Would you prefer to live in a Catholic theocracy?

[cheeto1]

Good grief.

Is the word ‘confabulation’ familiar to you?

I see no details whatsoever in this post fabricated or otherwise.
Just an obviously true very general statement and advice to
read about a few historical figures.

To the people who wouldn’t like a Catholic theocracy:
The only reason that seems to be given is that you are sure
it would be corrupted. No one wants to live in Any kind of
corrupted government, and where is there one that isn’t?

 

[mark_a]

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?

No.

To have power is to abuse it.

Power, just like money, is a seducer.

 

[Kaninchen]

I see no details whatsoever in this post fabricated or otherwise.
Just an obviously true very general statement and advice to
read about a few historical figures.

Read them (some of them in their original language) years ago.

Several hundred years of European political, social and economic history requires a little more than a cobbled-together list of pet enemies and gesticulations towards ‘atheists’ and ‘deists’ to understand.

To the people who wouldn’t like a Catholic theocracy:
The only reason that seems to be given is that you are sure
it would be corrupted.

Err, I’m Jewish - I wouldn’t want to live in an uncorrupted Catholic theocracy, nevermind a corrupted one.

 

[Mirdath]

Err, I’m Jewish - I wouldn’t want to live in an uncorrupted Catholic theocracy, nevermind a corrupted one.

Quite agreed – I’m agnostic. I like the ‘secular humanist theocracy’ (wow, what a contradiction in terms) jmami mentioned.

 

[jman507]

The thought of this seems to remind me of Ian’s vision of the world he wanted in the Ball and the Cross by Chesterton. He had a bit of a change of heart after that.

 

[Rach620]

A thoughtful post, but then, I wonder why Jesus would pray such an impossible prayer if what you say is true.

CDL

So that we recognize that it is impossible for us to create the perfect society without God. Any government will be a failure if the people governed do not have faith; but moreover the Kingdom of God is not something which we create in this life. It is what we are waiting for, in heaven. That is where our glory lies, and that is where perfect communion is possible.

This doesn’t mean that we are not to strive to best prepare outselves and our societies for that glory–it’s that we cannot live as if we have already attained it. We cannot vest our spiritual leaders with vast amounts of temporal power because they are just as frail and fallen as we are; history shows that power corrupts.

This ‘Catholic theocracy’ talk is just as bad as the extremes of liberation theology, if you think about it. Though it goes about it in a different way, both are striving to eliminate suffering and injustice in our world to create a perfect land “flowing with milk and honey.” While that’s nice–we cannot have it yet! We dwell in a fallen world, marred by sin and death. Perfection is unattainable, suffering is unavoidable. The only way we can be saved from it, or save others from it, is by recognizing that at our core we ARE suffering, and that all that can save us is God’s grace. Christ is our King, and will be for eternity.

It is much more potentially fruitful to strive to put our faith into action in the political sphere–social charity–than it is to dream about a government run by the Pope.

 

[Rach620]

And that is the traditional teaching, but the ideal is when they act in harmony as Pope Leo XIII discusses (and as the Holy Father alluded to above):

From Immortale Dei:

… But, inasmuch as each of these two powers has authority over the same subjects, and as it might come to pass that one and the same thing-related differently, but still remaining one and the same thing-might belong to the jurisdiction and determination of both, therefore God, who foresees all things, and who is the author of these two powers, has marked out the course of each in right correlation to the other. “For the powers that are, are ordained of God.”!

It could be that perhaps I’m not reading this correctly, but I sense a problem here. I understand what he is saying about the proper correlation between the two spheres, but I don’t believe it’s always wise to believe that “the powers that are, are ordained of God,” as the Holy Father says. This sounds almost like borderline ‘divine right’ speak…and I don’t believe that this has ever been the case.

God, in His omniscience and omnipotence, knows all. He knows who will be in power, but this does not mean that he **puts people in power, **or that he ‘ordains’ their power. This almost would allow leaders, ‘ordained by God,’ to claim His support even for the most unjust of actions. We seem to be treading on dangerous ground here.

 

[Rach620]

In my opinion, we currently live in a secular humanist theocracy that aims to force us to conform and bend our wills to it’s worldview.

Nice observation.

From a slightly different perspective…it seems like our intellectual freedom as Catholics to discern the truth would be limited, were we to live in a theocracy where so much was codified. People begin clinging to erroneous ideas and become inflexible in coping with even good change and growth. (I’m thinking specifically of Galileo here…)

 

[Rach620]

To the people who wouldn’t like a Catholic theocracy:
The only reason that seems to be given is that you are sure
it would be corrupted. No one wants to live in Any kind of
corrupted government, and where is there one that isn’t?

The point is NOT that the *government *would be corrupted in a theocracy, but that the Church would be.

I am honestly not that familiar with the theocratic regimes of the Holy Roman Empire and the medieval Church, and how such things were institutionalized, or what this meant for the Faith.

But while we can learn lessons from those experiences, I think that the situation today is fundamentally different from those. I’m in no way a progressive, and I do think that many lessons should be taken from the past…it’s just that this isn’t one of them.

The problems of modernity are ones which I am starting to believe are new; they require new solutions, and while those solutions must incorporate the lessons of the ancient and medieval worlds, we cannot anachronistically transpose those systems on the world situation today and expect everything to work out wonderfully.

Man himself has been damaged by the march into modernity…he’s been made basically incapable of community. He no longer sees God in himself or in others…and a theocratic government simply telling him to believe isn’t going to make a difference whatsoever. True faith and virtue are what are needed, and those things are compromised whenever they are imposed.

 

[nichjake]

I wouldn’t want to live in a catholic theocracy…or any theocracy for that matter. America is soooo messed up right now and only appears to be getting worse but theres no way I’d want to live in a theocracy.

 

[VoiceofOne]

Well quite frankly, if I lived in a catholic theocracy, like the one instituted by your first pope Constantine… I would be deemed anathema, and I would be killed. So no.

But if it meant others would be won over to Jesus from the pope I would give my life over to those who would destroy it, for the One who gives eternal life lives within me, and I abide in Him.

Follow Jesus, not the pope!

 

[jman507]

Well quite frankly, if I lived in a catholic theocracy, like the one instituted by your first pope Constantine… I would be deemed anathema, and I would be killed. So no.

But if it meant others would be won over to Jesus from the pope I would give my life over to those who would destroy it, for the One who gives eternal life lives within me, and I abide in Him.

Follow Jesus, not the pope!

As a Catholic, I don’t think I’d want to follow what your idea of Catholism is either.

 

[wanner47]

Well quite frankly, if I lived in a catholic theocracy, like the one instituted by your first pope Constantine… I would be deemed anathema, and I would be killed. So no.

But if it meant others would be won over to Jesus from the pope I would give my life over to those who would destroy it, for the One who gives eternal life lives within me, and I abide in Him.

Follow Jesus, not the pope!

CONSTANTINE WAS NOT A POPE. HE WAS A ROMAN EMPEROR. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A POPE NAMED CONSTANTINE.

And by following the Pope, who is the Vicar of Christ here on Earth, I DO follow Jesus and belong to the Church that HE instituted.

 

[Church_Militant]

Well quite frankly, if I lived in a catholic theocracy, like the one instituted by your first pope Constantin

e… I would be deemed anathema, and I would be killed. So no.

But if it meant others would be won over to Jesus from the pope I would give my life over to those who would destroy it, for the One who gives eternal life lives within me, and I abide in Him.

**Follow Jesus, not the pope!**Historical hogwash. Please open a thread (in apologetics) and prove to us that Constantine was the first pope. This is anti-Catholic propaganda.

As for your last comment…We do. Even as Benedict XVI does. (BTW, have you read the Forum Rules and Banned Topics Policy yet? It doesn’t look like it.)

 

[GregoryPalamas]

So that we recognize that it is impossible for us to create the perfect society without God. Any government will be a failure if the people governed do not have faith; but moreover the Kingdom of God is not something which we create in this life. It is what we are waiting for, in heaven. That is where our glory lies, and that is where perfect communion is possible.

This doesn’t mean that we are not to strive to best prepare outselves and our societies for that glory–it’s that we cannot live as if we have already attained it. We cannot vest our spiritual leaders with vast amounts of temporal power because they are just as frail and fallen as we are; history shows that power corrupts.

This ‘Catholic theocracy’ talk is just as bad as the extremes of liberation theology, if you think about it. Though it goes about it in a different way, both are striving to eliminate suffering and injustice in our world to create a perfect land “flowing with milk and honey.” While that’s nice–we cannot have it yet! We dwell in a fallen world, marred by sin and death. Perfection is unattainable, suffering is unavoidable. The only way we can be saved from it, or save others from it, is by recognizing that at our core we ARE suffering, and that all that can save us is God’s grace. Christ is our King, and will be for eternity.

It is much more potentially fruitful to strive to put our faith into action in the political sphere–social charity–than it is to dream about a government run by the Pope.

But that isn’t what Jesus prayed. He prayed that the Kingdom of God in heaven would come upon the earth. It did. It’s called The Catholic Church. But God’s Kingdom will only be fully established upon His return.

It is important to read what He prayed, I think, I not what we’ve been taught that it may possibly mean.

CDL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

It could be that perhaps I’m not reading this correctly, but I sense a problem here. I understand what he is saying about the proper correlation between the two spheres, but I don’t believe it’s always wise to believe that “the powers that are, are ordained of God,” as the Holy Father says. This sounds almost like borderline ‘divine right’ speak…and I don’t believe that this has ever been the case.

God, in His omniscience and omnipotence, knows all. He knows who will be in power, but this does not mean that he **puts people in power, **or that he ‘ordains’ their power. This almost would allow leaders, ‘ordained by God,’ to claim His support even for the most unjust of actions. We seem to be treading on dangerous ground here.

Read Romans 13 and study the Middle Ages, the Byzantine Empire, and the Holy Roman Empire. Study them without secular glasses. You may need extensive help. That is why I recommend that you watch the 3 part EWTN video “Catholicism: The Heart of History” developed by two British scholars.

CDL

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

I have re-opened this topic after some editing. Please make every effort to stick strictly to the topic:

“Would you prefer to live in a Catholic theocracy?”

Thank you in advance for your understanding and cooperation.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[rr1213]

Is there anyone here who is not Catholic who’d want to live in a Catholic theocracy?

Are there any Catholics here who’d want to live in a Calvinist theocracy?

Aren’t the answers to both of these questions obvious?

With respect to issues of faith, the best governments are secular governments that respect the various faiths of their citizens and do not interefere with the free practice of those faiths, subject only to norms accepted by society at large (i.e., no human sacrifice even though your Aztec faith calls for it, no polygamy even though the original LDS faith supported that concept, etc.).

 

[freesoulhope]

Quite agreed – I’m agnostic. I like the ‘secular humanist theocracy’ (wow, what a contradiction in terms) jmami mentioned.

How is it posible to be agnostic?

sorry for posting this, i have just realised that it is of topic, but mabe somebody could start a thread on this.

 

[freesoulhope]

In my opinion, we currently live in a secular humanist theocracy that aims to force us to conform and bend our wills to it’s worldview.

Correct. In the end, no-matter what, any idealogy that is demanded by one sought of person, will be an enemy to somebody else. One must decide through reason, and for the greater Good, what society is (In comformity to reason) best for humanity as a whole and not just the indivisual;
There should be a open forum for arguement, but the most reasonable way forward should be the defining quality for human (as a society) survival rather then the economic prosperity of one indivisual.

In a society were people have different ideas and are decieved by there own selfish endevours, Human emotions cannot be wholly trusted to run human intrests; i believe we should have a society goverend by "reason first, emotion second, implemeted for the greator Good.

Or maybe im just dreaming