Questioning Catholicism + Government... Explain?

[Ayden]

Hello friends!
I’m an agnostic atheist researching Catholicism. One thing about Catholicism that concerns me is this perception that the Church has a long tradition of “wielding the sword.” The way I was taught, the Catholic Church managed secular affairs for a long time (the middle ages) and generally tried to legislate morality. I have a difficult time matching this with Paul’s command in Romans 13 to submit to the governing authorities. Also, I believe in separation of Church and State, so this meta-story is a major hangup for me. What is the Church’s teaching about the relationship between Church and State? And how is it good/true/beautiful?

 

[Ayden]

To be clear, I realize that Catholics aren’t the only ones guilty of misusing power. I know Protestant denominations have used government power to persecute Catholics as well as each other. I just think the problem arose from giving political power to a religious group. What is the Catholic take on this?

 

[Entwhistler]

The Church has no official stance on any governmental system except Communism (which it condemns).

The Church did wield large amounts of power in the past which isn’t wrong in and of itself. Of course, mistakes have been made by individual people but Church teaching has been relatively permissive on which government one should have.

 

[Ayden]

So the Catholic Church doesn’t teach it should govern? I don’t mean to sound offensive, and I apologize if I do, but I thought the Church kind of wanted to rule the world! Like they would rather political power was centered in the Church. I’m guessing no one would say that today, but wasn’t that the teaching of medieval catholics?

 

[MichaelP3]

and generally tried to legislate morality.

Oh wow!

That is maybe the best description I have ever seen.

Regards

 

[phil19034]

First: the “seperation of Church and State” doesn’t mean that the Church should stay out of the state, it means the State should stay out of the Church.

In the past, the Church didn’t have rules that prevented priests and bishops from holding secular office.

The reason the Church “controlled” Christendom was because rulers were devout. So they naturally deferred to the Pope.

But overtime, the Kings & noblity of Europe became less devout and more secular, and had no problem disobeying the Pope. Some even went to war against the Pope from time to time. But the dissenting kings & nobles also knew there was only so far they could go without outcry from loyal members of the nobility and regular citizens.

The weakened Christendom eventually led to the Protestant revolt, and then to the eventual death of Christendom.

God Bless

 

[phil19034]

So the Catholic Church doesn’t teach it should govern? I don’t mean to sound offensive, and I apologize if I do, but I thought the Church kind of wanted to rule the world! Like they would rather political power was centered in the Church. I’m guessing no one would say that today, but wasn’t that the teaching of medieval catholics?

No the Church does not want to rule the world. We just want everyone to be Catholic.

There is a difference.

 

[Ayden]

Phil, I’m concerned with the difference between acting and being Catholic. It’s great that the Church wants the world to become Catholic, but it can’t expect non-Christians to have the kind of radical lifestyle Christ demands.

 

[MichaelP3]

The weakened Christendom eventually led to the Protestant revolt, and then to the eventual death of Christendom.

Very strong words for a poster who should be quoting " The gates of hell …".

History is a very interesting thing and you seem to look at it from a very one sided view.

The REFORMATION happened because of numerous reasons. And if it is not seen from all sides regarding the "pride occurrence " (again from all sides) then I have no idea why Catholics are confused about the “Protestant revolt”.

Regards

 

[ltwin]

The way I was taught, the Catholic Church managed secular affairs for a long time (the middle ages) and generally tried to legislate morality.

The church wielded much influence over secular affairs (but the rulers also wielded a lot of influence over the church); however, they were not universally managing secular affairs. There were kings and secular governments that ruled with the sanction of the church–the coronation for example is the church anointing rulers to confer divine legitimacy.

There were specific places in which bishops were also secular rulers. The Papal States in Italy is the best example. In these territories, the Pope was the secular sovereign. There were other bishops who also functioned as territorial rulers in places like Germany. These were called prince-bishops and included the archbishops of Cologne and Mainz and the bishop of Worms. In England, the Bishop of Durham was an Earl Palatine.

However, in general, the church and state worked together in an uneasy and often shifting alliance. Sometimes the state would have the upper hand, sometimes the church would. There were both secular courts enforcing civil law and ecclesiastical courts enforcing canon law.

Of course, individual churchmen might wish that civil leaders would defer to them. I do recall something about popes at time claiming that rulers should defer to them, but popes were limited by the fact that the Papal States were not particularly very powerful territories. The church had no armies, whereas the king of France and the Holy Roman Emperors did have armies and often Rome was captured by kings and the popes were forced to work with them in order to survive.

And of course, lets not forget the Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy when the popes moved to Avignon, France and were essentially hostages of the king.

 

[Ayden]

So how is the Church going to avoid such an icky situation again in the future?

 

[ltwin]

So how is the Church going to avoid such an icky situation in the future?

Well, look at how the church is handling things in China, where the communist state is demanding power of Christian churches there.

 

[phil19034]

Phil, I’m concerned with the difference between acting and being Catholic. It’s great that the Church wants the world to become Catholic, but it can’t expect non-Christians to have the kind of radical lifestyle Christ demands.

The Church doesn’t expect non-Catholics to act Catholic, never has.

Many secular leaders did though.

When I say we want to world to be Catholic, I mean being true Catholics, not pretending to be Catholic.

The Catholic Church does not impose Church doctrine on non-Catholics (aka people who have not received 1-3 of the Sacraments of Initiation into the Catholic Church).

However, we do believe that some morals are not theological, but are philosophical- coming from the natural law, not Church law.

We Catholics distinguish between the two. Church law applies only to initiated Catholics, while the natural law applies to every person on the planet.

For example: no birth control (while derived from the Natural Law) is considered by many to be a Church Law.

While no to abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, and same sex marriage* would be against the natural law.

*I placed a star next to this because I think the Church would be fine with laws that gave roommates next of kin rights. I.E. giving the same legal rights spouses have to people who wish to share those rights as roommates. This would not just include homosexual couples, but adult siblings living together, widowed friends living together, etc

I pray this helps.

 

[Ayden]

What is she doing in China?

 

[deMontfort]

You do realize that every law that’s ever been passed in the history of mankind (including by secular governments) has been an exercise in the legislation of morality, right?

 

[ltwin]

What is she doing in China?

As I understand it, there is an “official” Catholic Church hierarchy that operates with the official approval of the Chinese government but has had to compromise on Catholic beliefs to win this approval. Meanwhile, there is an underground Catholic Church in China of Catholics who have refused to compromise their beliefs in return for state approval.

 

[Ayden]

Haha! That’s kind of true! But it seems like in Paul’s opinion (Romans 13 here), the job of government is basically to keep the peace. Not to make people act more Christian.

 

[Ayden]

Wait, the Roman Catholic Church hasn’t authorized the “official” / heretical Chinese catholic church though, right? It would support the underground church instead?

 

[ltwin]

Wait, the Roman Catholic Church hasn’t authorized the “official” / heretical Chinese catholic church though, right?

I believe its complicated. Some bishops appointed by the Vatican have not been approved by the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association and therefore are persecuted by the government. Then, some bishops of the Patriotic Catholic Association have not been approved by the Vatican so their status is considered illegitimate by the Vatican.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

The weakened Christendom eventually led to the Protestant revolt, and then to the eventual death of Christendom.

Very strong words for a poster who should be quoting " The gates of hell …".

History is a very interesting thing and you seem to look at it from a very one sided view.

The REFORMATION happened because of numerous reasons. And if it is not seen from all sides regarding the "pride occurrence " (again from all sides) then I have no idea why Catholics are confused about the “Protestant revolt”.

Regards

Not confused by it, there were plenty of abuses in the clergy that contributed to the situation. Not to mention a reign of some terrible Popes just before everything took place. There was plenty of blame on the Catholic side.

The Church needed reformation, but it didn’t need people to leave in heresy.

The weekend Christendom allowed many Heresys to grow and SOME (not all) nobles used the revolt as a way to seize Church land - not the church buildings, but monasteries that distilled wine, had breweries, and lands sold to the Church during the Crusades. The banning of monasteries in protestant lands was not just a theological issue, it was also a land grab by secularist nobles who uses the reformation as an excuse to take the lands.

I will post a few talks in a later post in this thread which provides more clarity regarding what I’m referring to.

God Bless