Should Catholics Support Democracy Anymore?

[OneAdvocate]

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.

You are entitled to your opinion. No, democracy does not select the best ruler. That’s not the point. I think maybe we have different views of what government is for here, which really gets to the root of this debate.

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.

It seems to me that the idea behind supporting Catholic monarchy is that you want government to create a better society. Is that right? If I’m wrong, correct me, but that’s what I’m seeing in the arguments here.

I do not believe that the purpose of government is to improve society. I believe the purpose of government is to keep society from descending into utter chaos. In my opinion, democracy is less likely to destroy society, because no one person can screw up too badly, and things take longer to get done. Monarchy, or single-ruler government in general, is much more efficient, which is bad news bears when you have a bad ruler - they can be bad very efficiently.

Thanks for tolerating the overlong-posts, ya’ll.

In closing:

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…

Scripture points us toward governing ourselves.

 

[Rence]

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?

Just because one Pope in the past made a list of what he thinks is sinful (i.e. freedom of religion), doens’t mean that’s what the Church teaches. Also consider, that when that statement was made, there weren’t all these sects of Christianity. So that Pope was trying to snuff out any attempts by Christians to break away from the Church. JPII has said that people have the right to choose their religion. And I’ll go with that So I don’t think freedom of religion is incompatible with Catholicism.

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.)

Yeah Luvya, add me to that tally: I wouldn’t live in a Catholic theocracy. In the past, this has not worked, and it was a horrifying way to live. I want to live in a society where I am as free as the next person to practice the religion of my choice, and where no one religion define the laws of the secular government. That hasn’t worked in the past, and it won’t work now.

So Semplar, I support democracy. Democracy is important to me…but the US isn’t a pure or direct democracy. It’s a representative democracy. It’s a republic, where the people choose representatives to make policy decisions on their behalf…but it’s considered a democracy by many because the people (by voting and lobbying) drive those decisions.

 

[exnihilo]

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.

This example is particularly relevant. The Wiemar Constitution was drawn up by a bunch of academics who claimed it was the greatest democratic constitution ever. It allowed Hitler. The people willingly gave him all his power. That is an extremely important point. Mussolini was elected as well. The Roman Republic developed into the Empire because the people wanted a strong ruler. Democracies turn into dictatorships, just as Aristotle said.

Which communist governments had non-fixed elections? One of the major ones?

I dont know how fair any communist election was. I do know elections in the US have been fixed. Chicago is famous for that. Is the measure of fixed elections the same person being reelected? FDR could have been president forever. I have no reason to trust the US system any more than the communist system. The US is run by a secret government with enormous power. They can even kill citizens without a trial.

Seriously? The world wars are the fault of democracy? How? There were fascists, monarchs, and “elected” dictators pretty heavily involved in those, too.

Yes. Regarding WWII The democratic UK and France declared war on democratic Germany. FDR had been dying to get us into war. Not only did he push for Lend-Lease, supplying the war, but he also was quick to move US troops to Europe once war was on with Germany. We could have stayed out of the war and Germany would have never been able to bring the war here. Again Mussolini was democratically elected. The greatest bloodshed in the world was not stopped by democracy. Democracy has shown no greater ability to promote peace.

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.

How does one take power from a king? Would he not have to grant it? If the king can be forced to give up power then monarchy is not as strong as it is made out to be.

One idea is that modern capitalism was spurred on by the many plague deaths. As landlords lost workers they started paying good money to bring in new laborers.

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.

All governments work on the threat of violence. The reason I pay my taxes is if I dont I will be violently arrested. If I resist sufficiently I will be killed. In modern America I can be labeled a terrorist by the state and executed at their pleasure. The US president can order the execution of anyone he deems a terrorist. Is that not a pretty deadly autocracy?

I consider politics and economics to be closely related. I prefer the term political economy because it captures more of the full idea. Capitalism is everything not controlled by the government. As much sovereignty as the government claims there is always a free, if black, market that operates.

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.

I agree there are competing interests. This is true under any form of government, even a monarchy.

It seems to me that the idea behind supporting Catholic monarchy is that you want government to create a better society. Is that right? If I’m wrong, correct me, but that’s what I’m seeing in the arguments here.

I do not believe government can create a better society. I believe it can only make people worse. I believe better societies are created through voluntary institutions. I believe in general people get the government they deserve. The American people being a pretty sad lot we get worse and worse government.

I do not believe that the purpose of government is to improve society. I believe the purpose of government is to keep society from descending into utter chaos. In my opinion, democracy is less likely to destroy society, because no one person can screw up too badly, and things take longer to get done. Monarchy, or single-ruler government in general, is much more efficient, which is bad news bears when you have a bad ruler - they can be bad very efficiently.

I would say it is obvious that a powerful ruler can quickly help or harm a society. A monarch can be weak and a president strong. So the type of government is not most important. A powerful republic will attract rulers who have a desire for power. Men with a desire for power are generally not well regarded by history or Scripture. A king can be a person who does not want that power but just happened to be born into it.

The president’s focus is more short term than a monarchs. So a powerful president, like the US’s, is much more likely to accomplish great harm in a short amount of time than a king with little power. Regarding power government will always exercise whatever amount people will allow them to under any form.

 

[tonyrey]

Scripture points us toward governing ourselves.

Indeed! Yet not by force unless it is in self-defence against an oppressive undemocratic regime…

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Scripture points us toward governing ourselves.

Alright, if Scripture points us to democracy. Than I would like either you or tonyrey to point to Scripture. Where does the Bible suggest democracy?

I don’t see how “render unto Caesar” does that… seeing as Caesar was an emperor.

Revelation 17:14; 19:16 Both refer to Jesus as being the “King of Kings”.
If Jesus is referred to as the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords… doesn’t that mean that there must be Kings for him to be King over? There must be Lords for Him to be the Lord of?
Jesus is not the President of Presidents (he is not elected). He is the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.

Isaiah 9:6 says “the government shall be upon His shoulders”.
Would anyone say that the government of the U.S. rests on the shoulders of God? What about the government of the Vatican?

Those are a couple of verses. But there are hundreds of verses in the Old Testament about the Kingdom of Israel, and the King of Israel. Those were God’s people, and God gave them a King to rule over them. And, historically, did Christian Europe, [Christendom], follow the ideals of Israel or Greece in terms of government? Christian Europe followed the government type of Israel.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

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.

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.

I just want to kindly say: please remember that the Holy Spirit keeps the Church around, not luck. Scandals can divide other Churches, they can even kill off other churches… plenty of Chrisitan churches have ceased to be. The Catholic Church isn’t defeated by sin like they are, bc of the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, thank you for your blessings, and furthermore for your logic and pragmatism. A lot of people who disagree with theocracy or monarchy as a form of government also subscribe to the thought that these are now IMPOSSIBLE in the modern world.

I’m glad you see the elephant in the room in my discussion here. Which is: if enough Catholics want a monarchy or a theocracy, the Catholic Church has enough power and money to make that dream a reality. The backing of the Vatican could make it happen if Catholics who want this organized themselves.