What would an American Catholic theocracy look like?

[AngryAtheist8]

No. The right to censor was given by the state to the church. This is by definition NOT theocratic. This is not just semantics. Words have meaning, a discussion on the article in question cannot be had if the author’s intent is going to be represented as something misleading. You may have your own idea that theocracy and state-established religion is the same thing. But VERY few others do, therefore any discussion will be confisuing and misleading to almost everyone else reading it.

Tell me, is refusing to follow simple logic a common trait amoung angry atheists? Times have certainly changed since Chesterton wrote “A Ball and a Cross” as far as the atheist side of the argument goes.

Good day, I will give you the last word. There is little reason to continue.

I agree, you are just arguing semantics.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

No. The right to censor was given by the state to the church. This is by definition NOT theocratic. This is not just semantics. Words have meaning, a discussion on the article in question cannot be had if the author’s intent is going to be represented as something misleading. You may have your own idea that theocracy and state-established religion is the same thing. But VERY few others do, therefore any discussion will be confisuing and misleading to almost everyone else reading it.

Tell me, is refusing to follow simple logic a common trait amoung angry atheists? Times have certainly changed since Chesterton wrote “A Ball and a Cross” as far as the atheist side of the argument goes.

Good day, I will give you the last word. There is little reason to continue.

Then I guess I win:shrug:
Although it wasn’t much of a debate.

 

[moster]

Since I am unfamiliar with Confessional governments, I will have to research this. But it seems to me that it may not be relevant whether this new government (I will call it Catholicland, to simplify things) is Confessional or Theocratic.
Beats by Dr. Dre Beats studio

 

[IronHammer]

Forgive me for not jumping into the fray on a thread that I started but I have been away with business.

This thread has somehow degenerated into the definition of ‘theocracy’ or ‘confessional’. The discussion is intended to explore if it’s possible to have a successful Catholic society, whatever form of government that might require. I am thinking something along the lines of the ‘Great American Experiment’ but more precisely, a ‘Great Catholic Experiment’

Although I am not college educated, I have a desire to learn about governments and societies. Please forgive my ignorance on this topic but I love exploring these ideas.

Francoist Spain, a fairly modern example of a Catholic society, to this day, has many, many supporters that feel it was very successful as a Catholic society in that it enshrined Catholic moral principles in law and protected it’s citizens from the more immoral elements that liberals always try to bring to the forefront.

I believe, as many committed Catholics do, that the teachings of Holy Mother Church are the teachings of God. I also believe that unrestrained freedom, as we have today in America, encourages weak-minded, innocent people to drift right away from God and into the lap of immorality and evil. I know what’s best for me because of my faith in God and Holy Mother Church but many, many people need to be guided toward and cultivated with the teachings of Christ.

In any case, the question is moot, because such a society in North America today is simply not possible.

The question isn’t if it’s possible to change America into a Catholic society, but rather if a Catholic society is possible and what form it would take that would, with the knowledge that America has taught us regarding personal freedoms, human rights and humane treatment of all persons.

For one thing, there would be no way of preventing the population from voting out Catholic laws it didn’t like … All ideas of representative democracies functioning as confessional states are utopian. It is no accident that nearly every representative democracy on earth has demoted Christianity.

So, it seems that a representative democracy would be doomed to failure if people could simply vote out Catholic laws and institute secular laws. Perhaps an authoritarian state or a monarchy would be more successful?

America differs from Britain in that Christianity is still strong enough here for there to be a real battle over many issues, but it is still difficult to make a case for laws grounded in a uniquely Christian, or Mosaic tradition to those who do not already form a believing part of it.

Again, the idea here is not to subvert America into another form of government. We are considering what would be the best form of Catholic government if the opportunity were presented, as it was to the Founding Fathers of America.

They’d be hauled to prison for -]torture/-] questioning, and then burned at the stake – like back when there actually were Catholic countries, with laws based on Catholic rules and laws.

There wouldn’t be any need to torture or burn anyone. History has taught us much and those methods result in resentment and hatred. Remember, we are more compassionate than that. There wouldn’t be a need for neighbors to spy on their neighbors as in Nazi Germany. Personal morality would still be the realm of that person, nothing more. Everybody sins, every knows it. That doesn’t change. Catholicland would simply provide a safer and morally healthy society in which the sinner can “work out his faith in fear and trembling” as St. Paul says.

— Concluded in the next post —

 

[IronHammer]

— Continuation of Post #83 —

Certainly not. You have never looked at Canon Law have you? It has almost no overlap with secular law, so it would be woefully insufficient for what you are proposing.

Admittedly, I have not looked at Canon Law. I made the mistaken assumption that it could be used a firm, over-arching ethic to inform the Judiciary. Apparently it couldn’t be used as such. In that case, a religious body would be needed to arbitrate and decide if the proposed laws violated Catholic moral teachings.

There would be nothing imcompatible with a representative republic and a Catholic country. So it would be a fine option.

Except that, as you pointed out, the people could, in a fit of immorality and delusion, overturn laws that enshrine Catholic teaching. Perhaps a Catholic Supreme Court would prevent that. After all, the Church teaches Truth so the Law must not be allowed to contravene it.

This would likely be very unwise to try to suppress all non-Catholic influences… I refer you to Aquinas’ summa newadvent.org/summa/2096.htm#article2 on “Whether it belongs to human law to suppress all vices?” He gives it a resounding answer of no and gives good guidelines for what should and should not be attempted. But some of your list could certainly be made into law.

Again, I am a lay person and I am unfamiliar with Aquinas’ Summa Theologica but I will try to read it as I have time. But it seems to me that it would be possible to suppress opposing religions and heretical ideas without the use of force by way of heavy fines, legislation and methods that still respect the humanity of the person. “Hate the sin, not the sinner”

Property rights are NOT at odds with the Holy Mother Church, quite the opposite. And a distributism economy have A) not been championed by popes, but bylay catholics attempting to apply principals in the Leo XIII’s teachings, and B) require a protection of property rights by the state.

I think you may be right on this. I was intrigued by the idea of a Distributism but after considering it, I think that a thriving and growing economy then capitalism and free-markets is certainly possible, even in Catholicland.

Most of what you list are not entitlement programs,but are welfare programs. Entitlements are programs to which there is an implicit contract between the government and a citizen that they are entitled to a specific benefit in return for something they did in the past. Examples of entitlements are social security, medicare, military pensions, civil servant pensions.
As to the welfare programs and other programs you mentioned, they are not necessarily at odds with any Church teaching.

Very true. I was confusing entitlements with welfare programs. I should have known that when I wrote it. In any event, I wasn’t disputing the validity of welfare programs, but rather who should pay for them. Should the government provide taxation and administer welfare programs or should this be the realm of the Church and it’s institutions based on tithing and donations? I feel that in a properly administered Catholic form of government, that this could be properly handled by the government without too much waste and abuse. Perhaps a blend of both, as we have today, would be the better solution.

 

[IronHammer]

Then I guess I win:shrug:
Although it wasn’t much of a debate.

Win? If you won anything, it was over a semantic detail unrelated to the topic of this thread. This isn’t a contest, AngryAtheist8, we are having a discussion about an idea, a though experiment. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion, though, as I think an atheist viewpoint could prove valuable.

 

[tafan]

Forgive me for not jumping into the fray on a thread that I started but I have been away with business.

This thread has somehow degenerated into the definition of ‘theocracy’ or ‘confessional’. The discussion is intended to explore if it’s possible to have a successful Catholic society, whatever form of government that might require. I am thinking something along the lines of the ‘Great American Experiment’ but more precisely, a ‘Great Catholic Experiment’

Although I am not college educated, I have a desire to learn about governments and societies. Please forgive my ignorance on this topic but I love exploring these ideas.

Francoist Spain, a fairly modern example of a Catholic society, to this day, has many, many supporters that feel it was very successful as a Catholic society in that it enshrined Catholic moral principles in law and protected it’s citizens from the more immoral elements that liberals always try to bring to the forefront.

I would think it fairly questionable if Francoist Spain was a Catholic Society. The Catholic faith was quite weak in Spain at that time, a Catholic society presupposes the vast majority of the people would be practicing Catholics.

I would say,we should be discussing what a America would be like that is a Catholic society, but do not equate government with society.

So, it seems that a representative democracy would be doomed to failure if people could simply vote out Catholic laws and institute secular laws. Perhaps an authoritarian state or a monarchy would be more successful?

This does not “seem” to be the case to me at all. It is a matter of culture, and conversion, first and foremost. There have been Catholic societies that have functioned quite well, even while their governments were quite dysfunctional at times.

Admittedly, I have not looked at Canon Law. I made the mistaken assumption that it could be used a firm, over-arching ethic to inform the Judiciary. Apparently it couldn’t be used as such. In that case, a religious body would be needed to arbitrate and decide if the proposed laws violated Catholic moral teachings.

As to Canon law, here is the web page to give you a flavor:
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

A religous body to arbitrate and decide about proposed laws would directly imply a Catholic theocracy. A very bad idea, IMO. And it would never work. Do not think there is some ideal form of government, there is not. We are a fallen race, and it is never more apparent than our attempts to govern ourselves. Every form seems to have its problems. The one form never attempted, outside of the Vatican or Papal states, by a Catholic society is a theocracy. Lets not have that experiment.

Again, I am a lay person and I am unfamiliar with Aquinas’ Summa Theologica but I will try to read it as I have time. But it seems to me that it would be possible to suppress opposing religions and heretical ideas without the use of force by way of heavy fines, legislation and methods that still respect the humanity of the person. “Hate the sin, not the sinner”

I really suggest you read the portions of the Summa I referenced. Basicall Aquinas was addressing if human laws should address all moral laws. (one questoin was should it repress all vices the other was should it prescribe all virtures). He came down with a resounding NO. And he was certainly writing from the point of view of a Catholic society, since it was practically all he knew.

I think you may be right on this. I was intrigued by the idea of a Distributism but after considering it, I think that a thriving and growing economy then capitalism and free-markets is certainly possible, even in Catholicland.

Distributionism presupposes free-markets. What it does not include is a necessary seperation of labor from capital. I would say a Catholic Society certainly would be aided by a wide spread distribution of wealth. I would say it would require free-markets.

Very true. I was confusing entitlements with welfare programs. I should have known that when I wrote it. In any event, I wasn’t disputing the validity of welfare programs, but rather who should pay for them. Should the government provide taxation and administer welfare programs or should this be the realm of the Church and it’s institutions based on tithing and donations? I feel that in a properly administered Catholic form of government, that this could be properly handled by the government without too much waste and abuse. Perhaps a blend of both, as we have today, would be the better solution.

The key point here would be that a Catholic form of government (not a theocracy, but a governing by Catholic social justice principles) would include these programs performed inline with the principle of subsidiarity. If they were not performed this way (including the collection of taxes to pay for them), then they would be doomed to waste and abuse, as we see today.

 

[IronHammer]

I would think it fairly questionable if Francoist Spain was a Catholic Society. The Catholic faith was quite weak in Spain at that time, a Catholic society presupposes the vast majority of the people would be practicing Catholics.

Even if the Catholic faith in Franco’s Spain was weak when he took power then his policies over the years bolstered and rejuvenated it. But I do agree with the second part of what you said. Forming a Catholic government does presuppose that the society that creates it would be predominantly Catholic

I would say,we should be discussing what a America would be like that is a Catholic society, but do not equate government with society.

Government is the product of the people in the society that creates it. The American Constitution reflects the values of the Protestants who created it. We are considering the scenario of a Catholic population of people setting up a government for themselves that protects their beliefs and culture.

This does not “seem” to be the case to me at all. It is a matter of culture, and conversion, first and foremost. There have been Catholic societies that have functioned quite well, even while their governments were quite dysfunctional at times.

I agree that the success of Catholicism in society depends on conversion and culture. However, a society that celebrates only Catholic faith and whose laws do not violate Catholic teaching and whose education system is in line with Catholic teaching would steer the population toward Catholic living. But allowing the people to change the laws, as in a representative republic or a democracy, would certainly be the downfall of a Catholic society, I think.

As to Canon law, here is the web page to give you a flavor:
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

Thanks for that link. Canon Law mostly applies to matters of the Church but I could see elements of Canon Law being used to inform and limit the Judiciary (eg, matters of life, death, welfare, divorce, marriage, etc)

A religous body to arbitrate and decide about proposed laws would directly imply a Catholic theocracy. A very bad idea, IMO. And it would never work…

I don’t see why it wouldn’t work. A religious body that has the ultimate say in the same way that the Supreme Court decides issues as informed by the Constitution and case law could just as easily decide if a law is permissible by being informed by the Magesterium, which includes Sacred Scripture, historical precedent and Canon Law.

… Do not think there is some ideal form of government, there is not. We are a fallen race, and it is never more apparent than our attempts to govern ourselves. Every form seems to have its problems. The one form never attempted, outside of the Vatican or Papal states, by a Catholic society is a theocracy. Lets not have that experiment.

I am not convinced that it couldn’t work. I am not proposing overthrowing America for goodness sakes, I am simply trying to explore the plausabilty of Catholicland being possible!

I really suggest you read the portions of the Summa I referenced.

I will definitely try to read the Summa. I don’t get a lot of time between business and family. The time I spend here is limited. But I promise I will try to read it during my Holy Hour if nothing else.

Basically Aquinas was addressing if human laws should address all moral laws. (one question was should it repress all vices the other was should it prescribe all virtues). He came down with a resounding NO. And he was certainly writing from the point of view of a Catholic society, since it was practically all he knew.

Please note that I was emphatic that there should not be a “moral police” or penal codes for committing sins such as fornication, missing mass or committing adultery. These, as I said earlier, are the realm of the sinner and remains between the him and his confessor.

Distributionism presupposes free-markets. What it does not include is a necessary seperation of labor from capital. I would say a Catholic Society certainly would be aided by a wide spread distribution of wealth. I would say it would require free-markets.

I agree. I have some practical experience with distributism from my experience of working for a rural cooperative where all of the customers of the service are also owners, to some degree, of the coop. It is a very interesting model that works just fine our current model of American free markets. I would need to study distributism further though to understand how massive corporations would be prevented from STRIKE sucking all the capital and innovation out of[/STRIKE] gaining too much power and control over the economy.

The key point here would be that a Catholic form of government (not a theocracy, but a governing by Catholic social justice principles) would include these programs performed inline with the principle of subsidiarity. If they were not performed this way (including the collection of taxes to pay for them), then they would be doomed to waste and abuse, as we see today.

Agreed.

 

[tafan]

I don’t see why it wouldn’t work. A religious body that has the ultimate say in the same way that the Supreme Court decides issues as informed by the Constitution and case law could just as easily decide if a law is permissible by being informed by the Magesterium, which includes Sacred Scripture, historical precedent and Canon Law.

Show me an example in history where it worked. Bad idea. The Church has wisely avoided temporal government. You are wanting the Church to take on a role it has never desired in 2000 years.

 

[tafan]

Even if the Catholic faith in Franco’s Spain was weak when he took power then his policies over the years bolstered and rejuvenated it.

I do not believe this is the case. Franco was not the tyrant he is made out to be; but I see no evidence his policies strengthened the faith.

 

[Birdpreacher]

It would look scary.

 

[IronHammer]

Show me an example in history where it worked. Bad idea. The Church has wisely avoided temporal government. You are wanting the Church to take on a role it has never desired in 2000 years.

Of course there is no historical example where it has worked, the same as there was no example of a representative republic before the United States. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t work. Simply saying it is a “bad idea” doesn’t make it so. The point of this thread is to elaborate on precisely why it is a bad idea.

 

[tafan]

Of course there is no historical example where it has worked, the same as there was no example of a representative republic before the United States. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t work. Simply saying it is a “bad idea” doesn’t make it so. The point of this thread is to elaborate on precisely why it is a bad idea.

Why? Because temporal government is not the church’s responsibility. And there were examples of representative governments before the US. Modern democracy in the west was much more an evolution than is commonly thought. You are proposing a radically new approach to government. Those always are a disaster

 

[IronHammer]

Why? Because temporal government is not the church’s responsibility. And there were examples of representative governments before the US. Modern democracy in the west was much more an evolution than is commonly thought. You are proposing a radically new approach to government. Those always are a disaster

Hmm… just finished reading the link you recommended on the Summa. Acquinas is tough reading but he indicates that we appear to be at an impasse. No matter how we may try, we cannot legislate virtue. So we are left to the impulses of an American majority that is drunk with liberty and increasingly blinded by their self-serving goals. On the other hand, any attempt to create a virtuous, Catholic society in which people may grow in faith and morals would similarly result in people feeling repressed and controlled and lead them to revolt. Therefore, we are all doomed to the whims of the hedonistic, humanist masses no matter what we do. Rather depressing actually.

 

[tafan]

Hmm… just finished reading the link you recommended on the Summa. Acquinas is tough reading but he indicates that we appear to be at an impasse. No matter how we may try, we cannot legislate virtue. So we are left to the impulses of an American majority that is drunk with liberty and increasingly blinded by their self-serving goals. On the other hand, any attempt to create a virtuous, Catholic society in which people may grow in faith and morals would similarly result in people feeling repressed and controlled and lead them to revolt. Therefore, we are all doomed to the whims of the hedonistic, humanist masses no matter what we do. Rather depressing actually.

No need for depression. As I said before, do not try to create a perfect government, all forms have weaknesses; but some are worse than others. We are a fallen race.

But you are wrong about any attempt to create a virtuous society being doomed to failure. Your problem is you are looking to the state to do the job.

 

[tafan]

Btw, yes the Summa is a little tough at first; but it is a great resource and once you get used to it, it gets much easier. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist, anyone can learn to use it. And you will find it is so well organized you can find things quickly too (once you learn the organization). Don’t be afraid of it,

 

[septimine]

I think it would be a better place. The society of the modern world in which no one takes God seriously is a bad place. We have all kinds of outright evil promoted all the time. Abortion is one, but so is materialism and pronographic sexualization of society. I’ve seen clothing aimed at 4-year olds that their grandparents would have thought pornographic for adults in their day. On TV, most shows will have sex acts strongly implied, you’ll see pornographic ads on TV – let alone stuff for viagra. How can we do a worse job? at least the violence and sex pumped into our homes would stop. Perhaps we could encourage people to not be so greedy, or for parents to have the right to enough money that they could afford to let one of them raise their own children.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Forgive me for not jumping into the fray on a thread that I started but I have been away with business.

This thread has somehow degenerated into the definition of ‘theocracy’ or ‘confessional’. The discussion is intended to explore if it’s possible to have a successful Catholic society, whatever form of government that might require. I am thinking something along the lines of the ‘Great American Experiment’ but more precisely, a ‘Great Catholic Experiment’

Although I am not college educated, I have a desire to learn about governments and societies. Please forgive my ignorance on this topic but I love exploring these ideas.

Francoist Spain, a fairly modern example of a Catholic society, to this day, has many, many supporters that feel it was very successful as a Catholic society in that it enshrined Catholic moral principles in law and protected it’s citizens from the more immoral elements that liberals always try to bring to the forefront.

I believe, as many committed Catholics do, that the teachings of Holy Mother Church are the teachings of God. I also believe that unrestrained freedom, as we have today in America, encourages weak-minded, innocent people to drift right away from God and into the lap of immorality and evil. I know what’s best for me because of my faith in God and Holy Mother Church but many, many people need to be guided toward and cultivated with the teachings of Christ.

The question isn’t if it’s possible to change America into a Catholic society, but rather if a Catholic society is possible and what form it would take that would, with the knowledge that America has taught us regarding personal freedoms, human rights and humane treatment of all persons.

So, it seems that a representative democracy would be doomed to failure if people could simply vote out Catholic laws and institute secular laws. Perhaps an authoritarian state or a monarchy would be more successful?

Again, the idea here is not to subvert America into another form of government. We are considering what would be the best form of Catholic government if the opportunity were presented, as it was to the Founding Fathers of America.

There wouldn’t be any need to torture or burn anyone. History has taught us much and those methods result in resentment and hatred. Remember, we are more compassionate than that. There wouldn’t be a need for neighbors to spy on their neighbors as in Nazi Germany. Personal morality would still be the realm of that person, nothing more. Everybody sins, every knows it. That doesn’t change. Catholicland would simply provide a safer and morally healthy society in which the sinner can “work out his faith in fear and trembling” as St. Paul says.

— Concluded in the next post —

To the best of my knewledge stealing the babies of your political opponents and having them raised by their parents enemies is not a Catholic principal. And the Franco regime did far worse than that when it was in power.

Link to source:
nytimes.com/2011/07/07/world/europe/07iht-spain07.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Forgive me for not jumping into the fray on a thread that I started but I have been away with business.

This thread has somehow degenerated into the definition of ‘theocracy’ or ‘confessional’. The discussion is intended to explore if it’s possible to have a successful Catholic society, whatever form of government that might require. I am thinking something along the lines of the ‘Great American Experiment’ but more precisely, a ‘Great Catholic Experiment’

Although I am not college educated, I have a desire to learn about governments and societies. Please forgive my ignorance on this topic but I love exploring these ideas.

Francoist Spain, a fairly modern example of a Catholic society, to this day, has many, many supporters that feel it was very successful as a Catholic society in that it enshrined Catholic moral principles in law and protected it’s citizens from the more immoral elements that liberals always try to bring to the forefront.

I believe, as many committed Catholics do, that the teachings of Holy Mother Church are the teachings of God. I also believe that unrestrained freedom, as we have today in America, encourages weak-minded, innocent people to drift right away from God and into the lap of immorality and evil. I know what’s best for me because of my faith in God and Holy Mother Church but many, many people need to be guided toward and cultivated with the teachings of Christ.

The question isn’t if it’s possible to change America into a Catholic society, but rather if a Catholic society is possible and what form it would take that would, with the knowledge that America has taught us regarding personal freedoms, human rights and humane treatment of all persons.

So, it seems that a representative democracy would be doomed to failure if people could simply vote out Catholic laws and institute secular laws. Perhaps an authoritarian state or a monarchy would be more successful?

Again, the idea here is not to subvert America into another form of government. We are considering what would be the best form of Catholic government if the opportunity were presented, as it was to the Founding Fathers of America.

**There wouldn’t be any need to torture or burn anyone. History has taught us much and those methods result in resentment and hatred. Remember, we are more compassionate than that. There wouldn’t be a need for neighbors to spy on their neighbors as in Nazi Germany. Personal morality would still be the realm of that person, nothing more. **Everybody sins, every knows it. That doesn’t change. Catholicland would simply provide a safer and morally healthy society in which the sinner can “work out his faith in fear and trembling” as St. Paul says.

— Concluded in the next post —

That is not how theocracies work in practice.

 

[mitex]

To the best of my knewledge stealing the babies of your political opponents and having them raised by their parents enemies is not a Catholic principal. And the Franco regime did far worse than that when it was in power.

Link to source:
nytimes.com/2011/07/07/world/europe/07iht-spain07.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

Personally I can’t wait to see someone’s defense of Franco on here!