Which form of government is the best?
#61
(09-10-2013, 08:53 AM)Tim Wrote: Doce me, here's a little more on St. Roberto  Bellarmine. All of the founding fathers had a book in their libraries named Patriarcha it was contra Divine rights of Kings and was primarily pinched from St. Roberto Bellarmine's writings.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6607

If you look around there are scholarly papers written on this subject. What's More St/ Roberto Bellarmine and Fr. Suarez are considered the Fathers of International Law.

tim

From the article it seems that Patriarcha actually was in favor of the Divine right of kings:
Quote: One such book found in Jefferson's personal library (now in the Library of Congress) was Patriarcha, by Protestant theologian Robert Filmer, who was the court theologian to King James I. It is a treatise in defense of the Divine Right of Kings, which Jefferson obviously read because the book's margins are full of his notes. (The full title of the book is actually Patriarcha: The Naturall Power of Kinges Defended Against the Unnatural Liberty of the People, By Arguments, Theological, Rational, Historical and Legall.

However it contained quotes from St. Robert Bellarmine (as you saw in the article), and Jefferson obviously was much more impressed by him than by Filmer.
Reply
#62
MagisterMusicae Wrote:Secondly, I have demonstrated the need for a hierarchy, because the very notion of subsidiarity demands a hierarchy. If subsidiarity involves handling a matter at the lowest level possible, then that implies levels, or else the definition and principle are pointless. To take the mess hall forks example, if there is not a general, then there is not a mess sergeant. The lower presumes the higher, because the authority and power derive from the higher.

To say "subsidiarity" is to say "hierarchy".

The family cannot be both the lowest level of this "subsidiarity hierarchy" and also completely capable of all acts necessary for a man's life.

Because you don't seem to get that we will draw out the logical end of your absurdity.

If you argue that the family is the lowest level then we must say there are higher levels. If the family is independently capable of all man's needs, then subsidiarity would dictate that the family must handle these. But the fact is and common sense shows that there are higher levels of society which exercise power over the family. By subsidiarity these are not just superfluous but positively evil because they rob the family of authority and power it should have. Thus any social unit greater than the family is positively evil. Thus men are ethically bound not form any units larger than the family. This means that men must not associate with other men outside of their family, which means they must marry and reproduce in their own family. They also must not form a society like the Church because man possesses the power to worship God naturally, which by subsidiarity means that man should worship God privately. But because natural law demands not just individual worship but communal worship, this means that the highest community worship permitted is the family. But God has revealed that he wants a Church, which is directly counter to man's nature as asserted by subsidiarity, so God is a deceiver and not omnipotent.

Individuals and family precede the State, and the government can only be mandated by them to serve them.  If an individual or family finds no need to associate with the State, then the State has no authority to stop them.  You acknowledge on the one hand that the people mandate the government, but contradict this if you insist on a hierarchy that uses involuntary force against them. 

Quote:So, if you insist that the family is a perfect society, and we must apply subsidiarity, you insist on incestuous reproduction and no Church, and a God that looks like a demiurge, not the Catholic notion of God, among other things.

Incest is something royals did to make sure the people's blood did not mix in with their position of power.  Families on the other hand can associate with who they want on a voluntary basis if they need something beyond their capability.   

Quote:The State existed well before the Church. For instance the Greeks hundreds of years before even the Apostles had courts, armies, and all you complain about above. It certainly did not usurp these from the yet-to-exist Church. And clearly these services were not "private". The Greeks are not the only example. Well before the Greeks even the city-states of early Mesopotamia (well before even the Old Covenant) had similar public services.

Yes, I'm glad you brought that up, because in all those examples the State was established on slavery.  It's nice to have a hierarchy...but only if you're on top. 
Reply
#63
No type of government is the best. There will always be a flaw in it.
Reply
#64
Doce, I miss spoke. I was concentrated on Bellarmine. Oops !

tim
Reply
#65
(09-11-2013, 04:09 PM)RedCaves Wrote: No type of government is the best. There will always be a flaw in it.
That's not what Pope Pius VI thought.
Reply
#66
(09-12-2013, 12:54 AM)Geremia Wrote:
(09-11-2013, 04:09 PM)RedCaves Wrote: No type of government is the best. There will always be a flaw in it.
That's not what Pope Pius VI thought.

Where in that did he say that monarchy is inherently better?
Reply
#67
(09-11-2013, 03:52 PM)PeterII Wrote: Individuals and family precede the State, and the government can only be mandated by them to serve them.  If an individual or family finds no need to associate with the State, then the State has no authority to stop them.  You acknowledge on the one hand that the people mandate the government, but contradict this if you insist on a hierarchy that uses involuntary force against them.

(09-11-2013, 03:52 PM)PeterII Wrote: Families on the other hand can associate with who they want on a voluntary basis if they need something beyond their capability.

You obviously didn't read the quote from Leo XIII's encyclical which I shared earlier:

Immortale Dei, 3 Wrote:Man's natural instinct moves him to live in civil society, for he cannot, if dwelling apart, provide himself with the necessary requirements of life, nor procure the means of developing his mental and moral faculties. Hence, it is divinely ordained that he should lead his life-be it family, or civil-with his fellow men, amongst whom alone his several wants can be adequately supplied. But, as no society can hold together unless some one be over all, directing all to strive earnestly for the common good, every body politic must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its Author.

Individuals and families do precede the State as a cause precedes its effect. Society (and thus the State, which is a natural outcome of society) is materially caused by individuals, but not merely out of a voluntary association, but naturally. As the Pope says, the very nature of man demands that he live in society, because he cannot provide for all of his needs on his own or in his family.

The very nature of a society demands that there be some authority (formal cause) to direct the society (just as a family must have its head). Because this all derives from the very nature of man and society, the State (generically, not specifically) and the authority of the ruler (generically, not specifically) has God for its author.

I would never claim that a particular state or government has God as its author, thus, I would not say that God inspired our constitution or chose our leaders. We wrote the constitution, and picked our leaders. If the State has authority over something, or if a ruler is selected, then this State and ruler exercise power as Our Lord said to Pilate, because it was given from heaven.

We also know that the Church prefers no form of government (cf. Immortale Dei, 4). Thus, the people who are the subjects of the State, may, for a legitimate reason, change the kind of government that the State has. It could be a monarchy. I could be a republic. It could be an oligarchic system. But the power itself that the State possesses does not come from the subjects, they are merely agents of God in forming a government and State.

(09-11-2013, 03:52 PM)PeterII Wrote: Incest is something royals did to make sure the people's blood did not mix in with their position of power.

How about we drop the anti-royal thing. I've written before that we're not talking about monarchy here. We're talking about the Catholic principles behind the State.

If you insist on taking pointless side shots and not seriously addressing the question, I am not going to waste my time in continuing the discussion. Your choice. Discuss the points themselves, not your prejudices, and respond to the points made; or no more discussion.

(09-11-2013, 03:52 PM)PeterII Wrote:
Quote:The State existed well before the Church. For instance the Greeks hundreds of years before even the Apostles had courts, armies, and all you complain about above. It certainly did not usurp these from the yet-to-exist Church. And clearly these services were not "private". The Greeks are not the only example. Well before the Greeks even the city-states of early Mesopotamia (well before even the Old Covenant) had similar public services.

Yes, I'm glad you brought that up, because in all those examples the State was established on slavery.

Red herring. They were founded on slavery no less than the US, and you either miss or distort the point of that retort.

You claimed that the State stole its powers of governance from the Church. Instead, we see history undeniable shows that these institutions and powers were under public control well before the Church existed.

Are you prepared to concede that point, or modify your position. If not, then you're not interested in a serious discussion, and again, I'm not going to waste any more time.

(09-11-2013, 03:52 PM)PeterII Wrote: It's nice to have a hierarchy...but only if you're on top.

Unless God's will for you is not to be on the top. The lowest man on the totem pole doing his duty of state will have a far easier time of saving his soul than the man at the top. In my own life, I'm not a top of the hierarchy guy, and I'm very happy not to be.
Reply
#68
(09-12-2013, 01:26 AM)devoutchristian Wrote:
(09-12-2013, 12:54 AM)Geremia Wrote:
(09-11-2013, 04:09 PM)RedCaves Wrote: No type of government is the best. There will always be a flaw in it.
That's not what Pope Pius VI thought.

Where in that did he say that monarchy is inherently better?

I didn't know Papal Opinions were infallible.  :P
Reply
#69
(09-12-2013, 01:26 AM)devoutchristian Wrote: Where in that did he say that monarchy is inherently better?
Pope Pius VI said monarchy is the best form of government in thesis (“praestantioris monorchici regiminis forma”)
{allocution to the Consistory of June 17, 1793, Les Enseignements Pontificaux – La Paix Interieure de Nations, by the monks of Solesmes (Paris: Desclee & Cie), p. 8.}
Reply
#70
MagisterMusicae Wrote:I would never claim that a particular state or government has God as its author, thus, I would not say that God inspired our constitution or chose our leaders. We wrote the constitution, and picked our leaders. If the State has authority over something, or if a ruler is selected, then this State and ruler exercise power as Our Lord said to Pilate, because it was given from heaven.

Quote:We also know that the Church prefers no form of government (cf. Immortale Dei, 4). Thus, the people who are the subjects of the State, may, for a legitimate reason, change the kind of government that the State has. It could be a monarchy. I could be a republic. It could be an oligarchic system. But the power itself that the State possesses does not come from the subjects, they are merely agents of God in forming a government and State.

And if a leader is not selected?  If the people do not want a monarchy, republic, oligarchy, democracy etc.? God's authority and law does not need a coercive political hierarchy to exist.  The people of Israel lived this way until they unwisely chose a King. 

Quote:How about we drop the anti-royal thing. I've written before that we're not talking about monarchy here. We're talking about the Catholic principles behind the State....You claimed that the State stole its powers of governance from the Church. Instead, we see history undeniable shows that these institutions and powers were under public control well before the Church existed

You missed the point.  This isn't about a particular form of government, it is about coercive power.  You are trying to legitimize hierarchies not consented to by their subjects (eg. slaves) who are God's agents. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)