Should Catholics Support Democracy Anymore?

[Semper_Zelare]

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?

For me, every reason against a theocracy, or Catholic monarchy seems to have a good answer to it.

To answer this criticism, I found the answer in a documentary on the Amish. When the children turn 17 or 18, and in the eyes of the community reach adulthood, they are given the choice of whether they want to leave their sheltered Amish community and experience the wider world. Most of them choose to go. But, 80% of those who go out into the world choose to come back to their homes and live the lifestyle of the Amish.

Now, I’m not advocating anything specific here.

But, all the hypothetical criticisms seem to have plausible answers or solutions to avoid them. If someone doesn’t want to be Catholic in a 100% Catholic country that they were born into, then they can leave.

However, there’s nothing wrong with exiling non-Catholics. You MUST be Catholic to live or work in the Vatican City State. So… once more, while many Catholics may not be aware that the Holy See is a functioning theocracy, their views would be sin if they had full knowledge of what they were saying.

To say that a nation can’t prevent non-Catholics from living in it is an attack on what the Vatican already does.

 

[Luvya]

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?

Hehe… no! I would not want to live under any type of coercive goverment. I simply made a factual observation. Pretty much all religions have this attitude: “we are right, and you are wrong!”. Most of them also add: “…infidel!!”. For a true Catholic, the only good goverment would be a Catholic theocracy. Everything else is logically incompatible with the first commandment (and therefore God’s wiil).

Now fortunately most Catholics are smarter than that. They realize that theocracy equals tyranny, and tyranny does not tolerate deviation from of “currently” official dogma (which of course keep changing according to the whim of the current ruler). So they know that it is in their own best interest not to choose theocracy. By the way, if the Vatican would attempt to introduce burning the heretics again, I think that they would find themselves in a truckload of trouble.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

For a true Catholic, the only good goverment would be a Catholic theocracy. Everything else is logically incompatible with the first commandment (and therefore God’s wiil).

Now fortunately most Catholics are smarter than that. So they know that it is in their own best interest not to choose theocracy. By the way, if the Vatican would attempt to introduce burning the heretics again, I think that they would find themselves in a truckload of trouble.

1. I just realized that you haven’t listed a religion. In the words of Darth Vader: “I find your lack of faith disturbing”.
2. I’ll infer from this post that it is “fortunate” that you’re suggesting that most Catholics are not “true Catholics”. Again, I find it disturbing that someone would be glad that the majority of Catholics acted “in their own best interest”.
3. I’m not saying “my way or the highway” on this. I’m just saying that EVERY COUNTRY is a democracy, and they’ve all failed to uphold the will of God. josephblack offered us what Leo XIII said on this matter in his link.

Leo XIII: “44. Again, it is not of itself wrong to prefer a democratic form of government, if only the Catholic doctrine be maintained as to the origin and exercise of power. Of the various forms of government, the Church does not reject any that are fitted to procure the welfare of the subject.”

The Church doesn’t reject any form of government. It’s clear to me that democracy has succeeded in taking away power from Catholic doctrine. So, shouldn’t Catholics want something else? A monarchy? a theocracy? A Catholic democracy (in the mold of Israel’s Jewish democracy)?

 

[Luvya]

1. I just realized that you haven’t listed a religion. In the words of Darth Vader: “I find your lack of faith disturbing”.

Well, I did not want to mislead you by this omission. True, I do not have “faith” in any kind of supernatural, and I am sorry if it disturbs you. Don’t worry, I am not dangerous, and I do not eat little children for breakfast. (Of course, dinner is another matter. )

1. I’ll infer from this post that it is “fortunate” that you’re suggesting that most Catholics are not “true Catholics”. Again, I find it disturbing that someone would be glad that the majority of Catholics acted “in their own best interest”.

Indeed I do. When I look at this site, where the majority of the posters consider themselves “true Cathoilcs”, and judge those who do not agree with their super-scrupulous interpretations as “heretics” and “cafeteria Catholics” then I am very happy for the current trend in the world: the shrinking of the “true” Catholics and rise or the others (Millions of American Catholics actively use birth control and support abortions). I am very happy to find a few “not-so-horribly-orthodox” Catholics here once in a while. They give me hope. But the majority frightens me.

1. I’m not saying “my way or the highway” on this. I’m just saying that EVERY COUNTRY is a democracy, and they’ve all failed to uphold the will of God. josephblack offered us what Leo XIII said on this matter in his link.

A correction is due: There are no “democracies” any more. A democracy means the rule of the majority. In a real democracy if 51% of the population votes in a referendum that the other 49% should be slaughtered, then it is right, just and legal. Most countries have constitutions, which enumerate the rights of everyone, which cannot be infringed upon even by the majority.

Now, having said that, maybe you are right that the countries failed to uphold the “will of God”. (We cannot know that, since we are not privy to God’s thoughts. Maybe this is the state of affairs that God prefers. Who can tell?) But that is fine. Obviously God does not “really” mind our actions, otherwise he would do something about it.

The Church doesn’t reject any form of government. It’s clear to me that democracy has succeeded in taking away power from Catholic doctrine. So, shouldn’t Catholics want something else? A monarchy? a theocracy? A Catholic democracy (in the mold of Israel’s Jewish democracy)?

Catholic democracy is a contradiction is terms. But of course, you can wish for whatever you want to.

 

[valentino]

I don’t believe there are any truely dem.societies.America is a republic.We don’t choose our laws as such we choose representives and they make the laws.Also there has always been ways to disenfranchise people.So there has never been a time when everybody was represented.Nowadays parties are controlled by special interests so they decide on what laws will be passed.

 

[Prophesy]

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.

This also kind of assumes that there won’t be any armies in the future either.

I don’t believe that taxation is necessary for a shortage of goods (supply dwindles, cost goes up), prices regulate by themselves. That said, I think taxation is used almost as a communal fund for purchases that would normally be beyond the reach of the average nation dweller (national defense, a system for trans-national transport, etc).

-Prophesy

 

[Luvya]

This also kind of assumes that there won’t be any armies in the future either.

I hope so. No armies, no police, no judicial system… if only we humans would become more rational. Oh well… it is nice to dream sometimes.

I don’t believe that taxation is necessary for a shortage of goods (supply dwindles, cost goes up), prices regulate by themselves.

As long as they are not interfered with. But again, if there is an abundance of goods, there will be no price.

That said, I think taxation is used almost as a communal fund for purchases that would normally be beyond the reach of the average nation dweller (national defense, a system for trans-national transport, etc).

That would be nice. But it has gotten far beyond that.

 

[Prophesy]

I hope so. No armies, no police, no judicial system… if only we humans would become more rational. Oh well… it is nice to dream sometimes.

As long as they are not interfered with. But again, if there is an abundance of goods, there will be no price.

Sounds more like utopianism than anarchism.

That would be nice. But it has gotten far beyond that.

I meant to say it should be cause it has certainly gone passed that.

-Prophesy

 

[Windfish]

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.)

Every single one of your points is dripping with incredible ignorance. You don’t know the first thing about the thousands of years of Catholic legal, social, and government philosophy. And yet you declare what is “incompatible” with Catholicism. Just STOP.
"luvya:

Hehe… no! I would not want to live under any type of coercive goverment. I simply made a factual observation. Pretty much all religions have this attitude: “we are right, and you are wrong!”. Most of them also add: “…infidel!!”. For a true Catholic, the only good goverment would be a Catholic theocracy. Everything else is logically incompatible with the first commandment (and therefore God’s wiil).

Now fortunately most Catholics are smarter than that. They realize that theocracy equals tyranny, and tyranny does not tolerate deviation from of “currently” official dogma (which of course keep changing according to the whim of the current ruler). So they know that it is in their own best interest not to choose theocracy. By the way, if the Vatican would attempt to introduce burning the heretics again, I think that they would find themselves in a truckload of trouble.

This is incredible. The depth of this ignorance should be bannable.

luvya:

Well, I did not want to mislead you by this omission. True, I do not have “faith” in any kind of supernatural, and I am sorry if it disturbs you. Don’t worry, I am not dangerous, and I do not eat little children for breakfast. (Of course, dinner is another matter. )

Indeed I do. When I look at this site, where the majority of the posters consider themselves “true Cathoilcs”, and judge

those who do not agree with their super-scrupulous interpretations as “heretics” and “cafeteria Catholics” then I am very happy for the current trend in the world: the shrinking of the “true” Catholics and rise or the others (Millions of American Catholics actively use birth control and support abortions). I am very happy to find a few “not-so-horribly-orthodox” Catholics here once in a while. They give me hope. But the majority frightens me.

A correction is due: There are no “democracies” any more. A democracy means the rule of the majority. In a real democracy if 51% of the population votes in a referendum that the other 49% should be slaughtered, then it is right, just and legal. Most countries have constitutions, which enumerate the rights of everyone, which cannot be infringed upon even by the majority.

Now, having said that, maybe you are right that the countries failed to uphold the “will of God”. (We cannot know that, since we are not privy to God’s thoughts. Maybe this is the state of affairs that God prefers. Who can tell?) But that is fine. Obviously God does not “really” mind our actions, otherwise he would do something about it.

Catholic democracy is a contradiction is terms. But of course, you can wish for whatever you want to.

Like seriously, you really aren’t familiar at all with the material, and yet you have no problem saying any of the above with a straight face. And with the presumption of authority.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Here, in so many words briefly summarized and quoted, is Aquinas’ take on democracy.

stmaryvalleybloom.org/aquinas-democracy.html

I am with Aquinas, substituting for “monarch” the term “president.”

Theocracies do not do well. They tend to become spiritually corrupted, as we saw in the Middle Ages.

Democracies also fail from time to time, but the job then is for the Church to bring men’s minds and hearts back to God. If this is accomplished, the damage democracy can do is limited. Thus far our democracy is in peril because our Churches are not effectively staving off the barbarians at the gate. Indeed, we are finding out there are many barbarians who have invaded the Church and claimed it for their own.

As Pope Paul VI complained, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church. Only when that smoke has been expelled will the Church be able to effectively win men’s minds and hearts back to God.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I do not believe a Catholic Theocracy or Monarchy is a good idea.

1. Protecting the rights of non-Catholics would be a problem.
2. Are non-Catholics allowed to vote/hold office/govern? If so, your Catholic Theocracy will slowly change into something very different. If not, this is wrong. Non-Catholics still pay taxes and fight for their country.
3. Monarchy=too much power in the hands of one man

I favor the solution proposed by Robert Heinlein in the book, Starship Troopers. The citizens have all the rights the average American citizen has except one, the right to vote. This must be earned by a term of service on behalf of the country.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

In politics I go with democracy … but in religion I go with monarchy … Christ the King.

 

[Sageseer]

Theocracy is an extraordinarily bad idea, for the very reason that religion and politics simply do not mix. In the Middle Ages, all of Europe was practically a theocracy under the Church, and She suffered the greatest amount of corruption during that time. God alone is the perfect ruler. All human beings who have attempted to rule in His Name have failed miserably. The Church is best not when it rules, but when it serves; that is what Jesus had in mind for the Church. I personally go with the vision of the founding fathers, that of a democratic republic with the states having more say over how they will run than the federal core. I find the view of Christian Anarchism as expounded by Leo Tolstoy and Dorothy Day (among others) to be intriguing and even attrective, but I just don’t think it would work, at least not now. (Maybe after Jesus returns…maybe!)

 

[mlund]

Democracy is an utterly absurd form of government - completely unfit to keep the welfare of the people it governs. Democratic practices within a government, however, are generally better than most alternatives. I prefer a Constitutional Republic where representatives are elected by the Public. In a democracy there is nothing internally inconsistent with with 50.1% of the people voting to enslave and disenfranchise the other 49.9% of the population. Just because something is “the will of the people” does not give it absolute authority to force the individual to submit. In a proper Constitutional Republic the principles of representation, checks-and-balances, federalism, and limited government are supposed to hamstring any and all efforts to exercise the powers of government in such atrocious and intrusive fashions.

As a Catholic I believe I’m bound to respect free will as a God-given gift and part of human dignity. That means I have to respect that others will make mistakes and make immoral choices. I can not use force to deprive a man of his liberty to walk a sinful path, only to prevent that path from infringing upon the liberties of others. Likewise I must not use force to provide reward or incentive for committing such sins.

Government is force.

Civil marriage is an incentive produced by the government. When aligned in a way that supports marriage as the Church recognizes it, it is proper. When aligned in a way that perverts marriage from that form, it is improper.

• Marty Lund

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Why in the world would you want to go back to a monarchy after all this country gained to get out of being in that form of government? What possible advantage is there to having a royal family that mooches millions of dollars off the populace where rule by decree is the way things roll? I see no advantage whatsoever in a constitutional monarchy. My ancestors fought in the American Revolution to end such tyranny against our liberty.

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…

 

[OneAdvocate]

[rant]

There have been a number of excellent points made about the reason that the vast majority of countries everywhere on this earth have adopted some form of democracy or republicanism, so I won’t repeat them. I’d just like to add a few nuggets.

The Church is run theocratically in the sense that it is led by Christ’s vicar and primary representative on Earth. But it a republic in that the Pope is elected by a vote of men who represent the various Catholic communities around the world.

So to be more accurate, we ought to call the Church - and hence, Vatican City - a Republican Theocracy.

On a slightly different note, the United States is not a democracy, it is constituionally a democratic republic, and functionally trends toward an oligarchy of the wealthy. It does possess many traits of a meritocracy, as well, in that anyone can gain wealth and influence with hard work and good luck.

A Church-run state is, in my opinion, fundamentally unchristian, and hence unCatholic. If Jesus was interested in running a country, he would have restored the kingdom to Israel. As he stated **numerous **times in **numerous **ways, he is not that kind of savior. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Savvy? Don’t play the Judas on this one - remember that Iscariot was a zealot who wanted Christ to free them from the Romans. None of the surviving Apostles ever held or sought any kind of secular power to my knowledge.

Jesus did not come to run secular governments or conquer the world. He came to save our souls and change our lives. The Church should - and is, in many ways - follow this example.

Finally, and on a different note, Jesus’ teaching and practice as related by the Bible does not seem particularly supportive of many current practices in the western world. Take economics for example: if you actually look at what Jesus and the Apostles did and said, and how they instructed the disciples to live, I think you might find the word “socialism” springing to mind. Food for thought.

[/rant]

 

[jonnyblaze]

Here, in so many words briefly summarized and quoted, is Aquinas’ take on democracy.

stmaryvalleybloom.org/aquinas-democracy.html

I am with Aquinas, substituting for “monarch” the term “president.”

Theocracies do not do well. They tend to become spiritually corrupted, as we saw in the Middle Ages.

Democracies also fail from time to time, but the job then is for the Church to bring men’s minds and hearts back to God. If this is accomplished, the damage democracy can do is limited. Thus far our democracy is in peril because our Churches are not effectively staving off the barbarians at the gate. Indeed, we are finding out there are many barbarians who have invaded the Church and claimed it for their own.

As Pope Paul VI complained, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church. Only when that smoke has been expelled will the Church be able to effectively win men’s minds and hearts back to God.

Excellent post! Everyone seems to focus on the system of government itself when in fact what is more important are the (name removed by moderator)uts into that system. A democracy can be a wonderful form of government if the people are virtuous. Likewise, a benevolent Monarchy can also be a great system under the guidance of a good and wise king.

As you said, the Church has been failing in its mission to make faithful Catholics willing to live their faith in the public square. This is where we ought to focus most of our efforts.

 

[sedonaman]

I personally think democracy is inherently flawed and would much prefer a constitutional monarchy. …

Isn’t every human endeavor “inherently flawed”? Have you considered the flaws of a constitutional monarchy?

The founding fathers recognized the major problems with democracy [see Federalist 10] and designed the U.S. government to be a republic.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yes…

Isn’t every human endeavor “inherently flawed”? Have you considered the flaws of a constitutional monarchy?

The founding fathers recognized the major problems with democracy [see Federalist 10] and designed the U.S. government to be a republic.

 

[sedonaman]

“Democracy, in practice, degrades to tyranny by dedicated minorities.” – Author unknown.