Questioning Catholicism + Government... Explain?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ayden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ayden said:
Wait, the Roman Catholic Church hasn’t authorized the “official” / heretical Chinese catholic church though, right? It would support the underground church instead?
Click to expand...
The official church in China is not really heretical, what happened was China made religion illegal when the communists came to power. At this time, the whole Catholic Church in China when underground.

In the 1970s, China lifted the ban on religion and the Catholic Church was allowed to officially return, however, there were some stipulations that the Chinese government made.

After the legalization the majority of Catholics eventually started to practice out in the open with the official state recognized church, while the ones who strongly objected to the Chinese government‘s stipulations remained underground.

The stipulations are mainly revolve around the appointment of bishops having to be approved by the government (something similar the communist tried to do in in Poland and another Eastern European nations as well). Plus, I’m sure there are a few other issues.

While I’m not a fan of America Magazine, they made a pretty good video regarding the Church in China today, focusing more on the people and less on the issues with the govt. However, the main issue I have with the video is that it really does gloss over the issues with the govt.


God Bless
 
The absolute high point of Papal temporal and ecclesial power was during the reign of Pope Innocent III, the most powerful person of his time and the most powerful pope ever. If you want to get an idea of how far-reaching the ambitions of the Church and the Papacy were at that time, studying up on his papacy would be an excellent place to start. Makes for some very interesting reading.

Another powerful pope was Gregory VII. And of course, Boniface VIII as well as the infamous renaissance popes Alexander VI, Julius II and Leo X are also mandatory reading.

Read up on the background on the Coronations of Pepin the Short and Charlemagne, too. A lot of the political aspirations of the Church derive from the very influential period from the middle of the eighth century to the middle of the ninth century.

And for a interesting tale of how the Church and the World could have been much more different if early death had not intervened, read about Pope Sylvester II and Emperor Otto III. Early birth was a problem here, too, as they were born far before the world was ready for them.
 
Well, the Church never said that it should rule the world but it is not opposed to holding political power. As Itwin notes, the Church really only ever wielded political power in the Papal States in Italy. And still does today for that matter.

The Church never really wanted political power to center around the Church. It just wanted nations, specifically Catholic ones, to recognize that the Church holds a unique position in teaching folks how to live an upright life.
 
The Church has condemned a host of economic and political systems down the centuries. Divine Right of Kings with regards to Anglican England in the 16th century, Absolutism in France in the 17th century, the secular, revolutionary dictatorship of the First French Republic in the late 18th century, fascism in the 1930s.

Equally, she has tolerated and peacefully co-existed with a number of political regimes: from the Roman Empire to Germanic kingdoms, from Italian city-republics to medieval communes and modern democracies.

In terms of the economy, she pointedly opposes both communism and capitalism. Pope St. John Paul II wrote in 1987, in his encyclical letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis: “The tension between East and West (Cold War) is an opposition… between two concepts of the development of individuals and peoples, both concepts being imperfect and in need of radical correction… This is one of the reasons why the Church’s social doctrine adopts a critical attitude towards both liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism.”
"But it is unfortunate that on these new conditions of society a system [capitalism] has been constructed which considers profit as the key motive for economic progress, competition as the supreme law of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right that has no limits and carries no corresponding social obligation…Individual initiative alone and the mere free play of competition could never assure successful development. One must avoid the risk of increasing still more the wealth of the rich and the dominion of the strong, whilst leaving the poor in their misery and adding to the servitude of the oppressed…"

- Pope Paul VI, Populorum Progressio (Paragraph 26), 1967
Click to expand...
“…In Quadragesimo Anno Pope Pius XI referred to the liberal theory of uncontrolled competition as a ‘poisoned spring’ from which have originated all the errors of individualism. The French hierarchy, commenting upon the same pope’s letter on communism, stated: 'By condemning the actions of communist parties, the Church does not support the capitalist regime. It is most necessary that it be realized that in the very essence of capitalism that is to say, in the absolute value that it gives to property without reference to the common good or to the dignity of labor there is a materialism rejected by Christian teaching…”

- U.S. Bishops, Pastoral Letter (1980) 62.
Click to expand...
“…Catholic social doctrine is not a surrogate for capitalism. In fact…the church, since Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, has always distanced itself from capitalistic ideology, holding it responsible for grave social injustices (cf. Rerum Novarum, 2). In Quadragesimo Anno Pius XI, for his part, used clear and strong words to stigmatize the international imperialism of money (Quadragesimo Anno, 109). This line is also confirmed in the more recent magisterium, and I myself, after the historical failure of communism, did not hesitate to raise serious doubts on the validity of capitalism (Centesimus Annus, 42)…”

- Pope St. John Paul II (What Social Teaching Is and Is Not, in Origins, Vol. 23, No. 15), September 1993
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ayden said:
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?
Click to expand...
No. There was abuse by the clergy in the past but that should not be. No teaching about the Church being the government of the country. It is still, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God.”
 
I think there is a difference between being critical of political systems and condemning them. The Church has condemned specific political regimes. For instance, as you said, the French Republic. But did not the political system. At least from my understanding.
 
I can’t get behind mixing church and state. Any citizen, regardless of their religion, should have the freedom to participate in government. And I think historically when an organized religion has political power, it has ended in disaster (for all parties). But I’m glad to hear that the Catholic Church is now fairly neutral on government (except communism). Thanks for the info, everyone.
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
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
Click to expand...
Except, ‘natural law’ as held by the Church is exactly that - a belief of the Church. Very few outside the Church see it as anything else. So while Catholics make the distinction, a person denied the right to marry on the basis of the Catholic belief in ‘natural law’ will rightly conclude that Catholic beliefs are being imposed on them. As indeed they are.
 
The idea that the Church was some kind of a totalitarian force during the middle ages is misleading and a distortion of history. The Church’s grasp on power was never that tight and it always had to compete with secular rulers to ensure its power. Besides, Church doctrine isn’t that harsh and cruel compared to let’s say ‘‘Sharia’’. Which according to some interpretations, dictates death for apostates or homosexuals.
 
Last edited:
The Holy Roman Empire was a good idea but it was neither holy nor Roman and fell apart almost immediately.
There’s a lot of good history here, much of it complicated, but well worth researching, especially to understand the Catholic foundation of Europe and its state as it moves post-Christian.
 
You have to look at the historical aspect surrounding the church at the time. After the fall of Rome the church was the only functioning institution left. It had to maintain societal order.
 
That couldn’t be further from the truth. The Church and State need to be totally separate.
 
What makes you say that? Don’t say that to Garcia Moreno, one of the past (probably best) presidents of Ecuador.
 
Ayden said:
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?
Click to expand...
I agree with you about the disasters that result from conflating religious and secular power, no matter what kind.

I think the inevitable Reformation actually was planted in seed 360 AD when the title of Pontifex Maximus (supreme high priest) was transferred from the Roman Emperor to the Bishop of Rome. This transfer of title was accompanied by civil authority, as the Empire split and was reseated in Byzantium. Eventually, after subsequent invasions and sackings of the city of Rome, the Bishop was the only unifying person remaining who could take responsibility for civil affairs, including sewage, water, food, and cleaning up the mess.

While his appointment to manage civil affairs as well as religious was initially a saving grace to Rome and the surrounding regions, through the middle ages the religious and civil power grew until there was a complete conflation between the CC and secular rule.

I also think there was a misguided notion that the “Kingdom of God” could be realized on earth if all countries had Christian rulers that would enforce the Law of Christ. While this is a nice sounding ideal, Jesus Himself said that His KIngdom is not of this world, and He never indicated anything toward secular government. In fact, when the disciples asked if he would, after His resurrection, restore the Kingdom to Israel, He redirected them.
 
Last edited:
Ayden said:
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?
Click to expand...
You mention you’re atheist. In your researching, while this question won’t make much sense to an atheist, it’s really at the heart of the question you ask.

Which one will bring you salvation? Church or State?
 
Last edited:
Do you honestly need that explained? Freedom of religion is absolutely vital to progress. Government is for all people’s. The moment you get into a theocracy you have religious laws that infringe on others beliefs. Legislating religion can have terrible consequences. It’s easy to be for it when it’s your religion. Would you be so pro theocracy if it meant you were to live under strict Islamic rule?
 
Ayden said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well you’re in luck, the Church hasn’t had that kind of power now for quite a long time, so it’s now a non-issue.
 
Ayden said:
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?
Click to expand...
The government of the Church is over the faithful, not the world at large.

There have been emperors, bishops, and Popes who may have wanted to rule the world, but this is contrary to what Jesus taught about servant leadership.

The abuses committed by Catholics during the medieval times that eventually resulted in the Reformation, fragmenting the body of Christ were what required canon law 285.3 in which clerics are forbidden to hold political office.
 
That’s an extremely modernist thing to say. Society must be governed by Christian principles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top