Is democracy un-Christian?

[mathematoons]

The Founding Fathers of the United States mostly agreed that the Constitution only worked for a moral and religious people. But what they didn’t know was that the democratic ideal of government “by the people” would lead to the rampant individualism that has undermined the Christian faith of this culture and every other Western culture. No wonder people in Muslim countries call us the Great Satan.

Therefore, I am forced to ask myself: Does democracy inherently carry the seeds of its own destruction by undermining its own moral and religious foundation? I think so.

Christianity teaches that God is king, and that the only way to happiness is to submit to Him. Democracy teaches that the individual is king, while creating a system in which the minority has no rights against the majority.

Christianity teaches that some things are always wrong, even if no one thinks so. Democracy allows right and wrong to be decided by a majority vote.

Christianity teaches that humans are too sinful to make decisions for the common good. Democracy gives God no vote.

By their fruits you shall know them: Christianity has turned immoral cultures into moral ones; democracy has turned moral cultures into immoral ones.

Historically, only two forces have turned Christain countries into non-Christian ones. One is Islam (North Africa was once Christian); the other is secularism, which grew out of democracy.

Last, but not least, you’ll notice that we never had this relativism garbage when the Catholic Church was in charge back in the Middle Ages. I think it started with Protestantism and went downhill from there. When people exchange God’s laws for manmade laws, the consequences can never be good.

What do you all think?

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Lately democracy seems to be leading to popularly elected Islamist governments.

 

[LemonAndLime]

No, but capitalism, as it exists in the western world, is perhaps un-Christian.

As someone once said - “Capitalism is only good for those at the top.” General living standards for the majority of the population have decreased since modern capitalism.

And before the “but the only other option is evil, naughty, communism” brigade come in… urgh, there’s nothing to say, other than I know you’re coming.

 

[babylonsfalling]

The Founding Fathers of the United States mostly agreed that the Constitution only worked for a moral and religious people. But what they didn’t know was that the democratic ideal of government “by the people” would lead to the rampant individualism that has undermined the Christian faith of this culture and every other Western culture. No wonder people in Muslim countries call us the Great Satan.

Therefore, I am forced to ask myself: Does democracy inherently carry the seeds of its own destruction by undermining its own moral and religious foundation? I think so.

Christianity teaches that God is king, and that the only way to happiness is to submit to Him. Democracy teaches that the individual is king, while creating a system in which the minority has no rights against the majority.

Christianity teaches that some things are always wrong, even if no one thinks so. Democracy allows right and wrong to be decided by a majority vote.

Christianity teaches that humans are too sinful to make decisions for the common good. Democracy gives God no vote.

By their fruits you shall know them: Christianity has turned immoral cultures into moral ones; democracy has turned moral cultures into immoral ones.

Historically, only two forces have turned Christain countries into non-Christian ones. One is Islam (North Africa was once Christian); the other is secularism, which grew out of democracy.

Last, but not least, you’ll notice that we never had this relativism garbage when the Catholic Church was in charge back in the Middle Ages. I think it started with Protestantism and went downhill from there. When people exchange God’s laws for manmade laws, the consequences can never be good.

What do you all think?

It may be argued that all forms of human government are un-Christian.
If not democracy then what?

 

[po18guy]

In the case of a lynch mob, yes, it is un-Christian.

This type of thread always seems to bring out the closet socialists. I know they are in here…

 

[Swiss_Guy]

No, but capitalism, as it exists in the western world, is perhaps un-Christian.

As someone once said - “Capitalism is only good for those at the top.” General living standards for the majority of the population have decreased since modern capitalism.

And before the “but the only other option is evil, naughty, communism” brigade come in… urgh, there’s nothing to say, other than I know you’re coming.

That’s why a mixed economy works. Too bad no one in America knows what that is anymore…

 

[Swiss_Guy]

It may be argued that all forms of human government are un-Christian.
If not democracy then what?

constitutional monarchy .

 

[Swiss_Guy]

The Founding Fathers of the United States mostly agreed that the Constitution only worked for a moral and religious people. But what they didn’t know was that the democratic ideal of government “by the people” would lead to the rampant individualism that has undermined the Christian faith of this culture and every other Western culture. No wonder people in Muslim countries call us the Great Satan.

Therefore, I am forced to ask myself: Does democracy inherently carry the seeds of its own destruction by undermining its own moral and religious foundation? I think so.

Christianity teaches that God is king, and that the only way to happiness is to submit to Him. Democracy teaches that the individual is king, while creating a system in which the minority has no rights against the majority.

Christianity teaches that some things are always wrong, even if no one thinks so. Democracy allows right and wrong to be decided by a majority vote.

Christianity teaches that humans are too sinful to make decisions for the common good. Democracy gives God no vote.

By their fruits you shall know them: Christianity has turned immoral cultures into moral ones; democracy has turned moral cultures into immoral ones.

Historically, only two forces have turned Christain countries into non-Christian ones. One is Islam (North Africa was once Christian); the other is secularism, which grew out of democracy.

Last, but not least, you’ll notice that we never had this relativism garbage when the Catholic Church was in charge back in the Middle Ages. I think it started with Protestantism and went downhill from there. When people exchange God’s laws for manmade laws, the consequences can never be good.

What do you all think?

Well, democracy is, imho, as good as a constitutional monarchy, which is a little better than an absolute monarchy. Constitutional monarchy might be the best.

But the Church doesn’t pick a best form of government. However, if I remember correctly many saints think a Catholic monarchy is the best form of government. The problem is when you have a bad son…

 

[po18guy]

The problem is not so much “democracy”, as it is the post-Christian nature of our world.

 

[po18guy]

Well, democracy is, imho, as good as a constitutional monarchy, which is a little better than an absolute monarchy. Constitutional monarchy might be the best.

Until the monarch suspends the constitution. Bad as it has turned out in recent practice, our form of government has allowed for one of the longest periods of peaceful exchange of power in history.

 

[dmelosi]

The Founding Fathers of the United States mostly agreed that the Constitution only worked for a moral and religious people. But what they didn’t know was that the democratic ideal of government “by the people” would lead to the rampant individualism that has undermined the Christian faith of this culture and every other Western culture. No wonder people in Muslim countries call us the Great Satan.

Therefore, I am forced to ask myself: Does democracy inherently carry the seeds of its own destruction by undermining its own moral and religious foundation? I think so.

Christianity teaches that God is king, and that the only way to happiness is to submit to Him. Democracy teaches that the individual is king, while creating a system in which the minority has no rights against the majority.

Christianity teaches that some things are always wrong, even if no one thinks so. Democracy allows right and wrong to be decided by a majority vote.

Christianity teaches that humans are too sinful to make decisions for the common good. Democracy gives God no vote.

By their fruits you shall know them: Christianity has turned immoral cultures into moral ones; democracy has turned moral cultures into immoral ones.

Historically, only two forces have turned Christain countries into non-Christian ones. One is Islam (North Africa was once Christian); the other is secularism, which grew out of democracy.

Last, but not least, you’ll notice that we never had this relativism garbage when the Catholic Church was in charge back in the Middle Ages. I think it started with Protestantism and went downhill from there. When people exchange God’s laws for manmade laws, the consequences can never be good.

What do you all think?

What we are seeing now is what happens when a president makes every effort to take Christianity out of the decision making. It is not democracy that turns moral cultures into immoral ones, but the leaders that surround themselves and make anti Christian decisions. Best example is how the current president actually argued the infants born alive act. How much more anti Christian can you get than destroying so many innocent human beings.

 

[po18guy]

The Founding Fathers of the United States mostly agreed that the Constitution only worked for a moral and religious people. But what they didn’t know was that the democratic ideal of government “by the people” would lead to the rampant individualism that has undermined the Christian faith of this culture and every other Western culture. No wonder people in Muslim countries call us the Great Satan.

Therefore, I am forced to ask myself: Does democracy inherently carry the seeds of its own destruction by undermining its own moral and religious foundation? I think so.

Christianity teaches that God is king, and that the only way to happiness is to submit to Him. Democracy teaches that the individual is king, while creating a system in which the minority has no rights against the majority.

Christianity teaches that some things are always wrong, even if no one thinks so. Democracy allows right and wrong to be decided by a majority vote.

Christianity teaches that humans are too sinful to make decisions for the common good. Democracy gives God no vote.

By their fruits you shall know them: Christianity has turned immoral cultures into moral ones; democracy has turned moral cultures into immoral ones.

Historically, only two forces have turned Christain countries into non-Christian ones. One is Islam (North Africa was once Christian); the other is secularism, which grew out of democracy.

Last, but not least, you’ll notice that we never had this relativism garbage when the Catholic Church was in charge back in the Middle Ages. I think it started with Protestantism and went downhill from there. When people exchange God’s laws for manmade laws, the consequences can never be good.

What do you all think?

Christ did not condemn all of mankind as far as decision making - rather, He gave His chosen amongst them the leading of the Hoy Spirit. As He spoke, He did such not to condemn, but to save. He trusted the twelve, and those to whom they would pass on their authority - knowing that some would betray him in a figurative sense just as Judas betrayed Him in a literal sense. Every human institution carries the seeds of its own destruction - based on man’s fallen nature. This is why that which is instituted from above is the sole eternal good.

Christ did not call for the conversion of Caesar, but rather giving him his due. The rest belongs to God, since this fallen earth will, for all time, be add odds with its Creator.

 

[jwinch2]

Therefore, I am forced to ask myself: Does democracy inherently carry the seeds of its own destruction by undermining its own moral and religious foundation? I think so.

Every decision that the Dominican order makes is done democratically, even at the expense of moving quickly. Have they negatively impacted their moral and religious foundation by doing so? Are they un-Christian?

It isn’t the form of government. It is the people. As people have rejected Christ, things have gone south. If we had a country of Christian people with well-formed consciences electing their government, I would be willing to bet things would be much better. Furthermore, if the politicians themselves were well-formed Christians, that would go a long way as well.

 

[po18guy]

As in the case of the sinking of the Titanic, the question is not that simple.

 

[Vouthon]

The Church does not sanction any particular form of government. It only demands that human rights, religious freedom, liberty etc. be upheld. Democracy seems to be the system most compatible with these values.

Representative democracy, where the people elect leaders to govern their nation-states in free, secret and universal elections is completely compatible with Christianity and has proved to be the most efficient political system in history, the one most suited to human nature and capable of upolding human rights and dignity.

Ancient Israel, in the 300 years during which the Judges ruled before the foundation of the Monarchy, functioned as a de facto tribal democracy. Moses explicitly commanded the Israelites to elect their own tribal elders in what was - essentially - an ancient national federation/confederation of tribes.

“Choose some wise, intelligent and experienced men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you as your rulers.”

• Deuteronomy 1:13

If you read the Books of 1 and 2 Samuel you will find that God appears remarkably “anti-monarchist”. Monarchy was a concession to human weakness - Israel’s desire to be “like other nations with kings” to defend them from outside attack and invasion, a strong man to lead a united nation rather than one made up of a loose federation of tribes with elected leaders. Not that god supports republicanism, per se - constitutional monarchy might actually be the most preferrable - however he clearly did not desire absolute monarchy for Israel.

In 1 Samuel we read:

**"So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.”

6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.” **

God reluctantly gave Israel a King. It was not his Divine Will.

Moses did not bestow his successorship upon earthly, secular kings like Saul or David. In fact he grudgingly conceded that the Israelites might want to set up “kings”, but he never actually appointed a king. He simply gave regulations on how kings were to live and since he commanded that kings were not to have “many wives” - well David had thousands!

 

[Hadrianus]

You should be able to find Leo XIII’s encyclical ON Christian Democracy on the web. As a form of government democracy is purely neutral; but as an ideology it can be very dangerous.Of course the same could be said about an absolute monarchy which is not Christian. Whether a tyranny or one or a tyranny of the popular will, both are tyrannies if the Christian element is removed.

 

[mathematoons]

What people seem to be missing is that Christian democracy allows the people to say, “The tribe has spoken. Jesus, you’ve been voted off the island.” A Christian monarchy or oligarchy would not.

What I’d like to see is the Catholic Church running the world once again the way it ran Europe in the Middle Ages. Manmade law inherently misses the mark, but God’s law is perfect.

 

[Vouthon]

What I’d like to see is the Catholic Church running the world once again the way it ran Europe in the Middle Ages. Manmade law inherently misses the mark, but God’s law is perfect.

You want a THEOCRACY? Haven’t we learned from the past? The Lord was born into a Jewish theocracy under the High Priest. It had him executed. Think of the modern Islamic Republic of Iran!

Jesus Christ never ordained his Church to have political power. He taught that, “My Kingdom is not of this world” and that one must “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and render to God what is God’s”.

The Apostles were the martyred victims of the Roman Empire’s tyranny. They had no earthly authority whatsoever. The Church is the pastor of souls.

“…Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s…”

– Jesus Christ, Matthew 22:21

“…My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Judeans. But now as it is my kingdom is not from the world…”

– Jesus Christ, John 18:36

Saint Paul taught us that we must be obedient to secular government authority.

Ain’t you ever heard of the “two swords doctrine” of Pope Gelasius?

“…There are two powers, august Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, namely, the sacred authority of the priests and the royal power…”

*- Letter of Pope Gelasius to Emperor Anastasius I (494). *

Heed the words of Pope Benedict XVI:

“…The Catholic Church is eager to share the richness of the Gospel’s social message, for it enlivens hearts with a hope for the fulfilment of justice and a love that makes all men and women truly brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. She carries out this mission fully aware of the respective autonomy and competence of Church and State. Indeed, we may say that the distinction between religion and politics is a specific achievement of Christianity and one of its fundamental historical and cultural contributions…”

- Pope Benedict XVI, Papal Address to Philippine Ambassador, 2008

The Pope’s address is consistent with ideas he’s been proposing for a while now. In “The Salt of the Earth” (1997), he said that “separation is ultimately a primordial Christian legacy and also a decisive factor for freedom.”

Starting with the Gregorian reform in the 11th C. the pope worked to free the church from the state, and this was a partial success. The reformers based this separtion on the “two swords” from the gospel. One sword for the emperor and one for the pope.

It is true in this sense: the separtion of church and state only developed in the west, and could not have happened without Christianity. No other culture in the whole world developed separation of Church and State apart from Catholic Europe and its offspring. Byzantine Christianity had no separation of Church and State. So something happened in the West along with Christianity to create separtion, and that something was the Pope.

Read up on the event which took place at Canossa at the turn of the Millenium.

And from the pope’s Encyclical “Caritas” 2009:

“…The just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics. . . . The State may not impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony between the followers of different religions…The two spheres are distinct, yet always interrelated…This is where Catholic social doctrine has its place: it has no intention of giving the Church power over the State…”

- Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est, 2009

 

[RCIA4]

Personally I’m glad America is a secular Constitutional Republic with no King or state Church…

Any King or religious democracy (even if it’s Catholic ) is oppression…

 

[sw85]

You want a THEOCRACY? Haven’t we learned from the past? The Lord was born into a Jewish theocracy under the High Priest. It had him executed. Think of the modern Islamic Republic of Iran!

Neither of these things are/were theocracy. Theocracy is rule directly by the Church. The arrangement in both Middle Ages Europe is modern Iran is secular rule by secular authorities with heavy Church influence – quite a difference. The distinction between church and state is preserved, even if the relationship is close.

And for myself, yes, I do think the arrangement in the Middle Ages is superior to the present one. The fact that we are butchering our infants by the millions just so people can gratify their obscene lusts without consequence is evidence of this.

Jesus Christ never ordained his Church to have political power. He taught that, “My Kingdom is not of this world” and that one must “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and render to God what is God’s”.

This simply means that the Messiah was not a political figure (as the Jews had presumed He would be) and that man has duties to temporal authorities as well as ecclesiastical ones.

It does NOT imply democracy, separation of church or state, formal atheism, etc. Nor does it imply that these things are preferable.

Saint Paul taught us that we must be obedient to secular government authority.

Ain’t you ever heard of the “two swords doctrine” of Pope Gelasius?

(A) I thought this doctrine was explicitly formulated by one of the Bonifaces.

(B) The fact that the Popes themselves taught the doctrine is evidence that what we had in the Middle Ages was not, as you say, theocracy. Again, the distinction between church and state was always preserved in the Catholic West, except in the papal states themselves. No one is suggesting we efface that distinction. We are simply suggesting the mandatory segregation of the Church from the public sphere, which has the effect of marginalizing the Church and divinizing the state, is evil and must be abandoned.