Whats wrong with a theocracy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WildCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Staying out of political offices is not going to protect the Church from public scrutiny

then I think disciplined men and women with doctoral degrees in the Catholic Church can operate a functional government that is theocratic.
And what do you think Francisco Franco did? Who do you think were running the government with Franco and who do you think were his assessors? You are not thinking about the most important part: how are you going to enforce it? To run a government you need more than a doctorate to be able to enforce the laws, so how are you going to do it? Franco style?

While is true that staying out of politics is not going to protect the church from scrutiny there is a major difference between a groups on nuns kidnapped children from single mothers and “nuns by orders of the bishops of the catholic church kidnapped thousands of children from single mothers” (for those who are not familiar this is what happened in Spain during Franco times, nuns received orders from the bishops who were assessing Franco to kidnap children from single women and the mothers were told the children had died) Big difference! Yes many people left the church because of the child abuse accusations but did the pope ordered those priests to abuse the kids? No, so is not even close to the situation in Spain. And, also, do you really think that a doctorate in theology is going to make any humane immune to corruption and power? I know someone who got married to a theologican and he abused her and was charged with attempted murder of his wife. Being a theologian is no guarantee of anything.

And have you thought what are you going to do with people doesn’t go to church? Do you know how much money and how burdensome to the state is going to be to enforce that? The US cannot get people to stop killing and stealing so how are you going to make people comply? That is why theocracies turn into oppressive and dictatorial states because it is very difficult to enforce a theocracy by democratic means.
 
By the way sorry for all the grammatical mistakes I am using my phone and auto correct is a pain!
 
And what do you think Francisco Franco did? Who do you think were running the government with Franco and who do you think were his assessors? You are not thinking about the most important part: how are you going to enforce it? To run a government you need more than a doctorate to be able to enforce the laws, so how are you going to do it? Franco style?

While is true that staying out of politics is not going to protect the church from scrutiny there is a major difference between a groups on nuns kidnapped children from single mothers and “nuns by orders of the bishops of the catholic church kidnapped thousands of children from single mothers” (for those who are not familiar this is what happened in Spain during Franco times, nuns received orders from the bishops who were assessing Franco to kidnap children from single women and the mothers were told the children had died) Big difference! Yes many people left the church because of the child abuse accusations but did the pope ordered those priests to abuse the kids? No, so is not even close to the situation in Spain.
Hey, abducting peoples children is horrific. And that is a good point to worry about a Catholic theocracy. Not that I think it would happen but that I don’t underestimate self righteous lay Catholics. And I’m sure they would be complaining to the Bishops. And I’m sure some Bishops would appease them to stay their friends and in their favors.
And, also, do you really think that a doctorate in theology is going to make any humane immune to corruption and power? I know someone who got married to a theologican and he abused her and was charged with attempted murder of his wife. Being a theologian is no guarantee of anything.
I don’t think having a doctorate makes one immune from corruption or what you like to refer to as “power.” Bear in mind I don’t necessarily buy into the cliche that power equals corruption. No one has more absolute power than a parent over their child. And one can be a slave or an “average Joe” and be corrupt. Plenty of corrupt people in the ghettos of the world.

Anyways… my point about those that earned and have been awarded their doctoral degrees, in comparison and contrast to some many outlaw motorcycle clubs (e.g., Hells Angels; the Outlaws) and street gangs, is the motorcycle clubs and street gangs have earned the admiration of Americans, in TV and cable shows, based upon their perceived honor, power, and organization.

I was suggesting that Catholic men and women with Ph.D.'s can do equal or far better. A doctoral degree by the way, is not restricted and limited to the academic field of theology. You have Catholics with doctoral degrees in medicine (M.D. or D.O.), mathematics, physics, law, philosophy etc. I’m sure there are some with doctoral degrees in political science too.

And I have great admiration for candidates for doctoral degrees let alone those awarded them after successfully defending their dissertations. But then I come from an inner-city environment were very few ever attain a bachelor degree. There is much hard work that goes into attaining a Ph.D. and the process of attaining one matures one’s mind intellectually.
And have you thought what are you going to do with people doesn’t go to church?
Nothing. I don’t go to Church. Or rarely do.

I think you have the idea theocracy automatically = Home Land Security and the Patriot Act.
Do you know how much money and how burdensome to the state is going to be to enforce that? The US cannot get people to stop killing and stealing so how are you going to make people comply? That is why theocracies turn into oppressive and dictatorial states because it is very difficult to enforce a theocracy by democratic means.
There is no need for the state to police people into daily or weekly Mass.

The Papal States already crossed the bridge of theocracy. And my impressions of the cities of Rome (legalized prostitution) and Naples (city that gave birth to modern transsexualism) under the Papal States is that they were the equivalent of the modern day cities of L.A. and New York City except with swords instead of guns. Naples in particular was a cosmopolitan port city that would make the modern day Midwest of the U.S.A. look like a conservative territory under the supervision of the Spanish Inquisition.

If anything was conservatively run during the era of the Papal States and Holy Roman (German really) Empire it was not the P.S. or H.R.E. but the Catholic Spanish run kingdoms of Spain.

One might make note that it was the French, Spanish, and Portuguese (during the time nation-states were just beginning to be birthed) that set out colonizing the world and not the Papal States and Holy Roman Empire. The Spanish in particular viewed themselves to Catholicism what modern day Americans view themselves to democracy: evangelical Israelites destined with the duty to spread and convert the world through war into each respectively.
 
Hey, abducting peoples children is horrific. And that is a good point to worry about a Catholic theocracy. Not that I think it would happen but that I don’t underestimate self righteous lay Catholics. And I’m sure they would be complaining to the Bishops. And I’m sure some Bishops would appease them to stay their friends and in their favors.
I don’t think having a doctorate makes one immune from corruption or what you like to refer to as “power.” Bear in mind I don’t necessarily buy into the cliche that power equals corruption. No one has more absolute power than a parent over their child. And one can be a slave or an “average Joe” and be corrupt. Plenty of corrupt people in the ghettos of the world.

Anyways… my point about those that earned and have been awarded their doctoral degrees, in comparison and contrast to some many outlaw motorcycle clubs (e.g., Hells Angels; the Outlaws) and street gangs, is the motorcycle clubs and street gangs have earned the admiration of Americans, in TV and cable shows, based upon their perceived honor, power, and organization.

I was suggesting that Catholic men and women with Ph.D.'s can do equal or far better. A doctoral degree by the way, is not restricted and limited to the academic field of theology. You have Catholics with doctoral degrees in medicine (M.D. or D.O.), mathematics, physics, law, philosophy etc. I’m sure there are some with doctoral degrees in political science too.

And I have great admiration for candidates for doctoral degrees let alone those awarded them after successfully defending their dissertations. But then I come from an inner-city environment were very few ever attain a bachelor degree. There is much hard work that goes into attaining a Ph.D. and the process of attaining one matures one’s mind intellectually.

Nothing. I don’t go to Church. Or rarely do.

I think you have the idea theocracy automatically = Home Land Security and the Patriot Act.

There is no need for the state to police people into daily or weekly Mass.

The Papal States already crossed the bridge of theocracy. And my impressions of the cities of Rome (legalized prostitution) and Naples (city that gave birth to modern transsexualism) under the Papal States is that they were the equivalent of the modern day cities of L.A. and New York City except with swords instead of guns. Naples in particular was a cosmopolitan port city that would make the modern day Midwest of the U.S.A. look like a conservative territory under the supervision of the Spanish Inquisition.

If anything was conservatively run during the era of the Papal States and Holy Roman (German really) Empire it was not the P.S. or H.R.E. but the Catholic Spanish run kingdoms of Spain.
.
sorry, again I am using the phone which makes it diffiicult.

“Hey, abducting peoples children is horrific. And that is a good point to worry about a Catholic theocracy. Not that I think it would happen but that I don’t underestimate self righteous lay Catholics.”

Exactly, that is what I mean.There are many worrisome things in a Catholic theocray. Personally I think it would be wonderful if it could be done the right way (I am from latin america where laws and society in general tend to comport a lot with Catholic teaching and I can assure you that the society where I grew up is a much better society than the US, in fact half of the crimes you see in here you just don’t see them there) but it is just complicated and difficult and if things aren’t done the right way, like in Spain, it really can backfire against the church.

“I was suggesting that Catholic men and women with Ph.D.'s can do equal or far better.”

I absolutely agree, that is true. I was just pointing out the case of Franco who was surrounded of very smart theologians who the only catholic thing they had was the title because their actions were very non-catholic, and that I think that their actions show that the fact that someone has a title doesn’t mean that one specific person is going to do a good job or because someone has a doctorate in theology that person is good to behave according to the church doctrine . That is why I said in the beginning that this is just complicated because is quite common for people who are in power to “suddenly” suffer a “change in personality”

Oh and by the way, with regard to the political science, most people I know with bachelors in political science that pursue higher education become lawyers. I don’t think there is PhD in political science, now I may be wrong but I’ve never seen anyone with it and everybody I know with a bachelors in PS ends up becoming lawyers.

"If anything was conservatively run during the era of the Papal States and Holy Roman (German really) Empire it was not the P.S. or H.R.E. but the Catholic Spanish run kingdoms of Spain. "

That is true. And that was what Franco had in his mind wanted to bring back, he wanted Spain to be back to the theocracy of Isabel and Fernando (the catholic kings) The churh and state were one and both the church and Franco’s regime were in charge of enforcing the law. Again, if you ask me (and for many people too) Spain was a much better society back then than now, but the ultimate result of this theocracy was turning a population that was 95% practiing catholic into a country were 99% are baptized catholic but from those 99%, 70% are furiously against the church which I think is extremely sad. That is why I said, while in paper is a wonderful idea, in the practice can really backfire against the church.
 
government should have little to do with morality hence the saying “you can’t legislate morality”.

government should be minimally invasive.

people should choose to be moral (the year of faith, the new evangelization)

freedom - God seems to have the best handle on it. Free will. It’s a big deal.

freedom is not free - it requires education, responsibility and discipline.

Tune In - to the Holy Spirit,
Turn On - the Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church,
Drop Out - of the culture of death…
 
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.
I think we needs to take a look at what “theocracy” means to today’s liberals. It really means the right of the Church, the clergy in particular, to set the standards of right and wrong behavior. They want to do this power for themselves,although they pretend they believe in the rights of individuals to set their own standards. Liberals are real aristocrats who set themselves above everyone else, and know that through their monopoly on information they can manipulate the masses, and indoctrinate them in their beliefs. At the same time, they wants to play the roles of the Olympians, holding themselves to accountable only to the fates. Totalitarianism is nothing more than the liberal state unlimited by any countervailing force.
 
I take it that you don’t believe the Church’s teaching on this matter?
i believe church teachings - there are ‘hard’ teachings and there are ‘soft’ teachings with lots of gray areas when it comes to church teachings on government…

just within the catholic church we split on nearly all major issues and cancel each other out politically - - rendering us politically irrelevant…

school me - i’m sure i need it… i talk like a preachy know it all but i learn a lot in these forums and am very open to it…

but first let me clarify… obvious laws are necessary and many relate to the 10 commandments - i’m good with thou shalt not kill, steal, etc…

but when we have do-gooders telling us what to eat, drink, insure, etc - that crosses the line in my opinion

and where there is demand there is supply regardless of law (sex, drugs, gambling)

i prefer no crime, but if we’re going to have it, i prefer organized crime to unorganized crime

people need to choose to be good and govern themselves

which requires education, responsibilty, discipline and the ability to effectively and peacefully influence others to conform

thats why i say - educate, evangelize and enlighten

if we were good (virtuous) as a whole, at a level of critical mass, our problems would be minimized

our problem is we are a minimized minority (since we cancel each other out on the major issues) and we don’t like it so we want to tell others how to be and what to do via the government? a fruitless endeavor…

needs to occur on a case by case basis - grass roots level -

ps - i understand the definition of theocracy and appreciate it…
 
No it isn’t. Show me the canons and the council.
“Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on ]the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”
(Vatican II Council,
DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DIGNITATIS HUMANAE, n°1)
 
No it isn’t. Show me the canons and the council.
“Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”
Vatican II Council, Declaration on religious freedom, n°1.
 
Can Republic/Democracy advocates on CAF point out one example of a medieval/renaissance Catholic, absolute monarch who was a corrupt tyrant? Can you name for me one who had even a fraction of the power that the current U.S. Federal Government has under our great republic? Can you name for me one republic that lasted as long as the Kingdom of France?

And even if you can name just one, realize that there have been HUNDREDS of Catholic absolute monarchs in the past 2000 years. There have only been 44 Presidents and I can name at least 1 that has been a corrupt tyrant.

There are dozens upon dozens of kings that are canonized Saints. We will never see an elected official be canonized a Saint. In the grand scheme of things, this is what matters.

Yes, yes, I know, I know. I too was raised in educated in a secular/protestant educational system in this great republic that brainwashed me and fed me lies about the evils of the medieval Catholic Church and the evils of the Catholic kings and queens, and the purity of heart and the intelligence and wisdom of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington, who lived far from saintly lives and gave birth to a system that naturally descends into the immoral filth that surrounds us today and relegates all of morality to the will of the sick desires of the people. Yay republic, boo monarchy. But remember this: Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, etc. none of them were kings. All of them derived their power through modernist political systems and hijacked not monarchies, but democracies.
 
Can Republic/Democracy advocates on CAF point out one example of a medieval/renaissance Catholic, absolute monarch who was a corrupt tyrant? Can you name for me one who had even a fraction of the power that the current U.S. Federal Government has under our great republic?
Mary the 1st of England, aka “Bloody Mary”
 
There used to be at least in Quebec Canada prior to V2, circa 50’s and before. Actually your right. Although the full obligation of the Catholic was fully felt,( ie:the gamut meat on Fridays, saints days,confession,genuflecting,signs of cross passing churches,etc) and a stern structure was in full force, Beneath it all the families were wholesome and happy. That includes the poor and middle class. The scenes from Bells of St. Mary were typical back then.

Other religions existed of course, but there was no undenying by them that they were the minority. No attacks on the eccelsia,insinuations and aspersions back then. The media was cautious to edit out improper presumption. Protestants extended respect, although the Jehovah’s were always in the face of the family unit ready to disrupt a peaceful Saturday. In fact other religions were careful in learning the Catholic ways in order to be politically correct and in the right form for dialogue.

So I think your right. The days of Corinth were to be lived today. The fledgling community of those days are extended to today and it is to be obedient to Divine authority which is what the Church holds as credentials.In fact encyclical Mater et Magistra points out the Catholic mandate which is teacher of nations.
 
government should have little to do with morality hence the saying “you can’t legislate morality”.
Umm, that is the point of government. It is immoral to put others in danger, hence we set speed limits. It is immoral to allow homes to be robbed, hence we organize a police force. Exactly why do you think those things are done?

Though our society would never admit it because it is “intolerant” to think anything is true, heresy is immoral, too.
Mary the 1st of England, aka “Bloody Mary”
I don’t necessarily agree with post you were responding to, but I would like to vindicate the woman by saying that you cannot judge her by the standards of 2012. She also had serious issues because of her father hating her mother, and the Faith was all she had left of her at that time.

I suggest reading “The First Queen of England: the Myth of “Bloody Mary””
 
So why the hate of theocracies though?.
Such a system of Government imposes a single belief or value system on everyone, yet not everyone in modern, mixed societies share the same beliefs or values.

A theocracy would ultimately be to deny poeple - with different or no beliefs - the libery of their own consciences.

Similar to how Obama is trying to do that to the Catholic Chruch by trying to force its institutions to pay for abortions and contracepton.
 
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.
WildCatholic, have you read any of the Encyclicals of Leo XIII? He wrote much on this and related subjects.
 
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 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.
Can you flesh out a bit the distinction between the earthly and the spiritual? I thought we, as humans, were supposed to be partakers of both.

It is true that God intended in this time for there to be two powers, the spiritual and the earthly, but the modern error is that they should ignore each other, rather than mutually co-operate, which they ought to do if society is to be perfected to the degree that it may in this world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top