Democracy in the Church

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Jul 11 2005, 01:40 AM']why not have all catholics vote on what is right and what is wrong
[right][snapback]639157[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Because that would be against the universal teaching of the Church regarding relativism and the nature of truth. The Church correctly regards the truth, which concerns matters of right and wrong, as an absolute and not something that changes with the times and public opinion. Public opinion changes. The personal opinions of Catholics change. Truth does not.

[Ash Wednesday]

Throwing this out here -- I've written something about it in my blog but this seems to tie in with what I was thinking. It's more of my musings regarding less of the historical and theological argument, and more of the practical standpoint regarding structure, authority and dissent in the Church.

I think "democracy" and "decentralization" within the Church -- why it would not work, and is an unrealistic goal, is exhibited in the problems that we are seeing with Islam and its relationship with the West today.

I see a lot of radical, violent Islamic fundamentalism (that many would insist is not true Islam) because they feel threatened by many things -- but most of all, they feel threatened by secularization. Their source of authority, as far as I can tell, being the Koran, is subject to dissenters and multiple interpretations and eventually, undermined to the point of chaos. (The same could be said for fundamentalist, sola scriptura Christianity -- Fred Phelps, anyone?) It seems that because of this, the message of what the religion stands for from an "official" standpoint is confused and perhaps misunderstood on a very large and alarming scale. One has to wonder if in Islam they had a more distinct core of leaders and heirarchy, and a series of councils to draw from throughout history, there would be clearer solidification and understanding of what the religion stood for, especially as far as the West is concerned. You wouldn't have multiple leaders speaking and contradicting each other in the name of Islam like they are now.

In a sense, one could say that Al-Qaeda are "dissenters" from Islam, and other Muslims that do not hold these same beliefs pay the price for it through public retaliation. Should one wonder why the Church regards dissent like she does? There is such thing as collegiality and dialogue in the Church, and Catholics will discuss and disagree on smaller matters and whatnot. But there comes a point where a line is drawn and there are certain things that are definitive teachings and not subject to question. With the "democracy model" all definition and lines drawn are thrown out the window -- as I mentioned before -- public opinion changes. Truth does not.

So in my humble opinion, a religion with a decentralized structure and subject to democratic, "multiple interpretations" loses a clear message and becomes split between something that disappears into wishy-washy and secularized new-age indifferentism, or violent and fundamentalized.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jul 10 2005, 10:15 PM']Since James Carroll is criticizing, I wonder if he could defend a position that the "power structure" of the Boston Globe is any more democratic than the Catholic Church.  Was he hired by a majority vote of the Boston Globe subscribers?  Is he leading by his own example?  Probably not.  As long as the anti-Catholic propoganda soothes the ears of those who want to hear it, the flagrant hypocrisy of the author probably doesn't matter much.

It's always easier to criticize others.  Heaven forbid we look in the mirror every now and then.
[right][snapback]638960[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Does the Boston Globe dictate all his views to him?

Is he allowed to seek employment at another newspaper?

Is the Boston Globe suppose to belong to him?

I'm afraid yours is a poor analogy. the situations are not comparable.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='peach_cube' date='Jul 10 2005, 10:49 PM']And why do you think that they lost the right to vote (both laymen and religious)?

I am sure Mr. Carrol needs a history lesson.
[right][snapback]639014[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE

The pope desired complete power and control. Some even claimed that they had the power and authority to appoint and depose civil rulers.

One even claimed that he was automatically made a saint on becoming pope. I think some Catholics still believe that !

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 10 2005, 10:53 PM']As I'm sure you are aware, three quotations are not proof.
[right][snapback]639022[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Perhaps you would like to research the historical development of Pauline Christianity and find what the first political structures were. For example, who were the first leaders of the communities, when were bishops first appointed, when did they gain authority outside of their communities, when did control in the western church become centered in the bishop of Rome and why. When did the pope begin to claim infallibility? When did he begin to claim that he as the same as God on earth?

I think much of this is now available on the web. If not, you friendly librarian can assist you in your search.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 11 2005, 12:25 AM']

And incidentally, just because something has an imprimatur doesn't mean that it is a definitive teaching source.  It is simply free from doctrinal error.


[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Thank you for admitting that!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Jul 11 2005, 01:40 AM']why not have all catholics vote on what is right and what is wrong
[right][snapback]639157[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

For the same reason that they don't vote on the laws of physics.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 11 2005, 04:32 AM']RESPONSE:

Perhaps you would like to research the historical development of  Pauline Christianity and find what the first political structures were. For example, who were the first leaders of the communities,  when were bishops first appointed, when did they gain authority outside of their communities, when did control in the western church become centered in the bishop of Rome and why. When did the pope begin to claim infallibility? When did he begin to claim that he as the same as God on earth?

I think much of this is now available on the web. If not, you friendly librarian can assist you in your search.
[right][snapback]639215[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
LittleLes,

It is a good thing that you put the word "RESPONSE" in your posts, because otherwise no one would know that you have responded. You have made an assertion, and you still haven't backed that assertion up with any evidence. Simply posting quotations from other individuals isn't proof. Please show from Pope Leo's writings that what you have asserted is the case, or accept defeat. So far you have proved nothing.

Blessings to you,
Todd

[Didacus]

I've only read part of this thread.. for what it's worth, my points:

1. The church is democratic in a certain way since the pope is elected by the college of cardinals.

2. LittleLes, you haven't even tried to present an initial statement that holds any kind of water.

3. People who believe the church should be democratic in the sense that the US or Canada is democratic are those who believe the that the sum of all humans desires and perspective can outway that of God himself - THEY DON'T... ask your friend Lucifer about his personal experiences regarding this concept.

4. The church definately should not be democratic.... I don't have to look to scriptures to know, I don't need God to tell me or send me an angel or reveltaion... common sense is in itself plenty.

5. trust the papa...


Good luck now...

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 11 2005, 07:15 AM']Does the Boston Globe dictate all his views to him?[/quote]
Not that this is relevant to the analogy, but this "freedom" of a op/ed columnist is probably the equivalent of the freedom of a Catholic bishop. The bishop still has freedom in his views outside of established dogmas and doctrines. Claiming that the Church "dictates all its views" is a gross exageration.

Regarding the Globe "dictating" to Carroll, I suspect that if Carroll wrote anything against the mission of the Globe (e.g. something overtly pro-Catholic), the owner of the Globe would be sure that Carroll was soon looking for another job.

Do democracy's institutions dictate to its citizens? In the democracy in which I live, there is a pile of "views" that the government dictates to me without my input. For example, was "Roe vs. Wade" enacted through a democratic vote? I don't recall getting my voter registration for making Supreme Court decisions. Hmmm...

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 11 2005, 07:15 AM']Is he allowed to seek employment at another newspaper?[/quote]
Is a Catholic allowed to abandon the Faith? Yes.

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 11 2005, 07:15 AM']Is the Boston Globe suppose to belong to him?[/quote]
Again, how is this relevant to the analogy?

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 11 2005, 07:15 AM']I'm afraid yours is a poor analogy. the situations are not comparable.[right][snapback]639207[/snapback][/right][/quote]
I'm afraid yours is an attempt at grasping at straws.

The main point of my analogy: The Boston Globe is [u]not [/u]organized democratically. It is autocratic. Let me change a few words in the op-ed you quoted:
[quote]"Here is the lesson: A power structure that is accountable only to itself will always end by abusing the powerless. Even then, it will, paternalistically, ask to be trusted to repair the damage. Never again. Not only the discredited [b]James Carroll [/b]must go, in other words, but the whole system that produced him. Full democratic reform is the [b]Boston Globes's [/b]only hope. If we can take the [b]printed editions of the Globe [/b]in hand, we can take the [b]Boston Globe Company [/b]in hand, too."[/quote]
How many times have yellow journalists like the New York Times (coincidentally, the New York Times owns the Boston Globe) abused their power and "paternalistically asked to be trusted to repair the damage"?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 11 2005, 07:34 AM']RESPONSE:

For the same reason that they don't vote on the laws of physics.
[right][snapback]639217[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Hold on. Does this mean that the local university physics department isn't a democracy? The laws of physics don't change based on a majority vote of physics professors and students? Oh, no! More tyranny!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 11 2005, 07:21 AM']LittleLes,

It is a good thing that you put the word "RESPONSE" in your posts, because otherwise no one would know that you have responded.  You have made an assertion, and you still haven't backed that assertion up with any evidence.  Simply posting quotations from other individuals isn't proof.  Please show from Pope Leo's writings that what you have asserted is the case, or accept defeat.  So far you have proved nothing.

Blessings to you,
Todd
[right][snapback]639226[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Aren't Catholics taught the basics of Church history? Evidently an erroneous assuption on my part. Mea culpa!

For those who have not been, I'd recommend "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" 3rd edition, by Fr. Thomas Bokkenkoter. It's in paperback. The reason I like the 3rd edition, is that the author has added a very extensive bibliography for each section of his book which makes crossreferencing or further reading easy.

But to make it even easier, let me give an overview of the development of leatership in the early Pauline Church.

1. Paul first emphasized that the Holy Spirit was given to the whole church (not just its leadership). (See Paul's early epistles).

2. He emphasized gifts and charisms, and leadership was exercised collectively by a group of elders.

3. Later prysbeters were appointed and finally we see the introduction of bishops ("overseers"). (See Paul to Titus, especially chapter 5, probably written by one of Paul's disciples).

4. But by the end of the 2nd century a hierachy of deacons, then bishops, then priests had developed.

5. As time went on a "monarchical episcopy" evolved claiming direct succession from the apostles, but this usually cannot be proven since what few records exist were written as claims to authority much after the fact.

6. But it was Constantine, at the time a nonChristian, who really established the present form of the Church.

(a) First he ourlawed persecution of Christians in his famous Edict of Milan, 313 A.D.

(b) He recognized the clergy as a distinct social class and gave them special privileges. Later on they were proscribed special dress.

© He paid them out of state funds.

(d) He gave a large measure of civil authority to the bishops.

Thus the clergy ("kleros") were set apart from the people ("laos"), the rulers, and the ruled. Curiously, though, Constantine exercised nearly direct control of the Church but still was only baptized on his deathbed.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Jul 11 2005, 02:28 AM']Because that would be against the universal teaching of the Church regarding relativism and the nature of truth. The Church correctly regards the truth, which concerns matters of right and wrong, as an absolute and not something that changes with the times and public opinion. Public opinion changes. The personal opinions of Catholics change. Truth does not.
[right][snapback]639172[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Of course Catholic moral teachings change. In past posts I've given a number of examples. The easiest of course and one of the best documented is the reversl of the Church's traditional teaching on the biblical and natural law moral legitimacy of slavery.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jul 11 2005, 07:38 AM']I've only read part of this thread..  for what it's worth, my points:

1. The church is democratic in a certain way since the pope is elected by the college of cardinals.

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

And who appoints the cardinals from among favored bishops?

[LittleLes]

Here is the lesson: A power structure that is accountable only to itself will always end by abusing the powerless. Even then, it will, paternalistically, ask to be trusted to repair the damage. Never again. Not only the discredited James Carroll must go, in other words, but the whole system that produced him. Full democratic reform is the Boston Globes's only hope. If we can take the printed editions of the Globe in hand, we can take the Boston Globe Company in hand, too."

RESPONSE:

I think Mr. Carroll was writng about the Catholic Church. He was not defending the Boston Globe. That would be an entirely different argument and not related to democracy in the church (or in America for that matter).