Monarchy Vs. Some Sort Of Democracy

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1398795' date='Oct 7 2007, 12:15 PM']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.[/quote]
It's easy to see the establishment of a Catholic government as "segregation" through modern eyes because we Americans live in a culture that values free expression of religion from a nonsectarian government. However, when a government establishes a religious identity, it begins to develop an important quality lacking in American culture--unity.

The U.S. Constitution requires that the American government allow free exercise of all religions. At the same time, it cannot give preference to any religious group. Therefore, it is indeed constitutional to exempt all religious groups from paying taxes. If a government is Catholic, it would be silly to offer tax exemptions to non-Catholic groups. That is, in a way, encouraging & edorsing these groups. If a Catholic government truly has reverence for the human person, it would want what is best for the souls of its people and it wouldn't endorse groups that are dedicated to spreading error.

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1398795' date='Oct 7 2007, 12:15 PM']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]
I could see how you would think this. The idea of diversity as a moral good has been spoon-fed to most of us from an early age. But a diverse country is no more 'fertile' than any other country when it comes to the great "Harvest" of souls. I, too, want to see every person, every culture and every nation embrace the Christian life and become part of Holy Mother Church. And I owe a lot of my conversion to the witness of good, faithful Protestants a the liberal college I went to. But I see that as God working wonders in the midst of an imperfect environment, and I owe my conversion to Him most of all. When a nation establishes itself as Catholic, and upholds the Catholic faith in all areas of culture, it gives God more to work with. God would probably do many more wonderful things in our world if only we "invited" Him into the workings of society. Look at the Golden Age of Spain. It produced the works of Victoria, De Lassus, Morales, El Greco, Velasquez, St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila. Will America ever know that kind of greatness? Maybe. God can do anything. But it's far more likely when we as a culture establish ourselves under the Social Reign of Christ the King.

[adt6247]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1399892' date='Oct 9 2007, 01:01 PM']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....?[/quote]
But Christ didn't object to her guilt, only her punishment. And she was not being prosecuted, she was going to be executed by a mob. There's a big difference.

As is current in Catholic teaching, the state has the right to use capital punishment as a means of enforcement of law. It would be up to the state to decide whether capital punishment is prudent. The current catechism teaches, however, that in a wealthy society with the means to put people in jail for life, capital punishment may not be the most prudent course of action.

Personally, I would wish to see an end to capital punishments in nations like ours. In third world nations, there is little choice, as they do not have the means to imprison for life.

Burning at the stake was never a prominent punishment in Catholic nations, outside, perhaps, the Spanish inquisition for a short time. Why, again, do you continue to assume what went wrong in crazy puritan societies would also happen in a Catholic one? Death by hanging, lethal injection, or firing squad is much more humane.

[kenrockthefirst]

Here's my problem with what you're describing, ADT: it's not monarchy, but theocracy. That's what Iran has, that's what Afghanistan had. Yes, there's a big difference between states based on Christianity and states based on Islam. But the bottom line is that you're getting into thought control with either, which isn't just morally wrong, IMHO, but also pointless. Christianity needs to "win" in the "marketplace of ideas." If we simply force someone to go through the motions of belief, what's the point? And just for clarity, I'm not talking about legal issues having to do with crime and punishment, but about religious belief, i.e. only allowing Catholicism, state sponsorship of Catholicism, whatever. Indeed, I believe that the Church would be far better off not being "entangled" in any way with State. As Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." We as individual Catholics are to be salt and light, but only in terms of living out the Gospel, not through the power of the State.

[adt6247]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1399925' date='Oct 9 2007, 03:03 PM']Here's my problem with what you're describing, ADT: it's not monarchy, but theocracy. That's what Iran has, that's what Afghanistan had. Yes, there's a big difference between states based on Christianity and states based on Islam. But the bottom line is that you're getting into thought control with either, which isn't just morally wrong, IMHO, but also pointless. Christianity needs to "win" in the "marketplace of ideas." If we simply force someone to go through the motions of belief, what's the point? And just for clarity, I'm not talking about legal issues having to do with crime and punishment, but about religious belief, i.e. only allowing Catholicism, state sponsorship of Catholicism, whatever. Indeed, I believe that the Church would be far better off not being "entangled" in any way with State. As Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." We as individual Catholics are to be salt and light, but only in terms of living out the Gospel, not through the power of the State.[/quote]
So, you're saying that all of Christendom was bad? You're saying that Austria, Hungary, Gaul, the Holy Roman Empire, and nearly every nation in Europe pre-reformation was a bad form of government? You would condemn Bl. Charlemagne, St. (Good King) Wenceslas, the Hapsberg dynasty, Louis IX?

Where in Catholic teaching does it say that Christianity should with in the "marketplace of ideas"? No where. It's never been taught. What has been taught instead: "Error has no rights." All teaching contrary to Catholic teaching is error. And error has no right.

And again, I stated that members of other religions could live in a Catholic nation, they just would not be able to hold any political office, and their "churches" would have to pay the same taxes as other private citizens.

[friendofJPII]

Scripture just says "the Pharasises brought to Jesus a woman who was caught in the act of adultery..." we don't really know what went on beforehand, if there was some sort of trial before stoning or not. However, if Jesus didn't want her stoned, he prob didn't want her prosecuted, because stoning was the penalty according to the law. In any event, he didn't want her to live in shame.

Personally, I would wish to see an end to capital punishments in nations like ours. In third world nations, there is little choice, as they do not have the means to imprison for life. [/i]

I totally agree, nicely said.

Re: burning at the stake. Hopefully, it wouldn't happen in a Catholic monarchy established today. Nevertheless the blood shed and strife experienced by both Catholics and Protestants (and which continues today in N. Ireland) after the Reformation was very unfortunate. There is no reason why we cannot live side by side in peace.

Edited October 9, 2007 by friendofJPII

[adt6247]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1399940' date='Oct 9 2007, 03:23 PM']Hopefully, it wouldn't happen in a Catholic monarchy established today. Nevertheless the blood shed and strife experienced by both Catholics and Protestants (and which continues today in N. Ireland) after the Reformation was very unfortunate. There is no reason we cannot live side by side in peace.[/quote]
It still does -- in Malta, capital punishment is the penalty for murder, child abuse, rape, etc. It's a tiny country that does not have an extensive prison system, nor much crime. It is a just Catholic nation.

Again, it comes down largely to resources of the nation.

[friendofJPII]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1399934' date='Oct 9 2007, 01:14 PM']So, you're saying that all of Christendom was bad? You're saying that Austria, Hungary, Gaul, the Holy Roman Empire, and nearly every nation in Europe pre-reformation was a bad form of government? You would condemn Bl. Charlemagne, St. (Good King) Wenceslas, the Hapsberg dynasty, Louis IX?

Where in Catholic teaching does it say that Christianity should with in the "marketplace of ideas"? No where. It's never been taught. What has been taught instead: "Error has no rights." All teaching contrary to Catholic teaching is error. And error has no right.

And again, I stated that members of other religions could live in a Catholic nation, they just would not be able to hold any political office, and their "churches" would have to pay the same taxes as other private citizens.[/quote]


are you sure you'd be happy in a Catholic monarchy, ad? Considering how much you like to debate? Personally, I find exclusively Catholic enviroments stifling and boring if I am emersed in them for too long. Everyone's calling is different... I like interacting with the real world.

I just read up a little on Malta [url="http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71395.htm"]http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71395.htm[/url] and though the CC is the official religion, it is not as restrictive as the government you propose.

[son_of_angels]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1399925' date='Oct 9 2007, 02:03 PM']Here's my problem with what you're describing, ADT: it's not monarchy, but theocracy. That's what Iran has, that's what Afghanistan had. Yes, there's a big difference between states based on Christianity and states based on Islam. But the bottom line is that you're getting into thought control with either, which isn't just morally wrong, IMHO, but also pointless. Christianity needs to "win" in the "marketplace of ideas." If we simply force someone to go through the motions of belief, what's the point? And just for clarity, I'm not talking about legal issues having to do with crime and punishment, but about religious belief, i.e. only allowing Catholicism, state sponsorship of Catholicism, whatever. Indeed, I believe that the Church would be far better off not being "entangled" in any way with State. As Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." We as individual Catholics are to be salt and light, but only in terms of living out the Gospel, not through the power of the State.[/quote]

A few problems with this idea: (1) monarchy and theocracy are not two opposites, (2) unless you reduce the point in discourse simply to power and control, Christianity doesn't NEED to "win" anything, it simply needs to BE correct, and, in being correct and good, it would be beneficial for the person to believe it whether or not Christianity had been disputed or not disputed, and (3) "my kingdom is not of this world" is a translation of the words, in Latin, "regnum meum non est [b]de[/b] hoc mundo" or "my kingdom is not FROM this world", i.e. not that my kingdom is not made up of worldly people and worldly affairs, but my kingdom does not originate from this world, and therefore it exists independent of earthly war, etc. not to negate that it is WITHOUT earthly war or politics.

As to the first, if Christians could create half the religious fervor and stability as exists in the Iranian system of government, we would be much better off, in my opinion. The idea of sharing power at its core between religious hierarchs as representatives of the People's religion, and elected officials as representative of their interests is not a bad one, if you consider that both are equally representative, and that the system is not exclusionary towards religious discourse. Moreover, the fact that two enemy nations once held a particular system of government does not necessarily mean that it is a BAD form of government; that would be faulty logic.
As to the second, we may take G.K. Chesterton as a guide, "an open mind is like an open mouth, it's meant to close on something."
And as to the third, politics is the discourse of a nation on public issues. What more public issue could there be than the shared faith of a nation? But if we exclude religious dialogue and the authority of those who represent the religion itself (i.e. bishops) from politics, we only serve to oppress religion by keeping it from the public forum. That's alright when it is a false religion, but the issue of whether or not Catholicism is true does not seem to be up for debate here.

Edited October 9, 2007 by son_of_angels

[friendofJPII]

[i]The U.S. Constitution requires that the American government allow free exercise of all religions. At the same time, it cannot give preference to any religious group. Therefore, it is indeed constitutional to exempt all religious groups from paying taxes. If a government is Catholic, it would be silly to offer tax exemptions to non-Catholic groups. That is, in a way, encouraging & edorsing these groups. If a Catholic government truly has reverence for the human person, it would want what is best for the souls of its people and it wouldn't endorse groups that are dedicated to spreading error.[/i]

I don't think so. The government would simply be allowing Protestants to freely worship according to their beliefs...which is part of the respecting the dignity of the human person. Should Catholic hospitals, then, not provide a prayer space for Protestants, Jews, and Muslims? I'm not stating that they should be allowed to hold religious services where the Blessed Sacrament resides, that should [b]definately not [/b]be allowed, but I feel it is an act of mercy to allow them to pray for their sick and dying loved ones according to the traditions of their own faith. Sure, they could leave the hospital and visit a temple, Protestant Church, or mosque, but when a loved one is dying, driving a significant distance to pray is not the ideal. During times of intense stress, they will not be in the mood to listen to our theological arguements either. Our faith must be accepted in freedom.

Edited October 9, 2007 by friendofJPII

[friendofJPII]

[i]3) "my kingdom is not of this world" is a translation of the words, in Latin, "regnum meum non est de hoc mundo" or "my kingdom is not FROM this world", i.e. not that my kingdom is not made up of worldly people and worldly affairs, but my kingdom does not originate from this world, and therefore it exists independent of earthly war, etc. not to negate that it is WITHOUT earthly war or politics.[/i]

Perhaps I'm being overly-simplistic here, but I believe if Jesus thought their was ideal governmental system that would best lead the ppl to salvation, he would have said so; he would have spent more time trying to change the corrupt governmental systems of the day. Instead, he said "render unto what belongs to Ceaser, and render unto God what belongs to God..." which I believe advocates for, or at least condones *some* separation of Church and State.

I do not believe there is *absolute* right answer to these questions, aside from saying that athiest communism and socialism (the direction the US is heading in now) are immoral. In any event, it is fun to discuss.

Edited October 9, 2007 by friendofJPII

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1399959' date='Oct 9 2007, 04:01 PM']I don't think so. The government would simply be allowing Protestants to freely worship according to their beliefs...which is part of the respecting the dignity of the human person. Should Catholic hospitals, then, not provide a prayer space for Protestants, Jews, and Muslims? I'm not stating that they should be allowed to hold religious services where the Blessed Sacrament resides, that should [b]definately not [/b]be allowed, but I feel it is an act of mercy to allow them to pray for their sick and dying loved ones according to the traditions of their own faith. Sure, they could leave the hospital and visit a temple, Protestant Church, or mosque, but when a loved one is dying, driving a significant distance to pray is not the ideal. During times of intense stress, they will not be in the mood to listen to our theological arguements either. Our faith must be accepted in freedom.[/quote]
That has nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about non-Christian religious groups having to pay taxes. That has nothing to do with prohibiting them from engaging in their forms of prayer & worship. Every person can make the choice whether to accept or reject the true Faith--and there's nothing a government can do to stop this. However, for a Catholic nation to maintain its Catholic identity, it shouldn't give special status to non-Catholic groups, and that involves making them pay taxes. In an ideal world, we wouldn't even have to worry about property or income taxes.

And I don't think a Catholic hospital should be required to set up all sorts of prayer chapels just to satisfy the needs of every religious group. If dealing with sickness and death is not a time for evangelization, then why set up Catholic hospitals in the first place? Why not just leave it up to the government. The truth is, a lot of good can be done by a hospital that is solid in its Catholic identity and seeks to comfort the sick & dying in an authentically Catholic way.

[friendofJPII]

[quote name='photosynthesis' post='1400021' date='Oct 9 2007, 03:54 PM']That has nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about non-Christian religious groups having to pay taxes. That has nothing to do with prohibiting them from engaging in their forms of prayer & worship. Every person can make the choice whether to accept or reject the true Faith--and there's nothing a government can do to stop this. However, for a Catholic nation to maintain its Catholic identity, it shouldn't give special status to non-Catholic groups, and that involves making them pay taxes. In an ideal world, we wouldn't even have to worry about property or income taxes.

And I don't think a Catholic hospital should be required to set up all sorts of prayer chapels just to satisfy the needs of every religious group. If dealing with sickness and death is not a time for evangelization, then why set up Catholic hospitals in the first place? Why not just leave it up to the government. The truth is, a lot of good can be done by a hospital that is solid in its Catholic identity and seeks to comfort the sick & dying in an authentically Catholic way.[/quote]


If you require Protestant Churches to pay taxes, express their faith in the public square, and publish printed materials, as ad suggested you are limiting their right to freedom of worship,imo esp if they are a poor Church.

By caring for everyone, regardless of religion, with compassion and dignity, you are ministering to them. It's awesome if we can share of faith with them, and we should, however, if they ultimately remain in their own religion we can entrust them to the mercy of God. Most of the ppl Mother Teresa helped were non-Catholics, she offered baptism before death, but never pushed it on the person. She is quoted as telling a dying Hindu man," you pray to God your way, and I'll pray to God in my way..." It is a fine line between holding that the CC is the one true Church, and being ecumenical. But it can be done. Sure, ecumenism has been grossly misunderstood by some to mean that we water down our faith so everyone feels "welcome" but it doesn't have to be that way. I don't think Catholic hospitals should have to spend lots of money setting up lots of different chapels either....[i]but[/i] one interfaith prayer space in addition to an authentic Catholic chapel is a good idea, imo.

Edited October 9, 2007 by friendofJPII

[friendofJPII]

[quote name='photosynthesis' post='1400021' date='Oct 9 2007, 03:54 PM']That has nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about non-Christian religious groups having to pay taxes. That has nothing to do with prohibiting them from engaging in their forms of prayer & worship. Every person can make the choice whether to accept or reject the true Faith--and there's nothing a government can do to stop this. However, for a Catholic nation to maintain its Catholic identity, it shouldn't give special status to non-Catholic groups, and that involves making them pay taxes. In an ideal world, we wouldn't even have to worry about property or income taxes.

And I don't think a Catholic hospital should be required to set up all sorts of prayer chapels just to satisfy the needs of every religious group. If dealing with sickness and death is not a time for evangelization, then why set up Catholic hospitals in the first place? Why not just leave it up to the government. The truth is, a lot of good can be done by a hospital that is solid in its Catholic identity and seeks to comfort the sick & dying in an authentically Catholic way.[/quote]


If you require Protestant Churches to pay taxes, prohibit them from expressing their faith in the public square, and prohibit them from publishing printed materials, then you are not giving them the true freedom to worship. It makes no sense to say, "you can practice your religion, but you can't speak about it publically, nor publish anything that might contradict the CC, and you have to pay through your nose if you want your own Church building. Basically, you are saying that their Church must be underground, and thus are not granting them full freedom of religion. IMO, you either grant them full rights or nothing at all.

In Re: to hospitals, By caring for everyone, regardless of religion, with compassion and dignity, you are ministering to them. It's awesome if we can share of faith with them, and speak of Jesus, and we should try, however, if they ultimately remain in their own religion we can entrust them to the mercy of God. Most of the ppl Mother Teresa helped were non-Catholics, she offered baptism before death, but never pushed it on the person. She is quoted as telling a dying Hindu man," you pray to God your way, and I'll pray to God in my way..." It is a fine line between holding that the CC is the one true Church, and being ecumenical. But it can be done. Sure, ecumenism has been grossly misunderstood by some to mean that we water down our faith so everyone feels "welcome" but it doesn't have to be that way. I don't think Catholic hospitals should have to spend lots of money setting up lots of different chapels either...but one interfaith prayer space in addition to an authentic Catholic chapel is a good idea, imo, depending of course on the population you serve.

Peace,

JP

Edited October 9, 2007 by friendofJPII

[son_of_angels]

It's an absolutely horrible idea. Allowing a Catholic hospital to set up a non-catholic worship space, when we know that not only the Catholic Church is the only true church, but that it is also the only beneficial medicine to spiritual corruption would be like saying that it was alright, given that a diabetic can't have sugar, for a hospital to let the patient choose from a variety of high-sugar deserts! That would be ridiculous! Even on the off chance they survived, the action would still be wrong because the risk would not be worth it.

As for religious freedom...bull. Religious freedom includes the right to make a free decision of the conscience, which means that a person, for example, should not be tortured into baptism or receiving the Eucharistic. It follows from the required dispositions to receiving the faith in the first place, not from the necessity of the individual's freedom. Human dignity only requires that a person be given the freedom to make GOOD moral decisions.

Moreover, in a truly Catholic state there is no reason to recognize the exchange of funds in a Protestant Church as being any different than the exchange of funds in a pastry shoppe: putting up money to support something pleasurable that is most likely harmful to the person purchasing it, but is tolerated for the sake of the common good. They both operate on the same principle, and they can both be taxed by the same mode of government because of that principle. As for limiting their access to the public square, I would argue that it would depend on the nature of the public forum to which you are referring. I see no problem with allowing them to produce books for their own use, and also for scholarly review by Catholic scholars, nor with allowing them to disseminate materials that agree with Catholic doctrine, but to allow them to directly address the people through pamphlets and television would be potentially dangerous to the common good, as it would play on the people's ignorance. Publicizing a legitimate scholarly debate would be another matter.


Finally, in response to the above, God did conceive the perfect political system: the Church. It possesses all the features of a true society, and is benefited by having Wisdom itself as the Head. But members of the Church have responsibilities of their own as well, in governing the conduct of their fellow laymen. This they do not separate from the Church but as parts of it, so that they should strive to follow the example of the Church in their organization, and obey the commands of the Church in their conduct.

[friendofJPII]

[[i]quote name='son_of_angels' date='Oct 9 2007, 05:19 PM' post='1400073']
It's an absolutely horrible idea. Allowing a Catholic hospital to set up a non-catholic worship space, when we know that not only the Catholic Church is the only true church, but that it is also the only beneficial medicine to spiritual corruption would be like saying that it was alright, given that a diabetic can't have sugar, for a hospital to let the patient choose from a variety of high-sugar deserts! That would be ridiculous! Even on the off chance they survived, the action would still be wrong because the risk would not be worth it.[/i]

Are you saying that non-Catholics have no hope of salvation?