Is it impossible to be firmly Catholic in politics without becoming authoritarian?

[Cavaille-Coll]

Because it doesn’t respect the will of the people. Would you be pleased if your government decided to suppress the Catholic Church (persecute followers, hang priests etc)?

What if this was the will of the people? Sometimes the people are wrong.

In a day and age where a large number of uninterested or uninformed people vote for their president because they think he’s good looking or has a nice speaking voice (regardless of what he’s actually saying), I would question whether those people have the right to govern themselves.

Our infatuation with “diversity” will destroy us. We should focus on those things that unite us rather than what separates us.

 

[porthos11]

Because it doesn’t respect the will of the people. Would you be pleased if your government decided to suppress the Catholic Church (persecute followers, hang priests etc)?

That’s not the definition of authoritarianism. Yes, authoritarian governments can and do persecute, but persecution of religions is not the definition of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is where the power lies in a single or limited number of persons, and not in the people. It’s simply diametrically opposed to democracy. What I’m questioning is, is that necessarily a bad thing?

There are authoritarian governments, e.g. Singapore, that have not suppressed anything, and have left people’s freedoms untouched.

So again, what’s wrong with authoritarianism?

 

[Mirdath]

So, IOW, when a group uses you agree with, say, the court system to oppose the clearly expressed will of the majority, that’s not an exercise of the tyranny of the minority, but is rather an exercise in justice.

Ah, double standards.

How exactly is it a double standard to say that the law should enforce an absolute, equal minimum in all cases? You don’t see me campaigning to enshrine my hobbies and wants as legally required; that’d be a waste of legislation and an insult to the purpose of law. But to protest the existence of laws beyond that minimum and to work and hope for their removal – where is that a tyranny of the minority?

 

[Dale_M]

That’s not the definition of authoritarianism. Yes, authoritarian governments can and do persecute, but persecution of religions is not the definition of authoritarianism. ?

My point is that it is easy to support an undemocratic government when its policies don’t conflict with your own values. However, its not so enjoyable if the government decides to persecute what you hold dear. And remember, in an authoritarian government it is unlikely that you will have any say about policy.

As for Singapore, it has achieved financial success, but it most certainly is not free.
Freedom House:

Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) transformed the port city into a regional financial center and exporter of high-technology goods, but restricted individual freedoms and stunted political development in the process.

Freedom House:

Singapore’s media market remains tightly constrained. All newspapers, radio stations, and television channels are owned by government-linked companies. Although editorials and news coverage generally support state policies, newspapers occasionally publish critical pieces. Self-censorship is common among journalists as a result of PAP pressure.

Freedom House:

The constitution guarantees freedom of religion as long as its practice does not violate any other regulations, and most groups worship freely. However, religious actions perceived as threats to racial or religious harmony are not tolerated, and unconventional groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Unification Church are banned. All religious groups are required to register with the government under the 1966 Societies Act.

Freedom House:

The Societies Act restricts freedom of association by requiring most organizations of more than 10 people to register with the government, and only registered parties and associations may engage in organized political activity. Public assemblies of more than five people and all political speeches must be approved by police. Permits are no longer needed for private, indoor gatherings as long as the topic of discussion is not race or religion.

unhcr.org/refworld/country,FREEHOU,SGP,4562d8cf2,487ca25a2,0.html

 

[porthos11]

And yet the Church has also flourished in areas which have been absolute Christian monarchies, and has even canonized royalty. Looks like authoritarianism goes either way, so I have yet to find good solid proof that authoritarianism is evil, or that it automatically tramples on personal freedoms. The U.S. tries to spread democracy throughout the world, but is democracy really what all nations require? Democracy requires a level of maturity, and not all countries have it.

 

[Bennie_P]

And yet the Church has also flourished in areas which have been absolute Christian monarchies, and has even canonized royalty. Looks like authoritarianism goes either way, so I have yet to find good solid proof that authoritarianism is evil, or that it automatically tramples on personal freedoms. The U.S. tries to spread democracy throughout the world, but is democracy really what all nations require? Democracy requires a level of maturity, and not all countries have it.

Actually the US tries to spread justice and/or to protect the interest of the nation and her citizens, as well as secure stability both at home and abroad. Democracy is a sure way to promise instability.

Pure Democracy is authoritorian for it permits the rule of the mob, and sooner or later that is what it becomes, that is why in the USA we do not have a Democracy but a Republic which was based on natural law. The many ills we have in America is that many people think it is a Democracy and reject the idea there is natural law with obvious rights and wrongs, or they beleive it should be ruled by anarchy where each may do as they please even it it offends the mores of the majority. Othwise, be damned with culture, my subculture is more important then the stability of the community.

 

[jc-servant]

Of course not. The majority of society doesn’t either, which is why it won’t happen.

You are actually trying to argue that a “minority voice” can get an Amendment passed. That is hilarious! I see no reason to have any further discussion with someone so devoid of rational thought.

You are a new member, so perhaps you are unaware of how to conduct a civil discussion on a Catholic forum. Your posts in this thread have been rude and condescending which is not conducive to a civil discussion.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

You are a new member, so perhaps you are unaware of how to conduct a civil discussion on a Catholic forum. Your posts in this thread have been rude and condescending which is not conducive to a civil discussion.

Thank you for your fraternal correction. Sometimes I’m civil and sometimes I get carried away. However, I have been around this forum for a long while.