Is democracy un-Christian?

[Tenofovir]

And there is often a Church tax in states with Catholicism (or any Christian religion/denom.) as the official religion. (At least then you could be certain some of your taxes were being put to good use .)

LOL, maybe there is but not always.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

My apologies
That was a sort of reference to this:
“I write by the light of two eternal truths: religion and monarchy,
those twin essentials affirmed by contemporary events, and towards which
every intelligent author should seek to direct our country.”
– Honoré de Balzac, 1842

That makes more sense now.

Anytime someone isn’t a devout Catholic is a problem! I haven’t even been received yet… Please pray for me, brother
Be sure you have my prayers. I’ll send them up to St. Wenceslaus, (former)Duke of Bohemia for you!
And that goes for rest of you, too!

I agree. Neither have I [A few more years (I am–to St. Otto of Bamberg {apostle to the Pomeranians.})] How do you like the parentheses?!

 

[Vouthon]

“…Accordingly, the best form of government is in a state or kingdom, wherein one is given the power to preside over all, while under him are others having governing powers. And yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rulers are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy, i.e., government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers. Such was the form of government established by the divine Law. For Moses and his successors governed the people in such a way that each of them was ruler over all; so that there was a kind of kingdom. Moreover, seventy-two men were chosen, who were elders in virtue, for it is written (Deut. I, 15): I took out of your tribes men wise and honorable, and appointed them rulers; so that there was an element of aristocracy. But it was a democratic government in so far as the rulers were chosen from all the people, for it is written (Exod. XVIII, 21): Provide out of all the people wise men, etc.; and, again, in so far as they were chosen by the people. Hence it is written (Deut. I, 13): Let me have from among you wise men, etc. Consequently, it is evident that the ordering of the rulers was well provided for by the Law…All of the people should take some share in the government for this form of constitution ensures peace among the people, commends itself to all, and is most enduring…”

- Saint Thomas Aquinas

Aquinas notes that the Mosaic Law had no provision for the selection of a king and that when God did allow the Israelites to choose a king, they effectively created a tyrannical ruler. He also noted that the primitive Israelite government was a “democratic government in so far as the rulers were chosen from among the people”. It amazes me that some proponents of the abolition of democracy on this thread are propouding a system of government which grants its citizens less ability to take part in the affairs of government than ancient Israel.

The problem with a kingdom, according to Aquinas, is that the “power of a King easily degenerates into tyranny”. Even the so-called “wise” King Solomon overtaxed his people so as to fund his luxurious palaces and harems.

Aquinas concluded that the best form of government combines features of a kingdom, an aristocracy and a democracy - a foreshadowing of the division of powers established in the US Constitution and other liberal democracies between an executive branch, a judicial branch, and an elected assembly.

Democracy with separation of powers is a Christian form of government. The direct democracy of Ancient Greece was pagan and could legitimately I think be called “mob-ocracy” in many respects, representative democracy is not and cannot.

 

[John21652]

The problem with modern democracy is the insistence of separating Church from State. This is a relatively new phenomena. In the process, the idea of law making and morality are being separated because the proponents of the idea of separation of Church and State would have us believe that morality is based in religion and therefore should not be allowed to enter into political discourse.

The only “problem” with democracy is that such ideas are allowed to be promulgated!

The real problem is that those who think law making should be divested of a moral component are deluding themselves and everyone else in the process. Every law has a moral component.

The end result is that even when men and woman of strong moral pursuasion enter into public life, they refrain from using their own morality as a guide to law making becuase they will be shouted down by the secularists who seem to think that laws can be amoral. That is just plain wrong.

Consequently, those who have no morality other than that which serves the individual are given free reign and so those behaviours which have been considered as immoral for millenia are now treated as a matter of individual choice.

The secularisation of society has come about because democracy allows for the free exchange of ideas. Ideas that remove God from the daily lives of ordinary people have been promulgated and have further secularised the state. Morality is thus even more of an individual matter.

The driving force behind the secualrisation of society has been the willingness of those who enter into public life to adopt a utilitarian method of governing. In doing so, they surrendered the role of government as a moral force.

Those of us who liove in western societies with a Catholic-Christian history, have become used to having governments who acted as a moral force. There were laws in place which criminalised certain behaviours. Justification for those laws was never an ongoing feature of political discourse. Those moral edicts were simply there. Secularisation has wound back the role of governments as a moral force and now the ideas which were enshrined as laws with a moral force will now have to reassert themselves once again.

It could be a long, hard battle, but while we live in a democratic society, we are able to freely promulgate those moral ideas and moral ideals once again. It will be the inculcation of those moral ideas by the majority that will give them the force of law even if they are not enshrined in legislation.

 

[septimine]

Well, I can’t say that it’s a matter of law itself, but I will say that Democracy and Republicanism do undermine most of the pillars of society. What those systems propose is that a group of selfish individuals can create order. That allowing the definition of terms of social institutions (religion, family, businesses, social clubs, etc.) will lead to greater stability of those institutions rather than destruction.

I think if Man was perfect, democracy would work, but it isn’t made for real-life societies. What happens in most democratic societies is that people gradually want more “freedom” to do just anything that they want. They want to divorce easily, and the woman who gets such a divorce wants support so she doesn’t suffer for that act (yes I get that it could easily go both ways) so we get WIC. People see that single parenthood isn’t as uncomfortable as it used to be, so they say “why wait to get married” so they don’t wait till marriage nor do they select their mates as carefully. Eventually you’ll see what you see in most Western Democracies – famlies are optional, and if they get in the way of what you want, you ditch them.

At every turn, people in democracies seek to normalize what used to be considered bad behavior. If you don’t believe me, look into the lifestyle of people even in 1900.

 

[septimine]

I’m afraid that I disagree

Democracy is not “submission to one’s whims”. Democracy, of the parliamentary kind advocated by modern Western nations, is submission to the representative leaders of a party which one has elected into office for a period of time, and the MP’s of all parties which the general public has voted into Parliament and usually decided that they want to govern their constituencies/regions (in local elections as well). This system can and does work alongside symbolic monarchy in many countries, for example in my own - the United Kingdom.

Well, the problem is the “throne problem”. Democracy essentially puts the will of man on that throne. The message in democracy is that we are supposed to rule ourselves. So the idea of submitting to anything in a democracy is only submission insofar as I agree with what the purpose of the authority is. So as an example (using British history as an example) The American Revolution was exactly a revolt against Authority. We decided that we no longer recognized King George III as our legitimate ruler, and we refused to obey. So then we create a whole new system of rulership and thus place ourselves under authority that we create for ourselves. And socially speaking, we’ve done a lot of bucking of Authority since 1776.

Now “absolute monarchy”, as opposed to constitutional monarchy, is blind submission to a single fallible human being who was neither placed their by God nor by the will of the governed within his nation. That Monarch has no legitimacy, and yet he exalts himself above his peers and subordinates their opinions and rights to his, as if he were superior to other human beings. This is the manner of rule in countries such as Saudi Arabia. Absolute monarchy makes an idol and a cult of personality out of fallible human beings.

I think this is the wrong way to go – I would prefer to say that our governments should be officially Christian and much like those who follow Muhammad, we should not allow the secular government to rule on matters that have been decided in the Faith. At the very least, we should have a better society as a result as our religion was started by God, not a desert nomad. It would be a simple adendum to any constitution – no law shall be valid that goes against the teachings of the Christian Faith. I don’t think that’s hard, nor do I think that such a law necessarily precludes the private practice of other faiths. It would be simple acknowledgement of God and putting God on the throne rather than either a King or a Mob.

The only true King is Jesus Christ, and his “monarchy” is a kingdom of the soul, and his Reign on Earth is conducted through his Church, which is His Mystical Body, and the Church is separate from the earthly, political sphere.

The modern Catholic Church is very solidly pro-democracy. In South Korea, for example, where Christianity is now the dominant religion and Catholicism the largest denomination, the Catholic Church is revered by the general public because it played a fundamental and integral role in the democratization of the Korean Republic in the wake of the military dictatorships of the 1960s and 80s. The Catholic Church in South Korea, is held up as the harbinger and brave defender of democracy in the country.

“Traditionalist” Catholics who yearn after the days when corrupt, worldly Middle Age monarchies ruled over the weary peoples of Europe - kingdoms which very rarely followed or lived by Catholic principles as evidenced by the Spanish Inquisition under the truly delightful Isabella - are damaging the profound social message of the Catholic Church in the Third Millenium in its mission of building a Civilisation of Love and spreading the Gospel message.

I don’t see how such a system is incompatable with modernity or the modern church. I think what we need as human societies is a simple institution outside of the secular political realm which can rule on matters that relate to humans and their faith, and through that, how they ought to relate to each other. It’s a check against the biggest evils of Democracies and Democratic Republics which seem to eventually put all human relationships and faith relationships up to a vote. Some things are simply in the Religious Realm rather than the Political or Economic Realms. The beginning of life, or the proper way to constitute a family are things that have nothing to do with politics. Whether a state goes along says a lot about how that state will do going forward.

 

[essie7777]

Just so you know, absolute monarchy is a relative innovation. The arrangement in the Middle Ages in England, for instance, was more akin to constitutional monarchy.

I’m not sure that is bound out by History or the experience of the times … the lands were ruled by ONE monarch with, no parliament, no rights for people and a complete disregard for the whims of said monarch.

Isn’t that an absolute monarchy?

 

[Abu]

A democracy in which the citizens elect those they wish to govern is certainly not by that fact, un-Christian.

Bl John Paul II emphatically defended the principles and institutions of democratic governance in Centesimus Annus, 1991, #46:
46. “The Church values the democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the participation of citizens in making political choices, guarantees to the governed the possibility both of electing and holding accountable those who govern them, and of replacing them through peaceful means when appropriate.93 Thus she cannot encourage the formation of narrow ruling groups which usurp the power of the State for individual interests or for ideological ends.

“Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the “subjectivity” of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.”
Note:
93. Cf. ibid., 29; Pius XII, Christmas Radio Message on December 24, 1944: AAS 37 (1945), 10-20.

 

[Vouthon]

The message in democracy is that we are supposed to rule ourselves.

No. The message in representative democracy, as in the Law of Moses, is that the people of a nation have the right to elect their own leaders and that all individuals have the right to participate in the governance of their country. True these leaders exercise authority on behalf of the people, such that democracy can be called “government of the people”, however there is still a clear Head of State and elected officials with the real power. They are elected by the people, yes, but they have from then on the authority over the people, to make laws, so long as they are accountable to the people and do not oppress the people. This is completely biblical and in line with Catholic theology - or are Moses and Thomas Aquinas not good enough for you?

As St Thomas Aquinas said above, “the best form of government …] is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rulers are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity…government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers. Such was the form of government established by the divine Law”.

In a non-democratic system only the small clique of rulers or king/dictator has any share in the government, and only he or his officials or his dynasty or regime is/are eligible to govern, and these rulers are not chosen by “all”. You would have this kind of system over the one proposed by Divine Law (the Torah)?

So you disagree with both St Thomas Aquinas and Moses? God was wrong to tell the people of Israel to choose their own leaders from among their own people? St Thomas Aquinas was not correct to embrace the form of government which God granted to the world in his Law? I find this fascinating.

To rule ourselves would be anarchy, not democracy, and I actually agree with you that this would be a terrible system of government.

 

[estesbob]

The problems with these discussions is democracy is always presented warts and all. while the alternatives are always presented in their utopian version, versions that have never succeeded in the history of mankind.

 

[Vouthon]

The problems with these discussions is democracy is always presented warts and all. while the alternatives are always presented in their utopian version, versions that have never succeeded in the history of mankind.

Amen

 

[septimine]

No. The message in representative democracy, as in the Law of Moses, is that the people of a nation have the right to elect their own leaders and that all individuals have the right to participate in the governance of their country. True these leaders exercise authority on behalf of the people, such that democracy can be called “government of the people”, however there is still a clear Head of State and elected officials with the real power. They are elected by the people, yes, but they have from then on the authority over the people, to make laws, so long as they are accountable to the people and do not oppress the people. This is completely biblical and in line with Catholic theology - or are Moses and Thomas Aquinas not good enough for you?

As St Thomas Aquinas said above, “the best form of government …] is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rulers are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity…government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers. Such was the form of government established by the divine Law”.

In a non-democratic system only the small clique of rulers or king/dictator has any share in the government, and only he or his officials or his dynasty or regime is/are eligible to govern, and these rulers are not chosen by “all”. You would have this kind of system over the one proposed by Divine Law (the Torah)?

So you disagree with both St Thomas Aquinas and Moses? God was wrong to tell the people of Israel to choose their own leaders from among their own people? St Thomas Aquinas was not correct to embrace the form of government which God granted to the world in his Law? I find this fascinating.

To rule ourselves would be anarchy, not democracy, and I actually agree with you that this would be a terrible system of government.

Context, my brother. In the case of Moses, the Law of Moses was not a political matter. It was dictated by God and as such was not up for debate. In most modern secular democracies, that’s far from the case. Every aspect of life and death are up to popular will. If the people elect those who spit on the Bible, in a secular democracy, it’s legit. The government is only under obligation to listen to the people, and not to the Bible in any way. That’s why I say that modern secular democracy has essentially caused the loss of truely Christian rulers – they don’t win elections, and the people tend to choose permissive leaders who allow them to do whatever they want. No one wants to be told “no” and that’s how they vote.

 

[haroldhill]

Of course democracy is un-Christian. Historically Christianity has operated under benevolent dictatorship (the Pope being the benevolent dictator). I don’t see why other governments could not.

 

[essie7777]

I have read through the posts and agree with some and not others --the same as i am sure a lot of readers will.

I have one observation/comment though:

Is it not a case that democracy is not against the Catholic Church nor is the discussion really about separation of Church and State? Simply that democracy is, unfortunately, proving that society as a majority does not hold a consistent faith or moral barometer based on faith?

People vote based on their own personal beliefs, that translates into laws that are made in the democratic environment where the majority “wins”.

That those laws are not in line with Catholic faith is nothing to with the separation of Church and State (which discusses a state run religion) or whether democracy is un-Christian; but rather the discouraging reality that democracy shows that most people do not believe the same as we Catholics do.

It is not a failure of democracy it’s a failure of humanity to understand and appreciate the teachings of the Catholic Church.

To be successful in a democracy there needs to be a grass root education of individuals toward Catholicism, then when people vote and democracy is in action what you see is a return to good basic morality.

If this were the case and the laws represented the majority (who ideally followed the Catholic faith) would the discussion still be about separation of Church and State and whether democracy is un-christian?

Personally i don’t think so, because then the majority would be in line with Catholic beliefs and the laws that are referred to as against Catholic faith would be defunct, they would no longer be there as the majority would vote for their removal.

And all without a state religion, so it would not be against the constitution.

 

[Abu]

Haroldhill #71
Of course democracy is un-Christian.

False.
When people listen to the Church they can avoid the error of claiming that the Church does not support democracy.
Bl John Paul II emphatically defended the principles and institutions of democratic governance in Centesimus Annus, 1991, #46:
46. “The Church values the democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the participation of citizens in making political choices, guarantees to the governed the possibility both of electing and holding accountable those who govern them, and of replacing them through peaceful means when appropriate.”

Historically Christianity has operated under benevolent dictatorship (the Pope being the benevolent dictator). I don’t see why other governments could not.

The Church and the State should not be thus confused, as Christ has mandated His Supreme Vicar, the Pope, to “bind and loose” and “feed the sheep”, building His Church on Peter the Rock.

The present chaos in society points all the more to the need for reevangelisation so that, whether in politics or anything else, those involved are enabled and encouraged to act according to sound virtues and values in accord with the natural law and sound morality as expressed by Christ’s Church.

 

[Vouthon]

I have read through the posts and agree with some and not others --the same as i am sure a lot of readers will.

I have one observation/comment though:

Is it not a case that democracy is not against the Catholic Church nor is the discussion really about separation of Church and State? Simply that democracy is, unfortunately, proving that society as a majority does not hold a consistent faith or moral barometer based on faith?

People vote based on their own personal beliefs, that translates into laws that are made in the democratic environment where the majority “wins”.

That those laws are not in line with Catholic faith is nothing to with the separation of Church and State (which discusses a state run religion) or whether democracy is un-Christian; but rather the discouraging reality that democracy shows that most people do not believe the same as we Catholics do.

It is not a failure of democracy it’s a failure of humanity to understand and appreciate the teachings of the Catholic Church.

To be successful in a democracy there needs to be a grass root education of individuals toward Catholicism, then when people vote and democracy is in action what you see is a return to good basic morality.

If this were the case and the laws represented the majority (who ideally followed the Catholic faith) would the discussion still be about separation of Church and State and whether democracy is un-christian?

Personally i don’t think so, because then the majority would be in line with Catholic beliefs and the laws that are referred to as against Catholic faith would be defunct, they would no longer be there as the majority would vote for their removal.

And all without a state religion, so it would not be against the constitution.

Wow!

I agree! I think that you have hit the nail on the head and come up with the most balanced and appropriate answer I have yet seen on this thread.

Thank you so much!

 

[septimine]

I have read through the posts and agree with some and not others --the same as i am sure a lot of readers will.

I have one observation/comment though:

Is it not a case that democracy is not against the Catholic Church nor is the discussion really about separation of Church and State? Simply that democracy is, unfortunately, proving that society as a majority does not hold a consistent faith or moral barometer based on faith?

People vote based on their own personal beliefs, that translates into laws that are made in the democratic environment where the majority “wins”.

That those laws are not in line with Catholic faith is nothing to with the separation of Church and State (which discusses a state run religion) or whether democracy is un-Christian; but rather the discouraging reality that democracy shows that most people do not believe the same as we Catholics do.

It is not a failure of democracy it’s a failure of humanity to understand and appreciate the teachings of the Catholic Church.

To be successful in a democracy there needs to be a grass root education of individuals toward Catholicism, then when people vote and democracy is in action what you see is a return to good basic morality.

If this were the case and the laws represented the majority (who ideally followed the Catholic faith) would the discussion still be about separation of Church and State and whether democracy is un-christian?

Personally i don’t think so, because then the majority would be in line with Catholic beliefs and the laws that are referred to as against Catholic faith would be defunct, they would no longer be there as the majority would vote for their removal.

And all without a state religion, so it would not be against the constitution.

I would ask you this – if you declared your household a democracy, and the kids voted for ice cream every night, are you really all that surprised? That’s what kids do, which is why dinner is not up for a vote. You could very easily vote for other things – where to go on vacation, stuff like that, but only a fool would allow his kids to outvote him on serious matters. If that were to happen, curfews and the like would very quickly disappear, kids dress would approach the standards of Lady Gaga, and homework would not be done. I’m hardly surprised that people vote against Christian ideals, that’s what’s normal. Normal people love sin and hate god for telling them no. That says nothing about whether such an idea should be up to a vote.

I’m not saying that voting is evil in itself, either. I just don’t think that you can ask people to vote on moral laws, as the answer usually is that they vote for the immorality. And besides, voting on abortion is much more serious than voting on whether to have ice cream for dinner.

 

[AndyCothran]

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?

My short answer is that NO it is not Christian and really should not be …Governments should not be Christian , Islamic , Jeswish ect ,Religion has no place in the seat of government ,Nor does Government have any place in the seat of Religion …There are places where they meet and in some instances for the greater welfare of a people (such as when human life is threatened )Government should trump Religious power over individuals but keeping them seperated is a rule that normally works ,
A democracy is not Christian but frankly on the flip side neither is a theocracy .
Christianity dictates freedom of thought ,freedom of speech , freedom of religion ,
Actually so does a democracy .

 

[Abu]

AndyCothran #76
Christianity dictates freedom of thought ,freedom of speech , freedom of religion ,
Actually so does a democracy .

So obviously a democracy is not necessarily un-Christian and Bl John Paul II has emphatically defended the principles and institutions of democratic governance in Centesimus Annus, 1991, #46.

What attacks Christianity is the totalitarian attempts as seen in the present U.S. administration to shackle the free exercise of religion over conscience involving abortion, contraception and homomania.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Well, I can’t say that it’s a matter of law itself, but I will say that Democracy and Republicanism do undermine most of the pillars of society. What those systems propose is that a group of selfish individuals can create order. That allowing the definition of terms of social institutions (religion, family, businesses, social clubs, etc.) will lead to greater stability of those institutions rather than destruction.

I think if Man was perfect, democracy would work, but it isn’t made for real-life societies. What happens in most democratic societies is that people gradually want more “freedom” to do just anything that they want. They want to divorce easily, and the woman who gets such a divorce wants support so she doesn’t suffer for that act (yes I get that it could easily go both ways) so we get WIC. People see that single parenthood isn’t as uncomfortable as it used to be, so they say “why wait to get married” so they don’t wait till marriage nor do they select their mates as carefully. Eventually you’ll see what you see in most Western Democracies – famlies are optional, and if they get in the way of what you want, you ditch them.

At every turn, people in democracies seek to normalize what used to be considered bad behavior. If you don’t believe me, look into the lifestyle of people even in 1900.

So, since man is not perfect, we should be governed by a system that gives us *less *liberty? In other words, since man can’t be trusted to live a moral life, his life should be dictated to him? By whom, would you say?

The fact that man is fallen and therefore prone to sin is reason enough to vest as little power as possible in government. The less power possessed by those who rule, the less chance there is of their abusing it.

Peace,
Dante