Views on Theocracy

[KnightoftheRosary]

Theocracy- Meaning the religouse would be in rule.
What are youre opinons if Yes why and if No why.
We are having a debate in my political philosophy on this and was wondering what the rest of the world thought!
In christ
-Knight-

[carrdero]

Listen - strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
-Monty Python And The Holy Grail

[toledo_jesus]

A theocracy would be bad news, simply because power corrupts. Setting up a holy man as ruler would be bad for his humility. Sure, let him have lands or a domain of his own, but the head of a religion should not be the leader of a government beyond that religion.
follow me? Sometimes a leader has to make decisions that would be repugnant to a holy person.

Edited October 6, 2004 by toledo_jesus

[carrdero]

And besides with all the religions existing today who could say what would be the best religion to rule?

[KnightoftheRosary]

I could think of one but that's only in my perfect world!
-Knight-

[Guest Aluigi]

well, I for one would like to see a couple Catholic Kingdoms rise up in the coming years. I wouldn't exactly like or expect to see like, the US change into a Catholic Kingdom, but a couple Catholic Kingdoms sprouting up in like Latin America or something would be pretty dope. Theocracies are not all bad, and they have not always been bad. based on your experience in school, you've probably developed an idea that theocracies always make for currupt and evil gov't's. But it's like the news. just like bad news makes good and emphasized news, bad history makes good and emphasized history.

[popestpiusx]

Aluigi,
a confessional state (which is what I assume you are talking about when you say a "Catholic Kingdom") is not the same thing as a theocracy. There is a very clear distiction.

[Guest Aluigi]

monarchy lead by Catholic law would be a theocrcy, wouldn't it?

[toledo_jesus]

1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided


Think Ancient Egypt, Rome, etc. It puts rulers on par with divinity. That is no good. That leaves the door open to way too much corruption.

I've thought about a Catholic kingdom. I've come to the conclusion that it really wouldn't work. Such a place would have to rely on the people to be good Catholics in order to remain perpetuatually Catholic...impossible without guidance by priests and a system in place to moderate the people. In effect, we need to have an overabundance of priests to make that work and the priests would be something like the Gestapo. Distasteful to my American sensibilities.
It wouldn't work out.

[CatholicforChrist]

I would say a Theocracy is a good. The fact that the Church has condemned secularism and the separation of Church and state should be enough.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Oct 6 2004, 06:40 PM'] monarchy lead by Catholic law would be a theocrcy, wouldn't it? [/quote]
No. Toledo Jesus gets it close. A theocracy is a monistic form of government where the religious leader/cleric is also the temporal ruler. The best example would be the Islamic caliphate.

This is different from a confessional state where you have a temporal government that is distinct from the religious authority, though not seperated from it. They each have a role to play and a certain competency.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='CatholicforChrist' date='Oct 6 2004, 08:24 PM'] I would say a Theocracy is a good. The fact that the Church has condemned secularism and the separation of Church and state should be enough. [/quote]
See above.

[Socrates]

I think "theocracy" needs to be more carefully defined.

In medieval Europe, the Church was recognized by the various Catholic monarchies as an authority, but there were many conflicts between Church and kings through the years. Some kings repected the authority of the Church, others did not (including Henry VIII who broke England away from the Church).

The Church was never intended to be a temporal government.
Furthermore, the more temporal power the Church has, the more corrupt it becomes. In the middle ages, the Church gained a degree of temporal power, but by the end of the medieval period, this had caused the Church to become quite corrupt. By Renaisance times, Churchmen had much power, and often lived as secular princes. Church positions were sought after as positions of power by quite irreligious men, and given away nepotistically. Clerics kept mistresses and had illegitmate children, who were sometimes themselves given high-ranking Church positions. All this scandal led to the protestant revolt of the 16th century.

While a society that abides by the laws of the Church is a good thing, a theocracy is not. (It is bad for the Church.)

[toledo_jesus]

while I agree with Socrates in saying that a theocracy is a bad thing, I would just make the point that it wasn't the Church that was corrupt, but rather certain, perhaps numerous members in it. hair splitting, I know.

[popestpiusx]

But Socrates, where is the definition? Also, your example still does not qualify as a "theocracy". Churchmen having positions of political power is different from a political system in which the religious authorities are the temporal rulers by virtue of the fact that they are the religious authorities. Again, the best example is the Islamic caliphate. In this system temporal and religious authority are one and the same. There is no distinction between the temporal and the spiritual realm.