Is it immoral to want to live in a Vatican Theocracy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Riman643
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Those places where the king has become a figurehead are not nice places to live and have steadily gone downhill in their moral and spiritual health. Take most of Europe for example. There are many places where a woman simply cannot go outside without being raped. They are dominated by partisan politics. A king doesn’t have to win reelection, he is above party squabbles. What were Greek King Otto’s last words? “Greece, my beloved Greece.” A man whose first love was God and second his country. Not a party, not a lobbyist, not mass murder of children, not socialism or “democratic socialism”.

As it is without a doubt that many kings of Catholic-dominated countries with deference to the Pope are in Heaven now, yet there is no canonization of a US president (or any elected official that I know of) it is evident that kings as a rule, are better men than presidents, and as their kingdoms were dominated by the Church, with Catholicism as the official state religion, it is a safe bet that they were right and our modern system is mostly wrong.
 
i agree i have said it many times we are in moral decline , but a catholic theocracy is not a solution i say it would worsen the problems giving more validation to the critis of the church.

“there is no canonization of a US president” eh because they where protestants last time i checked that is already a no no with one exception that i know off, beacuse america had great leaders who loved god principle and their country not like the people of today .

“it is evident that kings as a rule, are better men than presidents,” that is a gross over gerenalization it depends to much on other factors , a good example is machiaveli the man belive that in his time of crisis italy need it a monarch to save it and unify it (not the pope) and later the best goverment ie a republic would take place.
 
Last edited:
true i should have said most even though kenedy he had good things , comited adultery , fornication and other things that would not have made him been canonized .
 
Church hierarchy fails so miserably at governing and leading even Christ’s own Church according to Christ’s teachings. Could you imagine these guys in charge of the world?
Oh my. Considering our current Vatican and leadership then things would not be that different in today’s progressive post-modern society were it today’s pope and hierarchy leading the world.
That would be awful and diabolical, actually. And would suck terribly as well for anyone not Catholic being forced to live according to the laws of the many perverse and ungodly men occupying the Vatican today who are already an embarrassment to good Catholics everywhere.

No thank you. I’ll take and protect my freedom’s and liberties afforded to me under the constitution of the USA over Vatican global rule, ANY DAY.
 
@Nigel7 It would be terrible if the Vatican forced us to live according to Catholic teachings…like making it illegal to murder, rape, kill babies, etc? How scary. If you read my posts above you will see that your constitutional liberties are mostly imaginary placebos.

@historyfan81 by far a republic is not the best government. History’s worst genocides and highest taxes were under republics. Oxford defines it as “a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch” and as shown above in previous posts it is definitely not a good idea to give this supreme power to everyone; even the Founding Fathers knew better. People are generally not smart enough or responsible enough, and vote simply for who will give them the most free stuff. Nor do these “representatives” actually represent you. They represent the interests of their donors, party, and lobbyists. And as you said earlier, certain laws exist in some places because a lot of people want it that way…but not everyone wants it, and so the majority has decided for them. That is mob rule, and that is what democracy (and therefore republics) really are. To end slavery, we had to have a president ignore the system and act as a king; had it been put to referendum alone, legal slavery would still exist today.
 
Emtguy89 said:
@Nigel7 It would be terrible if the Vatican forced us to live according to Catholic teachings…like making it illegal to murder, rape, kill babies, etc? How scary. If you read my posts above you will see that your constitutional liberties are mostly imaginary placebos.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it already illegal to murder and rape? What country do you live in that it’s not?
Regarding abortion, if you think putting Francis in charge of the world is going to stop women from getting abortions then you’d have another thing coming.
Gay marriage? Nothing much would change there if left up to this Vatican and many of our bishops.
Church hierarchy is already swept up and following after the world. You do not want those guys making up the rules for us all. Many do not want many of these men leading even the Church, and for good reason.
 
Last edited:
Emtguy89 said:
public is not the best government. History’s worst genocides and highest taxes were under republics. Oxford defines it as “a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch” and as shown above in previous posts it is definitely not a good idea to give this supre
Click to expand...
republics have a very higth death toll and genodices i can only think of the usa and some other latin american countries agains tits natives , aside from that the biggest mass killers where dictadorships which is really no diferent than an abosolute monarchy.
also linchol acted like a tyrant in some ways but he stoped after the war was over since it was an emergency situation no diferent that ancient rome when they made the consul a dictator to save the republic (except that in 1860s people had more voting rigths)
 
Emtguy89 said:
it worked very well and was far more stable and healthy than what we have now. Modern society is decadent enough that had God not already promised never to flood the earth again we would be underwater.
Click to expand...
  1. International borders are more stable now than they’ve ever been.
  2. Life expectancy is higher in the west now than at any point during the middle ages.
You’re literally as wrong as you can be on stability and health by any objective measure.
 
Hume is correct. Though it may appear more stable on a moral theological plane, it was truly a mess.
 
Union of Soviet Socialist REPUBLICS. People’s REPUBLIC of China. Socialist REPUBLIC of Vietnam. Democratic People’s REPUBLIC of Korea. REPUBLIC of Korea. French REPUBLIC. All those plus many more have documented histories of mass murder. Granted that most would not be considered “free” countries even today but from the outside looking in, making a truly objective analysis, then by the same standards the US isn’t free either. In fact you’ll find less than half of Americans are happy with the current leadership and political system, while in those countries a much larger percentage are satisfied. Don’t take this as an anti-gun statement, I’m very pro-2A but you don’t need a safe room of 150 guns to be happy and it doesn’t make you more or less free than anyone else. Some people just don’t want to live like us and there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m not knocking Lincoln for what he did either, as it was necessary, but unlike the Roman example he did not act within any function of law. He ignored it to do what was right. While you cannot really cite an example of mass slaughter of civilians under a Catholic absolute monarchy.
 
Life expectancy is only higher due to one thing: infant mortality rates. At one time in history people did not understand microbiology and germs; doctors performed autopsies and rinsed their hands so they would be visibly clean, then went to deliver babies. We also didn’t have vaccinations. The vast majority of healthcare and other scientific advances are thanks to the Church and the many universities founded by it. For the past thousand or more years, if a person lived past early childhood he would likely die an old man. Even our Founding Fathers, when bloodletting was an established and widely accepted medical procedure, were often very old men themselves or lived into old age. Franklin died at 84, Washington at 67 (avoidable, and democracy did not save him), Henry at 67, Adams at 90, Jefferson at 83, Madison at 83…the National Archives maintains a list (Signers of the Declaration of Independence | National Archives) and note that many of the younger ones died of traumatic causes (such as dueling).

We see really no increase in life expectancy from the end of the middle ages (1453, at the Fall of Constantinople) until fairly recently. Here is another article (https://www.livescience.com/10569-human-lifespans-constant-2-000-years.html) which includes a few historical life expectancies (45 in 1907!) as well as the age and cause of death of Socrates over 2,400 years ago.
 
As for international borders. How many international borders changed around 1918? 1945? I count 28 major events changing borders, uniting, separating, or abolishing entire nations since the end of WW2. And the majority of that time was spent with two superpowers having shaky fingers on the triggers to blow up the entire world. And governments changing every couple of years even without internal conflict to drive it. That’s not stable. That’s bipolar if I’ve ever seen it.
 
Theocracy degrade God & religion into political game. The truth of God is narrated to suit the needs of political powers. Which bring to my next point: those anathema by those councils, they are not the best way to know God.

For example, I have a new neighbour his name is A. So people from the neighbourhood pay him a friendly visit bringing a cake. But A said:

If anyone says A likes cake, let him be anathema

So other people come with different gifts, upon which A always say

If anyone says A likes fiction book, let him be anathema
If anyone says A likes stamp collection, let him be anathema
If anyone says A likes vodeo games, let him be anathema

And so on.

After 100 anathemas later, all the neighbours still confused what A actually likes.

A actually likes apple. Isn’t it simpler to say “A likes apple”, than use 100 anathemas? . But those anathemas is useful to crush political opponents!

So you see, why now, in this time where we have freedom of speech, the church decides to use "pastoral care" instead of anathema

Those anathema was useful for political power. It sounds authoritative, but we now know this fact: if only the strong speaks, the truth of God is corroded with the political interrest of those strong people. The truth is narrated to please the authorithy, and not to give glory to God.

At the time, the roman empire wanted to unite the kingdom, using sword ofcourse. Those anathemas were handy for gaining temporal powers for the empire. The church was used as a political tool by the roman empire (and other kingdoms too later). And because the meek afraid to speak up, or, whenever did, silenced anyway, there was not much choice for the church at the time to just play along. It was a sad time. Now is a better time for the church to be able to speak up our minds here in social media.

Let all the glory be to God alone!
 
Last edited:
Emtguy89 said:
ch REPUBLIC. All those plus many more have documented histories of mass murder. Granted that most would not
Click to expand...
just because you have the tittle of republic does not make you one ,the soviet union for its first 2 leaders was a dictatorship and after and oligarchy , the same witht the republic of china and vietnamn, north korea is still a dictator ship to this day ,the french republic depends on which one if you are refering to the revolution days robspere and the later goverments where nothing short of tyranical , the third french republic saw the highest peace time in france so much so that it was called le belle epoque and the sittuation only became bad after ww1.
 
while i agree the middle ages

we did not see an increase since the 16th and 17th centuries where one of the bloodiest in history even due to that at the end of it life expectancy rose due to the agricultural revolution and the merchant one raising not only life expectancy but standar of living , the church as i said played a role in early medieval progress but had no hand in these 2 , the real changer was industralization and its consequences , we dont have to worry about infections killing us or more due to it , none of the church played no part in these 3 massive devolpments of the modern period.
 
Last edited:
3rd Republic was not a paradise especially in the latter half, see WW1 and the suppression of religion and education in France at the beginning of the 20th century. Also note that at that time the majority of French peasantry identified as monarchists and restoration of the monarchy was the original goal of the 3rd Republic, it was meant to be transitional until it was hijacked by secularists and other religions that are usually anti-Catholic.

The US Congress is full of rich elites who have spent more years in politics than you have been alive, and I promise you it will be an uphill battle akin to climbing a wall of ice during a rainstorm if you want to get into politics. Whatever the Founding Fathers intent (which was for only male landowners to vote) the US is an oligarchy. Period. It is not a perfect system or even a good system and I can tell you first-hand that much criticism of other countries is the pot calling the kettle black; I don’t mean this as an insult but most likely you are never going to sit on the Supreme Court and those that are there, the majority don’t often care what the Constitution says. If they did, there would be no anti-2A laws. As a Republican do you think you would become Governor of New York? Nope. Our entire political system is based on two parties, and you will not make it far without impressing their elites. Most states are solid red or solid blue, would you get far as an opposition candidate there? Compare to the PRC system which has seven active political parties; the lower six carrying over a third of the national congress. We are really no different and that is what democracy/republicanism always is. Every single time. Without exception. AT BEST when you abandon traditional Church-dominated monarchy for this masonic system, you get more of the same but discard religion and therefore all sense of morality. Something to keep in mind with the typical reverence and near-worship of the Founding Fathers is again that they did not believe in universal suffrage; religion was am extremely dominant factor for many of them and most of the early colonies required church attendance; Washington himself is the only reason we are not a monarchy, as he refused to be crowned king despite the urging of many of the other Founders; and we owe our independence largely due to the help of the Kingdom of France (overthrown by the proto-communist “republic” which murdered tens of thousands of innocent people).
 
i said that the third french republic was installed in 1870 to 1914 (belle epoque) and it saw regional peace; economic prosperity;and technological and scientific, innovations even though to be fair industrialization did began with napoleon iii which was not a bad ruler by any means
also iam not american by the way even though the kingdom of france did not help america for the noble cause of freedom it did because it wanted to hurt their british enemies.
even thoug to be fair i would have prefered a monarchy(constinutional one) here since it would have made more sense.
i also would not call the republics of revolutionary france proto communism rather populism and dictatorships, also the monarchist where no saints as seen by louis XIV and heck even Louis XVI
 
Last edited:
historyfan81 said:
also the monarchist where no saints as seen by louis XIV and heck even Louis XVI
Click to expand...
Louis IX is in fact a Saint. Blessed Karl of Austria is beatified. I’m pretty sure I’m missing one more king who is a Saint, his name though escapes me.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top