The Church's View of Democracy, in Light of the Near- Universality of Divorce

[RC_Sojourner]

The place where politics and religion meets is always an interesting one, to put it mildly.

Basically, my question has to do with how the Church views the legitimacy of democracy.

The easiest way to ask this, is to look at the issue of divorce. Until 2011, there were still 3 countries in which divorce was illegal: Malta, the Philippines, and the Vatican. Then, Malta legalized it. Let me quote two things from this article:

nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/asia/18iht-philippines18.html?_r=0
Article:

“The global reality is that divorce has been recognized as a legitimate option for couples, particularly for women, who are trapped in unhappy, even violent, unions,” said Luz Ilagan, a [Filipino]congresswoman …

Oscar V. Cruz, a retired archbishop who is now the leading church voice against the bill, said Filipino Catholics should not be ashamed that they are global holdouts on divorce.
“That is a distinction that we should all be very proud of,” Archbishop Cruz said. “It says that we are not one of those who believe the family can be destroyed.”

This is just something that is very difficult for me to take in. How can the Church accept the global reality that divorce is “legitimate”, if the Church views it as something that destroys the family.

Can the Church really view democracy as legitimate, if we are to take the reverse of Archbishop Cruz’s words? That, the people in every single country, except the Vatican and the Philippines all believe that the family can be destroyed.

Is the Church really ok with democracy?
Doesn’t the Church have an alternative system of government to implement?
Specifically considering that only 1 democracy is right on the issue of divorce [The Vatican is of course a Theocracy].

OR, is the Church’s plan actually to try to fight to make divorce illegal in more countries, through democratic means?

It is things like this which cause me to consider myself an alien and a sojourner in this world.

 

[TK421]

I think it’s safe to say that if the Magisterium were to speak against democracy, it would have done so by now. It’s already condemned national socialism and Marxism long ago. There are non-negotiables which are continued to be taught to be obeyed within a democratic system, but democracy itself has not been deemed evil anymore than the Magisterium in the past would have condemned monarchies if a king did something evil.

You’re not going to find a sin-proof political system, and even when the barriers come down, people themselves can and do continue to obey God’s institution of marriage.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Is the Church really ok with democracy?

Yes.

Doesn’t the Church have an alternative system of government to implement?

No. Christ did not teach a system of secular government.

OR, is the Church’s plan actually to try to fight to make divorce illegal in more countries, through democratic means?

The Church has more pressing legislative issues, such as the right to life, and the right to religious freedom.

It is things like this which cause me to consider myself an alien and a sojourner in this world.

Nothing new. Christians will always be at odds with the pagan world.

 

[TK421]

I think it’s safe to say that if the Magisterium were to broadly speak out against democracy, it would have done so a long time ago. It has already spoken out against models such as Marxism and national socialism.

You can’t expect a condemnation of democracy because people use it for unjust purposes anymore than you would have expected the Magisterium in the past to condemn monarchy because there are kings that make evil decrees. The system in of itself is not wretched.

It is very easy to look at all of the things that are wrong with the world and fall into despair; this will suffocate you. The world wasn’t a pretty place yesterday, it isn’t pretty today, and I don’t expect it will be pretty tomorrow. Like Christians since the time of pagan Rome to the present day, what we can do is use what influence we have, in public life and in personal life, to make the world as just and as full of light as what we can make it.

 

[jimmy]

The Church has more pressing legislative issues, such as the right to life, and the right to relious freedom.

Who says they are seperate issues? What do you think happens once the family is destroyed? Traditionally it is God, family, and country which demand your allegiance. It seems that we are moving in a direction in which family and God can no longer demand our allegiance. Look at the change in laws and attitudes in relation to God and family and it is pretty obvious. marriage in secular society seems to be a thing of the past. consequently, so is family. At that point the state will be god, because they will demand your full allegiance, and they will be the ‘benevolent’ bestowers of ‘rights’.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Doesn’t the Church have an alternative system of government to implement?

Yes. The Kingdom of God, alternatively known as the Kingdom of Heaven. But it is not a kingdom of this world.

Residency is by choice and by baptism, not birth, though God uses his own discretion as to who is allowed in. Choosing not to be a part of it ensures you won’t be.

There is a dress code, it’s called sanctity or holiness. God is the chief couturier and provides attire for all citizens in good standing; alternate dress will not suffice.

Everyone is invited to join.

The invitation is called the good news or Gospel.

It has an embassy in Rome and consulates all over the world, many in large cities.

The Pope is chief steward and Christ is the King

It is a peaceful kingdom, typically non-confrontational, and definitely non-belligerent, but does tell it like it is in terms of human rights and responsibilities. The latter are never ignored for the sake of the former.

 

[JerryZ]

Yes. The Kingdom of God, alternatively known as the Kingdom of Heaven. But it is not a kingdom of this world.

Residency is by choice and by baptism, not birth, though God uses his own discretion as to who is allowed in. Choosing not to be a part of it ensures you won’t be.

There is a dress code, it’s called sanctity or holiness. God is the chief couturier and provides attire for all citizens in good standing; alternate dress will not suffice.

Everyone is invited to join.

The invitation is called the good news or Gospel.

It has an embassy in Rome and consulates all over the world, many in large cities.

The Pope is chief steward and Christ is the King

It is a peaceful kingdom, typically non-confrontational, and definitely non-belligerent, but does tell it like it is in terms of human rights and responsibilities. The latter are never ignored for the sake of the former.

:clapping: could not have stated better than that!

–

 

[RC_Sojourner]

Who says they are seperate issues? What do you think happens once the family is destroyed? Traditionally it is God, family, and country which demand your allegiance. It seems that we are moving in a direction in which family and God can no longer demand our allegiance. Look at the change in laws and attitudes in relation to God and family and it is pretty obvious. marriage in secular society seems to be a thing of the past. consequently, so is family. At that point the state will be god, because they will demand your full allegiance, and they will be the ‘benevolent’ bestowers of ‘rights’.

Hear Hear!

I’m not going to suggest this as absolute fact, but let me suggest for the sake of argument:

The reason we have abortion on demand is because we have a “sex without consequences” culture which we have because the family collapsed which happened because divorce was legalized.

Further, for the sake of argument, let’s say that the fruits of abortion will lead to the slaughter of born infants, or perhaps to the slaughter of currently living people (perhaps violent persecution of the Christian minority).

So, my hypothetical timeline (which I don’t care to empirically prove) looks like this:

Divorce legalized → Family collapses → Sex w/ out consequences → Abortion on demand → Violent persecution of Christians

The taking of innocent human life is egregious. However, the Church can’t hope to end the taking of human life, if it doesn’t address the root causes. If the family were rebuilt, then there would be less abortion.

In short: The Church needs to be actively fighting all evils. Where are its campaigns to outlaw divorce? SURELY, it has not given up on that fight?

 

[RC_Sojourner]

It is a peaceful kingdom, typically non-confrontational, and definitely non-belligerent, but does tell it like it is in terms of human rights and responsibilities. The latter are never ignored for the sake of the former.

Isn’t the Kingdom of Heaven a warlike Kingdom? The Angels are armed with swords, and are part of an army. Aren’t the celestial powers engaged in battle with the powers below? Spiritual Warfare? Ringing any bells?
Peter Plato:

It has an embassy in Rome and consulates all over the world, many in large cities.

The Pope is chief steward and Christ is the King

The ‘embassy’ it has in Rome is a sovereign state. Why, if that status gets to be conferred on the ‘embassy’, can’t the ‘consulates’ also share in that status?

Why can’t the over 600 Catholic hospitals in the United States share in that status? No doubt they would want it, so that they would be exempt from the unjust laws of the state.

Does the Church accept governments which persecute its faithful?

What sets Rome apart from the other large cities you mention, why is it under the political control of the Pope, but the others are not? Why?

What does the Church say? I seriously want to know.

There was a state called the Papal States, and there were Popes who were called Prisoners in the Vatican, because they were so angry that their territory had been taken from them that they refused to enter into Italy or even recognize the nation of Italy, because of its theft of Papal lands.

What happened to that? What changed? Wasn’t the Pope right to rule the people that lived in the Papal States? If so, then why wouldn’t that be ok today?

What is the Church’s teaching?

I want the Catholic Answer to all these questions.

 

[RC_Sojourner]

What is the Church’s teaching?

I want the Catholic Answer to all these questions.

I really do want the answer to these questions. Am I in the wrong forum or something? Please tell me if I should be asking this somewhere else.

 

[tonyrey]

Pope Francis has demonstrated how love is more important than legalism. There will always be cases of disastrous marriages which test our capacity for compassion which the Pharisees lacked…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Isn’t the Kingdom of Heaven a warlike Kingdom? The Angels are armed with swords, and are part of an army. Aren’t the celestial powers engaged in battle with the powers below? Spiritual Warfare? Ringing any bells?

“Warlike” is a misnomer. The reality, I think, is more like the akido of martial arts where the attacking force (evil) is turned against itself (Satan casts out Satan, a house divided against itself) so that its aggression ends up doing itself in.

The ‘embassy’ it has in Rome is a sovereign state. Why, if that status gets to be conferred on the ‘embassy’, can’t the ‘consulates’ also share in that status?

Why can’t the over 600 Catholic hospitals in the United States share in that status? No doubt they would want it, so that they would be exempt from the unjust laws of the state.

Does the Church accept governments which persecute its faithful?

What sets Rome apart from the other large cities you mention, why is it under the political control of the Pope, but the others are not? Why?

Rome is not under the political control of the Pope. The Vatican is, but the Vatican is not Rome. Rome has its own secular government, completely outside the political jurisdiction of the Pope.

Perhaps if you think of the Vatican as a very large church complex, then you might see how it is very like a parish or diocese in any city in the world. It is more extensive in terms of physical space and therefore requires an “administration” that appears to function like a civil authority or, at least, what a civil authority might be like in a more ideal world - a political entity that is, itself, governed by spiritual values rather than “brute political survival.”

What does the Church say? I seriously want to know.

There was a state called the Papal States, and there were Popes who were called Prisoners in the Vatican, because they were so angry that their territory had been taken from them that they refused to enter into Italy or even recognize the nation of Italy, because of its theft of Papal lands.

What happened to that? What changed? Wasn’t the Pope right to rule the people that lived in the Papal States? If so, then why wouldn’t that be ok today?

What is the Church’s teaching?

I want the Catholic Answer to all these questions.

These are all part of the historical narrative, which is far beyond the scope of a thread like this one.

 

[Genesis315]

The Church does not favor democracy or monarchy or oligarchy–they are all fine provided they govern justly.

The Church does reject a kind of positivist democracy where the will of the people is a kind of supreme law subject to nothing, not even God:
Pope Bl. Pius IX:

1. And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?

Divorce laws are not a result of democracy, but of democracy governed by positivist principles.