What would a christian nation look like?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FireFromHeaven
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Personally as an Anarcho-capitolist I believe the only morally justifiable government is one made of and ruling over consenting citizens. I believe all people have absolute self sovereignty. Not a perfect system, but the one I consider morally right. No matter how good ones intentions are, using force (or the threat thereof) to exact taxes or enforce laws against victimless crime is not morally justifiable in my oppinion. Voluntary interaction and contracts are the basis of a truly free society.
As a former anarchist, I can relate to that romantic myth. The problem with anarchism of any stripe is anthropological. Humans have been celebrating their own rationality for millennia, from ancient Athens to late-19th century Europe. Yet always, the powerful prey on the weak. Robert Nozick’s masterwork, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, is to me the most credible explanation of how anarchocapitalism inevitably produces a state whose sole function is the enforcement of private property by threat of violent force – both police and military.

To me, original sin is a wonderful short-hand for how “state of nature” anarchistic fables degrade quickly into states.
 
Your point and mine both dovetail with a larger concern of mine. That is, that the hot button issues of sexuality have so captured and politicized many Catholics that the opposite of the evils they seek to counter are elevated to the point of idolatry. Life choices like yours, which I very much admire, are relegated to a second-class status behind the sacralized image of the big family with lots of kids. While I admire people who do end up having more than two kids, and their openness to God’s abundance, I don’t want that to be the only reference point as we confront the broader “culture of death.” To me, the politicization of the family has made sexuality a binary choice between “faithful and fertile” and “atheistic and miserly.” People like you are left out of the national dialogue, particularly among Protestants, to whom celibacy is considered weird and, as noted above, unchristian.

The blogger is an example of the danger of hypersimplification. Women I know, who would never get an abortion, complain that the whole pro-life movement is based on the notion that women cannot be trusted to make moral decisions. Bloggers like that only raise the temperature and do absolutely nothing that actually bears the Kingdom of God in the world.
Oh it’s been quite an “experience” with people assuming that my lack of “interest” in the opposite sex means I’m gay and abusing me as if I were one of them. The reason I get defensive about gay people is I have experienced how “Christians” “treat” (abuse) gay people.

Pelagianism is (or at least appears to be) rampant amongst conservative Christians given that they act as though Original Sin didn’t corrupt the nature of man. It’s really sad that they try to “fix” them as if marriage is the highest good when the truth is that trying to coerce them into marriage instead of helping them towards chastity and for those who are now chaste (or were always chaste) to aid them in the pursuit of celibacy as the reality is celibacy is better than marriage (the belief that marriage is better than celibacy has been formally declared anathema). It really is appalling how Christians including Catholics turn their back on gay people who have chosen celibacy over attempting to be fixed through a therapy that has a really low success rate and statistically does more harm than good so that they can more easily choose the suboptimal choice of marriage.

As a woman who would definitely never get an abortion I agree that large swaths of the pro-life doesn’t actually care about women or why they get them. If many did, they’d actually try to address the problems instead of only the symptom.
 
Women I know, who would never get an abortion, complain that the whole pro-life movement is based on the notion that women cannot be trusted to make moral decisions.
This thread demonstrates that Catholics in general believe that nobody can be trusted to make moral decisions. Just look at what things have been proposed in this thread: outlaw abortion, contraceptives and divorce – i.e. if it is immoral by Catholic standards, outlaw it.

And “immoral by Catholic standards” actually means “explicitly listen in CCC as illicit”. It’s rather amusing that nobody suggests e.g. eliminating investment banking in its current form – if you know anything about the system you’ll realize that it’s a pure vehicle for evil, but hey, it’s not mentioned in the CCC so it must be legit!
 
This thread demonstrates that Catholics in general believe that nobody can be trusted to make moral decisions. Just look at what things have been proposed in this thread: outlaw abortion, contraceptives and divorce – i.e. if it is immoral by Catholic standards, outlaw it.
I’m actually not one of those Catholics. Not because I want to promote abortion, contraception, and divorce, but because there is no evidence that many of the strategies my fellow Catholics promote to achieving those ends are effective. Many Catholics have been captured by the American political system, and have defined “promotion of a culture of life” with overturning Roe v. Wade. But in 1941, there was a national conference (that didn’t get much attention due to WW2) that bemoaned the epidemic of illegal abortion in America and asked what they could do, given the fact that it’s already illegal!
And “immoral by Catholic standards” actually means “explicitly listen in CCC as illicit”. It’s rather amusing that nobody suggests e.g. eliminating investment banking in its current form – if you know anything about the system you’ll realize that it’s a pure vehicle for evil, but hey, it’s not mentioned in the CCC so it must be legit!
Actually, that’s not the kind of Catholic I am, and I’m guessing many here would disagree with that characterization. I’m a theocrat, for sure, but Christ is my King, not a temporal political power claiming to represent him.
 
To completely stop abortion, illegalizing it is only the first step. The second, eliminating the conditions that lead to women choosing to abort, namely poverty will have to be if not eradicated at least controlled.
 
A Catholic nation? Got a bunch of them. Mostly poor with corrupt governments and a populace of serfs with a small elite overclass. Been that way for 1500 years…
 
Well how would we get to this Christian nation? Would that involve destroying everyone that thinks differently?
 
Vatican City.
I think that’s a poor example. While its government is based on Catholicism it is esentialy one giant religious complex, not a city. It has basicly no economy and the population is almost exclusively clergy.
 
It happens that I live in a Catholic nation, the only officially Catholic nation in the western hemisphere: COSTA RICA. I retired here (from the US) and I like many things about living in what is nominally a Catholic country – but I emphasize the word “nominally.” This is a small country (4.5 million) in Central America, very much Latino culture. It is for sure a democracy and quite solidly so.

Right now, we are in an election period which is going smoothly – a runoff in April between the 2 top contenders for President (of 13 candidates). Most of them were more or less moderate in their political views and I think all professed to be Catholic. About 75 percent of the population is Catholic and the churches are usually packed, at least on Sundays. There is a small but active Jewish community, and many Protestants (called “Christians” here). There is complete freedom of religion, but definitely the Catholic church is the “state religion.” However no church is allowed to engage in politics in any manner.

Abortion is not legal; contraceptives are easily available, however. Civil divorce is also common – as is civil marriage. And there’s a lot of sex outside of marriage. (Teenage pregnancy is rampant, but accepted as a blessing.) One of the leading Presidential candidates got married (for the 4th time) because he felt it necessary for political purposes to have a “first lady” by his side. Holy Week (Semana Santa) is taken seriously in many ways – the country largely comes to an operational standstill – so one might expect the churches to be crowded. Not so, because the Ticos (Costa Ricans) see it as their vacation week and go to the beach if they can afford to do so. Party time.

The laws here are very clear about equality, justice, and many other things. The problem is in enforcement – this is a very “hang loose” culture, where the national motto is “Pura Vida”, meaning something like “Have an enjoyable life”, and the people take this to heart. Everyone is cheerful, friendly and peaceful.

Costa Rica is a peaceful place: THERE IS NO MILITARY. No way, Abolished in 1948. (For this reason, it’s known as the Switzerland of Latin America, but make no mistake: there is an unspoken reliance on the USA should any major trouble arise.) There is no capital punishment. But, taxes are high. Many things are imported, and those costs are high. People don’t care much, because life is good.

There are some crime problems: corruption is serious. petty crime due to some poverty (but not as bad as other Latin American nations). drug trafficking (halfway point between producing countries and the US). So, a mixed bag. But, it is a Catholic nation and it is a wonderful feeling to see churches and masses all around, to see the Rosary hanging from the bus or taxi driver’s mirror; to hear strangers say “God be with you” in passing. So many things that make my day! Pura Vida from a Catholic nation!!
 
Adherence to Catholic/Christian principles can’t be legislated. Even in a country where certain things, such as contraceptives or divorce, are prohibited, people will find a way to get around the rules. The idea of a Catholic monarchy is ridiculous at this point in history. I’m certain someone will trot out a dusty pronouncement from one of the 18th or 19th century popes railing against secular democracy because they feared their ox was about to be gored. After living through the Protestant Reformation and religious wars which followed it and enduring the oppression of the French Revolution, Napoleon, 1848, and the Paris Commune, those popes were terrified. Their concerns do not reflect the situation of this era.

Moreover, when spiritual and temporal authority are co-mingled, the spiritual aspect is the part that suffers. Religion is invariably tarnished and diminished when it exercises civil authority - especially in a pluralistic society. More than once Christ said that his kingdom is not of this world. God gave us free will. It’s up to us to choose to follow God’s plan for us - we can’t be compelled by law to do so. Only those whose faith is weak or who misunderstand the Gospels wish to incorporate the Church into the temporal government and to enforce Catholic morality by law. A civil government must not be morally neutral, let alone immoral, but neither should it be closely aligned with any religious body because the rights of non-believers are abused and the moral authority of the faith is tarnished by its association with civil authority.

Those who are fighting a desperate rear guard action against reality and the last 3 centuries can hack away with the stone ax. (Why are some Catholics such anachronistic loonies?)

Just my 2 cents.
 
It would be a perfect society if every person living there were practicing Catholics who always agree with and follow every teaching of the Catholic Church.
Nope. Nope. Nope. That is a VERY DANGEROUS PIPE DREAM. Perfection is in the next world. Here we remain poor sinners in need of God’s mercy. God is never coercive. God gave us free will. Human governments must never attempt to enforce one religion on its populace.
 
Most of what “Boy Wonder” makes sense, and certainly Il Vaticano is NOT an example of a Christian or Catholic nation in any way. I do think, though, that el papa Francisco is doing an admirable job of cleaning up the place and I pray that his papacy will be long and fruitful.

Boy Wonder’s more general remarks about the nature of pluralistic societies is cogent and something we must all recognize as a fact of terrestrial life. It applies to my life in Costa Rica as I described it above as well as to those of you who live in the secular USA, my native land. I prefer the culture and lifestyle of Costa Rica – with all of its warts – because here, as in other parts of Latin America – there is a fervent belief by the population as a whole in the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, and a general acknowledgment that God has a place in our lives. Here, one is not ashamed to speak of God, or to make the sign of the cross when passing by a church, or to have a crucifix or image of the Holy Mother or Our Lord on one’s desk in the office. And, indeed, it is quite normal for this to happen on – gasp! – government public property!!!

But, yes, there are sinners here in Costa Rica. And in Vatican City, too. And everywhere. It’s part of the human condition. It all goes back to original sin, doesn’t it? But, as I was once told by a theology prof in college, even if men were angels, we’d still need traffic cops to keep these angelmen from speeding and otherwise not following traffic rules properly. But we aren’t angels.

And as long as we are here and in a terrestrial society, we are consigned to whatever mess our fellow human beings have created and to deal with it as best we can. For me, the mess up north (read: USA) has gotten out of hand. I like this mess better. 🙂
 
Adherence to Catholic/Christian principles can’t be legislated. Even in a country where certain things, such as contraceptives or divorce, are prohibited, people will find a way to get around the rules. The idea of a Catholic monarchy is ridiculous at this point in history. I’m certain someone will trot out a dusty pronouncement from one of the 18th or 19th century popes railing against secular democracy because they feared their ox was about to be gored. After living through the Protestant Reformation and religious wars which followed it and enduring the oppression of the French Revolution, Napoleon, 1848, and the Paris Commune, those popes were terrified. Their concerns do not reflect the situation of this era.

Moreover, when spiritual and temporal authority are co-mingled, the spiritual aspect is the part that suffers. Religion is invariably tarnished and diminished when it exercises civil authority - especially in a pluralistic society. More than once Christ said that his kingdom is not of this world. God gave us free will. It’s up to us to choose to follow God’s plan for us - we can’t be compelled by law to do so. Only those whose faith is weak or who misunderstand the Gospels wish to incorporate the Church into the temporal government and to enforce Catholic morality by law. A civil government must not be morally neutral, let alone immoral, but neither should it be closely aligned with any religious body because the rights of non-believers are abused and the moral authority of the faith is tarnished by its association with civil authority.

Those who are fighting a desperate rear guard action against reality and the last 3 centuries can hack away with the stone ax. (Why are some Catholics such anachronistic loonies?)

Just my 2 cents.
As Catholics, are we not supposed to work for the social principles of Catholicism? I’m not saying a nation where Catholicism is forced on people. Just one based on Catholic social teaching. This article lays it out best.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/seven-principles-of-catholic-social-teaching

I don’t see how these mix spiritual with secular authority. Admittedly contraception is problematic. Should it be allowed but discouraged? It does go against Christian morality but as several have pointed out it would just move to the black market. Truth be told am not sure.

On monarchy, while from what I have read I think a constitutional monarchy might work I am quite fine with our current form of government, secularism aside.
 
Most of what “Boy Wonder” makes sense, and certainly Il Vaticano is NOT an example of a Christian or Catholic nation in any way. I do think, though, that el papa Francisco is doing an admirable job of cleaning up the place and I pray that his papacy will be long and fruitful.

Boy Wonder’s more general remarks about the nature of pluralistic societies is cogent and something we must all recognize as a fact of terrestrial life. It applies to my life in Costa Rica as I described it above as well as to those of you who live in the secular USA, my native land. I prefer the culture and lifestyle of Costa Rica – with all of its warts – because here, as in other parts of Latin America – there is a fervent belief by the population as a whole in the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, and a general acknowledgment that God has a place in our lives. Here, one is not ashamed to speak of God, or to make the sign of the cross when passing by a church, or to have a crucifix or image of the Holy Mother or Our Lord on one’s desk in the office. And, indeed, it is quite normal for this to happen on – gasp! – government public property!!!

But, yes, there are sinners here in Costa Rica. And in Vatican City, too. And everywhere. It’s part of the human condition. It all goes back to original sin, doesn’t it? But, as I was once told by a theology prof in college, even if men were angels, we’d still need traffic cops to keep these angelmen from speeding and otherwise not following traffic rules properly. But we aren’t angels.

And as long as we are here and in a terrestrial society, we are consigned to whatever mess our fellow human beings have created and to deal with it as best we can. For me, the mess up north (read: USA) has gotten out of hand. I like this mess better. 🙂
Amen to this.
 
What about the rates of abortion in Latin America, where almost every country is Catholic and abortion is illegal? Per capita, the rates are higher than those in the U.S. and Canada, where it’s legal.

Should we use TFR to describe how Catholic a country is? Absolutely not. Fertility rates in a country drop after it industrializes. That happened in every country, well before abortion became legal.

I think there’s a big problem for this issue. Prior to industrialization, most people were farmers or agriculture workers. Having more kids meant getting more income. That was true over the entire course of Christian history until the 19th century, when for the first time, women could independently get income by working in a factory (look at the Lowell Mill Girls, who left farms to work in textile factories, for example – the same thing going on in China and Bangladesh today).

Prior to industrialization, the world was a very different place for women. In the earliest days of Christianity, the Church provided income for virgins and widows, who didn’t need to get married as a result. Otherwise, under the Julian laws of the Roman empire, virgins – both men and women – were heavily penalized, as were young widows who didn’t get married. The Roman Empire needed babies – and they forced women to become mothers. The city of Rome itself didn’t have enough babies to keep the population up, and depended on immigration to do so.

Child-bearing was a risky business for women in the ancient world. Just think of the number of episiotomies that women today get… now imagine that in the ancient world, prior to modern surgery, germ theory, or antibacterials. Women often died young, and men would frequently remarry, resulting in an often-large difference in age between husbands and wives. Only rich girls got educated, and most did not. Roman law only required that a wife had already had a period, and even marriages to prepubescent girls could be validated if it was later consummated after her first menses.

Christianity offered a different life for women. According to a study by Rodney Stark, Christian women in the Roman Empire were significantly less likely to be married by age 18 than were pagan women. Looking at the Church Fathers, many of them talk about orders of widows and orders of virgins, which suggests that the Church offered a reprise from the Russian Roulette of childbearing. Christian women, devoting themselves to Christ, had greater opportunity for learning than pagan women did.

One example of how women refraining from childbearing were admired in the ancient Christian world is the second-century “novela,” The Acts of Paul and Thecla. St. Thecla (recognized as a saint by the Catholic Church) was celebrated as a heroine for refusing to get married, and for her passionate devotion to Christ. People tried to force her to marry, but she refused, and stayed a virgin. That novela was extremely popular in early Christianity, to the point that devotion to St. Thecla is found extensively in archaeology of later centuries.

I take Thecla as a stark example of how wrong it is to say that TFR is a way to measure Catholicism. I think St. Thecla could be used in modern times to share the story of an ancient super-heroine saint who refused to use her body sexually as expected by the society in which she lived. In modern times, look at how teenage girls are pressured to “pay for love” by having sex by mainstream culture. Thecla could be an example of a strong woman who didn’t bow to that bargain, but who embraced the love of Christ and who walked her own path.

Overall, I don’t think Catholics should pressure women to get married and have kids. I think we should use Ignatian spirituality instead: asking what someone truly wants with their life, and finding the want that takes them to God. Too often, the pro-life movement in particular has suggested that having a big family is a sign of true devotion to the faith. To me, that looks like we’re becoming the Roman Emperors again, pressuring women to become mothers when they don’t feel the calling. Rejecting that calling has too often been presented as a black/white choice between becoming a big-family Catholic or a single Atheist. Thecla (and modern NFP) shows that a single, non-fertile person can be totally devoted to holiness.
The Acts of Paul and Thecla are fiction, Thecla isn’t real… Holding her as an ideal example is bad example…as a fictitious character one can have her embrace any ideal needed…but hardly an example to emulate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top