Would you prefer to live in a Catholic theocracy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Verisimilitude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Verisimilitude

Guest
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?
 
Yes, I would definitely prefer to live in a Catholic theocracy. The reason is because the Catholic moral law is superior to other laws.
 
we have had such in the past, and it did not work. Read the history of France under the Catholic monarchs and their Cardinal advisors and ministers.
 
No, mainly because I believe Jesus instituted the first wall separating Church and state (that is not to say that He would agree with its current height). IMO, Jesus believed that Caesar had his job, the Church its own.

Jeff
 
Are you kdding? People have to come to God in there own way, the way they feel called to. What would they do with the non-Catholics?

I would be very turned off of a religion that FORCED people to worship a certain religion.
 
With all the perverted Positive Law created by the Secular Relativists that contrary no Natural Law, you bet I would.
 
It would get out of control. I am an old fashioned man, I am a huge fan of Democracy.
 
No I would not. I think that having all that temporal power would corrupt the Church.
 
I agree - I would not be comfortable under a Catholic Theocracy. I believe history has proven that such governmental set-ups do not work. I also firmly believe that we have the opportunity to influence culture and need to be willing to stand up for ourselves and our Church, but the best context in which to do so is one that allows for the exercise of free-will.

I understand that my conversion ‘home’ came in God’s time, not mine and not the government’s time…does that make any sense?
 
LSK said:
I agree - I would not be comfortable under a Catholic Theocracy. I believe history has proven that such governmental set-ups do not work. I also firmly believe that we have the opportunity to influence culture and need to be willing to stand up for ourselves and our Church, **but the best context in which to do so is one that allows for the exercise of free-will. **
I understand that my conversion ‘home’ came in God’s time, not mine and not the government’s time…does that make any sense?
Click to expand...
As it stands, I too would not want to live under a theocracy, and again, without putting any specific pre-conditions or assumptions to say such government would not become like those in the past.

If the Catholic Government of the United States (CGoUS) allowed the exercise of free-will, how would that affect things like social policies, civil laws, foreign policy… How far could such a government go that respected free-will?

It might be someones free-will expression to do drugs- should the CGoUS permit it or stop it? Free-will seems to oppose using force. Or does it?
 
Verisimilitude said:
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?
Click to expand...
A “Catholic Theocracy” is a meaningless phrase, because temporal affairs are not a function of the Church.

What I would love to see is a global adherence to Catholic Doctrine by way of the free consent of all persons, which in fact would be the only acceptable way that a Catholic “government” could exist, as per Christian (Catholic) principles.

An imposed islamic government is within islamic principles.

An imposed atheistic government is within atheistic principles.

Christian (Catholic) imposition of a “Catholic Government” is probably the ONLY “theocracy” that is against it’s own principles.
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?
Click to expand...
…a non-issue, as Catholics can’t impose like that.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.
 
Nope, as others have said, theocracy doesn’t work. It sounds nice in theory, but the execution is inevitably way off.

Think of it this way. The only reason we need governments is because we are fallen, sinful creatures. Government should control the passions of the people and direct them towards the common good and justice. But it will always be imperfect at accomplishing this task. Faith is perfect, and the Holy Catholic Church should aspire to that perfection which is appropriate to it as instituted by Christ Himself. So mixing the Church with the State inevitably leads to the corruption of the Church, as we can see at many points in history.

There’s a difference between the separation of church and state (which is good and necessary, especially for the integrity of the Church) and the divorce of faith from politics (which is awful, as we can see in American society today). Read *Deus Caritas Est *if you want further elaboration on this point from the Holy Father.

I’m convinced that democracy *is *the best form of government, and that while it comes with much promise, there is of course a huge potential for problems. What are necessary for preserving the just democratic society are certain controls, not the least of which is religious faith.
 
I don’t think the pope would be willing to be president of the United States.
The pope however was ruler of a state until 1870–he was head of the Papal state which included much of central Italy. It would be interesting to know how that worked. I have never heard of this as a bad example of government though as it would be, I would think, if it the Papal states hadn’t worked out.
Offhand, I would think a theocracy superior to what we have now, which involves legalized abortion, a rigid wall between religion and the schools, promotion of gay “rights,” etc. Though it would have to be in other countries, since the Catholics are a minority here.
 
I would consider a Catholic theocracy to be an oxymoron. As a Catholic, I would prefer to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render to God what is God’s.
 
I don’t think the pope should be king of any actual territory except for the patrimony. However, I would be in favor of a universal empire run by a Catholic emperor who understood his power as the second sword of Christendom, and could be deposed by the pope. Gregory VII anyone?
 
I wouldn’t be in favor of a theocracy so much as I would be in favor of laws that directly correlated to moral, natural, and divine law.

Aristotle asserted that the purpose of government is not only to maintain order, but to foster the growth of citizens with strong morals. If individuals could only legally act in line with moral law, many more people would behave in a moral way.

A country with morals would be happier overall because evil and sin are the root of unhappiness and discord. Once people realized how happy they could be just by behaving properly, their hearts would be softened to the faith through which God defined proper morals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top