Muhammad.

[Vouthon]

-The Church hasn’t always been a fan of democracies or democracy. I’m pretty sure at one time it was deemed incompatible with Christianity.

Actually, it is Orthodox Christianity (ironic given its more democratic ecclesiastical governance) that has been more closely wedded to quasi-theocratic monarchy both in the Byzantine Empire and in Tsarist Russia than Catholicism, which as a general rule has been indifferent to political systems in strictly doctrinal terms, caring more about its own freedom, ability to preach the gospel and promote its ethics. Medieval Europe was a patchwork of polities ranging from hereditary monarchies in England and France, to partially democratic republics in Italy and an elected monarchy in the Holy Roman Empire. The papacy was continually feuding with the Empire and was often in the process allied with quasi-democratic republics, such as the city-state of Florence which was governed by an elected aristocracy under a male only franchise in a system known as a “podesta” I believe.

St. Thomas Aquinas explicitly taught in his Summa, which became almost canonical for Catholic universities, that the preferred form of government was a mixed constitution with a balance of powers between a monarchical element (a stable leader), an aristocratic element (subordinates to act as a check on the power of the leader) and a democratic element whereby the consent of the people was involved.

Read:

newadvent.org/summa/2105.htm

Accordingly, the best form of government is in a state or kingdom, where one is given the power to preside over all; while under him are others having governing powers: and **yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rules are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy, i.e. government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers.

Such was the form of government established by the Divine Law**. For Moses and his successors governed the people in such a way that each of them was ruler over all; so that there was a kind of kingdom. Moreover, seventy-two men were chosen, who were elders in virtue: for it is written (Deuteronomy 1:15): “I took out of your tribes wise and honorable, and appointed them rulers”: so that there was an element of aristocracy. But it was a democratic government in so far as the rulers were chosen from all the people; for it is written (Exodus 18:21): “Provide out of all the people wise [Vulgate: ‘able’] men,” etc.; and, again, in so far as they were chosen by the people; wherefore it is written (Deuteronomy 1:13): “Let me have from among you wise [Vulgate: ‘able’] men,” etc. Consequently it is evident that the ordering of the rulers was well provided for by the Law

Today we actually have what the Greeks would call “mixed” government. When we speak of democracy we do not mean Athenian democracy but rather representative democracy in which our civil liberties are protected, we elect our leaders and then they dictate policy on our behalf with a division between the executive (equivalent to "monarchy) judicial (aristocracy) and parliamentary (democracy) branches.

 

[Vouthon]

Later on, in the early modern period, St. Robert Bellarmine (a cardinal and Doctor of the Church) became an early champion of popular sovereignty:

kolbefoundation.org/gbookswebsite/studentlibrary/gbooks/Bellarmine/civilgov/Framecivilgovch5to8.htm

"…Power resides, as in its subject, immediately in the whole state, for this power is by Divine law, but Divine law gives this power to no particular man, therefore Divine law gives this power to the collected body. Furthermore, in the absence of positive law, there is no good reason why, in a multitude of equals, one rather than another should dominate. Therefore, power belongs to the collected body. Finally, human society ought to be a perfect State, therefore, it should have the power to preserve itself, hence, to punish disturbers of the peace, etc.

12 Note, in the third place, that, by the same natural law,** this power is delegated by the multitude to one or several**, for the State cannot of itself exercise this power, therefore, it is held to delegate it to some individual, or to several, and this authority of rulers considered thus in general is both by natural law and by Divine law, nor could the entire human race assembled together decree the opposite, that is, that there should be neither rulers nor leaders.

13 Note, in the fourth place, that individual forms of government in specific instances derive from the law of nations, not from the natural law, for, as is evident, it depends on the consent of the people to decide whether kings, or consuls, or other magistrates are to be established in authority over them; and, if there be legitimate cause, the people can change a kingdom into an aristocracy, or an aristocracy into a democracy, and vice versa, as we read was done in Rome.

14 Note, in the fifth place, that it follows from what has been said that this power in specific instances comes indeed from God, but through the medium of human wisdom and choice, as do all other things which pertain to the law of nations. For the law of nations is a sort of conclusion drawn from the natural law by human reason; from which are inferred two differences between the political and the Ecclesiastical power, one in view of the subject, for political power resides in the people, and Ecclesiastical power in the individual, as it were immediately in the subject (on whom it devolves); the other difference is in view of the efficient cause, because political power considered in general is by Divine law, but considered in particular it is by the law of nations. Ecclesiastical power, however, considered from every point of view, is by Divine law, and immediately from God…"

***- Saint Robert Bellarmine (1542 – 1621), Italian Jesuit, Cardinal & Doctor of the Church ***

Earlier in the 15th century, another Cardinal, Nicholas of Cusa had argued the same:

nlnrac.org/classical/late-medieval-transformations/documents/catholic-concordance

"…That all legislation is based on the natural law, and that all coercion must be brought about by the choice and consent of the subjects, since we are equally free by nature, and that jurisdictions that are created have no power from themselves, but only according to the laws and canons. This is a fine argument.

Therefore since all men are free by nature, every government that restrains its subjects from evils and uses the fear of punishment to orient their freedom towards the good, whether it consists of written laws or of a living law in the person of the prince, is constituted only by the agreement and consent of the subjects. For if by nature men are equally powerful and equally free, then the true and well-ordered authority of one who is a fellow and equal in power can only be established by the choice and consent of others, just as laws are established by consent

A human society comes together by a general agreement in order to obey its kings. So in a truly well-ordered regime there ought to be an election of the ruler himself, by which the ruler is set up as the judge of those who choose him. Well-ordered and correct lordships and honors, then, are established by election, and so also are general judges established over those who elect them…

Now law ought to be made by all those who are to be bound by it, or by a majority in an election, because it is for the good of the community, and what affects all ought to be decided by all, and a common decision can only be reached by the consent of all, or of a majority…"

***- Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), German philosopher, theologian, jurist, astronomer, cardinal and mystic ***

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Actually, it is Orthodox Christianity (ironic given its more democratic ecclesiastical governance) that has been more closely wedded to quasi-theocratic monarchy both in the Byzantine Empire and in Tsarist Russia than Catholicism, which as a general rule has been indifferent to political systems in strictly doctrinal terms, caring more about its own freedom, ability to preach the gospel and promote its ethics. Medieval Europe was a patchwork of polities ranging from hereditary monarchies in England and France, to partially democratic republics in Italy and an elected monarchy in the Holy Roman Empire. The papacy was continually feuding with the Empire and was often in the process allied with quasi-democratic republics, such as the city-state of Florence which was governed by an elected aristocracy under a male only franchise in a system known as a “podesta” I believe.

I knew about medieval governance, but I didn’t know about the rest. Now you have me wondering how I came to the conclusion the faith was at some point in the past at odds with democracy.

 

[josie_L]

I knew about medieval governance, but I didn’t know about the rest. Now you have me wondering how I came to the conclusion the faith was at some point in the past at odds with democracy.

Which is why I said it wasn’t true, although I wasn’t entirely sure what you meant either, i.e., did the CC at times do things that were undemocratic, yes, but did the CC have an animus against democracy or was at odds with it, no.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The bahai have been awfully keen to question the validity of the hadiths, and rightly so, they are generally unreliable and I think impossible to crack with any certainty until the real historical investigation has begun. But if they are going dismiss widely attested to traditions even within the hadith, Muhammad’s marriage and consummation of that marriage to the young Aisha (which I do not understand why bahai would be against this, considering progressive revelation, that God at that time obviously allowed men to sleep with young girls). Why then should we believe anything about the life of the so called prophet of Islam? All of our sources for the main points in his life come very late, how do the bahai tell which tale is true and which is false? It seems to me you can only rely on divine revelation, rather than any sort of historical analysis.

I would also ask this of the Muslims, how can we place so much trust into the sources for the life of Muhammad? How do we know the quran is truly ancient, all of it?

 

[dzheremi]

Oh boy…brace yourself for a bunch of “What about the NT books?”-type nonsense in response to that particular question, IgnatianPhilo!

 

[Vouthon]

I knew about medieval governance, but I didn’t know about the rest. Now you have me wondering how I came to the conclusion the faith was at some point in the past at odds with democracy.

If I am not mistaken, you were probably thinking about the 19th century reign of Pope Pius IX and the Syllabus of Errors. In the aftermath of the French Revolution and during the attempts by Italian nationalists to create a unified Italy, the church was very much at odds with the secularists who often trumpeted democracy but who really were anticlerical and were simply wanting to extirpate the church entirely from society.

The church never condemned democracy in itself however, as a form of government, merely this anti-religious misappropriation of it for ulterior ends.

Pope Leo XIII made it clear in one of his encyclicals:

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html

“…It is not of itself wrong to prefer a democratic form of government if only the Catholic doctrine be maintained as to the origin and exercise of power…it is not forbidden to prefer temperate, popular forms of government, without prejudice, however, to Catholic teaching on the origin and use of authority…the Church does not disapprove of any of the various forms of government, provided they be per se capable of securing the good of the citizens…”

***- Pope Leo XIII (Encyclical “Libertas,”) June 20, 1888 ***

This has always been the view of the church.

Prior to the catastrophic aftermath of the French Revolutionary Wars, when the ideals of the Revolution had not yet taken a distinctly anti-clerical veneer, Pope Pius had been an enthusiastic democrat and delivered this sermon as a cardinal:

“…Become out-and-out Christians and you will also be thorough-going democrats. Christian virtue makes men good democrats… Equality is not an idea of philosophers but of Christ…and do not believe that the Catholic religion is against democracy…The democratic form of government is not . . . repugnant to the Gospel. On the contrary it exacts all the sublime virtues which are learned only in the school of Jesus Christ…”

- Pope Pius VII, 1797 Christmas Sermon

 

[oldcatholicguy]

If I am not mistaken, you were probably thinking about the 19th century reign of Pope Pius IX and the Syllabus of Errors. In the aftermath of the French Revolution and during the attempts by Italian nationalists to create a unified Italy, the church was very much at odds with the secularists who often trumpeted democracy but who really were anticlerical and were simply wanting to extirpate the church entirely from society.

Thank you. I’ve been trying to figure out why I thought the Church was at odds with democracy at some point in the past and your above is where I got the idea from. Apparently I remembered the at odds part, but not the why part (anti-clericalism instead of democracy itself). You just saved me a couple of hours of searching the internet this evening trying to figure out what I got wrong.