Question for Catholics: Would you approve of it if America ever became a Catholic theocracy?

[LoAmmi]

in the example that you give, the child grew up to be a Priest and spent his life preaching hoping that more of his kinsmen would find the truth of the Gospel
I mean this is always brought up as some kind of horror story but had a deep love for the Pope and was a devoted Priest

Since it isn't the purpose of the thread, I will simply say that I doubt you'd think it fantastic if a child were kidnapped from a Catholic couple by a Muslim leader and the guy grew up to be a devoted cleric with a deep love of Mohammed.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I was referring to the Papal rule of the dark ages.... you know, where 10's of millions of "heretics" were slaughtered.

As you probably know, the office of the inquisition still exists... she's just biding her time.

That's not accurate.

I recommend taking a look at the following resources:

The Inquisition
An Inquisition Primer
The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition
The Inquisition (Steve Weidenkopf)

 

[Hank77]

well considering that Protestantism is a reactionary and negative doctrine, it is no shock that it can not form a coherent philosophy or a functional legal system

This is clearly one reason it wouldn't work. Both Protestant and seculars would not agree with your arguments. In a theocracy people are not allowed to worship as they choose, they either worship as prescribed by the government or they have to leave, are thrown in jail, or are put to death for idolatry. See the OT theocracy which God Himself set up and men corrupted, even though they had prophets who God spoke to in dreams and visions.

If this country had not been set up with a Constitution that demands freedom of religion, it would have been Catholics that weren't allowed into the country, got kick out, thrown in jail, or put to death as heretics. Think about that. God forbid.

 

[Erose]

To start off it is impossible to have a "Catholic" Theocracy, until Jesus returns. Bishops are not meant to be secular rulers, and quite frankly have horrible track records when they have been force into those positions. Bishops should be and only should be vicars of Christ, i.e. shepherds of souls. In my opinion today one of the biggest scandals in the Church is most bishops are more like CEOs running a diocese like a business, instead of actually out there shepherding their people.

I see no issue with a government, whose judicial system is based upon the Catholic understanding of justice. Heck most judicial systems in the West are already built upon Catholic understanding of justice, even those that are in Protestant dominant countries like the United States. Lay people and only lay people should be secular leaders. The clergy should be shepherds.

I have no issue with separation of Church and state, if it is understood correctly, i.e. that the state cannot impose its will upon the Church. It doesn't work the other way, because quite frankly human beings are religious animals. All of us has a religion, and in whatever we do, we bring that religion with us. Secular rulers, when they lead and make decisions, base those decisions upon their religious worldview. They cannot help but to do so. The voting records of politicians tell you quite accurately what their religious beliefs are.

The whole concept of the Church cannot impose its will upon the state, is way for people to impose their religion upon the state, yes atheism is a religion.

 

[FlaviusAetius]

Since it isn't the purpose of the thread, I will simply say that I doubt you'd think it fantastic if a child were kidnapped from a Catholic couple by a Muslim leader and the guy grew up to be a devoted cleric with a deep love of Mohammed.

That's because in the case of theocracy it's black and white, where a theocracy of your religion is good and any other is not good.

A Catholic endorsing a Catholic theocracy doesn't have to therefore approve of theocracy for other religions like say Iran's Shiite theocracy.

So in the end yes it would be bad if the same situation was reversed with a Catholic taken to a Muslim home because Muslims are followers of a violent false prophet. It's the same situation for any other religions. Being raised Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, etc. Because there is only Truth and having someone be taken from the Truth to be raised an anti Catholic Christian, Christ denier or pagan would be a bad thing.

 

[LoAmmi]

That's because in the case of theocracy it's black and white, where a theocracy of your religion is good and any other is not good.

A Catholic endorsing a Catholic theocracy doesn't have to therefore approve of theocracy for other religions like say Iran's Shiite theocracy.

So in the end yes it would be bad if the same situation was reversed with a Catholic taken to a Muslim home because Muslims are followers of a violent false prophet. It's the same situation for any other religions. Being raised Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, etc. Because there is only Truth and having someone be taken from the Truth to be raised an anti Catholic Christian, Christ denier or pagan would be a bad thing.

Any governmental system that can justify taking a baby away from the parents when they have committed no crime and are not a danger to the child in a way that can be demonstrated is an evil governmental system that good people should oppose. I oppose this behavior when I see it in the United States by the way.

There's a sick part of me that would like to see how the people who think it was a good thing would feel if their children were taken from them for no good reason.

 

[FlaviusAetius]

Any governmental system that can justify taking a baby away from the parents when they have committed no crime and are not a danger to the child in a way that can be demonstrated is an evil governmental system that good people should oppose. I oppose this behavior when I see it in the United States by the way.

There's a sick part of me that would like to see how the people who think it was a good thing would feel if their children were taken from them for no good reason.

Well I fail to see why I should be against it when God plans to do far worse in the Millennial Kingdom. Really if the potter has no sympathy for humanity and will break up families as the loyal go to heaven and the disloyal burn eternally then why would his creation have any more sympathy than God?

 

[LoAmmi]

Well I fail to see why I should be against it when God plans to do far worse in the Millennial Kingdom. Really if the potter has no sympathy for humanity and will break up families as the loyal go to heaven and the disloyal burn eternally then why would his creation have any more sympathy than God?

Because you aren't Him. You weren't put in charge of that task, you weren't put in charge of judging others. Sounds like you want the big chair and I'm not sure He's going to vacate it for you.

 

[FlaviusAetius]

Because you aren't Him. You weren't put in charge of that task, you weren't put in charge of judging others. Sounds like you want the big chair and I'm not sure He's going to vacate it for you.

God is suppose to be the supreme moral good, yet his actions will be little different from a violent Catholic theocracy where parents who are disloyal are stripped of their children and sent to die first in the wasteland outside the Millennial Kingdom and later in a lake of fire.

The only difference is a human theocracy has the chance of persecuting an innocent person. Outside that it's going to be the same thing. In fact a human theocracy shows more tolerance than the Millennial Kingdom since in that kingdom there won't be any protestants, pagans or Jews allowed in it.

 

[Sumwear]

God is suppose to be the supreme moral good, yet his actions will be little different from a violent Catholic theocracy where parents who are disloyal are stripped of their children and sent to die first in the wasteland outside the Millennial Kingdom and later in a lake of fire.

The only difference is a human theocracy has the chance of persecuting an innocent person. Outside that it's going to be the same thing. In fact a human theocracy shows more tolerance than the Millennial Kingdom since in that kingdom there won't be any protestants, pagans or Jews allowed in it.

No, they have a chance of entering. No different than Catholics. Just that such people cease being part of such faiths or a lack thereof and they become Catholics themselves when God reveals Himself.

 

[FlaviusAetius]

No, they have a chance of entering. No different than Catholics. Just that such people cease being part of such faiths or a lack thereof and they become Catholics themselves when God reveals Himself.

Semantics, abandoning their original faith means exactly what I said that a pagan, atheists ,protestants or Jew will not be allowed in the Millennial Kingdom.

 

[Rhamiel]

Any governmental system that can justify taking a baby away from the parents when they have committed no crime and are not a danger to the child in a way that can be demonstrated is an evil governmental system that good people should oppose. I oppose this behavior when I see it in the United States by the way.

There's a sick part of me that would like to see how the people who think it was a good thing would feel if their children were taken from them for no good reason.

"no good reason"
well there was a good reason
you just do not accept it

guess what, a lot of people who abuse children do not think the State should take their kids from them

go listen to some rednecks some time
you will hear it "I don't need no government telling me how to raise MY kids!"

I also just LOVE how tricky you are with language
"in a way that can be demonstrated"



also, lets say that this was a mistake
it was an abuse of power by the Papal States

I mean we had Japanese-Americans rounded up to internment camps by a secular democratically elected Republic in the 1940's

no one is claiming that a more Catholic Government would be perfect, nor are we arguing that mistakes have not been made
but I think it is something to think about

(I am not stating that this was a mistake, I am just saying that all Governments make mistakes so injustice to one family does not delegitimize an entire political system, I mean if that were the case every Democracy would be over ran)

 

[pdudgeon]

Semantics, abandoning their original faith means exactly what I said that a pagan, atheists ,protestants or Jew will not be allowed in the Millennial Kingdom.

how long has it been since you read Matthew 22:1-14 ?
or Matthew 20:16 ?

allowed in, yes. allowed to stay is a different matter.
the bible clearly talks of wedding clothes--meaning those who are clothed with Christ--will be allowed to stay.

the servants in Matthew 22 are those who serve us here on earth, our pastors,teachers, fathers, who tell us of Christ, baptize us, unite us with Christ, and who bring us into the fullness of the faith.
They are the ones who go out into the highways and byways, bringing in all who will come.

but also just as clearly, all those who willingly come are not all clothed with Christ, and have not truly put on the garment of salvation that was offered to them.

that clothing is not apparent to our eyes here on earth, but it will be crystal clear to God.

in Matthew 20:16, the first called are the Jews. all throughout the OT and up to the days of Jesus life here on earth they have been called. and in the last days they will be called again , but this time by prophets that they themselves recognize.
and the last called are the Christians.
this scripture clearly states that both the first and the last will be together in heaven.
the order listed in this verse is not according to their importance in the kingdom of God, but the order of their comming to the kingdom. and they will come!

 

[LoAmmi]

guess what, a lot of people who abuse children do not think the State should take their kids from them

go listen to some rednecks some time
you will hear it "I don't need no government telling me how to raise MY kids!"

I also just LOVE how tricky you are with language
"in a way that can be demonstrated"

Tricky? It means what it says. I don't believe someone should have their children removed unless harm can be proven within a court of law meaning harm can be demonstrated. If you are hitting your children or not feeding them, that is something easy to demonstrate. I'm not a fan of families being ripped apart for reasons outside of that.

And if the shoe were on the other foot, I would be fighting hard against a Jewish government that pulled a child from a Christian home because it was found that the child was actually a Jew thorough his or her mother's line. I would protest it and even stand in the way of those people coming to take the child. I don't take this position just because it was a Jewish child taken.

also, lets say that this was a mistake
it was an abuse of power by the Papal States

I mean we had Japanese-Americans rounded up to internment camps by a secular democratically elected Republic in the 1940's

no one is claiming that a more Catholic Government would be perfect, nor are we arguing that mistakes have not been made
but I think it is something to think about

I'm not arguing that governments are perfect. My argument is about the marginalization of those not part of the religion who might not have an option to go anywhere else. I am lucky that there is a country with open boarders to me but others don't have that and might end up staying and being put in a position where they have no say in their government and have to suffer forms of oppression.

You seem like a reasonable person to me but I imagine you don't have many objections to the events of the Papal states like locking people in ghettos and heavily restricting what jobs they could do if they weren't Catholic.

 

[pdudgeon]

Tricky? It means what it says. I don't believe someone should have their children removed unless harm can be proven within a court of law meaning harm can be demonstrated. If you are hitting your children or not feeding them, that is something easy to demonstrate. I'm not a fan of families being ripped apart for reasons outside of that.

And if the shoe were on the other foot, I would be fighting hard against a Jewish government that pulled a child from a Christian home because it was found that the child was actually a Jew thorough his or her mother's line. I would protest it and even stand in the way of those people coming to take the child. I don't take this position just because it was a Jewish child taken.



I'm not arguing that governments are perfect. My argument is about the marginalization of those not part of the religion who might not have an option to go anywhere else. I am lucky that there is a country with open boarders to me but others don't have that and might end up staying and being put in a position where they have no say in their government and have to suffer forms of oppression.

You seem like a reasonable person to me but I imagine you don't have many objections to the events of the Papal states like locking people in ghettos and heavily restricting what jobs they could do if they weren't Catholic.

Daniel comes to mind, as do his three friends. So does Rahab, Joseph, Isaac, etc.
alll of these were captives in one way or another and subject to those in charge of them.
but all were at the same time under God's protection.

Their captivity didn't change what they believed.
and that faith and courage was accounted unto them.

 

[LoAmmi]

Daniel comes to mind, as do his three friends. So does Rahab, Joseph, Isaac, etc.
alll of these were captives in one way or another and subject to those in charge of them.
but all were at the same time under God's protection.

Their captivity didn't change what they believed.
and that faith and courage was accounted unto them.

Sure, but that doesn't mean we should not fight so that we aren't put into those types of situations.

 

[Rhamiel]

I don't take this position just because it was a Jewish child taken.

you bring up one obscure event from history

sorry, but it does look like you only focus on this because it was a Jewish kid

My argument is about the marginalization of those not part of the religion who might not have an option to go anywhere else.

well people who are not Secularists are being marginalized by the Secular government

 

[pdudgeon]

Sure, but that doesn't mean we should not fight so that we aren't put into those types of situations.

once again you're missing the whole point.
in each of those cases they were put into captivity-- or they lived where they were under a hostile government-- because God allowed it to happen.
He had a plan that didn't end with their captivity, but continued on to their deliverance.

so yes, in fact it does mean that when we find ourselves in those situations we should not fight (trusting in our own knowledge of the situation),
but that instead we should be trusting in what we believe, that God has the situation well in hand and we will--after being tried for a time--be
released by Him from our captivity.
to do anything else would be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
God absolutely has the power to preserve us.

and if some are martyred for their faith while in captivity, it was God's plan and they will be compensated and honored for that martyrdom.
Love for God has got to come before love of self, or self preservation.
After all, who can preserve our lives any better than God?