W
WoundedIcon
Guest
I never said the Pope would be king, just that the Church states that it’s the duty of secular rulers to uphold Catholic truth. Which runs counter to the American way of doing things.
- Status
T
tafan
Guest
And what you are describing, ie a established religion protected by the state, is NOT the same as a theocracy; which the original poster seems to desire. A big difference. The first can certainly be beneficial in certain situations (unfortunately not America), the second will never work well outside of the Holy See (at least that is why I believe that it has never been attempted in any Catholic nation).
R
RobbyS
Guest
The ideal form is, indeed, theocracy. But since government is a human institution, those who act as intermediaries between God and man, often fail in their duties. Case in point is ancient Israel. Which is best described as an anarchy under the nation’s covenant with the Lord. The books dealing with the “judges” tell us that things did not work out well, got so bad indeed, that the people asked Samuel to appoint a king over them. And so Saul came to the throne and came to rule over Israel. His kingship differed from that of the kings of other nations in that he was held accountable to the same law as his countrymen. A limited monarchy. This is
something like the American presidency. His is not a religious office, but at his inauguration, he swears(affirms) to uphold the Constitution. Washington set the tone not only by putting has hand on the Bible, but like anyone tesifying before a court, added the words, “So help me God.”
I
Inego_de_Loyola
Guest
OK I skipped a lot, so I’m sorry if this has already been said, but in the Aristotelian political philosophy governments are divided both by the number of rulers and by the morality of the government. You are right that a Democracy is an evil form of government because technically it is the ruler-ship of the many for evil aims. The good form of the rule of many is a polity. (Translated into latin as Respublica from which we get republic.)
There are three numbers of government. The rule of many is the least stable and can be either a democracy if it is ruled as by a mob for evil or selfish purposes or as a polity or republic if ruled for the true good. The rule of the few is more stable, and is expressed as an aristocracy if ruled for the good and as an oligarchy if ruled for evil. Contrary to popular belief America is an oligarchy with elements of democracy present in selecting our oligarchs. Then after rule of the few, there is there is the most stable rule of the one, which is a kingdom when ruled for the good and a tyranny when ruled for evil.
The fewer the number of governors the greater the effect of its moral value. The best form of Government is a kingdom because a good man is given power to act with authority, but the worst is a tyranny where an evil man reigns unobstructed. A rulership of many is impractical for anything larger than a city or county, and will soon breakdown if the people are not mostly virtuous.
Plenty more political philosophy where that came from;
In Christ,
Iggy.
There are three numbers of government. The rule of many is the least stable and can be either a democracy if it is ruled as by a mob for evil or selfish purposes or as a polity or republic if ruled for the true good. The rule of the few is more stable, and is expressed as an aristocracy if ruled for the good and as an oligarchy if ruled for evil. Contrary to popular belief America is an oligarchy with elements of democracy present in selecting our oligarchs. Then after rule of the few, there is there is the most stable rule of the one, which is a kingdom when ruled for the good and a tyranny when ruled for evil.
The fewer the number of governors the greater the effect of its moral value. The best form of Government is a kingdom because a good man is given power to act with authority, but the worst is a tyranny where an evil man reigns unobstructed. A rulership of many is impractical for anything larger than a city or county, and will soon breakdown if the people are not mostly virtuous.
Plenty more political philosophy where that came from;
In Christ,
Iggy.
T
tafan
Guest
This is NOT true and contradicts Church teaching. This is not the first thread on this forum which advocates a Catholic theocracy as the ideal form of government. You can search far and wide, through the Summa, through the Catechism of Trent, through the Catechism of the Catholic Church, through the Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church and you will find NOT one statement advocating a theocracy. But you will find over and over again descriptions of the powers of the Church vs the powers of the state; and they are always considered two distinct entities.
From the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:
The Code of Canon Law expresses forbids clerics from excersiing any civil power!!!
**Can. 285 §1. Clerics are to refrain completely from all those things which are unbecoming to their state, according to the prescripts of particular law.
…
§3. Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.
§B]
All of this talk about theocracy being sometype of ideal form of government needs to end. The Church’s teaching and the history of the Church’s practise is quite clear on the matter. It part part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church, and at a minimum we owe it our intellectual assent. Which means we can only disagree with it after A LOT of reflection, and we can NEVER publicly advocate against it.**
I
Inego_de_Loyola
Guest
This is NOT true and contradicts Church teaching. This is not the first thread on this forum which advocates a Catholic theocracy as the ideal form of government. You can search far and wide, through the Summa, through the Catechism of Trent, through the Catechism of the Catholic Church, through the Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church and you will find NOT one statement advocating a theocracy. But you will find over and over again descriptions of the powers of the Church vs the powers of the state; and they are always considered two distinct entities.
From the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:
The Code of Canon Law expresses forbids clerics from excersiing any civil power!!!
**Can. 285 §1. Clerics are to refrain completely from all those things which are unbecoming to their state, according to the prescripts of particular law.
…
§3. Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power**.
§B]
All of this talk about theocracy being sometype of ideal form of government needs to end. The Church’s teaching and the history of the Church’s practise is quite clear on the matter. It part part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church, and at a minimum we owe it our intellectual assent. Which means we can only disagree with it after A LOT of reflection, and we can NEVER publicly advocate against it.
Read his post before you rantHe was talking about the true theocracy of Christ the King.
T
tafan
Guest
I read it. I don’t see that what you are referring to. I see that he describes the problems of a theocracy in ancient Israel and why there was an establishment of a king. IE, there are practical problems with a theocracy even through it is the ideal.Read his post before you rant
My point is that statement contradicts church teaching.
As to your “theocracy of Christ the King”, I would argue that the reign of Christ the King does not entail, in any way shape or form, the potential for a theocracy here on earth. I would argue strongly that your term “theocracy of Christ the King”, if it is referring to any type of earthyly temportal power is opposed to a proper unerstanding of Christ’s reig. In strong support of my argument I submit the following from the CCC
Call it a rant if you must, I am not normally poltically correct, but in this case being politically correct is correct. Catholics advocating for theocracy, even limited to the ideal, presents the Church in a very bad light. And the Church opposes the position.
I
Inego_de_Loyola
Guest
I’m not a Millenarianist; I’m a catholic, and if you don’t mean to sound like a ranting lunatic use a smiley or two.
T
tafan
Guest
No smileys were used because nothing I posted was in jest or was in fun. I posted predominantly quotes and laws of the Catholic Church. My comments were all a defense of these teachings. What is funny about that?I’m not a Millenarianist; I’m a catholic, and if you don’t mean to sound like a ranting lunatic use a smiley or two.
I
Inego_de_Loyola
Guest
Smileys don’t mean funny; they mean I’m not jumping down your throat.
(Or that I am as the case may be
)
T
tafan
Guest
Wasn’t jumping down anyone’s throat, I was correcting their statements. Being told one is wrong can seem like having someone jump down their throat. If I have a misunderstanding about Catholic teachings, I would prefer someone to be very clear, precise, and supply references when they correct me. I certainly want them to correct me, without much regard to my personal feelings.Smileys don’t mean funny; they mean I’m not jumping down your throat.
(Or that I am as the case may be
I don’t see anything that should be offensive in my posts, I have taken your comments seriously and reread them to make sure no offense was built into them. Beyond some typos and bad grammar, I believe they are clear, precise, and well refernced.
T
thesmiter1
Guest
Unregulated capitalism can surely lead to the destruction of democratic principles, but outright socialism is harmful to the moral fiber of a country, also. No socialist country exists today that protects our faith more than the government in America.
In fact, many socialist countries have a higher percentage of pregnancies end in abortion. The fact is, the secular humanist ideology is completely overwhelming the governments of the world. They seek to do good for ‘the people’, but they seek to do it absent of their souls or of God. God does not exist to our governments anymore.
Laws are made, and systems are set up, that place the secular government as the means and the end. They seek to be the object from which all good flows, and many are voting this way, even in America. Surely pure capitalism is just as harmful, but one has only to look at the socialism of Europe to conclude that it does not serve God in any better a fashion.
CCC 2425: "The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.”
Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended."
From the New Advent article on Socialism: “The best idealism of earlier times was fixed upon the soul rather than upon the body: exactly the opposite is the case with Socialism. Social questions are almost entirely questions of the body — public health, sanitation, housing, factory conditions, infant mortality, employment of women, hours of work, rates of wages, accidents, unemployment, pauperism, old age pensions, sickness, infirmity, lunacy, feeble-mindedness, intemperance, prostitution, physical deterioration. All these are excellent ends for activity in themselves, but all of them are mainly concerned with the care or cure of the body. To use a Catholic phrase, they are opportunities for corporal works of mercy, which may lack the spiritual intention that would make them Christian.” Emphasis mine.
Abortion statistics worldwide (Socialist countries have high rates, as well):
johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp334pd.html
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
Posted this in another thread:
I think that the fundamental error that America makes is that the state is not founded on religious principles so upholding a view on Christian morality as basis for law is unconstitutional
I wish for a state where laws are based on Catholic principles. Other people have freedom of religion but the laws should be consistent with moral teachings. I really think God will punish the western world for it’s sins and all those who support such sins for the sake of freedom. Freedom of religion does not mean that law can be without a moral basis or that the government should support evils like homosexual marriage for the sake of making people comfortable.
I think that the fundamental error that America makes is that the state is not founded on religious principles so upholding a view on Christian morality as basis for law is unconstitutional
T
thesmiter1
Guest
I agree with this view. It is backed by the Catechism and thus Catholic teaching; what more could you want? In this fallen world, a theocracy would likely end poorly for the Church.
T
thesmiter1
Guest
This is true, and I agree that it is a flaw (that America completely separates Church and State, and thus morality and politics). Separating the authorities from the Church (as in not having Representatives or Senators be Bishops) is fine, but separating faith and morals from politics (trying to create laws without God) is ludicrous. However, I really don’t know if keeping morality out of the government to the extent we see today is what the Founders had in mind. Nonetheless, their wording of the Constitution allowed the current situation to take place.
Still, a democracy is not a bad system if it does not separate God. Separating God from ANY form of government will result in moral bankruptcy, as we are seeing throughout the world.
R
ReapReason
Guest
The person said nothing about socialism. Pointing out that socialism is harmful doesn’t somehow justify capitalism as it is conducted today.
A
april32010
Guest
and unregulated capitalism isn't?
B
Bill_Martin
Guest
A theocracy is an absolutely awful idea.
I
Inego_de_Loyola
Guest
Welcome to the thread.
C
centurionguard
Guest
When (“unregulated capitalism”) destroys democracy what you essentially end up with is a Corperate Oligarchy. I see this evident already in the Western World.
Like it or not their both evils
- Status