Is Catholicism compatible with liberal democracy.
#11
GangGreen
(02-18-2018, 01:10 AM)olorin12 Wrote: Much more important question:

Is liberal democracy compatible with Catholicism?

Could our system of government work with a Catholic state religion? That's one interesting form of government that I don't believe has been tried.

I think you could maybe replace the President with a monarch, give more power to the states, and impose Catholic law upon morality and get something that works better.


GG:I agree. Like Mr. Coulombe is fond of saying, I like the idea that my sovereign believes that ruling his people poorly might land him in Hell, and how that belief would affect his governance.
Eternal Father, I offer Thee the most precious blood of Thy Divine Son, Jesus, in union with the Masses said Throughout the world today, for all the holy souls in Purgatory. Amen.
Reply
#12
(02-18-2018, 11:43 AM)Jacafamala Wrote:
(02-18-2018, 09:56 AM)CaptCrunch73 Wrote: There is a classic book freely available online, check it out

LIBERALISM IS A SIN
Dr. Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany



What did you like about it, CaptC?

It's been a few years and the book is quite in depth. My extremely brief synopsis is liberalism is a system that's sets itself up not in union with but in direct conflict of Catholicism.
"There are in truth three states of the converted: the beginning,  the middle and the perfection. In the beginning, they experience the charms of sweetness; in the middle, the contests of temptation; and in the end, the fullness of perfection."
-- Pope St. Gregory

Cor Jesu Eucharistic Miserere Nobis 

Salus animarum suprema lex
[-] The following 2 users Like CaptCrunch73's post:
  • JacafamalaRedux, jovan66102
Reply
#13
(02-18-2018, 02:51 PM)CaptCrunch73 Wrote: It's been a few years and the book is quite in depth. My extremely brief synopsis is liberalism is a system that's sets itself up not in union with but in direct conflict of Catholicism.

Agreed. I need to reread it. It is important to remember, too, that Don sarda y Salvany was delated to Rome for the book. Rome responded by praising the book and censuring the good Priest's opponents for intemperate, personal attacks on him.

Another good book is 'The Liberal Illusion' by Louis Veuillot, a French journalist, available from Angelus Press.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#14
(02-18-2018, 11:57 AM)GangGreen Wrote:
(02-18-2018, 01:10 AM)olorin12 Wrote: Much more important question:

Is liberal democracy compatible with Catholicism?

Maybe if you have a completely practicing Catholic population. Otherwise, I say no way. We can certainly see the results of liberal democracy before our very eyes. Mob rule on all issues of morality.

Could our system of government work with a Catholic state religion? That's one interesting form of government that I don't believe has been tried.

I think you could maybe replace the President with a monarch, give more power to the states, and impose Catholic law upon morality and get something that works better.

But realistically, I'm assuming you agree that's not going to happen. Right now I'd just settle for what the founding fathers intended this country to be. I would like to see the Constitution Party become a viable third party in our system.
"Not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick.” --G.K. Chesterton
Reply
#15
(02-18-2018, 12:21 PM)austenbosten Wrote: @Jacafamala
You are exactly right and that's the whole point!  Many Conservatives will be happy to embrace state interference for the sake of a Christian child, but abhor it in the sake of the scenario you mentioned.  That is the problem with Locklean religious tolerance and the concepts of religious liberty.

Okay, interesting because then somehow I'm not understanding Locklean (never heard of him, forgive my ignorance) religious tolerance nor the concepts of religious liberty as you define them. Religious Liberty, as defined by the Constitution is based on Judeo Christian values and principles. ETA: so there is that pre-existing bias.
"Not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick.” --G.K. Chesterton
Reply
#16
(02-18-2018, 04:01 PM)Jacafamala Wrote:
(02-18-2018, 12:21 PM)austenbosten Wrote: @Jacafamala
You are exactly right and that's the whole point!  Many Conservatives will be happy to embrace state interference for the sake of a Christian child, but abhor it in the sake of the scenario you mentioned.  That is the problem with Locklean religious tolerance and the concepts of religious liberty.

Okay, interesting because then somehow I'm not understanding Locklean (never heard of him, forgive my ignorance) religious tolerance nor the concepts of religious liberty as you define them. Religious Liberty, as defined by the Constitution is based on Judeo Christian values and principles. ETA: so there is that pre-existing bias.
Judeo Christian principles are different from Catholic ones. The church has condemned the idea that people should be allowed to do whatever they want. The first amendment is against Catholic teaching.
[-] The following 2 users Like For Petes Sake's post:
  • jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#17
(02-18-2018, 04:01 PM)Jacafamala Wrote:
(02-18-2018, 12:21 PM)austenbosten Wrote: @Jacafamala
You are exactly right and that's the whole point!  Many Conservatives will be happy to embrace state interference for the sake of a Christian child, but abhor it in the sake of the scenario you mentioned.  That is the problem with Locklean religious tolerance and the concepts of religious liberty.

Okay, interesting because then somehow I'm not understanding Locklean (never heard of him, forgive my ignorance) religious tolerance nor the concepts of religious liberty as you define them. Religious Liberty, as defined by the Constitution is based on Judeo Christian values and principles. ETA: so there is that pre-existing bias.

I think he's referring to the philosophy of John Locke.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
[-] The following 2 users Like Dominicus's post:
  • austenbosten, JacafamalaRedux
Reply
#18
(02-18-2018, 05:54 PM)Dominicus Wrote:
(02-18-2018, 04:01 PM)Jacafamala Wrote:
(02-18-2018, 12:21 PM)austenbosten Wrote: @Jacafamala
You are exactly right and that's the whole point!  Many Conservatives will be happy to embrace state interference for the sake of a Christian child, but abhor it in the sake of the scenario you mentioned.  That is the problem with Locklean religious tolerance and the concepts of religious liberty.

Okay, interesting because then somehow I'm not understanding Locklean (never heard of him, forgive my ignorance) religious tolerance nor the concepts of religious liberty as you define them. Religious Liberty, as defined by the Constitution is based on Judeo Christian values and principles. ETA: so there is that pre-existing bias.

I think he's referring to the philosophy of John Locke.

Yes I was referring to Mr. Locke. John Locke is known as the "father of Liberalism" and its his treatise on religious tolerance is the basis for America's doctrine of freedom of religion.
[-] The following 1 user Likes austenbosten's post:
  • JacafamalaRedux
Reply
#19
(02-18-2018, 05:44 PM)For Petes Sake Wrote: Judeo Christian principles are different from Catholic ones. The church has condemned the idea that people should be allowed to do whatever they want. The first amendment is against Catholic teaching.

In an ideal Catholic state, yes. In the state that actually exists, I'd much rather have religious toleration than a Protestant or secular state that makes Catholicism illegal.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • For Petes Sake
Reply
#20
I think there are several issues that need to be addressed to answer this question fully.

1) Does might / majority make right?

2) How is a person's God-given free will respected?

Question 1
In any democracy the general idea is that the majority rules, but the minority has rights. An example often given by Ben Franklin I believe is if 2 wolves and 1 lamb voted on what to eat for dinner, that is tyranny. There is a reality however that the majority can and often does abuse its power. We need look no further than the Church's own child-abuse scandal. The public school system is MUCH worse than the Church but we are always going to have the issue that popes / priests are human beings with human shortcomings. 

At the same time however the Church's governing body does not adhere to majority rules. The truth of the matter is that when the Church was studying the birth control issue in the past, the convening body voted to rescind the birth control ban. The Pope went against the committee much to their dismay. A diverse population (like the US) is not going to like having a majority decision overridden because "the Pope says so" even if he acts in accordance with God's will. So to that effect I don't think Catholicism and any form of democracy can work. The instant the monarch or whoever is caught being human (i.e. sinning), and they will, everyone else will find cause to justify their sin(s) because hey why should s/he get a pass? The child-abuse scandal taught us at least that much. Many of the people that were driven away by the scandal used it as an excuse to leave a faith they already abandoned but couldn't announce it without scorn. 

Question 2
This one is more layered. God gave man free will knowing full well we could use it to spit in His face. "...that ye may be the children of your Father who is in Heaven. For He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matthew 5:45). God endures sin in hope that we will use an act of the will to turn from it and towards Him. We can enact all laws in accordance with what is just, but we have that already in the laws of Moses. All you would be doing is using the police power of the state to force people to accept God's law, not out of love but of fear. In essence, you challenge God's call for a sincere willful choice to act in accordance to His own will. 

The police power of the state is not meant to be an enforce of divine acceptance. Its purpose is mainly to maintain order in society. A Catholic democracy however would be in a precarious predicament in that if it tolerated individuals to sin without consequence it could be seen as accepting of that behavior thus giving rise to scandal. For a secular government however that is not really a problem unless the said act is resulting in a major physical crisis. 

I think insulating the Church from having to deal with a society of mostly spiritually apathetic individuals "behaving rightly" is probably a good thing. You can see especially in this day and age that whether you look at the left or right, both sides are inundated in one hypocrisy after another by even their own standards. The left for instance talks about tolerance but they are some of the most intolerant folks out there. The right talks about morality and morality codes yet they drop the ball which results in ammunition for a liberal carnival. I think the Church needs to be refuge from that tribalism we see in full bloom now. 

In conclusion, I do not think Catholicism is compatible with any form of government nor do we want it to be. The government does however need to limit itself from abridging the practice of religion, which for the last 2 decades it has been doing anything but limiting itself. People of faith need to understand certain political realities as well in that we need to pick our battles carefully and expect them to be met with extreme hostility / rejection. This is why running guys like Mike Huckabee and Todd Akin (MO senate candidate from awhile ago) is a horrible idea. Also, when you run a campaign it shouldn't be a mega church revival mass. Make God's Word visible in your actions and you don't need to be dropping Bible verses. Who was it that said "preach always using words only when necessary"? That is something Protestants don't seem to get and keep blowing opportunities to secure even a basic level of respect for people of faith.
Local anti-feminist.....if you think women deserve special treatment without any accountability for their actions expect to hear from me!
[-] The following 1 user Likes divinesilence80's post:
  • Galahad3
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)