Why isn't the Church a democratic institution

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnlal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
johnlal said:
From your source: "[Americanism] would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive and would have the Church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world. "

That has nothing to do with what I have said. The Church should be the same worldwide. Where in any of my posts did I argue that the Church in America should be different?
Click to expand...
That Americanism “would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive and would have the Church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world” is not the heresy itself, but a result of it. The heresy of Americanism is, in short, the belief that the principals of the Enlightenment, that is “freedom” of speech, religion, etc., are more important than, and supersedes the temporal powers of the Church. For example, to hold the attitude that someone has the “right” to criticize the Catholic Church is the heresy of Americanism. In the Catholic Faith, there is no room for the idea of a “free” press. Sure, sometimes criticism is necessary, but only within the bounds subscribed by the Church itself. If the local bishop tells you to “stop”, you must immediately “stop”.

“Americanism” tells you morality can be set by civil authorities. The Church tells you something quite different. As another example, Americanism would tell you that government decides what marriage is. The Church declares only itself able to define what the Sacrament of marriage truly is.

Americanism isn’t “patriotism”, it is the held belief that rationalism, pluralism, naturalism, etc. are foundations upon which society should be built, and NOT the Catholic Church.
 
KofC660 said:
The heresy of Americanism is, in short, the belief that the principals of the Enlightenment, that is “freedom” of speech, religion, etc., are more important than, and supersedes the temporal powers of the Church.
Click to expand...
I never suggested that.
“Americanism” tells you morality can be set by civil authorities. The Church tells you something quite different. As another example, Americanism would tell you that government decides what marriage is. The Church declares only itself able to define what the Sacrament of marriage truly is.
Click to expand...
My post had nothing to do with marriage. (Although you have to admit that civil marriage existed before Christianity, and that States still define what a Civil marriage is-- i.e. restrictions against polygamy, relatives cannot marry, some people (such as menatally handicapped or minors) lack the capacity to marry. Churches are required to register marriages with the civil authority before the marriage can be deemed legitimate.

Americanism isn’t “patriotism”, it is the held belief that rationalism, pluralism, naturalism, etc. are foundations upon which society should be built, and NOT the Catholic Church.

Just because some ideas of the Founding Fathers don’t match up to the Catholic Church’s teachings doesn’t mean that everything about America is evil. According to our catechism:

"The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed. "

So you see, even the Catholic church recognizes the natural law, fundamental rights of persons, the common good, etc.
 
johnlal said:
If American history has taught us anything, it is that the preferable form of government is a democracy.
Click to expand...
I think you are expressing a very narrow, parochial, maybe even idolatrous point of view here. America is not the final goal of human history. It is not the standard of morality and excellence. It’s just one more flawed human society, with many virtues and many vices.

There are certainly some advantages to democracy in terms of accountability for leaders, and I wish Catholicism would adopt some more democratic features (which are in fact compatible with its history). But I’m very uncomfortable with your suggestion that democracy is simply and purely the best (or even only) way to run any group of people. There are advantages to monarchy and oligarchy as well.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
But I’m very uncomfortable with your suggestion that democracy is simply and purely the best (or even only) way to run any group of people. There are advantages to monarchy and oligarchy as well.

Edwin
Click to expand...
As an American, I must disagree with you.😉
 
johnlal said:
Then why is the election of the Pope left up to a vote?
Click to expand...
Good question. Aren’t our soldiers dying all over the globe trying to bring democracy to foreign countries? Isn’t that our cure for what’s wrong in the world? Democracy?

This begs the question. If by being Americans, we have learned that a monarchy is inferior to a Democracy, they why would God choose an inferior form of government for his Church?

It seems that we have yet another in a growing list of people who come to the forum - not to get answers, but merely to antagonize.
This begs the question: Who said that a monarchy is inferior? As Christians, we know that we are not of this world - so who cares what you or any other American thinks is the superior form of government?
I suggest you crack open a Bible and read the following passage: John 17:14-16
God’s will is not up for a vote - but you already know that. You came here merely to antagonize and to get people riled up.
 
Contarini said:
I think you are expressing a very narrow, parochial, maybe even idolatrous point of view here.
Click to expand...
Indeed, he is expressing the heresy of Americanism, although he doesn’t really want to know what it is, I guess in order to deny he is a heretic.

Americanism is quite common, so it is no surprise he doesn’t realize it’s a heresy.
 
Er, folks, the OP has clarified his intent.

He is not suggesting that the doctrine handed down from the apostles be put up to a vote, but merely that bishops be elected – which, as someone else pointed out, is how episcopal offices were filled during some of the early centuries.

Possibly the OP is a bit too rah-rah about the American system (though I am also American and tend to prefer it myself – my answer to the “Would you want to live in a Catholic theocracy” topic from awhile back is “Just the one in Heaven, thanks”), but let’s separate what he’s actually proposing from related, but terrible, ideas we oppose.

Now, I do tend to fear that a change to elected episcopal offices would lead to an assumption on many people’s part that doctrine, too, would be up for a vote, and that you’d get bishops “running” on “platforms” that embrace teachings and practices far from what the Church permits. A “spirit of democracy” akin to the infamous “spirit of Vatican II,” if you will.

However, seeing that bishops were elected at one point in history, and that the papal office is presently elective (though with only a subset of the cardinals as eligible electors), I can definitely see a precedent for returning to election of the local bishop by the people of the diocese. In such a circumstance, I personally would favor having the Pope elected by the people of the diocese of Rome, like any other bishop, though some might insist on a worldwide vote of Catholics. I fear that would be both impractical and likely to politicize the process far too much, personally.

Usagi
 
elvisman said:
God’s will is not up for a vote - but you already know that. You came here merely to antagonize and to get people riled up.
Click to expand...
I apologize for riling people up. I really did come here for answers, not to upset people. I won’t post anything further on the subject, and will look for answers elsewhere.😊
 
I remember there being some quote, I think from GK Chesterton, about the Church being a “democracy of the ages” as opposed to the oligarchy of the few human beings who happen to be walking around on earth at this present moment.

The Church is the same for all time. Its’ true head is not the Pope but God, who is perfect, and whose policies, if we were only pure enough to know Him as His saints and angels in heaven know Him, unclouded by sin and error, we would always vote for.

Systems of human government are only there to decide which of a group of imperfect systems is the least worst option. With God there is no need for any ‘system’ because God is the perfect King, the perfect President, the perfect Chairman, perfect Emperor, perfect High Priest, or whatever other title you wish to call Him to reflect His rule.
 
You’re leaving out two critical points. The Church is not actually led by people but by God (through people), and the purpose of the Church is not to give people the faith they want (democracy) but to give them the faith God has revealed. If, as you say, the Holy Spirit would guide the Church anyway, then what advantage would there be to elected bishops? And note that one could argue that it is exactly the guidance of the Holy Spirit which has created the organizational arrangement that the Church has adopted.

Take a look at all the mainstream Protestant denominations to see how their own tenants of faith have been distorted through democratic means just in the past hundred years.
 
johnlal said:
I apologize for riling people up. I really did come here for answers, not to upset people. I won’t post anything further on the subject, and will look for answers elsewhere.😊
Click to expand...
I found nothing upsetting in your question. Catholics need to have an answer for every reasonable question (and we do!). Stick around.

And please, folks, don’t be so quick to drive people off. There are lurkers reading these forums who are evaluating the Catholic faith based on our answers and our attitudes.
 
I’d like to make two points, if I may.
  1. The syllogism here is based on faulty logic. Yes, he United States (and many other nations) have democratically elected governments and at this point in history that does seem to be the most advantageous form of national government. Yet, not all institutions in those countries are run in this manner and it certainly would not be advisable to run those institutions democratically, would it?
The military, for example, would probably not be best to be run as a democracy. Even within the government itself, the CIA, the FBI, the EPA, the USDA are not run as democracies, but as top-down executive agencies. Your local restaurant is not likely run as a democracy, is it?

Some organisations are more democratic than others. Trade Unions, after some coercion, tend to be more democratic. Some lobbying groups such as the NRA or Sierra Club might allow you to vote on their leaders.

The problem here is that the OP is suggesting that democracy must apply to all organisations (including the Church) based on historical data that he has not provided. Please note that I’m not being mean or nasty, just suggesting that the logic of this argument is a bit faulty.

Consider that the Catholic Church is possibly the oldest continuing organisation in the history of the world. Historically speaking, compared to the Church the United States is an infant. Even taking the democratic traditions of Iceland, Switzerland, or Britain into account would still not prove as long-lasting as the Church.

I think you might be forgetting our role as The Church Militant. Just a thought, and something you might consider.
  1. As a former Protestant and one time member of a church where the congregation had a great deal of power in who was the minister (we had no bishops, this was before I became a Lutheran) I can honestly say that people can get carried away to a ridiculous degree. That particular church rotated ministers more than Bolivia rotated leaders. It was a revolving door.
One of the great things about Catholicism is her consistency. I’d be very worried that Bishops, even if “elected” to specific terms, would be shuttled in an out and consistency would suffer. Besides, I don’t think the parishioners would know enough about the different “candidates” to make the best decision. Many times it might end up being that the largest church in a diocese would consistently elect their own priest. Or, it would become a matter of church politics and different groups asserting their strength (the Knights, Legion of Mary, who knows? But why would we want that?).
 
johnlal said:
Your semantic argument misses the point. We elect our leaders. That is the best way for a government to operate. Period.
Click to expand...
In Christ’s eyes, we are sheep in need of a shepard. Take the shepard away from a flock and see how well they do governing themselves.
 
The Church is founded by our Lord Jesus.
The Church has the absolute truth.
Absolute Turth cannot be democratic.
 
VociMike said:
You’re leaving out two critical points. The Church is not actually led by people but by God (through people), and the purpose of the Church is not to give people the faith they want (democracy) but to give them the faith God has revealed. If, as you say, the Holy Spirit would guide the Church anyway, then what advantage would there be to elected bishops? And note that one could argue that it is exactly the guidance of the Holy Spirit which has created the organizational arrangement that the Church has adopted.

Take a look at all the mainstream Protestant denominations to see how their own tenants of faith have been distorted through democratic means just in the past hundred years.
Click to expand...
Excellent point!
 
johnlal said:
As an American, I must disagree with you.😉
Click to expand...
Why does being an American mean that you must make absolutist claims for your particular style of government? This is one of the reasons I’m reluctant to get American citizenship, even though I’ve lived here most of my life. Being an American is way too much like a religion.

Edwin
 
johnlal said:
So, you would prefer that America was a monarchy? I don’t know of any American who would give up their freedom to a monarch.
Click to expand...
Before we get too far johnlal, WHAT do you think democracy is? :confused: Democracy is a method for selecting a government, it is not “the” government. In the United States, we use democratic means to form our government, but our government is a Liberal Republic, not a Democracy.

I think you equate monarchy with tyranny or authoritarianism. Again, monarchism is only one way of forming a government. As in the UK, there exists a monarchy, but it is a constitutional parliamentary government. Brits do not give freedom up to the monarch anymore than Americans give freedom up to their President.

The American system is not perfect, although it is practically speaking, better than most that have been devised by man. As a true-blue American, I wouldn’t mind having a monarch as long as the government were founded on a respect for Man’s divine origin and natural rights so that my freedoms and dignity were respected and preserved. Such a monarchy would be an improvement upon our current system. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top