Is democracy un-Christian?

[Vouthon]

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…

Amen, amen!

I agree! As does the Holy Father! Although I probably would not say “any” King since there are very good constitutional monarchies (ie UK). Absolute Monarchy though- big no-no!

PS Perhaps I’m a bias Briton

 

[RCIA4]

Amen, amen!

I agree! As does the Holy Father! Although I probably would not say “any” King since there are very good constitutional monarchies (ie UK). Absolute Monarchy though- big no-no!

PS Perhaps I’m a bias Briton

I meant an absolute monarchy like some of the good people on here are calling for lol… A constitutional monarchy like in the UK or Belgium is okay…

 

[sw85]

I meant an absolute monarchy like some of the good people on here are calling for lol… A constitutional monarchy like in the UK or Belgium is okay…

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.

 

[Vouthon]

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.

Dear SW

Brother in Christ, you would have me believe that the modern Islamic Republic of Iran is not a theocracy? Iran is a theocratic Islamic republic governed under the constitution of 1979 as amended. Appointed, rather than elected, offices and bodies hold the real power in the government. The supreme leader - the Ayatollah, a senior Shi’ite cleric - is appointed for life by an Islamic religious advisory board (the Assembly of Experts).

Iran is universally recognised as a theocratic regime. True it combined this with elements of popular democracy, however despite the fact that real power has always been vested in the Mullahs, after the fradulent 2009 elections and the crushing of democratic protestors in Iran, the country is now completely autocratic, with its “elections” being nothing but a oublicity stunt for the regime, which rules now like a military dictatorship - a theocratric, military dictatorship to be specific.

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.

Do I agree with abortion? I am completely pro-life. I do not particularly see how a societal, moral defect of the modern age (abortion) has anything to do with a democratic system fitted with separation of Church and State. Thats a problem of bad social mores and irreligion. Not a democratic system with separation of Church and State. The cure for this is not the Catholic Church having direct influence over the state but rather indirect influence through re-evangelisation, education and reaching out to the public, particularly the Catholic public.

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.

Excuse me, but where did I imply “formal atheism”? I am a Catholic. And if you are opposed to democracy, then you must not like Pope Pius VII or the late Blessed Pope John Paul II very much.

“…Become out-and-out Christians and you will also be thorough-going democrats. Christian virtue makes men good democrats… Equality is not an idea of philosophers but of Christ…and do not believe that the Catholic religion is against democracy…The democratic form of government is not . . . repugnant to the Gospel. On the contrary it exacts all the sublime virtues which are learned only in the school of Jesus Christ…”

- Pope Pius VII (when he was Cardinal Chiaramonti), 1797 Christmas Sermon

Democracy was of huge importance to Pope John Paul II. In particular, he openly supported the anti-communist labor union Solidarność in his home country Poland. Michail Gorbatchev, former President of the Soviet Union, wrote in his memoirs that the transformation in Eastern Europe would not have been possible without John Paul II. In the encyclical “Centesimus annus” of 1 May 1991, John Paul II formulated a comprehensive criticism of totalitarianism and wrote in support of democracy:

“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."

• Pope John Paul II, 1991

“It is not of itself wrong to prefer a democratic form of government if only the Catholic doctrine be maintained as to the origin and exercise of power…it is not forbidden to prefer temperate, popular forms of government, without prejudice, however, to Catholic teaching on the origin and use of authority…the Church does not disapprove of any of the various forms of government, provided they be per se capable of securing the good of the citizens”

- (Leo Thirteenth: Encyclical “Libertas,” June 20, 1888)

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

In 1944 Pope Pius XII gave his full support to the democracy of the Allied Nations and called for the establishment of the United Nations. This monumental declaration was called by the Pope, “Democracy and a Lasting Peace” and was his 1944 Christmas Message. You can read it fully here: papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12XMAS.HTM

It is a truly stunning reflection on the importance of democracy from a Catholic perspective. Pius was a strong supporter of democracy. Nontheless he also clariufied how the true spirit of democracy can become corrupted, just like any system can be. Pope Pius XII was a Blessed soul and an avid supporter of democracy. He deserves to become a saint in my POV.

Here’s an excerpt (although I strongly advise that you read the entire message as it must be digested in its entirety to make real sense):

"…Moreover – and this is perhaps the most important point – beneath the sinister lightning of the war that encompasses them, in the blazing heat of the furnace that imprisons them, the peoples have, as it were, awakened from a long torpor. They have assumed, in relation to the state and those who govern, a new attitude – one that questions, criticizes, distrusts.

1. Taught by bitter experience, they are more aggressive in opposing the concentration of dictatorial power that cannot be censured or touched, and call for a system of government more in keeping with the dignity and liberty of the citizens. These multitudes, uneasy, stirred by the war to their innermost depths, are today firmly convinced – at first, perhaps, in a vague and confused way, but already unyieldingly – that had there been the possibility of censuring and correcting the actions of public authority, the world would not have been dragged into the vortex of a disastrous war, and that to avoid for the future the repetition of such a catastrophe, we must vest efficient guarantees in the people itself. In such a psychological atmosphere, is it to be wondered at if the tendency towards democracy is capturing the peoples and winning a large measure of consent and support from those who hope to play a more efficient part in the destinies of individuals and of society? …"

The Pope furthermore appeals to the very same permittance of democracy in Catholic teaching that his predecessor Pope Leo XIII explained was completely legitimate. Pope Pius XII called for Christians to support democracy. Jeffery Haynes writes of this message:

"…In his Christmas Message of 1944, for example, Pope Pius XII articulated a detailed endorsement of democracy…"

Don’t shoot the messenger

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Democracy=happy and fair. Look at the School of Salamanca on wikipedia.

 

[Vouthon]

Democracy=happy and fair. Look at the School of Salamanca on wikipedia.

The Catholic School of Salamanca basically CREATED the modern world. International Law, popular sovereignity, democracy, human rights etc. all owes their debt to the School of Salamanca and Catholicism in general.

The Father of Human Rights is the Catholic priest Bartholomew de Las Cases, the Father of International Law is the Catholic theologian and thinker Francisco de Vitoria.

So-called “Tradionalist” Catholics who long after some mythical golden age when the world was ruled by absolute Monarchs and the Vatican, do a disservice to their own Church and its fundamental role as the builder of Western Civilisation and the origin of much of the liberties we take for granted now in the West.

I find it ironic that some so-called “Traditionalist” Catholics ignore vast swathes of the Church’s intellectual tradition - not to mention heritage - that does not seem to agree with their ideas. Very selective “traditionalism” if you ask me.

We’ve come along way. Yes modern society is sometimes pretty immoral, but going backwards to the Middle Ages and abolishing our cherished and hard-won democratic freedoms is not the way to heal this wound.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

The Catholic School of Salamanca basically CREATED the modern world. International Law, democracy, human rights etc. all owes their debt to Catholicism.

The Father of Human Rights is the Catholic priest Bartholomew de Las Cases, the Father of International Law is the Catholic theologian and thinker Francisco de Vitoria.

So-called “Tradionalist” Catholics who long after some mythical golden age when the world was ruled by absolute Monarchs and the Vatican, do a disservice to their own Church and its fundamental role as the builder of Western Civilisation and the origin of much of the liberties we take for granted now in the West.

I find it ironic that some so-called “Traditionalist” Catholics ignore vast swathes of the Church’s intellectual tradition - not to mention heritage - that does not seem to agree with their ideas. Very selective “traditionalism” if you ask me.

We’ve come along way. Yes modern society is sometimes pretty immoral, but going backwards to the Middle Ages and abolishing our cherished and hard-won democratic freedoms is not the way to heal this wound.

Remember, traditionalist Catholics think that the Jesuits are too liberal.

 

[Vouthon]

Remember, traditionalist Catholics think that the Jesuits are too liberal.

 

[RCIA4]

I love the Jesuits

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I love the Jesuits

So do I. They are my favorite order (although I like the Franciscans a lot as well).

 

[Vouthon]

I also love the Jesuits. How many craters in the moon are named after them again? The list of high-ranking Jesuit scientists is truly formidable.

 

[estesbob]

No.

 

[sw85]

Dear SW

Brother in Christ, you would have me believe that the modern Islamic Republic of Iran is not a theocracy?

A republic is by definition not a theocracy.

Perhaps what you mean is that it is a republic in name only and is, in practice, a theocracy? i.e., that the appearance of secular rule by an elected President is merely a facade behind which the clerical class exercises power?

Well, that may be the case – but I don’t think anyone is advocating that as an optimal social arrangement. I would much rather have the social arrangement of the Middle Ages, with distinct but closely related temporal and ecclesiastical authorities, each balancing the power of the other.

Iran is a theocratic Islamic republic governed under the constitution of 1979 as amended. Appointed, rather than elected, offices and bodies hold the real power in the government. The supreme leader - the Ayatollah, a senior Shi’ite cleric - is appointed for life by an Islamic religious advisory board (the Assembly of Experts).

Again, what you’re saying is that Iran is FUNCTIONALLY theocratic even though it is FORMALLY republican.

That’s probably an accurate assessment. That’s also quite different than the arrangement I’m advocating.

Do I agree with abortion? I am completely pro-life. I do not particularly see how a societal, moral defect of the modern age (abortion) has anything to do with a democratic system fitted with separation of Church and State. Thats a problem of bad social mores and irreligion. Not a democratic system with separation of Church and State. The cure for this is not the Catholic Church having direct influence over the state but rather indirect influence through re-evangelisation, education and reaching out to the public, particularly the Catholic public.

The distinction between democracy and bad social mores is a meaningless one. When a democratic society is morally corrupted the result will ALWAYS be a corrupt polity.

This is NOT true of a monarchical system in which the king is NOT the creature of the will of the people, and who exercises a legitimate patriarchal role by chastising his people for their corruption, greed, hedonism, and impiety.

And if you are opposed to democracy, then you must not like Pope Pius VII or the late Blessed Pope John Paul II very much.

Both men’s support of democracy needs to be qualified. The former did not have the foresight to realize that democracy as an organizational principle was inseparable from democracy as a virulently antiauthoritarian ideology. The latter was simply opposing communism and intuited (correctly) that democracy was a less-horrible alternative.

Insofar as democracy has an innate teleological tendency to impregnate the people with the spirit of suspicion of legitimate authority, it is an evil. This is simply not negotiable. Perhaps if it could be extricated from the legitimating ideology that claims democracy is the only supreme good, it would be worthwhile. That seems to be the stance of the popes you mention. My argument is that it CANNOT be so extricated.

 

[Vouthon]

A republic is by definition not a theocracy.

Perhaps what you mean is that it is a republic in name only and is, in practice, a theocracy? i.e., that the appearance of secular rule by an elected President is merely a facade behind which the clerical class exercises power?

Well, that may be the case – but I don’t think anyone is advocating that as an optimal social arrangement. I would much rather have the social arrangement of the Middle Ages, with distinct but closely related temporal and ecclesiastical authorities, each balancing the power of the other.

Again, what you’re saying is that Iran is FUNCTIONALLY theocratic even though it is FORMALLY republican.

Dear brother SW

There has always been a tension within Iran between the “Islamic” (theocratic) nature of the regime and its Republican status. The whole idea of an “Islamic Republic” is oxymoronic as you have correctly noted, and that was the whole point it was supposed to be something new, a theocratic republic - which in principle is of course nonsense and in practice did not work. Iran is thus a theocracy governed by Shi’ite Shariah Law and the real power lies with the clerics, in particular the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

On the US Department of State’s official website, it says of the Iranian government:

“…On February 1, 1979, exiled religious leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from France to assume control of the revolution and establish himself as Supreme Leader of a ***new, theocratic republic ***guided by Islamic principles…”

I will leave this theocracy vs republican issue there.

Anyhow, I really wish I had never brought Iran up since it is distracting us from the real issue!

The distinction between democracy and bad social mores is a meaningless one. When a democratic society is morally corrupted the result will ALWAYS be a corrupt polity.

This is NOT true of a monarchical system in which the king is NOT the creature of the will of the people, and who exercises a legitimate patriarchal role by chastising his people for their corruption, greed, hedonism, and impiety.

What kind of arguement is this? You desire an absolute monarch, power vested in one man rather than in the people? There is only one King, and that is Jesus Christ. The whole reason that God did not want to grant the Israelites kingship like the “other nations”, was because he taught that kings might see themselves as invincible and gods in their own right. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as they say. And whose to say the “king” will be moral? A dictator could just as well lead his people into Communism like North Korea.

Absolute monarchy does not allow for freedom of conscience and may inevitably lead to men setting themselves up as idols. All human being are equal in God’s eyes. To this end, the very idea of a King with absolute power is in my humble opinion a disgrace and a terrible sin. There is no “red tape” or bureaucracy to keep the king in check.

Secular, earthly power should not be vested in one man. In Book of Judges the Israelites beg Gideon to create a dynastic monarchy over them and Gideon refuses.

God’s ideal for Israel was that she be ruled by God as her king. The judges and elders would only serve as vice-regents, as it were. God was the King, and therefore the ideal was that there would be no human king. And yet, when God gave laws and instructions to Israel in the five Books of Moses on how to live as a nation, God saw the day coming when Israel would want a human king. Very well, then, said the Lord. If that is the case, then he must fit certain qualifications. Those qualifications and limitations are given in Deut. 17:14-20.

Monarchy was a concession by God to human weakness, Israel’s desire to be “like other nations” and to have a “strong man” to protect them against invasion, as well as to serve as a centre for unity. Samuel is displeased with the request of the people for a king (8:6)And God himself says that their request is their rejection of himself as king! (8:7) Finally, God warns them that their king will oppress them (8:11-18).

You cannot thus claim that “absolute monarchy” is surely God’s desired political system for the world? Why then did he explicitly allow the Israelite tribes to choose their own leaders? Why did he not want Israel to have a King over them, until he finally conceded to their weakness?

Democracy is the only system of government which is capable of ensuring that every single human person in society has the freedom to have a say in the running of his country. Why on earth should one man’s ideas be superior to the views of a the man on the street? Simply because he has royal DNA and can command legions? All human being are equal before God’s eyes. That does not mean we should have anarchy - as pure, direct democracy would.

Representative democracy is in my humble opinion the best form of government, and it was a very primitive proto-tribal form of this which God first gave to Israel before the people, after 300 years, demanded a King and God grudgingly told Samuel to “obey the will of the people”.

Ironic is it not? The Israelite Kingship came not from divine sanction but from God heeding the “will of the people”. God it seems is even a democrat!

 

[sw85]

I will leave this theocracy vs republican issue there.

Anyhow, I really wish I had never brought Iran up since it is distracting us from the real issue!

Fair enough – as long as you understand that what I am defending here is neither theocracy in the literal sense nor in the functional sense as supported in Iran.

The distinction between democracy and bad social mores is a meaningless one. When a democratic society is morally corrupted the result will ALWAYS be a corrupt polity.

This is NOT true of a monarchical system in which the king is NOT the creature of the will of the people, and who exercises a legitimate patriarchal role by chastising his people for their corruption, greed, hedonism, and impiety.

What kind of arguement is this? You desire an absolute monarch, power vested in one man rather than in the people?

Not an absolute monarchy, no, but a constitutional monarchy, certainly.

There is only one King, and that is Jesus Christ. The whole reason that God did not want to grant the Israelites kingship like the “other nations”, was because he taught that kings might see themselves as invincible and gods in their own right.

Given the totalitarian direction in which modern democracy is heading, that appears to be a perennial human temptation.

Of course Jesus Christ is ultimately King. That does not mean there cannot be temporal kings. That is simply a meaningless assertion. There were kings for a thousand years and society was not only not evil but positively holier than what we have today, and even moreso in the Byzantine Empire, which was even more overtly theocratic than the Catholic West.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as they say. And whose to say the “king” will be moral? A dictator could just as well lead his people into Communism like North Korea.

And if democracy invests power in everyone, then EVERYONE will be corrupted. This is a problem, a major problem of democracy.

One bad king can be constrained – at worst, he will eventually die. A bad people will propagate their badness forever until God punishes them or they destroy themselves.

Absolute monarchy does not allow for freedom of conscience and may inevitably lead to men setting themselves up as idols.

Again, I don’t advocate absolute monarchy. And again, democracy does not appear to be immune from the temptation for leader-worship; witness the parousiastic frenzy surrounding President Obama’s candidacy in 2008. And witness the self-worship common to our civic life today.

All human being are equal in God’s eyes. To this end, the very idea of a King with absolute power is in my humble opinion a disgrace and a terrible sin. There is no “red tape” or bureaucracy to keep the king in check.

That may be true of absolute monarchy – again, I am not advocating that, but constitutional monarchy.

Incidentally, I disagree that monarchy violates ontological equality. In fact monarchy is the only system which acknowledges this. The king’s claim to rule does not rest on his supposed superiority. By contrast, democracy’s meritocracy is an affront to Christian egalitarianism. And likewise its temptation to technocracy assures inequity.

 

[Tenofovir]

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.

It’s the upbringing I’d say. If parents say it’s ok under a dictatorship, it would be OK. If parents say it’s OK under a democracy, same thing.

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.

No. It’s the same with a knife. You can kill with it or operate on people with it, saving lives. What you do with democracy is up to the people making it up. What you do with a totalitarian regime is up to the people who make it up. Even in the Eastern Bloc life was(is) better in Communist Poland or Czechoslovakia then in Communist North Korea. Both had similar forms of government. The Communists in Eastern Europe were ‘better’ than Communists in Asia. Many even crossed themselves and some attended Mass. It did have positive effects.

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.

God is God. Kings are human leaders. It’s better to elect the leader than have people with illusions of grandeur ruling. In some countries kings were elected and chosen by the aristocracy, clergy and commoners. The Church can lead the conscience of the population and they can decide to elect good people every x odd years, according to whom they think will rule wisely and according to righteous principles.

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.

True. But when you have a society made up of various beliefs it becomes difficult to enforce certain rules. If you have all Catholics, it is easier. It is the responsibility of the Church and especially the common Catholic/Christian to show why Christianity is true and better than the alternatives. We are known by the fruits of our labours. Early Church martyrs led to many conversions. But these days we’re lazy, complacent and more involved with money. Many people also think they can follow rules rigidly and get to heaven that way-- all else be unimportant. I know quite a few people who are very religious, attend church regularly, go to confession/Communion YET gossip behind peoples’ back, are unsympathetic and unhelpful.

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

Then the king is too sinful to make decisions too. We’ve had countless examples of sinful kings.

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

I don’t think it’s democracy’s fault but OUR fault. Here WE are people, you and me and everyone else, with the exception of the Saints. Even priests sometimes show bad example, take the child abuse scandals.

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.

We’ve had secularism in Europe since the beginning. Who was Clovis the King of the Franks but a secular ruler who occasionally turned to religion when it suited him?

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.

But we had other problems. We had religious wars which weren’t really about religion but religion was used as pretext. We had death penalties for numerous crimes. We had Eye for Eye instead of turning the other cheek and forgiveness. There is no perfect form of government. God will destroy them all when He returns. Forcing people to abide by rules by force is not the right way I think. We still need force to protect ourselves and the common good, but we should convince others that Christianity is right and that we take God seriously. Understanding the other persons’ point of view and starting there is a good approach. St Paul did that.

 

[Tenofovir]

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…

There are countries with history of democracy almost as old as America with Catholicism as state religion. A State religion need not mean that we force others to be Catholics, but we recognise the role of Roman Catholicism in the founding of our country, its role in the history of our state and the current importance of it for most of our citizens. That’s all.

We don’t denigrate it to some personal conscience thing and an hour a day on Sundays.

 

[mlund]

Absolute power corrupts mortal men absolutely. Invest absolute power in a “Christian” Monarchy and see how fast Christianity disappears from the equation. Likewise, invest absolute power in a popular vote or even a legislative assembly and see how little freedom or justice you are left with. The source of corruption is not from the form of government, but rather its nature.

That is why Subsidiarity is a core Catholic social teaching - despite countless, relentless efforts by Klepto-Catholics to bury it. No government with absolute power is tolerable to Christianity. The individual governs his own life. The family governs itself. The community governs itself. The county governs itself. The state governs itself.

Each tier of governance is responsible not for all the levels that came before it but instead for only that which is beyond the capacity of the narrower group. The State does not raise children - parents do. The county has sheriffs because individuals and families can’t do the job (it degenerates into tribal violence). The state regulates a militia or army because smaller groups can not provide for their own defense against foreign nations, nor be allowed to raid or attack neighboring states to the responsibility of the entire public.

It is the repeated insistence that the highest levels of political order “do more” to “help the poor” and “create justice” with their government monopoly on violence (hence the ability to institutionalize citizens and seize private property) that leads to a dangerous, immoral, and degenerate public society. This is true whether regardless of whether you have a Monarch, an Oligarchy, a Parliament, or just a Mob.

• Marty Lund

 

[sw85]

OK, but again, is anyone here endorsing absolute monarchy? Our choices are not grim Hellenistic despotism or democracy; that’s a false equivalency. The historical norm is a restrained and subsidiarist monarchy (in fact, even inherited monarchy is a relative aberration – kings were more frequently elected, and this was the case in England up until the Norman conquest).

I find very objectionable the claim that monarchs make poor Christians. It may be true of individual kings but on the whole, European monarchy was a very pious and holy time, especially compared to the rank degeneracy of today. And it is even more true of the Byzantines, who recognized even less church-state distinction than we do but were even more holy and pious, right up until their conquest. This is a claim simply belied by all the historical evidence.