Theocracy

[Resurrexi]

I think that one ideal form of government would a government ruled by a patriarch, archbishop, or a bishop. I think this would assure that the rights of the Church would be protected better than in a democracy, republic, or even a monarchy. What do you all think of a Catholic theocracy?

[reyb]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1835032' date='Apr 14 2009, 02:40 AM']I think that one ideal form of government would a government ruled by a patriarch, archbishop, or a bishop. I think this would assure that the rights of the Church would be protected better than in a democracy, republic, or even a monarchy. What do you all think of a Catholic theocracy?[/quote]

[indent]Well, it might be a good suggestion but, how about the issue of 'freedom' of every individual to choose his own religion? Or the issue of separation of state and church?[/indent]

[CatherineM]

It would be great for us, but I'm not sure how the Southern Baptists or Mormons would feel about it.

[Christie_M]

Up side= Great for Catholics!

Down side= We'd (US) have to change the 1st Amendment...

[Lilllabettt]

Render unto Cesar what is Cesars.

One important aspect of Christianity is that it uncoupled religious practice from government authority. Because of this, the Gospel did not have a border. War was not necessary to spread it, because accepting it did not mean accepting a particular political arrangement.

Pope Benedict talks about this in a very interesting section in "Jesus of Nazareth" ...
I don't have the book in front of me right now.

[Aloysius]

nope. it would be undignified of the office of bishop for him to hold a political office as well.

I believe in a confessional state. bishops should not be tied up in earthly matters, but political leaders should be tied up in matters of the Catholic religion.

[Resurrexi]

Al, according to the teaching of teaching of the Church, the Holy Father (who is Bishop of Rome) should have a state over which he rules. Historically other bishops have ruled over states, so I don't see why it would be a problem now.

Also, in reply to Reyb, in the ideal state, according to the teaching of the Church, separation of Church and State would not exist.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1835443' date='Apr 14 2009, 04:19 PM']Al, according to the teaching of teaching of the Church, the Holy Father (who is Bishop of Rome) should have a state over which he rules. Historically other bishops have ruled over states, so I don't see why it would be a problem now.

Also, in reply to Reyb, in the ideal state, according to the teaching of the Church, separation of Church and State would not exist.[/quote]

I used to somewhat agree with you... but I think my opinion has changed.

Historically it hasn't gone to well for the faithful when the bishops start to play politics. Politics is a dirty game, theres no need for the Pope or Bishops to get involved - they have enough on their hands.

I think we have been blessed with amazing Pope's and some relatively great bishops who have been looking out for the faith of the flock. Compare our popes to ones in the 900s or the 13-1400s. One of the biggest factors in the "bad" Popes is worldliness and power. I would much rather have a Pope like B16 or JPII that doesn't have political power than Popes who have lobbyists, families bankrolling them, or are more interested in the most powerful and wealthiest state in the world.

BTW even at the height of the Catholic Church's power, I'm pretty sure the Pope was never a head of state, and the Church and State have always been separated - though closely linked. The Holy Roman Empire and Emperor were distinct from the powers of the Pope.

[Apotheoun]

The pope used to be the political head of the papal states.

[Resurrexi]

I can't deny that often times power among bishops does lead to worldliness, but that is solved by the Pope himself appointing the bishops to the offices, unlike the way bishops were often de facto appointed to their offices in the Middle Ages.

And of course the Pope was a head of State. He was the head of the Papal States. That the Pope should be subject to no secular power is a teaching of the Church. There is a good reason for this teaching: the Pope needs to have his own state so that he is not the puppet of some secular power.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Resurrexi

[rkwright]

I'm not a history major or anything...

But I seem to remember that the Holy Roman Emperors would contest the idea of the Pope ruling over that land. Or at least the argument can be made that practically the Pope did not have control over the land. I've always been of the impression that the Holy Roman Emperor was much more incharge of the "state" than the Pope. Nonetheless, to keep it simple, I was wrong to say they were never heads of state.

[Apotheoun]

The popes ruled over the central states in modern Italy (i.e., the papal states) until Italy as a nation was formed in 1870. The Holy Roman Empire collapsed in 1806.

[rkwright]

The Papal states weren't reinstated until 1814. Even then the Pope had to flee in 1848 for a bit.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1835489' date='Apr 14 2009, 03:59 PM']The Papal states weren't reinstated until 1814. Even then the Pope had to flee in 1848 for a bit.[/quote]
Popes had to flee Rome several times, but they were still the rules of the central states in the Italian peninsula.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1835489' date='Apr 14 2009, 03:59 PM']The Papal states weren't reinstated until 1814.[/quote]
The reinstatement of the papal states only occurred because Napoleon conquered the region in the late 1790s. The popes were secular rulers for more than a millennium prior to the final end of the papal states in 1870.