J
jonbhorton
Guest
Is this clarifying anything for you?well I’ll think more about the whole impeachment issue; perhaps it wasn’t a case of judgment though I find it hard to conceive how gathering evidence in favor of guilt doesn’t (properly and normally) automatically lead to a moral judgment on the part of the evidence-gatherer.
If that is the case, no cop who ever sped should issue a speeding citation; nor should any judge who ever cheated on his wife or her husband ever hear a divorce case where cheating was involved (even in a “no-fault” state), etc.
One can, in the process of submitting to authority as a position, seem hypocritical. The truly honest cop would write himself a speeding citation for any situation he would write one for another. Human nature rarely provides for such an occurrence.
We are able to separate ourselves from what was done in our past, or even currently, when we are not in judgement. That a hypocritical moral situation was in existence on that which was not even really the cause of the investigation is irrelevant. To push the issue is to engage in accusing Salamander Dingwich, and thus, judging. Impeachment is not being tried for adultery.
Now, as for your above responses: they both work but they also illustrate an issue I was trying to elucidate which is “what is the nature of the social estates”. So in your example, the individuals of society are implicitly supposed to be the parts of the state, yet most people would say that the family is the lowest unit of society and so a society is a conglomeration of families and not individuals.
Now we’re on to something!
Family should generally have a family head (first step in the chain above the individual who only has personal authority), right? Who answers to the authority in the family? The individual members. Why would the individual member answer to, or seek help, from the one above them? They can’t handle the problem, or it is a problem of the family which must be helped by everyone. If the individual can handle the issue, and the family unit can’t handle the issue, it goes up the chain. That we don’t have a “Chain of command” totally spelled out, complete with wall-mounted picture set of the person in charge of each level for society, is not to say that the chain of subsidiarity doesn’t exist from the individual up to God.
I ask this question primarily because depending on how you define society, that’s what will regulate when you think subsidiarity or solidarity are violated; if you think that individuals are the most basic unit of society then you will account all things to be a subject of democratic legislation, whereas if you think that the individual is normally capable of doing most things for himself, then you will not find democracy (as universal suffrage) to be an appealing constitution.
This is a bit fallacious because of the following:
I believe, and I understand it to be Church teaching as well (please correct me if wrong with source) that individuals must make personal decisions within the construct of authority and inherent moral standards. Whether or not they recognize the authority placed by God for this to be accomplished leaves said person to answer ultimately to God for their actions, decisions, etc without the opportunity to correct ourselves via submitting to a more understanding authority within the context of the moral paradigm which must exist for this all to work. It essentially breaks down and becomes a sort of quasi-anarchy where everyone tells God, the ultimate authority, what HE should rule on any situation. That, along with the imperatively important nature of scriptural interpretation is why we see the concept of subsidiarity misappropriated within Protestantism. No longer recognizing that which is the infallible authority of the Church leads to a sort of semi-controlled spiritual state of rebellion, and is insulting to the God they claim to worship. God’s concern is everyone, not just those who consistently recognize the authority He has placed on earth. As such, the Catholic Church acts as an earthly authority which people can reject or accept- but you’ll notice that everyone pays attention to what the Vatican says despite accepting or rejecting it. That alone is an indicator of the authority of the Church.
As St. Augustine said, “I would not believe the holy Gospels if it were not for the authority of the Holy Catholic Church.”
In democratic systems, in the terms of pure vox populi, it behooves the people to recognize that society can change and sway with popular opinion which may or may not be good for society overall. Hence, Democracy, majority rule without consideration to the minority as forced by their own recognition of their potential failings, is ultimately damaging. The concept of a republic, however, disallows the minority to be trampled at the self-righteous determination of the majority. This is why the Founding Fathers set the USA up the way they did. The failures are the failure of mankind in general, and to trounce on subsidiarity in direct conflict to the codified consideration of such a possibility: the US Constitution.
As such, democracy is making the people the authority without any checks on themselves in respect of the minority as a rule. It leads to Marxism in its ends, as it is not prepared to fight off the equal amounts of pride and fear which reject God and think He can’t serve as a basis for the people to look towards in how to deal with a situation, and posits man must solve all his problems with a block being checked on a piece of paper. Pure democracies don’t exist because they break down practically before they start. I believe the phrase is along the lines of: “Opinions are like … everyone has one”.
Anyone more versed in the actual language of the Church, please correct me if I’m incorrect! (and provide source so I can learn!)
