Should Catholics Support Democracy Anymore?

[exnihilo]

I’ll assume, since it’s not clear otherwise, that you’re referring to a democratic principles in general, and not a democratic republic (such as the present-day United States), or any other specific flavor…

I question democratic principles in general. I am quite convinced that democratic republics are terrible forms of government that produce the worst possible results. I dont rule out democracy for some matters such as determining where a group of people will go for supper.

After all, if a vote can take away economic freedoms (and we know it can), then isn’t that vote just as powerful in a different way?

A vote in our system can take away economic freedom. A vote in a monarchy has no power. But in such a system you can still be more or less economically free. My point is that economic freedom is greater because it is an issue in all system at all times.

Money spent in modern US elections does strongly correlate with election results. However, establishing causation here is tricky - one could argue that if the majority of people already side with one candidate over another, then of course that candidate will receive and spend more money since they have a larger pool of supporters. I’m not disagreeing that money has a strong influence on elections - stronger than I would like - but I do think you’re simplifying things too much.

The people with the most to gain or lose will try to exert influence as they can on an issue. For many political issues what is at stake is money. Therefore those who stand to gain or lose money will use money to push their point. When all you have is a vote you are at a disadvantage.

Firstly, somebody misquoted Aristotle, who actually was fairly supportive of democracy as being less evil than other forms of government.

I’m pretty sure Aristotle said democracy was a lower form of government. He believed in good and corrupt forms of the various types of government. Monarchy was the best form.

Also, the source you’re pointing to in favor of monarchy is a self-described “Austrian school economist and libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosopher.” That puts him firmly outside of any consensus view on any issue. I’m not saying that to make an argument against him necessarily, but any support for his views warrants due consideration.

You are using democracy to prove itself. If the masses have voted to find Austrian Economics invalid then I cant use an Austrian economist to prove democracy is bad. I question the consensus since these are the people who have led us into the Greater Depression and did not see it coming whereas the Austrians have been warning about this for a decade.

I simply encourage you to read Hoppe. He has different ideas of course. That is why they are interesting. You may find problems with them. But you dont know what he says until you read him. Of course he is backed by Aristotle, which probably does not work in his favor in our times.

Human society is, by nature it would appear, oligarchic. That there will always be more Indians than Chiefs is impossible to argue. However, I don’t like the apples to oranges comparison of a president to a king, as it seems misleading. Why do you state that there are checks on a king’s power (admittedly often lost in the casual understanding of monarchy) but fail to state that a president has perhaps a third of a king’s power (being executive without legislative or judicial authority), and then for a very limited time only as opposed to life?

The modern US president has far more power than King George did. When was the last time a Congress or Supreme Court stopped a US president? Obama and any president can make war on whom he pleases. The US constitution says Congress alone has that power.

The very issue is a president having limited time in office. During this limited time he will try to maximize short term rewards at the expense of the future. A king as property owner has a greater incentive to strengthen a kingdom for the future. It is similar to a CEO and the patriarch of a family business. The CEO will run all sorts of tricks to show short term profit to get a big salary. If the company collapses after he leaves, as they so often do, then what is it to him? The patriarch usually wants to make the business even stronger in the future. No system is perfect. But the different incentives are hard to deny.

I don’t think any reasonable person claims that the average American has significant individual political power or awareness, but surely in 10,000 years of human history we have achieved something?

There is no reason to think that. You assume that man is working towards good. I think quite the opposite. I see in my own life a refusal to learn from my own mistakes. I see no reason why the collection of men should be any different.

 

[OneAdvocate]

First off, thanks for posting back. So often in these threads, one responds to another’s points, and never hears another word.

I question democratic principles in general. I am quite convinced that democratic republics are terrible forms of government that produce the worst possible results. I dont rule out democracy for some matters such as determining where a group of people will go for supper.

You are certainly free to think that, although I’m not clear why you feel that way - historically, autocracies have tended to produce far greater evils than democracies, regardless of the individual form each takes. Certainly, it is possible for an autocrat to produce greater goods, given the superior efficiency of the government, but it runs both ways. So, should government be minimizing evils, or maximizing goods? I choose the latter, but I’m all ears.

A vote in our system can take away economic freedom. A vote in a monarchy has no power. But in such a system you can still be more or less economically free. My point is that economic freedom is greater because it is an issue in all system at all times.

The people with the most to gain or lose will try to exert influence as they can on an issue. For many political issues what is at stake is money. Therefore those who stand to gain or lose money will use money to push their point. When all you have is a vote you are at a disadvantage.

I’ll address these together since they are related. Firstly, yes, any economic system could provide economic freedom. Historically, however, democratic forms have provided more economic freedom by restricting the ability of the wealthy and powerful to take it away. I’m talking about 1000 years of European feudalism, in which a king/lord might have given his serfs economic freedom, but only did so when it seemed inevitable.

I’m pretty sure Aristotle said democracy was a lower form of government. He believed in good and corrupt forms of the various types of government. Monarchy was the best form.

Let’s go to the evidence:
A Treatise on Government by Aristotle;
Wikipedia’s Politics of Aristotle;
A Summary of Aristotle’s Politics;

The general theme is this: if you could be certain of having a good, wise, virtuous king, monarchy is the best. Since this is unlikely, Aristocracy may be better. However, the rich are given, by their own position, to corruption and greed, so a constitutional government aimed at empowering the middle class is wise, since the middle class is more trustworthy than the rich or the poor. Aristotle calls this a Polity, which is a somewhat republican form of democracy.

You will also note that among the evil forms of governments, Tyranny (the perversion of Monarchy) is most evil, and Democracy (the perversion of Polity) is least evil. This is because Democracy can hurt the state less than Tyranny can.

I hope I have persuaded you that I did not make my claim without strong evidence.

You are using democracy to prove itself. If the masses have voted to find Austrian Economics invalid then I cant use an Austrian economist to prove democracy is bad. I question the consensus since these are the people who have led us into the Greater Depression and did not see it coming whereas the Austrians have been warning about this for a decade.

I am not. There is no voting involved. Scientific theories (although I realize the Austrian school is opposed to the whole idea of scientific economics) gain consensus standing based on experimental evidence, peer-review, and presentations of work and theory. The Austrian school has been around for a long time, and has made contributions to economic theory, but remains a minority view. I am not an economist, but I do find it unlikely that the majority of professional economists over the last century-plus would continue to dismiss it if it was without fault.

I simply encourage you to read Hoppe. He has different ideas of course. That is why they are interesting. You may find problems with them. But you dont know what he says until you read him. Of course he is backed by Aristotle, which probably does not work in his favor in our times.

The above having been said, I agree that there are obvious problems in many current economic principles and practices. If Austrians end up providing us with workable solutions, I’m not opposed.

The modern US president has far more power than King George did. When was the last time a Congress or Supreme Court stopped a US president? Obama and any president can make war on whom he pleases. The US constitution says Congress alone has that power.

I have to categorically disagree with that. Congress fails to pass bills that presidents want on a regular basis. I agree that executive police actions are out of hand, and I have opposed the current ones from the beginning. Heck, I wrote papers in high school about opposing them. However, Congress’ lack of action does not translate directly to a lack of power. They could pass law ordering the troops brought back at a moment’s notice, and the president would have to obey.

(Continued below)

 

[OneAdvocate]

(Sorry for the double post; I ran out of space.)

The very issue is a president having limited time in office. During this limited time he will try to maximize short term rewards at the expense of the future. A king as property owner has a greater incentive to strengthen a kingdom for the future. It is similar to a CEO and the patriarch of a family business. The CEO will run all sorts of tricks to show short term profit to get a big salary. If the company collapses after he leaves, as they so often do, then what is it to him? The patriarch usually wants to make the business even stronger in the future. No system is perfect. But the different incentives are hard to deny.

I think you make a great analogy here, and I agree that presidents have more incentive to make short term progress than long term progress. The problem I have is what I talked about above, concerning Aristotle’s analysis of governments: the difficulty of getting a worthy monarch once, much less every time, appears insurmountable. Therefore, the efficacy of a democratic form in preventing any one person from burning the country down, so to speak, is undeniable.

There is no reason to think that. You assume that man is working towards good. I think quite the opposite. I see in my own life a refusal to learn from my own mistakes. I see no reason why the collection of men should be any different.

I don’t know how old you are, or what struggles you may face with correcting your personal failings, but would you agree that you have grown wiser and better over the course of your life? Yes, in the short term, we have difficulty changing. Yes, we as a collective society have limited memory for the failings of the past. But over time, progress is made.

I believe that people generally work toward their own personal good, and with a very limited view of what that is at any given time. However, I hope that you will agree that people’s personal good, on average and in general, corresponds to the good of the state or nation. Aristotle, the man of the hour, will back me up on that. Therefore, if only by accident, we are bound to improve the lot of society in the long term.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

(Sorry for the double post; I ran out of space.)

I believe that people generally work toward their own personal good, and with a very limited view of what that is at any given time. However, I hope that you will agree that people’s personal good, on average and in general, corresponds to the good of the state or nation. Aristotle, the man of the hour, will back me up on that. Therefore, if only by accident, we are bound to improve the lot of society in the long term.

Firstly, Thank you all for reviving this thread. I think I pointed someone to this in another thread a couple weeks ago, which may’ve led to that.

To respond to OneAdvocate. I would point back to my sadness at the current state of the world in my OP.

If people generally work toward their own personal good. I have to assume that people include the “freedom” to divorce, the “freedom” to have abortion, the “freedom” to have contraception (latin for: against birth), and the “freedom” for persons with same sex attraction to get married, the “freedom” to write things which are blasphemous (I don’t know if blasphemy was ever a crime in the U.S., but the laws against blasphemy were repealed in the U.K.)

Imagine a world where no government had any of these things legal. That world existed many centuries ago, and was dominated by monarchies, and Christian ones (be they Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant).

Did these sins still occur? Yes (except for gay marriage… that sin did not occur at all).
Did the entirety of society and the legal system punish people, ostracize people for these sins, make people afraid to do these things? Yes.

(I encourage you to read my post to BigFelloMick that I’ll be making right after this as well)

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Don’t know if this was mentioned as I didn’t have time to read all four pages but I’m all for the world being submitted to the rule of the Vatican. Is it realistic? No. Is it practical? No. Would it solve all the worlds problems? No. Would it be infinitely better than anything secularized governments can dream of accomplish? Yes. The only downside to it is no one can be forced to accept beliefs, as that is the opposite of what Christ teaches, but if the Vatican controlled the lawmaking processes for every country they could establish just systems of governance that saw everyone treated equally, to the best of their power anyways, and who knows what other wonderful things. But the only way this would come to pass would be if all Catholics everywhere physically took over their countries one by one and the only way that would happen would be through violence so obviously thats a big no no. But maybe after the chastisement the world will come face to face with God and hopefully that will be enough to turn the direction of this world around overnight?

I definitely agree.
But yeah, one of the things that is raised commonly (as it should be, it is a legitimate concern), is would the Catholic states force their religion on people, if they are monarchies, theocracies, or otherwise?

I eluded to the Amish as the solution. Children would be born, and around adulthood (17 or 18) they’d have the option to experience the wider world, and could make a decision if they want to return or live outside the Amish community. Most of the children do go to the outside world to experience it (somewhere between 75% and 90% of the community I think)… however 80% of those choose to return. While the other 20% follow their conscience to live in the wider world.

We wouldn’t have to worry about the whole world being covered by Catholic monarchies just yet (because right now only 1 exists in the Vatican, population of around 1000 people).

So, people could leave the Catholic state if they had a change of heart or were born into it and didn’t want to stay. What wouldn’t be allowed would be movements to change the government or culture of the Catholic state. I think there are enough people out there who want to live in a Catholic monarchy or Catholic theocracy. Probably there are enough for several of these states. I submit: let these people have self-determination. If liberals and atheists want to do away with these Catholic states and attempt to subvert them from within… they should be sent away to live in any of the liberal secular countries today.

I want to point out how in the September postings… we have BigFellaMick, exnihilo, and James 224, and now myself Semper Zelare who are not satisfied with living in a democracy. One Advocate, you are here at least outnumbered (and obviously that is rare LOL).

But seriously, there are enough people out there who would prefer this. And, if liberals and seculars, and really if modern people are anywhere near as tolerant as they claim to be. They would tolerate these people to see their Will be done,** on Earth as it is in Heaven** (IMO).

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I swear, this thread is so vulgar to me that it begins to shake my faith. One-world Catholic dictatorship? Thank God for the 2nd amendment!

 

[Discipulo]

Some of the responses here are reasons why I delayed my conversion for years(I was once a Communist). The Church has learned the lessons of intertwining the Faith and politics, and its never been good. Our goal should be to save people’s souls and lead them to Christ not force it on them but by their own free will, just like God gives us free will. That said The Church is against divorce but not civil divorce per-say, civil divorce may be necessary for financial reasons and for safety from an abusive spouse as well and is thus necessary, this person though should not get re-married and to do so would constitute a grave sin.

 

[exnihilo]

First off, thanks for posting back. So often in these threads, one responds to another’s points, and never hears another word.

You’re welcome. And thank you for your obviously well thought out responses.

You are certainly free to think that, although I’m not clear why you feel that way - historically, autocracies have tended to produce far greater evils than democracies, regardless of the individual form each takes.

I’m a monarchist. Are you saying autocracies are the same as monarchy? Aristotle discussed the good and corrupt forms of different types of government. Certainly any type of government can be bad. The typical modern western assumption is that rule by one is bad. I’d point out Democratic Germany put Hitler into power. I’d point out that the communist governments all had elections and were democracies. I’d point out the US nuked two cities. I’d point out millions of babies have been killed in the US with legal abortion. As the world moved towards democracy we had two world wars. I dont believe it is obvious that democracy produces less evil.

I’ll address these together since they are related. Firstly, yes, any economic system could provide economic freedom. Historically, however, democratic forms have provided more economic freedom by restricting the ability of the wealthy and powerful to take it away. I’m talking about 1000 years of European feudalism, in which a king/lord might have given his serfs economic freedom, but only did so when it seemed inevitable.

The Rights of English Men developed under a monarchy. It is under those rights that modern capitalism developed. It is those rights that produced the US. Under democratic communism there was very little economic freedom. Again, I’m not sure this is so clear.

I hope I have persuaded you that I did not make my claim without strong evidence.

To be honest I did not read the links provided. I might if I have time in the future. I dont want to get hung up on the point of what Aristotle said. But thank your providing sources for your view point.

I am not. There is no voting involved. Scientific theories (although I realize the Austrian school is opposed to the whole idea of scientific economics) gain consensus standing based on experimental evidence, peer-review, and presentations of work and theory. The Austrian school has been around for a long time, and has made contributions to economic theory, but remains a minority view. I am not an economist, but* I do find it unlikely that the majority of professional economists over the last century-plus would continue to dismiss it if it was without fault.*

Again that is a democratic appeal. My most favorite story as a kid was The Emperor Has No Clothes. People will lie to power. People will tell power what it wants to hear. The western democratic governments are very powerful. They control education. Therefore there is incentive for professionals to say what the government wants to be said. Austrian Economics says the government will only mess things up. That is not a very popular theory amongst government officials. Austrian Economics does not defy common sense as do most other economic theories. Again I’d point to the complete failure of popular theories to predict the current mess and their incorrect prediction that the government’s recovery efforts will work as evidence these theories are wrong.

I have to categorically disagree with that. Congress fails to pass bills that presidents want on a regular basis. I agree that executive police actions are out of hand, and I have opposed the current ones from the beginning. Heck, I wrote papers in high school about opposing them. However, Congress’ lack of action does not translate directly to a lack of power. They could pass law ordering the troops brought back at a moment’s notice, and the president would have to obey.

What matters more actual or technical power?

I think you make a great analogy here, and I agree that presidents have more incentive to make short term progress than long term progress. The problem I have is what I talked about above, concerning Aristotle’s analysis of governments: the difficulty of getting a worthy monarch once, much less every time, appears insurmountable. Therefore, the efficacy of a democratic form in preventing any one person from burning the country down, so to speak, is undeniable.

The democratic form seems to be one of an endless stream of men who burn the country down. I’ve seen no evidence that a democratic republic elects the best ruler. Each president, no matter what party, continues the programs of the previous president and if anything does so with greater vigor. For instance Bush’s wars are now Obama’s despite his pledge to bring troops home.

I don’t know how old you are, or what struggles you may face with correcting your personal failings, but would you agree that you have grown wiser and better over the course of your life? Yes, in the short term, we have difficulty changing. Yes, we as a collective society have limited memory for the failings of the past. But over time, progress is made.

I think I have grown wiser. But there are people who I think have not. We can grow wiser with age but we can also grow more deluded. In some ways children are the wisest since they see through the excuses adults make. They see things with a purity. I think particularly from a Christian point of view there is no reason to believe society is perfecting itself.

History would seem to show that societies become more corrupt over time. Look at any empire and towards the end they have abandoned their traditional morality.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

I swear, this thread is so vulgar to me that it begins to shake my faith. One-world Catholic dictatorship? Thank God for the 2nd amendment!

How about one country that is a theocracy? You would side with the hundreds of secularist countries, well a lot of Catholics don’t like the abortion, contraception, divorce, all the EVIL that secularist states perpetrate. I use the word perpetrate because almost every government of every country on Earth are guilty of crimes against God because of their laws.

READ MY ORIGINAL POST.
2 countries in the world have divorce illegal: Vatican, and Philippines. God and the Church hate divorce. It’s in the Bible.

Are Catholics forced to suffer at the hands of evil countries? You wouldn’t allow them the autonomy to live in a state which complied to the will of God.

I live in the United States too, and I’m not impressed by you pointing to the second ammendment. The 2nd amendment isn’t stopping your money or mine from being used to kill babies!!!

Discipulo:

Some of the responses here are reasons why I delayed my conversion for years(I was once a Communist). The Church has learned the lessons of intertwining the Faith and politics, and its never been good. Our goal should be to save people’s souls and lead them to Christ not force it on them but by their own free will, just like God gives us free will. That said The Church is against divorce but not civil divorce per-say, civil divorce may be necessary for financial reasons and for safety from an abusive spouse as well and is thus necessary, this person though should not get re-married and to do so would constitute a grave sin.

In order to have a civil divorce, you have to have a civil marriage.

So, wikipedia civil marriage. And look at it’s history. It hasn’t been around that long. In fact, it used to be the case that if you wanted to be married you had to get married in the Church (be you Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox). That’s why no one was an atheist at that point, even the laxest of lax Christians HAD to be a Christian, or they could not have a marriage.
That’s not to say there weren’t some heretics and pagans those days, still worshipping pagan gods, and no doubt deceiving themselves with “marriage” ceremonies through those avenues.

The point I arrive at: The Church may well be OK with civil divorce for civil marriages, but why wouldn’t they want all marriages to be Church marriages? It was that way before. The state is a newcomer to marriage. To suggest otherwise ignores history. So, marriage didn’t used to be civil at all, but was totally religious in nature.

So, divorce is an evil. Divorce is evil. I hate divorce. And I get my hatred of divorce from God’s hatred of divorce.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

1. God created us to choose what to believe and how to live.
2. Therefore we have an obligation to respect the right of every person to make their decisions and not attempt to impose our beliefs and values on them unless they conflict with the UDHR - which is based on the teaching of Jesus.
3. In spite of its defects democracy is the only form of government which fulfils these conditions.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

1. God created us to choose what to believe and how to live.
2. Therefore we have an obligation to respect the right of every person to make their decisions and not attempt to impose our beliefs and values on them unless they conflict with the UDHR - which is based on the teaching of Jesus.
3. In spite of its defects democracy is the only form of government which fulfils these conditions.

You’re first point and third point seem to conflict. If God gives us the ability to choose what we believe and how we live, are we not allowed to believe in governments other than democracy? Do we not have the ability to choose to live in societies which are theocracies?

You come across as being tolerant, but then you’re third point is an ultimatum: “My way or the highway, democracy is the only way to go”

I disagree.

As to your second point: If a group of people, who were 100% Catholic, and 100% wanted to live in a Catholic theocracy became an autonomous and sovereign nation… wouldn’t your argument work against yourself? "Therefore we have an obligation to respect the right of every person to make their decisions"

Would you respect the right of Catholic theocrats or Catholic monarchists to make their decisions?

I totally respect your point about not imposing our views on other people. And, that is why, I think Catholics in favor of living in a Catholic state would have to make sure that they didn’t live with people with different views. Thus, ensuring that our views would not be imposed on even one person.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

I want everyone to think about one thing.

If even 1% of Catholics worldwide supported the idea of living in a Catholic state… that is roughly 11 or 12 million people we’re talking about. Let’s say that it is 10% of the people in the Church, that is around 110 to 120 million. If the Church has a membership of 1.15-1.2 billion people.

I believe that more than 1% of Catholics would love to live in a Catholic state. So… if you believe that “democracy is the only form of government”, you are automatically oppressing at least 20 million people around the world EASILY.

 

[tonyrey]

1. God created us to choose what to believe and how to live.

My second point answers those questions. The teaching of Jesus that we are all equal in the sight of God is enshrined in the UDHR and it implies the principle of democracy. Any other form of government implies that some individuals have more right to decide what to believe, how to live - and most flagrantly - to **compel **others how to live.

You come across as being tolerant, but then you’re third point is an ultimatum: “My way or the highway, democracy is the only way to go”.

It is not my way but the way advocated by Jesus - and followed in the early Church in which everyone’s opinion was respected if it is in accordance His teaching. His followers didn’t seek to compel everyone to obey them or to overthrow the political system.

As to your second point: If a group of people, who were 100% Catholic, and 100% wanted to live in a Catholic theocracy became an autonomous and sovereign nation… wouldn’t your argument work against yourself? “Therefore we have an obligation to respect the right of every person to make their decisions”

Would you respect the right of Catholic theocrats or Catholic monarchists to make their decisions?

I respect their right to make their decisions but not to impose them on others unless they are consistent with the UDHR.

I totally respect your point about not imposing our views on other people. And, that is why, I think Catholics in favor of living in a Catholic state would have to make sure that they didn’t live with people with different views. Thus, ensuring that our views would not be imposed on even one person.

Then they should establish a separate Catholic state in which all its citizens accept Catholic principles - which hardly seems feasible. Even Catholics differ on many moral, social, economic and political issues…

 

[tonyrey]

I want everyone to think about one thing.

If even 1% of Catholics worldwide supported the idea of living in a Catholic state… that is roughly 11 or 12 million people we’re talking about. Let’s say that it is 10% of the people in the Church, that is around 110 to 120 million. If the Church has a membership of 1.15-1.2 billion people.

I believe that more than 1% of Catholics would love to live in a Catholic state. So… if you believe that “democracy is the only form of government”, you are automatically oppressing at least 20 million people around the world EASILY.

How would you establish a Catholic state?

 

[Semper_Zelare]

How would you establish a Catholic state?

I wouldn’t establish it. God would. He can do all things.

How would God establish a Catholic state? I don’t know.

He made one in the Vatican after Pope after Pope suffered as a Prisoner in the Vatican.

tonyrey:

My second point answers those questions. The teaching of Jesus that we are all equal in the sight of God is enshrined in the UDHR and it implies the principle of democracy. Any other form of government implies that some individuals have more right to decide what to believe, how to live - and most flagrantly - to compel others how to live.

1. What did God enshrine in UDHR? What is UDHR anyways?
2. Scripture clearly points to kingdoms, not democracies. Furthermore, the Church is not a democracy.

Those 2 statements are not my own. I just got back from a retreat where the key speaker said “Scripture points us to kingdoms, and concepts of fealty and loyalty. These are foreign concepts to us today, but they are essential for us to know Jesus as Lord. Scripture does not point to democracy”.

 

[tonyrey]

1. What did God enshrine in UDHR?

What is UDHR anyways?**

THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.**

Article 1.

• All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

1. Scripture clearly points to kingdoms, not democracies. Furthermore, the Church is not a democracy.

Those 2 statements are not my own. I just got back from a retreat where the key speaker said “Scripture points us to kingdoms, and concepts of fealty and loyalty. These are foreign concepts to us today, but they are essential for us to know Jesus as Lord. Scripture does not point to democracy”.

Jesus said “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s”. He didn’t advocate any particular form of government nor did the first Christian community try to establish a kingdom on earth. They believed in transforming society by teaching everyone to seek the kingdom of God and love one another as Our Lord has loved (and loves) us…

 

[inocente]

I wouldn’t establish it. God would. He can do all things.

How would God establish a Catholic state? I don’t know.

You seem to be saying either God didn’t establish the Holy See or else it’s not good enough for your purposes. Why doesn’t it the bill? Easy enough to expand it first into Rome, then the whole of Italy, etc. if God really is on your side in wanting a theocracy.

Those 2 statements are not my own. I just got back from a retreat where the key speaker said “Scripture points us to kingdoms, and concepts of fealty and loyalty. These are foreign concepts to us today, but they are essential for us to know Jesus as Lord. Scripture does not point to democracy”.

By any chance does your key speaker come from the USA, that curious republic where less than 5% of the world somehow thinks it’s the entire world?

Anyway, pass on greetings from the Kingdom of Spain, a democracy like many other kingdoms. You could also remind him/her that scripture says we are a royal priesthood, God’s special possession, which has nothing to do with anything so mundane as earthly government.

 

[OneAdvocate]

Welcome all to OA’s multi-posting extravaganza. Please forgive my grammar, spelling, and, potentially, my logic this morning. I am using blueberry waffles and coffee in place of sleep due to circumstances beyond my control, but these posts keep piling up, and if I don’t say something now, I’ll have to hold my peace forever. I will endeavor to be brief.

Firstly, Thank you all for reviving this thread. I think I pointed someone to this in another thread a couple weeks ago, which may’ve led to that.

To respond to OneAdvocate. I would point back to my sadness at the current state of the world in my OP.

If people generally work toward their own personal good. I have to assume that people include the “freedom” to divorce, the “freedom” to have abortion, the “freedom” to have contraception (latin for: against birth), and the “freedom” for persons with same sex attraction to get married, the “freedom” to write things which are blasphemous (I don’t know if blasphemy was ever a crime in the U.S., but the laws against blasphemy were repealed in the U.K.)

Imagine a world where no government had any of these things legal. That world existed many centuries ago, and was dominated by monarchies, and Christian ones (be they Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant).

Did these sins still occur? Yes (except for gay marriage… that sin did not occur at all).
Did the entirety of society and the legal system punish people, ostracize people for these sins, make people afraid to do these things? Yes.

(I encourage you to read my post to BigFelloMick that I’ll be making right after this as well)

None of those things, gay marriage aside, are remotely new. Note that I said “generally” and “with a limited view.” I’m not even going to touch gay marriage in this thread.

I cannot. That world never existed. Laws against contraception and abortion (both historically practiced for millenia) are modern constructs. Laws against blasphemy were highly politicized and used to punish political rivals as often as to punish actual blasphemy.

Are you familiar with what life in the middle ages was like? Nearly as many nobles and high ranking clergy were rapists, killers, and/or thieves as were good and holy. The Church went through multiple schisms because it was terribly corrupt - it was lucky to survive, honestly.

Did those sins still occur? Yes. Did the rest of what you said happen? When it benefited the powers that were. Basically, you’re romanticizing the middle ages. Don’t - they were at least as awful a time as any other, and considerably worse for most people than today.

Oh, and another thought occurs to me - if people in general are so bad at decision-making, why would specific people raised up to have great power be any better? No one has bothered to answer the question of actually getting a monarch of any worth on a regular basis. It sure didn’t work in the middle ages.

As to what you said in later posts, if you can get enough monarchists together with some land and the blessing of the Vatican, go for it. Good luck, and God bless.

 

[exnihilo]

Therefore we have an obligation to respect the right of every person to make their decisions and not attempt to impose our beliefs and values on them unless they conflict with the UDHR - which is based on the teaching of Jesus.

All western democracies dont come close to your idea of how things should be. In western democracies we have tens of thousands of laws designed to impose our beliefs and values on people beyond the UDHR.

All government is force. As George Washington correctly stated:

‘Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.’

Whenever you pass any law you are imposing beliefs and values upon people. Even something as mundane as a speeding law is imposing something on others. It has become popular in the west to think that it is not imposing your belief on somebody if you want to make marijuana illegal but it is if you want to not invent homosexual marriage. Of course that doesn’t make any sense upon the slightest examination by only a semi-rational mind. All laws are about imposing your belief on others and all votes are perceived as the voter as a way to do that.

In spite of its defects democracy is the only form of government which fulfils these conditions.

Democracy is not nearly so great as it is made out to be. In examining governments people tend to call a government democratic when it does objective good or can use sophistry to appear good while that same government is something else when it does bad. The best example is Egypt. It was a democracy when the American people perceived it as good but the same government suddenly became something else when it was perceived as bad. Nothing changed but perception. The American democracy was able to execute one of its citizens without the benefit of trial just last week. When America does it the act is good. When Saddam Hussein did it the act was bad. Saddam Hussein was probably rightly called a dictator. Yet he allowed for religious freedom and more so than other US allies like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. All the communist countries have been democracies and had the hallmark of such governments, elections. Folks tend to ignore this.

In the American democracy the same people and families always seem to have power. Is the Bush family really that special? Is the Clinton family? These people rule us throughout their entire life, sometimes taking a break to enjoy the enormous wealth they get from their ‘service’ or a high paying job at some company that requires them to do nothing more than be on the payroll.

I just got back from a retreat where the key speaker said “Scripture points us to kingdoms, and concepts of fealty and loyalty. These are foreign concepts to us today, but they are essential for us to know Jesus as Lord. Scripture does not point to democracy”.

Scripture is decidedly undemocratic. God Himself of course is a sovereign like a monarch. In the family the parents rule the children and the husband the wife. In fact the family shows the folly of democracy for if two have an equal say what happens when they disagree? The democracy fetish has infested the family so that no one is willing to follow but also no one is willing to lead or even knows how. The idea of leadership is rejected on the basis of abuse of that position. If any institution should be rejected because it can or has been abusive then there would be no institutions left. But this reasoning is selectively applied. I know of no one who would say no democracy has ever been abusive. But occasional or even frequent abuse is never considered to be something that can come from democracy. When democracy is abusive the reason is never the form of government. The best example of the wrongness of this thinking is that it was one of the most democratic governments ever, the Wiemar Republic, that granted Hitler all of his dictatorial powers.

 

[OneAdvocate]

You’re welcome. And thank you for your obviously well thought out responses.

You are too kind.

I’m a monarchist. Are you saying autocracies are the same as monarchy? Aristotle discussed the good and corrupt forms of different types of government. Certainly any type of government can be bad. The typical modern western assumption is that rule by one is bad. I’d point out Democratic Germany put Hitler into power. I’d point out that the communist governments all had elections and were democracies. I’d point out the US nuked two cities. I’d point out millions of babies have been killed in the US with legal abortion. As the world moved towards democracy we had two world wars. I dont believe it is obvious that democracy produces less evil.

An autocracy, as a term, refers to government by a single person. A monarchy is a government by a single person. Yes, monarchy implies many specific things that autocracy does not - I am using the latter as a general term to refer to many kinds of single-person government, monarchy included.

That’s the second time someone has come close to Godwin-ing the thread. Can we not compare people to Nazis unless they are running death camps, please? Besides which, Germany ceased to be democratic and became an autocracy. Then all the bad stuff happened. Bad example.
Which communist governments had non-fixed elections? One of the major ones? I didn’t read that book, I’m afraid.
I don’t think this is the place for the nuke debate, but if you believe in just war, then refusing to accept the argument in favor of that action is at least questionable.
Abortion is a great crime, I agree. I did not claim democratic forms of government were without flaw. (the US, strictly, is not a democracy any more than monarchies are autocracies - general versus specific terms). But if you want to count holocausts, they do have a slightly better track record.
Seriously? The world wars are the fault of democracy? How? There were fascists, monarchs, and “elected” dictators pretty heavily involved in those, too.
And I can’t make you.

The Rights of English Men developed under a monarchy. It is under those rights that modern capitalism developed. It is those rights that produced the US. Under democratic communism there was very little economic freedom. Again, I’m not sure this is so clear.

Yes, they did. Didn’t that happen when the nobles took power away from the king by establishing a bill of rights, thus beginning the slow march toward republicanism? Yes, modern capitalism developed when a monarch was forced to relinquish the rights his ancestors took by force back to the common people. Capitalism is a highly democratic economic form, seeing as it is the will of the masses (more or less) that determines which businesses are successful.
And I have to ask again, what democratic communism are you talking about? Most allegedly communist states have been functional autocracies ruled by dictators through the threat of violence. Communism is an economic theory, not a government.

To be honest I did not read the links provided. I might if I have time in the future. I dont want to get hung up on the point of what Aristotle said. But thank your providing sources for your view point.

Fair enough.

Again that is a democratic appeal. My most favorite story as a kid was The Emperor Has No Clothes. People will lie to power. People will tell power what it wants to hear. The western democratic governments are very powerful. They control education. Therefore there is incentive for professionals to say what the government wants to be said. Austrian Economics says the government will only mess things up. That is not a very popular theory amongst government officials. Austrian Economics does not defy common sense as do most other economic theories. Again I’d point to the complete failure of popular theories to predict the current mess and their incorrect prediction that the government’s recovery efforts will work as evidence these theories are wrong.

Perhaps. Yes, they will lie to power. But democratic governments have less control over education than you might think, and even where they do influence it, that influence is not all in one direction. Government is not an entity, but a group of competing entities with competing interests. Government does not want anything. People in power want many different things. If Austrian economics wants laissez-faire government, let it compete in the market of ideas. A new heyday is here for the US small-gov thinkers, so maybe the Austrians will get another shot.
I’m not going to get into a debate on economics here, because it distracts from the point.

What matters more actual or technical power?

Congress has actual power, but chooses not to exercise it. I agree that that makes them seem weak, and is probably bad.