Thank God for Protestantism

[raumzeitmc2]

Thanks for the links. I plan to go through these books. I am curoius, though, whether it is your contention that these books will contradict the OP.

You be the judge:

Civil society - Catholic Encyclopedia – Asceticism:

A common accusation against religious asceticism is that it is synonymous with idleness. Such a charge ignores all past and contemporary history. It was the ascetic monks who virtually created our present civilizations by teaching the barbarian tribes the value and dignity of manual labour; by training them in the mechanical arts, in agriculture, in architecture, etc. …

newadvent.org/cathen/01767c.htm

Capitalism - Is Capitalism Catholic? by Richard Bastien

Modern science - See The Popes and Science by J. J. Walsh referenced earlier.

Modern democracy - (Soon! Just need to find my copy of an article (originally published during WWI) and reprinted in the Catholic Hearth (1993). The author says he bases his information on the works of J. J. Walsh.

In general, see: Role of the Catholic Church in civilization.

The OP also said:

Was Protestantism part of God’s plan?

Well, self-proclaimed “reformers” have been breaking away from Christ’s one Church from the beginning (oftentimes violently persecuting her as well).

St. Augustine tells of the atrocities of the Donatist sect in his day (claiming to be the “reformed” or “pure” church).

Catholics, and especially the bishops and clergy, have suffered many terrible hardships, which it would take too long to go through in detail, seeing that some of them had their eyes put out, and one bishop his hands and tongue cut off, while some were actually murdered. I say nothing of massacres of the most cruel description, and robberies of houses, committed in nocturnal burglaries, with the burning not only of private houses, but even of churches,— some being found abandoned enough to cast the sacred books into the flames. 1

In the middle ages it was the violent Cathari (“the pure”):

They ridiculed the priests as singers, and it was one of their savage sports to beat them to death while mockingly begging their intercession—“Sing for us, you singer, sing for us”… 2

In the 15 century it was sects like the Taborites (claiming to be the “pure church” or “reformed” church):

And a contemporary Taborite song also makes the point: ‘Faithful ones, rejoice in God! Give him honor and praise, that he has pleased to preserve us and graciously liberate us from the evil Antichrist and his cunning army…’ In the very afflictions descending on them the millenarians recognized the long-expected ‘messianic woes’; and the conviction gave them a new militancy.

No longer content to await the destruction of the godless by a miracles, the preachers called upon the faithful to carry out the necessary purification of the earth themselves. One of them, a graduate of Prague University called John Capek, wrote a tract which is said to have been ‘fuller of blood than a pond is of water’ and in which he demonstrated, with the help of quotations from the Old Testament, that it was the inescapable duty of the Elect to kill in the name of the Lord. This work served as a polemical armory for other preacher, who used its arguments to urge their hearers on to massacre.

No pity, they declared, must be shown towards sinners, for all sinners were enemies of Christ.

“Accursed be the man who withholds his sword from shedding the blood of the enemies of Christ. Every believer must wash his hands in that blood.” 3

Then Luther (claiming the “pure gospel”):

If a thief is punished by a halter, a murderer by the sword, and a heretic by fire, why should not we with all our weapons attack these teachers of corruption these Popes Cardinals and all the rabble of the Roman Sodom and wash our hands in their blood. 4

Then Calvin (claiming the “pure gospel”):

[Those] who persist in the superstitions of the Roman Antichrist * … deserve to be repressed by the sword…
5*
Then his followers (claiming the “pure gospel”):

Within a year the Calvinists, according to one of their own estimates, murdered 4,000 priests, monks and nuns, expelled or maltreated 12,000 nuns, sacked 20,000 churches, and destroyed 2, 000 monasteries with their priceless libraries and works of art. The rare manuscript collection of the ancient monastery of Cluny was irreparably lost, with many others. Sacred vessels from the churches were melted into money to pay German mercenaries, who were urged to be ruthless. 6

And so on…

Seems to me more like the Devil’s plan than God’s!

1. Augustine, Letter 185. newadvent.org/fathers/1102185.htm
2. A history of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, Volume 1, Henry Charles Lea, 1887, 1922, vol. 1. p. 125. books.google.com/books?id=wwsNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA125&dq=%22They+ridiculed+the+priests+as+singers%22&lr=&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=%22They%20ridiculed%20the%20priests%20as%20singers%22&f=false
3. The Pursuit of the Millennium; Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages, Norman Cohn, 1970 (first ed., 1957), Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 211-212
   books.google.com/books?id=4UM5AAAAIAAJ&q=%22Every+believer+must+wash+his+hands+in+that+blood%22&dq=%22Every+believer+must+wash+his+hands+in+that+blood%22&lr=&ei=8-hxSs67C4vMMuPakeIO
4. Luther’s Opera Latina Vari., II, 107, against Silvestro Mazzolini (aka Prierias). See, Ludwig Pastor, History of the Popes, 1908, vol. 7, p. 393.
   books.google.com/books?id=BqnLIpBkOk8C&pg=PA393&dq=luther+Op+lat+%22wash+our+hands+in+their+blood%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=luther%20Op%20lat%20%22wash%20our%20hands%20in%20their%20blood%22&f=false
5. To the Protector Somerset, Oct. 22, 1548. Letters of John Calvin, 1857, Jean Calvin, Jules Bonnet, David Constable, vol. 2, p. 173.
   books.google.com/books?id=tlUYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA173&dq=%22both+alike+deserve+to+be+repressed+by+the+sword%22&lr=#v=onepage&q=%22both%20alike%20deserve%20to%20be%20repressed%20by%20the%20sword%22&f=false
6. William Thomas Walsh, Philip II, 1937, p. 289.
   books.google.com/books?hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=%22murdered%204%2C000%20priests%2C%20monks%20and%20nuns%2C%20expelled%20or%20maltreated%2012%2C000%20nuns%22&sa=N&tab=wp

 

[greggy53]

At His trial, Jesus told the Represenitive of the Roman government that His kingdom is not of this world. The Roman Catholic Church forgot this and at the time of the reformation was involved in all sorts of civil government activities. The reformation changed that and brought at least some of the church back to His kingdom and out of the civil kingdom.

The Catholic Church is not perfect. Many mistakes have been made over the it’s 2000 year history. That doesn’t mean the Church lost it’s authority, or mandate from our Lord. Conversely the so called reformation never had any authority on earth or heaven to do anything. The resulting mess is very obvious. The churches descended from this so called reformation are hopelessly divided amongst themselves. The Catholic Church is still united…The proof as they say is in the pudding!

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Sure, they gave us capitalism, but what good has capitalism done us?..Same for modern democracy.What good have they done us? Surely they are not inherently wrong yet at the same time they are surely not the paragon of goodness. “Progress” is not all it’s kicked up today especially if it means we’re running around in circles forever.

This is certainly a valid point. Are the gifts of Protantism (civil society, capitalism, modern science, and modern democracy) good? I’m inclined to think so but it’s worth considering the question not only because the point is debatable but also because it helps us understand what it is that Catholics might prefer to them.

Well, Catholicism gave us Franco in Spain. While not perfect, it was overall a good era for Spain in relation to what was before and what came after. The same with Mussolini in Italy. Also, Naples was one of the highest peaks of civilization before the anti-clerical Garibaldi destroyed the rich patrimony and Catholicism of Southern Italy. Portugal and Spain spread Catholicism in the Orient. In addition the Inquisitions were a major leap forward in the justice system.

I often accuse my fellow Catholics of being closet authoritatians. Of course, authoritarian rule is not immoral in and of itself, it’s not inherently evil. And sometimes it can be hard for critics to find any basis for complaint (my favorite example is Singapore’s Lee Kwan Yu). But, on balance, over the full range of data, you get what we see in Latin America.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The Englightenment? Rights of Man? Both ideas were heavily influenced by philosophical thought in the very Catholic country of France (philosophers such as Voltaire, Rousseau and their companions) who among others spread their ideas to America.

While France was Catholic before the French Revolution (and mostly so after), Voltaire and Rousseau were not. (Voltaire was a deist, son of a “protestant catholic” Jansenist and Rouusseau was Calvinist (thought he converted for a time to Catholicism).

Says who? As we’ve seen, GDP per capita is high in Catholic or Muslim - or Asian - countries as much (possibly more so) as Protestant.

I’ll put together the data but bear populations in mind in looking at the charts. UAE may be rich but it’s also relatively unpopulated.

Asia is the more intereting case. Why is Asia leaping ahead of Latin America? (Insofar as Asia is Christian it is Protestant, see e.g. South Korea and Taiwan.)

More civil institutions? What the heck does that even mean? You mean more of the over-government and over-regulation so many Americans (and Europeans, AND Australians, AND Britons) whine about?

By “civil institutions” I mean organizations not operated by the government, e.g. charities and churches.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

At His trial, Jesus told the Represenitive of the Roman government that His kingdom is not of this world. The Roman Catholic Church forgot this and at the time of the reformation was involved in all sorts of civil government activities. The reformation changed that and brought at least some of the church back to His kingdom and out of the civil kingdom.

In fact, the author make exactly the opposite argument. He argues that Catholicism was overly focused on the other world (heaven) and that because Protestant cleargy did not seperate themselves out lived more temporal lives and made a greater effort to integrate the spiritual and temporal worlds.

At one point he even argues that pre-reformation Catholicism was anti-family (regarding the chastity of clerical life to be a higher calling than raising a family). I don’t think this is true today but it’s not an absurd criticism of the CC of the middle ages.

It’s important to remember that Jesus also said that the Kingdom of God is already here around us. The seeming contradictions are one of the mysteries of the NT.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

"Bubba:

Thanks for the links. I plan to go through these books. I am curoius, though, whether it is your contention that these books will contradict the OP.

You be the judge:

That’s a bit of a cop-out, don’t you think?

Civil society - Catholic Encyclopedia – Asceticism:

Asceticism is almost precisely what Protestantism discarded to realize the advances in human civilization that we are discussing here. Ascetics seek to seperate themselves from the world, not to live in it, much less to change it.

Well, self-proclaimed “reformers” have been breaking away from Christ’s one Church from the beginning (oftentimes violently persecuting her as well).

I think there is plenty of that to go around. Let’s not go off on a tangent of who was more cruel to whom.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

This is certainly a valid point. Are the gifts of Protantism (civil society, capitalism, modern science, and modern democracy) good? I’m inclined to think so but it’s worth considering the question not only because the point is debatable but also because it helps us understand what it is that Catholics might prefer to them.

Thank you.

I often accuse my fellow Catholics of being closet authoritatians.

You don’t have to accuse me of being a closet authoritarian. I’ll tell you straight up I am.

Of course, authoritarian rule is not immoral in and of itself, it’s not inherently evil. And sometimes it can be hard for critics to find any basis for complaint (my favorite example is Singapore’s Lee Kwan Yu). But, on balance, over the full range of data, you get what we see in Latin America.

That’s why Franco and Mussolini were my examples as opposed to Stalin, Hitler, &c.

But yes, I realize that there are drawbacks and frequent abuses of the authoritarian system…

Pax.

 

[josie_L]

In fact, the author make exactly the opposite argument. He argues that Catholicism was overly focused on the other world (heaven) and that because Protestant cleargy did not seperate themselves out lived more temporal lives and made a greater effort to integrate the spiritual and temporal worlds.

At one point he even argues that pre-reformation Catholicism was anti-family (regarding the chastity of clerical life to be a higher calling than raising a family). I don’t think this is true today but it’s not an absurd criticism of the CC of the middle ages.

It’s important to remember that Jesus also said that the Kingdom of God is already here around us. The seeming contradictions are one of the mysteries of the NT.

You might want to read other authors to get a more well-rounded historical analysis.

 

[Contarini]

In fact, the author make exactly the opposite argument. He argues that Catholicism was overly focused on the other world (heaven) and that because Protestant cleargy did not seperate themselves out lived more temporal lives and made a greater effort to integrate the spiritual and temporal worlds.

The fact that one can describe what happened in these two opposite ways shows how complicated the issue is. In the Middle Ages the Church had a set of institutions and authority structures parallel to those of civil society. In one sense this was very “this-worldly,” because these institutions had laws, courts, taxes, etc. In another it was very “otherworldly,” because this massive institutional structure was dedicated to people’s spiritual needs and thus in some sense “higher” than the functions of civil society.

The Reformation largely abolished this parallel society, integrating the Church more fully into civil society. But it did so in the name of a more “spiritual” function of the Church–since the Church was supposed to care for people’s spiritual needs, it shouldn’t have all the trappings of a “worldly” power. The Church was there to provide the Gospel and the Sacraments–the civil authority was supposed to do everything else, including some degree of authority over the “external” aspects of the Church.

I know that I’m still oversimplifying things. I’m describing primarily the Lutheran/Anglican situation–many of the Reformed took a stance somewhat closer to the Catholic one with regard to the autonomous authority of the Church.

At one point he even argues that pre-reformation Catholicism was anti-family (regarding the chastity of clerical life to be a higher calling than raising a family).

Or it didn’t idolize the family in the way that Protestantism has done.

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Do Catholics believe God is immutable? If we can change God’s mind, how does that change the sovereignty of God as a divine attribute of the Most High??

God’s Immutability is Catholic dogma.​

What’s that about changing God’s mind ???

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

God is sovereign, so all that comes to pass is part of God’s plan, even though we may not understand it on this side of glory. Why do you consider the Protestant belief of “priesthood of believers” to be heresy? You do believe that there will be Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians in Heaven, right… where theological distinctives will disappear.

In some sense, the priesthood of believers is RC doctrine - it’s just that it doesn’t exclude a priesthood with a visible sacrifice. It’s anything but heresy, unless the Apostles are heretics.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This is a tricky question, as I’m sure you are aware. I don’t want to go offtopic on this but do we not pray that “God’s will be done?” Why would we pray for what is certain?

Because that is a Hebraic way of thinking - because X is certain to be the case, X is to be asked for. A further complication is that the whole Our Father is an apocalyptic prayer; and, God in particular is thought of as being more certain than any creature, therefore His will is too. The gospels are full of Divine “determinism” because they are apocalyptic - hence also the strong stress on election, and on separation of “sheep” from “goats”.​

What if God wills that we should each have a very small slice of providence of our own? Suffice it to say that free will introduces complications to a fatalistic view of God’s will.

I’m not arguing for fatalism - just to clear that up; and could you explain what you have in mind by “a very small slice of providence…[each]” ? Thanks.​

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Because that is a Hebraic way of thinking - because X is certain to be the case, X is to be asked for. A further complication is that the whole Our Father is an apocalyptic prayer; and, God in particular is thought of as being more certain than any creature, therefore His will is too. The gospels are full of Divine “determinism” because they are apocalyptic - hence also the strong stress on election, and on separation of “sheep” from “goats”. ## I’m not arguing for fatalism - just to clear that up; and could you explain what you have in mind by “a very small slice of providence…[each]” ? Thanks.​

This threatens to go offtopic. If you want to start a new thread on this question (though I’m sure there must be some already) I’ll join to argue against your interpretation of God’s will (and elaborate on my own).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Sure, they gave us capitalism, but what good has capitalism done us?

Same for modern democracy.

What good have they done us? Surely they are not inherently wrong yet at the same time they are surely not the paragon of goodness.

Only given us universal suffrage, including the vote for women. Of course, if you would rather live in a country like Saudi Arabia, with plenty of access to torture, execution for homosexuality, lots of honour killings (if you’re a woman and your hubby or fiance doesn’t like you), mutilation for theft (a bit rough if you’re selfish enough not to be guilty), and similar delights - by all means go there.​

Just one problem - these nasty corrupt foul democracies make some sort of effort, however incompletely successful, through measures enacted into law, to ensure the freedom and safety of all persons in them: these theocratic regimes didn’t and don’t. So those who praise theocracies, or other totalitarian states, are very careful to avoid moving to them; they stay in their horrid god-hating democracies they find so much wrong with instead.

Politics is the art of the possible - those who want it to provide it perfection, are crying for the moon. The Great Helmsman was no democrat - and look what he did to China. That’s why democracy, with all its faults, is preferable to autocracy, whether Mao’s or another’s. Autocracy & theocracy & dictatorship - not democracy - are what bring forth Inquisitors, Commissars, & the like.

“Progress” is not all it’s kicked up today especially if it means we’re running around in circles forever.

You’re expecting the kind of exemption from problems that’s not possible in this world.​

Well, Catholicism gave us Franco in Spain. While not perfect, it was overall a good era for Spain in relation to what was before and what came after.

Herr Hitler was fantastic - other than for Jews & similar tiresome people. He got rid of a lot of homosexuals, communists, & other disgusting creatures, especially Jews, whom the Church has often tried to get rid of. So you should be grateful for him.​

The same with Mussolini in Italy. Also, Naples was one of the highest peaks of civilization before the anti-clerical Garibaldi destroyed the rich patrimony and Catholicism of Southern Italy. Portugal and Spain spread Catholicism in the Orient. In addition the Inquisitions were a major leap forward in the justice system.

Pax.

If you have an unsatisfied desire to be tortured, go to Iran, Libya, China, & other totalitarian states. You may find moving from one to another difficult, once your legs have been broken, so it’s best to choose which to go to sooner rather rather than later. Should you desire to be tortured in a particular way - by being forced to eat excrement or by having live electrodes attached to your genitals, for example - it is advisable to watch documentaries on breaches of human rights that take place in the various countries. Happy Torment !​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

While France was Catholic before the French Revolution (and mostly so after), Voltaire and Rousseau were not. (Voltaire was a deist, son of a “protestant catholic” Jansenist and Rouusseau was Calvinist (thought he converted for a time to Catholicism).

I’ll put together the data but bear populations in mind in looking at the charts. UAE may be rich but it’s also relatively unpopulated.

Asia is the more intereting case. Why is Asia leaping ahead of Latin America? (Insofar as Asia is Christian it is Protestant, see e.g. South Korea and Taiwan.)

By “civil institutions” I mean organizations not operated by the government, e.g. charities and churches.

Does that include QUANGOs ?​

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Only given us universal suffrage, including the vote for women. Of course, if you would rather live in a country like Saudi Arabia, with plenty of access to torture, execution for homosexuality, lots of honour killings (if you’re a woman and your hubby or fiance doesn’t like you), mutilation for theft (a bit rough if you’re selfish enough not to be guilty), and similar delights - by all means go there.​

Did I not state that totalitarian states have frequent problems. And when did I say I’d like to live under Sharia law?

Just one problem - these nasty corrupt foul democracies make some sort of effort, however incompletely successful, through measures enacted into law, to ensure the freedom and safety of all persons in them:

What about the freedom and safety of the unborn?

these theocratic regimes didn’t and don’t.

Mussolini outlawed abortion.

So those who praise theocracies, or other totalitarian states, are very careful to avoid moving to them; they stay in their horrid god-hating democracies they find so much wrong with instead.

Authoritarian includes socialism and fascism. I don’t care for socialism, but find me a Catholic fascist state and I’ll consider moving there. Problem is the last ones died out with Franco and Salazar…

Politics is the art of the possible - those who want it to provide it perfection, are crying for the moon.

To aim for perfection is what we are called to do, even though we will never reach it.

The Great Helmsman was no democrat - and look what he did to China.

There’s a difference between socialism and fascism.

That’s why democracy, with all its faults, is preferable to autocracy, whether Mao’s or another’s. Autocracy & theocracy & dictatorship - not democracy - are what bring forth Inquisitors, Commissars, & the like.

You’re expecting the kind of exemption from problems that’s not possible in this world.​

I still say we should aim for perfection even if we can’t reach it.

Herr Hitler was fantastic - other than for Jews & similar tiresome people. He got rid of a lot of homosexuals, communists, & other disgusting creatures, especially Jews, whom the Church has often tried to get rid of. So you should be grateful for him.​

Hitler was a socialist and took his power too far.

If you have an unsatisfied desire to be tortured, go to Iran, Libya, China, & other totalitarian states. You may find moving from one to another difficult, once your legs have been broken, so it’s best to choose which to go to sooner rather rather than later. Should you desire to be tortured in a particular way - by being forced to eat excrement or by having live electrodes attached to your genitals, for example - it is advisable to watch documentaries on breaches of human rights that take place in the various countries. Happy Torment !​

A little touchy, are we? What about the torture of being all warm and cozy and then having your skull smashed in by a pair of forceps? So I still stick by my initial analysis that democracy is inherently flawed.

Pax.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The fact that one can describe what happened in these two opposite ways shows how complicated the issue is.

It’s further complicated by the fact that there is no coherent Protestant dogma, which is why I limited myself to citing only the most general and widely shared Protestant beliefs.

In the Middle Ages the Church had a set of institutions and authority structures parallel to those of civil society. In one sense this was very “this-worldly,” because these institutions had laws, courts, taxes, etc. In another it was very “otherworldly,” because this massive institutional structure was dedicated to people’s spiritual needs and thus in some sense “higher” than the functions of civil society.

Yes, even the ascetic monk hidden away on a mountain top is still in this world. The question is not where he is physically but where his attention is focused.

In those terms, you still correct: the CC was very much focused on, and involved in, temporal matters in ways that many europeans took as corruption. But, at the same time, it was detached in ways that protestantism would ultimately change. So, yes, a mixed bag but still a bag. You might even say that Protestantism traded one form of involvement for antoerh.

The Reformation largely abolished this parallel society, integrating the Church more fully into civil society. But it did so in the name of a more “spiritual” function of the Church–since the Church was supposed to care for people’s spiritual needs, it shouldn’t have all the trappings of a “worldly” power. The Church was there to provide the Gospel and the Sacraments–the civil authority was supposed to do everything else, including some degree of authority over the “external” aspects of the Church.

This is the traditional Catholic way of looking at it. I’m persuaded that the Protestant view (if we dare make such a sweeping generalization) is better: that the spiritual and temporal cannot be disentangled, and thus ought not be. That while the churuch should not wield political power, nonetheless, it must immerse itself in worldly issues.

Or it didn’t idolize the family in the way that Protestantism has done.

“Idolize” is a rather strong, and weighted, term. I note that the modern CC is very concerned about family issues in general and I can’t find fault with that.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The fact that one can describe what happened in these two opposite ways shows how complicated the issue is. In the Middle Ages the Church had a set of institutions and authority structures parallel to those of civil society. In one sense this was very “this-worldly,” because these institutions had laws, courts, taxes, etc. In another it was very “otherworldly,” because this massive institutional structure was dedicated to people’s spiritual needs and thus in some sense “higher” than the functions of civil society.

The Reformation largely abolished this parallel society, integrating the Church more fully into civil society. But it did so in the name of a more “spiritual” function of the Church–since the Church was supposed to care for people’s spiritual needs, it shouldn’t have all the trappings of a “worldly” power. The Church was there to provide the Gospel and the Sacraments–the civil authority was supposed to do everything else, including some degree of authority over the “external” aspects of the Church.

I know that I’m still oversimplifying things. I’m describing primarily the Lutheran/Anglican situation–many of the Reformed took a stance somewhat closer to the Catholic one with regard to the autonomous authority of the Church.

Or it didn’t idolize the family in the way that Protestantism has done.

Edwin

It may be that Catholicism does so in its Mariology. ISTM that the flaws & evils in both Christianities are the same, but are sometimes manifested in rather different ways. I don’t think any of them distinguishes the one kind of Christianity from the other though. Protestant Fundamentalism is world-affirming, even secular, in some ways, and not at all monastic; but it has its own forms of asceticism.​

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Does that include QUANGOs ?​

If you want to split hairs I think we’ll have to be more precise about why civil society is of interest in the first place. I’d suggest that it would depend on whether you are replacing a governmental authority with a QUANGO or a private institution.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Did I not state that totalitarian states have frequent problems. And when did I say I’d like to live under Sharia law?

You’re the advocate of tyranny - don’t blame others for the logic of your position.​

What about the freedom and safety of the unborn?

Mussolini outlawed abortion.

But not political assassination or intimidation or the murder of non-combatants in war. Presumably invading Ethiopia isn’t a crime - he did do so on Good Friday: very pious.​

Authoritarian includes socialism and fascism. I don’t care for socialism, but find me a Catholic fascist state and I’ll consider moving there. Problem is the last ones died out with Franco and Salazar…

Democracy is Hell, isn’t it ? No Jews to kill, no leeway to massacre Protestants or torture communists or cause inconvenient people to disappear by thousands, no one-party state… you must be feeling suicidal.​

To aim for perfection is what we are called to do, even though we will never reach it.

Even the CC says it is no part of the state to provide what the church is directed to. The State is not required to be the Church in that respect or any other. Otherwise you get clericalism.​

There’s a difference between socialism and fascism.

There’s a difference between burned alive and being gassed, but they are both fatal.​

I still say we should aim for perfection even if we can’t reach it.

Hitler was a socialist and took his power too far.

A little touchy, are we? What about the torture of being all warm and cozy and then having your skull smashed in by a pair of forceps? So I still stick by my initial analysis that democracy is inherently flawed.

Pax.

STM there’s something indecent in trying to compare pains - it does nothing to recommend the kind of regime you seem to prefer. I didn’t say democracy wasn’t flawed - I explicitly admitted that it was - but with all its faults, it’s immeasurably better than the kind of hell-hole you seem to admire so much. At least in a democracy laws that allow abortion can be objected to, and change of them campaigned for in public, without fear of arrest for so doing - in the kind of regime you seem to want, the liberty of the person to object to laws is rather less well-protected.​

Something is badly wrong with a religion which champions the strong against the weak - it’s the reverse of what is said in the the Magnificat.

Protestants & Catholics & others went to war against tyranny so that people like you could praise tyranny. That is the Catholic way, it seems. Your religion is cruel & wicked and murderous and deceitful and unrepentant - that shows clearly enough its true origin.