VOTF

[desertwoman]

I'm protestant and i know that the church structure is not democratic. i know its hard for americans to not democracized things, but the church is not a democracy! When those who make it to heaven see Christ, its not going to be a democracy.

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 2 2005, 07:43 AM']I think that the VOTF is a mixed bag of good intentions and arrogance.
[right][snapback]743585[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

[dspen2005]

their intention is democratizing the church... how is that a good thing?

[Cam42]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Oct 3 2005, 03:27 PM']their intention is democratizing the church... how is that a good thing?
[right][snapback]744709[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It isn't.....and just how many of the Catholic countries of the world are actually democracies?

This is a trick question.....the US is not a democracy, it is a republic which employs the presidential system.

So, this is really all a moot conversation, because their premise is flawed.

What we, as Catholics, ascribe to is the rule of the Holy See, the law is Canon Law. This is separate and distinct from the governance of the City State of Vatican City.

The City state is actually ruled by three men....the Pope, Cardinal Sodano (Secretary of State {equivalent: Prime Minister}) and Cardinal Szoka (Governor of Vatican City State {equivalent: President}) While the monarchy lies with the Pope and he is the absolute ruler, he defers most of the day to day running of the City State to Cardinal Szoka and the governance of the Holy See to Cardinal Sodano.

So, the governance is not all that different from the rule of law we follow. So what is to change? Hmmmm.....oh yeah.....they don't want a single man telling them what they should or should not believe. To bad Christ was a man and the Pope is only his vicar. Who are they really denying? Doesn't that smack of a certain heresy?

[dspen2005]

i'm glad there is another person in the world that knows that the US is not a democracy -- it irks me to hear people speak of the US as a democracy -- even government officials..... this is definitive: --WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC; WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY

[desertwoman]

we were always taught that we were a democratic republic

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='desertwoman' date='Oct 4 2005, 11:03 PM']we were always taught that we were a democratic republic
[right][snapback]746418[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
same dif. as long as republic is in there.


straight democracy is chaotic poison.

[Cam42]

[quote name='desertwoman' date='Oct 4 2005, 11:03 PM']we were always taught that we were a democratic republic
[right][snapback]746418[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There are various forms of democracies:

a. Deliberative democracy
b. Direct democracy
c. Participatory democracy
d. Representative democracy
1. Westminster system
2. Parliamentary system
aa.Consensus government
3. Presidential system (Congressional system)
4. Semi-presidential system
e. Social democracy (also a political movement)

The USA employs the Presidential system (Congressional system). This is by no means what the VOTF is advocating. They are advocating the want "to provide a prayerful voice, attentive to the Spirit, through which the Faithful can actively participate in the governance and guidance of the Catholic Church."

The VOTF advocates that the Church hierarchy can learn much from the Catholic laity.They claim to have intellectual, emotional and spiritual contributions to make and knowledge to impart on myriad real-life issues. These include, but are not limited to: human sexuality, women's rights, democratic processes, and the contextual roles of science and history in the healthy life of the Church.

The question becomes which form of democracy do they want to ascribe to? The US is not a democracy in the sense in which they are advocating, however, it would seem that this is precisely what they are projecting their agenda to promote.

It would seem that by definition, they would want a participatory democracy, which is NOT, I REPEAT NOT, what the US is. It would seem that they are advocating a consensus democracy. This is a flawed method on many levels, however, countries with consensus democracy have stark divisions between language groups and/or religious groups. There is no group that forms a majority: Consensus between the minorities is necessary to govern the country. In these countries minorities have many means to protect themselves against other groups. Only when all minorities agree (when there is consensus) can policy be implemented and laws be made. The model that most resemebles this is Switzerland.

However, it would seem that they also could want a direct democracy. However, this is inherently flawed as well. For a Direct democracy comprises a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein all citizens can directly participate in the political decision-making process. Some proposed systems would give people both legislative and executive powers, but most extant systems allow input into the legislative process only.

Direct democracy in its traditional form is rule by the people through referenda. The people are given the right to pass laws, veto laws and withdraw support from a representative (if the system has representatives) at any time. Modern direct democracy is characterized by three notions:

Initiative
Referendum including binding referenda
Recall

To a lesser degree, depending on the local circumstances, some communities in the US may conform closely, although not perfectly to this ideal. This is often thought to be a misnomer though, because for the most part only one-time majorities are required (simple majority of those voting) to approve any of these components. And this is not a tennable action in a direct democracy, by defintion.

The problem with a pure democracy is that majority rule would limit the freedom of the people. This was forseen by the framers of the Constitution (several HUNDRED years ago!!!!) and James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 advocates a republic over "pure democracy" precisely to protect the individual from will of the majority.

The term "pure democracy" is sometimes used as a synonym for "direct democracy," however majority power in a direct democracy may be limited by a constitution.

So, now that we have had a civics lesson, which I am not very good at, we can see that there are flaws inherent in what is going on here. Democratic governments are not the best way to go. On the level of the Church, it is impossible, because the Church is not guided by the people, but rather GUIDES the people. The absolute ruler of the Vatican City State is not only a monarch, but also the Servant of Servants of God. He is merely a Vicar, and not a ruler, on that level. On an Earthly level, yes, he is a ruler, however, on an ecclesiastical level, he is simply a voice and advocate of the truth that is put forth that the people must follow, including himself.

If we are to give the rule to the people, the Church is undermined by her people. I think that following the lead of James Madison is not a bad thing.

Here is what Madison says under the pseudonym Publius....

[quote]First, removing the causes that provoke the development of factions, he contends can be accomplished in two ways. One, the elimination of liberty, he rejects as unacceptable, and the other, creating a society homogenous in opinion and interest, he sees as impractical because causes of faction, among them variant economic interests, are inherent in a free society. Madison comes to the conclusion that the damage caused by faction can be limited not by removing the causes of faction, but by "controlling its effects."

Madison notes that the principle of popular sovereignty should prevent minority factions from gaining power. Majority faction is then the problem; again, he offers two ways to prevent them. One can prevent the "existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time," or alternately one can render a majority faction unable to act. From this point Madison concludes that a small democracy cannot avoid majority faction. Small size means that common passions are likely to form among a majority of the people, and democracy means that the majority can always enforce its will.

A republic, Madison writes, differs from a democracy in that its government is delegated to representatives and, as a result of this, it can be extended over a larger area. Regarding the first difference, Madison contends that a large republic will elect better delegates than a small one. In a large republic, the number of citizens to a representative will be greater, and people will thus elect the best out of a larger sample of people, resulting in better government. Each representative being chosen from a larger constituency also, in Madison's view, means that "vicious arts" of electioneering will be less effective.

The larger populations and areas a republic is able to cover also motivate in favor of that form of government. Madison believes that larger societies will have a greater variety of diverse parties and interest groups, which in competition will be less likely to yield a majority faction. This is a general application of the principle of checks and balances central to the American constitutional system. In conclusion, Madison emphasizes that the greater size of the Union will allow for more effective governments than were the states to remain more independent.[/quote]

If this is applied in the circumstance of the governance of the Church, we can see the flaw of the VOTF quite obviously.

[photosynthesis]

Cam is so smart my head hurts.

[dspen2005]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Oct 4 2005, 11:17 PM']same dif.  as long as republic is in there.
straight democracy is chaotic poison.
[right][snapback]746428[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

it was the scourge of civilization according to Plato

[dspen2005]

democracy also rests the moral decisions and positions of a nation upon mere opinion -- when this happens, the moral objectivity is lost since it is replaced by the subective understanding of ethics and law. God and His Law are not subjective entities in and of themselves, nor are they so in the practice and assent to them. rather they are objective realities that are materialized through, for us, Faith and Belief.

[Cam42]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Oct 5 2005, 07:10 AM']Cam is so smart my head hurts.
[right][snapback]746652[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

mine too......

[Didacus]

I never heard of them, but reading through this post, I think I learned everything I need to know. Thanks you for the info.

there is so much good things to read and educate one's self about, that I won't bother learning about this group.



Back to St. Thomas Aquinas for me.


God bless...

[jmjtina]

Voice of the [i]faithful[/i]?

they must have a different definition of the word faithful than I have.