Should Catholics Support Democracy Anymore?

[Semper_Zelare]

I want to preface this post, with my frustration at having zero dialogue on questions I posed on 2 threads in the World News section on this forum, about this.

So, here’s a brief version of my argument (which I’ve gotten no feedback on at all yet).

1. Malta just had a referendum to make divorce legal (though only for couples who have been legally separated for at least 4 years)… and it’s likely to pass into law, as the Prime Minister who opposed making divorce legal said he will follow the will of the people (54% of people voted for it).
2. The Catholic Church in Malta was firmly against divorce being made legal, even in the circumstances of the bill, and strongly urged people to vote against it. Furthermore, statements from Bishops and Cardinals saying that voting to legalize divorce would destroy the family and family values shows what the Church’s position is.
3. Malta was one of 2 remaining countries that still has no divorce in their country (other than the Vatican), the other being the Philippines.
4. Even liberal Catholics on the 2 news threads about this admitted that even though they wanted divorce to be legal, that if other people wanted what the Church wanted, then they’re obligated to lobby for laws which reflect their moral beliefs (and by proxy, the Churches moral beliefs).

CONCLUSION:
Out of all the countries where a majority of the population are Catholic, only 1 singular one still has divorce illegal (as the Church wants). So, it would seem that all these other countries are full of unfaithful Catholics that hold personal views contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Church. [They want divorce, whereas Jesus and His Church hate divorce]

So, it would seem that if Catholics who wanted the laws of their country to reflect their morality, and the teachings of Jesus and the Church, then the only way that would happen is not under a democracy. Democracy is the will of the people, and the will of the majority of the people is contrary to God’s will in every country (except the Vatican, and the Philippines).

MY ARGUMENT IN A NUTSHELL: If divorce is legal in every country on Earth except two, and divorce is evil/sin in the eyes of the Church, then faithful Catholics everywhere are always the minority amongst the majority of the population who vote in governments which pass laws against Christ’s teachings. These Catholics cannot have just laws in a democracy which are morally righteous.

P.S.
I was most struck by divorce only being legal in 3 (soon to be 2 countries on Earth, and 1 being the Vatican). At least a dozen countries still have abortion and contraceptives completely banned and illegal. Everyone loves to fight the good fight when it comes to evils like abortion and contraception, **but the fight against divorce has already been lost.
** Hence, it seems good people have failed to act in the face of bad people everywhere, and the only way they’ll ever defeat divorce is through political avenues other than democracy.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

MY ARGUMENT IN A NUTSHELL: If divorce is legal in every country on Earth except two, and divorce is evil/sin in the eyes of the Church, then faithful Catholics everywhere are always the minority amongst the majority of the population who vote in governments which pass laws against Christ’s teachings. These Catholics cannot have just laws in a democracy which are morally righteous.

P.S.
I was most struck by divorce only being legal in 3 (soon to be 2 countries on Earth, and 1 being the Vatican). At least a dozen countries still have abortion and contraceptives completely banned and illegal. Everyone loves to fight the good fight when it comes to evils like abortion and contraception, **but the fight against divorce has already been lost.
** Hence, it seems good people have failed to act in the face of bad people everywhere, and the only way they’ll ever defeat divorce is through political avenues other than democracy.

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but even if a government makes divorce “legal”, married Catholics are prohibited from being divorced. In other words, the Church’s teaching still stands. If that’s the case, I don’t understand what the furore is about. Is there something I’m missing?

 

[Luvya]

Any kind of govermental form which declares freedom of religion and freedom from religion is incompatible with Catholicism, since that permissive behavior is in dire contradiction with the first commandment. How could Catholics support something which flies in the face of the commandments of God?

Hence, it seems good people have failed to act in the face of bad people everywhere, and the only way they’ll ever defeat divorce is through political avenues other than democracy.

A good solution would be a Catholic theocracy. All the abominations of secular goverments could be abolished by the stroke of a pen. Funny thing is, that none of the Catholics I talked to supported this idea. (But of course I did not talk to all the Catholics. There might be a sizable percentage of Catholics which would support theocracy.)

 

[WoundedIcon]

I personally think democracy is inherently flawed and would much prefer a constitutional monarchy. I think Aristotle said that democracy is the worst form of government, and hasn’t every democracy in history imploded upon itself? The Fathers said that monarchy can be the best and worst form of government…

 

[WoundedIcon]

Any kind of govermental form which declares freedom of religion and freedom from religion is incompatible with Catholicism, since that permissive behavior is in dire contradiction with the first commandment. How could Catholics support something which flies in the face of the commandments of God?

A good solution would be a Catholic theocracy. All the abominations of secular goverments could be abolished by the stroke of a pen. Funny thing is, that none of the Catholics I talked to supported this idea. (But of course I did not talk to all the Catholics. There might be a sizable percentage of Catholics which would support theocracy.)

Those Catholics don’t realize that since we’re the children of the Creator we kind of own this planet hahaha am I radical.

 

[Prophesy]

I personally think democracy is inherently flawed and would much prefer a constitutional monarchy. I think Aristotle said that democracy is the worst form of government, and hasn’t every democracy in history imploded upon itself? The Fathers said that monarchy can be the best and worst form of government…

There’s really not much difference. In Canada our HoG is the Queen, but she’s irrelevant. Same goes with the Governor-General. We’re essentially democracy (but now that the Tories have the government again the politically dunce of Canada will refer to it as a fascism, good Lord I wish these people knew what a fascist leader was actually like).

 

[Luvya]

I personally think democracy is inherently flawed and would much prefer a constitutional monarchy. I think Aristotle said that democracy is the worst form of government, and hasn’t every democracy in history imploded upon itself? The Fathers said that monarchy can be the best and worst form of government…

Well, there is a lot of truth in what you say. Here is the definition of democracy: “When two wolves and one sheep vote: what shall we have for dinner tonight?” - that is the true democracy.

The trouble with the monarchy part is that you cannot be sure that the next monarch will be also good. The concept of republic comes from the ancient Rome, indicating that everyone is a citizen, with equal rights. That is the best, until we shall evolve and become advanced enough to dispense with goverment altogether, and become anarchy. But that ideal will not be reached for a very long time… if ever.

 

[Prophesy]

That is the best, until we shall evolve and become advanced enough to dispense with goverment altogether, and become anarchy. But that ideal will not be reached for a very long time… if ever.

As long as there is civilization, there will be someone to tax it. I don’t think we will see anarchy replace government as a system.

-Prophesy

 

[boonert]

A good solution would be a Catholic theocracy. All the abominations of secular goverments could be abolished by the stroke of a pen. Funny thing is, that none of the Catholics I talked to supported this idea. (But of course I did not talk to all the Catholics. There might be a sizable percentage of Catholics which would support theocracy.)

Theocracy is never a good idea. Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Oman and Iran are examples of a theocracy. They are islamic states and use Shari’a laws and courts.

Iran for example has religious courts and has religious police to maintain compliance to the letter of islamic law. Most of us in the west find this oppressive. How would a Catholic theocracy be any different?

 

[inocente]

Hence, it seems good people have failed to act in the face of bad people everywhere, and the only way they’ll ever defeat divorce is through political avenues other than democracy.

There’s not much you can do about it in the EU. All member states signed a treaty guaranteeing free movement, people can just up sticks to another country. And if democracy was seriously threatened in any member state, other members would likely use military intervention to protect it, NATO would also have something to say, the UN could impose sanctions, etc. Globalization, love it or hate it.

 

[Luvya]

As long as there is civilization, there will be someone to tax it. I don’t think we will see anarchy replace government as a system.

Taxation is only necessary when there is a shortage of goods. Some goods (artwork, for example) will never get abundant, but the abundance of goods sustaining a good standard of living is possible, and that would make taxation obsolete.

 

[Luvya]

Theocracy is never a good idea. Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Oman and Iran are examples of a theocracy. They are islamic states and use Shari’a laws and courts.

Iran for example has religious courts and has religious police to maintain compliance to the letter of islamic law. Most of us in the west find this oppressive. How would a Catholic theocracy be any different?

In my eyes it would not. I abhor any system where any special group of people (be they minority or majority) is in the position of oppressing the rest. But there are some people who disagree. I have seen such people on these boards (and none of them were atheists ). Not many, fortunately, but still…

 

[Joe_5859]

I personally think democracy is inherently flawed and would much prefer a constitutional monarchy. I think Aristotle said that democracy is the worst form of government, and hasn’t every democracy in history imploded upon itself? The Fathers said that monarchy can be the best and worst form of government…

Perhaps you are thinking of the quote from Winston Churchill. But you forgot the second half:

“Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.”

As we are frail human beings who suffer from that tendency to sin, we are simply not going to find a perfect governmental system this side of heaven.

 

[Catholic90]

A good solution would be a Catholic theocracy. All the abominations of secular goverments could be abolished by the stroke of a pen. Funny thing is, that none of the Catholics I talked to supported this idea. (But of course I did not talk to all the Catholics. There might be a sizable percentage of Catholics which would support theocracy.)

Nope. God gave us free will. Why would men and women remove free will? Someone would try to make head coverings a law, others would try to dictate what constitutes modest clothes, and yet others would try to insist only Latin be spoken.

 

[Usagi]

I believe that the “humans screw things up” factor would create even more problems in a monarchy or a theocracy than in a democracy or republic. In the former cases, all you need is for the one guy or group with power to be wicked or weak, rather than a majority of the population. There’s a good reason why the trend has been to put more power in the hands of the people.

You can limit the potential for evil in a democracy/republic (or, indeed, in a monarchy or theocracy) by having a constitution or similar set of meta-rules that governs what the people with power (king, church, or majority) can and cannot do. Changing those meta-rules should be intentionally difficult. In the U.S., for example, there is a strain of thought (on both sides of the political spectrum) that seems to think there should be voting and majority rule on just about every issue. In fact, when our Constitution is properly followed/enforced, there are a great many matters on which the majority (and those they’ve elected) aren’t allowed to rule. The Bill of Rights, for example, is largely phrased as a list of things the government is not permitted to enforce or forbid, even if a majority of the citizens would like to enforce those things on, or forbid those things to, a minority group.

Ultimately, I am okay with the Church having to propose some of her rules for free adoption in the marketplace of ideas rather than being able to enforce them, because various groups I disagree with are also stuck with that reality. I do hope someday to live in a Catholic theocracy ruled by an absolute monarch, but it’ll be Heaven, the only one whose Ruler I can trust to always abide by His own principles and not abuse His power.

Usagi

 

[josephback]

Theocracy is never a good idea. Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Oman and Iran are examples of a theocracy. They are islamic states and use Shari’a laws and courts.

Iran for example has religious courts and has religious police to maintain compliance to the letter of islamic law. Most of us in the west find this oppressive. How would a Catholic theocracy be any different?

Islamic theocracy would be different than a Christian theocracy(which the Church basically is). Islam has a very repressive and vengeful god, while the God of Christianity is merciful in comparison. He only asks that we follow His rules.

Also don’t forget, Moses ran a theocracy. Samuel and the Judges ruled an indirect theocracy. We find such things oppressive only because we want our own way. Whenever the people sought their own will in the Old Testament it was generally against God. That included choosing Saul as king too. So its not just “democracy” that’s bad.

No Catholics should not support democracy. It’s insane.

 

[josephback]

The late Pope had something to say on this matter. See below:

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Any kind of govermental form which declares freedom of religion and freedom from religion is incompatible with Catholicism, since that permissive behavior is in dire contradiction with the first commandment. How could Catholics support something which flies in the face of the commandments of God?

A good solution would be a Catholic theocracy. All the abominations of secular goverments could be abolished by the stroke of a pen. Funny thing is, that none of the Catholics I talked to supported this idea. (But of course I did not talk to all the Catholics. There might be a sizable percentage of Catholics which would support theocracy.)

So you’d be in favor of a government that forces people to be Catholics, and executes or exiles those who refuse to do so?

 

[Warrior1979]

I don’t believe that there are any true Democracies in the world. They’re completely impractical for a population of any size. More common are representative governments; e.g., the U.S.

It should be interesting to note that minority interests won’t get passed in a democracy, but can get passed in a representative republic. There is no more glaring example of this that California. They are an extremely liberal state, yet couldn’t get a same-sex marriage proposal passed, because those propositions are voted on in true democratic fashion.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Theocracy is never a good idea. Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Oman and Iran are examples of a theocracy. They are islamic states and use Shari’a laws and courts.

Iran for example has religious courts and has religious police to maintain compliance to the letter of islamic law. Most of us in the west find this oppressive. How would a Catholic theocracy be any different?

((Well, I’m glad the Philosophy forum deilivered in getting discussion about this:thumbsup)

Theocracy is a good idea in the case of Vatican City. If you say otherwise that’s tantamount to wanting to remove the Pope from office and make him be a prisoner in the Vatican again. I don’t think ANY Catholic would want that, as opposed to the theocracy which is now in place there?

There’s a huge difference between an Islamic fundamentalist, and a Catholic fundamentalist.

Islamic fundamentalism has called for jihad and killing Jews from the time Mohammed was on this earth. Catholic fundamentalism has called for martyrdom, to be killed at the hands of the persecutors since Jesus Christ walked on this earth.

The Crusades actually support this, because it was not until Christians had lost 2/3 of their lands to Muslims which they finally launched the Crusades. In other words, after losing all of the Christian lands in Africa, the Middle East, Spain, and Eastern Europe, the Crusades were undertaken for self defense.

Islam at it’s fundamental core calls to convert everyone, and if they don’t convert then conquer them by the sword. Islamic violence is usually on the offensive, not the defensive. Catholic fundamentalism calls for wars to be Just. [Jus ad Bellum]