If you take them both seriously, aren't Catholicism and democracy incompatible?
>>976964
Religion and true democracy is incompatible.
>>976964
Not at all Christianity is inherently secular which makes it able to adapt to all forms of governance
They're both very big ideas that can easily coexist if you strategically ignore the parts that don't.
>>976964
No. Jesus even directly specified that earthly governments are totally okay as long as they don't interfere with God.
>>977015
that's a pretty radical, spinoza-esque conception of christianity, one that I don't think OP is addressing here
>>976964
No. That being said Catholicism has always had a monarchist bent.
Christianity as described by Jesus is in essence Communism. The community shares with each other, feeds the needy, only keeps what is necessary to live on and gives to the collective to ensure it can spread its ideology and take care of the less fortunate. He also espouses that you must be armed, and that "if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
At the same time, it also kept the church very separate from secular governments. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's after all, and obey the laws of the land and all that jazz so saying Christianity = Communism just isn't true. Jesus specifically noted that government and religion were two separate things.
>>977036
Not at all, the teachings of Romans 13 the parable with Cesare and indeed its entire history show Christianity being secular and non theocratic even when they gave the pope or a bishop land their worldly authority was still limited wholly to that land.
The ideas of the them being hostile to each other is a product of the anticlericalism that spawned from church corruption and the Churches support of unpopular states.
>>977046
Care to justify that?
>>976964
Dirty papist checking in. You can do some mental gymnastics around it. But I've always kind of agreed with you OP, of course since I live in the hillbilly heartland of America, I try to not criticize democracy out loud.
>>977057
So its incompatible because of southern protestants?
>>976964
Who the hell takes democracy seriously?
>>977063
Its the dominant ideology
>>977055
Monarchism just goes along better with the hierarchical nature of Catholicism. Plenty of Catholic philosophers advocated for it. The Catholic church promoted monarchy until after WW2 where monarchism basically died as a serious political force in the west and they couldn't anymore. Most of the forces behind contemporary Western Republics were anti-clerical.
>>977070
>Monarchism just goes along better with the hierarchical nature of Catholicism.
Goes along better =/= incompatible with democracy. Besides I think the attidute and acceptance of the public to the Churchs secular position is far more important that how the state is organised/not organised.
>The Catholic church promoted monarchy until after WW2 where monarchism basically died as a serious political force in the west and they couldn't anymore.
Got any sources for that, or does that just based on crowning monarchs? After the Latrean Treaty in Italy and the ascension of Franco they seemed to stop doing anything other than oppose communism.
>Most of the forces behind contemporary Western Republics were anti-clerical.
See the second paragraph of my earlier post
>Most of the forces behind contemporary Western Republics were anti-clerical.
>>977081
To add to this, I would say that the wars of Religon and persecutions started by the Princes and Princlings in Europe provide a solid example of monarchy not being better suited to Catholicism
>>977058
No, I was just expressing my agreement with OP, and the fact that I don't get too do that often due to the people I live around.
>>977092
But why is it that you agree with the OP is the point who doesnt actually do anything other than ask a question.
>>976964
Political Catholicism is really only possible within a socialist framework
>>977054
Romans 13:1-7
"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake."
How is this secular? Obedience to authority is subordinate to obedience to God here, so there is a presupposed belief that God exists.
> omit God
There is no longer a ground for legitimacy of authority here, which would seemingly necessitate democracy or some type of republic in order to give legitimacy back to authority. So you end up with a democratic state, but one that arose from the lack of divine authority.
There is no doubt that you could have a democratic institution that just so happens to have a christian majority. To have a 'christian democracy' seems to imply this very notion. Apart from this, though, I don't see how the two can be compatible. Democracy derives legitimacy from the people, catholicism grants legitimacy to democracy. Certainly an individual can be both democratic and catholic, but I don't think an institution can.
>>977081
I never said that it wasn't compatible with democracy. I'm saying that Catholicism has historically promoted traditional monarchies.
Take Pope Pius X's attacks on Modernism and Americanism as an example. The Catholic Church obviously is going to prefer an Ancien Regime Catholic monarchy over a liberal Republic where people believe in things like separation of church and state.
After WW2 there were no more monarchies to support, practically every country of Europe was either a liberal democracy or Marxist, and it's obvious which ones the church were going to side with.
The church can survive inside of practically any form of government, but historically monarchies have been the friendliest towards it.
>>976964
Democracy isn't inherently incompatible with Catholicism. At it's core, Democracy is simply people voting in their personal interests, and if you've got a bunch of Catholics voting on something, the government is likely to reach a consensus that jives with their religion.
What doesn't work is when a secular state inherently enforces a law that runs contrary to Catholic belief or doctrine, which can happen in any form of government. At that point, a Catholic has to choose between following secular laws and religious laws. For example, a priest being charged with inciting hate speech in Canada for having a homily on homosexual marriage -- the priest had to choose between following the laws of the land and doing his duty to explain doctrine to churchgoers.
This is why America is very reluctant to actually pass any laws that would impose on a religion's members. Things like Roe v Wade can exist because it's essentially a choice of the individual couple, while things such as requiring priests to marry gay couples would be met with complete uproar.
>>977129
Just wait until we get an African Pope, friend. Vatican II won't know what hit it.
>>977101
>How is this secular? Obedience to authority is subordinate to obedience to God here, so there is a presupposed belief that God exists.
Because it does not require Christians to establish their own political system and gives legitimacy to a whole variety of political systems to govern Christians. Its the reason why I included a reference to the other parable which helps put this into context.
>There is no longer a ground for legitimacy of authority here, which would seemingly necessitate democracy or some type of republic in order to give legitimacy back to authority. So you end up with a democratic state, but one that arose from the lack of divine authority.
God still establishes systems even if catholic priests do no crown them.
>There is no doubt that you could have a democratic institution that just so happens to have a christian majority. To have a 'christian democracy' seems to imply this very notion. Apart from this, though, I don't see how the two can be compatible.
Because you are taking an Islamic and Jewish view of political authority which cannot countenance the idea of secular law and religious law. Hence why Christians did not and do not require special religious court systems to handle things like contractual disputes.
>Democracy derives legitimacy from the people, catholicism grants legitimacy to democracy. Certainly an individual can be both democratic and catholic, but I don't think an institution can.
Thats kind of the point no institution can unless you have a theocracy or have a very vauge view like the Chinese mandate of heaven. However Christinaity does not requrie those hence allowing for democracy to be accepted by Christians.
>>977134
Soon
>>977138
I feel like Catholicism is a special case within Christianity because of its structure, though. Catholics in essence ARE under a theocracy, just one without any effective means of enforcement. The Pope, as head of the Church, is essentially a secondary ruler to whom they owe fealty. He's certainly not elected, or he is elected by only a narrow selection of 'royalty' with a little divine intervention thrown in. It's totally different than modern secular democracy, and I think tension between the two is unavoidable--if, of course, you are a serious Catholic.
>>977116
I never said that it wasn't compatible with democracy. I'm saying that Catholicism has historically promoted traditional monarchies.
Catholicism has supported the non hostile status quo, the world has been monarchical for a longer period of time hence the Church has supported it more. The kind of Arguments you see against democracy tend to be those which pop up when Republican governments persecute Catholics or Catholic Interests. During Pius X time the French Republic had recently destroyed their sovereignty by Supporting the Italian unification.
>After WW2 there were no more monarchies to support, practically every country of Europe was either a liberal democracy or Marxist, and it's obvious which ones the church were going to side with.
Exactly its a status quo issue. In true secular nature they did not push for restoration or creation of monarchies despite their power and influence to do so.
>>977116
>The church can survive inside of practically any form of government, but historically monarchies have been the friendliest towards it.
Non Democratic Governments have persecuted Catholics on a far greater scale than democratic ones, all the wars of religion in Europe which decimated the population of Germania were started by monarchs just as the persecutions in Japan and China were.
Likewise non secular autocrats in Communist nations were also far more oppressive than those in more democratic ones.
>>977176
>they did not push for restoration or creation of monarchies despite their power and influence to do so.
Do you think that they had that kind of power and influence post-WW2?
But yeah I think you're right for the most part. I have noticed that hardcore traditionalist Catholics tend to be at least sympathetic to monarchism.
>>977138
> an Islamic and Jewish view of political authority which cannot countenance the idea of secular law and religious law. Hence why Christians did not and do not require special religious court systems to handle things like contractual disputes
Fair point, fair refutation altogether, but then I don't understand OPs question at all. If we're not talking about an institution that is both established as christian and democratic at the same time, then there isn't any incompatibility since they are two separate types of authority - moral and social.
So the question becomes - what does OP mean by 'taken seriously,' since a scholarly christian would hold, as you do, that the laws of man are on par with the laws of God, so any democratically made decision may as well be/is God's will, que sera
But then you have other devout theists, as >>977124 points out, that muddle political matters on moral grounds, regardless of majority opinions at the time, effectively hindering god's will (if it is to be so understood.) These are serious deists in an affective sense, which may not be the best type of serious, but is certainly prominent. They may not have their own special courts, but they certainly bring their god to court with them.
I thought it was the latter, more sensational christians that OP was referencing. But of course, you can argue that these people aren't really 'christians,' and so they mess the reputation for the rest.
>>977166
>I feel like Catholicism is a special case within Christianity because of its structure, though. Catholics in essence ARE under a theocracy, just one without any effective means of enforcement.
Nonsense no Popes (even those Machiavellian ones) acted as if they had civil supremecy as well as spiritual or acted towards obtaining that. Supremacy and hierarchy in one area does not equal it in another.
>The Pope, as head of the Church, is essentially a secondary ruler to whom they owe fealty
Yeah in spiritual matters alone. Reading through the rest of this post of yours do you think secularism means a divide of civil and spiritual matters or desctruction of the spiritual leaving only the civil?
>The Pope, as head of the Church, is essentially a secondary ruler to whom they owe fealty. He's certainly not elected, or he is elected by only a narrow selection of 'royalty' with a little divine intervention thrown in. It's totally different than modern secular democracy, and I think tension between the two is unavoidable--if, of course, you are a serious Catholic.
>>977193
>Do you think that they had that kind of power and influence post-WW2?
They certainly did in Italy at least, which held a referendum on the matter. However they continued to be fairly neutral and maintain the agreement they had with Mussolini.
>But yeah I think you're right for the most part. I have noticed that hardcore traditionalist Catholics tend to be at least sympathetic to monarchism.
When I talk to those people I get a sense of them just being nostalgic for days when their views were the mainstream and not forced to the fringe.
>>977229
Just to add to that when I come across those types I get a suprised response when I inform them that were a monarchy to form in the US it wouldnt be like their medieval dreams but instead groups like the Bushes and Clintons froming Napoleon like dynasties
Not even remotely. In fact modern democracy is mostly built on Christianity.
>>977208
>They may not have their own special courts, but they certainly bring their god to court with them.
That's really the big issue with being religious, at least for Catholics. If you believe in Catholic doctrine, you're going to wind up bringing it in to all aspects of your life, consciously or not.
I would have to say one of the most dangerous things to society today is what's described in >>977101. While following the law of the land is a great thing and so is not stirring up problems because you disagree with the state on secular matters, modern people should take that as license for exoneration in the eyes of God when they go against church teachings. So often do people compromise now, such as police officers, judges, and politicians seeing themselves as simple servants of the state, compartmentalizing all other thoughts and beliefs because of it. "I was just following orders" didn't work 70 years ago, and it still doesn't fly today.
Like I said before, it doesn't have to be one or the other all the time, and for at least places like the US, you're not often called to make a decision to follow one law or the other. When you are though, the decision you make reflects on where your loyalties and personal beliefs lie though and tell what kind of person you are.
>>977274
>modern people should NOT take that
whoops
>>977208
>Fair point, fair refutation altogether, but then I don't understand OPs question at all. If we're not talking about an institution that is both established as christian and democratic at the same time, then there isn't any incompatibility since they are two separate types of authority - moral and social.
Thats the way I see it although I just split it as civil and spiritual.
>So the question becomes - what does OP mean by 'taken seriously,' since a scholarly christian would hold, as you do, that the laws of man are on par with the laws of God, so any democratically made decision may as well be/is God's will, que sera
But only if one cannot make the distinction between religious and non religious matters which Christians can do. Likewise I think it must also be said that the laws created by Clergy are often the law of men and not God even if they do touch on simmilar areas.
>But then you have other devout theists, as >>977124 points out, that muddle political matters on moral grounds, regardless of majority opinions at the time, effectively hindering god's will (if it is to be so understood.) These are serious deists in an affective sense, which may not be the best type of serious, but is certainly prominent. They may not have their own special courts, but they certainly bring their god to court with them.
And there is not an issue with this as long as they rend unto Cesare what is his and to God what is his.
>I thought it was the latter, more sensational christians that OP was referencing. But of course, you can argue that these people aren't really 'christians,' and so they mess the reputation for the rest.
Thats why Im trying to stay along Catholic lines as to avoid a bid digression
>>977274
I think it also needs to said that when it comes to this there is serious consequences for the Clergy of a Church as well when it comes to when they are vocal and when they are not.
For me one of the first thing that made me hostile towards Catholics was their silence when it came to wars waged by the state. For me opposing the draft when it came to wars of Imperialism seemed to be something which fell into the spiritual
>>977055
Are you dense?
Catholicism is a bloody elective monarchy.
Didn't Aquinas outright say the only good government is one under the thumb of the Catholic church?
>>977342
>For me one of the first thing that made me hostile towards Catholics was their silence when it came to wars waged by the state.
You know how the Germans don't really like to be reminded by its Nazi past?
Same shit, the modern Catholic church doesn't like being associated with warfare anymore.
This is what separates them from the immature young spastic Protestant cults who happily jump into notions of religious violence.
>>977347
Its easy to be an effective monarchy when your only civil concerns is a small city surrounded by a relatively powerful ally just ask lee quan yew
>>977347
>the Pope is a monarch
This is what Proddies truly believe
>>977358
>Same shit, the modern Catholic church doesn't like being associated with warfare anymore.
Yeah but silence in that area seems to be akin to the false stance of being silent on schools normalising homosexuality.
I can understand not bashing on them for thier past actions (as with the Germans) however its hard to turn the cheek on their current ones.
>>977054
>indeed its entire history show Christianity being secular and non theocratic
>>976964
I would hope so. Democracy is shit and Catholicism is great.
>>977209
PROTIP: There is no such thing as "spiritual matters alone." If you are spiritual/religious, it inherently affects all your other actions in all your other spheres of life. The dispensers of spiritual guidance therefore wield tremendous power.
>>977389
Welcome to all Christian thinking ever. The rules are very simple:
>CHRISTIAN GOOD
>NON-CHRISTIAN BAD
Keep these two simple rules in mind and you won't be confused by the extreme idiocy of Christian zealots
>>977404
Were I Muslim I would agree with you 100%.
>>977365
He is though, it's even legally so. It's how he claims ownership of Vatican city.
>>976964
Well they can become compatible if you remove all those errors the guy on the pic listed from the way of thinking and structure of government, otherwise modern democracy is incompatible with Catholicism.
>>977347
Of a small block of land that has less than 500 people on it all of which are immigrants.
>>976964
The church did issue several encyclicals against classical liberalism. While they are not generally considered dogma, modern Catholic social teaching is still very hostile to classical liberal ideas. However it would still be compatible with democracy in the general sense
>>976964
That would be an ecumenical matter.
>>977465
Not all Catholics are citizens of the Vatican
>>976964
so long as the pope doesn't fuck shit up. It was the Catholic meddling in politics in France, Italy and Spain that fucked shit up for those countries in one way or another (especially in the case of the latter two). I can elaborate if need be
>>977650
Can you? I thought only the Germans had trouble with the Popes
>>977342
>For me one of the first thing that made me hostile towards Catholics was their silence when it came to wars waged by the state.
We have a local priest who's incredibly vocal about wars waged by the government for profit. Problem is, he's got almost no tact about it, and loses more every day.
We used to have a veterans day service for the community (Catholics and non-Catholics) where veterans would go to our church, the priest would say some blessings for the people gathered, for veterans in general, etc, and afterwards, the local Knights of Columbus chapter would cook lunch for everyone. One year, he decided this would be a perfect time to rail on the US (In a room literally full of old combat veterans from various wars including a few left overs from WW2, who might as well have a stereotypical love for America that redneck types do), and essentially say that these men fought for a greedy government simply looking to gain influence in the world.
Needless to say, he wasn't exactly wrong, and hell, a few of the guys actually were coming around to that line of thinking, at least with recent wars. But you know, there's always a time and place to talk about those sort of things, and that was almost certainly not the day.
We haven't had that service in the last 8 years after that incident, and it didn't really help normal church attendance as well.
Seems like the ideal situation according to the premises of Catholism would be the pope as absolute monarch of the entire world, right?
>>977342
>For me opposing the draft when it came to wars of Imperialism
Which specific wars of imperialism? The biggest one WWI to the best of my knowledge many high profile Catholics, including the Pope condemned it as senseless.
