Church And State

[Resurrexi]

...

[Nihil Obstat]

Your polls leave me wanting a "refuse to speculate" or "other" option.

[Resurrexi]

That's what null vote is for

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1805787' date='Mar 13 2009, 12:47 AM']That's what null vote is for [/quote]
I like to contribute.

A large number of "refuse to speculate" and "other" responses would indicate a need to alter the poll questions or options.

[Resurrexi]

What if I told you that I only wrote one of these questions myself, and that the other two were taken verbatim from a papal document (except that they were originally in statement form)?

Edited March 13, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1805791' date='Mar 13 2009, 12:51 AM']What if I told you that I only wrote one of these questions myself, and that the other two were taken verbatim from a papal document (except that they were originally in statement form)?[/quote]
I voted how I voted. I could explain why if asked.

I assume you'll tell us what the Vatican said eventually?

[Aloysius]

to number two and three, when talking about public worship, yes. the state should still have a check to its power to keep it from tyranny which prevents it from, by the point of a sword, attempting to impose a change of conscience. non-Catholics should be allowed to exist in whichever religion they believe and privately practice, and should never be discriminated against. to number three, this does not mean that every Catholic taking part in the current system of government ought to attempt to do such a thing. the return to such a state of affairs could only be predicated upon a legitimate Catholic state re-emerging in the world. in affecting the current governments of the world, we must secure religious liberty for all for the sake of the protection of the Church herself.

to number one, in a certain sense yes and a certain sense no... but of course no in the sense the Syllabus intended it .. however, the Church should certainly not be burdened by the uglier affairs of state and should have authority above and outside of the state, so it would depend on how one defined "separate", but my position would certainly not be condemned by the syllabus or else it would condemn the medieval church/state relationship.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1805881' date='Mar 13 2009, 05:00 AM']to number two and three, when talking about public worship, yes. the state should still have a check to its power to keep it from tyranny which prevents it from, by the point of a sword, attempting to impose a change of conscience. non-Catholics should be allowed to exist in whichever religion they believe and privately practice, and should never be discriminated against. to number three, this does not mean that every Catholic taking part in the current system of government ought to attempt to do such a thing. the return to such a state of affairs could only be predicated upon a legitimate Catholic state re-emerging in the world. in affecting the current governments of the world, we must secure religious liberty for all for the sake of the protection of the Church herself.

to number one, in a certain sense yes and a certain sense no... but of course no in the sense the Syllabus intended it .. however, the Church should certainly not be burdened by the uglier affairs of state and should have authority above and outside of the state, so it would depend on how one defined "separate", but my position would certainly not be condemned by the syllabus or else it would condemn the medieval church/state relationship.[/quote]


Would other faiths be allowed to prostelatize to Catholics?

[Hilde]

We have a state church, but it's not Catholic.

[johnnydigit]

no/no/yes

[quote name='Hilde' post='1806415' date='Mar 13 2009, 06:42 PM']We have a state church, but it's not Catholic.[/quote]

you have a viking rabbit(hamster?) avatar heh.

[Nihil Obstat]

Should the Church be separated from the State and the State from the Church?
I said yes to this, but I found it to be somewhat vague. If by separation we mean that the Church doesn't run the government, then yes. If we mean that freedom of religion is legal, then yes. You catch my drift.


Should the Catholic religion be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship?
I said no to this. I seem to recall popes supporting freedom of religion.


If practicing Catholics should ever gain control of the government, would they be morally obligated to attempt to make it so that the Church enjoyed the favor of the laws?
I said yes, if favour of the laws doesn't imply that we discriminate against other religions. Favour of the laws could be taken to mean freedom of conscience for doctors and priests and Catholic public figures... again, you catch my drift I'm sure.

[Resurrexi]

Pius IX in his "Syllabus" condemned, among others, the following two errors:

"Ecclesia a statu statusque ab Ecclesia seiungendus est" (DS 2955)
That is, "The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church."

and

"Aetate hac nostra non amplius expedit, religionem catholicam haberi tamquam unicam status religionem, ceteris quibuscumque cultibus exclusis" (DS 1777)
That is, "In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults [i.e. religions] whatsoever."


In addition, Leo XIII made the following statement in "Longinqua" (encyclical on Catholicism in the United States):

"The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority." (Longinqua 6)

Edited March 14, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

So basically seven people voted for a position condemned by the Church... though they might not have known that at the time.

[dairygirl4u2c]

your conniving use of polling is impressive

Edited March 15, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1807267' date='Mar 14 2009, 09:47 PM']So basically seven people voted for a position condemned by the Church... though they might not have known that at the time.[/quote]
That question asked out of context and with no reference to the wider source is both vague and misleading, and I quite clearly explained what I believed I was voting for.