Reading- the church vis-a-vis the state?

[kesa82]

Hmmm, I am not sure exactly where this question should go

I can’t seem to find any books or pamphlets specifically on the topic of what exactly is a good catholics obligation to the state, what view a proper catholic is supposed to take of the state, and what is his or her proper relation to the state?

I don’t know if this will clarify what I am driving at exactly but ;

I am a history buff. Actually it is more of a compulsion, so in 40 years I have read a lot of political history and political science. I feel very strongly that the American revolution was a mistake. Democracy, like fascism, like socialism, is an error. There is too much law, humans have taken much too many important matters into their own hands best left to God. In sum, I believe in absolute monarchy, and in the naturally circumscribed , limited government that invariably entails.
Now, I don’t go around blowing up post offices or that sort of thing.
But I’m not exactly a fan of the present regime either.
The most positive feeling I can generate for it is indifference, at worst, it is restrained hostility.

Any ideas on what to read ? This concerns me/ bothers me a great deal.

sorry my question could not be more specifically directed.

 

[markomalley]

Pope John Paul II had similar concerns. For example,

1. At the basis of all these tendencies lies the ethical relativism which characterizes much of present-day culture. There are those who consider such relativism an essential condition of democracy, inasmuch as it alone is held to guarantee tolerance, mutual respect between people and acceptance of the decisions of the majority, whereas moral norms considered to be objective and binding are held to lead to authoritarianism and intolerance.

But it is precisely the issue of respect for life which shows what misunderstandings and contradictions, accompanied by terrible practical consequences, are concealed in this position.

It is true that history has known cases where crimes have been committed in the name of “truth”. But equally grave crimes and radical denials of freedom have also been committed and are still being committed in the name of “ethical relativism”. When a parliamentary or social majority decrees that it is legal, at least under certain conditions, to kill unborn human life, is it not really making a “tyrannical” decision with regard to the weakest and most defenceless of human beings? Everyone’s conscience rightly rejects those crimes against humanity of which our century has had such sad experience. But would these crimes cease to be crimes if, instead of being committed by unscrupulous tyrants, they were legitimated by popular consensus?

Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a “system” and as such is a means and not an end. Its “moral” value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behaviour, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs. If today we see an almost universal consensus with regard to the value of democracy, this is to be considered a positive “sign of the times”, as the Church’s Magisterium has frequently noted. 88 But the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes. Of course, values such as the dignity of every human person, respect for inviolable and inalienable human rights, and the adoption of the “common good” as the end and criterion regulating political life are certainly fundamental and not to be ignored.

The basis of these values cannot be provisional and changeable “majority” opinions, but only the acknowledgment of an objective moral law which, as the “natural law” written in the human heart, is the obligatory point of reference for civil law itself. If, as a result of a tragic obscuring of the collective conscience, an attitude of scepticism were to succeed in bringing into question even the fundamental principles of the moral law, the democratic system itself would be shaken in its foundations, and would be reduced to a mere mechanism for regulating different and opposing interests on a purely empirical basis. 89

Some might think that even this function, in the absence of anything better, should be valued for the sake of peace in society. While one acknowledges some element of truth in this point of view, it is easy to see that without an objective moral grounding not even democracy is capable of ensuring a stable peace, especially since peace which is not built upon the values of the dignity of every individual and of solidarity between all people frequently proves to be illusory. Even in participatory systems of government, the regulation of interests often occurs to the advantage of the most powerful, since they are the ones most capable of manoeuvering not only the levers of power but also of shaping the formation of consensus. In such a situation, democracy easily becomes an empty word.

- Evangelium Vitae, 70
​

Bottom line is, from what I’ve studied, the particular form of the government is not so important. Whether the form of government is direct democracy, a representative government, a constitutional monarchy, an absolute monarchy, or an out-and-out dictatorship, if the governing class falls prey to relativism, it will be corrupt. And vice versa. Now I think that the position is that a government where the governed have a voice is a default preference, but that form of government is considered secondary to the respect for human life and a respect for absolute values.

+JPII wrote a lot on the subject. In addition to the above document, you should look into Veritatis Splendor, Centesimus Annus, Sollicitudo rei socialis, and others. +Paul VI’s Populorum Progressio and +Bl John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris are important reads, as well.

 

[kesa82]

Thank you very , very much .

 

[Wirraway]

… I believe in absolute monarchy, and in the naturally circumscribed , limited government that invariably entails. …

how does absolute monarchy invariably result in limited government?

can you give a few examples?

the british government at the time of the american revolution was not an absolute monarchy, hadn’t been since the magna carta.

 

[puzzleannie]

an example of an absolute monarchy would be the tsarist govt of Russia until early in the last century, or the kings of France up to the 18th.

 

[Wirraway]

an example of an absolute monarchy would be the tsarist govt of Russia until early in the last century, or the kings of France up to the 18th.

I was unclear. I meant an example of an absolute monarchy invariably resulting in limited government, as kesa82 believes.

obviously, there won’t be any forthcoming.

 

[puzzleannie]

since OP has not defined limited government, we will have to wait until he does to respond.

limited govt for instance applied to the French monarchy of the 18th c or tsardom of the 19th was minimal govt action to address economic conditions and failure to react to extreme rapid social changes that led to the suffering of the masses.

 

[Wirraway]

since OP has not defined limited government, we will have to wait until he does to respond.

limited govt for instance applied to the French monarchy of the 18th c or tsardom of the 19th was minimal govt action to address economic conditions and failure to react to extreme rapid social changes that led to the suffering of the masses.

I disagree, strongly. limitation on power – and the OP can only mean institutional limits in context – is not the same thing as failure to act.

“l’etat, c’est moi” whether or not Louis XIV said it, is a thumbnail definition of absolute monarchy and unlimited power. this certainly applies to french monarchs and czars, who had no formal limits on their powers except how they chose to exercise them. their failure to react to social change was not a result of limitations on their power, but on their own intransgience and stupidity.

 

[kesa82]

how does absolute monarchy invariably result in limited government?

can you give a few examples?

the british government at the time of the american revolution was not an absolute monarchy, hadn’t been since the magna carta.

Good question. My statement was quite general and vague. Unfortunately I’m not quite up to the explaination you deserve. That would require hundreds of pages. My sincerest apologies.
I will, however, make some slight effort.

Absolute monarchies were always ( well, not Prussia and Russia, they went for it early. ) quite leery of conscription. I don’t actually think it was because they feared masses of armed peasants per-se. Apparently gun control, if it existed, would, under the circumstances, have been very hard to enforce consistently. They didn’t have video cameras, or police cars, or even social security cards. What they really feared was a key institution - the army - populated by peasants. Once they were obliged to go to conscription under pressure, they still used every trick they could think of to keep the officer corps in the hands of the landed aristocracy.

• Avoiding conscription like the plague.
• preferring amatuer leadership over proffessional leadership.

Surely such policies/ tendencies would place one at a decided disadvantage against other societies not so pedantically scrupulous???

So why do it ?

Perhaps because they were NOT free to do as they pleased?

Another example - Catholic monarchs, with catholic populations , surrounded by retinues of priests , like any common layman today, had to at least to some degree tow the catholic line - which then, as now, came from Rome. It seems to me that this put them at a decided disadvantage against monarchs with protestant establishments under their own thumbs. ( while Frederick William was Lutheran, he consistently bowed to the Catholic Holy Roman emperor. His son though, Frederick the-so-called-great, did not. - and of course he was a soundrel who almost wrecked Prussia. Only a miracle saved Prussia ; the timely succession of Tsar Peter III , his No. 1 fan. )
Granted, the army of Charles V sacked Rome, committed fiendish atrocities, and took the Pope captive. But, later, he was also obliged to seek the pardon of the Pope.
It really is hard for me to imagine any republic ever apologizing to another power. The Spanish-American war was clearly unprovoked. Even at the time, anyone who knew anything about coal-fired steamships stuffed with gunpowder knew that the claim that the USS Maine was bombed was as credible a story as, “UFO’s built the Egyptian pyramids”. Did the U.S. ever apologize to Spain?

I’ll have to stop there. My eyes are crossing with fatigue. Hope any of this helps.

One more thing. I wasn’t exactly fond of the British parliement. I think that it, primarily in the person and policies of Mr. Pitt, got us into the American mess, not George III. French Canada served as a counterpoint and break to runnaway colonial tendencies. George III wanted out of the French and Indian war. It was Pitt and parliement that insisted on total victory. Monarchies invariably shied away from total war against other monarchies, or even in general against any regime. As I think history has demonstrated, Total war tended to be fatal to monarchies.