Is the Church too monarchical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CutlerB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CutlerB

Guest
With the media in a spittle-flecked nutty (kudos to Fr. Z!) over a German Bishop’s spending on diocesan building projects, some theologians from prominent universities in Germany and Luxemburg have voiced their opinion that the Church is “too monarchical”.

Social ethicists Marianne Heimbach-Steins from the University of Münster (the largest faculty of Catholic theology in the world) and Daniel Bogner from the Grand Séminaire und Institut de Pédagogie Religieuse in Luxemburg say that the Church’s recognition of human rights in the encyclical of Blessed Pope John XXIII Pacem in terris 50 years ago collided with her claims of authority. They laud Pope Francis’ programme for reforms, which, they say, did better justice to Human Rights.

The two theologians criticised the Church for being hypocritical to an extent in that she demanded Human Rights be recognised globally, but within herself she didn’t pay as much attention to them as she demands of others.According to Heimbach-Steins and Bogner, there is a deficit of involvement of laypeople and especially women, a deficit of rights of freedom and the recognition of the autonomous Christian life of the individual. Heimbach-Steins says: “The monarchical principle, which rules the Church since the late Antiquity (Classical), collides with the right to freedom and equality set down in Human Rights, and with the rights to autonomity and participation of people in Ecclesiastical responsibilities derived therefrom.”

What do you say, is the Church “too monarchical”? Is the Church on earth essentially monarchical? Since the Church Triumphant is certainly a Monarchy, is the Church Militant too, that is, is the Pope a King, and are Bishops sort of like Kings?

Such comments as from the two theologians set off all my alarms, since it sounds like “The Church is a democracy!” to me. I trust the hierarchy, and I have no problem with a monarchical Church. I like monarchy. 🙂

Comment! 🙂
 
What are “human rights” anyway unless the Church gives approbation and sanction to them? Rights… from where (Whom) do you get them? And how does a hierarchical structure–which, it should be well known, is built in to the Church and is something the Church cannot ever give up–deny human rights?

It seems to me that we should consider as rights those things which morality, using chiefly the Natural Law as a source, tells us are necessary and of basic importance. If we enumerate human rights as things like food, drink, life, the ability to pursue one’s God-given vocation within reason, the ability to worship God, the indissolubility of marriage, etc., then these are in no way in conflict with the hierarchical structure of the Church.

But if we include ultimately silly things like self-rule, populism, democracy, essentially philosophical power-grabs, as “rights,” then the Church cannot grant these things as rights anyway, because they are not rights because they are contingent and not absolute, and it is not within the Church’s competency–if we consider these things to mean a delegation of un-delegate-able authority to lay people–to do this anyway. Even if we just apply these terms to the civil sphere, the Church still has no authority to declare these rights because the Church has no competency so to do. Now that does not mean that there is not a better and worse continuum on which to rank governmental forms, and I think it is fine for the Church to make statements like, “Given the current circumstances ___ seems to be the best form of government to meet the needs of people in this place right now and into the foreseeable future and it also respects the Church’s God-given right to operate freely,” but the Church has no ability or competency say, “___ is the best form of government, period, and there must be this many officials, and this is how we are going to build cities, and the library is going to go here, and this road is going to be called this, and this kid is going to go to school here.”

When we start to apply relatively strict terms like “rights” to things amorphous, changing, and undefinable like “self-actualization,” “democratic rule,” and other psychobabble, the term “rights” quickly loses all meaning. These things can be debated but they cannot really be, and should not be, termed rights. Americans may have the “right to vote,” for example, but this is clearly not as important as the right to life, and it never can be made to be. No one has that competency.

So, I think most of this is a bit silly. I do not much care what these or other “social ethicsts” have to say about this subject, nor do I think much of what I see as essentially a perversion, over-extension, and radical distortion of Pope Francis’s very Christian message.
 
The modern Vatican is a sovereign state. She fields accredited ambassadors, and prints Her own postage. The Church has a Secretary of State, and is a member of the United Nations, and signs treaties with other nations.

Recognized sovereign states fall into various categories of government - these categories are accepted by most political scientists around the world.

Under this system, the Church is considered to be an elected absolute monarchy. Nobody disputes this categorization (not even the Church Herself). Catholics (especially of American dissent, whose heritage includes a bloody war of independence from monarchy) bristle at the term “monarch” being applied to the Pope, but - hey - that is EXACTLY what he is. Sorry, American Catholics - in political terminology, the Pope is an elected absolute monarch (who serves only at his own pleasure, and not at the pleasure of those who elected him, or those over whom he presides).

Historically, monarchies have been hereditary (and many still are). The Church is not (and has never been) a hereditary (or appointed by a predecessor Pope) monarchy, so it is “less” monarchical than historic monarchies in this regard.

Historically, all monarchies were absolute (meaning that the law did not bind the king, and the king held absolute authority in every regard). Runnymede did much to change that in many European secular monarchies. The Church took little notice, and maintains an absolute monarchy. In this respect, it is the same as ALL monarchies before King John of England.

So, the Papacy is an appointed Office (which is LESS than traditional and modern monarchy), and it is absolute, which is THE SAME as traditional (and much modern) monarchy. On balance, the Papacy is LESS monarchical than we would usually associate with that term.

So what is “too much” monarchy? Where is the “line” between “acceptable” and “too much?” To what degree would the Pope need to relinquish his divinely-apportioned authority in order to be considered “just right?”
 
DavidFilmer said:
So what is “too much” monarchy? Where is the “line” between “acceptable” and “too much?” To what degree would the Pope need to relinquish his divinely-apportioned authority in order to be considered “just right?”
Click to expand...
The answer is that this is really an unanswerable question. The monarchy of the Vatican (or however far the temporal power of the Pope may extend at any given time) is silly to debate, but you know that. =p
 
A simple answer to the posters question: Yes.

Matthew 20:25-27

English Standard Version (ESV)

25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,[a] 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,**

1 Corinthians 10:12

English Standard Version (ESV)

12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.**
 
cguerber said:
A simple answer to the posters question: Yes.

Matthew 20:25-27

English Standard Version (ESV)

25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,[a] 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,**

1 Corinthians 10:12

English Standard Version (ESV)

12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.**
I haven’t noticed the Popes lording it over us…
Click to expand...
 
Wrt the OP, I think the problem is that those people have offered up a fallacious argument altogether. They say the Church talks about human rights but then doesn’t respect human rights… well, this may be because they have a truncated and twisted view of human rights. They ignore the spiritual side of man, his eternal destiny, and they think that human rights means to let people do whatever strikes their fancy.

The Church is all about each person’s individual destiny and works to put forth that which will allow each person to spend eternity in the arms of God rather than the discomfort of the domains of Satan. Consequently, the Church suggests restrictions on people’s actions.

The reality is that the Church’s prescriptions are *more *in line with people’s *real *human rights than are the drivelings of the descendants of the so-called Enlightenment, all too many of whom are working towards a state in which the only “human rights” are unlimited sexual activity with no consequences while the rest of their lives is spent in labor for the government.
 
What do the theologians mean by “autonomous Christian life of the individual?”

Autonomous from whom? Autonomous from what? The Christian life is not lived apart from Christ, and Christ is the King of kings who left us a temporal kingdom, his Church. The Church is his voice and his legitimate authority on earth.

It is impossible to understand what their meaning is without a link to their work so that these phrases can be taken in context.

-Tim-
 
Matthew 16:17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

I’m just going to say this. Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom. It’s a Kingdom folks, and Peter (and subsequent Popes) were given the keys to heaven. This is not to say that the Pope controls the church, because the church is made of everyone. It’s the UNIVERSAL Church as it says in it’s name. There’s no borders, it’s Gods Kingdom, so that’s fitting!

Back to Peter. The scriptures also say that the church must be ordered. How can a church not be ordered if they don’t have order to it. And that’s why the church is set up the way it is. How can the Church be the voice of God in the world if it’s split up. It’s the voice of God in the World through the voice of the Pope. It’s in Gods providence that it is set up and the greatest of these serves the least of these. The Kingdom belongs to the least of these, not the Religious! The Religious are the servants to the least of these as it should be. The Pope is not King, Jesus Christ is King.
 
Much ado about nothing. I am Catholic and I feel not an ounce of the Pope berating me, or lording over me, or otherwise extending beyond his legitimate authority in my daily life. In face I daresay I don’t really notice much of the Pope in my day to day life except when I pray for him or read about him.
 
DavidFilmer said:
The modern Vatican is a sovereign state. She fields accredited ambassadors, and prints Her own postage. The Church has a Secretary of State, and is a member of the United Nations, and signs treaties with other nations.

Recognized sovereign states fall into various categories of government - these categories are accepted by most political scientists around the world.

Under this system, the Church is considered to be an elected absolute monarchy. Nobody disputes this categorization (not even the Church Herself). Catholics (especially of American dissent, whose heritage includes a bloody war of independence from monarchy) bristle at the term “monarch” being applied to the Pope, but - hey - that is EXACTLY what he is. Sorry, American Catholics - in political terminology, the Pope is an elected absolute monarch (who serves only at his own pleasure, and not at the pleasure of those who elected him, or those over whom he presides).

Historically, monarchies have been hereditary (and many still are). The Church is not (and has never been) a hereditary (or appointed by a predecessor Pope) monarchy, so it is “less” monarchical than historic monarchies in this regard.

Historically, all monarchies were absolute (meaning that the law did not bind the king, and the king held absolute authority in every regard). Runnymede did much to change that in many European secular monarchies. The Church took little notice, and maintains an absolute monarchy. In this respect, it is the same as ALL monarchies before King John of England.

So, the Papacy is an appointed Office (which is LESS than traditional and modern monarchy), and it is absolute, which is THE SAME as traditional (and much modern) monarchy. On balance, the Papacy is LESS monarchical than we would usually associate with that term.

So what is “too much” monarchy? Where is the “line” between “acceptable” and “too much?” To what degree would the Pope need to relinquish his divinely-apportioned authority in order to be considered “just right?”
Click to expand...
The Church has always been a Church. The only reason that the Church center resides in a City-state is that if it were part of say "Italy’s’ rule, Italy could Lord over the Church in every aspect,and we’ve seen how disastrous it could be if government is allowed to Lord over the Church. It’s different, than any other nation as the church outstretches beyond borders but is also governed by international law. It’s a world organization that does good works throughout the world so should take part in the UN, the Pope is appointed by Cardinals from different nations, not from Vatican City. Washington DC is a City-State also, it has it’s own mayor and post office, and isn’t governed by any state, but is subject to the nations laws and thats good because then the US Capitol couldn’t make laws binding to the entire US when it’s contradictory to any State Laws. The Church isn’t a government, its a church and we are a great big family of God.
 
CutlerB said:
With the media in a spittle-flecked nutty (kudos to Fr. Z!) over a German Bishop’s spending on diocesan building projects, some theologians from prominent universities in Germany and Luxemburg have voiced their opinion that the Church is “too monarchical”.

Social ethicists Marianne Heimbach-Steins from the University of Münster (the largest faculty of Catholic theology in the world) and Daniel Bogner from the Grand Séminaire und Institut de Pédagogie Religieuse in Luxemburg say that the Church’s recognition of human rights in the encyclical of Blessed Pope John XXIII Pacem in terris 50 years ago collided with her claims of authority. They laud Pope Francis’ programme for reforms, which, they say, did better justice to Human Rights.

The two theologians criticised the Church for being hypocritical to an extent in that she demanded Human Rights be recognised globally, but within herself she didn’t pay as much attention to them as she demands of others.According to Heimbach-Steins and Bogner, there is a deficit of involvement of laypeople and especially women, a deficit of rights of freedom and the recognition of the autonomous Christian life of the individual. Heimbach-Steins says: “The monarchical principle, which rules the Church since the late Antiquity (Classical), collides with the right to freedom and equality set down in Human Rights, and with the rights to autonomity and participation of people in Ecclesiastical responsibilities derived therefrom.”

What do you say, is the Church “too monarchical”? Is the Church on earth essentially monarchical? Since the Church Triumphant is certainly a Monarchy, is the Church Militant too, that is, is the Pope a King, and are Bishops sort of like Kings?

Such comments as from the two theologians set off all my alarms, since it sounds like “The Church is a democracy!” to me. I trust the hierarchy, and I have no problem with a monarchical Church. I like monarchy. 🙂

Comment! 🙂
Click to expand...
I think your alarm bells are functioning properly. 😉

I don’t think “monarchical” is the right word to use to describe a bishop’s extravagant spending. Because, you’re right, it does sort of place “monarchy” as the source of the problem whose antidote must naturally be democracy.

Theologically, the roles of priest, prophet and king are infused in most any doctrinal reflection on ecclesiology. The Church really is a “Kingdom”. And our bishops are “kings”. But, of course, that is always said in the same breath as them being prophets (i.e. teachers) and priests (i.e. sanctifying us through the sacraments and being humble servants).

Even though it’s accurate from an ecclesiological standpoint, in general discussion with others, calling the Church “monarchical” is not the first descriptor I would choose to use because it does leave many people with the impression that a bishop thinks he’s something of a medieval king who gets to wear fancy, expensive clothes and live in a fancy, expensive house and eat fancy, expensive food, and otherwise do nothing but be waited on hand and foot by us lowly lay people.

So I can understand them using the term “monarchical” in light of that popular perception of what it means to be a king. But that’s not what the Church means by kingship. Our King of Kings lived as a poor carpenter and got nailed to a cross. That’s kingship in the Catholic Church. And with that as our understanding, the Church could never be too monarchical.
 
I feel for the Church in western Europe.

No, the Church isn’t too monarchical. The Church is the Body of Christ, not a monarchy. Geez, I thought Vatican II clarified that for everyone. 😉
 
cguerber said:
A simple answer to the posters question: Yes.

Matthew 20:25-27

English Standard Version (ESV)

25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,[a] 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,**

1 Corinthians 10:12

English Standard Version (ESV)

12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.**

Matthew 23:11-12 (NIV for convenience)

11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

Either way, both your quote and mine prove how humble the Pope is, since “the humble will be exalted”. 👍

Bet ya didn’t see dat coming, huh? 😃
Click to expand...
 
CrossofChrist said:
I feel for the Church in western Europe.

No, the Church isn’t too monarchical. The Church is the Body of Christ, not a monarchy. Geez, I thought Vatican II clarified that for everyone. 😉
Click to expand...
Seems Vatican 2 didn’t clarify much of anything judging from the number of church closings, former Catholics, dissident bishops, priests, nuns, etc. funny business going on in Masses, and so on in the past 40 years. Not to mention Catholics who could support a goofy President like Obama, not once but twice?:confused: Lord have mercy! Christ have mercy! Lord have mercy!
 
CutlerB said:
With the media in a spittle-flecked nutty (kudos to Fr. Z!) over a German Bishop’s spending on diocesan building projects, some theologians from prominent universities in Germany and Luxemburg have voiced their opinion that the Church is “too monarchical”.

Social ethicists Marianne Heimbach-Steins from the University of Münster (the largest faculty of Catholic theology in the world) and Daniel Bogner from the Grand Séminaire und Institut de Pédagogie Religieuse in Luxemburg say that the Church’s recognition of human rights in the encyclical of Blessed Pope John XXIII Pacem in terris 50 years ago collided with her claims of authority. They laud Pope Francis’ programme for reforms, which, they say, did better justice to Human Rights.

The two theologians criticised the Church for being hypocritical to an extent in that she demanded Human Rights be recognised globally, but within herself she didn’t pay as much attention to them as she demands of others.According to Heimbach-Steins and Bogner, there is a deficit of involvement of laypeople and especially women, a deficit of rights of freedom and the recognition of the autonomous Christian life of the individual. Heimbach-Steins says: “The monarchical principle, which rules the Church since the late Antiquity (Classical), collides with the right to freedom and equality set down in Human Rights, and with the rights to autonomity and participation of people in Ecclesiastical responsibilities derived therefrom.”

What do you say, is the Church “too monarchical”? Is the Church on earth essentially monarchical? Since the Church Triumphant is certainly a Monarchy, is the Church Militant too, that is, is the Pope a King, and are Bishops sort of like Kings?

Such comments as from the two theologians set off all my alarms, since it sounds like “The Church is a democracy!” to me. I trust the hierarchy, and I have no problem with a monarchical Church. I like monarchy. 🙂

Comment! 🙂
Click to expand...
There is no difference between the “government” of the Church Militant or the Church Triumphant, because there is the one Church. There may be two or more sections of the Church (like how kingdoms can be separated into commoners and peasants, etc.), but there is only One Church under One Rule, and that is our King, Jesus Christ. The Pope is merely the vicar of our King, the stand in while our king is away, as it is described in the OT. The Pope holds the Keys of authority, but is not the King, only a stand-in. The Cardinals are like the earthly council for the King’s stand-in, the Bishops are like high-ranking knights, Priests like lower-ranking knights, and Deacons like the servants of the knights. The Church Triumphant are like members of the royal family, and the Church Militant are like the commoners.

The One Church is a monarchy, and Christ is King.
 
LegoGE1947 said:
Seems Vatican 2 didn’t clarify much of anything judging from the number of church closings, former Catholics, dissident bishops, priests, nuns, etc. funny business going on in Masses, and so on in the past 40 years. Not to mention Catholics who could support a goofy President like Obama, not once but twice?:confused: Lord have mercy! Christ have mercy! Lord have mercy!
Click to expand...
1968 didn’t help, did it? Or the modernism that had quietly been building up in the Church since the ex cathedra statement regarding the Immaculate Conception.
 
TimothyH said:
What do the theologians mean by “autonomous Christian life of the individual?”

Autonomous from whom? Autonomous from what? The Christian life is not lived apart from Christ, and Christ is the King of kings who left us a temporal kingdom, his Church. The Church is his voice and his legitimate authority on earth.

It is impossible to understand what their meaning is without a link to their work so that these phrases can be taken in context.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
I don’t know how much more they said, since the only article I found was quoting them directly. If you like, I can give you the link to that story, although it’s in German and doesn’t say anything else than what I have already translated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top