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.
R

Riman643

Guest
I think the most ideal form of government would be that where Catholic values are instilled and lead by the Vatican. I realize the Pope’s role is to lead the faithful to eternal salvation on the largest scale and not to run a government, but is there a way for a theocracy to be possible?
 
My own stupid opinion says:
If it is for the purpose of forcing everyone to comply to the Catholic life/rules and such, I believe that would be wrong. (This would seem to be the only purpose of having such a system.)
Also, when non-Catholics “misbehave” under that system, how are they punished and by whom?
If you mean for yourself, you can live as “Strictly Catholic” as you like now.
Forgot to add: Wasn’t there a “Church of England” issue that people didn’t like? (Similar idea, just protestant dominated?) I think it would be wrong either way.
Dominus vobiscum
 
Last edited:
I don’t know if it’s immoral per se, but the Pope has enough to do as it is. Nevermind the increase in temptation that he’d have to deal with regarding world affairs. As if Satan didn’t have reason enough to try to corrupt him. I’d rather have a devout lay person managing the affairs of government than a cleric, much less the Pope. Anyone can govern. Only priests can celebrate the Mass, and only the Pope can be the Pope.
 
Last edited:
There were essentially theocracies in the West until modern times. They produced dissension, heretical movements, civil wars, eventually the divine right of kings.
 
Not immoral, I suppose, but (from my POV as an American who rather likes our freedoms) kind of creepy,

The way I always say it is, I do want to live in a Catholic theocracy someday, but that will be Heaven, where I know the One in charge won’t screw it up or oppress anyone.
 
Riman643 said:
I think the most ideal form of government would be that where Catholic values are instilled and lead by the Vatican. I realize the Pope’s role is to lead the faithful to eternal salvation on the largest scale and not to run a government, but is there a way for a theocracy to be possible?
Click to expand...
The Church ran its own country for 1100 years. The Papal States were not a shining example of benign Christian rule. They had no golden age, no silver age, not even a bronze age. Wars between petty chieftains were common.

Probably the best of times that they had were when the reigning pope just forgot about their existence. Otherwise, the impoverished and war torn population was bled dry by taxes, levies and confiscations to fund, man and supply the pope’s military campaigns, and later construction projects in Rome.

Sorry, but the results of that experiment were not encouraging.
 
Last edited:
Before the Papal State was merged into the Kingdom of Italy in 1870, every pope had been the temporal ruler of a state, with all the powers of any other ruler. He was the absolute ruler of a medium-sized country spread across the middle of Italy, from coast to coast, corresponding roughly to the present-day provinces of Lazio, Umbria, Marche, and part of Emilia-Romagna. Charles Dickens spent a few weeks in Rome in the 1840s, during the pontificate of Gregory XVI. You can read about it in this chapter of his book Pictures From Italy. The episode beginning at the foot of p. 200 is particularly colorful. Dickens went to join the crowd watching an execution by guillotine. You might like to start there.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Nik
Agnus-Dei said:
Wasn’t there a “Church of England” issue that people didn’t like? (Similar idea, just protestant dominated?)
Click to expand...
The post-Reformation CoE wasn’t a theocracy, but there were a variety of laws that applied all sorts of civil disabilities on Catholics and non-conforming Protestants (e.g. Congregrationalists, Methodists, etc.).

One law targeting Catholics was the Popery Act enabling a Protestant child to inherit all of his Catholic parent’s estate if his siblings remained Catholic. But I think these laws were more so grounded in religious discrimination rather than any theocratic ideal.

Similar laws were enacted in the Papal states. One notorious application was the forced removal of Edgardo Mortara, a Jewish child, because he was surreptitiously baptized by his Catholic housekeeper. Pope Pius IX refused multiple appeals to return Edgardo to his parents.
 
I would like to see Catholic states, ideally ruled by Catholic monarchs, but I could live with a commonwealth with a parliamentary/republican form of government led by wise, holy Catholic laymen. The Papal States were, among other things, an instrument to allow the Pope to be independent of any one particular state, kingdom, or regime. The Vatican microstate is the last remnant of the Papal States (probably an oversimplification).

What we have now, at least in the United States, is (for me anyway) a reluctant concession to temporal, historical, political, and demographic realities. I do have a concern, that under a papal theocracy, corruption within the Church, including that which affects the laity (such as clerical sex abuse of minors), would just get “swept under the rug” — which is exactly what happened for so many years, theocracy or no theocracy.
 
I’m not sure that it’s immoral, but it’s certainly unfeasible and to my mind undesirable. Theocracy isn’t really part of Christianity. In the past, there were states where Church and state were very closely aligned, but these were not true theocracies. There was never a Christian state that was ruled purely according to Christian doctrine. The clearest example of a theocracy is Saudi Arabia, a state that essentially has no laws, but is governed according to the interpretation of various Islamic texts. There has never been an equivalent Christian state that was governed purely by interpreting the Bible and so on.

A theocracy would inevitably exclude all but the most faithful Catholics from public life. Non-Catholics, non-Christians, atheists, apostates, heretics, and schismatics would become second-class citizens. Where the state assumes responsibility for doctrine and morals, people will be persecuted for their beliefs and punished for sins that cause no harm to society. Also, the corollary of the Church controlling the state is that the state also controls the Church. The Church would cease to enjoy independence from the state, bishops would become political appointments, clergy would be unable to criticize the government.

It would be unfeasible to establish a theocracy that encompassed all the Catholics in the world. What would result would probably be a multiplicity of Catholic theocratic states, which would inevitably end up on conflict with each other. Alternatively, one Catholic theocratic state in conflict with non-Catholic states, in which Catholic citizens would be constantly suspected of disloyalty.

The Catholic Church believes in freedom of religion. A theocracy would inevitably abridge freedom of religion. This would in itself be a reason why the Church would never wish to establish a theocracy.
 
Been there. Done that. Bad idea.
Asking the same person to be the supreme temporal authority and also the Servant of the Servants of God is a lot to ask. Better that the Pope is more prophet than king.
Giving the Pope sovereignty over a microstate of his own is sufficient.
 
Last edited:
The goal of every Catholic should be to live in a society that shares our values. People discrediting your thoughts are the ones intentionally ignoring all the advances the world has made under the guidance and encouragement of the Church and valuing all the evil secularism is. There is nothing wrong with your thoughts.

How likely is it? Extremely remote unless you move to Malta. How reasonable are your thoughts? Not at all. Pray and stay strong in the Faith.
 
I wouldn’t want to live in a Vatican theocracy unless the Vatican bureaucracy were thoroughly reformed and financial and moral corruption were weeded out. But that could take years or decades or centuries. Having worked in some secular bureaucracies I would not be hopeful of the outcome.
 
Riman643 said:
I think the most ideal form of government would be that where Catholic values are instilled and lead by the Vatican. I realize the Pope’s role is to lead the faithful to eternal salvation on the largest scale and not to run a government, but is there a way for a theocracy to be possible?
Click to expand...
May I?

I think the most ideal form of government would be that where religious values are instilled and lead by the religion’s leader. I realize the leader of any given religion is to lead the faithful to eternal salvation on the largest scale and not to run a government, but is there a way for a theocracy to be possible?

Catholics represent 16% of the world’s population (about the same as Hindus and Islam represents 24%).

You’ve got the proposal the wrong way around. The first question should be: ‘Would it be a good idea to live under a theocracy?’ If everyone says yes (and they won’t until they know the answer to the second question) then you can ask your second question: ‘Which religion?’.

If you propose Catholicism then 84% of everyone will say no thanks.

Edit: having seen some responses from Catholics, that 84% will probably be somewhat higher.
 
Last edited:
Riman643 said:
I think the most ideal form of government would be that where Catholic values are instilled and lead by the Vatican. I realize the Pope’s role is to lead the faithful to eternal salvation on the largest scale and not to run a government, but is there a way for a theocracy to be possible?
Click to expand...
That’s impossible and it’s a vain hope.
 
.
This desire isn’t immoral.
The opening post didn’t say this would be a world government. Then it could simply be a regime of Catholics somewhere.
In view of what people have said here, are regimes of Muslims or Buddhists, which exist in the world, immoral (or to be condemned) because people with other beliefs exist there?
Whether it would be the best form of government is another question. (Which I have never considered)
 
Last edited:
Even in the secular world, where there is no freedom of speech, we see good progress. China for example has progressed very fast, under a dictatorship. Many begin to think, theocracy may be a good thing.

Nope. Without freedom of speech, no progress is real. Those places which suddenly booming with good progress, the way they acheive it, is through sending their children to study in US & Europe, where freedom of speech is. So, their good progress is still a result of learning, or copying thoughts derived from freedom of speech, and not from theocracy.

In the same way, the way the church handle heresy in the past was according theocracy system, for it was theocracy time. I believe, the church would be able to handle those heresy better in this time. In the time of freedom of speech the truth of God shall shine brighter, than those times, when only the voice of the strong can be heard, while the meek’s silenced.

So only then, this prophecy “… And the meek shall rule the land” be fulfilled
 
Last edited:
Besides, if something is true, it will appear more true under a system where not only the strong allowed to speak up. The very reason why Israel must be freed from slavery.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top