P
poche
Guest
It is conceivable but not likely.
- Status
M
Maximus1
Guest
Immoral per se?
No. People can theoretically choose a Theocracy, and a Roman Catholic one at that.
The problem with ," moral," kicks in when you have minority religions and people, or agnostic/ atheist people.
In the 20th Century, everywhere you have a State Religion , you seem to have warlike conflict within that nation. Northern Ireland and Israel are two examples. Muslim governed theocracies are even better examples.
I think it fair to say, no people within a state, can abide by their own faith being ," second string." Being an ethnic minority and feeling bias is common and one level of disunity.
But having your god as a second string god is a whole different level of friction. Your faith is," officially" an inauthentic one. Thems are fighting words!
I don’t think our church can avoid causing these same issues. And history shows developments like the Inquisition that are not unlike other religions.
Freedom to choose Catholicism as an exercise of free will seems to me the better choice to evangelize. Jesus said, Love one another as I have loved you, and;
This is the way they will know you are my deciples.
We have blemished history where we thought we knew better than Jesus in our methods of sharing the Gospel. Despite spawning Catholics therefrom eventually.
Finally, if Church history teaches anything, we have inspiring examples of men who lived “en Christu.” We also have men who are tainted by power and wealth.
You can look at Hebrews, Kings, Judges, and Pharisees, and recognise this our fallen state does not change just because we are ordained Catholic either. Given an academic choice, I think I rather our clergy not face temptation.
" I show you all of the Kingdoms of the world in a moment’s time." This was one of the Devil’s temptations for Christ. As a kid, it seemed like something just Jesus faced. But it represents Satan’s test for the Church and the body I think.
No. People can theoretically choose a Theocracy, and a Roman Catholic one at that.
The problem with ," moral," kicks in when you have minority religions and people, or agnostic/ atheist people.
In the 20th Century, everywhere you have a State Religion , you seem to have warlike conflict within that nation. Northern Ireland and Israel are two examples. Muslim governed theocracies are even better examples.
I think it fair to say, no people within a state, can abide by their own faith being ," second string." Being an ethnic minority and feeling bias is common and one level of disunity.
But having your god as a second string god is a whole different level of friction. Your faith is," officially" an inauthentic one. Thems are fighting words!
I don’t think our church can avoid causing these same issues. And history shows developments like the Inquisition that are not unlike other religions.
Freedom to choose Catholicism as an exercise of free will seems to me the better choice to evangelize. Jesus said, Love one another as I have loved you, and;
This is the way they will know you are my deciples.
We have blemished history where we thought we knew better than Jesus in our methods of sharing the Gospel. Despite spawning Catholics therefrom eventually.
Finally, if Church history teaches anything, we have inspiring examples of men who lived “en Christu.” We also have men who are tainted by power and wealth.
You can look at Hebrews, Kings, Judges, and Pharisees, and recognise this our fallen state does not change just because we are ordained Catholic either. Given an academic choice, I think I rather our clergy not face temptation.
" I show you all of the Kingdoms of the world in a moment’s time." This was one of the Devil’s temptations for Christ. As a kid, it seemed like something just Jesus faced. But it represents Satan’s test for the Church and the body I think.
Last edited:
A
Agnus-Dei
Guest
A rare occasion has occurred. I can say I 100% agree with everything you’ve written here. Brief, and clear. This is something I hope I could have written if I had taken the time.
Dominus vobiscum
Dominus vobiscum
Last edited:
G
Genesis315
Guest
Civil government shouldn’t be directly led by the Pope or bishops. There have been exceptional cases for special reasons over time (like Vatican City today), but that should not be the norm everywhere. The Church should not be confused with the civil power. God established two powers, the temporal and the spiritual.
That being said, public authority, which is responsible for the common good, should conceive of that good with reference to the true religion. In fact, it is not only good to want it, it is the job of laity to bring it about and show forth the reign of Christ the King of kings in society.
From the CCC:
Decree on Laity
That being said, public authority, which is responsible for the common good, should conceive of that good with reference to the true religion. In fact, it is not only good to want it, it is the job of laity to bring it about and show forth the reign of Christ the King of kings in society.
From the CCC:
From Vatican II:
Decree on Laity
Pastoral Constitution
Last edited:
P
Peeps
Guest
If the OP wants a theocracy, perhaps the OP could start praying about and making inquiries about joining a religious community, one that remains separated from the world and follows a “rule”.
OR…here’s another possibility for the OP (and anyone else interested)…
Years ago, when my husband and I were Protestant (and not married yet–we were dating!), we went with a group of church friends to a place called Bethany Beach for a three-day weekend.
Bethany Beach a community of homes and cottages on Lake Michigan–I have no idea if it’s still there. There were restaurants, stores, and lots of recreational facilities (ball parks, boating, fishing, etc.).
It was beautiful. And…everyone in Bethany Beach was a Christian. That was the condition for building or buying a cottage in Bethany Beach–the resident had to be a professing Christian.
This was back in the 1970s, and the community had been around for decades. There was no crime in Bethany Beach. No drinking of alcohol was allowed (so it is unlikely that Catholics lived there, right?). No drugs. No rapes. Nothing bad. Not even noisy neighbors playing loud Larry Norman LPs!
It wasn’t oppressive–we girls wore our regular off-the-store-rack swimsuits, not Victorian suits that covered every inch of our skin (in retrospect, we probably should have, as we have learned about skin cancer and sun exposure!). Boys and girls (teens) could be together, hold hands, kiss in public, etc. People ate what they wanted, including caffeinated beverages (to this day, many Mormons and some Christian groups avoid caffeine.) Church was held on Sundays, but if someone didn’t go, they weren’t dragged out of their beds and put in stocks in the Bethany Beach town square! And…gasp!–we played CARDS! Real cards, not Rook (the “Christianized” cards!). And we watched…gasp gasp!..television, and I seem to remember…oh, my!..MOVIES being shown in the community center!
Believe me, I’ve known Christians who would think all of the above are the works of Satan!
We left our doors unlocked, and children wandered freely around the community. Everyone was friendly and invited us up to their porches for a chat and a “Praise the Lord”!
It was…amazing. So nice! Like a little foretaste of heaven. To this day, I think about how wonderful it would be to live in a place where everyone voluntarily submitted to a “Christian” way of living, attempting to combat true sin and become like Christ.
So perhaps the OP should look into finding a community of like-minded Catholics and go live there. The U.S. is a big country, and there are plenty of little out-of-the-way communities where people live how they want to live without interfence from outsiders. I know small towns in Illinois where practially everyone attends the one church in their town and everyone knows each other. Sounds kinda nice to me. Like a “mini-theocracy” but one that is voluntary, not oppressive.
OR…here’s another possibility for the OP (and anyone else interested)…
Years ago, when my husband and I were Protestant (and not married yet–we were dating!), we went with a group of church friends to a place called Bethany Beach for a three-day weekend.
Bethany Beach a community of homes and cottages on Lake Michigan–I have no idea if it’s still there. There were restaurants, stores, and lots of recreational facilities (ball parks, boating, fishing, etc.).
It was beautiful. And…everyone in Bethany Beach was a Christian. That was the condition for building or buying a cottage in Bethany Beach–the resident had to be a professing Christian.
This was back in the 1970s, and the community had been around for decades. There was no crime in Bethany Beach. No drinking of alcohol was allowed (so it is unlikely that Catholics lived there, right?). No drugs. No rapes. Nothing bad. Not even noisy neighbors playing loud Larry Norman LPs!
It wasn’t oppressive–we girls wore our regular off-the-store-rack swimsuits, not Victorian suits that covered every inch of our skin (in retrospect, we probably should have, as we have learned about skin cancer and sun exposure!). Boys and girls (teens) could be together, hold hands, kiss in public, etc. People ate what they wanted, including caffeinated beverages (to this day, many Mormons and some Christian groups avoid caffeine.) Church was held on Sundays, but if someone didn’t go, they weren’t dragged out of their beds and put in stocks in the Bethany Beach town square! And…gasp!–we played CARDS! Real cards, not Rook (the “Christianized” cards!). And we watched…gasp gasp!..television, and I seem to remember…oh, my!..MOVIES being shown in the community center!
Believe me, I’ve known Christians who would think all of the above are the works of Satan!
We left our doors unlocked, and children wandered freely around the community. Everyone was friendly and invited us up to their porches for a chat and a “Praise the Lord”!
It was…amazing. So nice! Like a little foretaste of heaven. To this day, I think about how wonderful it would be to live in a place where everyone voluntarily submitted to a “Christian” way of living, attempting to combat true sin and become like Christ.
So perhaps the OP should look into finding a community of like-minded Catholics and go live there. The U.S. is a big country, and there are plenty of little out-of-the-way communities where people live how they want to live without interfence from outsiders. I know small towns in Illinois where practially everyone attends the one church in their town and everyone knows each other. Sounds kinda nice to me. Like a “mini-theocracy” but one that is voluntary, not oppressive.
Last edited:
G
Genesis315
Guest
Just wanted comment on this statement. The Catholic concept of religious liberty has to do with man’s responsibility “freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order” (CCC 2106), that is, it has to do with the free act of faith. The civil power cannot coerce this act. However, since this freedom is exercised in society and has the potential to harm others, like other “rights” its public expression can be limited. From the CCC:
Note, the analysis of the limits needed for the common good cannot be “positivist” (they must be based on objective truth, including revealed truth), and they cannot be “naturalist” (that is, they must take into account man’s supernatural good). The common good includes both man’s temporal and spiritual prosperity (cf. CCC 1925). In the words of St. John XXIII (Pacem in Terris 59)
In order to properly determine what limits are necessary and just, and what are not, it is important for public authority to be inspired by the true religion–otherwise we get the abuses we see in Liberalism and Communism, fundamentalist Islamic societies, etc. (clearly, due to sin, no public authority or society will be perfect). From the CCC:
Last edited:
W
Welshrabbit
Guest
I dunno J, the Borgia popes were pretty awesome…I wouldn’t mind living under rulers like that. 
Crusader13
New member
I think the Church needs to be the light of the world and that doesn’t necessarily mean that it needs to run the world, but our morals and values should be influencing society in a positive way.
The Church is the only means of Salvation and when times get so bad, that we begin facing persecution for our beliefs, the Church needs to be our place of refuge and safety.
Unfortunately, I think many in the Church will eventually stand with Caesar rather than Jesus. In my very humble opinion, I see too many disturbing similarities between much of our own clergy and the Sanhedrin in Jesus’s time.
The Church is the only means of Salvation and when times get so bad, that we begin facing persecution for our beliefs, the Church needs to be our place of refuge and safety.
Unfortunately, I think many in the Church will eventually stand with Caesar rather than Jesus. In my very humble opinion, I see too many disturbing similarities between much of our own clergy and the Sanhedrin in Jesus’s time.
A
Agnus-Dei
Guest
Another thought from me. If a person desires this life. Instead of trying to bring those “restrictions” to where you are, it would be easier for you to move to where a system like that already exists. You get what you like, and it is not forced onto others to comply. If this is undesirable, I would question the motive outright.
Dominus vobiscum
Dominus vobiscum
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Why would that be a sinful dream?
E
Emtguy89
Guest
Look at the calendar of saints. See how many rulers of countries with state Catholicism and deference to the Pope have made it to Heaven. Compare it to the number of post-Enlightenment rulers whose countries had no state religion. You are wanting something that has been put into practice many times before, worked extremely well, and was only ended by immoral people with opposite agendas. Unlike the former, they are not found on the calendar, are they?
J
johnpfmcguire
Guest
Sigh, everything’s immoral if you look at it right. Kind of what Catholicism has been all about for the last few centuries: guilt at all cost.
H
historyfan81
Guest
i think the moral corruption due to a theocracy in the middle ages is proof enough that this should be a big no no , since the pope would worry more about his political power and would make some questionable things to keep that power and focused on that rather then be leader of the church like he is supposed to be .
E
Emtguy89
Guest
[citation needed]
H
historyfan81
Guest
on the whole pope more intresed in power?
benedict IX became pope beacuse he wanted more power and enrich his family and the wierd things he did it was so bad that the holy roman emperor had to fix this mess.
or like bonifiace the XIII thowring celestine to jail beacuse he feared that someone would install him back as pope despite celestine not doing anything,whetere celestine died of murder or in prision since he was 81 , boniface sentenced celestine to death.
or urban VI being a tyrant and causing a schism
benedict IX became pope beacuse he wanted more power and enrich his family and the wierd things he did it was so bad that the holy roman emperor had to fix this mess.
or like bonifiace the XIII thowring celestine to jail beacuse he feared that someone would install him back as pope despite celestine not doing anything,whetere celestine died of murder or in prision since he was 81 , boniface sentenced celestine to death.
or urban VI being a tyrant and causing a schism
E
Emtguy89
Guest
3 out of what, 266? C’mon man. Meanwhile you have governments all over the world who have separated themselves from the Church, even traditionally Catholic or majority Catholic countries, that actively allow, encourage, and subsidize the mass murder of children. Secularized governments in the past century have murdered MILLIONS. Presidents who have raped dozens of women and had them killed to keep them quiet, and they walk free. Compare that to the case of King Henry II who received HUGE fines and severe sanctions from the Church for his sins and abuses. We are lucky now to even have modern leaders who believe in God. Moral corruption? What’s the rate of divorce, child-murder, gay marriage, fornication/adultery, etc then vs now?
R
Rubee
Guest
The only theocracy I have interest in is one ran by Christ the King! Unfortunately, it comes after history has ended.
Otherwise, I just want governments that serve their people well. I don’t believe in any particular model: democracy, monarchy, whatever the Chinese one is called, capitalist, socialist, mixed, communist. I think they’re all both good and bad in one way or another, all based on premises/assumptions that are fundamentally false in at least some aspects, and that all of them ultimately succumb to the inescaple reality of being in the control/direction of the fallen human will and mind. In the end, I judge govts by whether they improve their people’s lives or make them worse and leave the rest to God.
Of course there are oppressive structures I per se oppose, like discrimination/racism/anti-life systems etc. I think its the best a Catholic can do.
I’d say at best that I want a country ruled by a saint/saints, more than I’d say I want a country ruled by the Vatican. As we well know, being a church-man and being a saint (or even ‘good’ man) are not synonymous.
Otherwise, I just want governments that serve their people well. I don’t believe in any particular model: democracy, monarchy, whatever the Chinese one is called, capitalist, socialist, mixed, communist. I think they’re all both good and bad in one way or another, all based on premises/assumptions that are fundamentally false in at least some aspects, and that all of them ultimately succumb to the inescaple reality of being in the control/direction of the fallen human will and mind. In the end, I judge govts by whether they improve their people’s lives or make them worse and leave the rest to God.
Of course there are oppressive structures I per se oppose, like discrimination/racism/anti-life systems etc. I think its the best a Catholic can do.
I’d say at best that I want a country ruled by a saint/saints, more than I’d say I want a country ruled by the Vatican. As we well know, being a church-man and being a saint (or even ‘good’ man) are not synonymous.
Last edited:
R
Rubee
Guest
I agree. I think the number of bad popes is a bit higher than that (maybe 10/12) but by far, our popes have been decent men.
R
Rubee
Guest
I hadn’t read through the entire thread before I ventured in but I suspect this will turn into an upsetting thread and I’ll say things that will earn me PMS from the moderators so I’m bowing out. Still, your claims that a religion so involved in education, healthcare, and service to the poor in the past several hundred years, as you put it, is “all about” “guilt at all cost,” is untrue.
Last edited:
H
historyfan81
Guest
3 examples I could go on .
There’s the infamous Pope Stephen VI who juged the corpse of his predecessor
And later murdered
Pope John XII who gave land to his mistress
murdered several people, and was so indicent that Otto I same guy who conquered nation’s and was not above kilking his nobles in East frankia.
Even he told jonh his whole life was vanity and adultery and that give up his worldly and sensual lifestyle
After doing some scheming politics
Otto I invaded and summoned a council which demanded that John present himself and defend himself against a number of charges. John responded by threatening to excommunicate anyone who attempted to depose him
Again the emperor was being more poius and even more reasonable than the pope .
After that fiasco
He did not take ottos advice and was killed when committing fornication by a jealous husband.
I can also add the popes from 1492 to 1534 for the sell of endulgances to finance reineicanse art while pretty it was really nothing short of theft but i think we all know how bad the Borgia and the medechi where.
Thw list of popes committing either crimes , inmoral things or putting the political power above the church is not 100% but it was there and it was by no means the few odd ones out .
There’s the infamous Pope Stephen VI who juged the corpse of his predecessor
And later murdered
Pope John XII who gave land to his mistress
murdered several people, and was so indicent that Otto I same guy who conquered nation’s and was not above kilking his nobles in East frankia.
Even he told jonh his whole life was vanity and adultery and that give up his worldly and sensual lifestyle
After doing some scheming politics
Otto I invaded and summoned a council which demanded that John present himself and defend himself against a number of charges. John responded by threatening to excommunicate anyone who attempted to depose him
Again the emperor was being more poius and even more reasonable than the pope .
After that fiasco
He did not take ottos advice and was killed when committing fornication by a jealous husband.
I can also add the popes from 1492 to 1534 for the sell of endulgances to finance reineicanse art while pretty it was really nothing short of theft but i think we all know how bad the Borgia and the medechi where.
Thw list of popes committing either crimes , inmoral things or putting the political power above the church is not 100% but it was there and it was by no means the few odd ones out .
Last edited:
- Status