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

[Soyeong]

The government in the Messianic Kingdom will simply be to follow all of God's commandments.

 

[SolomonVII]

I don't know. The RCC didn't start off by killing heretics. I feel like they would devolve into this again over time. We're better off with the two being separate. We will live in a Christian theocracy in Heaven.

The old adage of power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely still rings true.

The problem with Catholic power in earlier ages is not that the leaders were not Catholic enough, but there did not exist a system of checks and balances to play power against power.

The house of the devil is based in power, who is the ruler of this fallen world. Whether he meant to or not, Jesus gave the clue of how to deal with power with his comment that a house divided against itself cannot stand.
We cannot change the fallenness of this world, but allowing power to check power is a good means to deal with the corrupting influence of power.

That is the genius of the American system actually. That is what the medieval papacy lacked.

 

[Cos-play]

A Catholic government would simply be to follow the 10 commandments.

No it wouldn't Catholic Theology goes way beyond that.

In a Catholic Theocracy divorce, birth control, and gay marriage and probably a lot of other things particular to Catholic Theocracy would be illegal.

This would force people who don't believe these things are sinful to live in a society in which they are not free to practice their own religious (or secular) beliefs.

This is the scourge of the Islamic Sharia law states where Christians, Buddhist and Hindus (and the more secular Muslims) are ruled by a set of laws they don't believe in are are repressed by.

This is not a society in which I would want to live.

 

[Sumwear]

I do kind of find these topics a bit funny. You usually get Catholics vote in the negative, but isn't that what heaven is? The ultimate Catholic theocracy? I guess it only works when you're dead.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I do kind of find these topics a bit funny. You usually get Catholics vote in the negative, but isn't that what heaven is? The ultimate Catholic theocracy? I guess it only works when you're dead.

I may be wrong but I think that most Catholics proabably would say that it only works when it isn't a human agency running things but God in charge. That is the real difference between theocracy and heaven.

 

[Sumwear]

I may be wrong but I think that most Catholics proabably would say that it only works when it isn't a human agency running things but God in charge. That is the real difference between theocracy and heaven.

I am aware. Just a bit ironic. It definitely is the best rule, just that you need to be dead to experience it.

 

[Hank77]

I may be wrong but I think that most Catholics proabably would say that it only works when it isn't a human agency running things but God in charge. That is the real difference between theocracy and heaven.

And the saints in heaven are in agreement with God's Word, their hearts have been changed and made perfect in Christ. As long as we are imperfect people, even the saints, we will make mistakes and are subject to corruption.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I am aware. Just a bit ironic. It definitely is the best rule, just that you need to be dead to experience it.

No, I do not think you have to be dead, the actual dead do not experience anything they are dead, you have to be given eternal life which is the opposite of being dead. Heaven is not a place of the dead in any denomination of Christianity. .

 

[Sumwear]

No, I do not think you have to be dead, the actual dead do not experience anything they are dead, you have to be given eternal life which is the opposite of being dead. Heaven is not a place of the dead in any denomination of Christianity. .

I'm sorry, but this is arguing semantics. Dead in the sense your body ceases any function. I'm not talking about the spirit as that is eternal. Where it ends up is another question.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I'm sorry, but this is arguing semantics. Dead in the sense your body ceases any function. I'm not talking about the spirit as that is eternal. Where it ends up is another question.

I assure you I am not arguing the semantics for the sake of arguing semantics.. The dead that you describe(bodies with no life in them ) do not experience anything they are dead. So, no, the dead do not experience Heaven. I could accept "You need to have physically died to experience it " but you cannot be dead and experience anything so that is more than simple semantics one is a statement of the actual belief where "You need to be dead to experience it" a mischaracterization of the belief. Why anyone would continue to insist upon a statement that does not accurately describe the belief of those whose beliefs one is talking about is unknown to me.

 

[Sumwear]

I assure you I am not arguing the semantics for the sake of arguing semantics.. The dead that you describe(bodies with no life in them ) do not experience anything they are dead. So, no, the dead do not experience Heaven. I could accept "You need to have physically died to experience it " but you cannot be dead and experience anything so that is more than simple semantics one is a statement of the actual belief where "You need to be dead to experience it" a mischaracterization of the belief. Why anyone would continue to insist upon a statement that does not accurately describe the belief of those whose beliefs one is talking about is unknown to me.

Yet, you still quote my post.

I'm sorry, but this is arguing semantics. Dead in the sense your body ceases any function. I'm not talking about the spirit as that is eternal. Where it ends up is another question.

Why are you persisting on carrying on this little convo?

 

[Ned Netterville]

The Catholic Magisterium has long been corrupted by the power it (they) wield. Why corrupt it more by giving it more power?

 

[SolomonVII]

The Catholic Magisterium has long been corrupted by the power it (they) wield. Why corrupt it more by giving it more power?

I disagree that the Magesterium has been corrupted.
Please give some examples of what you mean by that statement.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

The OP has an internal contradiction, as Canon law states:

Can. 285 §1. Clerics are to refrain completely from all those things which are unbecoming to their state, according to the prescripts of particular law.

§2. Clerics are to avoid those things which, although not unbecoming, are nevertheless foreign to the clerical state.

§3. Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.
​

It follows that a Catholic nation cannot be a theocracy, given the current definition of Catholic beliefs.

 

[topcare]

Would you approve of it if the American people were to ever decide by a vote to put the Catholic bishops in charge of the government and then base all (with no exceptions) of its laws on the teachings of the Catholic Magisterium? That means that on all the hot-button political issues—abortion, homosexuality, embryonic stem cells, climate change, immigration, euthanasia, capital punishment—the teaching in the Catholicism of the Catholic Church would be applied. Would you approve of that? This is a yes or no question, and my answer is yes I would approve of it. And, as all the regulars here know, I'm a conservative.

Edit:
I don't mind if a non-Catholic replies in this thread.

Who wold make sure that the teachings were followed. The problems is it still a human and hey could go liberal

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Would you approve of it if the American people were to ever decide by a vote to put the Catholic bishops in charge of the government and then base all (with no exceptions) of its laws on the teachings of the Catholic Magisterium? That means that on all the hot-button political issues—abortion, homosexuality, embryonic stem cells, climate change, immigration, euthanasia, capital punishment—the teaching in the Catholicism of the Catholic Church would be applied. Would you approve of that? This is a yes or no question, and my answer is yes I would approve of it. And, as all the regulars here know, I'm a conservative.

Edit:
I don't mind if a non-Catholic replies in this thread.

No... as a protestant I would be deemed a heretic and persecuted... like the last time the 'church' was in charge.

 

[Rhamiel]

So Catholic teaching on belief wouldn't be part of the law in your proposed system? People would be free to practice other faiths or not practice religion at all? That would be different, then ,but would it be a Catholic theocracy if one could openly practice paganism or freely promote atheism?

now you are mixing too different things

believing whatever you want
and actively promoting whatever you want

right now we have laws about what you can promote
you can believe that drinking bleach is a healthy thing to do
but if you put that in a commercial, you will get a law suit for sure! probably brought up on criminal charges

They are perhaps connected, but the heart of a religion is the belief in, and understanding of, the supernatural. Two people of different faiths, like Christianity and Islam, could quite likely have similar views on the morality of gay marriage, abortion, etc. However, it couldn't be then said they share the same theology.
It's those theological beliefs that determine someone's faith. A Baptist may agree with a Catholic on just about every moral issue, but maintain the distinct theological views that make them Baptist.

well since there are moral/legal issues
you could be a Baptist or Muslim or Agnostic and still be a good citizen of a Catholic Theocracy

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there aren't many non-Catholics that live in Vatican city. Having a large population of people not of the faith in charge changes how things must be done. For example, a famous case in the Papal states was one where a Jewish couple had a child that the nanny baptized in secret. Since the law forbid a Catholic from being raised by a non-Catholic as it put their soul in jepoardy, the child was stripped away from the parents. Would you support such a law?

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

According to our faith, when Jesus returns and renews the world it will be a Catholic theocracy.

well I guess all the people who hate the idea of a Catholic theocracy can always opt out of Kingdom of God
Jesus is not a tyrant, He does not force people to stay with Him

No, there is no perfect leader in secular democracies, secular dictatorships or in theocracies. We have no reason to believe that a Catholic theocracy would even be a reasonable place in which to live.

it would not be "reasonable"?
do you think the teachings of the Catholic Church lack reason?
I think the teachings of our Faith are very reasonable

For almost all Americans, the idea of theocracy is a really terrible idea

yep, because just because something is unpopular, that mean it must be bad

This countries founding documents were drawn to prevent such a travesty.

yes, Deists and Freemasons really really really wanted to discourage a Theocracy, no surprise there

And yes, I understand that there are those who are fine with a dictatorship or theocracy as long as they think that their ideas are the ones being used to run the country.

who said anything about a dictatorship?

Neither would it work under any other denomination. It was tried by Calvin and the Reformist in Geneva and it didn't work there either.

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 the scourge of the Islamic Sharia law states where Christians, Buddhist and Hindus (and the more secular Muslims) are ruled by a set of laws they don't believe in are are repressed by.

so anyone who does not like a law is "repressed" by it?
because I live in a secular country, and there are a lot of laws I do not believe in
I am not even talking about the religious stuff, just in general

 

[Rhamiel]

The OP has an internal contradiction, as Canon law states:

Can. 285 §1. Clerics are to refrain completely from all those things which are unbecoming to their state, according to the prescripts of particular law.

§2. Clerics are to avoid those things which, although not unbecoming, are nevertheless foreign to the clerical state.

§3. Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.
​

It follows that a Catholic nation cannot be a theocracy, given the current definition of Catholic beliefs.

VERY good point

other then the Papal States and some relatively short instances of Mission Colonies (I think large parts of what is now Brazil was once ruled by the Jesuits?)

but these are relatively rare

you do not need an actual Theocracy where the Bishops rule to have a normal Catholic Government

 

[Rhamiel]

No... as a protestant I would be deemed a heretic and persecuted... like the last time the 'church' was in charge.

well the "last time the church was in charge" would probably be the Austro-Hungarian Empire?
I mean, it was not "the Church" like the OP sets up in this thread with the Bishops being in charge

but it was a Catholic monarchy

were Protestants being persecuted in Vienna in 1895?
just wondering

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

well the "last time the church was in charge" would probably be the Austro-Hungarian Empire?
I mean, it was not "the Church" like the OP sets up in this thread with the Bishops being in charge

but it was a Catholic monarchy

were Protestants being persecuted in Vienna in 1895?
just wondering

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.