Monarchy Vs. Some Sort Of Democracy

[adt6247]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1398756' date='Oct 7 2007, 10:41 AM']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.[/quote]
I never said anything about Church leaders being in government. Clergy cannot hold public office -- it's a violation of canon law! The church should provide an additional check for government to keep it from getting out of line. For example, if a politician voted to legalize for abortion, he could be excommunicated, and thus automatically removed from office. If a bishop were to excommunicate a politician for unjust reasons, the politician can appeal to Rome to have it reversed.

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1398756' date='Oct 7 2007, 10:41 AM']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?[/quote]
No, not all morality should be legislated, but big stuff should be. Fornication should be grounds for, at least, a fine. It is a serious sin and scandalous offense, and it involves inflicting harm on others. I never said anything about honest debate, but there are already restrictions on speech in our government. Treason, for instance. Why should blasphemy be treated any differently than treason, in a nation who confesses Christ as its sovereign?

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1398756' date='Oct 7 2007, 10:41 AM']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.[/quote]
The founders were a bunch of blood-thirsty anti-Catholic Freemasons. Many of them, such as Jefferson and Franklin, cared not at all for Judeo/Christian values. Jefferson denounced Christianity as evil. And the chaos we experience now is every bit as much a result of the usurpment of power by the executive branch since the war of northern aggression.

Why would you trust in the peoples' ability to self-govern on matters greater than their own town? Many of the founding father's didn't. The fact is, their consciences are NOT well formed. They are selfish, short-sighted, fickle, and uneducated in politics. This 'self-government' has lead to abominations such as welfare, social security, public education, abortion (even before Roe v. Wade in many states, by legislation not judicial [i]fiat[/i]), farm subsidies, corporate welfare, etc.

In order to be a virtuous republic, the majority of its citizens must be not only virtuous, but excellent judges of character, and very well educated. No such requirements of a monarchy.

[ardillacid]

Anarchy Forever!

[hyperdulia again]

I'm a monarchist.

I would like to point out that democracy and monarchy are not mutually exclusive. Some Monarchies (all of the ones in present-day Europe, except Monaco and the Vatican, for instance). (I'm not a fan of democracy though.)

[friendofJPII]

[i]Fornication should be grounds for, at least, a fine.[/i]

How you would prove it? The only way to ultimately prove fornication would to either catch the couple in the act/and or a confirm a pregnancy ---which might tempt women to back-alley abortions. Otherwise, you would be reley on heresay, which could quickly turn into a witchunt and the "scarlet letter" saga. Brandishing law will not necessarily procure a conversion of heart.

Edited October 9, 2007 by friendofJPII

[friendofJPII]

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


There are some people who would never talk to a missionary, or a member of the clergy. The day-to-day witness of the ordinary lay peson is so very powerful. I thank God each and every day for my Protestant friends, I could not be the Catholic I am today without them. Like I said in earlier posts, they were the ones who first evangalized me. Do I pray that they will convert? Do I try to educate them on the necessisty and beauty of the Catholic Church? yes! do I invite them to adoration and Catholic events? I certainly do!! But above all, I am their friend, and I try to love them with the love of Christ. If they do not ultimately convert, then I entrust them to the mercy of Christ. If they do not have full knowledge that the CC is the one true Church and they loved God with all their heart the best they could, I believe there is a very good chance that they will be saved. I can't say for sure, b/c I'm not God, but I trust in his mercy....

Edited October 9, 2007 by friendofJPII

[friendofJPII]

[quote name='adt6247' date='Oct 8 2007, 05:14 PM' post='1399500']
[i]I never said anything about Church leaders being in government. Clergy cannot hold public office -- it's a violation of canon law! The church should provide an additional check for government to keep it from getting out of line. For example, if a politician voted to legalize for abortion, he could be excommunicated, and thus automatically removed from office. If a bishop were to excommunicate a politician for unjust reasons, the politician can appeal to Rome to have it reversed.[/i]


If the bishops are in charge of appointing government officials they are "running the show" more or less. Thank you very much, but I would not want Cardinal (I won't say his name but it rhymes with bologna) appointing my leaders!

Edited October 9, 2007 by friendofJPII

[kenrockthefirst]

A few quotes about Democracy:

[i]The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. ~Winston Churchill

No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. ~Abraham Lincoln

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time. ~Winston Churchill

Democracy is a government where you can say what you think even if you don't think. ~Author Unknown

The most important political office is that of the private citizen. ~Louis Brandeis

For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery. ~Jonathan Swift, The Drapier's Letter

Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they've told you what you think it is you want to hear. ~Alan Coren

Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage. ~H.L. Mencken[/i]

[adt6247]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1399583' date='Oct 8 2007, 10:14 PM']If the bishops are in charge of appointing government officials they are "running the show" more or less. Thank you very much, but I would not want Cardinal (I won't say his name but it rhymes with bologna) appointing my leaders![/quote]
Can you actually attack things I write, as opposed to fabrications from your own prejudices? I tire of the straw man you erect with my name on in which you beat.

I never said ANYTHING about the bishops appointing politicians. The pope oversees coronations of kings -- it's been that way for over a thousand years! He can, and has in a small number of occasions in the past, changed dynastic rule or refused to raise an heir to the throne -- in GRAVE circumstances. Monarchy is determined by heredity. Democratic/republican governments are determined by election. Papal ceremonial oversight over confessional states' head of state would not change this. A bishop would merely have the ability to excommunicate, and thus REMOVE from power. I think it would be a positive thing if said cardinal could remove a certain governator from power...

[adt6247]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1399564' date='Oct 8 2007, 09:41 PM'][i]Fornication should be grounds for, at least, a fine.[/i]

How you would prove it? The only way to ultimately prove fornication would to either catch the couple in the act/and or a confirm a pregnancy ---which might tempt women to back-alley abortions. Otherwise, you would be reley on heresay, which could quickly turn into a witchunt and the "scarlet letter" saga. Brandishing law will not necessarily procure a conversion of heart.[/quote]
Eyewitness or pregnancy outside of wedlock. Hearsay is weak evidence.

The "scarlet letter" thing happened in a non-Catholic society. The goal in the enforcement of the law is not conversion of heart, it is the discouragement of behavior that is harmful to society. Should we take murder and theft off the books because these laws aren't converting hearts? Of course not. I'd rather a small number of risky and seedy back-alley abortions rather than the 4000 per day that go on today. I'd also want abortion to be treated as first-degree murder -- give 25-life for the crime to all involved -- mother, father, abortionist, driver, any other co-conspirators, etc.

[friendofJPII]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1399827' date='Oct 9 2007, 09:24 AM']Eyewitness or pregnancy outside of wedlock. Hearsay is weak evidence.

The "scarlet letter" thing happened in a non-Catholic society. The goal in the enforcement of the law is not conversion of heart, it is the discouragement of behavior that is harmful to society. Should we take murder and theft off the books because these laws aren't converting hearts? Of course not. I'd rather a small number of risky and seedy back-alley abortions rather than the 4000 per day that go on today. I'd also want abortion to be treated as first-degree murder -- give 25-life for the crime to all involved -- mother, father, abortionist, driver, any other co-conspirators, etc.[/quote]


I agree that abortion should be illegal, because it falls under our manslaughter laws. However, fornication, while it is a grevious sin, I don't believe should be illegal, because it would be impossible to prosecute without subjecting others to public scorn. Remember Jesus and the woman caught in adultrey...he did not want her prosecuted but warned her to "sin no more..." The government during the time of Jesus was corrupt also, but he did not spend his time trying to change governmental systems, instead he worked on changing hearts...not that we shouldn't work to influence change, but we must also realize we will never create a Catholic utopia this side of heaven. Even if a Catholic monarchial system would be the ideal form of governing (and I am not convinced it would be), it's not going to happen any time soon; thus we should use our time and resources and right to free speech to influence change in our current system. "Bloom where you are planted!" Despite all our flaws, we still live in a great nation.



**I debate you in peace, I hope there are no hostile feelings.

God Bless You,

JP

Edited October 9, 2007 by friendofJPII

[friendofJPII]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1399825' date='Oct 9 2007, 09:18 AM']Can you actually attack things I write, as opposed to fabrications from your own prejudices? I tire of the straw man you erect with my name on in which you beat.

I never said ANYTHING about the bishops appointing politicians. The pope oversees coronations of kings -- it's been that way for over a thousand years! He can, and has in a small number of occasions in the past, changed dynastic rule or refused to raise an heir to the throne -- in GRAVE circumstances. Monarchy is determined by heredity. Democratic/republican governments are determined by election. Papal ceremonial oversight over confessional states' head of state would not change this. A bishop would merely have the ability to excommunicate, and thus REMOVE from power. I think it would be a positive thing if said cardinal could remove a certain governator from power...[/quote]


who do you think he would replace him with? He has openly shown support for the Democratic party.

[adt6247]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1399571' date='Oct 8 2007, 09:54 PM']As far as evangelizing to the masses -- that's what missions are for!
There are some people who would never talk to a missionary, or a member of the clergy. The day-to-day witness of the ordinary lay peson is so very powerful. I thank God each and every day for my Protestant friends, I could not be the Catholic I am today without them. Like I said in earlier posts, they were the ones who first evangalized me. Do I pray that they will convert? Do I try to educate them on the necessisty and beauty of the Catholic Church? yes! do I invite them to adoration and Catholic events? I certainly do!! But above all, I am their friend, and I try to love them with the love of Christ. If they do not ultimately convert, then I entrust them to the mercy of Christ. If they do not have full knowledge that the CC is the one true Church and they loved God with all their heart the best they could, I believe there is a very good chance that they will be saved. I can't say for sure, b/c I'm not God, but I trust in his mercy....[/quote]
That's all fine and good for those, like us, that live in a state that is not Catholic. There will always be nations like this. However, that's not ideal. Ideally, you would have been in a Catholic nation, and your Catholic friends would have converted you.

[adt6247]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1399848' date='Oct 9 2007, 11:55 AM']who do you think he would replace him with? He has openly shown support for the Democratic party.[/quote]
Have you actually read what I wrote? I said that the bishop would have [i][b]NO AUTHORITY TO REPLACE HIM[/b][/i], just to remove him via excommunication. He would be replaced by the democratic process. If it were a monarchy, and there were no legitimate heir, it would fall to the pope to choose another family for the dynasty.

[adt6247]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1399834' date='Oct 9 2007, 11:39 AM']I agree that abortion should be illegal, because it falls under our manslaughter laws. However, fornication, while it is a grevious sin, I don't believe should be illegal, because it would be impossible to prosecute without subjecting others to public scorn. Remember Jesus and the woman caught in adultrey...he did not want her prosecuted but warned her to "sin no more..." The government during the time of Jesus was corrupt also, but he did not spend his time trying to change governmental systems, instead he worked on changing hearts...not that we shouldn't work to influence change, but we must also realize we will never create a Catholic utopia this side of heaven.[/quote]
Christ said nothing about her prosecution, he wished her not to be slain. I wouldn't give the death penalty for fornication. Public scorn of sin is a GOOD thing. It will keep people in line. Fornication is against the public good, and thus should be regulated.

[friendofJPII]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1399881' date='Oct 9 2007, 10:31 AM']Christ said nothing about her prosecution, he wished her not to be slain. I wouldn't give the death penalty for fornication. Public scorn of sin is a GOOD thing. It will keep people in line. Fornication is against the public good, and thus should be regulated.[/quote]

Her prosecution would have resulted in death. She obviously was already prosecuted and found guilty, that's why they were stoning her. Would the death penatly be enforced in your Catholic monarchy? If so, for what crimes? Please don't tell me you are for burning at the stake....?

Edited October 9, 2007 by friendofJPII