Questioning Catholicism + Government... Explain?

[steve-b]

semper_catholicus:

That’s an extremely modernist thing to say. Society must be governed by Christian principles

And would this ideal government of yours make other religions illegal? Force conversion?

The Catholic Church position on conversion?

No Forced conversion

 

[semper_catholicus]

Yes, I know that the Church doesn’t teach that forced conversion is okay.

 

[steve-b]

Yes, I know that the Church doesn’t teach that forced conversion is okay.

I know.

That’s why my response was to wkj_123:

 

[semper_catholicus]

Okay, I apologize.

 

[MichaelP3]

“Natural law” is a very interesting concept and indeed held by the CC as being “what they say it is”

I have a very “uhhhmmmmmm” face everytime I read “Natural law” on here.

Anyway

Regards

 

[commenter]

Yes, I know that the Church doesn’t teach that forced conversion is okay.

Well, yes and no.
Vatican II document on religious liberty is relevant for part of this Conversion issue. We respect the right of the individual to worship in the way he chooses.

But the Church also assumes the Natural Law, which provides broad parameters that influence some actions, as well as divine law.

World War II was often described as a “Crusade”. Countries like the US, which was then largely driven by Christian values and still somewhat respectful of the Natural Law, refused to negotiate a stalemate with Germany, which was under control of an ideology hostile to Christian values, and hostile to the Natural Law.

We sent our soldiers to invade a continent that had not invaded us. We broke the laws of Germany and its allies. We removed the legally constituted government of our (religious) opponents. We did not require the replacements be Christians, but did require that they not be Nazis. But no Nazi was required to attend church, nor were the new leaders.

So, yes, the Church did support this “forced conversion”. But no, the Church did not support the forced conversions of individuals, or interference with religion perpetrated by the Nazis.

Actually, the Natural Law had been somewhat undermined even in the US and Canada prior to the War. The atrocities committed by Nazis, who so blatantly opposed the Natural Law, led to a temporary period of respect for it in the West, now ended. They put the leaders on trial for crimes against the Natural Law, but they called it a compromise name, “Crimes against Humanity”.

Since then, Margaret Sanger’s support for some aspects of Nazism, and their support for some aspects of her program, have been mostly erased from the public memory.

 

[MichaelP3]

Yup. What I have been saying all the time in numerous ways!

 

[semper_catholicus]

Those are interesting insights.

If I recall correctly, the US entered WWII when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. When that happened, the US declared war on Japan, and then Germany declared war on the US.

 

[deMontfort]

Actually, Australia was “in” WWII in 1939 as part of the British Commonwealth. When Japan attacked Britain’s far east possessions in 1941-42, Australia was also at war with Japan by default regardless of what the United States did or didn’t do.

 

[steve-b]

semper_catholicus:

Yes, I know that the Church doesn’t teach that forced conversion is okay.

Well, yes and no.
Vatican II document on religious liberty is relevant for part of this Conversion issue. We respect the right of the individual to worship in the way he chooses.

But the Church also assumes the Natural Law, which provides broad parameters that influence some actions, as well as divine law.

Still the Church doesn’t support forced conversion

commenter:

World War II was often described as a “Crusade”. Countries like the US, which was then largely driven by Christian values and still somewhat respectful of the Natural Law, refused to negotiate a stalemate with Germany, which was under control of an ideology hostile to Christian values, and hostile to the Natural Law.

Germany and Russia colluded to divide Poland. And Germany had big plans to control Europe. THAT’S what caused the war in Europe

commenter:

We sent our soldiers to invade a continent that had not invaded us. We broke the laws of Germany and its allies. We removed the legally constituted government of our (religious) opponents. We did not require the replacements be Christians, but did require that they not be Nazis. But no Nazi was required to attend church, nor were the new leaders.

Nazis were a party not a faith or religion.

commenter:

So, yes, the Church did support this “forced conversion”. But no, the Church did not support the forced conversions of individuals, or interference with religion perpetrated by the Nazis.

yet “Conversion” is usually thought to be referring to religion

commenter:

Actually, the Natural Law had been somewhat undermined even in the US and Canada prior to the War. The atrocities committed by Nazis, who so blatantly opposed the Natural Law, led to a temporary period of respect for it in the West, now ended. They put the leaders on trial for crimes against the Natural Law, but they called it a compromise name, “Crimes against Humanity”.

Since then, Margaret Sanger’s support for some aspects of Nazism, and their support for some aspects of her program, have been mostly erased from the public memory.

Margaret Sanger was a racist. As were Nazis.

Re: Natural law, it is mentioned 34 times by JPII in this encyclical veritatis splendor

 

[commenter]

WW II was very different from WWI. The US may have been pulled into the war, because of attack. But as time passes the world became more aware of the level of evil in Nazism. The US made it into a moral crusade. There would be no negotiation. The US might have saved huge numbers of American lives by offering a stalemate armistice that Hitler or his generals might have taken, as they realized they could not beat the US.
The only US demand was unconditional surrender. The US essentially imposed Christian values on Germany, using military force. In 1944 most Americans agreed with imposing Christian values. Nowadays, if this choice were in front of us, a lot of people would be saying “We have no right to impose values on Germany.” Let’s make peace. Forget Normandy.

 

[steve-b]

WW II was very different from WWI. The US may have been pulled into the war, because of attack. But as time passes the world became more aware of the level of evil in Nazism. The US made it into a moral crusade. There would be no negotiation. The US might have saved huge numbers of American lives by offering a stalemate armistice that Hitler or his generals might have taken, as they realized they could not beat the US.
The only US demand was unconditional surrender. The US essentially imposed Christian values on Germany, using military force. In 1944 most Americans agreed with imposing Christian values. Nowadays, if this choice were in front of us, a lot of people would be saying “We have no right to impose values on Germany.” Let’s make peace. Forget Normandy.

Do you have a source for this, properly referenced?