Theocracy

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1835492' date='Apr 14 2009, 05:00 PM']Popes had to flee Rome several times, but they were still the rules of the central states in the Italian peninsula.[/quote]

And to steer us back on track... thats the last thing I want is my 'el-Presidente' Bishop being chased out by someone like say, Obama?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1835499' date='Apr 14 2009, 04:05 PM']And to steer us back on track... thats the last thing I want is my 'el-Presidente' Bishop being chased out by someone like say, Obama? [/quote]
Nowhere have I voiced my opinion on whether or not the pope should be a secular ruler. I have confined my remarks to historical matters.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1835504' date='Apr 14 2009, 05:06 PM']Nowhere have I voiced my opinion on whether or not the pope should be a secular ruler. I have confined my remarks to historical matters.[/quote]

I know... but what is your opinion on the original topic?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1835506' date='Apr 14 2009, 04:08 PM']I know... but what is your opinion on the original topic?[/quote]
It is not traditional among Byzantine Christians for patriarchs or bishops to govern as secular princes.

[Mr.Cat]

A theocracy implies by the rule of Divine, which might suggest the origin of government and law, rather than how it functions.

Even if we had a King, [i]like in the Papal States, the Pope was considered the King of the Papal States[/i], it does not mean that the monarch would have absolute rule ([i]even if it is so in theory[/i]) or would be free from corrupting influences. [i]I think, [b]could be wrong[/b], even the Pope Kings had troubles and even had secular rulers in the Papal States[/i].

Simply because they are our Spiritual Fathers does not exempt them from corruption, sin, or error in government and law.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Aloysius]

I am in favor of the Papal States being ruled by the Pope. However, I am not in favor of large nation states being directly ruled by bishops, and nor is the Church. The Holy Roman Empire's structure was the ideal according to Catholic teachings from way back when, that the Church should be intimately involved in influencing the state and providing it with its authority through coronation (and since 3/7 electors of the emperor were bishops themselves)

interesting note, Pius IX pretty much lost the papal states in the end for the sake of one Christian soul, Edgardo Mortara. had he not attempted to save this soul, he likely would have been able to maintain the support he had held from other secular rulers for maintaining his authority in the papal states. Edgardo Mortara was a Jewish child baptized in an emergency sickness by a house servant, who then recovered. The law in the papal states would not permit a baptized person not to be raised as a Catholic, and Pius IX defended his being raised as a Catholic. he became a priest himself, but the uproar against the papacy for guarding this boy's Christian soul pretty much cost the pope his temporal authority. and what would it matter to gain the whole world but lose a soul... it saddens me that the pope lost temporal power, but I am glad it was in a way that is that inspiring. if he had returned the child to his Jewish parents to be raised as a Jew, he likely could have kept all his temporal power.

I think it would be nice if all bishops had authority over a city-state in which their see resided.

However, the operations of bishops as secular authorities was, through the history of the Church, generally done as a result of necessity. when things fall apart for the secular authority, the Church steps in and keeps order, which is why it should always wield some degree of worldly political power (as a safety net against the collapse of governments)... confining that power to city-states in times when the governments and societies of the world are stable would be a good position, IMO.

[Resurrexi]

I was actually thinking of a city-state model. For example, Venice might be ruled by its Patriarch. Or London by the Archbishop of Westminster.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1835032' date='Apr 14 2009, 03:40 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]
I'm presuming not Cardinal Mahoney . . .

[Resurrexi]

No, I would certainly hope not!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1835638' date='Apr 14 2009, 08:27 PM']No, I would certainly hope not![/quote]
Yeah, sounds like a great idea until you start looking at a lot of the actual cardinals and bishops. . . .

[Aloysius]

exactly

[Justified Saint]

The pope is still temporal ruler of Vatican City, which is a sovereign state. The Papal States may have been important to the modern development of Italy, but that is about it and aside from rare examples like Julius II, the "warrior pope," you don't usually see the same kind of direct involvement with the rule and conquest of the Papal States in every pope.

And I have said it before but the political incoherency of the HRE made it ideal breeding ground for dissent and heresy. There is a reason why the Protestant Reformation did not take hold to the same measure in countries like France and Spain and only brutally imposed from above in England. The Holy Roman Emperor (Charles V) was politically incapable of stopping the spread of the Reformation in his lands.

[MichaelF]

The problem with Confessional States (where the State, much like a Person, Professes a Faith) is that, to function, it requires a certain uniformity of belief within the citizenry.

Absent that, once you have a certain number of citizens who say "I don't buy it", you start to see instability. A country with Catholicism as the State Religion which also has Southern Baptists making up 20% of the citizenry just isn't going to work, unless the State Religion is of the Scandinavian-variety (so understated that it essentially has no impact on daily life).

I'd love to see the Christian Empire reborn, but we have to reassemble Christendom itself, first. The infrastructure just isn't there, otherwise.

[OraProMe]

I don't think I'd be favourable to a theocratic state. Political power tends to corrupt souls, even episcopal ones.

[MichaelF]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1890677' date='Jun 14 2009, 08:59 PM']I don't think I'd be favourable to a theocratic state. Political power tends to corrupt souls, even episcopal ones.[/quote]

I agree. The Episcopal skillset and the secular leadership skillset are markedly different. Church leaders ruling secular areas, save on the small scale (such as Andorra, where the Bishop of Urgell is Co-Prince, or the feudal territories controlled by the Church, during the High Middle Ages), is a bad idea.

Better to have an Episcopal presence in State councils.