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

[RC_Sojourner]

I agree with you,.i can see somewhere like Catholica () advocating something like the Amish do, where their children at 16 are able to spend a year seeing the rest of the world outside their protected closed world - if they choose to believe still, they are welcome back and must fully embrace Amish life, if they don’t, they are ostracised and shunned by family and friends.

There you go, you beat me to it…

 

[RC_Sojourner]

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.

Ok, I don’t want to argue with you. I only want to know where you got this information.

Just to be clear: You are the ONLY person to answer my question! YAY!!!

I also read your second post, and again, how come you by this knowledge? How come you’re the only one who claims to know what the Church teaches on this?

Also, if I might challenge your last point, name me a nation that is likely to become a Catholic State in my lifetime. There’s no reason that the Church can’t redraw the current map of the world to include a Catholic State somewhere.

And, it wouldn’t have to be any bigger than an Andorra, or a San Marino. But, I think that having that different government choice would be greatly beneficial to the world.

And, that’s my original point: people would move there. Like it or not, despite all objections on this thread, it is the desired government choice of many Catholics. I can object to certain government choices all I want, but if the people legitimately want that kind of government, then they want it.

Why don’t any of those nice democratic sentiments work in favor of devout Catholics. What ever happened to “whatever floats your boat”. Because, a Catholic State would float the boat of a lot of Catholics.

And that is for the whole thread to think about.

 

[RC_Sojourner]

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.

Are you saying that the Popes were wrong?

The Popes were temporal rulers over the Papal States. Were they wrong?

This is an interesting thing I found on the wikipedia of Pius IX (not the best soruce obviously), but I couldn’t find any sources on whether the Papal States had freedom of religion.
Wikipedia of Pius IX:

Mexico
Pius had blessed Maximilian and his wife Charlotte of Belgium before they set off for Mexico to begin their reign.[40] But the friction between the Vatican and Mexico would continue** with the new Emperor when Maximilian insisted on freedom of religion, which Pius opposed.** Relations with the Vatican would only be resumed when Maximilian sent a recently converted American Catholic priest Father Fischer to Rome as his envoy

Pope Pius IX, apparently opposed religious freedom for the Mexican people.

Does anyone know if the Papal States had freedom of religion?

 

[RC_Sojourner]

Pilgrim1701 and True_Faith13, please discontinue your long sidetrack on the nature of the U.K. and Ireland.

I thought True_Faith’s original point was definitely a good point to bring up. But, now I think the issue has been pretty settled. And, I really really don’t want this thread to be closed yet, due to it going off topic.

Pilgrim, I also don’t understand what you meant in your post #30.

Thank you both in advance

 

[JRKH]

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.

It’s interesting that you immediately mention war…no one else has.
In fact - I for one was not even thinking about wars when I framed my answers.

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.

All of this is true - and could perhaps help in your scenario…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

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.

Well we could have an entirely separate thread on the why’s of this - which may not always be the spiritually compelling…But for now we’ll go with the idea.

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?

And as you undoubtedly read in my reply to the suggestion, it is somewhat different for a community within a state to do this than for a state itself to do so. Leaving one country for another is not necessarily as easy as leaving one community for another within the same country. So you could find yourself in a situation where you have people who do not want to be there but can’t leave…

That is why I think that your proposed scenario would have a better chance operating as a communal system within a country rather than trying to establish it’s own independent country.
That is really one of the founding principles of this country…Freedom of religion - freedom of ideology.

Peace
James

 

[RC_Sojourner]

It’s interesting that you immediately mention war…no one else has.
In fact - I for one was not even thinking about wars when I framed my answers.

I’m not a warmonger, if that’s what you’re insinuating.

It’s just that wars are things that actually make history books. I wouldn’t have been able to quote a famous story of miscommunication about the butcher who brought the wrong slice of meat to the King. [Unless he was famously executed].

So yeah, I was just trying to paint a picture of just how different the world was without telephones or instant communication. The most serious difference was that these technologies could have prevented wars in the past, and have likely prevented wars in the past 100 years.

There are still a few absolute monarchs today, and that government has a lot more tools than any monarchy did in the dark ages, that’s my point. Why look to theocracies in the dark ages as representative of how the government would look in the 21st century?

Why not look to Vatican City?

 

[RC_Sojourner]

**What is the Church’s attitude on a Catholic State?
**
This will be my last post until much later tonight. Sorry I just posted like 10 times in a row, but I felt the need to respond to a lot of parts of the thread. Again, I had no idea it would have 34 replies. And again, that goes to show how much Catholics care about this issue (be it for or against). Why can’t we talk about something like this more often? It seems a great deal of opinion lies dormant and unexpressed until a thread like this comes a long.

Anyways,What is the Church’s attitude on a Catholic State?

As good Catholics, if the Church teaches anything definitive on this, then we’re all going to have to accept that teaching. However, it seems very likely that if it teaches anything at all on it, that it is not definitive.

Still, all the arguments against this don’t matter if the Church still teaches that Catholics can push to live in a Catholic State.

All the arguments for it don’t matter if the Church teaches that Catholics should no longer desire to live in a Catholic State.

Only one person claimed they knew the Church’s teaching, and that was St Francis.

 

[RC_Sojourner]

And as you undoubtedly read in my reply to the suggestion, it is somewhat different for a community within a state to do this than for a state itself to do so. Leaving one country for another is not necessarily as easy as leaving one community for another within the same country. So you could find yourself in a situation where you have people who do not want to be there but can’t leave…

That is why I think that your proposed scenario would have a better chance operating as a communal system within a country rather than trying to establish it’s own independent country.
That is really one of the founding principles of this country…Freedom of religion - freedom of ideology.

Peace
James

I agree wholeheartedly with everything in this post. I believe firmly in the establishment of Catholic communities in this country.

You can research things like The Catholic Land Movement for instance, which are all about this. Obviously, Ave Maria Florida gets a bit more press than they do, seeing as they’re just rural farmers who often don’t blog…

I wholeheartedly agree with this though. I’m simply concerned that we can’t live like we’ll always have freedom of religion in this country. And, while I will undoubtedly try to strengthen Catholic communities during my life, I do not know whether I should try to devote any of my time, not to Catholic communities, but for a movement for a Catholic State.

Is that a goal that I, and other Catholics should pursue, in the eyes of the Church? I’m sure I’ll ask some clergy eventually. It’s just never the most pressing spiritual issue going on in my life.

With that, I’ll leave the tread to dicepher the 15- odd posts I just made. And hopefully I’ll return to 150 replies or something like that.
**
Don’t get the thread closed! And God be with you all!**

 

[JRKH]

I’m not a warmonger, if that’s what you’re insinuating.

Allow me to be clear here so that we do not miscommunicate.
I do not insinuate. If I have something to say - I say it.
In this case I found it interesting and that is why I used that word.

It’s just that wars are things that actually make history books. I wouldn’t have been able to quote a famous story of miscommunication about the butcher who brought the wrong slice of meat to the King. [Unless he was famously executed].

So yeah, I was just trying to paint a picture of just how different the world was without telephones or instant communication. The most serious difference was that these technologies could have prevented wars in the past, and have likely prevented wars in the past 100 years.

Fair enough. And you are right - better communications have helped to avoid wars. But then again the two bloodiest wars in history were both fought in the last hundred years.
Just sayin…

There are still a few absolute monarchs today, and that government has a lot more tools than any monarchy did in the dark ages, that’s my point. Why look to theocracies in the dark ages as representative of how the government would look in the 21st century?

On the one hand you advocate learning from history - which I agree with, but then you ask, why should we look to the past…

One need not go to the “dark ages” for examples. Countries with State religions have existed right up to today - as Lasting Faith points out the UK has a state religion - Japan had a state religion up through World War 2 - one could even say that the USSR had a state religion (Atheism). Iran has a state religion - and I am sure there are many more.
So I would suggest that in discussing this matter we have a rather wide range of examples from many historical times and circumstances.

And please don’t get me wrong…It would be wonderful if such a state could be created, but I’m afraid that we will have to wait for Christ’s return for it to be set up.

Why not look to Vatican City?

Vatican City is really little more than an administration hub. Very few people actually live there.
It might be more profitable to look as the Vatican states which only dissolved about 150 year ago - in 1870.

Of course we are just sharing opinions here.

Peace
James

 

[janeway529]

Isn’t Vatican City technically a catholic state?

So is Malta.

 

[St_Francis]

Ok, I don’t want to argue with you. I only want to know where you got this information.

Just to be clear: You are the ONLY person to answer my question! YAY!!!

Yes, I used to get in trouble in school if I didn’t answer the question which was asked–not so much multiple-choice back then

I also read your second post, and again, how come you by this knowledge?

Wow… 17 years of amateur studying and arguing with really well-educated Catholics; reading encyclicals and other Catholic documents and really thinking hard about how it all fits together; etc. And I studied poli sci in school. Reading about Christ the King and the Syllabis of Errors and the social encyclicals like Rerum Novarum.

How come you’re the only one who claims to know what the Church teaches on this?

Others do too, I’m sure. i just happened to answer.

Also, if I might challenge your last point, name me a nation that is likely to become a Catholic State in my lifetime. There’s no reason that the Church can’t redraw the current map of the world to include a Catholic State somewhere.

I just don’t think that’s what we should be looking towards as Catholics. Altho we are not supposed to be of the world, we are still supposed to be in the world.

And, it wouldn’t have to be any bigger than an Andorra, or a San Marino. But, I think that having that different government choice would be greatly beneficial to the world.

And, that’s my original point: people would move there. Like it or not, despite all objections on this thread, it is the desired government choice of many Catholics. I can object to certain government choices all I want, but if the people legitimately want that kind of government, then they want it.

Sometimes we don’t get what we want. If you have a really small country like Andorra, not all that many people could *fit *in it!

Why don’t any of those nice democratic sentiments work in favor of devout Catholics. What ever happened to “whatever floats your boat”. Because, a Catholic State would float the boat of a lot of Catholics.

And that is for the whole thread to think about.

Indeed, one does have to consider why those who call so loudly for tolerance are themselves so very intolerant.

 

[St_Francis]

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”.

No, but the Church teaches that God’s ideal will is that we all be Catholic. Read Quas Primas, about Christ the King.

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.

The Church teaches that we are not morally free to do anything other than God’s will, which is that all be good Catholics. Anything less than full adherence has to be dealt with. It has always been the rule of the Church not to force conversion, so a man has the physical freedom to be something other than Catholic.

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.

If I implied otherwise, I did not mean to.

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.

What I was trying to explain is that the Church’s use of the term “freedom of religion” is nuanced, because the usual US definition is incompatible with Church teaching.

I was raised with these US ideas too, and for a long time after I returned to the Church I had a hard time teasing out the differences and getting a grip on Church teaching. We n the States are generally so isolated from other ways of thinking that US thinking tends to settle in our minds. For me I felt like my mind had to flip over to get it! And I still find areas of great difficulty.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Are you saying that the Popes were wrong?

The Popes were temporal rulers over the Papal States. Were they wrong?

This is an interesting thing I found on the wikipedia of Pius IX (not the best soruce obviously), but I couldn’t find any sources on whether the Papal States had freedom of religion.

Pope Pius IX, apparently opposed religious freedom for the Mexican people.

Does anyone know if the Papal States had freedom of religion?

Popes are human beings and they have been wrong at times and just like the rest of us, they are sinners too.

I have no idea if the Papal States had freedom of religion.

You wrote that “Pope Pius IX, apparently opposed religious freedom for the Mexican people”, if he did since it was/is God Who gave us free will, what right does any human being have to take away another human being’s God-given free will to worship or not worship God or gods as they decide?

One thing that I might ask tho, when saying that “Pope Pius IX apparently opposed religious freedom for the Mexican people”, are you speaking of something like “virgin sacrifices” or no freedom to be anything (religion-wise) except for Catholic?

 

[Tom_Baum]

No, but the Church teaches that God’s ideal will is that we all be Catholic. Read Quas Primas, about Christ the King.

The Church teaches that we are not morally free to do anything other than God’s will, which is that all be good Catholics. Anything less than full adherence has to be dealt with. It has always been the rule of the Church not to force conversion, so a man has the physical freedom to be something other than Catholic.

If I implied otherwise, I did not mean to.

What I was trying to explain is that the Church’s use of the term “freedom of religion” is nuanced, because the usual US definition is incompatible with Church teaching.

I was raised with these US ideas too, and for a long time after I returned to the Church I had a hard time teasing out the differences and getting a grip on Church teaching. We n the States are generally so isolated from other ways of thinking that US thinking tends to settle in our minds. For me I felt like my mind had to flip over to get it! And I still find areas of great difficulty.

Jesus prayed that we be one as Jesus and Dad are One, didn’t He?

We are not to be clones, God’s Will in my life is not necessarily what God’s Will is for others, we all have different “jobs” to do.

As far as “Anything less than full adherence has to be dealt with”, God Is my Judge, not the Catholic Church.

God gave me a conscience and God said that He would “write it on my heart”, my conscience is not the catechism, the code of canon law or anything else written by human beings but something that God gave me.

I don’t know if I know “the usual US definition” of freedom of religion but to me “freedom of religion in the USA” means that everyone can choose to follow or not follow whatever (religion, faith or whatever one wishes to call it) they want as long as they do not force themself or their religion on others and they do no harm to others in the name of religion which the USA, in the founding papers, has said is endowed from our Creator.

As I have said many times before, Jesus extended the invitation to “Come follow Me”, His invitation was not to follow His Church, not to follow a follower of His, not to follow that which is written about Him but to follow Him.

 

[EphelDuath]

Pope Pius IX, apparently opposed religious freedom for the Mexican people.

“Freedom of religion” in Mexico at that time meant “freedom from religion”, i.e. you could put a bullet between the eyes of your local priest if it meant getting Catholicism out of your life.

Does anyone know if the Papal States had freedom of religion?

Depends. Most people consider “religious freedom” to mean no interference from religion in their lives at all. In that sense no.

Taken in its most basic and flat definition, religious freedom however can simply mean the right not to be forcefully converted – in that sense, yes, the Papal States had religious freedom. There was a vibrant Jewish community in Rome itself, as well as a handful of Protestants and Muslims. There was no law compelling one to go to Holy Mass on Sunday.

As I have said many times before, Jesus extended the invitation to “Come follow Me”, His invitation was not to follow His Church, not to follow a follower of His, not to follow that which is written about Him but to follow Him.

The Catholic Church is the bulwark and pillar of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), and the gates of hell cannot prevail against it (Mt 16:18-19). To disobey the Church is to disobey Christ.

 

[St_Francis]

Jesus prayed that we be one as Jesus and Dad are One, didn’t He?

Yes, He did, didn’t He? And do you not think that means that God’s will is that we all be good Catholics?

We are not to be clones, God’s Will in my life is not necessarily what God’s Will is for others, we all have different “jobs” to do.

And where did I say we should all be clones?

As far as “Anything less than full adherence has to be dealt with”, God Is my Judge, not the Catholic Church.
…

I don’t know if I know “the usual US definition” of freedom of religion but to me “freedom of religion in the USA” means that everyone can choose to follow or not follow whatever (religion, faith or whatever one wishes to call it) they want as long as they do not force themself or their religion on others and they do no harm to others in the name of religion which the USA, in the founding papers, has said is endowed from our Creator.

As I have said many times before, Jesus extended the invitation to “Come follow Me”, His invitation was not to follow His Church, not to follow a follower of His, not to follow that which is written about Him but to follow Him.

The Catholic Church *is *the Body of Christ.

God gave me a conscience and God said that He would “write it on my heart”, my conscience is not the catechism, the code of canon law or anything else written by human beings but something that God gave me

God does not write different things on different people’s hearts–what is referred to here is *natural law, *the workings which man can figure out through use of his reason (opposed to revelation, the knowledge we have which God has revealed).

Our consciences can be well-formed, in unity with the teachings of the Church, or it can be badly formed, in which case it differs from what the Church teaches. We are to strive for a well-formed conscience to rely on.

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

Ok, I don’t want to argue with you. I only want to know where you got this information.

Just to be clear: You are the ONLY person to answer my question! YAY!!!

I also read your second post, and again, how come you by this knowledge? How come you’re the only one who claims to know what the Church teaches on this?

Also, if I might challenge your last point, name me a nation that is likely to become a Catholic State in my lifetime. There’s no reason that the Church can’t redraw the current map of the world to include a Catholic State somewhere.

And, it wouldn’t have to be any bigger than an Andorra, or a San Marino. But, I think that having that different government choice would be greatly beneficial to the world.

And, that’s my original point: people would move there. Like it or not, despite all objections on this thread, it is the desired government choice of many Catholics. I can object to certain government choices all I want, but if the people legitimately want that kind of government, then they want it.

Why don’t any of those nice democratic sentiments work in favor of devout Catholics. What ever happened to “whatever floats your boat”. Because, a Catholic State would float the boat of a lot of Catholics.

And that is for the whole thread to think about.

Wait, what? Redraw the map of the world? What do you mean? Are you proposing that the Church could buy up part of a country somewhere and form its own state? I don’t think I understand what you’re suggesting.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

At this point in history, the idea of a Catholic state is a silly pipe dream. Put that aside and focus on being holy. Holiness comes from within. It cannot be imposed by statute. God wants us to CHOOSE to know/love/serve him. Some of our greatest saints lived int he first centuries of Christian times under governments hostile to the faith. Today, we are blessed to live in a pagan world. This is a great opportunity to love and serve God by being steadfastly faithful and living with love for all - esepcially those who don’t share our faith or who are hostile to it. Are we up to this challenge which God has placed before us? Why should we want the easier softer way, one in which societal rules eliminate choice and make it easier to be Catholic?? This is an opportunity to holiness and not a cause for lamentation.

 

[RC_Sojourner]

On the one hand you advocate learning from history - which I agree with, but then you ask, why should we look to the past…

One need not go to the “dark ages” for examples. Countries with State religions have existed right up to today - as Lasting Faith points out the UK has a state religion - Japan had a state religion up through World War 2 - one could even say that the USSR had a state religion (Atheism). Iran has a state religion - and I am sure there are many more.
So I would suggest that in discussing this matter we have a rather wide range of examples from many historical times and circumstances.

Vatican City is really little more than an administration hub. Very few people actually live there.
It might be more profitable to look as the Vatican states which only dissolved about 150 year ago - in 1870.

Of course we are just sharing opinions here.

Peace
James

I think it’s wrong to compare non-Catholic state religions to states which had the Catholic faith as its state religion. Protestant countries like in Scandinavia and the U.K. might be somewhat instructive as to what a Catholic State might have problems with. Even Israel, is I think, instructive.

The Soviet Union and Iran, are not worth studying at all (IMO). State Atheism has always resulted in violent tyrannical governments from the French Revolution to North Korea and China today. Islam is a militant religion which has never ceased to be violent, from the hand of its prophet, all the way to today. So, I reject comparing Christianity to these inherently violent ideologies.

I think the Popes would strongly disagree with your characterization of Vatican City as “an administration hub”. If the Church wanted that, it could have had that within the confines of the nation of Italy. Instead, the Popes were “Prisoners in the Vatican” for almost 60 years, because they rejected bowing to any Earthly government. If you read the history of that time, the time of the prisoners in the Vatican, it’s very obvious that having a sovereign state was absolutely non-negotiable.

Short of that, the Popes essentially rejected the reality they were in. I might parallel that situation to the situation Taiwan is in today. Taiwan absolutely rejects the reality on the ground: that China is no longer under their jurisdiction. The Popes completely and utterly rejected that they were no longer the temporal rulers of at least what is today Vatican City.

And yes, we are just sharing opinions.

If that didn’t directly address your point, my point is: Yes, only less than 1,000 people live in a Catholic theocracy today. But, is there any reason why other Catholics can’t live in a theocracy like the people in the Vatican? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, no?