Politics and the Church

[FuzzyBunny116]

I hang around on the Roman Catholic Facebook group quite a bit. The people there are nice, and most are very bright. However, I’ve seen a different side of Catholicism since I came. It seems like half of them are monarchists! They all seem to deny such basic concepts as the separation of church and state, free speech, etc etc.

My question is ultimately this: what is the Church’s philosophy towards politics? Can one be a Catholic democrat (small ‘d’)? Does the church support the criminalizing of blasphemy? Contraception? Fornication? Many of the people on there are perilously close to asking for a theocracy (or perhaps have asked for one).

 

[Dale_M]

Michael, you will meet all sorts of people with all sorts of philosophies on the web. Stay grounded in the real world.

BTW, we have a few monarchists here too.

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

Michael, you will meet all sorts of people with all sorts of philosophies on the web. Stay grounded in the real world.

BTW, we have a few monarchists here too.

Haha thanks for the advice. I know what you mean. What about my second question? Does the Church support things like criminalizing blasphemy, pornography, fornication, etc?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Yes Michael, I echo what Dale said. A person can go to Church for years, move to different states, and different parishes, and always feel blessed, welcomed and happy as a Catholic. Then you start looking to interact on the internet with other Catholics in a more scholastic way, and wham, suddenly your constantly labeled as a heretic, liberal, and asked why you don’t leave the faith. The internet tends to attract those who are unhappy with the way things are, so most Catholic sites online are quite conservative and many are incredibly right wing fundamentalist. You have to be careful, but don’t worry, reality is just down the street back at your parish. This is definitely not representative of what’s going on in the US in regards Catholicism.

 

[wapsi]

Does the Church support things like criminalizing blasphemy, pornography, fornication, etc?

The Church does support criminalizing pornography.

2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

The Catechism doesn’t say anything similar regarding fornication and blasphemy, although it does call them grave sins.

An important distinction, perhaps, would be laws the Church might support versus laws for which the Church advocates. If a government should pass an anti-blasphemy law, the Church might speak in favor of it. But this doesn’t mean the Church would try to pressure a government to issue such a law. In contrast, the Church would support a law against abortion and actually does pressure government to issue such a law.

 

[rusty20]

Society was arguably better off as a theocracy, at least church was full on Sundays. LOL

But to answer your questions, I feel that Church and state should be separate, but not in the strict way that most people view church and state. I see no problem with basing laws off the Ten Commandments, as long as they fall in line with the natural law on which society is based as well. I would have no problem basing law on (the good parts of) Muslim law. Religion can be a helping hand in a society, but people seem to think too often that it only hurts government.

I do not deny freedom of speech, but I do have a problem with the current outcome of the freedom of religion clause, which is ironically misinterpreted to restrict religion to a great degree.

 

[Athanasiy]

I also have doubts about theocratic society in practice.
And my self would like to hear more arguments in defense of theocracy.
It seems that humanity during the history never managed to practice it properly.
I mean in theory – yes
But in practice …

The Christians can not be indifferent towards politics , if all will be indifferent , the politics sooner or later will take you by the neck and will not permit you to breath freely.
Therefore I think there should be more Christian people in the politics.
And the most important that politicians should not divorce their beliefs from the way they actually
behave as politicians.
Therefore , I do not agree that churches ought not to interfere in politics.
Politics and Spirituality are undivisible .
How you can have the morality , how you can have the religious faith and keep morality and faith out of politics ?
So , It is a part of the Church’s mission ‘to pass moral judgements in the matters related to politics
Yes , the fornication , abortion , adultery , blasphemy , homosexuality, these are the sins , which are the crime sins.
The question only is how they should be punished ?
By some restrictions in the rights ?
By fine ?
By prison sentence ?
Or just with warnings about the danger to loose the life in the world to come ?

These are the questions which I am thinking about .

Some one would say that these grave sins should be punished by the death sentence.
If the law would punish the people for these crimes, by the death sentence , or life prison sentence.
Then , the society will be transformed to the totalitarian society …with repressions , fear and authoritarian control . The ‘army life’ , the life where the people will be afraid of themselves on the every step of their life.

Its like re- phrasing the words of Salman Rushdie …about that room where there is no free air in order to breath freely.
The unbearable room where there is the urgent need to open the window in order to get the free fresh air….

With the other side , if to take God from the society , its like to take the soul from the human being… society gets more and more un human.
( The fascism and bolshevism in the twenty century is the prove of this theory.)
The human being without God is indeed transformed to the animal , not four legged but two legged animal without soul.

Of course the civil authorities should defend the marriage , to safeguard the public morality , to protect the kids and teenagers against drugs , pornography , alcohol…
But how the sexual sins should be punished , or if they should be punished it’s a big question for me
I think , the abortion must not be permitted , but I do not think that the sexual sins must be considered as a criminal offenses today.
Actually , I think that our discussion does not really have the loud voice for the people in the modern society , because today we are already facing the time , when our morality will be considered as racist discrimination , and the ones who can get the prison sentence are not a sinners , but a Christians who are pointing at the sinner’s sin.
Therefore , I think that the time is coming when we have to learn , how to preach the Gospel in the spirit of love , without insulting our neighbor.

 

[SanJudas]

God save all here.

Dear Fuzzy,
We need to remember that in modern society in general, and especially here in the US, a country born of revolution against a monarchy, we have been conditioned against support for monarchy to the extent that it becomes almost a knee-jerk reflex. In reality, the majority of people through time have lived in monarchies and led just as fulfilling of lives as the rest of us in our “enlightened” democracies. Keeping this in mind, you must realize that much of what we read or see in movies is anti-monarchical propaganda–the whole “off with his head” imagery was the exception rather than the rule. Most monarchs, especially the Catholic ones, were very conscious of the grave duty which had been conferred upon them to wisely and fairly lead their people.
Remember that our own Pope is a monarch. In general, our Pontiffs showed opposition to democracy right through the 19th century. As my parish priest likes to say, "The only example of a democratic vote in the Bible resulted in, ‘Crucify Jesus! Give us Barabbas!’ "

Here are a few links for your further contemplation:

This one is an introduction to the topic:
catholicrestorationists.wordpress.com/2007/05/24/monarchy-or-democracy-some-catholic-thoughts/

Another discussion of the reasoning behind monarchies from a different angle:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_as_a_model_for_the_state

This is, in my opinion, the best website for pro-monarchical thought:
cheetah.net/~ccoulomb/index1.html

Googling “monarchy” will yield many more sites and forums related to this topic.

I just ask that you keep an open mind towards the whole idea. Reject for a moment the whole modern liberal notion that the people of the past where poor brutes living under “oppression” and “discrimination” and accord them the respect they deserve. They dealt with many of the same societal issues that we have today, and often more successfully.

 

[markomalley]

I hang around on the Roman Catholic Facebook group quite a bit. The people there are nice, and most are very bright. However, I’ve seen a different side of Catholicism since I came. It seems like half of them are monarchists! They all seem to deny such basic concepts as the separation of church and state, free speech, etc etc.

My question is ultimately this: what is the Church’s philosophy towards politics? Can one be a Catholic democrat (small ‘d’)? Does the church support the criminalizing of blasphemy? Contraception? Fornication? Many of the people on there are perilously close to asking for a theocracy (or perhaps have asked for one).

The only thing that should govern your view toward politics, as a Catholic, is the teaching of the Magesterium on the subject.

The best single source for that is put out by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace: The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church

As to favoring a democracy versus a republic versus a monarchy versus anarchy…

A democracy is great, provided the people govern themselves by the gospel and walk in love one toward another. A democracy is a terrible thing otherwise, as the people can vote in abomination.

A representative republic is a wonderful thing, provided the representatives govern themselves by the gospel and walk in love regarding the populace they represent, and one toward another. A representative republic is a terrible thing otherwise, as the representatives can legalize abomination.

A monarchy is a wonderful thing, provided the monarch governs him/herself by the gospel and walks in love toward his subjects. A monarchy is a terrible thing if the monarch fails to live the gospel in his life, as he can create great suffering through his rule.

If all of the populace truly live by the gospel and walk in love one toward another, government is not nearly as necessary as otherwise, as the people will work together in love toward a common end: they truly need no leaders in that case. But how often will all the people truly live by the gospel?

The bottom line is the type of government is not really terribly important, in of itself. If those who govern are ruled by the gospel and live it in their lives (his life/her life), then any form of government is perfectly OK. And without the gospel, no type of government will do the right thing by the populace.

IMHO/FWIW/YMMV

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would not prefer a monarchy for the reasons a previous poster gave. It would be fine if the monarch was enlightened and holy. It would be terrible if he was evil, stupid or a tyrant.

Still, there is a certain romantic attractiveness in it. My grandfather’s father came from what is now part of Italy, but was then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He was quite proud to say it. A polyglot, inefficient conglomeration of diverse peoples, a Catholic EU before its time, it did not survive WWI. Yet, the last Emperor is up for sainthood, likely for good reason. It might have been very good to have lived under his reign, had the war not destroyed his empire before he had a chance to really rule it.

And then, one has to admit the uniforms were out-of-this-world beautiful. Wonderful for show, not so good for real war.

But that’s not what we have. And, too, I would not want to live under the rule of a Kaiser Wilhelm or an Ivan the Terrible.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And we should remember that “separation of church and state” (the buzz words of choice) is not constitutional --for the good reason that the phrase was never part of the constitution. The phrase comes from a private letter of Thomas Jefferson written to a Baptist minister.

The constitutional contains the establishment clause in the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I also have doubts about theocratic society in practice.
And my self would like to hear more arguments in defense of theocracy.
It seems that humanity during the history never managed to practice it properly.
I mean in theory – yes
But in practice …

Well, have they ever practiced democracy well in practice, either? The question must be which works best, not which works perfectly.

The Christians can not be indifferent towards politics , if all will be indifferent , the politics sooner or later will take you by the neck and will not permit you to breath freely.
Therefore I think there should be more Christian people in the politics.
And the most important that politicians should not divorce their beliefs from the way they actually
behave as politicians.

I definitely agree with you there.

Therefore , I do not agree that churches ought not to interfere in politics.
Politics and Spirituality are undivisible .
How you can have the morality , how you can have the religious faith and keep morality and faith out of politics ?
So , It is a part of the Church’s mission ‘to pass moral judgements in the matters related to politics
Yes , the fornication , abortion , adultery , blasphemy , homosexuality, these are the sins , which are the crime sins.
The question only is how they should be punished ?
By some restrictions in the rights ?
By fine ?
By prison sentence ?
Or just with warnings about the danger to loose the life in the world to come ?

These are the questions which I am thinking about .

I think that some sort of punishment should be initiated, as that would help to reduce the number of people engaging in these practices, and would promote a healthier culture.

Some one would say that these grave sins should be punished by the death sentence.
If the law would punish the people for these crimes, by the death sentence , or life prison sentence.
Then , the society will be transformed to the totalitarian society …with repressions , fear and authoritarian control . The ‘army life’ , the life where the people will be afraid of themselves on the every step of their life.

That’s not true. The guilty might commonly be afraid for their lives, but having laws against these grave sins aren’t going to terrify the general population. What makes you think it would?

With the other side , if to take God from the society , its like to take the soul from the human being… society gets more and more un human.
( The fascism and bolshevism in the twenty century is the prove of this theory.)

True, and so is democracy, through its abortion epidemics, and Communism with its genocides on intellectuals and dissidents. The monarchs of the Medieval Ages actually didn’t commit any genocides, and they experienced no rebellions until the Late Medieval Ages.

Of course the civil authorities should defend the marriage , to safeguard the public morality , to protect the kids and teenagers against drugs , pornography , alcohol…
But how the sexual sins should be punished , or if they should be punished it’s a big question for me
I think , the abortion must not be permitted , but I do not think that the sexual sins must be considered as a criminal offenses today.

Well, this doesn’t make too much logical sense. A person can be punished under law for punching someone else, but another person who sleeps with a girl and then leaves her an emotional wreck goes by without any punishment. The girl will be more hurt, often, by a man who does this to her than she would if a man punched her. The crime is no less devastating. But the law permits the one and forbids the other. It’s nonsensical.

Actually , I think that our discussion does not really have the loud voice for the people in the modern society , because today we are already facing the time , when our morality will be considered as racist discrimination , and the ones who can get the prison sentence are not a sinners , but a Christians who are pointing at the sinner’s sin.
Therefore , I think that the time is coming when we have to learn , how to preach the Gospel in the spirit of love , without insulting our neighbor.

True.

 

[Athanasiy]

What about the example of American democracy , and American approach to the religion in the society ?
We see that among the religious marketplace there is a great respect for the religion.
This type of democracy pluralism and freedom of religious confessions – affirms the religious faith.

 

[gmags2003]

If the act in question doesn’t hurt anyone, then you should be free to do it without criminal punishment. That doesn’t mean that that action isn’t morally offensive or wrong.