Is the American form of government inherently wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YoungTradCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tafan said:
It is utterly impossible to have a completely moral system of any type of government. And do not thing that a Catholic theocracy would work, the Pope is not protected by infallibility in his governance and administrative decisions, and Popes are sinners also.

We are told by the church to participate in whatever system of government we find ourselves in, in order to try to always make it better. But do not look to perfection in any mode of government, the desire and belief in the possibility of a Utopia will always lead to tyranny.
Click to expand...
Yes: we are fallen, sinful beings, and so any system we can create will be flawed, and prone to immoral choices and unjust laws.

I’d add that we are also told to resist immoral and unjust laws. In the Roman Empire, these included the edicts that we must worship according to the state cult–that is what many martyrs were convicted and executed for not following the law.

In our day, we may soon have similar opportunities to resist health-care initiatives and requirements that are immoral.
WoundedIcon said:
Last I checked the Church doesn’t teach that Church and State should be separate. It teaches that it’s the duty of the State to uphold the (our) faith. That would be the biggest flaw with our democracy as it stands right now. And honestly, it’s kind of common sense. If our religion is the truth, then of course the government is bound to upholding it.
Click to expand...
Actually, you might want to check out Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae). It says that human dignity includes the right to follow our own beliefs, and that religious groups have the right to freedom to teach and follow their own beliefs. The right to be wrong is more important and basic than the chance that the government will try to force us to follow a false religion.
 
bmonk said:
Actually, you might want to check out Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae). It says that human dignity includes the right to follow our own beliefs, and that religious groups have the right to freedom to teach and follow their own beliefs. The right to be wrong is more important and basic than the chance that the government will try to force us to follow a false religion.
Click to expand...
Humans, nevertheless, do not have the right to follow a false religion. They have freedom to be ignorant.
 
America is NOT a democracy, it is a democratic Republic. Citizens are represented by officials who are elected democratically. You will not find the word “democracy” in the Constitution.

A true democracy would be the last place you would want to live. In America, the population centers such as Southern California, New York State and New Jersey would control the country and be able to force their beliefs on the rest of the country. This is the reason why the Founding Fathers enacted the Electoral College to keep the states with large cities from having too much say and giving smaller states, at least, some say.
 
Wouldn’t a catholic monarchy that followed all church teachings be the best government ?
 
tafan said:
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.

Who says it is the ideal? Historically Israel was a theocracy both during the age of the Judges and during the Second Commonwealth. Samuel initiated a limited monarchy, where the king’s authority was limited. David’s house, exceeded its limits, with Solomon especially behaving like a typical monarch of the region rather than God’s annointed. His son and successor promised to do the same, which provoked the north to reject his authority. The North then behaved even worse, while Judea had both good and bad kings. Both eventually collapsed and this began the exile. Afterwards, under the Persians, the temple sacrifices were restored and the national cult became the highest form of national life. Then came Alexander and the Hellenists and the Revolt, and another theocracy, before it was restored as the Herodians installed by the Romans. Medieval monarchy tended to appeal to the Davidian model, and despite the extreme claims of Boniface, the pope were less theocrats than more like Chief Justices. Again: the ideal form recognize the need for government that serves the law, both natural and divine, and rules the people justly in accordance to such law.
Click to expand...
 
YoungTradCath said:
Is it inherently wrong to have a representative government, since it always, always leads to immoral law?

Is the best form of government from a moral perspective to rather have a theocracy/Papal monarchy with the Church ruling the world? I know it is not likely to happen, with few chronological and geographical exceptions, but entertain the idea. I also know that even if this were to happen, the system would still not be perfect, but I am almost certain that the following would be illegal:

baby murder
euthanasia
nasty groups trying to force public money to fund immoral acts
homosexual “marriage”
etc.
Click to expand...
The problem is that business interests have too much control over our government. Their values are often immoral.
 
bmonk said:
Perhaps, in theory. However, given our fallen nature, the problem with a monarch comes when they don’t follow church teachings closely enough–and there are no checks on their power.
Click to expand...
I disagree with a hereditary monarchy. I think that a man known for his virtue should be proposed by the provincial aristocracies, approved by the church and then elected by two thirds majority of the national aristocracy, or the last kings college of counselors. If no man is acceptable by these standards then in its stead I would have an aristocracy by lottery from the educated, veteran, clerical, religious, and senatorial (wise elders not senate in the american sense.) classes for civil matters and a consul for martial leadership. This would serve until such time as a kingly man arose. Elections would be held every decade, but a king once found would serve for life excepting impeachment or voluntary retirement having been approved by the college of counselors.

There would be subsidiarity, so everything would be done on the lowest level that can effectively do it.

;)But sadly I don’t rule the world so…🤷

Anyhow, this like any other human government would be corrupted by sin and vice and eventually collapse or reform.
 
centurionguard said:
I don’t think its democracy in of itself that’s creating the biggest destruction to morality per say.

Capitalism itself is the biggest enemy to the freedoms of a real democracy and morality.
(GREED)

Free markets were supposed to lead to free societies. Instead, today’s supercharged global economy is eroding the power of the people in democracies around the globe. Welcome to a world where government takes a back seat to big business.

Capitalism’s role is to increase the economic pie, nothing more. … Democracy, at its best, enables citizens to debate collectively how the slices of the pie should be divided and to determine which rules apply to private goods and which to public goods. Today, those tasks are increasingly being left to the market. What is desperately needed is a clear delineation of the boundary between global capitalism and democracy-between the economic game, on the one hand, and how its rules are set, on the other. If the purpose of capitalism is to allow corporations to play the market as aggressively as possible, the challenge for citizens is to stop these economic entities from being the authors of the rules by which we live.
Most people are of two minds: As consumers and investors, we want the bargains and high returns that the global economy provides. As citizens, we don’t like many of the social consequences that flow from these transactions. We like to blame corporations…, but in truth we’ve made this compact with ourselves. After all, we know the roots of the great economic deals we’re getting. They come from workers forced to settle for lower wages and benefits. They come from companies that shed their loyalties to communities and morph into global supply chains. And they come from industries that often wreak havoc on the environment.
Such conflicting sentiments are hardly limited to the United States. The recent wave of corporate restructurings in Europe has shaken the continent’s typical commitment to job security and social welfare. In Japan, many companies have abandoned lifetime employment, cut workforces, and closed down unprofitable lines. A nation that once prided itself on being an “all middle-class society” is beginning to show sharp disparities in income and wealth. Like many free countries around the world, Japan is embracing global capitalism with a democracy too enfeebled to face the free market’s many social penalties.
On the other end of the political spectrum sits China, which is surging toward capitalism without democracy at all. That’s good news for people who invest in China, but the social consequences for the country’s citizens are mounting. … And those who are affected most have little political recourse to change the situation, beyond riots that are routinely put down by force.
But citizens living in democratic society have the ability to alter the rules of the game so that the cost to society need not be so great. And yet, we’ve increasingly left those responsibilities to the private sector-to the companies themselves and their squadrons of lobbyists and public-relations experts-pretending as if some inherent morality or corporate good citizenship will compel them to look out for the greater good. We forget that they are simply duty bound to protect the bottom line.
Why has capitalism succeeded while democracy has steadily weakened? Democracy has become enfeebled largely because companies, in intensifying competition for global consumers and investors, have invested ever greater sums in lobbying, public relations, and even bribes and kickbacks, seeking laws that give them a competitive advantage over their rivals. The result is an arms race for political influence that is drowning out the voices of average citizens. … The only way for the citizens in us to trump the consumers in us is through laws and rules that make our purchases and investments social choices as well as personal ones. …
Let us be clear: The purpose of democracy is to accomplish ends we cannot achieve as individuals. But democracy cannot fulfill this role when companies use politics to advance or maintain their competitive standing, or when they appear to take on social responsibilities that they have no real capacity or authority to fulfill. That leaves societies unable to address the tradeoffs between economic growth and social problems such as job insecurity, widening inequality, and climate change. As a result, consumer and investor interests almost invariably trump common concerns.
For those of us living in democracies, it is imperative to remember that we are also citizens who have it in our power to reduce these social costs, making the true price of the goods and services we purchase as low as possible. We can accomplish this larger feat only if we take our roles as citizens seriously. The first step, which is often the hardest, is to get our thinking straight.
Click to expand...
Amen, amen and amen. Centurian you are likely to be unpopular here for telling the truth. Many confuse capitalism wityh democracy.
 
As the American I am I must object strongly to the notion of theocracy. I assume most here mean a Catholic theocracy, as an Orthodox Christian liveing far from any Eastern Catholic chruch would I be in danger?

Would non Catholics be forced to convert, or expelled from the US? Would all be required to adapt Catholic dogma and morals?

And the abortion issue comes into play as well. As an Orthodox Christian I believe life begins at conception. But what about the Protestants and others who dissagree, wil we force them to beleive the Catholic/Orthodox idea of when life begins?

Will homosexuals and adulterers be executed according to the OT, or will they be locked up in concentration camps?

I think there are a lot or practical concerns to be considered before pushing for a theocracy.
 
andrewstx said:
As the American I am I must object strongly to the notion of theocracy. I assume most here mean a Catholic theocracy, as an Orthodox Christian liveing far from any Eastern Catholic chruch would I be in danger?

Would non Catholics be forced to convert, or expelled from the US? Would all be required to adapt Catholic dogma and morals?

And the abortion issue comes into play as well. As an Orthodox Christian I believe life begins at conception. But what about the Protestants and others who dissagree, wil we force them to beleive the Catholic/Orthodox idea of when life begins?

Will homosexuals and adulterers be executed according to the OT, or will they be locked up in concentration camps?

I think there are a lot or practical concerns to be considered before pushing for a theocracy.
Click to expand...
Almost everyone here has said that a theocracy would be bad for everyone and would dilute the mission of the church.
 
Does free will not exist? Here in a democracy, people can make choices. Is abortion legal? Yes. Do you have to get one? No.
 
Give me a Secular government like that of America anyday over a Theocracy like that which Rick Santorum endorses :rolleyes:.
 
Inego_de_Loyola said:
Rick Santorum has not proposed theocracy insofar as i’m aware.
Click to expand...
But his beliefs are definitely Theocratic and I’d oppose any of his insane beliefs like banning pornography and contraptions, limiting seperation of Church and State, and just getting into people’s private sex lives, something that will go against my plans. 😛

I’m glad he’s not getting elected because God knows what insane laws he’ll pass out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top