Does the Church believe in Democracy?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
It's a little hard to tell. In an email I recieved from our moderator, Paul, he said "...the Church is NOT a Democracy." What exactly did he mean by that? That everyone should shut up and do what they're told? Anyway, I just want some feedback on this. Thanks.
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 28, 2003
You shouldn't need help understanding what he meant, unless you just crawled out from under some rock.democracy -- noun
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. What the Catholic Church is not, because that ain't the way Jesus made his Church.
-- (Well@Duh.com), September 28, 2003.
mr bush...the church does not govern itself through democracy, thats not the way it goes... but the church does not involve itself in the political governance of a state either, so a country could be any form of government it wanted to be and the catholic church would still try to support its people.
-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 28, 2003.
So...if a country was a Fascist dictatorship that exterminated Jews by the millions..and it's official religion was Catholiicism?
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 28, 2003.
theyd do as they did before...issue baptism certificates to people so that they could pretend to be catholic, organize for the evacuation of any others willing to go, oppose the government in a non violent way (we're church goers, not an army) and pray pray pray. feed the sick, shelter the homeless, seek aid from other countries to help.
so you see, mr bush, that even your trick questions fail. we're not here to conquer nations, but hearts. we'll lend a hand when we must, but we dont keep standing armies to force our will on others. our army defends us in a way you cannot know.
-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 28, 2003.
Good answer. I hope that's what the Church would do in such a situation. Might just change my mind on a few things...
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 28, 2003.
Actually, the church has condemned Democracy and Communism. Democracy by definition is mob rule and disorder.The Church has every right to rule over political issues. For if nations do not answer to God, who do they answer to? It is heresy to seperate ones poitical life from ones spiritual life. God is soveriegn over all.
-- Mark Fischer (fischermh@yahoo.com), September 28, 2003.
marc,i suggest that you read up on your history and your church documents before you presume to know what the church does and does not wish to meddle with. stop misleading people with your unsupported views, sir.
-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 28, 2003.
"Democracy is a pest"-- Pope Pius IX.
-- __ (__@__.__), September 28, 2003.
One good document deserves another. And another. And another.CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
DOCTRINAL NOTE on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life 24 November 2002
" I. A constant teaching
1. The commitment of Christians in the world has found a variety of expressions in the course of the past 2000 years. One such expression has been Christian involvement in political life: Christians, as one Early Church writer stated, «play their full role as citizens».[1] Among the saints, the Church venerates many men and women who served God through their generous commitment to politics and government. Among these, Saint Thomas More, who was proclaimed Patron of Statesmen and Politicians, gave witness by his martyrdom to «the inalienable dignity of the human conscience».[2] Though subjected to various forms of psychological pressure, Saint Thomas More refused to compromise, never forsaking the «constant fidelity to legitimate authority and institutions» which distinguished him; he taught by his life and his death that «man cannot be separated from God, nor politics from morality».[3]
It is commendable that in today’s democratic societies, in a climate of true freedom, everyone is made a participant in directing the body politic.[4] Such societies call for new and fuller forms of participation in public life by Christian and non-Christian citizens alike. Indeed, all can contribute, by voting in elections for lawmakers and government officials, and in other ways as well, to the development of political solutions and legislative choices which, in their opinion, will benefit the common good.[5] The life of a democracy could not be productive without the active, responsible and generous involvement of everyone, «albeit in a diversity and complementarity of forms, levels, tasks, and responsibilities».[6]
By fulfilling their civic duties, «guided by a Christian conscience», [7] in conformity with its values, the lay faithful exercise their proper task of infusing the temporal order with Christian values, all the while respecting the nature and rightful autonomy of that order, [8] and cooperating with other citizens according to their particular competence and responsibility.[9] The consequence of this fundamental teaching of the Second Vatican Council is that «the lay faithful are never to relinquish their participation in ‘public life’, that is, in the many different economic, social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to promote organically and institutionally the common good».[10] This would include the promotion and defence of goods such as public order and peace, freedom and equality, respect for human life and for the environment, justice and solidarity."
The Epistle to Diognetus c. 200 AD
"CHAPTER 5 5:1 For Christians are not distinguished from the rest of mankind either in locality or in speech or in customs. 5:2 For they dwell not somewhere in cities of their own, neither do they use some different language, nor practise an extraordinary kind of life. 5:3 Nor again do they possess any invention discovered by any intelligence or study of ingenious men, nor are they masters of any human dogma as some are. 5:4 But while they dwell in cities of Greeks and barbarians as the lot of each is cast, and follow the native customs in dress and food and the other arrangements of life, yet the constitution of their own citizenship, which they set forth, is marvellous, and confessedly contradicts expectation. 5:5 They dwell in their own countries, but only as sojourners; they bear their share in all things as citizens, and they endure all hardships as strangers. Every foreign country is a fatherland to them, and every fatherland is foreign."
PASTORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD GAUDIUM ET SPES PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS, POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 7, 1965
"Moreover, since in virtue of her mission and nature she is bound to no particular form of human culture, nor to any political, economic or social system, the Church by her very universality can be a very close bond between diverse human communities and nations, provided these trust her and truly acknowledge her right to true freedom in fulfilling her mission. For this reason, the Church admonishes her own sons, but also humanity as a whole, to overcome all strife between nations and race in this family spirit of God's children, an in the same way, to give internal strength to human associations which are just.
With great respect, therefore, this council regards all the true, good and just elements inherent in the very wide variety of institutions which the human race has established for itself and constantly continues to establish. The council affirms, moreover, that the Church is willing to assist and promote all these institutions to the extent that such a service depends on her and can be associated with her mission. She has no fiercer desire than that in pursuit of the welfare of all she may be able to develop herself freely under any kind of government which grants recognition to the basic rights of person and family, to the demands of the common good and to the free exercise of her own mission."
-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 29, 2003.
Monasteries elect their abbots from within: every monk votes. Ditto in religious congregations for their general chapters. Ditto for the college of cardinals.In the Acts of the Apostles 2 men where selected to replace Judas, and lots were cast (after much prayer) for the one to become an apostle.
If what you mean by democracy is some form of government that can rule absolutely, and decide absolutely what is true, just and moral, and hence that there is no truth upon which government and authority ultimately resides, then of course the Church must condemn THAT democracy. But if the democratic system respects as sovereign the laws of God and nature...truth being one...that democracy is not absolute and hence, permissable.
An absolute monarchy which assumes all power to itself is also immoral from the Catholic perspective...the Popes crowned the emperors for good reason, to show that the state was not supreme unto itself or self-authenticating...
Thus, pace Emerald, the form of government is not the essential key here: it's the presupposition this form of state is founded on.
We've had Imperial Rome (with it's Senate and multiplicity of authorities), and Feudalism with kings and nobles, and oligarchies and Republics... and dictatorships. Clearly then the form of political power can legitimately vary, so long as it does not become absolute.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 29, 2003.
So... a Christian is supposed to be involved in the world as a prelude to heaven is he not? I mean, how are we to love our neighbor in ways that doesn't build up civil society (as though there is a direct antagonism between the Kingdom of God and mankind's collective efforts at anything).So we waste time attacking "politics" and wishing that more Catholics would think like us on X, Y, or Z devotion or goal or project...not realizing that "politics" means "getting other people involved"!
Or we make false distinctions between "the state" and Christian society - as though Christians can not make up or constitute all the actors or players in a given state!
Why does there have to be some mythical mental separation between "the world" and "the church" when in many localities, virtually every adult is a Christian? Sure there are distinctions, and sure there are different roles, but one is not NECESSARILY AT ODDS with the other.
Take a small town for example: if everyone is Catholic, and all go to the same parish, you can still have a healthy body politic - there are plenty of differences of opinion on prudential and contingent issues which could give rise to healthy differences of opinion politically...which have nothing to do with the faith or morals of the Church!
Just because the priest is the father of everyone in town doesn't mean that the mayor or police chief don't also have some moral authority, in their spheres of competence.
If this is the case in the microcosm "world" of a town, why is it not the case for a nation or bloc of nations?
Augustine favored the Platonic view of things right Emerald? Yet he too saw that even though there was a distinction to be made between the city of the world and the city of God, and that the visible world was not as important as the invisible one...still, men being corporeal need the peace that the city of man provides in order to promote the higher truths and virtues needed to bring people into the City of God.
This is why the Church must be concerned with the world: we have been commanded to "till the earth and subdue it" in Genesis, and to have a concern for the orphan, widow, and poor... which includes monetary charity, and all the other forms of spiritual and corporal works that inevitably will lead to organized forms of charity...politics included.
The pagan or anti-Christian "world" may desire a base-less politics which claims absolute authority without reference to God or truths knowable to right reason, but rather is based on the sheer will of the majority. However their erroneous view doesn't have to automatically be "the" only view of politics!
Just because some nuts claim Vatican II meant we can pick and choose doesn't mean "Vatican II meant we can pick and choose"! Just because some politicians are corrupt doesn't mean ALL are corrupt or the profession itself is corrupt ipso facto.
Platonic pie-in-the-sky, "to hell with the world and its passing glory" chic doesn't lead many people to actively safeguard the virtue of children by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, instructing the ignorant, etc.
To take St John for example, how can we love the invisible God if we don't love our visible neighbor? And how can we love our neighbor if we - highly educated and capable people - don't get involved in the civil and political life of his nation? If we surrender the "world" to the worst among us...thus unleashing pandemonium and injustice on a massive scale, won't we be actually sinning through omission?
Circling the wagons of the pure and perfect to keep out the impure and imperfect may be a useful tactic, but it's a doomed strategy. When Jesus promised us that the "gates of hell will not prevail" he was using offensive terminology, not defensive. No body attacks with "gates".
You want to raise your children as good Catholics. Great. You as head of the household have that authority. But you and I and everyone here are also members of a bigger family - that of the human race. If we do not work for Tranquilitas ordinis, the ordered peace, in our neighborhood, town, state, and nation... how do we propose to truly protect our children and immediate family?
Having a just and ordered concern for "the world" is not turning one's heart and mind from Heaven, but setting it in the right direction. We are placed on this earth to be a royal priesthood - to interceed for and help save our neighbors.
Unlike you I don't see a 2300 year inevitable decline...I see a 2300 year pilgrimage through error and setback towards greater and greater insight and perfection. Organic, not linear growth. Why else would Our Lord use the image of wheat and weeds in explaining the Kingdom?
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 29, 2003.
OK, its simple. Corporatiosn arent democracies. For instance, seldom does a corporate president get their by election fothe workers.Most institutions of higher learning aren't femocracies either.
The Catholic Church, or any other Church, isn't a government, its a Church, and MOST Chruches arent democracies.
This doesnt make them evil, nor in opposition to democracy.
As to Pope Pius, his sentement was comon at the time, and personal opinion's are allowed, even if you disagree wihthem, even from Popes. When you vonsider his quote in the formal context of hisotry, others where also expoundignthe virtues of a traditionalist government over the mad mess they saw in democratised lands.
Right or wrong, people have personal opinions.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 03, 2003.
But I thought the Pope couldn't be wrong.
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), October 04, 2003.
You thought wrong. The Pope is infallible when promulgating official doctrinal teaching on matters of faith and morals, binding on the universal Church. He is not infallible when he makes political decisions, predicts the weather, bets on the horses, or makes administrative, liturgical, or disciplinary decisions affecting the Church. You really should do a little reading before launching anti-Catholic tirades. You can still launch them of course, if that's your preference. But at least take the time to achieve a rudimentary understanding of that which you are attacking. You can save a lot of energy by refraining from attacking non-existent straw men.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 04, 2003.
Well it was J.F. Gecik that said told me that the Pope and the Church in general could never make a wrong decision because it was founded by Jesus.
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), October 04, 2003.
no, anti bush, it was you who read that incorrectly. remember, this is a catholic forum, we sometimes use catholic terminology to describe things. if you dont understand something, as you clearly did here, it would be best for you to simply ask as opposed to sticking your foot in your mouth.for example, if you were polite and said, wait, whats up with this idea of papal infallability? then people would answer clearly and politely. instead you come around swinging your THIS IS MY MISCONCEPTION AND THAT IDEA THAT I HAVE SOUNDS BAD TO ME hammer and both look and are treated like a fool for being so presumptuous. leave understanding the catholic faith to us catholics, then when youve asked you can debate intelligently with us.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 04, 2003.
The democracy which Pius IX condemned was the anti-clerical "democracy" of the French revolution and its imitators. The democracy that Vatican II and John Paul II endorse is the pro-clerical "democracy" of George W. Bush.
-- __ (__@__.__), October 04, 2003.
Also a fair analogy for papal infallibility may be the status of the U.S. Supreme Court. Like the Supreme Court, the Pope is the court of last appeal. Like Pius IX, a 19th century Supreme Court issued an infallible pro-slavery opinion, which the current Supreme Court (probably) infallibly disagrees with (like JPII on Pius IX's opinion). That is probably not good enough cause for anti-Bush to give up on the system and move to Mexico, or for a Catholic to move to say a democratic outfit like the Southern Baptist Convention.
-- __ (__@__.__), October 05, 2003.
Makes sense.
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), October 11, 2003.