Would the Church support a theocracy?

[benjammin]

Let’s say for example in an imaginary universe that the United STates decided that Catholic Law and Doctrine would be the law of the land of the country. Would the Church be in support of this? I’ve always wondered this because many countries have the Catholic church as their official church, but I’m wondering if the church would support a country who based its laws of catholic laws?

 

[ccmnxc]

I think their ideal would be a benevolent monarchy, but they may support a theocracy.

 

[SgtSchultz]

An official or an established church does not a theocracy make. The history of Christianity is proof of never-ending tensions, of varying degrees, between secular and Church authorities.

As to your specific question, the line “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s.” is often used to support a claim that the Church is opposed to theocracy. What it does support is the establishment of customs, mores and laws that are compatible with its moral order – not quite the same thing.

 

[austenbosten]

I don’t think the Papal States would object, but declaring an official religion does not make a theocracy.

You cannot compare a free nation like Costa Rica, to a tyrannical nation like Iran.

 

[Rhubarb]

The Vatican is an independent nation whose head of state whomever is the current head of the Catholic Church. Isn’t that the definition of a theocracy?

 

[SgtSchultz]

The Vatican is an independent nation whose head of state whomever is the current head of the Catholic Church. Isn’t that the definition of a theocracy?

Dang, I didn’t even think of that! You might be right.

But then the OP’s question could be modified with the simple addition of “other than Vatican City” and we’d be back to square one.

 

[IbnFiktur]

An official or an established church does not a theocracy make. The history of Christianity is proof of never-ending tensions, of varying degrees, between secular and Church authorities.

As to your specific question, the line “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s.” is often used to support a claim that the Church is opposed to theocracy. What it does support is the establishment of customs, mores and laws that are compatible with its moral order – not quite the same thing.

+1

I think the Church learned from the Medieval and Renaissance papacy how secular authority can cause all sorts of problems.

Vatican City may be a “theocracy,” but it’s essentially just a small community of clerics. I think the past few Popes have moved away from the desire for secular Church authority.

That said, in an imaginary universe where the United States or any country feels it appropriate to adopt theocracy, anything is possible. But I’m confident in saying that the modern papacy would strongly encourage against it, and probably refuse to accept secular authority.

 

[levinas12]

But I’m confident in saying that the modern papacy would strongly encourage against it, and probably refuse to accept secular authority.

This may be true in the current situation.

But suppose that the overwhelming majority of people in the world are converted to Catholicism. And I mean “deep conversion” - “hot” Catholics.

I think, in that case, there would be a much closer relationship between the Church and the State. Maybe not a theocracy but a much better arrangement than we have now. Especially if the conversion leads to an exponential increase in the number of saints. Which is not impossible (for humans, yes; for God, no).

I know some people will bring up how bad it was in the Middle Ages. But they may have their own secular axes to grind.

And we’re not talking about the Middle Ages. Imagine a Catholic world with science and technology and a genuine democracy which encourages faith and virtue.

And this scenario comes with a fail-safe guarantee. Because there’s always Heaven - where there is no hedonism, secularism, “pluralism” - where everyone is a believer and a saint.

 

[levinas12]

Because there’s always Heaven - where there is no hedonism, secularism, “pluralism” - where everyone is a believer and a saint.

I should add that there were, are and will be many people in Heaven who, during their time on earth, were not explicit believers.

But, when they arrive in Heaven, they become “united” with Jesus, the Father, the Holy Spirit, the angels and the saints. So it’s true to say that everyone in Heaven is a believer (although this may be poorly phrased because “belief” per se will no longer be required in Heaven because we will see God face-to-face).

 

[Bill_Martin]

I don’t know if the Church would support it, but this Catholic would be strongly against it.