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.
Well remember we live in a democracy here in North America and the Catholic Church is not even the faith of the majority who is religious. Democracy means will of the majority so the majority will not agree to that, and even if someone in government would propose that, I can see our Protestant friends up in arms against it. So from a practical point of view, I don’t see it happening.
 
Nor do I for the U.S. But Spain/France/Germany/other countries with Catholic-majority populations? It could happen.

Or how about Mexico? If ever there were a country in need of more Church influence, that’s it. It’s more dangerous to be a priest in Mexico than in Syria or Iraq.
 
The countries with the largest Catholic populations are Brazil, Mexico and the Philippines. Probably because of that, abortion is illegal except in extreme circumstances, I believe. So some influence there.
 
I’m asking mainly in light of the Syllabus of Errors. Also, I’m not asking to criticize the Catholic Church and how it has used temporal power in the past/present. My own Dad has positive experiences with that and has witnessed a whole culture that (if we are to believe him) has had recent positive experiences with that (although there is no denying that the past hasn’t always been rosy; it hasn’t always been doom and gloom either). I’m wondering what in the world Pope Pius ix was getting at and what relevance it has to us. To me it seems like having any sort of temporal power would actually make the Church less credible but what is the official stance?
 
There is no such thing as an official stance.

Contemporary Catholics (including orthodox Catholics) generally think fairly minimal temporal power is a good thing because it provides less distractions for the Pope and for the bishopric; they can focus on their vocation, which is to be shepherds for the faithful / servants for the servants.

There were - in my opinion - some decent arguments to be made in past centuries for the existence of the Papal States simply because Europe in general was far more volatile and having a tiny city-state within metropolitan Rome wasn’t necessarily viable, nor was the peninsula of Italy nationally homogeneous in order for a unified state to step in and take control. However, those reasons have more-or-less ceded as Europe became internally stable and Italy became unified in the 1800s.
 
Last edited:
KJW5551 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a wonderful idea until the Church begins to teach and enforce something you do not agree with. Gun control? Universal healthcare in the US, citing the Beatitudes?

Just be careful what you wish for, is my point.
 
Look at Islam where the religious rule is absolute under Sharia Law and the brutality and atrocities that are carried out.
 
SnowRose said:
That sounds like a wonderful idea until the Church begins to teach and enforce something you do not agree with. Gun control? Universal healthcare in the US, citing the Beatitudes?

Just be careful what you wish for, is my point.
Click to expand...
I think of all the Catholic hospitals that have been forced to close because of secular government regulations. And all of the Catholic adoption agencies.

And of the Catholic agencies closed by “agreement” with Mussolini.
 
No, during the 7th century undtil the Donation of Pepin, Rome was ruled by the Byzantine Empire, but it was effectively under the complete control of Rome. IIRC this was situation was formalized around 725, 2 or 3 decades before Pepn’s don’t nation.
The idea of the pope exercising temporal power wasn’t formal power was not constant prior to the eighth century, but even under the Lombards in the 5th and 6tg century, he was the largest landowner in Rome and effectively was ruler of his lands.

I think my original post was correct on all points. Pepin’s Donation does not contradicts any of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top