Would you prefer to live in a Catholic theocracy?

[GregoryPalamas]

You should care because in the USA there are more Calvinists, or at least more non-Catholics, than there are Catholics. Lucky for Catholics though when the Protestant-dominated Constitutional Convention adopted a new Constitution in 1789 it explicitly prohibited religious tests for holding office in the federal government. In other words, a Catholic could not be denied office simply because he was Catholic. Would your Catholic Theocracy have a similiar prohibition in its Constitution? Or would such a theocracy prohibit office to non-Catholics?

At this point I wouldn’t know the answer to your last question. I suspect that there would not be all of the buracracies in a Theocracy that we have today. I do wonder how many faithful Christians of any sort we’ve had in our governmental leadership. I suspect we have still to elect a faithful Catholic to the presidency.

CDL

 

[rr1213]

Since Catholicism can’t change (i.e., reverse) its teachings, it already has a very nice check in place to assure freedom of religion…
God Bless,
RyanL

Freedom of religion is one of the fundamental freedoms I, as a non-Catholic, would be worried about in a Catholic Theocracy. As Pius IX asserted in the Syllabus of Errors,

*"…[it is error that]:

1. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.
2. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852."*

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

That sort of Papal pronouncement does not convince me that when Catholics control the government that they will respect the rights of non-Catholics to practice their religions in freedom and without persecution. I wish I could say otherwise. Contrast that with the United States Constitutional prohibition against religious tests to hold public office and the First Amendments’ protections for the free exercise of religion…all adopted by a people who, at the time, were overwhelmingly Protestant and not particularly fond of the Catholic Church.

 

[RyanL]

…As Pius IX asserted in the Syllabus of Errors, …That sort of Papal pronouncement does not convince me that when Catholics control the government that they will respect the rights of non-Catholics to practice their religions in freedom and without persecution.

Recommended reading:

The Problem of Religious Liberty: A New Proposal.

I believe there’s far less to be concerned with than you think. If you read the link, I am willing to bet there will be more you agree with than disagree with in the Church’s position. Moreover, I think you’ll also see how freedom of religion would be a “must” in a Catholic society.

Beyond this, there are certain religions which the U.S. is currently not able to tolerate in their full expression. There’s a good deal of case law on this…it’s actually quite interesting. I can provide links if you would like.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Genesis315]

You can’t just read the syllabus of errors by itself. You have to read the actual allocutions cited.

 

[rr1213]

Recommended reading:

The Problem of Religious Liberty: A New Proposal.

I believe there’s far less to be concerned with than you think. If you read the link, I am willing to bet there will be more you agree with than disagree with in the Church’s position. Moreover, I think you’ll also see how freedom of religion would be a “must” in a Catholic society.

Beyond this, there are certain religions which the U.S. is currently not able to tolerate in their full expression. There’s a good deal of case law on this…it’s actually quite interesting. I can provide links if you would like.

God Bless,
RyanL

Sure, give me the links…

 

[rr1213]

You can’t just read the syllabus of errors by itself. You have to read the actual allocutions cited.

The specific “errors” that I cited seem fairly straightforward to me. Please advise how a normal understanding of those “erroneous” statements would change by reference to the original documents cited in the Syllabus.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

The point on the Syllabus as I understand it is this. If you believe that there is such a thing as truth then understand that it is alright to say that there are such things as falsehoods. The Syllabus lists several of the falsehoods. If you don’t believe that truth exists and is knowable then you will ignore the Syllabus. The ignoring will be to your peril but that’s your business.

You a Godly Catholic believes that truth both exists and is knowable. It really is a pity to us that there are so many who walk in darkness and in error blinded by humanism and secularism. It’s a serious shame. It’s made worse by the fact that those who walk in darkness claim to have seen the light. But obviously they have not. As Ryan has pointed out we don’t kill people because they don’t believe the truth. Secularists kill people because others won’t bend to their opinion. But we don’t do such things. We figure purgatory or hell is enough.

CDL

 

[RyanL]

Sure, give me the links…

Here’s a good overview of the Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence from an independent source.

I find the the JW cases particularly interesting, and especially the ones involving their refusal of blood transfusions for their children. I’m not sure if this link addresses those, but a quick google search should give you a pretty nice run-down.

Similar would be the Christian Science cases and their ability to freely exercise their religion regarding their children’s health, given that the Court has declared parenting and educating children a fundamental right.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[rr1213]

Here’s a good overview of the Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence from an independent source.

I find the the JW cases particularly interesting, and especially the ones involving their refusal of blood transfusions for their children. I’m not sure if this link addresses those, but a quick google search should give you a pretty nice run-down.

Similar would be the Christian Science cases and their ability to freely exercise their religion regarding their children, given that the Court has declared parenting and educating children a fundamental right.

God Bless,
RyanL

The article at FindLaw illustrates that the Supreme Court has been vigilant in upholding the right of people to freely exercise their faith. Most of the cases which were restrictive of that right are older ones whose authority is questionable at this time. Nonetheless, there are obvious exceptions to the ability of people to practice their faith unrestricted by the government. The situation regarding the LDS and polygamy is a well know exception, although I personally think that it is getting harder and harder to defend that approach with the recent movement towards “finding” a right to homosexual marriage in state constitutions. If that, why not polygamy? Unfortunately, we are heading down that road. Finally, of course, there are always the appropriate “time, place and manner” restrictions on the First Amendment protections of free speech and religious freedom.

In summary though, our government (and especially our judiciary in modern times) has been very protective of religious freedom, albeit balanced by the establishment clause restrictions.

My point is that guarantees of religious freedom and religious speech are necessarily inconsistent with a theocracy, Catholic Monarchy or otherwise.

 

[RyanL]

The article at FindLaw illustrates that the Supreme Court has been vigilant in upholding the right of people to freely exercise their faith.

I’m not sure we were reading the same article.

The Court has placed many limits on “free exercise”, without infringing on “free belief”.

Most of the cases which were restrictive of that right are older ones whose authority is questionable at this time.

Unless/until the Court overrules them, they are still law.

Nonetheless, there are obvious exceptions to the ability of people to practice their faith unrestricted by the government.

And that’s what the Church’s position is. Glad we agree.

The situation regarding the LDS and polygamy is a well know exception, although I personally think that it is getting harder and harder to defend that approach with the recent movement towards “finding” a right to homosexual marriage in state constitutions. If that, why not polygamy? Unfortunately, we are heading down that road.

I think this battle was lost in 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut.

In summary though, our government (and especially our judiciary in modern times) has been very protective of religious freedom, albeit balanced by the establishment clause restrictions.

I’m not sure I’d use the word “balanced” to describe any of the case law. “Hostile” or at least “arbitrary” might be better. The 10 Commandments cases or the prayer in public settings cases would back this up. 10 Commandments in the Supreme Court? Good. 10 Commandments in another court house? Bad. A “moment of silence” at a football game? Bad. Prayer to open a session of Congress? Good.

My point is that guarantees of religious freedom and religious speech are necessarily inconsistent with a theocracy, Catholic Monarchy or otherwise.

I disagree, and so does the Church.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[rr1213]

The point on the Syllabus as I understand it is this. If you believe that there is such a thing as truth then understand that it is alright to say that there are such things as falsehoods. The Syllabus lists several of the falsehoods. If you don’t believe that truth exists and is knowable then you will ignore the Syllabus. The ignoring will be to your peril but that’s your business…CDL

The point of Errors 77 & 78 of the Syllabus is that non-Catholics have no right to the public practice of their religion in a Catholic State. Any “right” of non-Catholics to do so is at the mere sufferance of the Catholic State. In such a Catholic State, if I am a Methodist and try to evangelize the State reserves the right to stop me. If I am a Baptist and claim that the Catholic Church is wrong about infant baptism, I better not make that proclamation on my street corner soap box because, if I do, I’m going to jail.

Catholics don’t like it when non-Catholic majorities do this to them. It is wrong no matter whose ox is getting gored.

We have the right, acknowledged by God himself, to accept his truth or to deny his truth. There are eternal consequences arising out of our decisions. Yet, it is appropriate that God will make this determination, not a Catholic Monarchy or any other theocratic government.

A free society exists only when people recognize that other people who believe differently from themselves also have the right to excercise those beliefs. When one party gains the ability to use the coercive powers of government to enforce religious (or political) purity, then we are no longer a free people. As a non-Catholic, I will always defend the right of Catholics to worship as they believe appropriate–I am not sure that I can always expect the same from the Catholics unfortunately.

 

[rr1213]

…I think this battle was lost in 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut.

I’m not sure I’d use the word “balanced” to describe any of the case law. “Hostile” or at least “arbitrary” might be better. The 10 Commandments cases or the prayer in public settings cases would back this up. 10 Commandments in the Supreme Court? Good. 10 Commandments in another court house? Bad. A “moment of silence” at a football game? Bad. Prayer to open a session of Congress? Good.

I disagree, and so does the Church.

God Bless,
RyanL

The battle already lost with Griswold? Maybe, depends on what you believe as to whether a “right to privacy” exists under the Constitution and the parameters of that right if it does exist. Nonetheless, I don’t think that the allowance of contraception leads inevitably to the “right” to homosexual “marriage” or polygamy.

Also, there has always been a tension between the free excercise and establishment clauses of the First Amendment. The principles you reference all stem out of situations where the Court has deemed that there was some element of State affirmation and/or coercion with respect to the practice at issue (10 Commandment cases, prayer at school sponsored events, etc.). In contrast, the Court and Congress (e.g., the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act) have been very protective of the free exercise rights of the faithful outside of these settings…where the “establishment” concerns are not pertinent.

Ah, DIGNITATIS HUMANAE. Lots of good stuff there. Unfortunately, I’ve been advised that I, as an uneducated non-Catholic, simply don’t know how to read the document…that the apparent recognition of religious freedom set forth therein is simply not the case. Take a look at the discussion in posts 105 through 111 in the thread below (which, btw, demonstrates the truth of the matter that “there is nothing new under the Sun”…):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=131575&page=5

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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?

1. No - I would not want to live in any theocracy, Catholic or not. Theocracies produce men who know their worst passions have the authority of God to sanctify them - secular states produce nothing worse than tyrants.​

1. The Popes exercised temporal power for reasons which arose from the conditions of society as it was in the Middle Ages. Those conditions exist no longer, which is why the Papacy neither exercises nor desires to exercise that type of power, except to the very limited degree sufficient to protect it from being in the pocket of a nation state.
2. For the Papacy to think of doing so would be to ignore the growth of other polities & political authorities & the end of the conditions of mediaeval life - it would be the equivalent of trashing the last 15 centuries of Catholic theology.
3. The Kingdom of Christ is not of this world, & all attempts to make it one pervert it.
4. In a theocracy, what would become of freedom of religion ? Such states coerce those who do not hold the religion of the state, because the citizen is a citizen on condition of his being a believer in the state religion. But that is totally contrary to the character of faith, which is a Divine gift, so cannot be compelled, not by any power whatever: compulsion to believe a faith one has not received grace to believe is an utterable monstrosity, & anything more alien to Christianity is hard to imagine.
5. The NT envisages obedience to Imperial authority - it does not encourage Christians to form a group acknowledging no authority but that proper to the Church. Christians in in the world - not dwellers apart from it.
6. Politics needs to be Christianised - this reverses that, by politicising the Church. There are more than enough factions among Catholics already - do we really need more ?
7. When it had political power, the Papacy was no more free from corruption than any secular state. It was constantly short of cash, which is one of the main reasons for its pre-Reformation corruption.
8. The Papacy was at various times at the mercy of whoever was either most violent (from about 900 to 1046), or able to influence conclaves so that politically undesirable candidates were not elected as Popes: the veto exercised by the great powers since the late MIddle Ages was not abolished until 1904.
9. The Church has its hands full already - what possible justification can there be for adding to the load ?
10. Politics belongs to the vocation of the laity - priests have no more business exercising political authority than a layman has to replace a priest offering Mass.

All these evils, or those related to them, make a Papal theocracy an extremely bad idea theologically, politically, doctrinally, morally, prudentially, practically. I can think of nothing to be said for it.

 

[RyanL]

The battle already lost with Griswold? Maybe, depends on what you believe as to whether a “right to privacy” exists under the Constitution and the parameters of that right if it does exist. Nonetheless, I don’t think that the allowance of contraception leads inevitably to the “right” to homosexual “marriage” or polygamy.

I don’t think it’s a “right to privacy” issue as much as it is a loss of perspective of the ends of marriage. When the unitive and procreative purposes of marital relations were legally divided by the Court in Griswold, sex became about recreation. If that’s all that’s marriage is about, it’s difficult to say that same-sex folks or plural-minded folks should be excluded.

But I digress. That’s not the topic of this thread.

Also, there has always been a tension between the free excercise and establishment clauses of the First Amendment.

I’m not sure always would be correct. The framers didn’t seem to have much problem with it. Maybe, however. I might concede this point.

The principles you reference all stem out of situations where the Court has deemed that there was some element of State affirmation and/or coercion with respect to the practice at issue (10 Commandment cases, prayer at school sponsored events, etc.).

Agreed that those were the situations, but disagreed that there was any cogency in the outcomes.

In contrast, the Court and Congress (e.g., the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act) have been very protective of the free exercise rights of the faithful outside of these settings…where the “establishment” concerns are not pertinent.

According to the ACLU, establishment concerns are always pertinent…

Regardless, the outcome of all these cases is that sometimes expression of religious views are tolerated, and sometimes they are not. Freedom of religion has (and should have) limits in its expression. That’s what the syllabus of errors said, and the Supreme Court agrees. People should also have freedom of belief, and that’s what Dignitatis Humanae and the Court have said.

Take a look at the discussion in posts 105 through 111 in the thread below…

I read the posts, and I agree that you can’t read Dignitatis Humanae like a fundamentalist in the way you were. The link I provided earlier reconciled the teachings rather nicely, I think.

You’re free to privately interpret, but you have to be careful that your private interpretations don’t conflict with previous teaching. That’s just the Catholic way.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

I would welcome it with open arms, as long as the Vatican would enforce loyalty amongst (or remove) any US bishop that might be liberal (dissident), like a zero tolerance policy. Then yes, joyfully!

 

[rr1213]

Freedom of religion has (and should have) limits in its expression. That’s what the syllabus of errors said, and the Supreme Court agrees. People should also have freedom of belief, and that’s what Dignitatis Humanae and the Court have said.

I read the posts, and I agree that you can’t read Dignitatis Humanae like a fundamentalist in the way you were. The link I provided earlier reconciled the teachings rather nicely, I think.

You’re free to privately interpret, but you have to be careful that your private interpretations don’t conflict with previous teaching. That’s just the Catholic way.

God Bless,
RyanL

No, the Syllabus of Errors states that in a Catholic State the public exercise of non-Catholic faiths is not by right, but by sufferance of the Catholic State. To my knowledge, the Supreme Court has never made such a holding. Nor could it considering the Constitutional polity of this nation.

As to whether I am reading Dignitatis Humanae as a “fundamentalist”, I have no idea. Nonetheless, I find it disconcerting that you can’t take the official language of the Church to mean what it states in plain English (or whatever the language of the document may be) and, instead, that there is some sort of “secret” meaning derived from an historical examination of 2000 years of dogma that is evident only to the initiated. I’ve got an idea…why doesn’t the Church actually say what it actually means in a manner that all the rest of us can actually understand? Brilliant!

Sorry, the last was snarky but this is something that really gets on my nerves…

 

[Rach620]

Wow, I thought this thread had closed…and here it is, re-opened!

I’m not sure I understand the definition of ‘theocracy’ which people here are using. I’m especially thinking of RyanL’s post awhile ago, when he claimed that a Catholic theocracy 1) would not legislate morality, and 2) would not impose belief.

That just doesn’t make sense. It perhaps describes a well-functioning democracy, in which Catholics (or, I’d say, most faithful people within the Judeo-Christian tradition), but certainly not a theocracy in the traditional sense of the word.

I googled “define: theocracy”. Here are the results, all definitions which I was under the impression this thread was talking about:

Any government in which the leaders of the government are also the leaders of the religion and they rule as representatives of the deity.

A form of government in which the clergy exercise or bestow all legitimate political authority and in which religious law is dominant over civil law and enforced by state agencies.

This creative new definition of ‘Catholic theocracy’ is simply not in keeping with the historical meaning of the word, and it is still really unclear to me as to how it could possibly work.

I would not want to live in any sort of theocracy, even a Catholic one, because I believe that these definitions I just gave are what a theocracy really is. I’m not sure what of St. Thomas you’re referencing, and I’m going to go look a few things up, but I’m thinking that even he, on those same grounds you cited, might oppose a theocracy.

But we DO have one Institution that is incorruptable in matters of Morals.

Incorruptible in matters of faith and morals. This says nothing of incorruptibility in other matters, and history can prove that corruption has been found even at the highest levels of our hierarchy.

So the ideal society is one where the Church defines matters of Morals and no human legislature could override it.

No, the ideal sociey is where the Church defines matters of [faith and] morals, and no human person can even dream of violating that.

 

[Rach620]

Gottle of Geer,

GREAT, well thought-out post. I totally agree.

I’m going to take my distaste for the idea of a Catholic theocracy one step further: I believe that the separation of the State from the Church is a blessing–for the Church. By the same token, the State should see the existence of the Church, and the faith of its citizens, as a blessing as well, and as something which allows for the successful continuation of the government.

 

[rr1213]

Well said, Rach620…both posts.

 

[mapleoak]

It would get out of control. I am an old fashioned man, I am a huge fan of Democracy.

And Democracy has sufficient moral checks to prevent ‘majority rule’ from getting out of control?

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak