Would you prefer to live in a Catholic theocracy?

[Exalt]

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’.

I completely agree.

I’m getting really tired of the reductionist claims here. Statements like: “Because gay people want others to recognize the value of thier relationships, they want to destroy the traditional family.” And “because you don’t believe in every single Catholic moral teaching you must have no moral standards.”

It’s just silly. It’s not indicative of a friendly debate and just pushes people away from your position.

 

[Exalt]

Would you be OK with living in a Gay society?

I would be OK living in a society in which both the traditional heterosexual nuclear family AND the homosexual family (in of themselves) are recognized as valuable.

I would NOT be okay with a society that said either or both are evil. I would certainly not be okay with a society that made homosexuality illegal.

 

[Exalt]

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.

Wow.

Why?

I guess liberty and privacy is just thrown out the window.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I would be OK living in a society in which both the traditional heterosexual nuclear family AND the homosexual family (in of themselves) are recognized as valuable.

I would NOT be okay with a society that said either or both are evil. I would certainly not be okay with a society that made homosexuality illegal.

That’s a very curious notion. Thanks. But doesn’t a society such as you describe fit the profile of another Sodom and Gomorrah? Has God reversed Himself since and He is OK with that?

There have been discoveries in and under the Dead Sea that a cataclysm took place in the area believed to be where S & G once was.

 

[Exalt]

That’s a very curious notion. Thanks. But doesn’t a society such as you describe fit the profile of another Sodom and Gomorrah?

You’ve read the story of Sodom and Gamorrah, right? In that story, to summarize for those who are unfamiliar with it, two male angels stay over at Lot’s house for the night in the city of Sodom. However, “all the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old–all the people to the last man–closed in on the house” and wanted to have sex with the two men (the angels) that entered the house. Lot refused, saying that they should rape his two daughters instead. But they didn’t want to rape girls. They wanted the two men-angels. They tried breaking down the door, but the angels blinded them and remained safe. God later destroyed the city for what they had threatened to do.

I’m not talking about a gang-rape here. Rape should always be illegal and should be prosecuted.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

You’ve read the story of Sodom and Gamorrah, right? I’m not talking about a gang-rape here. Rape should always be illegal and should be prosecuted.

it was not about gang rape–no one was gang raped. how did you come up with that? Two Angels of God visited Lott and his family to warn them to leave S & G. This was their mission because S & G was rife with the sin of homosexuality. The Angels were noticed entering Lott’s house and knocked on the door so they would get to “know” the Angels that were in the form of two young men.

Lott pleaded with God to spare the City. Lott proposed if he could find X-number of Godly people the City would be spared…as they searched and unable to find the original number the amount was decreased until there were NONE but Lott and his family.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I completely agree.

I’m getting really tired of the reductionist claims here. Statements like: “Because gay people want others to recognize the value of thier relationships, they want to destroy the traditional family.” And “because you don’t believe in every single Catholic moral teaching you must have no moral standards.”

It’s just silly. It’s not indicative of a friendly debate and just pushes people away from your position.

Tell us, what are the values of their relationships; lifestyles in God’s order of things?

 

[Exalt]

it was not about gang rape–no one was gang raped. how did you come up with that? … The Angels were noticed entering Lott’s house and knocked on the door so they would get to “know” the Angels.

Gang: a group of persons associated for some criminal or other antisocial purpose

Rape: sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person

Gang: All the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old–all the people to the last man–closed in on the house… (Genesis 19:4)

Rape: They called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intimacies with them.” … They replied, “Stand back! This fellow,” they sneered, “came here as an immigrant, and now he dares to give orders! We’ll treat you worse than them!” With that, they pressed hard against Lot, moving in closer to break down the door. (Genesis 19:8-9)

“All the townsmen of Sodom” is a gang. Forcing themselves on Lot’s guests is rape.

 

[Exalt]

Tell us, what are the values of their relationships; lifestyles in God’s order of things?

I don’t believe in God, so I can’t answer your second question. But most of my gay friends* do* believe in God, so I’ll ask them and get back to you.

As far as the value of thier relationships… They love eachother. They gain a great deal of happiness out of thier relationships with eachother. They have companionship. They have romance. They have someone to share thier deepest secrets with. They have someone to build a life with - to share resources and experience life together. I think of it as sort of a very deep, committed, intimate friendship, that is occasionally expressed in a way that involves physical intimacy. It’s not really that different from what I would say about a heterosexual relationship, such as my parents relationship.

 

[Montalban]

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?

Not if the Pope’s party platform to pursue pro-Catholic policies

 

[Verisimilitude]

Not if the Pope’s party platform to pursue pro-Catholic policies

Such as protecting the unborn child? Expanding charity? Abolishing the death penelty. Exploring dialog rather than war?

What policies do you object to?

 

[Montalban]

Such as protecting the unborn child? Expanding charity? Abolishing the death penelty. Exploring dialog rather than war?

What policies do you object to?

Depends upon his specific policies, but I mean such as promoting the Catholic Church over other churches, etc.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Gang: a group of persons associated for some criminal or other antisocial purpose

Rape: sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person

Gang: All the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old–all the people to the last man–closed in on the house… (Genesis 19:4)

Rape: They called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intimacies with them.” … They replied, “Stand back! This fellow,” they sneered, “came here as an immigrant, and now he dares to give orders! We’ll treat you worse than them!” With that, they pressed hard against Lot, moving in closer to break down the door. (Genesis 19:8-9)

“All the townsmen of Sodom” is a gang. Forcing themselves on Lot’s guests is rape.

Genisis Ch. 19: 11) And them that were without , they struck with blindnessfrom the least to the greatest, so that they could not find the door.

So, it never happened. But none theless, the City was destroyed not because there was a “gang rape”…it was thwarted.

The City was destroyed because of the unnatural impulses of the people. In another view of this we see what God has made “natural” meaning heterosexual, man/woman relationship is “Holy” because it at its beginnings come from God Himself.

The Angels represent that holiness…the men outside Lott’s house were representative of the antithesis of what God instituted as “holy.” The Angels were in appearance MALES and there is no contradiction as to being anything but MALES.

When God made Adam and Eve he blessed them and lovingly beseeched them to “be fruitful and multiply.” This is the evidence that God blessed the union between a man and a woman.

S&G was COUNTER to the mind of God. It was deviation so offensive that He destroyed that debased society totally.

There is NO Chapter in either the Old or New Testaments where a homosexual union has been blessed or held up as an alternative to a union between man and woman.

Throughout both Testaments the FAMILY is the centerpoint of of man’s adherence to God’s urging to “…be fruitful and multiply…”

So, point out for us in the thousands of years of mankind’s existence where a homosexual union has been an example of carrying out God’s plan.

 

[Rach620]

Please don’t get too far OT; this thread was once closed and re-opened for people straying too far from the OP. The discussion of homosexuality and the acceptance of homosexual couples in society should be had elsewhere on these forums.

Again, the question which still remains to be answered by many proponents of a ‘Catholic theocracy’ is how it would differ from, say, a democracy in which the laws are just and the habits of the citizens are based in a Judeo-Christian moral code…ie, America if it understood itself better and did what it’s supposed to.

I think that the few points which RyanL and a few others were putting forward as to what a ‘Catholic theocracy’ is actually point to needing a well-functioning democracy. A government in which religiously-based morals are *not *codified by the head of state/pope (for the reasons he gave) is not a theocracy at all.

The definition of a theocracy is such that religious belief and practice are imposed on all citizens. There’s no way to get around that definition. If any aspect of ‘choice’ comes in, if all moral rules are not made into secular laws, then it’s just not a theocracy.

Besides, another huge thing most people are forgetting is that the magisterium or pope is not always infallible. Infallibility only comes into play when they speak for the whole Church on matters of faith and morals. So we can’t ever say that the government of/by the Church would be ‘perfect’. There’s just no basis in reality for that claim.

 

[East_and_West]

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? Then you get your little Catholic sects, like the sedevacantists, the Traditionals, etc.

I would be very turned off of a religion that FORCED people to worship a certain religion.

They don’t have to be forced to be Catholic. The government would simply not support their religion the way it would Catholicism.

 

[RyanL]

The definition of a theocracy is such that religious belief and practice are imposed on all citizens. There’s no way to get around that definition. If any aspect of ‘choice’ comes in, if all moral rules are not made into secular laws, then it’s just not a theocracy.

I’ll tackle this part first. I think you’re confusing a theocracy with a puritanical totalitarian state. A theocracy need not be so, despite your claims to the contrary.

I think that the few points which RyanL and a few others were putting forward as to what a ‘Catholic theocracy’ is actually point to needing a well-functioning democracy.

And I don’t necessarily disagree.

Again, the question which still remains to be answered by many proponents of a ‘Catholic theocracy’ is how it would differ from, say, a democracy in which the laws are just and the habits of the citizens are based in a Judeo-Christian moral code…ie, America if it understood itself better and did what it’s supposed to.

I don’t really think it would need to differ much, quite frankly. Some basic Catholic tenants would have to be established, like the fact that we are all created in the image and likeness of God (men, women, young, old, born, unborn, mentally capable, mentally infirm, sick, well, etc.), and as such are each infinite in dignity and therefore inviolable. These tenants are currently lacking in America, so that would change things. Also, artificial birth control and no-fault divorce would probably be out as well. So I guess that would be different, too.

A Catholic theocracy could act like a totalitarian state, but I disagree that it either (1) would need to or (2) ought to. You seem to think exactly the opposite, and I don’t think there’s a whole lot of support for you position. For my position, I would cite Aquinas’ Treatise on Law - Summa Theologicae, Q90 et seq.

A government in which religiously-based morals are *not *codified by the head of state/pope (for the reasons he gave) is not a theocracy at all.

It sure could be. You could have the Pope function as a figurehead, like the Queen is in England. Leave the civil legislating to the legislators, and have them found all law in reason and/or the Natural Law. This is really pretty basic Aquinas. It would still be a theocracy since the Natural Law is authoritatively defined by the Magisterium…but not everything in the Natural Law can (or should) be made into codified civil law. Again…Aquinas.

The definition of a theocracy is such that religious belief and practice are imposed on all citizens.

Says who?!? Even Iran doesn’t do that!

There’s no way to get around that definition.

Um…yes there is?

If any aspect of ‘choice’ comes in, if all moral rules are not made into secular laws, then it’s just not a theocracy.

This simply doesn’t follow.

So we can’t ever say that the government of/by the Church would be ‘perfect’. There’s just no basis in reality for that claim.

Has anyone on this thread claimed this would be the case?!?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Apherius]

I would have no problem serving a Christian King or a Christian Oligarcy. Since a theocracy is impossible, a state under canon law would be preferable to me. Look up the laws that currently are used in Vatican City.

 

[Exalt]

I’ll tackle this part first. I think you’re confusing a theocracy with a puritanical totalitarian state. A theocracy need not be so, despite your claims to the contrary.

What keeps the Theocracy from becoming a puritanical totalitarian state?

It would seem to be an issue of enforcement and punishment. Homosexuality, masturbation, and other sexual “sins” would be illegal - but to what end? The punishment could go from either just a small fine or warning all the way to long-term jailtime. If it was long-term jailtime, I think we’ve moved into a totalitarian state. If it’s a small fine… well, it can be argued that it’s just a theocracy.

Actually, no, I think any fine or punishment imposed by the government of any sort for homosexuality or masturbation or fornication is evidence of a puritanical totalitarian state.

So, I think it’s really a matter of perspective. YOU would say that’s just a theocracy. I, however, would say it’s totalitarian.

 

[Rach620]

I’ll tackle this part first. I think you’re confusing a theocracy with a puritanical totalitarian state. A theocracy need not be so, despite your claims to the contrary.

Here’s what I meant: in a theocracy, a priest rules, justifying his rule with divine authority. Because God has given the power to rule, the logic has historically seemed to be that the state will then give itself to God through religious practices and adhering to certain laws which make the citizens in conformity with the divine/natural law. There is no difference between what the divine law dictates and what the secular law does. Laws are not made by the citizens, but usually dictated by the head of state, who, reflecting what he interprets to be the will of God, will codify divine law.

That’s what I think most people think of when they hear ‘theocracy’ as a form of government–they don’t think just of some kind of moral political system that recognizes religious authority. Instead, they identify historical instances of theocracy, like Islamic states today. That’s what I believe the OP was asking about.

I don’t really think it would need to differ much, quite frankly. Some basic Catholic tenants would have to be established, like the fact that we are all created in the image and likeness of God (men, women, young, old, born, unborn, mentally capable, mentally infirm, sick, well, etc.), and as such are each infinite in dignity and therefore inviolable. These tenants are currently lacking in America, so that would change things. Also, artificial birth control and no-fault divorce would probably be out as well. So I guess that would be different, too.

But you realize that those aren’t just *Catholic *tenets, they’re the tenets of any well-functioning government. They’re the values which should, and I believe were meant to, underlie the American democratic republic. You can find all of these ideas supported in the Declaration of Independence.

We don’t need to call for a Catholic theocracy in order to have a good government! In fact, I don’t think it’s helpful–it’s alienating to non-Catholics who would probably agree with these assertions as to what makes a good government. I mean, the natural law can be understood by those outside of the Faith, and we’ll need those people on our side if there is to be any sort of ‘progress’ in creating more just political systems.

 

[Rach620]

A Catholic theocracy could act like a totalitarian state, but I disagree that it either (1) would need to or (2) ought to. You seem to think exactly the opposite, and I don’t think there’s a whole lot of support for you position. For my position, I would cite Aquinas’ Treatise on Law - Summa Theologicae, Q90 et seq.

I’m not saying that a Church-ruled state will become totalitarian. I’ve said nothing of the kind. All I’ve said is that I think that when the Church and State are not separated, problems inevitably result. And those problems I see are more dire for the Church and her faithful than the State and whatever ‘secular principles’ she might be trying to uphold. Temporal power corrupts.

Besides, I just don’t see the benefit in giving the pope ruling power over governments. There’s so much potential for the corruption of the truths of our faith when he has to worry about day to day issues and threats and cannot focus on disseminating the truth of the Catholic faith to the world! It just undermines his ability to do that, rather than legitimizes it…

Does anyone here *want *Benedict XVI to set aside his role as an objective commentator on the godlessness of modern Europe in favor of stressing about matters of local politics and governance? Principles are important for government–political leaders should always have a good understanding of political philosophy and try to make a just government that pursues the good of every person. Principles are what the Church helps to provide, perfecting the natural reason of politicians in understanding what it’s all about with magisterial teaching. But principles don’t run the government in its day to day operation. You need people who know how to put principles into action, and the same person (ie, the pope) cannot spend sufficient time both contemplating the principles AND putting them into action.

Political power has caused men of faith to compromise their principles, and it will inevitably continue to do so. We are fallen people. It’s just the way things go. And again, we can just look to Europe today, which has fallen into such spiritual disarray. I think that breakdown must be due, at least in part, to the disenchantment with Christian faith which many people there are feeling after seeing the failures and corruption of the Church when it has come to secular affairs in the past.

Quote:
So we can’t ever say that the government of/by the Church would be ‘perfect’. There’s just no basis in reality for that claim.

Has anyone on this thread claimed this would be the case?!?

Many have posted something to that effect. “We’d be so much better if the pope were to rule,” etc. I’m just challenging people to think critically about this.