Whats wrong with a theocracy?

[WildCatholic]

Okay, so i’ve been reading a lot about this here at CAF, as well as seperation of church and state, and I’ve been wondering, why do so many, even orthodox catholics, think a theocracy is wrong. Now I don’t think a theocracy would work in a country like the US, or any country for that matter (people are human and eventually they want to rebel against the system even if it is a good system).

However, if given the chance and it could somehow work. I’d love a catholic theocracy, or at least a system where Catholicism was the law. It wouldn’t be that bad would it. There would be no abortion, no euthanasia (at least supported by the govt). Also things like adultery and other sins which aren’t illegal would be made so like bad things on tv. There would also be freedom of religion since Catholics believe in this very much, and really it would be a great system if it could work.

So why the hate of theocracies though? Sure there are bad ones like Iran, but I would think the Catholic Church would do better at running a state and would be more fair compared to most islamist theocracies. It also would increase morals, at least in some sense. The only issue I might see is corruption, which would be a major issue. But corruption happens in any system.

 

[Mustard]

It’s a difficult question. Although I personally don’t atavistically rule out the notion of a theocracy (it does seem at least logically consistant with Catholic doctrine), for practical purposes I would tend against it. Not because of any notional damage theocracy might do to the state, but rather because in the end, it harms the Church. Historically, the closer the Church has come to various civil governments, the worse the Church has fared. In France, for instance, “the eldest daughter of the Church”, the Church was almost completely corrupted by the state and suffered terribly after the Revolution because of its close association with it. So close, in fact, that it ultimately became Gallican. Ditto Spain, and Spain was even worse because of its association with the Spanish Inquisition, a blight we’re still trying to live down, notwithstanding that the Inquisition was, by the standards of civil law interrogation techniques of the time, a walk in the park. Indeed, ordinary criminals, up before regular Spanish courts, would routinely blaspheme in front of the judge so as to be turned over to the Inquisition because it was an easier ride than facing state justice.

No, the Church is better off being a diamond in a dustbin.

 

[BrettA47]

Okay, so i’ve been reading a lot about this here at CAF, as well as seperation of church and state, and I’ve been wondering, why do so many, even orthodox catholics, think a theocracy is wrong. Now I don’t think a theocracy would work in a country like the US, or any country for that matter (people are human and eventually they want to rebel against the system even if it is a good system).

Haven’t you answered your question with what’s underlined?

 

[White_Tree]

However, if given the chance and it could somehow work. I’d love a catholic theocracy, or at least a system where Catholicism was the law. It wouldn’t be that bad would it. There would be no abortion, no euthanasia (at least supported by the govt). Also things like adultery and other sins which aren’t illegal would be made so like bad things on tv. There would also be freedom of religion since Catholics believe in this very much, and really it would be a great system if it could work.

Vatican City is a country with a Catholic theocracy, and they don’t have electronic banking (or even ATM’s) anymore for failure to comply with money laundering regulations.

Also, this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatileaks_scandal

That’s not meant to be a dig against the Vatican. I’m just trying to highlight that when a state only has to answer to God (who tends to govern in a rather laissez-faire fashion), it becomes very easy for things to get out of hand.

On a more interesting note, what does it mean to have freedom of religion under a theocracy? Doesn’t freedom of religion also include freedom of conscience? How can you have freedom of conscience when the state decides on morals?

And how would that sort of freedom extend to groups like the Freemasons (which are spiritual in nature, but which many believe are somehow out to subvert the Church), or to pagan religions, which are far removed from Catholicism in terms of the current interpretations of theology.

 

[Zairra]

There would be no abortion, no euthanasia (at least supported by the govt). Also things like adultery and other sins which aren’t illegal would be made so like bad things on tv.

Ooh please. Will there be hungry and homeless? Will there be kids who can’t afford an education, families that can’t afford kids, elders that can’t afford medical treatment? Will people there work for money alone and be proud of their absolute uselessness for the society? Will they have to fight against each other, and not for each other? Will there be media to label other countries crazy lunatics, and military campaigns to force the right and obedient behaviour on them? If not, I, an atheist, will be happy to live in a Catholic, Orthodox, Islam, Buddhist or any other theocracy; I’ll wear black blankets and obey my husband, I’ll visit church, I’ll go to confessions, I’ll sit meditations. But it’s all useless; we people are so lazy and greedy and mean and cowardly that we ruin all our hopes.

 

[coachdennis]

Okay, so i’ve been reading a lot about this here at CAF, as well as seperation of church and state, and I’ve been wondering, why do so many, even orthodox catholics, think a theocracy is wrong. Now I don’t think a theocracy would work in a country like the US, or any country for that matter (people are human and eventually they want to rebel against the system even if it is a good system).

Then why even promote something that you admit will not work or be practical

However, if given the chance and it could somehow work. I’d love a catholic theocracy, or at least a system where Catholicism was the law. It wouldn’t be that bad would it. There would be no abortion, no euthanasia (at least supported by the govt).

You really think this will not happen? Abortions occurred BEFORE Roe v. Wade, especially among the wealthy.

Also things like adultery and other sins which aren’t illegal would be made so like bad things on tv.

Things in our society are already illegal, like murder, and they still occur. You would just create a more exhaustive list. And speaking of entertainment, Shakespeare is pretty violent and has " bad things" - Are you going to ban the arts as well?

There would also be freedom of religion since Catholics believe in this very much,

In practice? and really it would be a great system if it could work.

You said above it would not be, you can’t have it both ways

So why the hate of theocracies though? Sure there are bad ones like Iran, but I would think the Catholic Church would do better at running a state and would be more fair compared to most islamist theocracies. It also would increase morals, at least in some sense

It might increase moral behavior but not what is in a person’s heart and mind. A five year old can have his behavior changed. God is calling for a change of heart. That is NOT dependent on the type of society we live in
. The only issue I might see is corruption, which would be a major issue. But corruption happens in any system

So a system is no guarantee. Again, you have proved your argument wrong.

 

[JRKH]

The history of the Roman Catholic Church - from the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the end of the 19th Century when the last of the Papal States were lost - has demonstrated that the demands of the temporal and the spiritual do not mix well.

I am not at all familiar with how well the Eastern Model worked during this time where the Patriarch stood beside the Emperor in Constantinople…I presume that this too had it’s drawbacks.

On a much smaller scale, certainly if a community is dominated by people of one faith then one has, in effect, a theocracy. Such was the case in America for many years where Christianity, mostly in the protestant understanding, held sway.

In the end - even a well run theocracy will still have it’s problems.

Any state - Theocracy, democracy, Constitutional monarchy or whatever…that is honest and open and well run - governing people of good moral character - will be a blessing.
When the people - and/or the leaders - become corrupted, the state will be a curse…regardless of it’s “-ocracy”.

Peace
James

 

[catholictiger]

I would like to see some form of democracy or republic that has a set of unchangeable laws founded on catholic teaching but only fundamental truths

 

[mommy_k]

The church was a political power in the past. With politics there is always room for corruption. It is best that the church remain a religious power.
I think that nations should give more respect to the catholic church’s religious power though. This is where things are lacking.

 

[JRKH]

Upon further thought…We already have a theocracy.
It is called the Catholic Church and every person baptized Catholic is a citizen.
The Church is a structure with governance, laws, regulations and practices which every citizen is expected to obey, as well as many benefits of citizenship.

By looking at the Catholic Church perhaps we can see the advantages and potential disadvantages of a “theocracy”.

One thing that might be readily apparent is that - in this theocracy - there is dissension - yet why should that be since our borders are quite open and people are quite free to come and go.

Connected with this is the difficulty the Church faces (in the U.S.) in dealing with those who dissent - in particular those who do so publicly and with (seeming) impunity.

This brings up the matter of which course the Church should take in dealing with such dissension. Many believe that the Church should make an example of some of these people and “deport” them (excommunicate)…The Church appears to be more inclined toward quiet efforts at pastoral counseling etc rather than any formal action.

So - even in a non-temporal theocracy - we see the need for some sort of “force” or coercion (or “consequences”)being necessary in order to maintain unity and compliance among the citizens. A look at European history shows how “out of hand” this sort of thing can get when the spiritual becomes mixed up with the temporal.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

The church was a political power in the past. With politics there is always room for corruption. It is best that the church remain a religious power.
I think that nations should give more respect to the catholic church’s religious power though. This is where things are lacking.

In this respect, the Church’s greatest power lies in the Sanctity of it’s members. If those inside the Church are just as corrupt as those outside, the Church has little power.

We must remember that “Church” comes from “Ekklesia” - or a community called out. When we act as a “community called out” - acting as one, in Love of our neighbors (and our enemies) and for the Glory of God - we will find that the nations WILL respect the Church’s religious authority much more.

Sadly - this unity is not likely until the Church undergoes even greater trials. What we see today are but the initial “birth pangs”.

Peace
James

 

[meltzerboy]

Okay, so i’ve been reading a lot about this here at CAF, as well as seperation of church and state, and I’ve been wondering, why do so many, even orthodox catholics, think a theocracy is wrong. Now I don’t think a theocracy would work in a country like the US, or any country for that matter (people are human and eventually they want to rebel against the system even if it is a good system).

However, if given the chance and it could somehow work. I’d love a catholic theocracy, or at least a system where Catholicism was the law. It wouldn’t be that bad would it. There would be no abortion, no euthanasia (at least supported by the govt). Also things like adultery and other sins which aren’t illegal would be made so like bad things on tv. There would also be freedom of religion since Catholics believe in this very much, and really it would be a great system if it could work.

So why the hate of theocracies though? Sure there are bad ones like Iran, but I would think the Catholic Church would do better at running a state and would be more fair compared to most islamist theocracies. It also would increase morals, at least in some sense. The only issue I might see is corruption, which would be a major issue. But corruption happens in any system.

How about a Jewish theocracy then in which everyone would practice the commandments outlined in Mosaic Law (Torah)? Would that be appealing to you? If not, why not? Your answer to the latter question may be the answer to your initial question.

 

[buffalo]

How about a Proposcacy? One that listens to the truthful proposals of Catholicism and acts on them because they truly serve the common good?

 

[Vouthon]

Traditional Catholic doctrine holds that “law” and “theology” are different spheres, as this historian of the Middle Ages explains concerning the first Universities of Catholic Europe:

“…It is of fundamental significance for western thought that in the young universities law was recognised as a separate discipline, independent of theology. Even if the universities were under ecclesiastical authority they still provided the opportunity for the development of non-dogmatic, rational juridicial thinking, free of religious precepts, unlike in the Islamic schools for example. The technique of interpreting legal texts made continual renewal and adaption to the changing reality possible…”

***- Introduction to Medieval Europe 300-1550, Wim Blockmans & Peter Hoppenbrouwers ***

Christ, unlike Moses and later Muhammad, did not reveal a divine positive law for society or individuals to follow. Rather he enunciated timeless applications of the already inherent natural law - and revealed moral truths to be adhered to, although freely. This was furthered by the Apostle Paul who explained that the Jewish Torah was not binding on Christians but rather the timeless twin law of love which lay at its heart, was natural, and underpinned all of its moral precepts: Love for God and neighbour. This he said, as well as all of the ethical (non-legal, juridicial, ceremonial etc.) etc. aspects of the Old Covenant were timeless and binding, whereas the Law itself was provisional, until the Messiah came.

In Islam separation of mosque and state was never able to take root, and indeed this stymied ultimately independent freethought once the Golden Age of the Abbasid Empire started to wane, because Islam has a divinely revealed positive law and sees the Islamic Ummah as being represented on earth by a divinely ordained political structure, the Caliphate (in Sunni Islam) and in modern Twelver Shia various forms of theocratic governance such as the one in Iran today.

Christ also defined that the “things of God” and the “things of Caesar” - that one must render to each - were distinct. His kingdom he said “was not of this world”. In this respect there is a secular realm and a spiritual realm and they should not be meshed together in any way or else we make the church a political kingdom and disobey Christ.

An exception was generally made for the temporal powers of the papacy in the Middle Ages, after the fall of Rome, when the pope became the centre of unity for the entire Italian peninsula. This was initially born of necessity - political collapse would have ensued in the absence of a strong Emperor. The Papal States were ruled as a kind of sacerdotal monarchy that was seen as necessary to the independence of the church from political control from other kings and rulers in the world. However they were not held up as a standard for other Catholic nations to follow, far from it, they were deemed a necessary exception to the rule.

A theocracy is immoral for nation-states to enact because it does not duly regard the distinction between the earthly and the spiritual. It contimates both state and church, since it makes the church overly worldly and the state either dominated by clerics or iposing itself over the church with the church as an organ of the state.

 

[buffalo]

Traditional Catholic doctrine holds that “law” and “theology” are different spheres, as this historian of the Middle Ages explains concerning the first Universities of Catholic Europe:

Christ, unlike Moses and later Muhammad, did not reveal a divine positive law for society or individuals to follow. Rather he enunciated timeless applications of the already inherent natural law - and revealed moral truths to be adhered to, although freely. This was furthered by the Apostle Paul who explained that the Jewish Torah was not binding on Christians but rather the timeless twin law of love which lay at its heart, was natural, and underpinned all of its moral precepts: Love for God and neighbour. This he said, as well as all of the ethical (non-legal, juridicial, ceremonial etc.) etc. aspects of the Old Covenant were timeless and binding, whereas the Law itself was provisional, until the Messiah came.

In Islam separation of mosque and state was never able to take root, and indeed this stymied ultimately independent freethought once the Golden Age of the Abbasid Empire started to wane, because Islam has a divinely revealed positive law and sees the Islamic Ummah as being represented on earth by a divinely ordained political structure, the Caliphate (in Sunni Islam) and in modern Twelver Shia various forms of theocratic governance such as the one in Iran today.

Christ also defined that the “things of God” and the “things of Caesar” - that one must render to each - were distinct. His kingdom he said “was not of this world”. In this respect there is a secular realm and a spiritual realm and they should not be meshed together in any way or else we make the church a political kingdom and disobey Christ.

An exception was generally made for the temporal powers of the papacy in the Middle Ages, after the fall of Rome, when the pope became the centre of unity for the entire Italian peninsula. This was initially born of necessity - political collapse would have ensued in the absence of a strong Emperor. The Papal States were ruled as a kind of sacerdotal monarchy that was seen as necessary to the independence of the church from political control from other kings and rulers in the world. However they were not held up as a standard for other Catholic nations to follow, far from it, they were deemed a necessary exception to the rule.

A theocracy is immoral because it does not duly regard the distinction between the earthly and the spiritual. It contimates both state and church, since it makes the church overly worldly and the state either dominated by clerics or iposing itself over the church with the church as an organ of the state.

Do you consider the US immoral since it is founded on Judeo-Christian principles?

 

[Vouthon]

Do you consider the US immoral since it is founded on Judeo-Christian principles?

The US is the world’s best example of a healthy secular state that exists not to demean or oppress religious freedom but rather to uphold it. India is another example.

The US is the opposite of a theocracy. Yes it is founded upon Judaeo-Christian principles, as well as legal developments in England during the preceding period, and also is indebted to the classical world. That does not make it a theocracy.

The US is a largely Christian nation/country with a secular state.

 

[devoutchristian]

Canon law forbids clerics from holding political offices. Of course, a state can and should endorse Catholicism and pass laws that are in accordance with the Church’s teachings, since a secular state would be even worse than a theocracy.

 

[Lochias]

I dunno. The first thought that occurred to me was the fact that Jesus didn’t come to establish a traditional monarchy, or the like…remember how disappointed most folks were when they realized he hadn’t come as the literal successor to David?

The new Kingdom on Earth transcends physical boundaries and borders. Them’s my thoughts.

 

[Vouthon]

Canon law forbids clerics from holding political offices. Of course, a state can and should endorse Catholicism and pass laws that are in accordance with the Church’s teachings, since a secular state would be even worse than a theocracy.

Whether a country wishes to adopt Catholicism as its state religion is a legitimate decision for individual countries to make. It is not a necessity or moral imperative, the church can fufil its duties and missionary work perfectly without the need for a temporal state’s powers, since it forms no part of the deposit of faith revealed by Christ and the Apostles that society had to lawfully endorse Christianity, rather this was a pious discipline that the church encouraged after the French Revolution through papal encyclicals of the nineteenth century to defend religion from anticlerical movements.

By the way, the United Kingdom has Protestant Christianity as its state religion and even has anglican bishops represented as Lords Spiritual in the upper house of the parliament but can still be described as “secular” since, in essence, it does not regard clerics as being able to run say for Prime Minister or become MPs, it upholds religious freedom for all faiths and its law is separate from any church institution or indeed theology.

The church should influence society through properly catechizing the catholic laity and the laity then going on to get political offices. It is in this way that the church can and should influence morality in political terms (as well as continuing to speak out for its own rights) through indirect rather than direct means.

I think that people misunderstand the meaning of “secularism”. True secularism is positive to religion, upholds religious freedom and exists to keep the church and state separate for the benefit of both. This is not the negative secularism of Secular Humanists or rabid anticlericalists and most western countries, even those such as Malta with Catholicism as the state religion, can still be described as “secular” in this positive manner which Pope Benedict XVI explained stems from Christian teaching and was a direct result of Christianity, one of its “greatest achievements”, this separation of church and state.

Any decent country should (and today does) have a degree of this secularism, open to be defined as individual countries see fit. The degree of separation in each country is not our concern but that of the state’s so long as the freedom of the church and the human rights of all people are upheld.

 

[jimmy]

Okay, so i’ve been reading a lot about this here at CAF, as well as seperation of church and state, and I’ve been wondering, why do so many, even orthodox catholics, think a theocracy is wrong. Now I don’t think a theocracy would work in a country like the US, or any country for that matter (people are human and eventually they want to rebel against the system even if it is a good system).

However, if given the chance and it could somehow work. I’d love a catholic theocracy, or at least a system where Catholicism was the law. It wouldn’t be that bad would it. There would be no abortion, no euthanasia (at least supported by the govt). Also things like adultery and other sins which aren’t illegal would be made so like bad things on tv. There would also be freedom of religion since Catholics believe in this very much, and really it would be a great system if it could work.

So why the hate of theocracies though? Sure there are bad ones like Iran, but I would think the Catholic Church would do better at running a state and would be more fair compared to most islamist theocracies. It also would increase morals, at least in some sense. The only issue I might see is corruption, which would be a major issue. But corruption happens in any system.

So like a Catholic Iran?