Didymus Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 I know this forum is usually for religious dialogue, but I'm interested in debating over this topic, so to the mods - just kill this thread if it doesn't belong here. There's a [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=57497"]thread[/url] in the Open Mic forum about this topic. I don't see how a representational democracy is [i]not[/i] the best form of government, at least not to western culture. Taking aside the morality and ethics, or lack of either, in our culture today, it seems to me that representational democracy has proven to be a very effective way to govern. Maybe I'm seeing monarchy as being too archaic, but I sure would think it would revert to a feudalistic society where a country would end up with nobility and peasants. I can't really see what benefits a monarch system would have that a direct democracy wouldn't have, at least in a modern, western country. Thank you, Didymus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 Representational Repubic-Democracy, is the best form of goverment, it gives power to the powerless, and breaks the iron-fist of the powerful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 The problem many Catholics have with democracy is its fundamental philosophy. A Catholic believes "non est enim potestas nisi a Deo", "There is no authority except from God"... and thus is drawn to a form of government which they feel best reflects this reality-- and that is monarchy wherein a monarch derives his position from birth and providence, directly from the things which one can attach directly to God. Moreover, when the system is firmly in place and practiced well, the heir to the throne is raised to be a good and just and fair king; moreover, he is taught the traditional values and wisdom of his people and of the ancients and is thus perfectly prepared to rule the kingdom not only based upon the whims of the relatively few citizens who currently happen to be alive, but also based upon the will of those citizens who have long since passed away. That's the ideal... and that's what people want when they say they want monarchy. I would opt for a form of republic in which the people... in the forms of families and towns and local areas... are represented in the government body. This would not exclude a royal family which also holds some role of power. I like this form of government more precisely because it does not rest authority on the basis of the consent of the governed; but on the basis of representation-- and it holds intact a sort of providence through family of birth and place of birth which focuses where the leaders come from. So I support as pure of a Republic as is possible... a Republic which does not necessarily offer direct democratic representation from every individual citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 I think democracy COULD work. But I don't believe so in a non-Catholic nation. I myself am a monarchist, but again in a non-Catholic nation it has it's downfalls. Well I guess for me all forms of government fail in a non-Catholic nation :. But I believe monarchy is the best form of leadership. Not sure if I'll have time to debate it or not though. We'll see. But at this time I am strongly anti-democracy (and anti-socialist for that matter) and also very strongly anti-capitalism which I think goes hand-in-hand with democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardillacid Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1066354' date='Sep 18 2006, 09:54 PM'] Representational Repubic-Democracy, is the best form of goverment, it gives power to the powerless, and breaks the iron-fist of the powerful. [/quote] Democracry can be just as tyrannical as any other government. A shrewd man who's name escapes me at the moment had this to say: [quote]"Democracy only works until people learn they can vote themselves money"[/quote] ah so true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus Posted September 19, 2006 Author Share Posted September 19, 2006 [quote name='Aloysius' post='1066364' date='Sep 18 2006, 10:09 PM'] The problem many Catholics have with democracy is its fundamental philosophy. A Catholic believes "non est enim potestas nisi a Deo", "There is no authority except from God"... and thus is drawn to a form of government which they feel best reflects this reality-- and that is monarchy wherein a monarch derives his position from birth and providence, directly from the things which one can attach directly to God. Moreover, when the system is firmly in place and practiced well, the heir to the throne is raised to be a good and just and fair king; moreover, he is taught the traditional values and wisdom of his people and of the ancients and is thus perfectly prepared to rule the kingdom not only based upon the whims of the relatively few citizens who currently happen to be alive, but also based upon the will of those citizens who have long since passed away. That's the ideal... and that's what people want when they say they want monarchy. [/quote] So I guess my question would be if this is just an ideal people hold or can we see it at some point in the history of a nation? Monarchy seems to have so much room for error. The monarch, or line of succession, could go corrupt. Then the whole nation would be screwed. Wouldn't direct democracy be just as beneficial to Catholics if the majority of the people are of the same mind and heart as Holy Mother Church? [quote name='notardillacid' post='1066369' date='Sep 18 2006, 10:11 PM'] Democracry can be just as tyrannical as any other government. A shrewd man who's name escapes me at the moment had this to say: ah so true [/quote] If your argument is for monarchy, then I should think money would be the last thing you bring up. Direct democracy puts the power in the people. History has proven monarchies to have a higher class of poor people in comparison to direct democracy, where the common man would have a greater control of the state (not to sound Socialist.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 In a monarchy, if the King one day deisides to make himself pope and head of the church, the people have no say so, and the only opitions are to follow the wicked king or make war with him. Repubic-Democracy you have the right to believe whatever you wish, and we're all better off because of it. In a monarchy you must believe what the monarchy believes or you can face death. No King but Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus Posted September 19, 2006 Author Share Posted September 19, 2006 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1066413' date='Sep 18 2006, 10:55 PM'] In a monarchy, if the King one day deisides to make himself pope and head of the church, the people have no say so, and the only opitions are to follow the wicked king or make war with him. Repubic-Democracy you have the right to believe whatever you wish, and we're all better off because of it. In a monarchy you must believe what the monarchy believes or you can face death. No King but Christ. [/quote] Well said, especially with regards to the argument that Catholics do 'best' with a government reflecting the reality of Christ being a king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 KnightofChrist, you describe dictatorship, not monarchy. In a monarchy you do not have to believe what the king believes... and the king ought be taught to believe and defend what your ancestors believed. Popular history of the middle ages leaves out all the good and just kings of old precisely because they do not leave very much interesting history... they rule a time of peace and prosperity for their nation et cetera et cetera... bla bla blah everybody's happy and dancing on unicorns (well, not exactly, but the way history writes it it might as well have been so bland) There is a great margin for error in monarchy, and a great margin for success. Monarchies have produced some of the best governments ever on God's green earth and some of the worst governments (well, actually, no monarch ever even rose to the league of the worst governments; the very worst governors in all of history were always voted in-- Hitler, Mussolini, Hussein, et al... but with modern technology and a monarch's power a bad monarch could probably make it into that league if he was bad enough) Monarchy's better suggest, to a Catholic temperment, the Kingship of Christ because a Catholic, or even a biblical Christian, sees all authority in government as deriving directly and solely from Almighty God as the scriptures say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 (edited) As I said I don't think any government works if it is not Catholic. If there is one I'd like to see it. But I am especially against democracy in a non-Catholic nation because I don't believe the Church allows, or did allow at any rate, non -Catholic opinions to have any say in religious or official circles. A democracy would give any opinion equal weight. Edited September 19, 2006 by goldenchild17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus Posted September 19, 2006 Author Share Posted September 19, 2006 [quote name='goldenchild17' post='1066428' date='Sep 18 2006, 11:08 PM'] As I said I don't think any government works if it is not Catholic. If there is one I'd like to see it. But I am especially against democracy in a non-Catholic nation because I don't believe the Church allows, or did allow at any rate, non -Catholic opinions to have any say in religious or official circles. A democracy would give any opinion equal weight. [/quote] what about a freedom of religion (not by US standards today, where politicians have butchered the defintion of the separation between church and state) A direct democracy could live in accord with Rome even if its members weren't all Catholic [quote name='Aloysius' post='1066425' date='Sep 18 2006, 11:07 PM'] KnightofChrist, you describe dictatorship, not monarchy. In a monarchy you do not have to believe what the king believes... and the king ought be taught to believe and defend what your ancestors believed. Popular history of the middle ages leaves out all the good and just kings of old precisely because they do not leave very much interesting history... they rule a time of peace and prosperity for their nation et cetera et cetera... bla bla blah everybody's happy and dancing on unicorns (well, not exactly, but the way history writes it it might as well have been so bland) There is a great margin for error in monarchy, and a great margin for success. Monarchies have produced some of the best governments ever on God's green earth and some of the worst governments (well, actually, no monarch ever even rose to the league of the worst governments; the very worst governors in all of history were always voted in-- Hitler, Mussolini, Hussein, et al... but with modern technology and a monarch's power a bad monarch could probably make it into that league if he was bad enough) Monarchy's better suggest, to a Catholic temperment, the Kingship of Christ because a Catholic, or even a biblical Christian, sees all authority in government as deriving directly and solely from Almighty God as the scriptures say. [/quote] With that huge margin for both error and success, I would think it would be safest to stay with a direct democracy... Oh, and the worst governments weren't exactly voted in. Most of the famous dictatorships we remember and know today were established through fear and terror, or by making it seem like the dictator had more followers than he actually had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Aloysius' post='1066425' date='Sep 18 2006, 10:07 PM'] KnightofChrist, you describe dictatorship, not monarchy. In a monarchy you do not have to believe what the king believes... and the king ought be taught to believe and defend what your ancestors believed. Popular history of the middle ages leaves out all the good and just kings of old precisely because they do not leave very much interesting history... they rule a time of peace and prosperity for their nation et cetera et cetera... bla bla blah everybody's happy and dancing on unicorns (well, not exactly, but the way history writes it it might as well have been so bland) There is a great margin for error in monarchy, and a great margin for success. Monarchies have produced some of the best governments ever on God's green earth and some of the worst governments (well, actually, no monarch ever even rose to the league of the worst governments; the very worst governors in all of history were always voted in-- Hitler, Mussolini, Hussein, et al... but with modern technology and a monarch's power a bad monarch could probably make it into that league if he was bad enough) Monarchy's better suggest, to a Catholic temperment, the Kingship of Christ because a Catholic, or even a biblical Christian, sees all authority in government as deriving directly and solely from Almighty God as the scriptures say. [/quote] I was thinking of a monarchy system like [u]but not limted[/u] to England, what was it, up and until the 60's or 70s or sometime in the 20th cent. it was still against the law to be a catholic. In monarchy systems there is one state church, and in monarchy systems it always ends up you must go to that church because all other churches are not allowed. And again if the King chooses some other church everyone must go with that church. A monarchy system of goverment is not worth the risk to liberty. With absolute respect, the argument for a monarchy, sounds a little like the argument for the "good ol' days", the good ol days never really where. No monarchy was every really good, not that Repubic-Democracies are the best, but it is better than a monarchy, and Christ's True Kingdom is the best. You bring up a good point, with Hitler and others like him being voted in, I would argue that when that happend it was the rise of a monarchy, and the monarchy killed the Democracy. Now see in happy happy joy joy land, I could trust a King other than Christ, but since that man is not Christ I can not trust him, and I do not respect a man who is not Christ, [u]just because his daddy was king.[/u] It is quite different if I am able to be trusted to [u]choose[/u] my leaders. All of them. I believe the world and the people have "grown up", the people are not stupid, the people do not need one king for life and then his children to run our lifes however nice and undictator like he or she maybe. All power comes from God Almighty and that is true even in a Republic-Democracy, we dont need a King just because his father and his father before him was King for that to be true. Edited September 19, 2006 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 but they did it all through the democratic process what is safest is not always best. that there is a margin for error in monarchies shows that there ought to be safeguards in the monarchy by which the king is unable to do unjust things... as determine by a constitution of some sort... and that there should be some sort of republic in place which keeps the king from being unjust to any town or family, because they are represented in bodies of power, is also a possibility. the potential for good, its margin for success, is far greater than what can be accomplished in a democracy, in my humble opinion... and since I do not merely settle for the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number of people, but wish that the absolute greatest good that can be accomplished by humanity ought to be applied to all people, I do not think we should merely settle for "safe" democracy. but I like the idea of a republic... and perhaps that in the course of time a royal family would arise out of a republican system but still bound by the republican consittuiton of the nation is quite a good option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 [quote name='Didymus' post='1066438' date='Sep 18 2006, 11:26 PM'] what about a freedom of religion (not by US standards today, where politicians have butchered the defintion of the separation between church and state) A direct democracy could live in accord with Rome even if its members weren't all Catholic With that huge margin for both error and success, I would think it would be safest to stay with a direct democracy... [/quote] I believe that freedom of religion, when speaking of a non-Catholic religion, is restricted to a personal private practice. I don't believe freedom of religion in the terms of Church teaching extends to public practice, which would include it's affect on the political process. So while I think it permissable for a non-Catholic to hold their belief (who can force one to believe something other than what they do?) I don't believe it permissable for them to let their faith affect public matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1066447' date='Sep 19 2006, 12:33 AM'] I was thinking of a monarchy system like [u]but not limted[/u] to England, what was it, up and until the 60's or 70s or sometime in the 20th cent. it was still against the law to be a catholic. In monarchy systems there is one state church, and in monarchy systems it always ends up you must go to that church because all other churches are not allowed. And again if the King chooses some other church everyone must go with that church. A monarchy system of goverment is not worth the risk to liberty. With absolute respect, the argument for a monarchy, sounds a little like the argument for the "good ol' days", the good ol days never really where. No monarchy was every really good, not that Repubic-Democracies are the best, but it is better than a monarchy, and Christ's True Kingdom is the best. You bring up a good point, with Hitler and others like him being voted in, I would argue that when that happend it was the rise of a monarchy, and the monarchy killed the Democracy. Now see in happy happy joy joy land, I could trust a King other than Christ, but since that man is not Christ I can not trust him, and I do not respect a man who is not Christ, [u]just because his daddy was king.[/u] It is quite different if I am able to be trusted to [u]choose[/u] my leaders. All of them. I believe the world and the people have "grown up", the people are not stupid, the people do not need one king for life and then his children to run our lifes however nice and undictator like he or she maybe. All power comes from God Almighty and that is true even in a Republic-Democracy, we dont need a King just because his father and his father before him was King for that to be true. [/quote] the majority of monarchies in history have not been dictatorships, and have not had state-churches (this only tended to happen when someone broke off from the Church, as a matter of fact, with the state churches of the east and the anglican church in the west)... the christian kings of christendom ruled over christians... and jews... and others... and did not require all to believe as they believed, nor enforced their beliefs with the sword. Granted, times of violence against infidels, heretics, and schismatics broke out at times (usually sparked democratically, not from the monarchy down), and the state (especially the spanish state, because spain had so long been threated and oppressed as a state by muslims) occasionally enforced the Church's various inquisitions with its power... but very few and far between are events of 'convert to the kings way of thinking or die' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now