Is a Theocracy more Moral than a Democracy?

[IronHammer]

I think it’s important to define the terms here. A “theocracy” is a system in which both ecclesiastical and secular authority are vested in the same individuals, so that a priestly class also holds the reins of government. The Catholic Church has never taught this–in fact, clerics are forbidden to hold public office.

Then what would you call a government that doesn’t separate Church and state, enshrines the Catholic faith as the official state religion, uses Catholic moral virtues as it’s basis for laws but does not vest power in Church leaders? Perhaps it is a sub-type of theocracy… I will have to keep digging on this…

On the other hand, I would say that the Magisterium has made it pretty clear that the separation of Church and State as we have it here in the United States is contrary to Catholic teaching. Rather, the Popes have made repeatedly clear, the State is obligated to “favor [the Catholic] religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws” (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei §6).

I have laid out some of these matters in an article (link). Perhaps that would be helpful to see the magisterial teaching on the topic. It is extremely important to note that the fathers of Vatican II, in Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty, explicitly said that this document “leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ” (DH §1). So there can’t be any appeal to Vatican II as having changed the Church’s teaching on the separation of Church and State. It didn’t.

Thanks for the link. I have been searching for solid opinions regarding Catholic theocracy/government but they seem to be few.

That being said, I do think that we have learned that a genuinely Catholic government needs to be gentle with non-Catholic residents in that country, so that unless their words and actions are truly and obviously harmful to the common good, they should be tolerated.

God bless,

This is the core of my belief in a Catholic government. Eloquently said. We must hold firm to the truth but do so with christian love and gentleness.

 

[DavidPalm]

Then what would you call a government that doesn’t separate Church and state, enshrines the Catholic faith as the official state religion, uses Catholic moral virtues as it’s basis for laws but does not vest power in Church leaders? Perhaps it is a sub-type of theocracy… I will have to keep digging on this…

I’d just call it a Catholic democracy, a Catholic republic, a Catholic monarchy, etc. I think that the word “theocracy” sets off unnecessary warning bells, though, because it implies that the Church is making all the laws and that clerics are in charge of adjudicating civil cases. That’s not what the Church calls for.

This is the core of my belief in a Catholic government. Eloquently said. We must hold firm to the truth but do so with christian love and gentleness.

Thanks, we agree completely.

 

[IronHammer]

I have laid out some of these matters in an article (link). Perhaps that would be helpful to see the magisterial teaching on the topic.

Kudos! Very nice work and very well researched. I am finding that my rare and seemingly revolutionary view is directly in line with the Church. I wonder if BobOBob has read it and what his views are of it.

Do you have more published work in this area? I am also planning on digging into St. Bellarmine’s writings regarding governments and the Church.

 

[BobObob]

Part 1/2

I apologize if you were hoping for a response earlier than this. I’ve been busy preparing to move across America. I’ll be busy with the moving itself in the next 24 or so hours.

Allowing other religions in Catholic-land would ultimately lead to more division and heresies. There must be some way to restrict or minimize them without resorting to violence. Perhaps other religions would allowed to practice. However, fines and/or denial of tax exempt status would be a good place to start to keep heresy from flourishing. There are probably other methods.

In practice, a government can neither force unity of creed nor effectively change a person’s internal belief. In other words, a government cannot make someone a certain religion. Even if it could, IMHO there are moral problems with using government to discourage a person from holding their own religion.

Also, things like tax bias were used against Christianity in Muslim countries before.

BobObob;6969396:

You’re saying that freedom of religion is dangerous to souls and our society!? Did I understand the right?

You understand me correctly. Without a doubt I believe freedom of religion is one of the root causes for the decay of our morals and faith as well as hate and bigotry in this country. As I have stated before, human beings, on the whole, are incapable of discerning between destructive freedom and the freedom Christ gave us to love Him with all of our hearts, all of our minds and all of our soul. It is our hearts yearning to know the truth so we can follow it, otherwise people wouldn’t be religious at all. There is only one Truth and it is the Catholic Church, founded by Christ, who intended for us all to be one as He and Father are One.

Are you saying that non-Catholics have no sense of morality? That’s what it seems to me you are saying.

Just because someone may not be Catholic (thus, not have the CC as a moral guide) doesn’t mean they should be forced to go against their conscience. Everyone should follow and should be allowed to follow their own conscience, even if it isn’t perfect.

Imagine the reverse. If you or I lived in a country with a different religion where Catholicism is either not allowed or highly discouraged through taxes or another means, you would concur with me that that’s immoral. However, if it were a Catholic country that banned or discouraged other religions, it would be immoral even though Catholicism is the correct religion because you’re forcing someone to go against their conscience.

BobObob;6969396:

Everyone has the moral responsibility to form their own conscience and follow their conscience (even if it is wrong).

But that’s the crux of the problem. We have the moral responsibility to search out and follow God. How would we know if we are following a malformed and ill-conceived conscience?.. Our conscience can be very deceiving depending on what influences were allowed to form it.

As well as following one’s own conscience, one also has the moral responsibility to form one’s own conscience. The fact that other people may error in their conscience does not make it moral to force them to hold a different position.

If a young girl becomes pregnant, her conscience (possibly formed by well intentioned but incorrect protestant teaching) may direct her to destroy the life within her at an abortion clinic. Our flawed system of laws allows abortion clinics to facilitate this girl’s wrong-headed decision. If our laws banned all forms of abortion according to Church teaching, this child would be able to live and the girl wouldn’t have to live the rest of her life with the guilt of murder as her constant companion.

Abortion should be illegal, not because of Church teaching, but for the same reason all other murders are illegal. Abortion is murder because it violates an innocent child’s right to life. The Declaration of Independence says that the reason why man created government is to protect the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Interesting thing to note: some of the founding fathers, including Ben Franklin I think, wanted that last one to be “pursuit of wealth”.

Prohibition was another misguided notion. It was fueled by fundamentalist sentiment, not Catholic virtue.

I think you’re probably right regarding prohibition being fueled by fundamentalist sentiment rather than Catholic virtue. However, I think it does show how using morality as the basis for civil law may have many unintended and immoral consequences.

 

[BobObob]

Part 2/2

Nudity laws are one example I can think of that were enacted for the sake of morality that has been very beneficial to our society. This happens to be one moral that the public (mostly) still has in common with Catholic teaching.

I think laws against nudity are largely enacted because the average person would rather not randomly encounter people walking around naked.

Nudity, even public nudity, isn’t in itself sinful. The morality of lack of clothing depends on several factors. Psychologically, nudity in various contexts may incite lust.

I don’t want to get into this too much here, because if I do I’ll get too far off topic, but there is evidence that suggests that the less occasional, casual (non-sexual) nudity is permitted, and the more nudity itself is taboo, the more a society will have problems with lust (note I’m talking about nudity, not sex). This may seem to go against common sense, but there is reason to believe that is the case. For example, Pakistan, a country in which women have to cover virtually every square inch of their body, has the highest rates of internet porn consumption per capita.

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/the_more_you_repress_it_the_mo.php,
google.com/insights/search/#q=donkey%20sex%2Ccamel%20sex%2Crape%20pictures&cmpt=q
foxnews.com/world/2010/07/12/data-shows-pakistan-googling-pornographic-material/
couriermail.com.au/news/world/pakistan-no1-in-the-world-in-pornographic-internet-searches/story-e6freoqf-1225891491204

Also, the US, a country which is a lot more strict regarding nudity than most countries, is the world’s largest consumer of pornography.

crisisconnectioninc.org/pdf/Porn.pdf

Also, it seems that people in cultures in which occasional, casual (non-sexual) nudity is the norm tend to less often struggle with lust. For example, in many cultures in Africa women don’t usually wear any clothes on top. Men from those particular cultures tend to not be sexually aroused when seeing a woman’s breasts.

I’m sorry if I got a little too carried away on this point…

BobObob;6969396:

Most legislation that actually does more good than evil is religion non-specific. For example, legislating against assault, theft, and murder is by no means Christian legislation.

These laws merely serve the purpose of keeping the peace and they just happen to coincide with Christian virtues, not because of them.

You’re correct when you say that laws against assault, theft, and murder are for the purpose of keeping the peace.

I think that most of the time whenever a government tries to do anything other than keep the peace, those efforts cause more evil than good.

What I am proposing is a charter/constitution that defines the Catholic Faith as it’s moral basis. Laws cannot be enacted which would violate the traditional teachings of the Church and Canon Law.

One thing that needs to be considered is that the morality of the law is not determined by what it is legislating, but by it’s effects. For example, I’ve heard that legalizing brothels would significantly lower the rates of rape. Whether or not this is true, I don’t know (and am skeptical). However, in the hypothetical situation in which this is true, it may be moral to legalize brothels, thus permitting one evil while preventing another. This legislation (in this hypothetical situation) would be moral to pass in spite of the catechism saying that governments should ban prostitution because it would be a situation in which the principle of double effect would apply.

It is for this reason (morality of laws being determined by their effect) that passing a law that permits something that the Catholic Church teaches is immoral may be moral.

Regarding the article that was mentioned by DavidPalm, I’ll look at it when I get more time. I’ve got to run…

 

[DavidPalm]

Kudos! Very nice work and very well researched. I am finding that my rare and seemingly revolutionary view is directly in line with the Church. I wonder if BobOBob has read it and what his views are of it.

Do you have more published work in this area? I am also planning on digging into St. Bellarmine’s writings regarding governments and the Church.

Thanks IH. No, I haven’t written more–I have been pondering a companion piece on religious liberty for some time now, but haven’t had the time or motivation to pull the thing together.

 

[BobObob]

It’s been a while since I paid attention to this thread. I just completed my first week of my senior year at college, and have been busy already in part because I’ve had a good portion of work to do in a graduate class with Dr. Scott Hahn. However, I wanted to address some key points from an article that was mentioned previously on this thread:

On the other hand, I would say that the Magisterium has made it pretty clear that the separation of Church and State as we have it here in the United States is contrary to Catholic teaching. Rather, the Popes have made repeatedly clear, the State is obligated to “favor [the Catholic] religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws” (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei §6).

I have laid out some of these matters in an article (link). Perhaps that would be helpful to see the magisterial teaching on the topic. It is extremely important to note that the fathers of Vatican II, in Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty, explicitly said that this document “leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ” (DH §1). So there can’t be any appeal to Vatican II as having changed the Church’s teaching on the separation of Church and State. It didn’t.

One needs to keep in consideration the scope of papal infallibility. Papal infallibility only extends to matters of faith and morals. Papal infallibility may only extend to political matters insofar as those political matters are morally relevant. This is also true for the Ordinary Magisterium. For example, the Catholic Church teaches that prostitution is a moral evil. That teaching may be applied to politics to argue that the government has the responsibility to make prostitution illegal. However, if such legislation, or even the power of civil government to legislate on the matter, causes more evil than it eliminates, than the government has the responsibility to not pass such legislation.

Likewise, if creating a civil government which is set up to “favor [the Catholic] religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws” in practice causes more evil than it does good, then civil government aught to be set up differently.

It should be noted that that particular phrase from Immortale Dei doesn’t fall under papal infallibility anyways. Papal statements condemning separation of church and state are not infallible.

In practice, a secular government has been shown to have been most effective at keeping the peace and also most moral. I would argue that this is the case because all Catholic moral teachings that have proven to be moral in practice when legislated by government are exclusive to neither Catholicism nor to Christianity. 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 thought that the article made a good point about democracy, a system of government where the tyranny of the majority reigns, being ineffective when it comes to protecting people’s individuals rights. Thankfully, America wasn’t founded as a democracy (although most people think America is a democracy and America). America was founded as a constitutional republic, where many civil liberties are guaranteed by the constitution and cannot be legislated away (unless the government gets away with breaking the law). However, America has been increasingly becoming a democracy in part because the people have let the politicians get away with breaking the supreme civil law of the land (the US constitution).

Any government can fail to protect, and violate, the rights of individuals, regardless of the form of government, because all governments are run by men and all governments are founded by men (except ancient Israel). So far, the few instances where there have been constitutional republics (which are secular governments using the rule of law to restrict the government, but giving it power to keep the peace and guarantee rights) have shown to be the most effective at guaranteeing individual’s rights.

I also want to briefly say that a government does not equal society. It seems you implied that. A Catholic society can have a merely secular government.

 

[DavidPalm]

One needs to keep in consideration the scope of papal infallibility. Papal infallibility only extends to matters of faith and morals. Papal infallibility may only extend to political matters insofar as those political matters are morally relevant. This is also true for the Ordinary Magisterium. . . .

It should be noted that that particular phrase from Immortale Dei doesn’t fall under papal infallibility anyways. Papal statements condemning separation of church and state are not infallible.

I addressed this in the article. Or, more accurately, Pope Pius XI addressed this erroneous view:

Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.

There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism. Ubi Arcano §60-61]

How does your view differ from the “social modernism” that Pius XI condemned?

Also, you didn’t cite any magisterial texts to back up your claim. Could you cite the texts that overthrow the solemn teaching of the numerous Popes cited in the article, the teaching of which was left “untouched” by Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae?

In practice, a secular government has been shown to have been most effective at keeping the peace and also most moral.

This is an interesting argument in an age of contraception and abortion on demand, free access to pornography, and the legalization of divorce and all manner of immoral unions.

I would argue that this is the case because all Catholic moral teachings that have proven to be moral in practice when legislated by government are exclusive to neither Catholicism nor to Christianity. 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.

There are a great many examples that could be cited. But first, I’d welcome some backing from the Magisterium for your view. Without that, it’s just your private opinion against the solemn teaching of a whole range of Roman Pontiffs and an Ecumenical Council.

 

[BobObob]

Part 1/1

BobObob;7003127:

One needs to keep in consideration the scope of papal infallibility. Papal infallibility only extends to matters of faith and morals. Papal infallibility may only extend to political matters insofar as those political matters are morally relevant. This is also true for the Ordinary Magisterium. . . .

It should be noted that that particular phrase from Immortale Dei

doesn’t fall under papal infallibility anyways. Papal statements condemning separation of church and state are not infallible.

I addressed this in the article. Or, more accurately, Pope Pius XI addressed this erroneous view:

Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.

There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism. Ubi Arcano §60-61]

Actually, this doesn’t refute my position that papal statements condemning separation of church and state, as well as any other papal statements regarding exclusively political topics, are not infallible in themselves since they are not themselves matters of faith or morals, although they may be morally relevant. The moral values which may be behind government may infallibility defined by the CC, but the application by governmental power and force is not. This document, which doesn’t address this point, doesn’t strictly speaking fall under papal infallibility because for something to fall under papal infallibility it has to define, which Ubi Arcano does not (at least in the portion that you cited. If it does, show me where).

Even if it did fall under papal infallibility, it wouldn’t be very relevant to political matters, because political matters are filled with situations of double effect (legislating morality leading to immoral effects).

How does your view differ from the “social modernism” that Pius XI condemned?

Ubi Arcano, the document you cited, neither define “social modernism” nor made it clear exactly what it meant.

Other than the scope of papal infallibility, my view is that legislation is morally qualified not by what it is legislating, but rather the effect of the legislation. If there are any teachings of the CC that seem to you to be apposed to that view, consider the principle of double-effect.

Also, you didn’t cite any magisterial texts to back up your claim. Could you cite the texts that overthrow the solemn teaching of the numerous Popes cited in the article, the teaching of which was left “untouched” by Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae?

I’m not so sure that those teachings fall under papal infallibility. Only a small percentage of statements by popes fall under papal infallibility. Many popes have never made a single statement that infallibly defined, although they may have made authoritative statements (which doesn’t equal papal infallibility). Most of what a pope says is being said either as a private theologian or as an authoritative teaching that doesn’t fall under papal infallibility. For more on authoritative, but non-infallible teachings, see the following answer by a professor of Catholic studies:

lists.oakland.edu/pipermail/stjohnfisher/2007-January/000038.html

Also, here’s a thread in which this topic was discussed:

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#papal

With this in mind, instead of citing a place where the magisterium explicitly backs up my view (which isn’t necessary and wouldn’t even prove my view is correct unless the statement infallibly defines) I’ll remind you that even if the portion you cited reached the level of infallibly defined dogma, it wouldn’t be absolute in practice due to the principle of double-effect and prove a like to the document that defined papal infallibility (ex cathedra):

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#papal (bottom of page)

 

[BobObob]

Part 2/2

BobObob;7003127:

In practice, a secular government has been shown to have been most effective at keeping the peace and also most moral.

This is an interesting argument in an age of contraception and abortion on demand, free access to pornography, and the legalization of divorce and all manner of immoral unions.

Abortion should be made illegal by secular governments for the same reason that murder should be.

Regarding divorce, do you really think that legislating that people have to stay together is really going to get them to stay together or do more good than evil? BTW, the Catholic Church holds that secular divorce (as opposed to a real divorce) may, in rare circumstances, be permissible and even desirable.

Regarding contraception and immoral unions, do you really think that government can effectively enforce legislation against them without spending huge amounts of money, accumulating great amounts of power, and overall causing more evil than it prevents? A prohibition on contraception and immoral unions would have even more immoral consequences than alcohol prohibition or the current “war on drugs”.

Regarding free access to pornography, aside from the points I made about contraception and immoral unions being valid toward pornography, let me remind you that communist Poland, as well as other communist governments, started out censoring things like pornography, but then used that power to censor more and more until it censored political stuff. That’s what the case is in China right now. They use objectionable material such as pornography the excuse to have government censorship which also censors political things. If you think that that would only be the case for communist governments, history shows that when a government accumulates more power, that government usually abuses that power sooner or later.

BTW, I am referring to particular forms of secular governments which allow freedom of religion.

BobObob;7003127:

I would argue that this is the case because all Catholic moral teachings that have proven to be moral in practice when legislated by government are exclusive to neither Catholicism nor to Christianity. 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.

There are a great many examples that could be cited. But first, I’d welcome some backing from the Magisterium for your view. Without that, it’s just your private opinion against the solemn teaching of a whole range of Roman Pontiffs and an Ecumenical Council.

If there are “a great many examples that could be cited” than why would you wait for me to back up my view from the magistium rather than just cite one and largely “defeat” my point?

BTW, a Catholic doesn’t, on a given point, need to show that the magisterium back up one’s own view, but rather that one’s view does not contradict an infallibly defined teaching of the magisterium. There are many things which the magisterium never positively supported for centuries, yet supported later. There are also things which are still open questions for Catholics. There are other things which have been non-infallibly condemned by the magisterium, regarding which the previous article I cited offers a good set of criteria for a Catholic to legitimately disagreeing with. I’ve demonstrated (sufficiently for now) that my view does not contradict an infallibly defined teaching of the magisterium.

Can you demonstrate that the teachings you mention fall under papal infallibility?

 

[DavidPalm]

Before we proceed, I think we need to clarify this matter of infallibility, since you are placing a lot of weight on that. It is not my argument that these matters of the relationship of Church and State have been formally defined as dogmas through a formal exercise of papal infallibility. The same is true of beliefs like the intrinsic evil of abortion, or the sinfulness of contraception, or the indissolubility of marriage. But no Catholic has the “freedom” to dissent from those latter three teachings of the Church, because they have been proposed infallibly by the ordinary Magisterium, through the solemn repetition of those teachings by the Church through the centuries.

The same is true, I would argue, on certain Church/State issues such as, for example, that a rightly ordered State may not be neutral with respect to religions and treat all religions equally. That, the Church has constantly taught, is wrong and ultimately leads to the denigration of all religion. That matters such as these fall within the competency of the Popes was upheld by Pope Pius XI. And yet you seem to be dissenting from this solemn teaching (by stating that the best governments are secular) and adopting the same line as those “Catholics” who dissent on abortion, contraception, and divorce–“Oh, but it’s not formally defined as infallible, so I can disagree with the Church.”

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s how it appears to me. That’s why I asked for some Magisterial teaching that would back up the view you’re proposing since, if it’s simply a matter of you dissenting from the teaching of Leo XIII, Benedict XV, Pius X, Pius XI, et al. based on your own opinion then we’re pretty much at loggerheads.

 

[BobObob]

The last time I posted (posts 29 and 30), I did so quickly and made a couple mistakes.

Also, here’s a thread in which this topic was discussed:

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#papal

Here’s the correct link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=458259&page=10

. . . and prove a like to the document that defined papal infallibility (ex cathedra):

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#papal (bottom of page)

I meant to say “provide a link to the document”.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Can anyone summarize this for me in their own words?

 

[BobObob]

For a teaching of the Catholic Church to be infallible, it must be on matters of faith or morals, regardless of whether it is taught dogmatically by an Ex Cathedra statement, an ecumenical council, or non-dogmaticly by the ordinary magisterium. Matters that are political are not in themselves matters of faith or morals (although they may be morally relevant), and thus such teachings are not themselves infallible.

Before we proceed, I think we need to clarify this matter of infallibility, since you are placing a lot of weight on that.

I only got into this discussion on infallibility because you referenced Ubi Arcano as if it refuted my views.

It is not my argument that these matters of the relationship of Church and State have been formally defined as dogmas through a formal exercise of papal infallibility. The same is true of beliefs like the intrinsic evil of abortion, or the sinfulness of contraception, or the indissolubility of marriage. But no Catholic has the “freedom” to dissent from those latter three teachings of the Church, because they have been proposed infallibly by the ordinary Magisterium, through the solemn repetition of those teachings by the Church through the centuries.

The same is true, I would argue, on certain Church/State issues such as, for example, that a rightly ordered State may not be neutral with respect to religions and treat all religions equally.

I would disagree with your view that it is the same case for political issues as it is with abortion, contraception, and indissolubility of marriage. I would disagree primarily on the grounds that the Churches teaching on abortion, contraception, and indissolubility of marriage are matters of morals, while political issues are relevant to morals, but do not themselves fall under it.

Even if the Catholic Church does infallibly teach things regarding the state, in practice it wouldn’t really make a difference because in many situations you would have a situation of double effect (applying a Church teaching, say one that supports socialism, will lead to greater evils than good in practice).

That matters such as these fall within the competency of the Popes was upheld by Pope Pius XI.

Pope Pius XI, in the portion you quoted, actually didn’t indicate that political issues fell under papal infallibility. It mentioned a bunch of issues, said many of these issues had been solemnly pronounced by some popes (which is not sufficient for infallibility, but is for authoritativeness), said that some individuals “act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force.” This is an issue of people not taking the authoritativeness of the CC seriously (thinking that non-infallible teachings mean absolutely nothing).

And yet you seem to be dissenting from this solemn teaching (by stating that the best governments are secular) and adopting the same line as those “Catholics” who dissent on abortion, contraception, and divorce–“Oh, but it’s not formally defined as infallible, so I can disagree with the Church.”

I would argue that abortion, contraception, and dissolvability of marriage are infallible teachings of the ordinary magisterium. They are all under either faith or morals. Holding that secular governments are and have been most effective at protecting human rights is not a matter that falls under faith or morals.

if it’s simply a matter of you dissenting from the teaching of Leo XIII, Benedict XV, Pius X, Pius XI, et al. based on your own opinion then we’re pretty much at loggerheads.

A Catholic doesn’t necessarily need to have a pope who agrees with him on a given point when many other popes disagree, so long as that isn’t something taught infallibly.

BTW, I would challenge anyone on this thread to come up with one time when applying any teaching of the Catholic Church by the government beyond keeping the peace, did more good than evil overall.

 

[DavidPalm]

Matters that are political are not in themselves matters of faith or morals (although they may be morally relevant), and thus such teachings are not themselves infallible.

I think it’s best if we focus the discussion on the matter of Church authority. It seems that we are not talking about merely “political matters”. We are talking about the duty of societies to God and the Catholic Faith. The teaching of the Church is that societies, no less than individuals, are bound to give God and the True Faith rightful place. And because all rightly ordered societies have a system of government, those rightly ordered governments too are bound to give God and the True Faith rightful place. As, for example, Pope Leo XIII writes:

Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments. Besides, those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men’s souls in the wisdom of their legislation.

As Ehler and Morrall nicely summarize, the Popes repeatedly uphold the idea of, “public acknowledgment of religion by the State as a logical deduction from acceptance of the premise that God is the Author of civil authority” (my emphasis). Those things which logically derive from matters of faith are themselves within the competence of the Church’s teaching on faith. And therefore, I would argue, the proper relation of the State to the Catholic Faith is not mere politics but falls squarely within the sphere of faith and morals.

You tried the make the absolute distinction between societies and governments, but the important point is that the teaching of the Popes does not seem to allow such an absolute distinction. For your position to be valid, it would seem that you would have to 1) prove that the Popes did not make the logical connection described above or 2) prove that they did make the logical connection, but erred in doing so. I think the burden is on you in this matter.

Beyond this, simply stating that a given teaching isn’t formally infallible and proceeding to ignore that teaching is not sufficient. A faithful Catholic is bound to more than that:

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will (Lumen Gentium 25).

To me your view is not in line with LG 25 with respect to the solemn pronouncements of the Roman Pontiffs on the separation of Church and State. It also seems to me that you skirted too lightly over the condemnation of Pope Pius XI of a “social modernism” that simply dismisses the solemn teaching of the Pontiffs on these matters. Again, he condemns those who, “speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.” I do not detect any difference between your view and that condemned by Pope Pius XI. I see you putting forth the view here that it is not necessary any longer to follow the teachings and solemn pronouncements of those Pontiffs on the separation of Church and State. Could you explain again how your view expressed here is not accurately described by Pius XI?

On practical matters, you deploy examples of abuses of government power, but of course Abusus non tollit usum.. Similarly, you see it as daunting to put the genie back in the bottle with respect to things like rampant pornography and contraception. But pagan societies have been transformed by the Gospel, have then had Catholic governments which did not allow, for example, the distribution of pornography and contraceptives, and this did not disrupt their peace but rather enhanced it. More importantly, these laws had in mind the spiritual welfare of the citizens and not just their temporal “peace”. And in line with the teaching of the Popes, I would suggest that it was precisely governments acting in accord with Catholic teaching that kept unbridled passions from harming the common good, whereas it has been purely secular governments which have caused and abetted the proliferation of these moral evils through complete lack of restraint.

These are important secondary matters. But, as I said, I would really like to focus on matters of Church authority first and foremost in our discussion. Thanks.

 

[BobObob]

Part 1/3

I think it’s best if we focus the discussion on the matter of Church authority. It seems that we are not talking about merely “political matters”. We are talking about the duty of societies to God and the Catholic Faith. The teaching of the Church is that societies, no less than individuals, are bound to give God and the True Faith rightful place. And because all rightly ordered societies have a system of government, those rightly ordered governments too are bound to give God and the True Faith rightful place.

Society does not equal government.

Government is a creation by people in society for the overall security of society, but not society itself.
More on this later…

As, for example, Pope Leo XIII writes:

Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments. Besides, those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men’s souls in the wisdom of their legislation.

What Pope Leo XIII wrote here has little to do with infallibility.

BTW, how a government would best provide for the welfare of men’s souls and act in accord with God’s law would have to do with the effects of it’s legislation, not what it legislates. I have challenged you and whoever else might be on this thread to come up with one time when applying any teaching of the Catholic Church by the government beyond keeping the peace, did more good than evil overall. This lies outside of faith or morals, although it’s morally relevant. I would appreciate it if you would address this rather than run from it.

As Ehler and Morrall nicely summarize, the Popes repeatedly uphold the idea of, “public acknowledgment of religion by the State as a logical deduction from acceptance of the premise that God is the Author of civil authority” (my emphasis). Those things which logically derive from matters of faith are themselves within the competence of the Church’s teaching on faith. And therefore, I would argue, the proper relation of the State to the Catholic Faith is not mere politics but falls squarely within the sphere of faith and morals.

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).

Pope Leo XIII, as well as many popes, see the state as a God appointed institution to be the head of society (meaning it both has nearly absolute power over it’s subjects as well as nearly absolute responsibility to provide for them). This is problematic in many ways, including the fact that government is a creation of man, not God, for the betterment of society.

Let’s say a particular populated area has no government. It has chaos. It’s a dangerous part of the world where people assault, murder, and rob people. As a response to this, many people in this area somehow manage to form a public security force as well as a body of representatives who make the rules to regulate this security force. These representatives give this force power to do certain things, such as arrest people, when a rule of this legislative body has not been followed.

In that scenario, a form of government was created. It was neither created by God nor derives it’s power from God, but rather created by man to better the society. The morality of it’s legislation depend on what the effects are, not what it legislates. The question of what the effects of certain legislation would be is not in the realm of faith or morals, but of political science. Therefore, how government aught to be is not in the realm of faith or morals. The effects of what the government does is in the realm of morals though.

 

[BobObob]

Part 2/3

You tried the make the absolute distinction between societies and governments, but the important point is that the teaching of the Popes does not seem to allow such an absolute distinction. For your position to be valid, it would seem that you would have to 1) prove that the Popes did not make the logical connection described above or 2) prove that they did make the logical connection, but erred in doing so. I think the burden is on you in this matter.

Where has a pope infallibly stated that there is no distinction between societies and government (which wouldn’t really be a teaching of faith or morals anyways)? I think that the burden of proof would first be on you to show first, that that is something that can and has been infallibility defined.

By the way, infallibility extends to doctrine.

Beyond this, simply stating that a given teaching isn’t formally infallible and proceeding to ignore that teaching is not sufficient. A faithful Catholic is bound to more than that:

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will (Lumen Gentium 25).

There’s a difference between not agreeing with a non-infallible statement by a pope and not acknowledging with reverence and not adhering to the supreme magisterium. An article I reference earlier in which a professor of Catholic studies was answering a question, mentioned what it meant to “adhere to” the supreme magisterium, and how it is possible to do so while disagreeing when it comes to non-infallible statements.

lists.oakland.edu/pipermail/stjohnfisher/2007-January/000038.html

Also, it’s a good thing that Catholics don’t have to absolutely agree with non-infallible statements by popes. Otherwise, many statements by previous popes would probably he really hurting the CC. Just imagine if everything that popes wrote in the past were absolutely non-disagreeable.

To me your view is not in line with LG 25 with respect to the solemn pronouncements of the Roman Pontiffs on the separation of Church and State. It also seems to me that you skirted too lightly over the condemnation of Pope Pius XI of a “social modernism” that simply dismisses the solemn teaching of the Pontiffs on these matters. Again, he condemns those who, “speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.” I do not detect any difference between your view and that condemned by Pope Pius XI. I see you putting forth the view here that it is not necessary any longer to follow the teachings and solemn pronouncements of those Pontiffs on the separation of Church and State. Could you explain again how your view expressed here is not accurately described by Pius XI?

Saying that a Catholic may, with sufficient reflection, disagree with a non-infallible statement by a pope, is not the same as to “speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.”

The difference is that in the latter, one “act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow” an authoritative teaching of the CC (meaning it can be somewhat casually written off), while my view (as well as the view of that professor of Catholic studies I referenced) is that only after sufficient consideration can a particular non-infallible teaching be disagreed with (and also it cannot be because one is rejecting the very idea of a Church teaching office). I’m guessing that you’ll want me to say more on this. However, I’ll say that paragraph 60 must be taken into context, and the fact that paragraph 62 talked about being tossed to and fro indicates that it’s addressing those who use non-infallibility as an excuse to casually disregard many teachings of the CC.

On practical matters, you deploy examples of abuses of government power, but of course Abusus non tollit usum.

The question is, will giving government this power lead to greater good than evil? So thus far, history indicates that it has lead to greater evil.

There are extremely few cases in which government was given power to police morality that wasn’t eventually greatly abused.

 

[BobObob]

Part 3/3

Similarly, you see it as daunting to put the genie back in the bottle with respect to things like rampant pornography and contraception. But pagan societies have been transformed by the Gospel, have then had Catholic governments which did not allow, for example, the distribution of pornography and contraceptives, and this did not disrupt their peace but rather enhanced it.

Let me emphasize something you said. “Pagan societies have been transformed by the Gospel”. Pagan societies were changed by the gospel, not government. Also, you say that they had Catholic governments, but this does not mean that those governments caused more good than evil (the good was done by the gospel). In fact, since those cultures were converted to Catholicism, it’s no surprise their governments were Catholic.

Also, could you cite a specific society with a Catholic government, rather than talk about unspecified “societies”? It may help me verify the history you are talking about.

I didn’t know they had pornography and contraceptives centuries ago (presumably you’re talking at least a few centuries in the past).

And in line with the teaching of the Popes, I would suggest that it was precisely governments acting in accord with Catholic teaching that kept unbridled passions from harming the common good

Could you provides historical evidence with specifics.

These are important secondary matters. But, as I said, I would really like to focus on matters of Church authority first and foremost in our discussion. Thanks.

Even aside from the scope of the authority of the Church, would you agree that it is the effects of the government, rather than what it legislates, that determines the morality of government? Would you also agree with me that the effects of what government does would be in the realm of social sciences, as opposed to faith or morals? If those are both “yes”, than wouldn’t the actions themselves of government themselves not fall under the authority of the Church (although the effects of the actions may, which is not what I’ve been disputing on this thread).

Again, putting this into practice would look like this. Government would not have the moral responsibility to make sure people didn’t do unnecessary servile work on Sunday, since attempting to do so would create more evil than it would prevent.

Seriously though, I think this discussion is getting a little ridiculous. Obviously the fact that a pope makes a non-infallible statement does not mean that one may absolutely never disagree (because otherwise the some popes in the past would have forced people to not correct erroneous consciences). I have stated that the document you cited which mentioned “social modernism” does not actually apply to my view (in fact it did not even explicitly connect paragraph 60 to “social modernism” or even say what aspect of “social modernism” he condemns).

 

[BobObob]

To sum up, I hold that a government favoring one religion and attempting to enforce the morality of that religion would cause greater evil in proportion to good than a secular government which existed to keep the peace.

Also, I don’t see sufficient evidence that it is impossible for one to be truly Catholic and be OK with a secular government. Even if the CC has taught infallibly that such government would be immoral (which I dispute), it would be of virtually no value because in practice due to the principle of double effect.

 

[DavidPalm]

Seriously though, I think this discussion is getting a little ridiculous. Obviously the fact that a pope makes a non-infallible statement does not mean that one may absolutely never disagree

I think there are two fundamental issues that prevent the discussion from being “ridiculous”. First, as you’ve now pretty much admitted, you do not hold to the Church’s teaching on the role and nature of government. 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.

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 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”.

Society does not equal government. . . . Where has a pope infallibly stated that there is no distinction between societies and government (which wouldn’t really be a teaching of faith or morals anyways)?

Agreed, but I already made that distinction myself, so I’m not sure why you’re saying this. No Pope has said there is no distinction. Rather, as summarized by Ehler, “public acknowledgement of religion by the State [is] a logical deduction from acceptance of the premise that God is the Author of civil authority.” It is that premise with which you seem to disagree. You wrote:

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

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). 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.

I have challenged you and whoever else might be on this thread to come up with one time when applying any teaching of the Catholic Church by the government beyond keeping the peace, did more good than evil overall…I would appreciate it if you would address this rather than run from it.

There’s been no running. But to establish the nature and authority of the Church’s teaching prior to discussing specifics is perfectly legitimate.

Still, let’s look at a couple of examples in the practical sphere. 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?

Two other examples that have already been broached—pornography and contraception. The potential mass production of pornography has been possible since the invention of the printing press and erotic novels appeared very soon after that invention. From that time until the very recent past, Catholic governments and Protestant governments with a “Catholic hangover” have forbade the publication and distribution of pornographic materials. Due to the agitation of those like you who believe in purely secular government, the production and distribution of pornography is now essentially unrestrained. 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?

And numerous Catholic theologians and other thinkers have argued, cogently IMO, that the legalization of contraception was really the necessary stepping stone to the legalization of abortion. 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 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.