Would you prefer to live in a Catholic theocracy?

[freesoulhope]

So that we recognize that it is impossible for us to create the perfect society without God. Any government will be a failure if the people governed do not have faith; but moreover the Kingdom of God is not something which we create in this life. It is what we are waiting for, in heaven. That is where our glory lies, and that is where perfect communion is possible.

This doesn’t mean that we are not to strive to best prepare outselves and our societies for that glory–it’s that we cannot live as if we have already attained it. We cannot vest our spiritual leaders with vast amounts of temporal power because they are just as frail and fallen as we are; history shows that power corrupts.

This ‘Catholic theocracy’ talk is just as bad as the extremes of liberation theology, if you think about it. Though it goes about it in a different way, both are striving to eliminate suffering and injustice in our world to create a perfect land “flowing with milk and honey.” While that’s nice–we cannot have it yet! We dwell in a fallen world, marred by sin and death. Perfection is unattainable, suffering is unavoidable. The only way we can be saved from it, or save others from it, is by recognizing that at our core we ARE suffering, and that all that can save us is God’s grace. Christ is our King, and will be for eternity.

It is much more potentially fruitful to strive to put our faith into action in the political sphere–social charity–than it is to dream about a government run by the Pope.

We can create a society were sin is greatly ruduced; it is not true that we cannot have a society that is fair, but it wouldn’t be a society were evil did not occur.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Is there anyone here who is not Catholic who’d want to live in a Catholic theocracy?

Are there any Catholics here who’d want to live in a Calvinist theocracy?

Aren’t the answers to both of these questions obvious?

With respect to issues of faith, the best governments are secular governments that respect the various faiths of their citizens and do not interefere with the free practice of those faiths, subject only to norms accepted by society at large (i.e., no human sacrifice even though your Aztec faith calls for it, no polygamy even though the original LDS faith supported that concept, etc.).

The only way that this comment makes sense is if the truth is absolutely hidden from us and that we are really slaves and can never be anything else. Either the Truth sets us free or it does not. If it does not then solipsism is the only philosophy that makes any sense.

CDL

 

[rr1213]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by rr1213
Is there anyone here who is not Catholic who’d want to live in a Catholic theocracy?

Are there any Catholics here who’d want to live in a Calvinist theocracy?

Aren’t the answers to both of these questions obvious?

With respect to issues of faith, the best governments are secular governments that respect the various faiths of their citizens and do not interefere with the free practice of those faiths, subject only to norms accepted by society at large (i.e., no human sacrifice even though your Aztec faith calls for it, no polygamy even though the original LDS faith supported that concept, etc.). **

*The only way that this comment makes sense is if the truth is absolutely hidden from us and that we are really slaves and can never be anything else. Either the Truth sets us free or it does not. If it does not then solipsism is the only philosophy that makes any sense.

CDL*

No, it makes perfect sense since we cannot agree on the exact boundaries of the truth revealed by God. Accordingly, our choices are to live in a free, civilized society where both your faith, and mine, as well as others is respected and protected by the government…or we can fight about it like they did in the Wars of Religion in Europe. I like the American approach much better and so should you.

 

[RyanL]

I think it might be important to define what a Catholic Theocracy would NOT entail:

1. A conflation of law and morality. St. Thomas said that if you attempted to legislate **all **morality, it would only increase immorality. Some immoral activity must be tolerated by law.
2. Imposed belief. St. Thomas (and the Church) said that there is to be no imposition of belief in Christ. Freedom of belief is a must for a Catholic Theocracy, though not necessarily all beliefs must be free. For example, a belief that suicide is a personal good (a heresy in medieval times) need not be tolerated. Rigid personal adherence to the Nicene Creed, however, ought not be mandated by force of law.

Between these two, I think a number of the objections in this thread could be completely eliminated. Objections based on these two items, therefore, are unfounded and illegitimate.

And yes, I would prefer to live in a Catholic Theocracy.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

No, it makes perfect sense since we cannot agree on the exact boundaries of the truth revealed by God. Accordingly, are choices are to live in a free, civilized society where both your faith, and mine, as well as others is respected and protected by the government…or we can fight about it like they did in the Wars of Religion in Europe. I like the American approach much better and so should you.

That’s the Deists answer. There is no truth or at least it cannot be known, so let’s not quarrel. I’d rather be an atheist. It’s more honest.

CDL

 

[Genesis315]

I think it might be important to define what a Catholic Theocracy would NOT entail:

1. A conflation of law and morality. St. Thomas said that if you attempted to legislate **all **morality, it would only increase immorality. Some immoral activity must be tolerated by law.
2. Imposed belief. St. Thomas (and the Church) said that there is to be no imposition of belief in Christ. Freedom of belief is a must for a Catholic Theocracy, though not necessarily all beliefs must be free. For example, a belief that suicide is a personal good (a heresy in medieval times) need not be tolerated. Rigid personal adherence to the Nicene Creed, however, ought not be mandated by force of law.

Between these two, I think a number of the objections in this thread could be completely eliminated. Objections based on these two items, therefore, are unfounded and illegitimate.

And yes, I would prefer to live in a Catholic Theocracy.

God Bless,
RyanL

Great post! I think sometimes we are so indoctrinated growing up to believe Liberalism and positivism are the ideal philosphies of government, we tend to instinctively recoil from anything that counters it. We forget Catholic social teaching is better .

(“Liberalism” as used above does not mean a modern political leaning, but rather a philosophy that grew out of the “Enlightenment” on which almost all modern democracies are founded).

 

[b_justb]

I would prefer to live in The Catholic Theocracy. But I would not want The Catholic Theocracy to be the only choice in world governments, unless over time all governments simply chose without force or coercion to come under the leadership of The Church.

If I could support myself and my family while living under total Church rule, I would gladly move there and relinquish my rights as a US citizen and seek citizenship in The Catholic Theocracy.

I support The Catholic Church and allow Her teachings to mold my conscience. Why wouldn’t I want to live under Her constant leadership? Does the Holy Spirit only guide The Church in spiritual matters but not temporal ones? Why is there this division, this separation, this compartmentalization of life?

 

[Nevarlander]

The thought of this seems to remind me of Ian’s vision of the world he wanted in the Ball and the Cross by Chesterton. He had a bit of a change of heart after that.

IIRC, there wasn’t much of the “Catholic” in that world and more of a traditional hard-core aristocracy.

No, I would not want to live in a Catholic theocracy. The problem is that all the **** would be at the top, with the pope. If you had a good pope ruling there would be no problem and it might actually be wonderful for even the non-Catholic subjects, but then with his successor, it could get dangerous. At least in democracy you get a constant rate of mediocrity.
This is the logical reason. The real reason is that the idea of any kind of non-democratic government grates on every bone I have. They’re so often nasty ugly things with little hope and redress for wrongs for most people living under them. Even the Christian ones.

 

[rr1213]

I think it might be important to define what a Catholic Theocracy would NOT entail:

1. A conflation of law and morality. St. Thomas said that if you attempted to legislate **all **morality, it would only increase immorality. Some immoral activity must be tolerated by law.
2. Imposed belief. St. Thomas (and the Church) said that there is to be no imposition of belief in Christ. Freedom of belief is a must for a Catholic Theocracy, though not necessarily all beliefs must be free. For example, a belief that suicide is a personal good (a heresy in medieval times) need not be tolerated. Rigid personal adherence to the Nicene Creed, however, ought not be mandated by force of law.

Between these two, I think a number of the objections in this thread could be completely eliminated. Objections based on these two items, therefore, are unfounded and illegitimate.

And yes, I would prefer to live in a Catholic Theocracy.

God Bless,
RyanL

Would you like to live in a Calvinist Theocracy, provided that it operates according to the two principles above which you cited as originating from St. Thomas?

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Would you like to live in a Calvinist Theocracy, provided that it operates according to the two principles above which you cited as originating from St. Thomas?

I’m not Ryan but I certainly would not. Calvin was a heretic. Why would I wish to live under his rule. Don’t you believe there is such a thing as truth or that it can be known?

CDL

 

[rr1213]

That’s the Deists answer. There is no truth or at least it cannot be known, so let’s not quarrel. I’d rather be an atheist. It’s more honest.

CDL

No, this is the realistic approach. Sure, there is absolute truth and, sure, it can be known. But in the sinful world existing after the Fall, such truth will not be known by all and will not be accepted by all. That being the case, the only sort of theocracy that will not certainly deteriorate into tyranny is the Rule of God Himself. Since that will not happen until God Himself decides the time, the best that we sinful men can do is to govern in a matter that respects everyone’s God-given rights…including the right to choose a different faith and/or to reject God (a choice that God allows us to make). There is not a theocracy anywhere, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or whatever, that respects the rights of non-believing citizens. It can’t happen because abuse of those rights are inherent in the beast known as theocracy.

 

[rr1213]

I’m not Ryan but I certainly would not. Calvin was a heretic. Why would I wish to live under his rule. Don’t you believe there is such a thing as truth or that it can be known?

CDL

Ahh, but the Calvinists think that you, a Catholic, are a heretic and that you, a Catholic, are blind to the Biblical truth. Other faiths think pretty much the same to some degree. Can’t you see that, in the REAL WORLD, that will always be the case? The government that respects the religious faiths of all of its citizens is a good government. A theocracy is incapable of that and is not a good government. Moreover, even if you could theorize a Catholic Theocracy that you believe would respect other people’s rights, such a government will be run by sinful men–as is every government. Absent an inherent Constitutional separation/balance of powers, it will inevitably decline into tyranny.

 

[Brendan]

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

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

 

[Lance]

No. The Church is perfect but the people who administer and run it are not. The Catholic Church can’t even handle the sexual abuse scandal, how could they run a country?

 

[rr1213]

No. The Church is perfect but the people who administer and run it are not. The Catholic Church can’t even handle the sexual abuse scandal, how could they run a country?

Exactly. And, in fairness, no other Church is equipped to do so either.

 

[deb216]

I would absolutely prefer a Catholic Theocracy to a true democracy, unless the democratic majority was comprised of Catholics. Then I would be all for it!

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Ahh, but the Calvinists think that you, a Catholic, are a heretic and that you, a Catholic, are blind to the Biblical truth. Other faiths think pretty much the same to some degree. Can’t you see that, in the REAL WORLD, that will always be the case? The government that respects the religious faiths of all of its citizens is a good government. A theocracy is incapable of that and is not a good government. Moreover, even if you could theorize a Catholic Theocracy that you believe would respect other people’s rights, such a government will be run by sinful men–as is every government. Absent an inherent Constitutional separation/balance of powers, it will inevitably decline into tyranny.

Why would anyone care what the Calvinists think? It did not decline into tyranny in the Middle Ages. The Deists developed the tyranny…

CDL

 

[RyanL]

Would you like to live in a Calvinist Theocracy, provided that it operates according to the two principles above which you cited as originating from St. Thomas?

No, but simply because I don’t trust Calvinists. Their views of predestination are too absolutist to provide a sound foundation for penal theory, imho. I’d be afraid a single misstep (like apostasy) might lawfully result in the death penalty, and I’m not aware of a check on that. (See, for example, the execution of Michael Servetus.)

However, I wouldn’t mind living in a Baptist Theocracy (provided it’s not Reformed Baptist…i.e., Calvinists in Baptist clothing). I also wouldn’t mind a Methodist or Anglican Theocracy, provided that it was traditionally based and not rooted in the zeitgeist (as are so many religions these days). A traditionally minded constitution of some kind would need to be provided before I would buy in.

As a side note, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a three-branched theocracy, with each branch serving as a check on the power of the others. I could quite easily imagine our Constitution being amended to affirm (1) the existence of God, (2) the reality of the Divinity of Christ, (3) the equal value of every human being from conception to natural death, and (4) the societal importance of heterosexual marriage. It might also affirm the truth of the Natural Law, which was the doctrinal foundation for the Declaration of Independence anyway, and perhaps the role of the Magisterium in definitively defining and positing the norms of the Natural Law.

Since Catholicism can’t change (i.e., reverse) its teachings, it already has a very nice check in place to assure freedom of religion. Since the precepts of the Natural Law are rooted in our nature and our reason (and needs to be properly explained as such), I don’t know why anyone would have a problem with using it as a guidepost…other than concupiscence. And since Catholicism teaches that the death penalty likely cannot be applied with modern penal advances, there’s far less to fear as a ruling entity.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[mdgspencer]

This thread raises many interesting questions. Would a well-run govenment run by a Christian emperor or a well-run democracy work better? Or is one likely to be inferior to the other by nature? Actually, the Byzantine Empire was run by a Christian emperor for a thousand years, and I don’t recall any historian as saying that it was tyrannical. In fact, the Byzantine empire was in some ways very admirable, in culture, for example. Pehaps there are no simply answers though.

 

[rr1213]

Why would anyone care what the Calvinists think? It did not decline into tyranny in the Middle Ages. The Deists developed the tyranny…

CDL

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?