Would you prefer to live in a Catholic theocracy?

[Rach620]

Having studied Church history enough to see how things went when the Church was “in charge”, I wouldn’t want a Church-run government for anything, primarily because when it did exist it corrupted the Church so badly that it is amazing we ever recovered from it.

And quite frankly, seeing the way Catholics treat Catholics even within this forum, I would have grave misgivings about how “Catholic” would be construed and how we would treat each other, much less anyone else.

Far better for the Church to truly take on its purpose of bringing people to God–and teaching them how to listen for the still small voice–rather than getting into social control and teaching people how to adapt to the “noise” of the world. Then people would have a solid basis for seeking out and electing people who would put God first without tempting the Church with temporal power and having them become just another “principality”.

Well said, ncjohn.

The Church’s role is in the formation of souls–who in turn go on to form societies/communities. If she does that well, then all should be well. But I think it is a big enough task for the Church to form human souls, especially in such an age of corruption. Expecting them to make our governments better by heading those, too? Seems like a stretch, if not humanly impossible.

 

[mdgspencer]

I’m not sure what you mean by the unification of political and religious power? For example, what is religious power? And some of our presidents have been devout protestants. But I doubt that you think that means a unification of religious and political power.
??When have the Church and state been stuck together?

"So what does the past of the Western world tell us?

That unifying political and religious power is dangerous.

The other day, I heard Alasdair MacIntyre speak, a pre-eminent philosopher of the 20th century–and Catholic convert–who just happens to teach at my university. What most people on this thread have a problem with is the secularized society which we’ve inherited from the Enlightenment–but what were the causes of that movement, which eventually led to us effectively killing God and exiling him from our public life?

He claims that it was (at least in part) due to the unification of Church and State in Western Europe, which led inevitably to the corruption of both. It *really *needed to be addressed. I mean think about it…what else incited Luther’s Reformation, the French Revolution, etc., but the ill-conceived politicization of our beautiful Catholic faith?

People were willing to kill God because they didn’t understand Him. And why didn’t they understand Him? Because they weren’t taught, by virtuous Catholics, what faith in God, the dignity of the person, the need for Christian community all mean. They were disenchanted by the corruption which they saw and experienced. Schism is always wrong, but in some sense–can you blame them?

The thing is, that this danger that comes when we stick the Church and the State together (rather than close cooperation, or at least understanding, which I favor) at any time in history. Doing it now won’t lead to any different result than it has in the past.

Yes, our society needs principles–but principles won’t just appear in citizens if their Constitution tells them to believe in them. There needs to be an authentic growth in faith and virtue, the re-education of modern man, for a fruitful political community–of whatever kind–to be possible.

 

[Rach620]

Religious power would be that of a priest or the pope–religious and moral authority over our souls. Political power would be secular lawmaking power.

When you ascribe both powers to one person/leader/institution…problems result. A theocracy is when this occurs.

Many good Catholic leaders (such as our current Pope) hold that the Church and the State *should *be separate, but that religious faith rightly influences political judgment. This is how it should be.

Throughout history though, as religious men have sought political power, they have too closely united with the State, or have sought temporal authority. For example, cardinals in France, where the monarchs ruled with ‘divine right,’ or emperors of the Holy Roman Empire.

I am in NO WAY saying that religion is not important for politics. I firmly believe that a people without faith in God cannot create a successful community. But I don’t think that it helps anyone to give the Church political authority.

 

[Contarini]

He claims that it was (at least in part) due to the unification of Church and State in Western Europe, which led inevitably to the corruption of both. It *really *needed to be addressed. I mean think about it…what else incited Luther’s Reformation, the French Revolution, etc., but the ill-conceived politicization of our beautiful Catholic faith?
.

At what point did McIntyre say this happened? I’m not sure he’d push it back pre-Reformation. Many would say that the “State” was just beginning to form in the Reformation era. And it is definitely true that Luther and the other early Reformers were servants of the unification of Church and State rather than its enemies. They objected to the Church wielding political power, but not to the far worse abomination of the civil authority (which was just in the course of becoming the State) giving orders to the Church.

I suspect that McIntyre was talking about early modern rather than medieval society, but I could be wrong. As I see it, after the Reformation the Catholic Church forged a disastrous alliance with the emerging early modern State, because this seemed necessary for the Church’s survival. (You could also argue that the Reformers’ sycophancy toward civil authorities was a response to the charge that they were overturning the basis of society. Either way, the division of the Western Church gave the emerging State a distinct advantage, because the rival religious factions had to bid for the State’s support.)

One of the greatest fallacies of modern liberal (in the sense of “Whig”) Protestantism is the notion that the Reformation advanced the separation of Church and State. Certainly the events that resulted from the Reformation eventually led to this, but by a very indirect path. Directly and immediately the Reformation led to the subjection of the Church to the State, with the Anabaptists the only full exception and the radical Calvinists (Puritans, Genevans, French Huguenots) a partial exception.

You are very privileged to be at Notre Dame and to have the opportunity to hear McIntyre. I went to grad school at Duke while he was there and wish I had taken more opportunities to hear him (though he was very picky about allowing religion students to take his courses and I probably wouldn’t have gotten permission to take a seminar).

Edwin

 

[distracted]

Never. Gee, I hope that doesn’t make me less of a Catholic but I prefer democracy.

Ture democracy is a beautiful thing. However, we do not have a true democracy in this country. Even those who write college textbooks (presumably very educated people) imply this with titles like “Approaching Democracy”… Plus, i have learned the hard way there is no true democracy in this country…

Yes, we are “better” than some countries… but we have the highest abortion rate, highest crime rate, highest divorce rate, highest murder rate… makes you wonder…

We aren’t Catholic enough…

 

[Rach620]

At what point did McIntyre say this happened? I’m not sure he’d push it back pre-Reformation. Many would say that the “State” was just beginning to form in the Reformation era. And it is definitely true that Luther and the other early Reformers were servants of the unification of Church and State rather than its enemies. They objected to the Church wielding political power, but not to the far worse abomination of the civil authority (which was just in the course of becoming the State) giving orders to the Church.

I suspect that McIntyre was talking about early modern rather than medieval society, but I could be wrong. As I see it, after the Reformation the Catholic Church forged a disastrous alliance with the emerging early modern State, because this seemed necessary for the Church’s survival. (You could also argue that the Reformers’ sycophancy toward civil authorities was a response to the charge that they were overturning the basis of society. Either way, the division of the Western Church gave the emerging State a distinct advantage, because the rival religious factions had to bid for the State’s support.)

You’re right about linking it with the Reformation. Looking back at my notes, he referred to the Peace of Augsburg, which would have been mid-16th century, as when people began to use religion as a justification for political regimes. I was not precise enough in my understanding of when the corruption of the Church-state relationship came into play, and it does seem to coincide most directly with the Reformation.

The fragmentation of morality came after power corrupted religion, and then the Enlightenment Project can be seen as a response to that corruption. He interestingly argued that the Enlightenment critique was right in this regard, and acknowledged that many 20th century Catholic intellectuals saw the French and American revolutions as (initially?) providing the *correct *critique of the post-Reformation corrupt regimes of Europe.

But then you look at the ‘reasons’ for the Reformation, and much of it seemed to be in response to perceived corruption of the Church. It wasn’t as widespread or institutionalized quite yet (at least it doesn’t seem like it), but I would say that the temptation of secular power/riches are at least part of the reason for the missteps of Catholics throughout history.

So I still hold that keeping the institutional Church separate from the secular state is the best way for preserving the integrity of the Church and of Christian faith in general. I need to learn more about what the Church-state relationship in the medieval period was really like, but I think that whatever lessons we may take from that have to be viewed through our modern lens. Today, trying to establish a relationship such as that would not only never be attempted, it wouldn’t work.

One of the greatest fallacies of modern liberal (in the sense of “Whig”) Protestantism is the notion that the Reformation advanced the separation of Church and State. Certainly the events that resulted from the Reformation eventually led to this, but by a very indirect path.

Agreed. Keen observation

You are very privileged to be at Notre Dame and to have the opportunity to hear McIntyre. I went to grad school at Duke while he was there and wish I had taken more opportunities to hear him (though he was very picky about allowing religion students to take his courses and I probably wouldn’t have gotten permission to take a seminar).

ND is great in that regard; this was the third time I’ve heard him speak. Last week was a guest lecture to my philosophy class (we read most of *After Virtue *for the course, and our professor is a close friend of his, apparently–he called him ‘Alasdair’ and took a few friendly jabs at him in the intro/closing remarks.)

I’m hoping to take the only class he teaches, an undergrad seminar open to senior theology and philosophy majors called ‘God, Philosophy and Universities’. Quite intimidating, but I’m sure it would be a fantastic experience.

 

[Rach620]

Ture democracy is a beautiful thing. However, we do not have a true democracy in this country. Even those who write college textbooks (presumably very educated people) imply this with titles like “Approaching Democracy”… Plus, i have learned the hard way there is no true democracy in this country…

Yes, we are “better” than some countries… but we have the highest abortion rate, highest crime rate, highest divorce rate, highest murder rate… makes you wonder…

We aren’t Catholic enough…

A true democracy probably wouldn’t be very Catholic. True democracy would mean that everything was decided by majority vote, so no, America would never qualify as fully democratic. You can only have complete democracy with really small groups of people.

Even then, true democracy is dangerous because the tyranny of the majority can rule. If the majority wants abortion, then they’ll have it, etc. You need faith and moral principles to teach people to want to control their passions, before they’re even able to think about being democratic citizens. (This is why Tocqueville called religion the first and most influential of American political institutions–it helps to train the majority to choose to do what is right.) An atheist, fully democratic society would be a really scary place to live.

 

[Contarini]

You’re right about linking it with the Reformation. Looking back at my notes, he referred to the Peace of Augsburg, which would have been mid-16th century, as when people began to use religion as a justification for political regimes.

Right. Cuius regio, eius religio (religious affiliation is decided by the local ruler).

William Cavanaugh has some good (if very polemical) thoughts on this process.

The fragmentation of morality came after power corrupted religion, and then the Enlightenment Project can be seen as a response to that corruption. He interestingly argued that the Enlightenment critique was right in this regard, and acknowledged that many 20th century Catholic intellectuals saw the French and American revolutions as (initially?) providing the *correct *critique of the post-Reformation corrupt regimes of Europe.

Yes. There was definitely something rotten about the “alliance of throne and altar.” My fear is that many of the traditional Catholics on this thread simply want to go back to that instead of taking a deeper look at what a truly Catholic politics might look like.

But then you look at the ‘reasons’ for the Reformation, and much of it seemed to be in response to perceived corruption of the Church. It wasn’t as widespread or institutionalized quite yet (at least it doesn’t seem like it), but I would say that the temptation of secular power/riches are at least part of the reason for the missteps of Catholics throughout history.

Definitely. My point is that in the Middle Ages you had two parallel institutions. The complaint of the Reformers was that the Church had its own laws, its own governmental structures, etc., and was competing with the civil governments on their own turf, as it were. I think that contemporary theologians such as Cavanaugh or his teacher Stanley Hauerwas (even though I don’t agree with them 100%), or for that matter philosophers like McIntyre (a friend of Hauerwas and a huge influence on him), and certainly popes such as JPII and BXVI, are all developing concepts of the role of the Church that preserve what was good in this medieval tradition without falling into the trap of resisting the Empire by becoming it.

Another good writer on these issues is Oliver O’Donovan (I once heard Hauerwas say that O’Donovan was the alternative to him), though I’ve only read bits of his work so far.

So I still hold that keeping the institutional Church separate from the secular state is the best way for preserving the integrity of the Church and of Christian faith in general. I need to learn more about what the Church-state relationship in the medieval period was really like

It can be argued that there really wasn’t a state in the Middle Ages, though there were various civil and ecclesiastical governmental structures, which had a symbiotic relationship without either completely dominating the other.

ND is great in that regard; this was the third time I’ve heard him speak. Last week was a guest lecture to my philosophy class (we read most of *After Virtue *for the course, and our professor is a close friend of his, apparently–he called him ‘Alasdair’ and took a few friendly jabs at him in the intro/closing remarks.)

Who’s your professor? Has Plantinga retired?

I think ND is a great university. I applied there for grad school, and as an overall institution I think it would have been much better than Duke (as the Protestant ND history professor George Marsden tried to tell me at the time–though he had had a bad experience at Duke and was biased). Probably studying the Middle Ages instead of the Reformation would have been less traumatic for me, as well. . . . But the particular professor I wanted to study with (David Steinmetz) was at Duke, and my family favored Duke because it was closer.

I’m hoping to take the only class he teaches, an undergrad seminar open to senior theology and philosophy majors called ‘God, Philosophy and Universities’. Quite intimidating, but I’m sure it would be a fantastic experience.

I’ve heard that at Duke in one of his undergrad classes he used to lecture on Lewis Carroll’s “The Hunting of the Snark” and its implications for philosophy. . . .

Edwin

 

[pprimeau1976]

I would not want to live in a Catholic theocracy. However, I would want the laws of the state to reflect Catholic truths. Power corrupts people and I would hate to see a Pope as the head of state, because his supremacy should be totally spiritual and nothing more.

Likewise, I would want ultimate freedom of religion and would not want the state to prefer one religion over the other. This is not the same as abandoning God. The state needs to acknowledge the existence of God because without acknowledging God, the state will think that it grants you rights and could therefore take it away. A nation that recognizes God recognizes your rights that are yours based on the fact that you are created.

The United States, in my opinion would be so close if they would

1. introduced a constitutional amendment defining a person as any *homo sapiens *at any stage of development whose DNA was unique from it’s mother.
2. Eliminate the minimum wage and instead require a minimum ratio that every corporation must meet. The ratio would be the compensation in real dollars for the lowest paid employee to the higest paid manager. The dollar amounts must include the cost of EVERYTHING - salaries, benefits, bribes - EVERYTHING. If a corporation wants to pay a CEO a quadrillion dollars, they would have to slide everyone elses salary in order to meet the ratio. If this sounds nuts, compare the ratio in Japan to the ratio in the USA.
3. Have a military draft for domestic defense only. This includes boarder patrol, TSA screeners, Intelligence gatherers, Language translators, anything that would help DEFEND the USA. This would foster some humilty in children who expect to make $75,000 just because they have a piece of paper that says their smart.
4. Change the names of everything to Ministries, not departments. The British have it right - if you were a public official, would you be more prone to serve if you were with the State Department or the Ministry of State?
5. A universal School voucher law that says the money follows the Child wherever they go - whether it be a Catholic school, public school, home school, you name it.
6. Make the State of the Union requirement a letter to the congress, and get rid of the press office. Have the president answer the House of Representative’s questions - not the media’s. Again, the British have this one right. Watching the House of Commons on C-Span is hilarious in how the Prime Minister will talk and people will either cheer or jeer.

Wait a minute, is Britain closer than the USA? So sorry, my fellow Yankees. I must side with the kin of my Great-Great-Grandmother of Cornwall. The Brits have it made.

 

[ncjohn]

It can be argued that there really wasn’t a state in the Middle Ages, though there were various civil and ecclesiastical governmental structures, which had a symbiotic relationship without either completely dominating the other.

Really, this is the whole point. There was no individual state at any time, even when the “Holy Roman Empire” existed. It was a constantly-changing series of rulers and boundaries, each with their own agendas. When coupled with an ongoing change of Popes–some strong, some weak, some very upright, others much less so–the “face” of the Church, and the way it was perceived by the people, was constantly changing.

Overall though, the Church tried to compete in a game of social governance, where it was always beholden to the temporal powers and the alliances it could make just to continue to exist at all. It could only “enforce” its wishes when it had a temporal power with enough military might to do so, and as often as not ended up working against its own best interests, i.e. suppressing its strongest supporters, the Jesuits, because they were too much of a thorn in the side of the temporal leaders.

In all, the Church was truly strongest when it simply held the moral strength and holiness it was called to,and to which the people would respond. Any time the Church got involved in the social struggles rather than the spiritual struggles, people got turned off and would stop listening.

And of course once the Reformation hit, all bets were off. The “man in the pew” got so tired of all the inter-faith battles and persecutions that the Enlightenment was a welcome chance to just chuck religion entirely since it no longer held any spiritual answer or any path to God.

I’m sorry, but when the Church strays from leading people to God and tries to get into political governance there are just too many “deals with the devil” that have to be made. Once it starts people recognize that the moral high ground has been lost. And if the Church can’t hold the moral high ground it is no longer serving its primary mission.

It is very clear what happens to the Church when political expediency gets involved, and it is good for neither the Church nor the souls of those being “governed”. They say that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We certainly have plenty of history to show us what happens when the Church gets into governing. It’s a mistake we shouldn’t even be thinking about making again.

 

[Rach620]

Yes. There was definitely something rotten about the “alliance of throne and altar.” My fear is that many of the traditional Catholics on this thread simply want to go back to that instead of taking a deeper look at what a truly Catholic politics might look like.

Definitely. My point is that in the Middle Ages you had two parallel institutions. The complaint of the Reformers was that the Church had its own laws, its own governmental structures, etc., and was competing with the civil governments on their own turf, as it were. I think that contemporary theologians such as Cavanaugh or his teacher Stanley Hauerwas (even though I don’t agree with them 100%), or for that matter philosophers like McIntyre (a friend of Hauerwas and a huge influence on him), and certainly popes such as JPII and BXVI, are all developing concepts of the role of the Church that preserve what was good in this medieval tradition without falling into the trap of resisting the Empire by becoming it.

This is what I’ve been trying to tease out on this thread–I think that ‘a truly Catholic politics,’ as you very rightly called it, is something which we can much more fruitfully pursue and try to understand.

I think that Benedict especially has some fantastic insights into modern culture and politics which deserve attention, and what he is articulating seems to be, to me at least, the most healthy approach to take for the Catholic understanding of the Church’s relationship to the modern nation-state. It can’t be institutionally part of it, but it can try to sanctify its citizens, in the hope of regaining at least some remnant of goodness in it. You’re right in saying that there wasn’t the ‘state,’ especially as we think of it, during the medieval period–even my (incorrectly) using the word shows how thoroughly modern every person’s perception of politics and history is today!

Who’s your professor? Has Plantinga retired?

I think ND is a great university. I applied there for grad school, and as an overall institution I think it would have been much better than Duke (as the Protestant ND history professor George Marsden tried to tell me at the time–though he had had a bad experience at Duke and was biased). Probably studying the Middle Ages instead of the Reformation would have been less traumatic for me, as well. . . . But the particular professor I wanted to study with (David Steinmetz) was at Duke, and my family favored Duke because it was closer.

My professor is David Solomon, he’s also the head of the Center for Ethics and Culture. I was just talking about Plantinga with a group of friends a few days ago…he has either retired, or now only teaches graduate students; I’m not sure which.

I’m looking at graduate school in political theory–Duke has been on my radar because it has concentrations in religion & politics and/or politics & literature. But we’ll see what the next couple of years hold!

 

[ncjohn]

…the most healthy approach to take for the Catholic understanding of the Church’s relationship to the modern nation-state. It can’t be institutionally part of it, but it can try to sanctify its citizens, in the hope of regaining at least some remnant of goodness in it.

Exactly. Well said.

 

[Larry1700]

1. Eliminate the minimum wage and instead require a minimum ratio that every corporation must meet. The ratio would be the compensation in real dollars for the lowest paid employee to the higest paid manager. The dollar amounts must include the cost of EVERYTHING - salaries, benefits, bribes - EVERYTHING. If a corporation wants to pay a CEO a quadrillion dollars, they would have to slide everyone elses salary in order to meet the ratio. If this sounds nuts, compare the ratio in Japan to the ratio in the USA.

I love this idea! It will never happen, but given the opportunity I would definitely vote for it!

 

[freesoulhope]

I love this idea! It will never happen, but given the opportunity I would definitely vote for it!

I do not know what such a system would do for the poor? What are the bennifits? Why would you vote for it?

 

[KathleenElsie]

Would this be a situation that follows the teachings of the Catholic Church or the teachings of pro-choice church leaders? If the country was to be run as a true Catholic theocracy it would be wonderful as far as I am concerned.

If it followed the PC and independent thinkers in the priesthood then it could turn into a nightmare as far as I am concerned.

 

[GreenJeans]

Would this be a situation that follows the teachings of the Catholic Church or the teachings of pro-choice church leaders? If the country was to be run as a true Catholic theocracy it would be wonderful as far as I am concerned.

If it followed the PC and independent thinkers in the priesthood then it could turn into a nightmare as far as I am concerned.

A Catholic theocracy would essentially be a one party government. This would be rule by a self selected group which answered only to themselves. As such, the ambitious and power hungry would simply use the Chruch as their vehicle for personal advancement. The influx and influence of these people would both change the Church and ruin society.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

A CT can’t be any worse than anything today.

 

[GreenJeans]

A CT can’t be any worse than anything today.

I would say it can be much worse. Hitler demonstrated that. I would much rather live under the US system than the Nazi system. Who would choose the Nazis? Who would be indifferent? Why?

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I would say it can be much worse. Hitler demonstrated that. I would much rather live under the US system than the Nazi system. Who would choose the Nazis? Who would be indifferent? Why?

I said it couldn’t be any worse than anything TODAY. Go back and read my line. Besides, how did Hitler get into this? Am I missing something? How about Stalin? Nero? Caligula? Lenin?

What does Nazis have to do with this subject?

We’re not on the same page, I’m afraid.

 

[GreenJeans]

I said it couldn’t be any worse than anything TODAY. Go back and read my line. Besides, how did Hitler get into this? Am I missing something? How about Stalin? Nero? Caligula? Lenin?

What does Nazis have to do with this subject?

We’re not on the same page, I’m afraid.

You did indeed say it couldn’t be worse than anything today. So, allow me to alter course a bit. Do we have any examples of one party government being superior to the current US system? If so, where? Since the Catholic theocracy would be one party government with no accountability, why would we expect it to perform any differently from other one party governments? I’d say it would be much worse than the current US system.