K
Kevin42
Guest
I live in my own self-created Catholic theocracy. I use Catholic moral law to govern my actions, and the Churches teaching to guide my life. As for everyone else around me, I let them live in democracy.
- Status
G
Genesis315
Guest
I think you are confusing two different meanings of “Separation of Church and State.” The evil kind of “separation of Church and State” or, in other words, separation of truth and state, is what the Church condemns. But, she does teach authentic separation where the Church is supreme in the spiritual sphere and the state in the temporal sphere (both are subject to God)–clerics don’t run the temporal affairs of state and the goverment doesn’t control the Church (that’s the heresy of erastism). But they work together in harmony for the common good both in accordance with the law of God.
What we have in western Liberal Democracies, like America, is legal positivism. Whereas the government pays no attention to truth and objective morality, but simply creates right and wrong by making laws. It confuses the fact that it is responsible to God because He allows it to have authority over other men, and rather acts only responsible to men.
M
mcs7474
Guest
No, I am too use to the democracy (republic) of the US. Im not that big into change or forcing ppl to change thier views, even if they are dead wrong. I think our best bet would be to change ourselves not our government (at least in this current age we live in).
R
Rach620
Guest
In itself, no. Moral checks in democratic citizens are needed for the effective functioning of a democratic government. Without them, democracy fails as man’s passions find their supreme outlet.
Alexis de Tocqueville commented extensively on this in Democracy in America. Basically, he observed that because Americans were predisposed to individualism, which would lead to tyranny (especially tyranny of the majority). But what allows for the success of America is the fact that our mores, or ‘habits of the heart’ direct us (or should direct us, if we recognize them) towards actions which will benefit the common good. He saw Judeo-Christian religion as the first of American ‘political institutions,’ because it allowed for a proper view of what it meant to be in community with others, even in the face of individualistic tendencies.
Obviously, these religious convictions have broken down in America… but I tend to believe that restoring them would allow our democratic republic to function more effectively, rather than espousing what I believe to be an unrealistic (and dangerous) ideal of ‘Catholic theocracy’.
R
Rach620
Guest
I’ve made that exact distinction in previous posts, but using what I believe are clearer terms. The separation of Church and State which I believe is a ‘blessing,’ is the division of the spiritual and temporal sphere which gives proper authority to the Church and State, respectively, in each. This is what the Church, and more recently, the Holy Father in Deus Caritas Est, endorses. What She opposes is the divorce of faith from politics–where Christian faith is seen as adding nothing valuable to the political community in its pursuit of justice. So we’re basically in agreement here.I think you are confusing two different meanings of “Separation of Church and State.” The evil kind of “separation of Church and State” or, in other words, separation of truth and state, is what the Church condemns. But, she does teach authentic separation where the Church is supreme in the spiritual sphere and the state in the temporal sphere (both are subject to God)–clerics don’t run the temporal affairs of state and the goverment doesn’t control the Church (that’s the heresy of erastism). But they work together in harmony for the common good both in accordance with the law of God.
Again, I agree. I just don’t think that the answer to this problem is to give up on our democratic republic and start believing in the idea that a Catholic theocracy would be better. Not only do I think that it wouldn’t be, I think that thinking that it would is counter-productive to the situation we live in today. The Church has a snowflake’s chance in heck of being vested with political authority in America…and while I’m really very glad that that’s the case, I still do think that it’s silly to wish that it were, or to imagine what it would be like if this were the case.
Ugh, too much time on this thread today. Goodnite all!
M
mdgspencer
Guest
There have been in fact a number of Catholic states, the best known being the Roman Empire after the conversion of the Emperor Constantine, the Byzantine Empire, and the Papal states until 1870. There were many other Catholic states besides these, including ones during the middle ages and others up until recent times. I wonder if anyone can say knowledgeably how these worked? Some of the things people are saying here are provided without any evidence from history.
L
Lance
Guest
When I think of Theocracy, I think of Saudi Arabia. There is no way I would want to live under that type of government even if it were Catholic.
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
You have asked the only sensible question thus far asked. What we know is that the Holy Roman Empire was a much better place to live for all concerned than what we have had since then with the advent of nation states. It’s a complicated story but an easy introduction to it and one which I’ve mentioned before is the EWTN series titled “Cathoilicism: The Heart of History” produced in 2003. ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/CATHOLICISM+THE+HEART+OF+HISTORY+VHS/cid=127/page_no=3/edp_no=6123/shop.axd/ProductDetails
L
Legal_Eagle
Guest
The world has been there, done that, and bought the shirt. The results… Religion and morality or the lack of it is not something an external authority can, or should, enforce.
R
Rach620
Guest
Like I said in another post, I don’t have an enormous background in ancient and medieval church-state relations. I’ll read up on it when I can. But again… while that is relevant to a point, we cannot anachronistically take those systems and impose them on our present-day situation. That kind of political theory just doesn’t work. We can take the fundamental lessons and principles which guided them, and try to apply them in our current context, but re-thinking the entire structure of modern nation-state politics, as much as we might not like it, perhaps isn’t the most fruitful way to spend our time.
But back to the original point regarding the State corrupting and injuring the Church. Some examples from the last century or so that I can think of are from Western Europe, in historically Catholic nations in which the Church had been vested with temporal power.
The first that comes to mind is Ireland… Anyone can look at Ireland today and see that Catholicism is not doing well. Yeah, the vast majority of the Irish self-ID as Catholic (though that percentage is decreasing) but weekly Mass attendance is incredibly low, vocations to the priesthood have stagnated, and Catholic teachings really don’t seem to be taken seriously by the majority of the populace.
I would contend that this must be due, at least in part, to the alignment of the Church there with the State for so long. It was given a place of prominence by the Irish Constitution, which sounds very nice and neat, but in reality didn’t work out very well.
For example. ‘laundries’ were constructed in the 19th-20th centuries to house women rejected from society because of their immorality (originally prostitutes, but this extended to unwed mothers, rape victims, and other ‘promiscuous’ women). The police would take these women to the laundries to labor for no pay for an indefinite period of time–basically until a male relative came to claim them. There are stories of the Sisters of Mercy, who ran the laundries, being incredibly cruel at times to these women, who were considered ‘penitents’ like Mary Magdalene, working in reparation for their sins. Does anyone think that this is the best thing for a Catholic society to do–to marginalize the ‘sinners’ among us, and to use the Church to punish them so violently?
So morality was indeed legislated, and that was really the extent of anyone’s knowledge of it. There wasn’t much education in the meaning of the faith, not many seemed to perceive a depth or richness to it beyond the rules they needed to obey. So when confronted with scandal in the second half of the 20th century–grave wrongs committed by men (and women) with spiritual *and *temporal power–many just gave up on the Church.
So that wasn’t even a ‘true’ theocracy…and look at the implications for the lives of faith of millions of Irish today. I think the danger is just too great–for the human souls involved–for the Church to be vested with temporal power.
I’d be happy to discuss other examples, but for now this is it for my post.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
We know absolutely nothing of the sort.
R
Rach620
Guest
I don’t think anyone here would deny that the Catholic Church has not played a role ‘at the heart of history’. Since none of us can possibly watch this tv series you’re referencing…could you share what exactly would make the HRE such a great place to live? I’ve googled it, to no avail.
Anyways…here’s the point I’ve been trying to make, in the words of Avery Cardinal Dulles, who is discussing models of ecclesiology over time. I’m not sure I agree, theologically, with all of Cardinal Dulles’ conclusions in that article, but his assessment of the politicization of the Church is a sound one, imo.:
This is why I reject a Catholic theocracy–it does more damage to the Church than good.
J
jrnami
Guest
Very well put post.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
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
There are libraries. The Church and State worked together in such a way that every day life was really quite free of the kind of hassles we take for granted. The average person was quite happy as evidence by their consistence resistence to the “New Men” the “Free Thinkers” of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. I believe the subject is far too complex to reduce to a post. I suggest you go to your local library and borrow the series.
What on earth do you mean by “since none of us can possibly watch this tv series you’re referencing…” That clearly untrue.
CDL
K
Kaninchen
Guest
The average person was an illiterate, half-starved peasant with low life expectancy (particularly women).
You’ve got that right, at least.
E
Exalt
Guest
No.
If such a political system developed in the United States, I would probably start a revolution, 1776-style. Funny thing is, I bet we’ve have quite a few Catholics in said revolution.
E
Exalt
Guest
When I think of a Catholic theocracy, I think back to what a few Catholics have said to me on these forums in the past year or two. Statements like “homosexuals desire the destruction of the traditional family” come to mind. I’ve heard of statements like that before, in certain totalitarian regimes. I hear about Catholic groups boycotting companies for supporting the legalization of gay adoption or gay marriage.
I wonder what it would mean for gay people under a Catholic theocracy. Would being in a gay romantic relationship be illegal? Could you go to jail for it? Fines? Could you be executed for it?
I shudder to think of what it would be like for gay people in a Catholic theocracy…
I wonder what it would mean for gay people under a Catholic theocracy. Would being in a gay romantic relationship be illegal? Could you go to jail for it? Fines? Could you be executed for it?
I shudder to think of what it would be like for gay people in a Catholic theocracy…
R
RyanL
Guest
That’s a bad statement…largely. There are some who explicitly call for the destruction of the traditional family, but I don’t think that’s the majority opinion. IMHO, most homosexuals in America really want what’s best for themselves and society.
They are simply confused as to what is best.
You’ve been in totalitarian regimes?
Being a bit melodramatic, maybe?
Yup.
In a modern Catholic Theocracy, execution as a whole would probably be out. We have other means available now to protect society from dangerous criminals, means which weren’t available in the past. And it’s highly questionable as to whether homosexual acts would qualify as “dangerous conduct” sufficient to merit even brief incarceration. Enforcement would also be another big hurtle.
So in the end, I would imagine sodomy would be a misdemeanor. But that’s just a guess. I would also imagine that all extra-marital sex (except, perhaps, adultery) would be punished in a similar manner.
I shudder to think of what it will be like if / when they find a prenatal test which identifies the “gay gene” in our non-Catholic society. I’m willing to bet the abortion rates would be similar to those for Down Syndrome babies.
…but don’t worry, it’s much better when your society has no fundamental moral principles.
God Bless,
RyanL
R
Rach620
Guest
I don’t think it’s fair to reduce the options here to this imaginary ‘Catholic theocracy’ you’re imagining (which I frankly still don’t understand…) vs. a society with ‘no fundamental moral principles’.…but don’t worry, it’s much better when your society has no fundamental moral principles.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
Would you be OK with living in a Gay society?
- Status