Would you prefer to live in a Catholic theocracy?

[Catholig]

That’s what I love most about this country, if anything – we’re free to be stupid and say anything we want, no matter how mindbogglingly nitwitted it may be. Actions are and should be restricted, but that’s not what the ACLU is fighting for in those cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skokie:

Skokie was traditionally home to a sizable Jewish population, although in recent years the town has significantly diversified and much of the Jewish population has moved to other suburbs. In 1977 and 1978, members of the National Socialist Party of America (an offshoot of the American Nazi Party) attempted to march through Skokie. The NSPA planned to rally in Marquette Park, Chicago; the city reacted by placing a ban on all demonstrations in the park.

Seeking another venue, the NSPA chose Skokie. On account of the large number of Holocaust survivors in Skokie, it was believed that the march would be disruptive, and the village refused to allow it. The American Civil Liberties Union interceded on the behalf of the NSPA in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, and the march was permitted to proceed under court order but they were not permitted to show or wear the swastika.

However, due to the recant of the Marquette Park ban, the NSPA ultimately rallied in Chicago. In 1981, the incident was documented in the network TV movie, Skokie.

Mirdarth, I don’t care that much about “civil liberties”.

Catholig

 

[Mirdath]

"johnstown johnn:

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.

Aw, thanks There’s always the desire for government the way I’d do it, but we’re all in this together. As the recently late great Kurt Vonnegut said about life, we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is.

Mirdarth, I don’t care that much about “civil liberties”.

Catholig

I do, and I’m not alone. People should be free to express whatever opinions they want – it’s acting on them in a way that interferes with other people that gets problematic.

But if you’d rather live in a repressive fascist state, hey, up to you! There are a few still around. But I’ll stay here, thanks.

 

[wanner47]

I’m not sure.

On one hand, in theory it sounds wonderful. On the other, I am in favor of the free exercise of religion.

I would support a voluntary Catholic state; i.e., “Catholic Island,” where devout Catholics could live as long as they understood that to live on CI was to adhere to the tenets of the Catholic faith to the best of their ability, and if they ever found themselves unable to do so, they would be asked to move off the island.

I wouldn’t be in favor of making things like going to Mass or Confession mandatory (i.e., punishable by jail time), as that would seem to negate free will.

But those activities would certainly be encouraged, the work week would be structured to allow citizens to attend Daily Mass if they so chose, birth control wouldn’t be available from any on-island stores, abortion WOULD be illegal but there would be programs available to help single mothers or financially strapped parents, and so on.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Freedom to express your opinions and morals should not mean the freedom to repress others freedom of opinions and morals. That has been the basis of this country. But somehow somewhere we have gone to the “my rights only” idea.

 

[cheeto1]

OK then! express your own opinion all you want. After all,
this is America. But when we get to heaven, it’s all God’s way.
Every knee shall bow, Every tongue confess Him as Lord.
Christ will be King of Everyone’s Life. Some people may not
want to be “opressed” this way, they won’t be forced to. Is it
not a theocracy there? And people are free to opt out. I believe
sensible people would start God’s kingdom here on earth and
not just wait till heaven. Your question is like saying “would
you prefer to live in heaven?”

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Like I tell my friends “We’re all going to be Catholic in heaven. Why shouldn’t I wish for a Catholic Theocracy here and now? Didn’'t Jesus pray, ‘Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done. On earth as it is in heaven.’?”

CDL

 

[chevalier]

Depends what you mean by theocracy. I’m tempted, but ultimately, I think the answer is no. For reasons as below:

1. Clerics are not called to rule.
2. Laymen are not called to dabble with sacerdotal matters.

Theocracies lead either to clerics ruling secularily, which is bad, or to laymen regulating the doctrine and the liturgy, which is also bad.

Lastly, clerics who rule secularily too much become similar to secular rulers dabbling with doctrine and liturgy. Haven’t we had cardinals ruling cities and becoming de facto secular princes? I’m not even talking about prince-bishops of the Holy Roman (German) Empire, but cardinals in Italy, like in the Papal Estates or something.

Now, living in a Catholic democracy or a Catholic monarchy, that would be great. If the voters remembered about their vocation to sanctity… or if we had a king annointed by God…

 

[mesquite_magic]

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?”

Why should they conform to the 10 commandments? They don’t believe in them. As Americans that’s their RIGHT. If we became a Catholic theocracy their rights would be whittled away as much as you precieve our Christian rights are. Much quicker.

So what if we can’t have the 10 Comandments posted on courthouse steps. At least we have the right to attend church or pray in the middle of the road if we wish.

“Who blesses an atheistic society” you ask? Most Atheists would tell you they don’t really care. That is their God given, all American right.

Kim

 

[mesquite_magic]

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.

How are you forced to choose between work and morals? It should follow along the lines of “just say no”, YKWIM?

Kim

 

[Rach620]

Like I tell my friends “We’re all going to be Catholic in heaven. Why shouldn’t I wish for a Catholic Theocracy here and now? Didn’'t Jesus pray, ‘Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done. On earth as it is in heaven.’?”

But heaven cannot be had on Earth. Fallen men cannot create any sort of government system that can approximate the Kingdom of Heaven. Corruption will always enter into whatever system we create. Our duty is to do our best to create a culture in which the government organically arises, reflecting the just and good attitudes of just and good citizens. Faith is required for forming those just and good citizens–that’s where Catholicism comes in.

But bishops are not governors; popes are not emperors. Nor should they be. There is great danger when they are.

Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est:

The just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics. …%between% Fundamental to Christianity is the distinction between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God (cf. Mt 22:21), in other words, the distinction between Church and State, or, as the Second Vatican Council puts it, the autonomy of the temporal sphere.[19] The State may not impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony between the followers of different religions. For her part, the Church, as the social expression of Christian faith, has a proper independence and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community which the State must recognize. The two spheres are distinct, yet always interrelated.
…
Faith enables reason to do its work more effectively and to see its proper object more clearly. This is where Catholic social doctrine has its place: it has no intention of giving the Church power over the State. Even less is it an attempt to impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to faith. Its aim is simply to help purify reason and to contribute, here and now, to the acknowledgment and attainment of what is just.
…
The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State.

That last statement is the most important one–and it’s coming from a pontiff who is calling for the re-conversion of Europe. I think we all ought to think about that.

 

[Genesis315]

But heaven cannot be had on Earth. Fallen men cannot create any sort of government system that can approximate the Kingdom of Heaven. Corruption will always enter into whatever system we create. Our duty is to do our best to create a culture in which the government organically arises, reflecting the just and good attitudes of just and good citizens. Faith is required for forming those just and good citizens–that’s where Catholicism comes in.

But bishops are not governors; popes are not emperors. Nor should they be. There is great danger when they are.

Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est:

That last statement is the most important one–and it’s coming from a pontiff who is calling for the re-conversion of Europe. I think we all ought to think about that.

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:

1. The Almighty, therefore, has given the charge of the human race to two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine, and the other over human, things. Each in its kind is supreme, each has fixed limits within which it is contained, limits which are defined by the nature and special object of the province of each, so that there is, we may say, an orbit traced out within which the action of each is brought into play by its own native right. 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.”!(17) Were this not so, deplorable contentions and conflicts would often arise, and, not infrequently, men, like travellers at the meeting of two roads, would hesitate in anxiety and doubt, not knowing what course to follow. Two powers would be commanding contrary things, and it would be a dereliction of duty to disobey either of the two.

 

[Spirithound]

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?

It does seem to me that our spiritual battle here on earth should not be one that is enforced by the strong arm of the law, however, in keeping with what I believe the main role of the government to be, (and probably what some philosopher smarter than me has already said), I believe that the government, be it a theocracy or democracy, should limit its laws to prohibit actions which harm others.
So, all sins that harm others will be banned, all sins that do not harm others will not be banned.

I’ll echo other posters in saying that I would like perhaps not a theocracy, but simply a government that falls in line with the Non-Negotiable items. (But I wouldn’t mind being ruled directly by the Pope either )

 

[Spirithound]

As a Catholic, I would prefer to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render to God what is God’s.

I have a problem with the use of this quote, in that I see it simply as a rule to follow, not a commentary on the ideal form of government. For example, if we did live in a theocracy, “Caesar” would be the Pope, and God would still be God.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

But heaven cannot be had on Earth. Fallen men cannot create any sort of government system that can approximate the Kingdom of Heaven. Corruption will always enter into whatever system we create. Our duty is to do our best to create a culture in which the government organically arises, reflecting the just and good attitudes of just and good citizens. Faith is required for forming those just and good citizens–that’s where Catholicism comes in.

But bishops are not governors; popes are not emperors. Nor should they be. There is great danger when they are.

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

CDL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I have a problem with the use of this quote, in that I see it simply as a rule to follow, not a commentary on the ideal form of government. For example, if we did live in a theocracy, “Caesar” would be the Pope, and God would still be God.

If both the temporal and spiritual rulers worked together and recognized the authority of God over them then you would have a theocracy. This is how it worked throughout the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire. It had its problems but when the principle was followed the world really was a better place.

CDL

 

[jrnami]

Yes, I would prefer to live in a Catholic theocracy.

 

[Kaninchen]

I expect it’s much easier for people living in a society relatively free from ‘theocracy’ to consider it potentially beneficial – seems not to be a feature of the populations of countries that have emerged from such situations, though. I wonder why that is?

No way I’d want to, obviously.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I expect it’s much easier for people living in a society relatively free from ‘theocracy’ to consider it potentially beneficial – seems not to be a feature of the populations of countries that have emerged from such situations, though. I wonder why that is?

No way I’d want to, obviously.

If one looks at those countries it is easily discerned. Thie Atheists and Deists wanted power over everything and the riches that comes with it without the moral constraints of the Church. Study up on people like Voltaire, Rouseau, Machiavelli, and their cynical heirs like Hitler and you will see what I mean.

CDL

 

[jrnami]

If one looks at those countries it is easily discerned. Thie Atheists and Deists wanted power over everything and the riches that comes with it without the moral constraints of the Church. Study up on people like Voltaire, Rouseau, Machiavelli, and their cynical heirs like Hitler and you will see what I mean.

CDL

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.

 

[Kaninchen]

If one looks at those countries it is easily discerned. Thie Atheists and Deists wanted power over everything and the riches that comes with it without the moral constraints of the Church. Study up on people like Voltaire, Rouseau, Machiavelli, and their cynical heirs like Hitler and you will see what I mean.

CDL

Good grief.

Is the word ‘confabulation’ familiar to you?