Would you prefer to live in a Catholic theocracy?

[Rach620]

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

It’s debatable that it wouldn’t be any worse than any government today.

But it certainly would be worse for **the Church **and our **faith **if the institutional Church were in political power than it is today. I think this is the argument that should force every Catholic to oppose the formation of a modern-day Catholic theocracy.

Obtaining the power of the modern state is not compatible with the preservation of the wholeness of Catholicism, which safeguards the truth above all else. That power will inevitably corrupt the Church; it has in the past–why would it not do the same today?

 

[John_Higgins]

When Popes had temporal power, very few of them showed they could handle both the Church leadership and temporal leadership. While I admire Pope Benedict, I don’t want to see him head up anything else but the Catholic Church.

John

 

[cmcgrath22]

This has got to be one of the most interesting ideas ive considered in a long time. I would love to see what a catholic theocracy would look like today. I don’t think that looking at medieval Europe can be used as an example as some may suggest as it most certainly was not a theocracy in practice.

 

[rr1213]

I’ve got an idea. Why don’t we first compel all current Catholic politicians to support and advocate the policies of the Church? You know, Ted Kennedy, Pelosi, Guliani, etc? We could concentrate on forcing them to oppose abortion on demand --perhaps by denying them the Eucharist for opposing Church policies or, maybe, excomunicating them. You know, if they don’t toe the Church line we could threaten them with hell or something. Why don’t we take that approach first and determine whether: (i) such a mild version of theocracy is accepted by the citizens, let alone apostate Catholic politicians and (ii) such an approach is effective to change peoples’ world view.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

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.

In today’s terms the U.S. system has gravitated to all sorts of inequalities and have a Fifth Column operative the ACLU threatening lawsuits against any religious symbols such as Christmas trees and now, even the Easter bunny.

Political Correctness destabilizes the American society because PC is a capricious set of principles changing from one day to the next. Relativism is the specter of today’s society. No absolutes, no truthes.

A Catholic Theocracy is a one-size-fits all for a willing social structure embraced by its citizens.within its own borders.

This doesn’t mean secularism will cease, it will, but within ITS own borders. If there was an Open Immigration policy I would migrate to the CT… …no more ACLU, no infanticide; no pornography, gay marriages, families would be intact, etc., etc.

Think about it…since you mentioned murderous tyrants such as Hitler, and I added Stalin…both of these were secularists and Godless tyrants and not products of a Catholic mindset.they are antithethetical to the Catholic mind, heart and soul.

What puzzles me is how were you able to equate these heinous monsters with a Catholic Theocracy? It’s insulting.

 

[rr1213]

Think about it…since you mentioned murderous tyrants such as Hitler, and I added Stalin…both of these were secularists and Godless tyrants and not products of a Catholic mindset.they are antithethetical to the Catholic mind, heart and soul.

What puzzles me is how were you able to equate these heinous monsters with a Catholic Theocracy? It’s insulting.

All tyrannical and detrimental to human liberty. Just a matter of degree.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

All tyrannical and detrimental to human liberty. Just a matter of degree.

So, you’re labelling a CT as a possible tyrannical society? Over the centuries the Faith had produced many, many heroes for Christ, too numerous to mention…the most recent, for her works of charity in Jesus’ name, was Mother Teresa of Calcutta. She was a product of a Catholic foundation.

That, in my mind, is a clue of what a CT would produce…certainly NOT a Hitler or a Stalin. I wish there was a CT that is where I would have all my mail forwarded to.

 

[rr1213]

So, you’re labelling a CT as a possible tyrannical society?

No, a Catholic Theocracy wouldn’t be a possible tyrannical society, it would be a guaranteed tyrannical society.

 

[ncjohn]

That, in my mind, is a clue of what a CT would produce…certainly NOT a Hitler or a Stalin. I wish there was a CT that is where I would have all my mail forwarded to.

If you really believe that, you probably need to go back and do even a superficial study of Church history. We had Popes authorizing things against non-Catholics, and sometimes even Catholics who had the audacity to disagree on something, that in torture terms would make Hitler and Stalin take notice.

Termporal power corrupts. Period. It doesn’t matter whose hands it’s in.

Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Lord Acton

 

[johnstown_johnn]

If you really believe that, you probably need to go back and do even a superficial study of Church history. We had Popes authorizing things against non-Catholics, and sometimes even Catholics who had the audacity to disagree on something, that in torture terms would make Hitler and Stalin take notice.

Termporal power corrupts. Period. It doesn’t matter whose hands it’s in.

Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Lord Acton

Can’t reason with someone who is locked in the Middle Ages. Bye!

 

[johnstown_johnn]

If you really believe that, you probably need to go back and do even a superficial study of Church history. We had Popes authorizing things against non-Catholics, and [sometimes even Catholics who had the audacity to disagree on something, that in torture terms would make Hitler and Stalin take notice.]

Termporal power corrupts. Period. It doesn’t matter whose hands it’s in.

Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Lord Acton

Balderdash !

 

[ncjohn]

Can’t reason with someone who is locked in the Middle Ages. Bye!

And can’t reason with someone without a knowledge of history. If you think it’s balderdash, you have some serious reading to catch up on.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

And can’t reason with someone without a knowledge of history. If you think it’s balderdash, you have some serious reading to catch up on.

You have some serious catching up to the 21st Century.

The sins of today are so outrageous and offensive we can expect a Chastisement. Your history is just that…history Centuries ago. The sins then do not approach the modern day sins. Don’t need to go through a laundry list, do I? Mankind never knew the twists and turns of evil as we today are confronted with.

Balderdash to the anachronistic fingerpointing…it has no place in today’s world. And, one more time: Balderdash !

 

[Contarini]

If you really believe that, you probably need to go back and do even a superficial study of Church history. We had Popes authorizing things against non-Catholics, and sometimes even Catholics who had the audacity to disagree on something, that in torture terms would make Hitler and Stalin take notice.

I disagree. The worst actions authorized by the Papacy had far too many limitations and regulations to interest Hitler or Stalin.

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

The sins of today are so outrageous and offensive we can expect a Chastisement. Your history is just that…history Centuries ago. The sins then do not approach the modern day sins.

Nonsense. “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done there is nothing new under the sun.” (Eccles. 1:9, RSV).

 

[Contarini]

Balderdash !

Balderdash isn’t an argument.

Lord Acton’s statement appears to me to be a fairly obvious corollary of the doctrine of Original Sin.

Mind you, the Church never has had absolute power. The Middle Ages were hardly a theocracy in that sense.

Edwin

 

[ncjohn]

johnstown johnn:

Balderdash to the anachronistic fingerpointing…it has no place in today’s world.

While the Middle Ages do indeed make for interesting reading, one need not go back nearly that far to find very good indications of what a Church-ruled government might look like.

Consider for iinstance Paul IV in the 1600’s with his “list of forbidden books” and his inquisition that makes Abu Ghraib look like amateur hour. In fact, he even managed to execute the brother of a cardinal he accused of heresy “by proxy” when the cardinal was acquitted.

Or maybe Pius IX, in the 1800’s, who made clear that he felt that the use of force to compel belief was a perfectly acceptable idea.

Or maybe we don’t even need the use of force to make the idea unpalatalbe. The Church has been steadfastly opposed to the entire concept of “democracy”, with it’s free speech and lack of control by the Church, since it’s inception. Into the 1900’s the Church was condemning American democracy. I’m sure the last thing in the world the Church would want is a Church democracy that might then lead people into then thinking that we get to “vote” on matters of doctrine also.

And quite frankly, I am more than certain that they are greatly dismayed by the techological revolution that allows us to sit back in cyberspace pointing fingers at their every foible, second guessing every decision made as if the Church itself is a democracy.

Maybe you think that human nature has changed and that people in power won’t abuse that power if their positions are threatened. A very long history of popes shows otherwise. And the thought that Catholic Theocracy, would not produce an equally-corrupt governing organization, prone to suppression of anything that didn’t agree with their ideas, seems totally ludicrous to me.

You are certainly welcome to disagree with my belief that it would never work, human nature being what it is. To ignore the facts and history however, and consider them “irrelevant”, seem to me to be more than just burying one’s head in the sand. I’m not omniscient, and maybe the Holy Spirit would come down and make a governmental body pure and infallible… History sure doesn’t support any such idea though. And one need not go back in histroy at all to see Church-run government run amok; one need only take a look at Iran in the modern day to see how “freedom” and “progress” work when the ruling body is worried that those things threaten its “religion” and its control of the people.

If you want to find and live in one, by all means go for it. Please don’t try to impose it on me though.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

While the Middle Ages do indeed make for interesting reading, one need not go back nearly that far to find very good indications of what a Church-ruled government might look like.

Consider for iinstance Paul IV in the 1600’s with his “list of forbidden books” and his inquisition that makes Abu Ghraib look like amateur hour. In fact, he even managed to execute the brother of a cardinal he accused of heresy “by proxy” when the cardinal was acquitted.

Or maybe Pius IX, in the 1800’s, who made clear that he felt that the use of force to compel belief was a perfectly acceptable idea.

Or maybe we don’t even need the use of force to make the idea unpalatalbe. The Church has been steadfastly opposed to the entire concept of “democracy”, with it’s free speech and lack of control by the Church, since it’s inception. Into the 1900’s the Church was condemning American democracy. I’m sure the last thing in the world the Church would want is a Church democracy that might then lead people into then thinking that we get to “vote” on matters of doctrine also.

And quite frankly, I am more than certain that they are greatly dismayed by the techological revolution that allows us to sit back in cyberspace pointing fingers at their every foible, second guessing every decision made as if the Church itself is a democracy.

Maybe you think that human nature has changed and that people in power won’t abuse that power if their positions are threatened. A very long history of popes shows otherwise. And the thought that Catholic Theocracy, would not produce an equally-corrupt governing organization, prone to suppression of anything that didn’t agree with their ideas, seems totally ludicrous to me.

You are certainly welcome to disagree with my belief that it would never work, human nature being what it is. To ignore the facts and history however, and consider them “irrelevant”, seem to me to be more than just burying one’s head in the sand. I’m not omniscient, and maybe the Holy Spirit would come down and make a governmental body pure and infallible… History sure doesn’t support any such idea though. And one need not go back in histroy at all to see Church-run government run amok; one need only take a look at Iran in the modern day to see how “freedom” and “progress” work when the ruling body is worried that those things threaten its “religion” and its control of the people.

If you want to find and live in one, by all means go for it. Please don’t try to impose it on me though.

The question of this thread is would you prefer to live in a Catholic Theocracy?

My answer is a resounding, “YES.” The question is not if it should be imposed.

A CT social structure allows for free will and is not suggested that sin will no longer exist. A CT would be a beacon to have God in our thoughts freely and not, as in society today, outlaw the knowledge of God. The world today desperately needs God like no other time in mankind.

And, NO, this thread is not suggesting to IMPOSE a CT on anyone…it merely asks the question of what do YOU prefer…nothing more; nothing less.

Live where you want…

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Nonsense. “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done there is nothing new under the sun.” (Eccles. 1:9, RSV).

Homosexual “marriage” is a phenomena that is akin to society at this point in time…it never was thought of before.

Partial birth abortions are quite modern.

Drug culture is another.

Surrogate motherhood; sperm banks; cloning; euthanasia; Terry Shiavo comes to mind;

No, maybe there is “nothing new under the Sun”, but it comes in a new and different wrapper with some surprises.

 

[ncjohn]

The question of this thread is would you prefer to live in a Catholic Theocracy?

My answer is a resounding, “YES.” The question is not if it should be imposed.

A CT social structure allows for free will and is not suggested that sin will no longer exist. A CT would be a beacon to have God in our thoughts freely and not, as in society today, outlaw the knowledge of God. The world today desperately needs God like no other time in mankind.

And, NO, this thread is not suggesting to IMPOSE a CT on anyone…it merely asks the question of what do YOU prefer…nothing more; nothing less.

Live where you want…

Yes, I understand fully the point of the thread. And why history has shown that it would almost surely not give you what you would like to see, or correct the problems you note.

My point all along is that the Church’s call is to lead people to God, to lead them to the place where they can hear His still, small voice. To teach us how to be “in the world but not of the world.” If they were to accomplish that goal, we would be models of the gospel and would be attracting disciples wherever we went, as happened in the early Church. It would also make us better and more informed citizens regardless of the governmental structure we were to live under.

Our society does not “outlaw the knowledge of God” or prevent us from thinking about God in any way we choose, nor can any society do so, though it may make the knowledge difficult to come by or discuss openly. We have the freedom to envision God in any way we choose. The only freedom we don’t have is to try to coerce others into believing exactly as we do.

If you believe that we should be able to impose our beliefs on others by the force of a Catholic government, then I guess we really do have a basic disagreement as Jesus certainly never advocated any such thing. If on the other hand you just believe that society could be better, and more in tune with God’s will, I think we’re in full agreement and are just considering different ways to accomplish that.

Peace,