Why isn't the Church a democratic institution

[KofC660]

It all depends how you define “Freedom”, myself I’m a “papist”, I listen to Rome, before I look to Washington.

Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought. Pope John Paul II

" Yes, Christ is with us, the Kingdom of God is coming.” PB XVI

and it ain’t a Democracy, praise God!- BennieP

You see, this person “Bennie” has Catholic values!

 

[Contarini]

Not to take this off-topic, but shouldn’t you be a citizen of the country in which you reside?

Why? It’s certainly a good idea, but why is it a moral duty? As it is, I pay taxes but don’t have the right to vote. The government has no right to complain. (OK, it can’t draft me for jury duty, though that’s actually the government’s choice, not mine.)

However, it’s not as if I ever decided not to become a citizen. I procrastinate a lot–I’ve just procrastinated on this for 15 years, and I think my ambivalence about American ideology is probably part of the reason!

Edwin

 

[estesbob]

Why? It’s certainly a good idea, but why is it a moral duty? As it is, I pay taxes but don’t have the right to vote. The government has no right to complain. (OK, it can’t draft me for jury duty, though that’s actually the government’s choice, not mine.)

However, it’s not as if I ever decided not to become a citizen. I procrastinate a lot–I’ve just procrastinated on this for 15 years, and I think my ambivalence about American ideology is probably part of the reason!

Edwin

Puting ideology alive I suggest you look at Estate taxes for an American vs a Foreign National.

 

[GIMJ]

Having “Catholic values” is so much more than simply being against abortion, or being against gay marrige, or supporting prayer in school, etc.

First and foremost, “Catholic values” are informed by the theology of the Church, as opposed to, say, the Enlightenment. For example, if someone supports “freedom of speech” or “seperation of Church and State” and they are against abortion, they do NOT have “Catholic values”, as “freedom of speech” or “seperation of Church and State” are NOT a “Catholic values”, despite their stance on abortion.

Americans are primarily formed by their acceptance of Enlightenment values, not Catholic values, and this goes for those Americans that are Catholic.

So in order to have “Catholic values”, not only do your values have to coincide with the Church, but the methodology for having them must be tied into a devotion to the Church? That is to say, even if a person held no values in conflict with the Church, but was not a Catholic, you would not consider their values to be “Catholic values” since they do not attribute them to the Church?

What about someone who is a Catholic (like John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi) and say they are devout, but whose politics are in conflict with the Church’s…do they hold Catholic values even if their politics are not in total allignment? In other words, is there no middle ground for someone to have “some,” “many,” or “all” “Catholic values” as demonstrated or at the very least in personal conviction?

How do you determine whether someone looks to the Enlightenment primarily, or to Rome primarily, for their values? In America, where Liberalism is codified in the Constitution, isn’t it difficult to decide whether someone values Enlightenment more than the Church since they are required by law to uphold Liberalism?

 

[KofC660]

So in order to have “Catholic values”, not only do your values have to coincide with the Church, but the methodology for having them must be tied into a devotion to the Church?

Exactly.

 

[GIMJ]

Exactly.

My post was cut off short. What about the last part?

 

[KofC660]

What about someone who is a Catholic (like John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi) and say they are devout, but whose politics are in conflict with the Church’s…do they hold Catholic values even if their politics are not in total allignment? In other words, is there no middle ground for someone to have “some,” “many,” or “all” “Catholic values” as demonstrated or at the very least in personal conviction?

No, there is no “middle ground”. Kerry and Pelosi may confess the Catholic Faith, however, they hold on to heresies that remove themselves from it (to the best of my knowledge, knowing what they have said publicly - I can’t be sure of their private thoughts).

How do you determine whether someone looks to the Enlightenment primarily, or to Rome primarily, for their values? In America, where Liberalism is codified in the Constitution, isn’t it difficult to decide whether someone values Enlightenment more than the Church since they are required by law to uphold Liberalism?

If they have values that are informed by Enlightenment philosophies, it will be apparent, if they are honest. It’s possible for someone to “fake it” and pretend to be informed of their values by the Church, but they would then compromise their Enlightenment values, and vice versa. As for the Constitution, if someone supports and protects the values outlined within it, they are, by definition, not informed by Catholic values, but by the values of the Enlightenment. You can’t be both a “good American”, as defined by supporting Enlightenment values, and a “good Catholic”, as defined by following the morals given to you by the Church.

You can not be a good Catholic and support ANY type of separation of Church and State. The State must be subservient to the Church on matters of morals. The Church tells the State what a marriage is, or how children are educated, etc. The State has the ultimate authority on such things as speed limits on the highways.

 

[Sir_Knight]

You’re trying to make this more complicated than it is.

Is anti-abortion a Catholic position? Yes or No? The answer is obviously ‘yes’. Does Bush hold to the anti-abortion position? Yes or no? Again, the answer is ‘yes’! Thus, Bush holds to THAT Catholic value. Pure and simple.

 

[bilop]

You can’t be both a “good American”, as defined by supporting Enlightenment values, and a “good Catholic”, as defined by following the morals given to you by the Church.

You can not be a good Catholic and support ANY type of separation of Church and State. The State must be subservient to the Church on matters of morals. The Church tells the State what a marriage is, or how children are educated, etc. The State has the ultimate authority on such things as speed limits on the highways.

This is nonsense. You are saying that to be a good Catholic you must support a Catholic theocracy? The Church has NEVER tought this.

One can certainly be a good citizen (of any free nation) and a good Catholic. Remember, render unto Caesar…

God Bless

 

[estesbob]

You can not be a good Catholic and support ANY type of separation of Church and State. The State must be subservient to the Church on matters of morals. The Church tells the State what a marriage is, or how children are educated, etc. The State has the ultimate authority on such things as speed limits on the highways.

In your opinion. fotunatley the Church does not agree with you.

 

[elvisman]

Yes, people have given dozens of unhelpful answers that are not answers to the question he asked.

The original question was a bit vague and poorly worded. BUT-- The OP clarified that he was not talking about doctrine being democratic but rather the **method **of selecting Bishops.

There is nothing wrong with him asking this question because the method of selecting bishops is **NOT **a matter of doctrine.

It is a discipline under Canon Law. It can change, and it has changed from the early church to the present. Bishops were, in fact, selected by popular vote of the people in their diocese at one time. They have also been appointed by secular rulers at one time. Now, they are appointed by the Pope.

I think that the current method is the best method. But, he is free to ask about the methods and why we do it the way we do it. It’s a legitimate question, but everyone is too busy shouting “heresy” to listen to wha this actual question is.

Wrong. The question about selecting bishops was only ONE of his questions.
If you read on, he asked several more. He asked me the following questions:

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?

I never referred to him as a heretic either.
He started asking questions and when he was given answers to some of those questions, he continued asking the same questions (worded differently, of course).
Of course he has the right to ask questions. What I take exception with is people who don’t want answers. They antagonize for the sake of antagonism and that is how I saw his line of questioning.

 

[KofC660]

In your opinion. fotunatley the Church does not agree with you.

From Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors:

1. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church.—Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

It is an error, according to the Catholic Church, that the State should be seperate from the Church.

I realize this offends most Americans, even American Catholics, but these are the facts.

 

[Bennie_P]

From Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors:

It is an error, according to the Catholic Church, that the State should be seperate from the Church.

I realize this offends most Americans, even American Catholics, but these are the facts.

Quote your source - please.

 

[SPH1]

From Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors:

It is an error, according to the Catholic Church, that the State should be seperate from the Church.

I realize this offends most Americans, even American Catholics, but these are the facts.

Perhaps the Pope is referring to an ideal situation (from the Church’s point of view) where everyone in the State are Catholic Christians.

 

[KofC660]

Perhaps the Pope is referring to an ideal situation (from the Church’s point of view) where everyone in the State are Catholic Christians.

Pope Piux IX was stating that the State has the DUTY to promote the One True Relgion, the Catholic Faith. If it does not, it is because that particular government is not “righteous”. A righteous government has the responsibility to be a Catholic government. There is no way for a government to be righteous, and not support the Catholic Church.

 

[Bennie_P]

There is a good article, on the First Things web site concerning the discussion here about church and state. May be a worth a read.
Religious Freedom: Innovation and Development

by Avery Cardinal Dulles

Here is part of it…

The Syllabus of Errors is a favorite source for those who wish to demonstrate an about-face of Catholic teaching on freedom of religion and on Church-State relationships. It was not a part of the encyclical Quanta Cura but an unsigned appendix to it containing a catalogue of previously condemned errors. According to Newman the Syllabus has no more doctrinal authority in itself than an index or table of contents taken apart from the book to which it refers. While Newman may have minimized the authority, he was right at least to the extent that the propositions must be interpreted in relation to the original documents from which they are excerpted.
Some of the propositions of the Syllabus of Errors, taken at face value, do sound contrary to Vatican II. Regarding personal conscience, Proposition 15 rejects the view that “each individual is free to embrace and profess the religion that he judges true by the light of reason.” DH, however, teaches that “every man has the duty, and therefore the right, to seek truth in matters of religion, in order that he may with prudence form for himself right and true judgments of conscience, with the use of suitable means.”

 

[KofC660]

Quote your source - please.

I quoted Pope Piux IX, from his Syllabus of Errors.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM

1. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church.—Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

The Church takes a very definite stand that the State and Church must be together, with the State supporting the Church, and the Church supporting the State, as long as that State supports the Church. If the State does not support the Church, then the Church has no obligation to support it, nor do it’s members.

 

[Bennie_P]

I quoted Pope Piux IX, from his Syllabus of Errors.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM

.

Thank you, I figured it out, but wasn’t sure who was quoting it?

 

[auhsoj88]

If American history has taught us anything, it is that the preferable form of government is a democracy. Monarchy is less preferable because of the potential for corruption and abuse, and the fallacy of the inequality between the monarch and the subjects.
Then why is our church not a democracy? Wouldn’t it be preferable for the Church to be administered by the best form of government?
After all, the Holy Spirit would ensure that the Church thrives and endures regardless of its form of governance, would it not? Would the Holy Spirit cease to assist our Holy Father and our Bishops merely because they were elected rather than appointed? Isn’t history replete of examples of excesses and abuses that parallel the excesses and abuses of monarchies?
Everything in our history as Americans tells us that democracy is the only way to go.

“Our Father thou art in Heaven, Holy by thy name, Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven…”

Jesus established a “Kingdom” on earth and in heaven. What is a kingdom but people under the rule of a King. This King is Jesus.

The Catholic Church is a Monarchy, with Christ being King of Kings…

In Christ!

 

[Teflon93]

I quoted Pope Piux IX, from his Syllabus of Errors.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM

The Church takes a very definite stand that the State and Church must be together, with the State supporting the Church, and the Church supporting the State, as long as that State supports the Church. If the State does not support the Church, then the Church has no obligation to support it, nor do it’s members.

What?

This changes everything!

To the HeresyMobile, Batman!

In all seriousness, do Protestants REALLY think this is some sort of Da Vinci Code smoking gun?

I mean, if you can explain away “faith without works is dead” to hang onto sola fide despite its clear scriptural grounding a la sola scriptura and if Luther’s claim to have granted the Devil his due on points of theology, isn’t it a little rich to say Catholics must bow down to somebody’s FOOTNOTE?

What the Catholic Church believes is found in the Catechism. Why not dig something out of there to criticize? It’s a very big book, you know.

This is the Protestant equivalent of a Catholic “Luther played with doodie” non-argument.