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

[DL82]

It occured to me recently that nearly all the saints who wanted to be obedient to Catholic teaching and had positions of political power ended up either being kicked out of power (like St Elizabeth of Hungary or St Edward the Confessor) or became quite right wing and authoritarian.

For example, there is St Louis IX of France, who once remarked that sometimes the only way to make a heretic understand is with a sword thrust up to the hilt! In more recent times, St Josemaria Escriva, whose Opus Dei organisation was initially closely related to the Spanish fascist government. Even St Thomas More, one of the more liberal and progressive saints in politics, who wrote Utopia, nonetheless found his name on the death warrant of William Tyndale, burned at the stake for translating the Bible without ecclesiastical permission.

Even King David, the original holy politician, finds himself saying “I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war.”

Is it inevitable that a Catholic who sticks to his moral convictions in the political sphere will find himself either booted out or forced to be authoritarian?

 

[Drilling4Truth]

Just because Catholics in the past have been “associated” with authoritarian regimes doesn’t make Catholic leadership authoritarian. Mother Theresa of Calcutta once accepted a state dinner from the Soviet Union, that doesn’t mean she was in any way sympathetic to the Soviet style of atheistic socialism.

In the world of politics often it becomes necessary to tolerate the lesser of two evils to secure the greater good. Granted, this can easily lead to moral corruption. However, I think think it has been so long since we’ve had a high profile orthodox Catholic leader in Western politics that we probably wouldn’t recognize one if they ran for office.

 

[Mirdath]

As long as they continue to confuse ‘sticking to their moral convictions’ with ‘attempting to legislate their moral convictions on everyone else’, I’m afraid you’re correct.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

As long as they continue to confuse ‘sticking to their moral convictions’ with ‘attempting to legislate their moral convictions on everyone else’, I’m afraid you’re correct.

You obviously don’t understand how society works. Mores are based on the collective moral convictions of the people. We have always “legislated moral convictions.” It is better known as “voting your conscience.” Apparently, you are opposed to that?

 

[jc-servant]

I believe the problem in a democracy is that an elected official is supposed to work for all of the people that he/she represent, not merely the ones that share his/her religious beliefs. If we had a Satanist trying to govern strictly according to his beliefs or a Muslim trying to get sharia law instituted in our country, then I dare say we would not be pleased. I cannot imagine that a Catholic in Congress for example would last more than one term if they voted and advocated exactly in line with the church’s positions on all issues regardless of what the people in their district thought.

One big issue that would trip up someone in my state is the death penalty. JPII made it clear that it should not be used when other means to protect society from the criminal can be used. He talked about being able to secure someone in a prison as an alternative to killing them. Despite some of the stupid escapes we have had from prisons, we do have the means to secure someone 24/7 in a cell while bringing them food, medicine or whatever. Therefore, we would have to vote against the death penalty being used for any criminal while most of our citizens support it in some manner.

No artificial birth control for anyone regardless of their personal beliefs on the subject. No artificial insemination or in vitro for infertile couples. I would think that a person who strictly governed by their faith would need to advocate laws prohibiting unmarried persons from living together because that would lead to a near occasion of sin if not the sin of fornication. They would need to work to ban all sexually oriented businesses and all media content that promoted sinful behavior.

The list of things that would not fly with a diverse population is endless and I believe it precludes someone governing in strict accordance with their faith in certain elected positions. I believe the line that will be a problem is when they start trying to impose the beliefs from one faith onto people who do not share that faith and who disagree on an issue. Some things that faithful Catholics find universally appealing will be a call to arms for other people, including other Catholics.

Of course, a person who wanted to live true to their faith could limit themselves to a position where they would not have to possibly deal with issues that would compromise living by faith. However, I believe that faith versus other interests related to the job performance could clash in almost any elected position. Therefore, you see in politicians people who have comprised certain things in order to hold office in a democracy.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

I believe the problem in a democracy is that an elected official is supposed to work for all of the people that he/she represent, not merely the ones that share his/her religious beliefs. If we had a Satanist trying to govern strictly according to his beliefs or a Muslim trying to get sharia law instituted in our country, then I dare say we would not be pleased. I cannot imagine that a Catholic in Congress for example would last more than one term if they voted and advocated exactly in line with the church’s positions on all issues regardless of what the people in their district thought.

One big issue that would trip up someone in my state is the death penalty. JPII made it clear that it should not be used when other means to protect society from the criminal can be used. He talked about being able to secure someone in a prison as an alternative to killing them. Despite some of the stupid escapes we have had from prisons, we do have the means to secure someone 24/7 in a cell while bringing them food, medicine or whatever. Therefore, we would have to vote against the death penalty being used for any criminal while most of our citizens support it in some manner.

No artificial birth control for anyone regardless of their personal beliefs on the subject. No artificial insemination or in vitro for infertile couples. I would think that a person who strictly governed by their faith would need to advocate laws prohibiting unmarried persons from living together because that would lead to a near occasion of sin if not the sin of fornication. They would need to work to ban all sexually oriented businesses and all media content that promoted sinful behavior.

The list of things that would not fly with a diverse population is endless and I believe it precludes someone governing in strict accordance with their faith in certain elected positions. I believe the line that will be a problem is when they start trying to impose the beliefs from one faith onto people who do not share that faith and who disagree on an issue. Some things that faithful Catholics find universally appealing will be a call to arms for other people, including other Catholics.

Of course, a person who wanted to live true to their faith could limit themselves to a position where they would not have to possibly deal with issues that would compromise living by faith. However, I believe that faith versus other interests related to the job performance could clash in almost any elected position. Therefore, you see in politicians people who have comprised certain things in order to hold office in a democracy.

Your arguments are a red herring jc-servant.

A) Not every moral principle is something that must be legislated.

B) A representative does represent everyone who voted for him, but that doesn’t mean he has to vote the lowest common denominator. They voted for him; therefore, he should vote consistent with his beliefs. Those beliefs are the criteria which people voted on.

C) There is a balance between our faith as Catholics and society’s mores. For example, if birth control were a current issue, then a Catholic would be compelled to vote against legalizing birth control. Since it is not, a Catholic legislator is not required to push for making it illegal. Abortion/Euthanasia are a different matter, as they are the direct taking of innocent life. We must fight against them.

IMO “gay marriage” is a current issue similar to artificial birth control. Today, society is not in favor of “gay marriage.” As Catholics, we are compelled to fight to keep marriage in line with Church teaching and keep society’s mores as they are through education and advocacy. If we lose the battle and forty years from now “gay marriage” is accepted by society at large, we will not be required to fight to change things back (although if it became an issue for society at large again, we should). On the other hand, I think Abortion, Euthanasia, Cloning, etc. are things we will have to fight against forever.

 

[Mirdath]

You obviously don’t understand how society works. Mores are based on the collective moral convictions of the people. We have always “legislated moral convictions.” It is better known as “voting your conscience.” Apparently, you are opposed to that?

Mores may be, but laws are (or should generally be, in order to have a smoothly functioning free and democratic/representative society) based on the least common denominator of the varying ethics held by the populace. Would you have legislators even consider forbidding the consumption of meat or alcohol, wearing blended fabrics, or killing pests, all mores held by large groups of people? Or go so far as to deny freedom of religion, since be Catholic is obviously a strong moral conviction on the part of Catholics – and so on?

I am not opposed to voting one’s conscience in a full democracy; after all, that’s how the least common denominator gets sorted out. But we do not have a full democracy, we have a representative republic, and the people we elect to make our laws are supposed to represent us – not their own ethical interests. Our electoral process of picking and choosing based on politicians’ stated platforms is a bad compromise between representation and the legislators’ tendency to vote their consciences anyway. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a much better way of going about it, but not having any honey in the house doesn’t make the medicine taste less terrible.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Mores may be, but laws are (or should generally be, in order to have a smoothly functioning free and democratic/representative society) based on the least common denominator of the varying ethics held by the populace. Would you have legislators even consider forbidding the consumption of meat or alcohol, wearing blended fabrics, or killing pests, all mores held by large groups of people? Or go so far as to deny freedom of religion, since be Catholic is obviously a strong moral conviction on the part of Catholics – and so on?

I am not opposed to voting one’s conscience in a full democracy; after all, that’s how the least common denominator gets sorted out. But we do not have a full democracy, we have a representative republic, and the people we elect to make our laws are supposed to represent us – not their own ethical interests. Our electoral process of picking and choosing based on politicians’ stated platforms is a bad compromise between representation and the legislators’ tendency to vote their consciences anyway. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a much better way of going about it, but not having any honey in the house doesn’t make the medicine taste less terrible.

You completely misunderstand. Part of our society’s mores are enshrined in the Constitution. It is a result of society’s agreement…not something imposed on society. It isn’t the “least common denominator.” You are being ridiculous.

BTW…check your history…we did make alcohol illegal. This action wasn’t repealed because it was “unconstitutional.” It was repealed because society changed its mind.

 

[Mirdath]

You completely misunderstand. Part of our society’s mores are enshrined in the Constitution. It is a result of society’s agreement…not something imposed on society. It isn’t the “least common denominator.” You are being ridiculous.

It is a result of society’s agreement, you say, yet it is not a result of the set of things upon which society can agree: the mores we more or less hold in common and collectively institute as our laws? What on earth are you getting at?

BTW…check your history…we did make alcohol illegal. This action wasn’t repealed because it was “unconstitutional.” It was repealed because society changed its mind.

It was repealed because it was a stupid, stupid idea imposed by a vocal minority, the Temperance movement, and caused far more problems than it solved. I asked if you would support the imposition of mores you might not hold on society in general – because they are a part, or even perhaps a majority in some cases, of the ‘collective mores’ of the people.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

As long as they continue to confuse ‘sticking to their moral convictions’ with ‘attempting to legislate their moral convictions on everyone else’, I’m afraid you’re correct.

If people are morally convinced of the utter wrongness of Catholicism or homosexuality, that’s fine for them, & obliges them. What it does not do, is oblige the rest of society: so​

Catholics & homosexuals (& Catholic homosexuals) cannot be forbidden the exercise of their rights, duties & liberties, just as they cannot forbid others theirs. If there is to be liberty at all, it has to be principled; & it is indivisible.

So others are perfectly free to rail against either or both practices as abominable & wicked, but they can’t hinder the liberty of others to engage in them. And a liberty which is allowed to be no more than purely private, is of rather doubtful value. If Catholicism is foul & evil, it must still be allowed public expression - those who don’t like it, must make their case against it in a way that does not include denying full enjoyment of liberty, etc., to Catholics.

Just my 2d.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

It is a result of society’s agreement, you say, yet it is not a result of the set of things upon which society can agree: the mores we more or less hold in common and collectively institute as our laws?

:whacky: If that makes sense to you…more power to you. It reads like complete nonsense.

Mirdath:

What on earth are you getting at?

It is very simple. As a society, are mores are based on majority ascent. The majority agree that we have basic rights, outlined in the Constitution, that protect individuals from some majority views (i.e. Tyranny of the Majority). For example, we agree that there should be Freedom of Religion, despite the fact that the majority is Christian. Now, technically, if society decided to amend the Constitution to remove that recognized freedom, it would happen. It won’t, but it could.

Mirdath:

It was repealed because it was a stupid, stupid idea imposed by a vocal minority, the Temperance movement, and caused far more problems than it solved. I asked if you would support the imposition of mores you might not hold on society in general – because they are a part, or even perhaps a majority in some cases, of the ‘collective mores’ of the people.

This is where either your ignorance or obtuseness are evident. How can a “vocal minority” impose an Amendment to the Constitution? That is the dumbest thing I have ever read. Are you familiar with the amendment process?

The only way a stupid law can be imposed by a minority is if justices twist the Constitution to mean something and/or protect people in a way that it actually does not.

 

[AaronK88]

People will always consider those who are against homosexuality, abortion, and other Catholics beliefs as ‘authoritarian.’

Signed,
Proud Authoritarian

 

[porthos11]

First of all, what’s wrong with authoritarianism?

 

[Mirdath]

:whacky: If that makes sense to you…more power to you. It reads like complete nonsense.

Care to read the rest of the sentence? What else are the ‘collective mores’ of society but the very things on which it agrees, morally speaking?

Now, technically, if society decided to amend the Constitution to remove that recognized freedom, it would happen. It won’t, but it could.

Would you support such a move?

This is where either your ignorance or obtuseness are evident. How can a “vocal minority” impose an Amendment to the Constitution? That is the dumbest thing I have ever read. Are you familiar with the amendment process?

Quite. There are two issues, though: first is that the majority doesn’t always get off its butt to vote (and yes, sometimes this can be a good thing); and second, the amendment process mathematically favors those proposing it. Three-quarters of the states need to ratify an amendment (if the amendment is not proposed by Congress, two-thirds of them need to request a constitutional convention, so the numbers are even smaller – and it’s never succeeded so far), but they need do so only by majority vote last I checked; 50.1% of 75% is only 37.5%, a little over one-third of the population. Still, this being America, let’s say I doubt even a full third of us at any one time would have voluntarily gone dry. And this being New Years’ Eve, a toast to the Temperance movement, long may they rot!

 

[mlchance]

As long as they continue to confuse ‘sticking to their moral convictions’ with ‘attempting to legislate their moral convictions on everyone else’, I’m afraid you’re correct.

But when people who you agree with attempt “to legislate their moral convictions on everyone else,” then everything is as right as a rain.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Would you support such a move?

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

Mirdath:

Quite. There are two issues, though: first is that the majority doesn’t always get off its butt to vote (and yes, sometimes this can be a good thing); and second, the amendment process mathematically favors those proposing it. Three-quarters of the states need to ratify an amendment (if the amendment is not proposed by Congress, two-thirds of them need to request a constitutional convention, so the numbers are even smaller – and it’s never succeeded so far), but they need do so only by majority vote last I checked; 50.1% of 75% is only 37.5%, a little over one-third of the population. Still, this being America, let’s say I doubt even a full third of us at any one time would have voluntarily gone dry. And this being New Years’ Eve, a toast to the Temperance movement, long may they rot!

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.

 

[Mirdath]

But when people who you agree with attempt “to legislate their moral convictions on everyone else,” then everything is as right as a rain.

Where have I said that? It is true that I support causes opposite yours, but that is because I think Catholicism has come down on the wrong side of mandating only that which is commonly agreed upon and leaving what remains free.

 

[Dale_M]

First of all, what’s wrong with authoritarianism?

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)?

 

[mlchance]

Where have I said that?

Right here:

It is true that I support causes opposite yours, but that is because I think Catholicism has come down on the wrong side of mandating only that which is commonly agreed upon and leaving what remains free.

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.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

First of all, what’s wrong with authoritarianism?

Many Americans like to pretend that they are their own kings. That is quickly erased, however, when they run up against the regulations of our increasingly-authoritarian government. Try to build a swimming pool on your “own” land, for example, and the county inspector will be there with the EPA in about thirty seconds to arrest you for building without a permit and threatening the endangered Bolivian spotted amoeba.

Given America’s infatuation with “diversity,” whereby we highlight that which divides us rather than that which unites us, our common mores are falling apart. This may be offensive to some, but the Catholic faith is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. A society based on authentic, God-given morality would by nature be a Catholic one, which has room for every race and culture. At this stage in history, we would be better off with a moral authoritarian like Engelbert Dollfuß than with a crowd-pleaser who spends his Sundays worshipping himself at the gym instead of God in church.