! I may not agree with it but I have the civil liberties not to do it. I just don’t see it as the government’s right to interfere.

I know I’m going to get criticized for that, let it be. I don’t think that the government should over reach because history shows us that it always ends badly.

I’m against any kind of dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise, because human nature always kicks in.

 

[BobObob]

Regarding “freedom from religion”, one wouldn’t have the freedom to follow one’s own religion unless one had freedom from all other religions. Thus freedom of religion cannot really exist without also freedom from religion.

BobObob;7018229:

What do you mean by “freedom”?

How is allowing people to follow whatever religion they think is correct “the exact opposite of freedom”?

There is no such thing as “freedom from religion” because life without true religion is slavery. If someone does not have true religion, the orthodoxy of the Catholic Faith, then he embraces either a false religion or no religion. Both of these are forms of slavery, because his life will be mired in vice. The virtue of religion is a part of the overarching virtue of Justice. To live without that virtue is to live in an unjust mode, and no one who knows what justice is could say that such a life is free. Freedom exists as part of justice, not apart from it.

Seriously, I was asking for you to clarify what you meant by “freedom”, by, say, defining. Otherwise, you’re playing games with semantics.

I’m not saying you are playing games with semantics, but if you don’t clarify what you mean by your word, you are playing games with semantics.

Government should not be composed of men no greater than the average man. It should be composed of the best.

Who’s going to determine who is the best? A single person or entity? The people being governed?

No. I think there is no prospect of forcing religion upon a person. Truly religious life requires belief, which depends upon an assent of the will. I agree that a ‘forced conversion’ is really no conversion at all and really only encourages dishonesty among citizens.

When you said, “It’s of little use merely to preach at them and even less to attempt to appeal to their better nature,” you seemed to be indicating that religion should be forced on someone.

If the government is confessionally Catholic (and by that I mean orthodox and not heretical, of course) then of course it is competent to instruct the citizens in virtue.

In such a scenario people would listen to the government no more than they previously listened to the Catholic Church, which would defeat the purpose.

If the government is confessionally Catholic (and by that I mean orthodox and not heretical, of course) then of course it is competent to instruct the citizens in virtue. An added bonus is that if a government functionary fails in his duties to instruct proper morality, he can be sanctioned in a much harsher fashion than a mere volunteer catechist (as a convert myself, I know all about volunteer catechists!).

What exactly do you mean by the “added bonus” of sanctioning in a harsher fashion?

BobObob;7018229:

A government that exists as a public security force to protect people’s rights neither endorses any object of worship, nor prohibits individuals from worshiping their god.

But that’s simply not true. Atheists and other enemies of God will always pervert secular powers to supress religion.

Try not to put people in a box. There are actually some people who honestly conclude that there is no God but don’t want to suppress other people’s freedom of religion.

And an officially secular state cannot be just because its methods of governance presuppose a flawed moral and cosmological outlook.

A government which exists as a public security force has the same “moral and cosmological outlook” as a private security force hired to protect a building, namely, no official “moral and cosmological outlook”.

I’m glad that you brought up 1984; it’s one of my favorite books. It represents the exact opposite of what I’m advocating. It is a parody of state power (and aimed at the vile Marxists!) because the state tries to erase truth.

The state tried to use force to change a person’s mind. I brought up 1984 to make the point that you seem to want to do the same, even though I think you’re well-intentioned.

When the pornographic emporium is boarded up and set for demolition, when the abortionist and his cronies are on the point of the American soldier’s bayonet, when the sodomite is learning social responsibility through community service, when the houses of witchcraft and deviltry are put to the torch, and when all the books of witchcraft and pornography are aflame in the city center, that is medicine. It is a medicine which is a balm for the souls of Catholics and unbelievers alike.

What is morally good is of benefit to everyone, including the morally bad. You cannot change a man’s heart through force. But you can and should use state power to destroy what is objectively evil. That’s what it means to live in a just and good polity.

Using governmental power to stop what is objectively evil, specifically drunkenness, by prohibiting alcohol last century, which was a disaster. Not only did it massively fail to stop people from consuming alcohol, but it also had many immoral consequences, including increasing crime, increasing governmental abuse of power, and the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

BTW, the movement that caused alcohol prohibition was pushed, with good intentions, by the Woman’s Christian Temperance Movement.

If you think this was because of flaws specific to the particular attempt to prohibit alcohol in America, much the same has happened with other drugs.

BTW, I’m very certain that making homosexuals do community service if they have sex, it would cause them to be much more hostile toward Catholicism and toward God.

 

[DavidPalm]

BTW, he was talking with regard to an encyclical which was talking about the inerrancy of Scripture, and exactly what it meant, which is definitely, I think, a matter of faith and morals. Would you concur?

The inerrancy of Scripture does fall within the realm of faith. A given theologian would have to have very good reasons indeed to dissent from the teaching of a Pope in an encyclical on such a matter. And if there were a whole string of Popes who taught the same and at least one gave clear indication that his teaching was to be considered definitive, then it becomes highly problematic to dissent. At that point, we’re quite possibly into infallible by the ordinary magisterium territory.

Faith! All this time I thought you saw obligations of the state to be part of the realm of morals. If I had known this I would have changed my focus.

I would say that a statement like, “the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its teaching and practice–not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins”, is primarily a statement concerning faith, not morals, since it pertains to what man is in his relationship to God, not specifically to what he does. If there are certain truths which logically derive from that statement, they too would be matters of faith and thus fall within the boundaries of what the Church can teach infallibly. But, if you want to call the statement above a matter of morals, that’s fine. The same applies–if certain actions derive logically from that statement, they too would be matters of morals and fall within the boundaries of what the Church can teach infallibly. But the above statement clearly falls into the realm of “faith and morals”.

If you think Romans 13 applies to all governments, than how do you think it applies to a government which was founded by men, and run by men elected by men? Would those men be deriving their power by God or be ministers of God? What about applying Rom 13 to a scenario, like one I proposed earlier, where people in a certain location which previously had no government decided to create a public security force?

I think on this point I’d just ask why you don’t agree with the Church documents that indicate that Romans 13 applies to all governments? To be honest, I get the feeling you’ve never encountered this teaching of the Church before, so maybe best to explore why she teaches this and then interact with that.

First, you never (at least that I can remember) asked me “to point out the evils that were allegedly perpetrated by Catholic governments that would eclipse these, you tell me that much of it ‘isn’t very obvious.’”

I did ask, in regard to specific examples, for you to tell us “What evil resulted from this that eclipsed the good that came of it?” and “what other evil was brought about by the illegality of pornography…that was worse than the [list of visible consequences] now that it is unrestricted?”

Would a government with elected people in power be better or worse in practice by being bias toward Catholicism? You and I can easily see some of the problems with governments in the Middle East being bias toward Islam, even if Catholicism is somewhat allowed.

The problem of being biased toward Islam is that it’s a false religion. The Catholic faith is true. There’s a big difference between being biased toward what is true and biased toward what is false.

Generally, when I hear of a case in which government took on the power to enforce morality, I can eventually find, in either some well known or in a forgotten way, how that lead to a greater evil than it prevented.

Again, I invite you to provide the specifics on the evils that were allegedly caused by Catholic governments banning pornography and contraceptives. Or the evil allegedly done when Catholic governments set aside the major feasts so that the nations were free to give due worship to God.

Regarding polygamy and other illicit sexual unions, people will generally do them even if they are illegal.

Some people will do them even if they are illegal. But a great many people will not do things precisely because they are illegal. One can start with minor matters, such as speed limits. If there were no speed limits, many more people would drive faster than they should. The law does indeed curtail the behavior. I’m not always fond of anecdotes, but an older Catholic friend told me about an adolescent friend of his who once exclaimed (crudely), “Oh, if I could get a condom I’d ---- Mary Ann Johnson!” But he couldn’t. So he didn’t. The law has both a restraining and a pedagogical effect that it seems to me you are setting aside way too lightly. And if the law is in accord with Catholic moral teaching, then it will tend to restrain vice and encourage virtue.

At the very least, with respect to things like pornography, it drives these things underground. Yes, they’ll exist, but then you have to go out of your way to get them. There’s no collateral damage as when, for example, the youth are corrupted by the incredible ease of access we have now. It’s easy to practice virtue, difficult to practice vice. That is as it should be in a rightly ordered society.

Using governmental power to stop what is objectively evil, specifically drunkenness, by prohibiting alcohol last century, which was a disaster.

You’ve sought to get a lot of mileage out of this example, but the big problem with Prohibition is precisely that it banned something that is morally neutral, alcohol, rather than getting tough on the resultant problem, drunkenness. But pornographic materials, for example, are evil in themselves–there is no licit use for them.

 

[o_mlly]

youtube.com/watch?v=3A-cWrs5mwE&feature=player_embedded

Limit votes to only truly catholic people.
Interested in benevolent dictatorships?

Your link didn’t take me to anything related to your post. Perhaps the upload was removed.

In any event, political systems are neither moral nor immoral per se. The Catholic Church, for instance, does not have a politcal theology but she does have a theology of politics which addresses the moral ends that all politcal systems should strive to achieve.

For herself, the Church has not chosen to be a theocracy or democracy. See: cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/vt.html

An Ecclesiastical Government is simply one administrated by a church. Note at the web site who has suffrage – hardly democratic.

 

[BobObob]

Part 1/4

And if there were a whole string of Popes who taught the same and at least one gave clear indication that his teaching was to be considered definitive, then it becomes highly problematic to dissent. At that point, we’re quite possibly into infallible by the ordinary magisterium territory.

I just wanted to make the point that something being solemnly defined isn’t sufficient for it to be infallible. It must also be a matter of faith (which, in the case of inerrancy of Scripture we agree that Scripture fall under the realm of faith).

I would say that a statement like, “the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its teaching and practice–not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins”, is primarily a statement concerning faith, not morals, since it pertains to what man is in his relationship to God, not specifically to what he does.

Are you using this to attack freedom of religion? In case you are, the Catholic moral theologians tell us that everyone has the moral responsibility to form one’s own conscience, and act according to that conscience. Thus, if someone honestly came to the erroneous conclusion that Judaism is the correct religion, one would have the moral responsibility to act accordingly. Making a false conclusion about which religion is correct is not necessarily choosing a religion they have a preference for.

If there are certain truths which logically derive from that statement, they too would be matters of faith and thus fall within the boundaries of what the Church can teach infallibly.

What do you mean by “logically derive from that statement”?

Something that relates to a doctrine regarding faith does not itself necessarily fall under faith.

BobObob;7018092:

If you think Romans 13 applies to all governments, than how do you think it applies to a government which was founded by men, and run by men elected by men? Would those men be deriving their power by God or be ministers of God? What about applying Rom 13 to a scenario, like one I proposed earlier, where people in a certain location which previously had no government decided to create a public security force?

I think on this point I’d just ask why you don’t agree with the Church documents that indicate that Romans 13 applies to all governments?

Would you mind answering the questions.

I don’t think Rom 13 refers to all governments in part because Romans was specifically addressed to the Romans and was addressing, largely, issues of that time. Not that Romans was addressed radically to the Romans so as to diminish is value as a book of the Bible.

Another reason would be that Romans refers to a much different concept of a state or government than what I am. Romans, as many documents of the CC, when they talk about the state refer to an institution which rules the country. An example of this would be an absolute monarchy.

Consider this. Would it be opposed to CC teaching for the people of a certain geographical region to forgo government? What if those people, as well as foregoing government, set up a private security force to protect people’s rights? The founding fathers of the United States saw the dangers of government, in part from people earlier coming to the new world for freedom of religion, and set up institutions like a public security at the state level, and eventually at the federal level.

To be honest, I get the feeling you’ve never encountered this teaching of the Church before, so maybe best to explore why she teaches this and then interact with that.

BTW, I’m a theology major at an orthodox Catholic college in my senior year. I’m seen what popes have said in various documents on this and related issues. I’ve studied papal infallibility. However, this issue does not fall under papal infallibility, and adding more statements does little more than demonstrate what the consensus view has been among Church leaders.

 

[BobObob]

Part 2/4

DavidPalm;7020850:

BobObob;7018092:

DavidPalm;7016412:

I do have to point out that I am able to cite very open, systemic, specific evils, that exist both in secular dictatorships and the so-called secular democracies that represent the vast majority of the governments of the world today. When I asked you please to point out the evils that were allegedly perpetrated by Catholic governments that would eclipse these, you tell me that much of it “isn’t very obvious.”

First, you never (at least that I can remember) asked me “to point out the evils that were allegedly perpetrated by Catholic governments that would eclipse these, you tell me that much of it ‘isn’t very obvious.’”

I did ask, in regard to specific examples, for you to tell us “What evil resulted from this that eclipsed the good that came of it?” and “what other evil was brought about by the illegality of pornography…that was worse than the [list of visible consequences] now that it is unrestricted?”

I did ask, in regard to specific examples, for you to tell us “What evil resulted from this that eclipsed the good that came of it?” and “what other evil was brought about by the illegality of pornography…that was worse than the [list of visible consequences] now that it is unrestricted?”

No! Asking how “What evil resulted from this that eclipsed the good that came of it?” is much different from asking me how the evils of secular governments have eclipsed the evils of Catholic governments, which you claimed, in post 45, to have asked me, to which I was replying.

Second, how can I answer your questions of “What evil resulted from this that eclipsed the good that came of it?” and “what other evil was brought about by the illegality of pornography…that was worse than the [list of visible consequences] now that it is unrestricted?” unless you tell me of what specific things in history you are talking about. You mentioned contraceptives being illegal and you mentioned governments having major feasts which turned into Holy Days. However, I cannot address these if you don’t give me a specific government at a specific time in history to research. Doing such research to the point of coming to a conclusion takes a lot of time though.

Even if an exception is found, and there is a specific instance in which the government going beyond protecting the rights did good overall, I would still stand firm on my position that as a general rule, whenever a government goes beyond protecting rights, it causes more evil than good in the long run.

BobObob;7018092:

Would a government with elected people in power be better or worse in practice by being bias toward Catholicism? You and I can easily see some of the problems with governments in the Middle East being bias toward Islam, even if Catholicism is somewhat allowed.

The problem of being biased toward Islam is that it’s a false religion. The Catholic faith is true. There’s a big difference between being biased toward what is true and biased toward what is false.

But you don’t see any problem with government being bias toward a religion, even though it’s true? What about those who honestly don’t believe in Catholicism? How should they be treated? I believe you’ve said that they should be reluctantly allowed to practice their religion, but how, in your mind, are they to be allowed to act?

What should be done to non-Catholics who, is following their own conscience and in not violating the rights of anyone else, do either what the Catholic Church teaches is immoral, or what most Catholics think is immoral. For example, what if some people think that marijuana use is against Catholic moral teaching (which I argue is not), and they want to use it?

I invite you to provide the specifics on the evils that were allegedly caused by Catholic governments banning pornography and contraceptives. Or the evil allegedly done when Catholic governments set aside the major feasts so that the nations were free to give due worship to God.

Could you first provide me an particular case to examine (as in a specific country during a specific time).

Analyzing an individual case to see if something was good or bad for society can require a lot of historical research, including, but not limited to, research to asses if allowing the government to exercise certain power for the good created a precedent which allowed the government to do evil.

BTW, a few examples wouldn’t destroy my opinion that the government’s power should be limited to protecting rights. Yes, I know I used the words “any time” to explain my views back in post 27, but this was just a minor incident of not using the most accurate words. I might use the words “any time” to mean “virtually always”, like if I said, “any time I don’t study, I get bad grades”. I tend not to use the ideal words when I write long posts in little time.

 

[BobObob]

Part 3/4

BobObob;7018094:

Regarding polygamy and other illicit sexual unions, people will generally do them even if they are illegal.

Some people will do them even if they are illegal. But a great many people will not do things precisely because they are illegal. One can start with minor matters, such as speed limits. If there were no speed limits, many more people would drive faster than they should. The law does indeed curtail the behavior.

The law can, in various situations, curtail behavior, although not always as effectively as one might think and with sometimes greater evil than it eliminates. For example, some sources say that alcohol comsumption increased during prohibition.

The effectiveness of curtailing behavior varies greatly depending on what it tries to curtail. If the government tries to reduce reckless driving, which a lot of people don’t do for intrinsic reasons anyway, it may succeed. If it tries to reduce things like alcohol, narcotics other than alcohol, and illicit sexual behavior, it’s not likely to be vary successful. As a mental health major (as well as theology), I understand that if someone does something out of compulsion or strong curiosity, they are not likely to change their behavior for extrinsic reasons (being arrested or getting a fine).

At the very least, with respect to things like pornography, it drives these things underground. Yes, they’ll exist, but then you have to go out of your way to get them. There’s no collateral damage as when, for example, the youth are corrupted by the incredible ease of access we have now. It’s easy to practice virtue, difficult to practice vice. That is as it should be in a rightly ordered society.

I can understand where you’re coming from. However, getting involved in even the narrowest government censorship is a dangerous, slippery slope.

BTW, in case you bring it up, fighting against child porn and illicit use of copyright material (say, a feature film) are incidences of protecting rights. They, especially the former, should be removed not because they have been deemed objectionable, but because they violate rights. Child porn would be a case in which it is removal of certain material, which, because of one of the reasons for removing it, does not cause a slippery-slope scenario.

I’m sure you’d probably think that porn can be censored without a slippery slope, and I simply disagree.