What level of temporal power should the Catholic Church have?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ioana
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Ioana

Guest
Legend has it that we aren’t technically supposed to believe in separation of church and state. So according to itself (so to say) what level of temporal power should the Catholic Church have and can she do something massively wrong whilst exercising that temporal power?
 
I would also like to know more about this.

Bl. Pius IX’s in the Syllabus of Errors, lists these as the 55th and 77th errors:
“The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. — Allocution ‘Acerbissimum,’ Sept. 27, 1852.”
“In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. — Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.”

I think it will be a long while before I will be qualified to have strong views on government and economics and such, but I’m interested in picking up what different views are out there, and what is most compatible with the Catholic Faith.
Charles Coulombe K.C.S.S. is a Catholic historian, who is a monarchist, and I think he has a lot of great insight that we don’t often hear.

 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
KevinK said:
The Inquisition comes to mind.
Click to expand...
Not sure that is a good example. From my understanding, though the church condemned the practice of idolatry, apostasy, and blasphemy, it was the state that carried out much of the gruesome details.
 
Temporal power as in controlling governments, dictating civil law, establishing policy between governments? None! Jesus established a church, not a government.
Should the church issue opinion on the proper governance of the people based on the principles of the RCC (using Catholic here as this is a Catholic forum), of course. That is the raison d’etre of the Church.
 
Speaking from a historical state church perspective, where if the priest didn’t take to you it’d affect your moving, getting a job etc. Also the church covering pretty bad societal abuses. Also the church directing things like my mom not being allowed as a teacher to wear trousers or cut her hair in a public school in 1965 my answer is:
The church should butt out.
 
  1. None at all. Should rather be concerned about things within the CC’s department.
  2. Absolutely
 
Last edited:
The operation of church and state has very little to do with the temporal power of the church. These days, people confuse a theocracy with a country which has little/no separation of church and state. Theocracies imply having a state church. Having a state church in no way implies a theocracy.
The answer to the original question of this thread is quite simple. The only temporal power of the church should be the rside in the pope, and his temporal power should only be as much as is needed to ensure his independence from a temporal ruler, no more, no less. This has actually been the policy if the church for most of history. But the amount of temporal power of the pope has varied due to the conditions at the time, ie in the middle ages, the pope needed greater power than today to be ensure he was idependent.
 
Actually, typically the state probited those acts, ie civil laws. They relied on the church, ie the Inquisition, for juridical purposes.
 
tafan2 said:
But the amount of temporal power of the pope has varied due to the conditions at the time, ie in the middle ages, the pope needed greater power than today to be ensure he was idependent.
Click to expand...
Actually no! The Pope by mere accident got a piece of land because he colluded with Pepin with all the favours one way or the other and yes… he got land. That’s actually how it happened then and it did!
 
We should render unto God what is God’s. And that includes Caesar.
 
I’d like to see more Concordats between the Holy See and various countries with high Catholic populations. Not exactly temporal power, but it shows that the country that signs it is to some degree committed to the Church.
 
As someone who is a baptized Catholic who is no longer with the Church and disagrees with it on a number of issues, I am strongly in favor of it not having temporal power – especially at the levels it once had where it could do all sorts of unpleasant things to me based on what I just noted about myself.
 
For centuries in the history of the Church temporal power seemed like the ideal to spread Christianity. For example, when a king converted, a whole nation would convert. But it came at a price, for kings used the Church for political purposes and would appoint Bishops from the noble classes even if they had no faith, etc. so the Church didn’t have independence and always involved in politics. With the advent of separation of Church and State, it was a challenge to adapt but it is a blessing because the Church can be independent and devote itself fully to its spiritual mission.
 
True about what happened in the past, but don’t you think the Church should have at least a little more say than it has now? I mean look at the statistics in the West: mass attendance, divorce, abortion… it’s all bad. I think the Church having quite a bit more influence could only be a good thing.
 
The Church has a right to supremacy over the State, insofar as ts laws are of higher authority and the State is morally bound not to contradict them. The Church also has the right to depose state authorities which are evil, and has a right to acknowledgment by the State. The Church does not have the competency to dictate the specifics of state policy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top