What is the Church's attitude on a Catholic State?

[St_Francis]

The answer to the auestion is that the Church traditionally recommends a lay government but what one might call a Catholic ethos. This would obviously include the proper respect to the Lord of the World as such.

The Church does not recommend a theocracy or rule by priests, bishops, and the like; however, as a nation acting in accord with God’s will (ie, *all *nations have this obligation), the government would be subject to the Pope in matters of faith and morals.

So the way to attain a Catholic nation is not to sequester ourselves away but to patriots of our own lands! Hiw do we do that? By praying for our nation and for our neighbors, and of course the most important thing is to pray for our neighbors’ conversions and for our nation to be good and holy.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Seeing as Jesus said, “My Kingdom is not of this world”, this should give people an idea that a worldly government is not what Jesus was speaking of and the history of the Catholic Church in this world should be ample evidence that this is something that has been tried and found NOT to be a good idea.

Jesus forced Himself on no one and by definition a government, any government, forces itself on people from the outside in whereas faith in God should be from the inside out.

I, personally, believe that the founding fathers of this country (USA) were Divinely inspired with the separation of Church and state since no one should be coerced in their beliefs by either the Church (religious) or state (secular) powers that be.

Unless everyone has freedom of religion than no one has freedom of religion.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Human nature being what it is, I would think that any version of “Catholica” would, within a couple of generations (if not sooner), devolve into North Korea with Mass. Factions, finger-pointing, splits along non-doctrinal lines (you guys with the vernacular and altar girls stay on YOUR side of the island), heated dissention, in-groups, out-groups, personality cults centered around charismatic individuals – it’s all happened before. As evidence, look what happens here in discussions over certain hot-button issues.

 

[Pilgrim1701]

And also Ireland is catholic

Oh my, had i been drinking coffee no doubt it would be all over my screen now.
Ireland is no more Catholic than the UK or US is. We are talking about theocracy here, not democracy where a large, even a majority are Catholic,if only nominally so.
That the Church enjoyed influence at one point, was only down to the fact, that it had social influence on a large part of the electorate who comprised that church. If I am correct, clergy are debarred from holding political office. The Catholic church in Ireland has no more political power or authority than in any other state.

As for Irish legislation, abortion was forced through without consulting the people, who i still believe would have rejected it. A fine example a malfunctioning democracy if there ever was one. Irish have divorce and civil partnerships with the push on for “gay marriage”. The rights of parents and the family have been eroded. The recent austerity measures attack the weakest and most vulnerable of our society, while the situation for the well off actually improves. What’s Christian about that?

So in this sense the secular state seems to produce more religious people the the religious state. Plus you have that whole nasty issue of The Troubles in NORTHERN Ireland (UK)

I’m not sure what the point is, other than a British imperial policy of partition doesn’t work, especially if there is indeed a rigged electoral system, state endorsed discrimination, and state support for openly sectarian groups and organisations.

 

[St_Francis]

Seeing as Jesus said, “My Kingdom is not of this world”, this should give people an idea that a worldly government is not what Jesus was speaking of and the history of the Catholic Church in this world should be ample evidence that this is something that has been tried and found NOT to be a good idea.

Jesus forced Himself on no one and by definition a government, any government, forces itself on people from the outside in whereas faith in God should be from the inside out.

I, personally, believe that the founding fathers of this country (USA) were Divinely inspired with the separation of Church and state since no one should be coerced in their beliefs by either the Church (religious) or state (secular) powers that be.

Unless everyone has freedom of religion than no one has freedom of religion.

The traditional teachings of the Church are 1. that one should not force conversion (freedom of religion); and 2. that the Church and the state should not be separate. This latter derives from the fact that everyone should be Catholic; everybody should worship God; etc. IOW, the ideal is the Church and the state (government and people) should all be going in the same direction.

Within an ideal Catholic state, people would be unforced to be Catholic; however, the rights of the Church would be primary–proselitysim (?!?) could be prohibited.

In the current situation, where few nations are very Catholic, the Church advocates for freedom of religion to protect the rights of Catholics to practice their Faith. Freedom of religion is a nuanced teaching: on the one hand, it means that Catholics are not to force conversions; on the other, it is a recognition of today’s sad reality.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Oh my, had i been drinking coffee no doubt it would be all over my screen now.
Ireland is no more Catholic than the UK or US is. We are talking about theocracy here, not democracy where a large, even a majority are Catholic,if only nominally so.
That the Church enjoyed influence at one point, was only down to the fact, that it had social influence on a large part of the electorate who comprised that church. If I am correct, clergy are debarred from holding political office. The Catholic church in Ireland has no more political power or authority than in any other state.

As for Irish legislation, abortion was forced through without consulting the people, who i still believe would have rejected it. A fine example a malfunctioning democracy if there ever was one. Irish have divorce and civil partnerships with the push on for “gay marriage”. The rights of parents and the family have been eroded. The recent austerity measures attack the weakest and most vulnerable of our society, while the situation for the well off actually improves. What’s Christian about that?

I’m not sure what the point is, other than a British imperial policy of partition doesn’t work, especially if there is indeed a rigged electoral system, state endorsed discrimination, and state support for openly sectarian groups and organisations.

Irish laws are still heavily influenced by the catholic faith though…UK is a Protestant nation and USA is secular so no they are not catholic.

My point was that I find it interesting how the country where religion is the head is hardly religious at all and the secular country has a lot if religious people…meaning a religion in power (as the OP is about) doesn’t always work.

 

[liturgyluver]

Just as a side perspective taking Catholicism out of the equation…people often forget the UK is a Christian country (Protestant) although only about 10% of its population attend church and many forget it is christian…it’s run as if its secular…so in that sense Ireland is more catholic than the UK is Protestant…at least they allow their faith to govern their laws on marriage, abortion etc…

On the other side of the coin is USA…it’s a secular country technically speaking but is very much Christian at its heart…I think someone once told me 90% attend church…

So in this sense the secular state seems to produce more religious people the the religious state. Plus you have that whole nasty issue of The Troubles in NORTHERN Ireland (UK)

90% of people attend church in the US? Don’t make me laugh. 44% of Americans say they attend church each week. but surveys have found that people over report attendance and estimate that the real figure is around 17%. The same thing happens in Italy where the figures are 30% who say they attend cf. 9% who actually do…

Protestants in the US are more likely to go to church than Catholics - 24% of US Catholics attend mass weekly cf. 23% in the UK. You mention Ireland - since the sex scandals mass attendance has fallen from around 70% to 45%.

 

[liturgyluver]

Irish laws are still heavily influenced by the catholic faith though…UK is a Protestant nation and USA is secular so no they are not catholic.

My point was that I find it interesting how the country where religion is the head is hardly religious at all and the secular country has a lot if religious people…meaning a religion in power (as the OP is about) doesn’t always work.

You need to do a bit more research. if you are talking about the UK there are 3 separate Anglican provinces for Wales, Scotland and England. The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England (not Scotland nor Wales) she is not the “head”. The head is the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is a constitutional role in the same way as her political one.

 

[Tom_Baum]

The traditional teachings of the Church are 1. that one should not force conversion (freedom of religion); and 2. that the Church and the state should not be separate. This latter derives from the fact that everyone should be Catholic; everybody should worship God; etc. IOW, the ideal is the Church and the state (government and people) should all be going in the same direction.

Within an ideal Catholic state, people would be unforced to be Catholic; however, the rights of the Church would be primary–proselitysim (?!?) could be prohibited.

In the current situation, where few nations are very Catholic, the Church advocates for freedom of religion to protect the rights of Catholics to practice their Faith. Freedom of religion is a nuanced teaching: on the one hand, it means that Catholics are not to force conversions; on the other, it is a recognition of today’s sad reality.

Jesus never, ever, set up HIS Church to be a theocracy, He set lt up so that “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against It”.

Freedom of religion might be a nuanced teaching but freedom of religion is NOT nuanced, it is either free or it isn’t, almost freedom is NOT freedom.

As I said in my previous post, Jesus forced Himself on no one and He never gave the impression that we are to force Him on anyone.

Just as free will is NOT nuanced, it is either free or it isn’t, if it is free, totally free, than we have free will, if it is not free than we are no more than puppets on a string.

 

[Pilgrim1701]

The OP moots the possibility of establishing a Catholic theocracy in the modern world.

So, the point is, there are a lot of Catholics, and the Catholic Church could get it done. Clearly the Papal States only ceased to exist in 1870, which is why I’m posting this in Traditional Catholicism.

I’m not interested in arguing the pros and cons of such a state. I’m asking a question:

Did the Catholic Church ever pronounce that Catholics shouldn’t demand to live in a Catholic State? Did the Church ever teach that there should be no more theocracies after the fall of the Papal States?

Does the Church teach against it? Or, does Church teaching allow for it, at the present time?

Irish laws are still heavily influenced by the catholic faith though…UK is a Protestant nation and USA is secular so no they are not catholic.

Examples please.

My point was that I find it interesting how the country where religion is the head is hardly religious at all and the secular country has a lot if religious people…meaning a religion in power (as the OP is about) doesn’t always work.

You stated Ireland was Catholic, I contend that is clearly is not, and cannot see a single time when there existed a Catholic theocracy in Ireland. Ireland has a long and ignoble history of following the British example, rather than charting her own course, and this is equally true in matters of religious observance.

I read an interesting book by Rowan Williams on “Faith in the Public Square”, where he describes progressive and programmatic secularism. I would contend faith gets a fairer hearing in the UK than in Ireland, but that may just be opinion. The point being, even in secular states, of whatever type, people of religion can have a voice, that does not equate to having power or theocracy.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

You need to do a bit more research. if you are talking about the UK there are 3 separate Anglican provinces for Wales, Scotland and England.

Never… really :: I would have never have guessed that!

Besides your t picking has no use to the OP, my point was just that I find it interesting how in a country which is supposed to be Protestant less people go to church than in a country which is secular…that was a report I read during my masters…if your resources tell you different fine.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

The OP moots the possibility of establishing a Catholic theocracy in the modern world.

Examples please.

You stated Ireland was Catholic, I contend that is clearly is not, and cannot see a single time when there existed a Catholic theocracy in Ireland. Ireland has a long and ignoble history of following the British example, rather than charting her own course, and this is equally true in matters of religious observance.

I read an interesting book by Rowan Williams on “Faith in the Public Square”, where he describes progressive and programmatic secularism. I would contend faith gets a fairer hearing in the UK than in Ireland, but that may just be opinion. The point being, even in secular states, of whatever type, people of religion can have a voice, that does not equate to having power or theocracy.

If Ireland is not catholic i am mistaken, on my visit there I honestly thought it was…abortion is an example (connected to my thread about the story of mother who died…the doctor was reported to say to her that she could not have an abortion because it was a catholic country)

 

[Pilgrim1701]

If Ireland is not catholic i am mistaken, on my visit there I honestly thought it was…abortion is an example (connected to my thread about the story of mother who died…the doctor was reported to say to her that she could not have an abortion because it was a catholic country)

Not the doctor, the nurse, and it wasn’t even a Catholic hospital.
Abortion at that point hadn’t been ‘legalised’. What the nurse was trying to explain is anybody’s guess, she has since admitted she was wrong to say those things in the tribunal that investigated this.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Not the doctor, the nurse, and it wasn’t even a Catholic hospital.
Abortion at that point hadn’t been ‘legalised’. What the nurse was trying to explain is anybody’s guess, she has since admitted she was wrong to say those things in the tribunal that investigated this.

Well I’m pleased to hear she admitted she was wrong!

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Just as a POI…the structure of the Church of England is as follow:- it actually has two
Provinces and two archbishops although the Archbishop of Canterbury is considered the main one. The queen appoints the archbishops and bishops on advice from the priminister…I often see her as being like the governments puppet.

churchofengland.org/about-us/structure.aspx

 

[RC_Sojourner]

What is your point? Should the Catholic Church invade those 50 countries and set up in government??

No.

My point is that it wouldn’t be that hard to make a Catholic state somewhere. Obviously, not by violence.

[And I am enthralled that this somehow got 34 replies!]

While I’ve only read one, I know that there are several people that commented in favor of the idea. And for this thread to get 34 replies in less than 12 hours proves my original point:

There is a lot of demand for this. Whether you like it or not. Where there is a will, there is a way.

Shouldn’t all these people in favor of this idea be granted the right to self determination?

 

[Pilgrim1701]

Well I’m pleased to hear she admitted she was wrong!

It’s interesting, because I’ve lived in both Britain and Ireland, and I believe faith, Christian or otherwise, gets a voice in public debate in Britain. You even see it in the general media. Everything is up for debate, and everyone is entitled to be heard, it doesn’t mean they’ll get what they want but there is genuine debate. William’s progressive secularism.
In Ireland. Its what Arch-bishop Rowan Williams calls programmatic secularism. The government decides what’s up for debate, ie abortion wasn’t, and who could have a say, the churches and others of faith were not allowed a voice in the discussion, only to hold private views. The government even denied freedom of conscience to its members, what will it now do to the nation at large?

That Britain seems less Christian is because it is, there a larger numbers of non-christians, who tend to be more observant, and not only milestone life events like births, marriages and deaths.

Anyway, Britain is not a theocracy, Ireland is not a theocracy, and we won’t be seeing any Catholic theocracies outside the Vatican any-time soon.

 

[RC_Sojourner]

I do not know what the official position of the Church is on such a matter - but I would suggest that history teaches that it is not a good idea.

Peace
James

Loving disciple:

Tried it in the past didn’t work

A very common critique. However, when studying history, its important to understand that many wars were started because of how slow communication traveled. Just look at the battle of New Orleans fought by Andrew Jackson, it occurred two weeks after the war of 1812 was declared over.

The point being, there’s this thing called: government 2.0. Government 2.0 is the idea that government is different in the modern age with modern technology. I’m not talking about the government spying on you, I’m obviously against that. But, there are plenty of perfectly legitimate things which enhance the function of government in our day.

Opinion polls. The internet. Televised debates. Telephones. Instant communication.

Also, I think its a fallacy to suggest that we can’t learn from the past. If everyone on Earth looked at the French Revolution and said, “Oh my, it really does look like any government except monarchy will lead to absolute violent chaos”.

Well, then our world wouldn’t look like it does today. There are many reasons why a Catholic State today, might succeed, than in the past. It would have many new resources that it never had in the past.

 

[RC_Sojourner]

Actually - Yes it does.
Because the Church is not a temporal power, it is free to act without regard to “political” considerations. This makes it a much stronger force for good.
In the past, when the Church leadership was both both spiritual and temporal rulers, the conflicts between these two offices caused many problems…

Peace
James

Were more people Catholic?

God alone knows if more people were saved because of it. But, we can at least ask ourselves the question. What if this type of government would lead to the salvation of more souls?

 

[RC_Sojourner]

Truefaith…

The second problem would come about with succeeding generations grow to adulthood.
If I am understanding the OP correctly, He would envision a place - empty of non-Catholics - and where only devout, practicing Catholics would be permitted to enter. Where the laws of the land grow out of the laws of the Church - out of canon law.
This is fine in theory - but then - as children are born and grow - how many of these will choose to become devout, practicing adult Catholics?
Will these be told to leave since they do not hold to the principles upon which the country is founded and under which it governs?
If they are allowed to stay, are they allowed to choose [not to practice the faith (remember that they would be baptized Catholic…or would this be against the law (Sunday mass, baptize their children, etc.)

The bottom line is that immigrants, like converts, are strong advocates for their adopted country…but this does not necessarily mean that their progeny will be. And how does a the country of “Catholica” (just made that up) deal with such dissension…

History seems to indicate that this issue - the conflict between the spiritual and the temporal - will cause many issues.

Just can’t see it working well…

But it does work. My answer is not theoretical, but exists in the world today.

Look at the Amish community, their treatment of their young is my answer to this question which you raise.

At a certain time, when they’re around 16-18, they have the option of going out into the world and experiencing all of life that is outside of the Amish. Some fall into drugs and serious evils. Anyways, they can then choose whether to go back to being Amish, or stay in the wider world.

Around 80% of them choose to be Amish for their lives. And, that choice entails that they honor their religion. The people that choose to be Amish don’t want to be non-practicing Amish. They want to practice their faith and their lifestyle.

If they didn’t, then they wouldn’t have chosen to go back. This state doesn’t have to be compulsory.

The key would be, that if you disagreed with the state, you have the freedom to leave. Why can’t that be the solution to political disagreement? Just find a state that you like, and go there! Why does the solution always have to be: we must change the state to reflect our values?

Well guess what, the hypothetical question: If you don’t like living in America, why don’t you go somewhere else? Got me thinking about this. Basically, there’s nowhere I would like to live, except in Vatican City.

So… why can’t we have a state where we would like to live? Why can’t every ideology have a state somewhere for its kind of people? That would eliminate a lot of political conflict, I think. You could then truly just vote with your feet.