Would you prefer to live in a Catholic theocracy?

[johnstown_johnn]

Hmmm, then what happens to those who light a Menorah, or a Yule Log, or celebrate Ramadan (yes, I know that’s in Sept)? There’s a reason for seperation of Church and State. A very important one. People should be able to worship as they please weather it be Catholic, Protastant, Jewish, Muslim, Budidst, Pagan, Whatever. YKWIM? That’s why I love being American

Kim

The question was about living in a “Catholic theocracy.” It does not rule out OTHER social structures. No prob with a “Jewish theocrasy; Muslim; or a Buddist, etc.” They could all have their individual social structures…even a “muticultural society” would be OK.

The idea of a “Catholic theocracy” would not have elements challenging its spiritual base. In today’s world of muticulturalism we can see some religions are less restricted than others. It was not meant to be that way when the Constitution was written. "…the free exercise thereof (religion). Christmas trees and creces are expressions of that freedom but are challenged in court by elements that see that freedom as a threat.

Therefore, in light of today’s tolerances or lack thereof, a Catholic theocracy would be ideal for me…but not everyone, naturally.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Hmmm, then what happens to those who light a Menorah, or a Yule Log, or celebrate Ramadan (yes, I know that’s in Sept)? There’s a reason for seperation of Church and State. A very important one. People should be able to worship as they please weather it be Catholic, Protastant, Jewish, Muslim, Budidst, Pagan, Whatever. YKWIM? That’s why I love being American

Kim

As for those other religions they have their own merits and blessings…as long as they are in conformity with the 10 Commandments, I suppose.

The question is: “Who blesses an atheistic society?”

 

[freesoulhope]

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?

I appreciate your qeustion, and it think its very important one indeed.

I think that, the Church should “inspire” what is righteuos, and are in fact, in a better position to do so.

I think there is a Good reason why the Catholic Church no longer rule’s over human-affairs. God knows why he allowed the Church to lose all its circular power, and I think he was right to allow such a thing to happen. It was for the sake of preserving the Church, rather then the “human desires” of the men within it. God will always humble his children when corruption stands ready to destroy them through their pride. This is not to say that God personally caused the church to lose its hold on society, or that those who took it were morally righteous, but he allowed certain events to take place, like the revolution, to take away the rot, that was spirtually rotting church.

This however, is speculation, and may very will be wrong.

Peace.

 

[Mirdath]

The “underdog” today is Christianity…where is the ACLU in helping us?

Have you even noticed the demographics of our government? Practically all of it is white, male, straight, upper-class, and Christian. There’s a handful of Jews, one Muslim, and one atheist in the entirety of Congress, and I doubt I need to reiterate our President’s much-flaunted faith. The Supreme Court features two Jews, and the rest are Christians – five of whom are Catholic.

Underdog? Please. The deck’s already stacked for you guys, and if you can’t win with a royal flush I don’t even know what to say.

been threatened, the ACLU’s been right there.have

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I appreciate your qeustion, and it think its very important one indeed.

I think that, the Church should “inspire” what is righteuos, and are in fact, in a better position to do so.

I think there is a Good reason why the Catholic Church no longer rule’s over human-affairs. God knows why he allowed the Church to lose all its circular power, and I think he was right to allow such a thing to happen. It was for the sake of preserving the Church, rather then the “human desires” of the men within it. God will always humble his children when corruption stands ready to destroy them through their pride. This is not to say that God personally caused the church to lose its hold on society, or that those who took it were morally righteous, but he allowed certain events to take place, like the revolution, to take away the rot, that was rotting church.

This however, is speculation, and may very will be wrong.

Peace.

That is a most bizzare question.

In reality, the Pope disallows Catholic clergy to run for political office. This is an affirmation of a State/Church separation but for an entirely different set of reasons.

The Pope serves a higher Kingdom and would never the thought enter his mind.

“…My Kingdom is not from here…” (Said to Pontius Pilate)

 

[Genesis315]

I was watching the national Catholic prayer breakfast and a bishop who spoke said God’s law has to be the norm for positive civil law. It is only the Catholic faith that preaches God’s true law.

The pope would not have to be the ruler, it would be best for him not to be (ideally there are two separate spheres that work in hamony. But, the government would still have to govern in a way consonant with truth; of course both are subject to Christ the King of all kings). This has always been the teaching of the Church and it still is. Yes, certain evils can be tolerated for the sake of peace and the common good, but overall since the authority of the state comes from God, the state has to act in a way that is compatible with the Catholic truth revealed by that God. Anyone who has read a social encyclical can see this principle in action. Popes are always laying down how states should govern if they want to govern according to truth and authentic morality and justice

Governement according to a principle of positivism or irreligion has always been condemned in the strongest terms and it still is.

 

[freesoulhope]

Have you even noticed the demographics of our government? Practically all of it is white, male, straight, upper-class, and Christian. There’s a handful of Jews, one Muslim, and one atheist in the entirety of Congress, and I doubt I need to reiterate our President’s much-flaunted faith. The Supreme Court features two Jews, and the rest are Christians – five of whom are Catholic.

It depends what you mean by Christian or Catholic; I always thought Christianity to be a “moral act; a way of life” rather then a pretty name. From what i see, they might as well be all atheists.

Peace. Dont mind me, had a bad day

Just kidding around.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Have you even noticed the demographics of our government? Practically all of it is white, male, straight, upper-class, and Christian. There’s a handful of Jews, one Muslim, and one atheist in the entirety of Congress, and I doubt I need to reiterate our President’s much-flaunted faith. The Supreme Court features two Jews, and the rest are Christians – five of whom are Catholic.

Underdog? Please. The deck’s already stacked for you guys, and if you can’t win with a royal flush I don’t even know what to say.

And, for what it’s worth, when Christians’ rights have been threatened, the ACLU’s been right there.

There are Catholics and there are “catholics.” How many high-profile “catholics” support the great sin of abortion? Quite a few, I would say.

The ACLU has never championed so-called “Catholic rights.” For example, a case in New England a couple of Christmases ago, the ACLU threatened the municipality with a lawsuit if it did not remove a Christmas tree from its cirt square. But it was OK for a menorrah to be placed there.

What is sauce for the goose is not necessarily sauce for the gander in the ACLU’s view.

 

[freesoulhope]

That is a most bizzare question.

In reality, the Pope disallows Catholic clergy to run for political office. This is an affirmation of a State/Church separation but for an entirely different set of reasons.

What reasons are those?

 

[freesoulhope]

There are Catholics and there are “catholics.” How many high-profile “catholics” support the great sin of abortion? Quite a few, I would say.

The ACLU has never championed so-called “Catholic rights.” For example, a case in New England a couple of Christmases ago, the ACLU threatened the municipality with a lawsuit if it did not remove a Christmas tree from its cirt square. But it was OK for a menorrah to be placed there.

What is sauce for the goose is not necessarily sauce for the gander in the ACLU’s view.

Exactly my point.

 

[Mirdath]

It depends what you mean by Christian or Catholic; I always thought Christianity to be a “moral act; a way of life” rather then a pretty name. From what i see, they might as well be all atheists.

Someone on another board already expressed my sentiment on that more eloquently than even I could have:

Each week, millions and millions of upper middle class American citizens put on expensive dress clothes, and load themselves into SUV’s and drive past homeless shelters, orphanages, prisons, missions, and halfway houses on their way to a very expensive and nice church, where somebody tells them how to be more like Jesus.

Beautifully enough, his username was Captain_Obvious.

Hope your day gets better
johnstown johnn:

What is sauce for the goose is not necessarily sauce for the gander in the ACLU’s view.

They aren’t perfect. But would you rather there be no such advocacy for any group or individual whose rights are being imposed upon?

 

[GregoryPalamas]

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.

But you would have to go back prior to the Reformation to get a clear pictute of this. After the Reformation all bets are off.

I would very much like a Catholic Monarch in union with the Pope. The Pope has other matters to take care of with greater importance than to be head of state of the US.

CDL

 

[KathleenElsie]

A government based on the faith of Christian Catholics would be wonderful. But remember Jesus said render unto Cesar what is Cesar’s and unto God what is Gods.

This country (USA) was based on Christian Moral Laws and just see what has happened to it. The UK and most of Europe was also based on Christian principals. We were granted the opportunity to live the way God wanted us to. But many of us have voted away that right and IMHO the lack of moral guidance is due to our lack of diligence to the situations that have slowly come about. Remember things did not get this bad over night. It is the “slippery slope” that has brought us here. The “well its not so bad” that we as a society has allowed.

I know I have been part of the problem. So I know I will need to be part of the solution. I am trying but getting out of a hole is harder then the origional digging of the hole.

But to answer the original question. I think it would be wonderful to live in a country that allowed me and others to follow our Catholic/Christian moral beliefs. One that will not force me to choose between working or doing something immoral. This is becoming harder and harder to do.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

What reasons are those?

One reason is that it is impossible to divide allegiances to God and another for man.

Politics means by a clerics entrance into that forum and if the Church espouses it; then the Church allows itself to be vulnerable to laws of man taking precedence over the laws of God.

The Church is “…that sign of contradiction in the world…” were the Church in State/political affairs there will be compromise. The Church does not compromise morals that civil law is antithetical towards.

The Church has very different laws and morals than the world.

The world and its “morals” are ever-changing. God’s laws are the same bas before; in the present and in the future. Civil law is nothing like that–it is in a constant state of flux.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Someone on another board already expressed my sentiment on that more eloquently than even I could have:

Each week, millions and millions of upper middle class American citizens put on expensive dress clothes, and load themselves into SUV’s and drive past homeless shelters, orphanages, prisons, missions, and halfway houses on their way to a very expensive and nice church, where somebody tells them how to be more like Jesus.

Beautifully enough, his username was Captain_Obvious.

Hope your day gets better

No. I would rather live on another continent free of persecution from the ACLU.

They aren’t perfect. But would you rather there be no such advocacy for any group or individual whose rights are being imposed upon?

 

[Mirdath]

No. I would rather live on another continent free of persecution from the ACLU.

Then do so. Neither they nor I are keeping you here.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

One reason is that it is impossible to divide allegiances to God and another for man.

Politics means by a clerics entrance into that forum and if the Church espouses it; then the Church allows itself to be vulnerable to laws of man taking precedence over the laws of God.

The Church is “…that sign of contradiction in the world…” were the Church in State/political affairs there will be compromise. The Church does not compromise morals that civil law is antithetical towards.

The Church has very different laws and morals than the world.

The world and its “morals” are ever-changing. God’s laws are the same bas before; in the present and in the future. Civil law is nothing like that–it is in a constant state of flux.

A good example of the intrusion of the State into the Church’s l;aw is abortion.

Catholic hospitals and doctor’s are being compelled to perform abortion with the ACLU leading the charge… This is the ACLU at its darkest.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I gather that few if any real understand how the system of governance worked when both the King and the Pope understood their authority coming from God. I could be wrong. Has anyone studied the Middle Ages? An easy introduction may be had by aquiring the 3 vol. video titled “Catholicism: the Heart of History” produced by EWTN in 2003.

CDL

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Then do so. Neither they nor I are keeping you here.

I would if I could but since there are no Catholic theocracies for me to emmigrate to I’ll just have to remain here with folks like yourself. And that can’t be all bad. You seem like a nice person and willing to allow free thought without facetiousness.

The thought of a Catholic theocracy is hypothethical like a kind of Shangri-la …it doesn’t exist.

Catholics have to LIVE in this world but we are not PART of this world in a spiritual sense.

 

[jman507]

I might take a theocracy, if all the ones who could rule would be pure enough for heaven. Maybe I’ll just have to wait for heaven.

I think which type of government I’d like to live under isn’t exactly one I’d like to answer. Although I might answer which government I’d rather not live under. The question I’d want to know how close are the leaders and rulers to Catholic ethics and values and their integrity to them. In the end what matters is more what people do than structures and systems. Systems tend not to be corrupt, the problems stem from people, me included.