Democracy and Catholicism

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 10 2005, 08:52 PM']no you're putting words in my mouth.  why don't you come up with a position here and we'll see if we agree? 

authority is from God, that's all I'm saying.  anyone in authority has that authority because of God, not because of the people.
[right][snapback]681218[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'd be inclined to say that people like HItler and Stalin have no legitimate authority. To simply say that any one who comes to power in any way has God-given authority which must be respected seems to me wrong.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Aug 10 2005, 09:41 PM']I'd be inclined to say that people like HItler and Stalin have no legitimate authority.  To simply say that any one who comes to power in any way has God-given authority which must be respected seems to me wrong.
[right][snapback]681272[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I dont think he means that God personally picks out each ruler, and gives them a throne. He is simply pointing out that those who rule, can only rule because God is the supreme ruler first. Such as we can love, because God loved first. We do not get our ability to love from anyone else. Love can be abused though, and so can authority. But it is because God has authority over all creation, that a member of creation can have any authority.

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Aug 10 2005, 10:01 PM']I dont think he means that God personally picks out each ruler, and gives them a throne. He is simply pointing out that those who rule, can only rule because God is the supreme ruler first. Such as we can love, because God loved first. We do not get our ability to love from anyone else. Love can be abused though, and so can authority. But it is because God has authority over all creation, that a member of creation can have any authority.
[right][snapback]681296[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Then this whole discussion becomes largely meaningless. Technically speaking, people can't exist or do ANYTHING (good or bad) without God's power.

Edited August 11, 2005 by Socrates

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Aug 10 2005, 10:07 PM']Then this whole discussion becomes largely meaningless.  Technically speaking, people can't exist or do ANYTHING (ggod or bad) without God's power.
[right][snapback]681303[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Which, sorry if i am mistaken, is the whole point. The whole notion that authority comes from the people is just taking God out of the picture.

[Aloysius]

thank you fidei defensor. that's what I meant.

yes, that discussion was largely meaningless. I simply pointed out the flaw in the idealogy behind democracy.

[Era Might]

[quote]Which, sorry if i am mistaken, is the whole point. The whole notion that authority comes from the people is just taking God out of the picture. [/quote]

Not necessarily.

The American concept "of the People, for the People, by the People" rests on an accepted premise, that this nation will govern itself through the consent of the People.

This is similar to the process of papal election. It was, at one time, governed by the consent of the local Church of Rome. Today, it is governed by a limited college of Cardinals. The democratic method, however, was not "flawed", because it was the accepted premise through which the Church operated.

In the same way, America has consciously embraced a democratic order of civil society. Election and authority comes, in a certain sense, from the people, because this is how our nation has chosen to conduct itself. Our political leaders still wield authority from God, but have willingly submitted themselves to the American order of civil affairs, which makes them subject to the people.

The administration of the divine right of rulers varies. In a monarchy, the rules for succession were not uniform. In a democracy, divine authority is wielded by civil leaders, but that authority is distributed by the people. This protocol succeeds the monarchial laws of succession, which were not divinely instituted, but were nevertheless binding, because that is how society chose to function.

An authentic Christian democracy still acknowledges the supremacy of God, and the authority he has given to our leaders. But it willingly channels that authority through the common consent of the people, so that the tyranny of one man does not strangle the common good.

Even so, the will of the people is not absolute, for they too are subject to the divine law, which is communicated through the Church. In a healthy Christian democracy, the Church would be acknowledged as the true religion, and a deference would be shown to its moral faith, while at the same time preserving a legitimate separation of Church and State in their respective domains of competence.

Edited August 11, 2005 by Era Might

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 10 2005, 10:45 PM']Not necessarily.

The American concept "of the People, for the People, by the People" rests on an accepted premise, that this nation will govern itself through the consent of the People.

This is similar to the process of papal election. It was, at one time, governed by the consent of the local Church of Rome. Today, it is governed by a limited college of Cardinals. The democratic method, however, was not "flawed", because it was the accepted premise through which the Church operated.

In the same way, America has consciously embraced a democratic order of civil society. Election and authority comes, in a certain sense, from the people, because this is how our nation has chosen to conduct itself. Our political leaders still wield authority from God, but have willingly submitted themselves to the American order of civil affairs, which makes them subject to the people.

The administration of the divine right of rulers varies. In a monarchy, the rules for succession were not uniform. In a democracy, divine authority is wielded by civil leaders, but that authority is distributed by the people. This protocol succeeds the monarchial laws of succession, which were not divinely instituted, but were nevertheless binding, because that is how society chose to function.

An authentic Christian democracy still acknowledges the supremacy of God, and the authority he has given to our leaders. But it willingly channels that authority through the common consent of the people, so that the tyranny of one man does not strangle the common good.

Even so, the will of the people is not absolute, for they too are subject to the divine law, which is communicated through the Church. In a healthy Christian democracy, the Church would be acknowledged as the true religion, and a deference would be shown to its moral faith, while at the same time preserving a legitimate separation of Church and State in their respective domains of competence.
[right][snapback]681336[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Which is the proper example of limited authority from the people, which is the proper form of democracy.

[Era Might]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Aug 10 2005, 11:57 PM']Which is the proper example of limited authority from the people, which is the proper form of democracy.
[right][snapback]681350[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, but even in America, the people do not have "unlimited authority". They are subject to the SCOTUS and, ultimately, the Constitution.

This can be a blessing or a curse. The SCOTUS is not elected, and so it can become a functional tyrant, while at the same time, clear thinking Americans can be subject to the erroneous will of the majority.

This is why, in a democratic Christendom, the role of the Church will be so important. It will allow the free exchange of legitimate ideas, while upholding immutable truths against tyrants, whether the people or the politicians. The Church is the ultimate "check and balances".

Edited August 11, 2005 by Era Might