Catholic Church Should Return To A Democracy?

[Majella]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1660632' date='Sep 22 2008, 10:53 AM']God does not do democracy, just ask satan.[/quote]

AMEN!!!!!

[Nihil Obstat]

Imagine how fast the "Church" would support homosexual union, birth control, even abortion if it was a democracy. Everyone would become Catholic, and then everything would... "go to hell in a handbasket", probably literally.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1659711' date='Sep 19 2008, 11:41 PM'][url="http://www.beliefnet.com/story/136/story_13602_1.html"]http://www.beliefnet.com/story/136/story_13602_1.html[/url]

If the early Church was 'democratic' in the papal election process, doesn't this give more fuel to those who want more say in Church matters?[/quote]

I tuned out soon as he used the word "clueless." He started to sound like an adolescent who has no idea why he thinks what he does, except that it opposes the people he doesn't like. If I'm going to read a liberal argument, it should at least be logical and bring some actual evidence to the table.

What's encouraging is that the general opinion in the "Talk About It" section on the right side, where readers can provide their own imput, tends to support the current practice and some of them also criticized Fr. Greelely's "research," like the polls among laity in western European countries. Plus, 45% of voters in beliefnet's poll like things just as they are now. How's that for a little democracy???

Some of the other Catholic articles on beliefnet look like they may actually be pretty good.

Edited September 26, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[CatherineM]

How can you call people, given the keys of the kingdom, guided by the Holy Spirit, as "clueless?"

[foolishmortal]

With altar rails gone, the people going up to the sacred place to read and the priest facing the people: you have all the egalitarian symbolisms for inspiring democratic thinking in the people. Not all abuse it, of course. Some see conservatives being obsessed too much by externals (esp. after Archbishop Lefebvre's group's schism, I'm sure) and others go the far opposite direction until you have many wanting the opposite when more people are being more charitable, but faith is becoming more democratic in minds. Not all issues can compliment each other, but some do and externals and internals do. Most people in the world, like me, need externals that awe them--esp. one that also teach the internals; ones going for a like like St. Francis, for example, don't as they are not as spiritually sapped by the world as most people. The externals, since the mid 60s, have inspired democracy (modernism-inspiring postmodern architecture and rock band liturgical music hasn't helped either) and not the kingship of Christ, I feel. It's time to return to the symbols in Mass that awed and inspired us as being subjects of the greatest and benevolent monarch as well as a father. The "externals are not everything" bunch don't see that maybe externals were of great interest to the ones who changed them after the mid '60s. It may not be malice, but maybe a good intention that was blinded to egalitarian symbols inspiring democratic thinking regarding theology, or personal theology.
Not all who like have been so influenced by the egalitarian movement of that time, but then, not all who like the Latin Mass are in schism, either. Mother Theresa and Pope Benedict 16th, for example, have advocated receiving Jesus kneeling. More have been in schism since the mid '60s, though, and a relative few have been of the Lefebvre kind. This issue could use a harmony of opposites (though they're more like seemingly-opposite--in this case, the externals are the classic, art, architecture and music paired with firm teachings on faith, hope and charity of the supernatural kind.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1663930' date='Sep 25 2008, 10:15 PM']Imagine how fast the "Church" would support homosexual union, birth control, even abortion if it was a democracy. Everyone would become Catholic, and then everything would... "go to hell in a handbasket", probably literally.[/quote]

So the Holy Spirit only can protect the Cardinals from error, not the Laity?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1665647' date='Sep 28 2008, 12:32 PM']So the Holy Spirit only can protect the Cardinals from error, not the Laity?[/quote]
THe Holy Spirit protects the Pope from promulgating error.

[Hassan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1665748' date='Sep 28 2008, 02:53 PM']THe Holy Spirit protects the Pope from promulgating error.[/quote]

I worded that poorly.

So the Holy Spirit can guide the Cardinals in selecting the right man to be Pope but not the Laity?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1665767' date='Sep 28 2008, 04:28 PM']I worded that poorly.

So the Holy Spirit can guide the Cardinals in selecting the right man to be Pope but not the Laity?[/quote]
I didn't say the Holy Spirit did that. I said the Holy Spirit protects the pope from promulgating error.

[Hassan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1665771' date='Sep 28 2008, 02:31 PM']I didn't say the Holy Spirit did that. I said the Holy Spirit protects the pope from promulgating error.[/quote]

The Holy Spirit dosen't guide the Cardinals in the selection of Pope?

[Norseman82]

While I have read that it was true that in times past Popes were elected by popular vote by the people of Rome, look at all the problems that the Church had to distract itself with when it allowed non-clergy to become involved with choosing church leaders, whether it be by popular vote or whether it allowed temporal rulers to influence or veto the choice of Popes and bishops. I won't go through specific examples, but one can just look throughout Church history and see the low points in our history and correlate to the involvement of temporal authorities of the time.

[Snowcatpa]

[font="Book Antiqua"][color="purple"]I'm also hesitant to make the election process any kind of democracy for all the reasons listed above and one more. One of the main factors for my husband converting to Catholicism back when we were engaged, when he realized that Truth is not a democracy.

He was Methodist, which is a church that is highly organized and arranges itself into conventions and committees. Truth literally is determined both by precedent and the Bible of course, but also by popular vote. He's a big fan of democracy in America and thinks maybe that's why he liked democracy in his religion so much, before he started really thinking about it.

Hence, it may be able to be done well in this instance but I think I'd need a little more persuasion before venturing into territory we know can go astray.[/color][/font]