Monarchy Vs. Some Sort Of Democracy

[friendofJPII]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1398444' date='Oct 6 2007, 02:04 PM']That's cool. We just have differing opinions. I consider all non-Catholic religions to be very injurious to the common good. Not that some non-Catholics aren't good people. I know a lot of good people who aren't Catholic, but if I had a say in anything (and many people are glad I don't ) I would not allow any non-Catholic ideas in a public forum (not meaning message board though that would be included. Forum meaning any public setting).[/quote]


Although I firmly believe that the Catholic Church is the one true religion. I believe God works through everyone, and everyone takes part in the divine life to a certain degree just by being human. I'm not a big fan of "bubble theology"..where we all (orthodox Catholics) huddle together and try to create a Catholic utopia among ourselves. As JP II said, we need to go out and proclaim Christ "in the marketplace..."

Edited October 6, 2007 by friendofJPII

[Lena]

democracy, without a doubt. but, there are flaws in every system.

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1398448' date='Oct 6 2007, 03:11 PM']Although I firmly believe that the Catholic Church is the one true religion. I believe God works through everyone, and everyone takes part in the divine life to a certain degree just by being human. I'm not a big fan of "bubble theology"..where we all (orthodox Catholics) huddle together and try to create a Catholic utopia among ourselves. As JP II said, we need to go out and proclaim Christ "in the marketplace..."[/quote]

nicely said, I agree.

Edited October 6, 2007 by Lena

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1398443' date='Oct 6 2007, 01:58 PM']Talk about big government! I think it would extremely dangerous to give the government that much control, ppl need to be free to choose, only then will their faith have any depth.[/quote]

I would never advocate forced conversions. People can live whatever faith they want in their private lives, but I would not allow them to influence public decisions based on a false religion.

Anyways, this really is a different topic, and one that has beaten done before on the forum so no point in getting into it here.

[friendofJPII]

what about the right to free speech?

[goldenchild17]

It is a right in America, but as I said before in other threads I'm not convinced it is a right that is completely allowable under Catholic teaching. I don't believe a full right to free speech should be allowed. I don't believe anyone has a right to believe false things and I don't believe anyone has a right to preach false things. They are able to do so in their private lives because no conversion is true if it is forced, so there is no reason to make people convert. But it should not be allowed for people to infect other people with false ideas.

[friendofJPII]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1398566' date='Oct 6 2007, 06:09 PM']It is a right in America, but as I said before in other threads I'm not convinced it is a right that is completely allowable under Catholic teaching. I don't believe a full right to free speech should be allowed. I don't believe anyone has a right to believe false things and I don't believe anyone has a right to preach false things. They are able to do so in their private lives because no conversion is true if it is forced, so there is no reason to make people convert. But it should not be allowed for people to infect other people with false ideas.[/quote]


Sounds like mind control/rather cultish to me. I believe our country has the right to uphold decency standards and control overtly lewd, crass, and pornographic media, but to say that one can never voice an opinion which contradicts Catholic Church teaching is going too far. If one is not able to engage in honest debate, they will not be free to choose the faith.

Edited October 6, 2007 by friendofJPII

[goldenchild17]

It may sound like that, but the Church has never allowed free rein of error. I'm sure you've heard of the Index of forbidden books?

Also, separation of Church and State (which is a founding principle of the United States) is an error which Pope Pius IX condemned in his Syllabus of Errors.

"55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. (CONDEMNED)"


Also from the Syllabus:

"77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855. (CONDEMNED)"

"78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. (CONDEMNED)"

"79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856. (CONDEMNED)"

Some other stuff not from the Syllabus.

And so from this rotten source of indifferentism flows that absurd and erroneous opinion, or rather insanity, that liberty of conscience must be claimed and defended for anyone. —Pope Gregory XVI

For surely you know, Venerable Brothers, not a few are found who, applying the impious and absurd principles of naturalism, as they call it, to civil society, dare to teach that the "best plan for public society and civil progress absolutely requires that human society be established and governed with no regard to religion, as if it did not exist, or at least, without making distinction between the true and the false religions." —Pope Pius IX

And also, contrary to the teaching of Sacred Scripture, of the Church, and of the most holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that the "best condition of society is the one in which there is no acknowledgment by the government of the duty of restraining, by established penalties, offenders of the Catholic religion, except insofar as the public peace demands." —Pope Pius IX

And, from this wholly false idea of social organization they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor of recent memory, Gregory XVI, insanity; namely that "liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society; that the right of all manner of liberty rests in the citizens, not to be restrained either by ecclesiastical or civil authority; and that by this right they can manifest openly and publicly and declare their own concepts, whatever they may be, by voice, by print, or in any other way." —Pope Pius IX


For me it logically follows that if Catholicism is the only religion that can be openly professed and supported in public policy then this automatically places a strong restraint on free speech and freedom of the press as they would not be allowed to publish anything in contradiction to Catholicism. This is as far as I would take that limitation. Anything that is beyond the bounds of Catholicism should be free for discussion and belief. But when it involves the truth, no freedom should be supported. Because error has no rights with God.

[friendofJPII]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1398583' date='Oct 6 2007, 06:46 PM']It may sound like that, but the Church has never allowed free rein of error. I'm sure you've heard of the Index of forbidden books?

Also, separation of Church and State (which is a founding principle of the United States) is an error which Pope Pius IX condemned in his Syllabus of Errors.

"55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. (CONDEMNED)"
Also from the Syllabus:

"77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855. (CONDEMNED)"

"78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. (CONDEMNED)"

"79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856. (CONDEMNED)"

Some other stuff not from the Syllabus.

And so from this rotten source of indifferentism flows that absurd and erroneous opinion, or rather insanity, that liberty of conscience must be claimed and defended for anyone. —Pope Gregory XVI

For surely you know, Venerable Brothers, not a few are found who, applying the impious and absurd principles of naturalism, as they call it, to civil society, dare to teach that the "best plan for public society and civil progress absolutely requires that human society be established and governed with no regard to religion, as if it did not exist, or at least, without making distinction between the true and the false religions." —Pope Pius IX

And also, contrary to the teaching of Sacred Scripture, of the Church, and of the most holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that the "best condition of society is the one in which there is no acknowledgment by the government of the duty of restraining, by established penalties, offenders of the Catholic religion, except insofar as the public peace demands." —Pope Pius IX

And, from this wholly false idea of social organization they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor of recent memory, Gregory XVI, insanity; namely that "liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society; that the right of all manner of liberty rests in the citizens, not to be restrained either by ecclesiastical or civil authority; and that by this right they can manifest openly and publicly and declare their own concepts, whatever they may be, by voice, by print, or in any other way." —Pope Pius IX
For me it logically follows that if Catholicism is the only religion that can be openly professed and supported in public policy then this automatically places a strong restraint on free speech and freedom of the press as they would not be allowed to publish anything in contradiction to Catholicism. This is as far as I would take that limitation. Anything that is beyond the bounds of Catholicism should be free for discussion and belief. But when it involves the truth, no freedom should be supported. Because error has no rights with God.[/quote]


Was the Pope speaking ExCathadra?

[adt6247]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1398443' date='Oct 6 2007, 03:58 PM']Talk about big government! I think it would extremely dangerous to give the government that much control, ppl need to be free to choose, only then will their faith have any depth.[/quote]
You confuse size with power. I would not want forced conversions, but just the very restrictions I've mentioned: no tax exempt status, and no possibility of holding political office or hereditary title. That's far from draconian. Members of the royal family in the UK lose their birthright, under law, if they even marry a Catholic. Nothing wrong with that, it's an Anglican nation.

[adt6247]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1398560' date='Oct 6 2007, 08:06 PM']what about the right to free speech?[/quote]
It's a modernist concept, stemming from the enlightenment. If the speech is against the public good in a Catholic government, the government has the right to suppress it, for the good of souls. Pornographers, blasphemers, riot-mongers hide behind free speech.

[adt6247]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1398311' date='Oct 6 2007, 09:49 AM']Yes, but is it the government's job to ensure/promote salvation for its citizens? I would say no, such is the job of the Church, although the government does have an obligation to uphold the basic tenets of the natural law. I believe a monarchy would create more scandal among the ppl at least in this very cynical day of age. If the ppl disliked an action the government passed, or if the king fell into sin, the citizens might develop hostile feelings towards the Church and the faith itself.[/quote]
Yes, because our politicians are so squeaky clean and free of corruption. A Catholic government should be concerned with the salvation of souls. As I said in my earlier post, a noble should lose his birthright if he apostatizes or becomes a formal heretic. The pope has the authority to remove a monarch from power -- he's done it before -- for grave sin or the needs of a nation. The pope has even forced the change of dynasties in France from the Merovingians to the Caroligninas.

Regardless, Catholic teaching dictates that whatever the form of government, it should confess Christ as its sovereign King of the land. Being an officially Catholic nation is a good thing. If you disagree, you go against the church.

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1398311' date='Oct 6 2007, 09:49 AM']Furthermore, while some issues are moral absolutes (like abortion) there are some issues, like the extent of taxation and illegal immigration, which are debatable, and should be debated in the public square. While we can trust the magesterium to be correct in matters of faith and morals, we can not assume that they will never make a poor decision in the day to day. Let's face it, people don't like be told what to do or have legislation passed on them w/o their consent. As beautiful and as necessary as our faith is, it must be freely chosen.[/quote]
Most people only disagree in concept, but not in practice. Do people pay attention to every intrusive law that is passed? No. Frankly, fewer laws should be passed, fewer policy changes should be made. A monarchy would give them this. Also, there are hybrid monarchical governments, like what the UK has, but they tend, in the long run, to be just as bloated and intrusive as full republics, because the people perpetually want more power, more government programs... people smell of elderberries at voting for things that will affect good in the long term.

[adt6247]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1398735' date='Oct 7 2007, 07:58 AM']Was the Pope speaking ExCathadra?[/quote]
No, but when the Pope can make statements that are in and of themselves infallible without speaking [i]ex cathedra[/i]. He cannot teach heresy. Cannot. Impossible. And when his statements, like the above, are merely echoes of the church's unchanging teaching and sacred tradition, then that falls under the authority of the magisterium. If you disagree with such statements, then you disagree with the church teaching for the entirety of the middle ages and rennaisance.

[friendofJPII]

Do you honestly think our Church leaders are in any position to run a government? We are so divided, the bishops are not even united when it comes to basic Catholic teaching. We need to get our own house in order and preach the truth from the pulpit.

[i]It's a modernist concept, stemming from the enlightenment. If the speech is against the public good in a Catholic government, the government has the right to suppress it, for the good of souls. Pornographers, blasphemers, riot-mongers hide behind free speech[/i]

I am all for decency standards, like I said. If I had to name one entity that is causing the most harm to souls in the present day of age, it would be the content of secular TV/movies. But limiting the total right to the free exchange of ideas and honest debate seems rather stifling. How can one embrace a worldview without first hearing both sides? Also would everything that is immoral be illegal in your Catholic monarchy? Are we going to put people in jail for fornicating? getting pg out of wedlock?

I think the democratic-republic system that our founding fathers devised is a good system, wherein a general belief in God is recognized, Judeo-Christian values supported, where the natural law is upheld, where people are free to worship as they choose, and the free exchange of ideas is encouraged. And we have to remember that most of the moral chaos we have experienced in our society over the past 50 years have been the result of a tyrannical court system that has been given way more power than our founding fathers intended. I trust in the ppl's ability to self-govern if their consciences are well-formed...the natural law is written on the human heart.

Edited October 7, 2007 by friendofJPII

[friendofJPII]

[i] I would not want forced conversions, but just the very restrictions I've mentioned: no tax exempt status, and no possibility of holding political office or hereditary title[/i]

It seems that if such restrictions are in place, very few non-Catholics would want to live there, which will lead to a very religiously segregated society. Refusing to grant Protestant Churches tax expempt status seems rather manipulative/cohersive to me. Non-Catholics would be treated as second-class citizens, more or less, which contradicts the Catholic philosophy of respect for the human person. And since some ethnic groups have a relatively low Catholic population (Black, Chinese, Arabic, Indian, etc. it would most likely be a racially segregated society as well, which is not the best climate for evagalization, imo. By living in a diverse culture like the the US, we have the opportunity to evangalize ppl of all creeds and ethnic groups. If we all remain in our own camps, how will we evangalize the masses?

Edited October 7, 2007 by friendofJPII

[adt6247]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1398795' date='Oct 7 2007, 12:15 PM'][i] I would not want forced conversions, but just the very restrictions I've mentioned: no tax exempt status, and no possibility of holding political office or hereditary title[/i]

It seems that if such restrictions are in place, very few non-Catholics would want to live there, which will lead to a very religiously segregated society. Refusing to grant Protestant Churches tax expempt status seems rather manipulative/cohersive to me. Non-Catholics would be treated as second-class citizens, more or less, which contradicts the Catholic philosophy of respect for the human person. And since some ethnic groups have a relatively low Catholic population (Black, Chinese, Arabic, Indian, etc. it would most likely be a racially segregated society as well, which is not the best climate for evagalization, imo. By living in a diverse culture like the the US, we have the opportunity to evangalize ppl of all creeds and ethnic groups. If we all remain in our own camps, how will we evangalize the masses?[/quote]
If I were in a Catholic nation, having very few protestants and the like would be a good thing. A righteous government would care about the souls of its people, and thus it would not want to encourage any of them to become heretics or apostates. It isn't a contradiction of the respect for the human person. The church would be given an honorary place, exempting it from taxes. It would be against the public good to have non-Catholics rule them.

The only thing important in life is getting to heaven. Why would we want to encourage paths that would likely lead one to hell?

As far as evangelizing to the masses -- that's what missions are for!