Would you prefer to live in a Catholic theocracy?

[rr1213]

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.

Homosexual acts were common in ancient times, indeed such sexual immorality is addressed in Romans and elsewhere in the Scriptures. Often, these acts included pedophilia, as between an older “mentor” and his young apprentice. Abortion was known then as well and was condemned in the Didache. Further, the Greeks of the time, and earlier, were well acquainted with alcohol and opium. And, lastly, the Spartans most definitely engaged in euthanasia, especially of new borns who did not meet their “ideal” standard. So, yes, the words of Scripture are born out again—there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[GreenJeans]

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.

People have a tendency to become corrupt when they have unlimited power and lack any accountability. It has happened so often, that we have learned to avoid it. That’s why I asked for an example of a one party state that is superior to the current US system. There may be many flaws in the US system, but I am not aware of any one party systems that are superior.

The men who run the Church are just as susceptible to this as those who run any other one party state. Everyone is susceptible to it. That’s why many have developed safeguards to keep the one party advocates at bay.

I don’t limit my criticism of one party systems just to a Catholic party, but include everybody - Republicans, Wiccans, Social Democrats, Democrats, Mormons, Communists, libertarians -everybody.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

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,

No one on this thread has advocated imposition of beliefs. Maybe I missed it…can you direct me to the post that advocates imposition?

A CT is not a society with torture chambers, burnings at the stake; secret police; kangaroo courts; let’s get off of that please.

A CT is not a replication of the USSR. It is the opposite. A CT would begin each day with supplication to God for guidance as a whole society. I have no prob with that, at all.

It will outlaw abortions, and homosexual marriages and otjher deviations …I have no prob with that either.

So, tell me, where am I going wrong? What kind of society do you want ME to live in?

 

[johnstown_johnn]

People have a tendency to become corrupt when they have unlimited power and lack any accountability. It has happened so often, that we have learned to avoid it. That’s why I asked for an example of a one party state that is superior to the current US system. There may be many flaws in the US system, but I am not aware of any one party systems that are superior.

The men who run the Church are just as susceptible to this as those who run any other one party state. Everyone is susceptible to it. That’s why many have developed safeguards to keep the one party advocates at bay.

I don’t limit my criticism of one party systems just to a Catholic party, but include everybody - Republicans, Wiccans, Social Democrats, Democrats, Mormons, Communists, libertarians -everybody.

Very magnanimous of you.

“A man who believes in everything believes in nothing.”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I think you are confusing two different meanings of “Separation of Church and State.” The evil kind of “separation of Church and State” or, in other words, separation of truth and state, is what the Church condemns.

The Papacy seems never to have made this distinction - which is not to say it should not be made​

But, she does teach authentic separation where the Church is supreme in the spiritual sphere and the state in the temporal sphere (both are subject to God)–clerics don’t run the temporal affairs of state and the goverment doesn’t control the Church (that’s the heresy of erastism). But they work together in harmony for the common good both in accordance with the law of God.

The last sentence is a good summary of a letter of Gelasius I to the Emperor Anastasius, called [Duo quippe sunt (Milton V. Anastos - 7. The Acacian schism (484-519) and Pope Gelasius Ι (492-96)) - the doctrine contained in it was overtaken by events: which meant that the Papacy became a political power That’s not so much harmony as a one-man band.​

What we have in western Liberal Democracies, like America, is legal positivism. Whereas the government pays no attention to truth and objective morality, but simply creates right and wrong by making laws. It confuses the fact that it is responsible to God because He allows it to have authority over other men, and rather acts only responsible to men.

Churchmen used to govern in the State:​

• Cardinal Wolsey
• Cardinal de Tencin
• Card. Dubois
• Card. Antonelli
• Card. Ximenes

• to name just five. Antonelli was Pio Nono’s Secretary of State, while the Papal States still existed; he had plenty of secular authority. As for Ximenes, he was Regent of Spain after Ferdinand V died, & before Charles V took possession of Spain - now that, is definitely a position with secular power. But is it really a good idea for an ecclesiastic ?

If Ordination conferred some kind of implicit mission to govern in secular affairs, which needed only to be called into commission, once need arose for it to be exercised, it might be a good idea; but it doesn’t. There are two powers, not one - only Christ exercises both. Besides, the Apostles did not rule in secular affairs - they left that to Caesar. Peter didn’t absolve Roman Christians of their subjection to Nero: he let Nero crucify him, & them, instead (see Romans 13 for St. Paul on the subject).

 

[Ace86]

I haven’t read through all the posts because there are too many, but maybe someone should bring up *the **Doctrine *of the Two Swords?

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Homosexual acts were common in ancient times, indeed such sexual immorality is addressed in Romans and elsewhere in the Scriptures. Often, these acts included pedophilia, as between an older “mentor” and his young apprentice. Abortion was known then as well and was condemned in the Didache. Further, the Greeks of the time, and earlier, were well acquainted with alcohol and opium. And, lastly, the Spartans most definitely engaged in euthanasia, especially of new borns who did not meet their “ideal” standard. So, yes, the words of Scripture are born out again—there is nothing new under the sun.

Certainly homosexual ACTS were not uncommon, re: Sodom and Gomarrah.
But tell me, has there ever been a time when homosexuals have presented themselves as a couple before the Altar of God to be spouse and spouse? That is taking it another step forward…a Giant Step.

As for drugs and the Greeks…that was a pagan society an the frequency of use is sketchy, at best.

The Spartans did not perform “euthanasia” as you put forth…it was INFANTICIDE; this is NOT just a play on words. A CT would not sit on its hands and allow such carnage.

 

[ncjohn]

A CT is not a society with torture chambers, burnings at the stake; secret police; kangaroo courts; let’s get off of that please.

A CT is not a replication of the USSR. It is the opposite. A CT would begin each day with supplication to God for guidance as a whole society. I have no prob with that, at all.

The problem is that you have absolutely no way of knowing any such thing. Every time in history that the Church took on secular power it was a disaster. What basis is there to believe that a “Theocracy” would be any different?

A Theocracy implies an elected government, which means that it would be subject to the same types of corruption and temptations to sell one’s soul for reelection that any other “democracy” deals with.

What you describe is a Utopian state that could never exist in the real world. The sins may not be torture chambers, but I cannot believe they would be any less damaging spiritually.
johnstown johnn:

No one on this thread has advocated imposition of beliefs. Maybe I missed it…can you direct me to the post that advocates imposition?

I didn’t say you did. In fact here is what I said in the quote you posted

**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.

I’m not really sure how you are anticipating this government would come into being, or how you would see it being sustained. Or maybe it is really just the random Utopian fantasy that we all indulge in, wishing that the Kingdom really would come “on earth as it is in Heaven.” I know I have asked God more than once why we can’t have that.

I’ll let you know if I ever get an answer, but so far it has just been “My grace is enough for you.”

 

[Franze]

No, I prefer a goverment where the catholicism were the official religion and the catholic moral, guide and the laws must not be against this moral, there were catholic cardinals in the goverment and some there were good like Cardinal Cisneros in Spain or Cardinal Richelieu in France but it´s preferable a good catholic layman in the govement that a cardinal, but of course the catholic moral must be followed.

 

[Greg27]

It depends on what you mean by ‘Catholic theocracy.’ To be honest, I think the Church should keep temporal power (the state) separate from spiritual power, as things like the Inquisition, the Crusades and disasters like the Avignon Papacy and the material corruption of the Church in the medieval times which led to the Reformation, show how dangerous mingling politics and religion can be.

Still, the Church should speak up in political matters, especially where social justice is concerned, but should not have the power to legislate (excepting things such as canon law to regulate the church itself).

 

[mdgspencer]

People have a tendency to become corrupt when they have unlimited power and lack any accountability. It has happened so often, that we have learned to avoid it. That’s why I asked for an example of a one party state that is superior to the current US system. There may be many flaws in the US system, but I am not aware of any one party systems that are superior.

The men who run the Church are just as susceptible to this as those who run any other one party state. Everyone is susceptible to it. That’s why many have developed safeguards to keep the one party advocates at bay.

I don’t limit my criticism of one party systems just to a Catholic party, but include everybody - Republicans, Wiccans, Social Democrats, Democrats, Mormons, Communists, libertarians -everybody.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

It depends on what you mean by ‘Catholic theocracy.’ To be honest, I think the Church should keep temporal power (the state) separate from spiritual power, as things like the Inquisition, the Crusades and disasters like the Avignon Papacy and the material corruption of the Church in the medieval times which led to the Reformation, show how dangerous mingling politics and religion can be.

Still, the Church should speak up in political matters, especially where social justice is concerned, but should not have the power to legislate (excepting things such as canon law to regulate the church itself).

When will get over the Inquisition; the Crusadws; Avignon papacy…give it a rest…SHEEEESH !!

 

[johnstown_johnn]

The problem is that you have absolutely no way of knowing any such thing. Every time in history that the Church took on secular power it was a disaster. What basis is there to believe that a “Theocracy” would be any different?

A Theocracy implies an elected government, which means that it would be subject to the same types of corruption and temptations to sell one’s soul for reelection that any other “democracy” deals with.

What you describe is a Utopian state that could never exist in the real world. The sins may not be torture chambers, but I cannot believe they would be any less damaging spiritually.

I didn’t say you did. In fact here is what I said in the quote you posted I’m not really sure how you are anticipating this government would come into being, or how you would see it being sustained. Or maybe it is really just the random Utopian fantasy that we all indulge in, wishing that the Kingdom really would come “on earth as it is in Heaven.” I know I have asked God more than once why we can’t have that.

I’ll let you know if I ever get an answer, but so far it has just been “My grace is enough for you.”

If you ever get an answer…please , don’t tell me about it !

 

[freesoulhope]

If you ever get an answer…please , don’t tell me about it !

Stop fighting

 

[distracted]

I am responding to another Post of yours, which i can’t find right now… You said some things about the history of the popes and about how they don’t want to do things in a democratic way and have been opposing democracy in this country, etc…

I used to argue with people about these kinds of things… and maybe i should continue 2 do so?? I don’t know… but i have criticisms of my own… i noticed how certain people in the Church seem to like to hold power over others. I think the power that priests have sometimes goes to their heads… they are automatically respected by virtually everyone - even Protestants… Nothing wrong with that per se… they should be (if thye are doing their jobs right)… but if it goes to their heads too much, something is obvfiouisly wrong… and it probably happens more often than people suspect… You know the old saying Absoloute power corrupts absolutely…
I am not happy with a lot of things going on in my Church. I will always be Catholic but not because of the people in the Church - more in SPITE of them. I think a lot of Catholics just blindly follow those in power in the Church. 4 instnace, if there is a problem between a priest and a parishioner, 9 times out of 10, the priest is sided with…
Anyway, i love the Church, but not the arrogant attitudes of some of its members…
One thing i hate about this forum is that people do not want to hear anything negative about the church… and yet if no one talks about the negative stuff, how is progress giong 2b made???
Just because someone criticizes the church doesn’t mean he/she is Anti-Christ… If i was anti-Christ, i wouldn’t go to any church… I wouldn’t waste my time criticizing any of them…
Anyway, one more thing: Do you happen to know anything about John Hus (or Hess)? I would appreciate knowing whatever it is you can tell me… Hopefully you won’t just tell me the stuff that’s not favorable to the Church… because i know that there are many lies and misconceptions agains the Church… Much as i see the problems therein, i do not agree wtih half the things said against Her…
Thanks and God bless… (I also wouldn’t midn knowing something about your spiritual background.)

 

[Crusader1095]

I agree - I would not be comfortable under a Catholic Theocracy. I believe history has proven that such governmental set-ups do not work. I also firmly believe that we have the opportunity to influence culture and need to be willing to stand up for ourselves and our Church, but the best context in which to do so is one that allows for the exercise of free-will.

I understand that my conversion ‘home’ came in God’s time, not mine and not the government’s time…does that make any sense?

This kind of attitude is inimicable to Jesus Christ, as well as grinds against the consensus of all of the Church Fathers, not to mention Pius IX’s syllabus of errors! First of all, how can anyone in their right mind as many have on this list, declare that a Catholic theocracy does not work? Has anyone seen the results of this pernicious “secular democracy”? Religion is down, immorality is up, people openly mock God, and it is becoming harder and harder to save your soul amidst the morass of ridiculous religions that attempt to compete against Our Lord’s Church.

A Holy Catholic State would be an incredible boon to righteousness and the salvation of souls! Who can deny that a greater percentage of souls are saved in a state and culture dominated by Catholicism than the kind of nonsense we have today? I have a feeling that people are putting earthly peace and prosperity ahead of salvation of souls, that is the main problem. We should be prepared to suffer and fight for our faith, and to endure the blood and the guts that are necessary to make Christ the dominant force in culture at the expense of our worldly comforts.

 

[rr1213]

This kind of attitude is inimicable to Jesus Christ, as well as grinds against the consensus of all of the Church Fathers, not to mention Pius IX’s syllabus of errors! First of all, how can anyone in their right mind as many have on this list, declare that a Catholic theocracy does not work? Has anyone seen the results of this pernicious “secular democracy”? Religion is down, immorality is up, people openly mock God, and it is becoming harder and harder to save your soul amidst the morass of ridiculous religions that attempt to compete against Our Lord’s Church.

A Holy Catholic State would be an incredible boon to righteousness and the salvation of souls! Who can deny that a greater percentage of souls are saved in a state and culture dominated by Catholicism than the kind of nonsense we have today? I have a feeling that people are putting earthly peace and prosperity ahead of salvation of souls, that is the main problem. We should be prepared to suffer and fight for our faith, and to endure the blood and the guts that are necessary to make Christ the dominant force in culture at the expense of our worldly comforts.

I am a Protestant. Will I be able to free practice my faith in your Catholic Utopia or are you going to imprison me for preaching the Gospel on the street corners?

 

[Mirdath]

I am a Protestant. Will I be able to free practice my faith in your Catholic Utopia or are you going to imprison me for preaching the Gospel on the street corners?

Given that in this thread our friend posits that infidels and heretics have no right to property or even life, I’d say imprisonment is your best hope in a government run by Crusader.

 

[rr1213]

Oh goody. Well then, let’s bring on the Catholic Tyrann…er, Monarchy! I’m all for it!

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Oh goody. Well then, let’s bring on the Catholic Tyrann…er, Monarchy! I’m all for it!

Absurd.