Whats wrong with a theocracy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WildCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
WildCatholic said:
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.
Click to expand...
So would you like to live in Iran,or Saudi Arabia?
 
In a theocracy think less of it being your religion ruling but another religion’s views. That is the problem, would other religions be allowed that are against Catholicism (what about even other denominations, or even things viewed by the church as immoral would they be allowed as an issue of free will, that is the problem.
 
JRKH said:
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
Click to expand...
Good point. 👍

When John F. Kennedy was running for POTUS, there was concern that he might put his loyalty first and foremost to the Pope. The public rightly discerned that Catholics in the U.S. and in other countries are also subjects of a theocracy, the Church. This also explains the hostility of the Chinese Communist government to Chinese Christians. Not too long ago, Japanese Christians were also persecuted by the Shogun because the Shogun also discerned that these Christians were also subjects of the Church.
 
There is only one problem with a theocracy: human beings. They will muckup everything they are inveled in. 😃 😛
 
Yes, the only theocracy I am looking forward to is after the Second Coming.👍
 
I look forward to a theocracy of the end days when Christ the King appears and all secularism will vanish to the nether regions.
 
jimmy said:
So like a Catholic Iran?
Click to expand...
Maybe with a little more freedom of religion and dedicated to peace instead of being war mongers. Kind of like a constitutional monarchy where the Pope would decide on spiritual stuff. Other elected officials could do all the infrastructure things like taxes and road building and military (if we needed it). In cases of infrastructure, the clergy would just be a rubber stamp so they could spend more time on the spiritual aspects of their jobs.

But as I said, it probably wouldn’t work. We are so entrenched in our current style of government. Not that its a bad thing. Certainly we can change our laws to agree with Catholic principles, but if it was possible a theocracy might be better
 
WildCatholic said:
Maybe with a little more freedom of religion and dedicated to peace instead of being war mongers. Kind of like a constitutional monarchy where the Pope would decide on spiritual stuff. Other elected officials could do all the infrastructure things like taxes and road building and military (if we needed it). In cases of infrastructure, the clergy would just be a rubber stamp so they could spend more time on the spiritual aspects of their jobs.

But as I said, it probably wouldn’t work. We are so entrenched in our current style of government. Not that its a bad thing. Certainly we can change our laws to agree with Catholic principles, but if it was possible a theocracy might be better
Click to expand...
Would we have the morality police telling women to put more clothes on if they were showing too much skin? Theocracy is a problem because it is a display of the hypo racy of those ruling, not a question of the sinfulness or secularness of those being ruled. It is inevitable that a theocracy would end up somewhat like Iran or Saudi Arabia. You would have corrupt people punishing those with less power based on vices they might have, or based on the occasion of sin.
 
WildCatholic said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just in relation to this…This is contrary to the Catholic faith as we cannot forcibly convert people. Salvation must be a free choice.

To enshrine the whole of Catholic Doctrine in the law of a State would cause all sorts of other problems as well.

Just look at the past when the Church was involved in political matters. The approach of the modern Church is to be one that focuses on salvation rather than earthly politics.
 
Catholic doctrine accepts separation of Church and State in the sense that there are two powers, the spiritual and the temporal, each governing within its own sphere. It rejects the “separation” that says rulers are not subject to Christ the King of kings or that the Church and State shouldn’t work together harmoniously.

It’s easier to think of if we use a monarch as an example. Like everyone else, a king has an obligation to be a Catholic and to live the faith in all the he does. In terms of government, it means he must govern with true justice, mercy, and charity. His laws should be consonant with the objective moral order and be geared to the advancement of the common good. He must profess, defend, and promote the faith (again with true justice and chairty). Does this mean he can coerce non-Catholics into becoming Catholics? No, that is contrary to the Catholic faith. Does it mean he must suppress false religious activity, provided such activity does not harm the common good or is not contrary to the natural law? Again, no, that is also contrary to the Catholic faith.
 
Vouthon said:
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
Click to expand...
This is a condemned heresy.
 
WildCatholic said:
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). …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.
Click to expand...
My thoughts: I don’t think it’s so much “hate” as much as it is disagreement. Even among people that call themselves “Catholic” not every one is a practicing catholic and not every one that is a catholic completely agrees with Catholicism (ex: the Catholics I know have no problems with homosexuality).

Now if you were describing a Catholic led government among a body of people that are all stoked about conforming to Catholicism then reaction might be different.
 
jimmy said:
No it isn’t. Show me the canons and the council.
Click to expand...
‘That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State.’

Pope St. Pius X, ‘Vehementor Nos’
 
Give me an actual dogmatic source. Encyclicals aren’t dogmatic, and just because a particular pope opposed something doesn’t make it a heresy. If that were the case then Catholicism would have contradicted itself over and over, and it would comsequently be false. Honorius would be one example of the many.
 
Read the last sentence. Do you think that Pope St.Pius X was lying?
 
The catholic church is in favor the doctrine of the distinction of powers (Caesar and God, the catholicism is not in favor of the Theocracy, per se. Because, the theocracy is the fusion of powers and thus that means the temporal power is in the hands of catholic hierarchy. Catholicism is not like that.), but she disagrees with the doctrine of the separation of powers. That means that the temporal power of State:

does not have to be in the hands of catholic priests, of catholic bishops, of the catholic Pope. Thus, the temporal power of State has to be in the hands of lay persons;

has to respect the natural moral order of human beings, and that the temporal power of State has to respect its own natural moral order, toward the citizens (its limits). The temporal power of State has to respect the natural rights of each human: the ends does not justify the means.

has to respect the liberty of the religion of the Roman catholic church. The temporal power of State should cooperate with the Roman catholic church, as possible.

should tolerate the other “religions” for avoiding the worst, if and only if they respect the natural moral law the humanity, in the catholic perspective; The theory of the tolerance is a rule.

should be deist at the minium, thus the the temporal power should not be atheist. The atheism is, per se, wrong.

should promote the natural goodness, the christian charity, the natrural right of each one, the equity and the equality between citizen.

has to fight the marxism, the communism, the socialism, the nazism, the fascism, the dictorship, the totalitarism, the refusal of the link between faith and reason, the ideologies of the human nature.

**
The details and the subtleties are very important**

Seperation of powers: NO NO NO NO
Distinction of powers: YES YES YES YES
Theocraty: NO NO NO NO
Ideologies of the human nature: NO NO NO NO NO
Going against to the natural moral law: NO NO NO NO NO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top