Would you prefer to live in a Catholic theocracy?

[Greg27]

Well, for one thing, there were catholic theocracies a plenty in the past, and nothing Ive read about them would make me wish Id been living there at the time.

A resounding no from me.

I would agree with these sentiments. A Catholic Theocratic country where the church and state were one and the same would look very much like modern Iran or China (which in its own way is a ‘Marxist’ theocracy). States where the government or the ruler has absolute power that is not dispersed or checked by any balances or constraints, as the historical record in Europe and around the World abundantly shows, and especially where the ruler or ruling class is religious in nature, easily degenerate into tyranny.

Concentrating absolute secular and spiritual power into say the Pope, is also a bad idea. In the Middle Ages, secular rulers and the Pope (and also candidates for the Papal throne) engaged in bitter and often brutal power struggles using Machiavellian techniques. Coming back to our own time, a church that has leaders that are not accountable to anyone but themselves has created severe problems, as the sex abuse scandals involving priests has done, both for victims of those who hold church office and abuse their powers, as well as tarnishing the reputation of the church in the eyes of the rest of the world.

In my view invoking natural law provides no support for an absolutist system of government. If anything, a reflection on natural law or a belief in inalienable human rights (such as life, liberty and property) shows why there need to be checks on arbitrary and absolute exercise of power. Such was well understood by people in the 17th century such as John Locke, Coke and Blackstone in England, or the framers of the US Constutition and Declaration of Independence, whose thoughts in protecting individual freedom from an absolute power (religious or secular in nature) were based either in part or entirely on the natural law tradition.

A state religion in my view is a bad idea since leaders of the church will be tempted to use the power of the state to enforce religious belief. The freedom to choose and practice your religion is a right that has been hard won only after a very bloody struggle against various forms of tyranny. I think it would be a tragedy for democracy if the Catholic Church tried to subvert the democratic process to enforce its teachings, which in most countries in the world, only a minority of the population share. A Catholic theocracy would in my view be no better than a place like Iran, where human rights are regularly abused, and little better than a place like Afghanistan if Catholic fundamentalism were in control.

 

[Santi2]

A Catholic theocracy that doesn’t allow Catholic immigrants? Hmmmmmmmmm

With justification. Vatican City is only 108+ acres. Also, the immigrant is likely to suffer economic hardship because most of the work at VC is related to the Holy See.

 

[ZDHayden]

A theocracy of any kind is inherently flawed. The first and foremost reason is practical: can a person whose sole function in society is to lead souls to Christ also work in politics without sacrificing the former? No. Power corrupts. We saw during the Middle Ages the beginning strands of corruption in the Church due to its absolute power. The Church managed, by the grace of God, to reverse the corruption, but at the cost of its political power. On a more spiritual level, a theocracy implies a forced conversion of its citizens, which negates true belief.

 

[portarica]

If there was an opportunity to vote for, or establish the Pope as President of the US in 2008 (or any nation) where the doctrine of the Catholic Church was the law of the land- would you?

Why or why not?

I’m not sure I want to qualify the scenerio with assumptions like there would be no corruption as likley would occur. I think there might be real reasons why it shouldn’t or couldn’t happen…but if it could?

What kind of immigration policy would it set? Drug policy? R&D? Foreign policy?

If we truly believe what we believe…why wouldn’t we want that?

The Vatican state has a long history of corruption on the political side of the ledger. Just check into the Vatican bank history for details.

And if you don’t think that politics is involved in the promotion of priests, bishops and cardinals , then check into the history of that as well.

Peace

 

[Loboto-Me]

The Catholic Church is only infallible in faith and morals. Although I would love a country that’s much more faithful and moralistic with a Catholic penchant, I wouldn’t want the Church involved in the politics and such.

 

[tafan]

Well, for one thing, there were catholic theocracies a plenty in the past, and nothing Ive read about them would make me wish Id been living there at the time.

A resounding no from me.

This is an absurd historical statement. Simply because there were countries a plenty that had the Catholic church as the established religion does not imply that there were catholic theocracies. Would you call the UK a theocracy today?
About the only thing I can think of ( besides the Papal states and the modern day Vatican) would be the Jesuit redoubts of South America in the 17th and 18th century. They were glowing successes. During feudal times, since most government was done at the local land-owner level, I suppose you could say the large monastaries were an example of theocratic government. From the point of view of peasants on the land, these were probably some of the better governed areas in Europe at the time.
Having said that, the concept of a theocracy is very problematic and the Church has NEVER pushed for it on a large scale or supported the concept in general. I would rely on the wisdom of the Church in this facet and say that it would be a bad idea. The church needs to focus on the spiritual leadership of people and not on the temporal leadership.

 

[tafan]

The Vatican state has a long history of corruption on the political side of the ledger. Just check into the Vatican bank history for details.

And if you don’t think that politics is involved in the promotion of priests, bishops and cardinals , then check into the history of that as well.

Peace

You would be hard pressed to find any form of government, throughout history, that did not suffer from corruption or did not commit horrible atrocities. All that does is illustrate man’s fallen nature. So the argument about the Vatican’s corruption or political involvment in the government of the church is really beside the point.

People are always looking for some “ideal” form of government. Perhaps a modern-liberal democracy is as great as we are all brainwashed to believe. It certainly is superior to other forms we have witnessed in the last 100 years. But, at the end of the day,all forms of government have severe shortcomings. Some forms are worse than others, for sure, and need to be abolished (ie communism), but don’t spend too much time trying to dream up a perfect form. Its is a wasted effort.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Having glanced at distributism, I’ve recently found the idea of a tiny country with a tiny government appealing. The fewer people in the government - and the fewer people said government governs - the more efficient government is.

So I had an idea: Instead of a big, Catholic empire, why not several small, Catholic city-states or tiny countries? Perhaps it could be ruled by a bishop, or perhaps by a lay Catholic elected by the people and approved by the bishop.

I don’t know about giving priests political authority (unless they run for the above office). If the bishop would become the governor, maybe he should have a council of priests and lay people to advise him so he doesn’t get power-hungry and distanced from his people.

Whatever the case, I would think that the duty of a governor - a ruler - is to take care of his people and try to give them the best help he can. And I would think most people who understand the importance of government and leadership would agree.

 

[Hadrianus]

There has never been a Catholic theocracy and there will never be one because that is not what the Church has ever desired.

If what is meant by this is simply would one wish to see the laws of civil society accord with Catholic doctrine that is of course another question. The answer to that depends upon prudential questions.