Optimal Government Structure

[philothea]

I don't know if this will be a debate or not, but I thought it'd be safest here just in case.

Comments in the past by MichaelFilo and recently by Don John have made me think I might get some good suggestions from the pham --

[b]If an entirely Catholic nation were formed, what would the best government for it?[/b]

I am asking because I am writing a novel where this happens.... and you guys seem to have thought about this in more depth than I have.

Any help appreciated (and credited, if it comes to that!). Feel free to ask questions if you need clarification on the setup.

[Don John of Austria]

A Fuedal monarchy in which the Monarch is restricted by Custom. I say Fuedal because a strong nobility is capable of keeping the power of the monarch in check and preventng the misuse of power. Simularly the King should offically recognize the Authority of the Church and deffer to Her in matters within her realm.

[Don John of Austria]

Obviously the structure has little to do with titles, a King can be called a King or a duberflochy it doesn't change what he is same with nobility, realisticly I think the ancient titles might meet more resistance than the ancient roles.

[Nathan]

Andrew Greeley 4 President!

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Nathan' date='May 4 2005, 07:25 PM'] Andrew Greeley 4 President! [/quote]
You sir are a sick sick man.

[philothea]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 4 2005, 07:15 PM'] A Fuedal monarchy in which the Monarch is restricted by Custom. I say Fuedal because a strong nobility is capable of keeping the power of the monarch in check and preventng the misuse of power. Simularly the King should offically recognize the Authority of the Church and deffer to Her in matters within her realm. [/quote]
Okay, thanks.

Would the succession be (when possible) hereditary?

And yeah, obedience to the Church would be part of the founding charter. I don't know about a title yet.

Thanks again!

[philothea]

[quote name='Nathan' date='May 4 2005, 07:25 PM'] Andrew Greeley 4 President! [/quote]
Nooooooo!

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='philothea' date='May 4 2005, 07:26 PM'] Okay, thanks.

Would the succession be (when possible) hereditary?

And yeah, obedience to the Church would be part of the founding charter. I don't know about a title yet.

Thanks again! [/quote]
Historicly hereditary monarchies last longer and performed better than those which had electors. I think the danger of getting a bad king would be mittigated if there was some form of either compatancy test, or perhaps better some a requirment for approval by the Church.

[philothea]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 4 2005, 07:31 PM'] Historicly hereditary monarchies last longer and performed better than those which had electors. I think the danger of getting a bad king would be mittigated if there was some form of either compatancy test, or perhaps better some a requirment for approval by the Church. [/quote]
Yeah, I suspect being trained from birth probably helps. The Church would definitely get the ability to approve/disapprove, and the future King would have to demonstrate his fidelity.

Spiffy.

Now, any other ideas? Or had Don John frightened you all off?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='philothea' date='May 4 2005, 07:36 PM'] Yeah, I suspect being trained from birth probably helps.  The Church would definitely get the ability to approve/disapprove, and the future King would have to demonstrate his fidelity.

Spiffy.

Now, any other ideas?  Or had Don John frightened you all off?   [/quote]
Well I to tend to frighten people off, being right all the time tends to make people fear you.

Edited May 5, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Nathan]

OK, OK.

Hans Kung 4 President...?

[son_of_angels]

In order to have a truly Catholic nation, I envision one in which the nation is ruled by a King or Consul, who oversees the national government on a limited scale. He would be elected, or at least approved (if hereditary), by a Council, made up of representatives from each diocese representing three classes, the Bishops, priests, and laymen, and would have to be received and crowned by the Patriarch in the national capital, who would of course, be subject to the pope. The Council would have most of the political/legislative power in governing the local governments and imposing laws localities. However the King would have the prerogative in conducting the national government, e.g., the appropriation of federal revenue, the conduct and laws of the national government, the agenda of the Council, the governance of national territories, the command of the national Army (however, in order to effectively do this he would have to get a Conscription from the council, the funds to do so, unless they were already provided, and a declaration of war from the council).
In the council, a majority from at least two of the classes, one of them being the Bishops, would be required to pass any legislation.
Let's see and the King could be removed by Synod of Bishops or the Pope himself and/or a 2/3 majority of each of the classes in the Council

Well that is my outline, which represents some basic Catholic principles of government.
1.) Submission to the spiritual authority (Unam Sanctam, Boniface VIII)
2.) Participation by the people.
3.) Defense of the religious nature of a society.


A final principle I would suggest is the need for personal government, that is, where each member of a government functions as a unique moral individual free of obligation to any particular political faction. The representative of the priestly order, for example, would be put there because he was a good and effective priest, who was looking after the interests of the local church and religious orders, likewise with the bishops. In order to do this a government should not overlook the natural hierarchy with which each class is embued. The popular class, for example, is by nature a social/political one wherein election is a decent way of determining rank. Thus the representative of the laity should probably be elected. Priests are by nature collegial and therefore a system whereby priests who have received the confidence of the leaders of local presbyteral councils should be elevated to the council. The representative of the Bishop should probably be or be sent by the most influential, senior, and highest ranking bishop therein, and not elected, as this could undermine the nature of the episcopate.

[philothea]

[quote name='Nathan' date='May 4 2005, 07:41 PM'] OK, OK.

Hans Kung 4 President...? [/quote]
Don't make me press that !REPORT button! :hammer:

Edited May 5, 2005 by philothea

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='May 4 2005, 07:41 PM'] In order to have a truly Catholic nation, I envision one in which the nation is ruled by a King or Consul, who oversees the national government on a limited scale. He would be elected, or at least approved (if hereditary), by a Council, made up of representatives from each diocese representing three classes, the Bishops, priests, and laymen, and would have to be received and crowned by the Patriarch in the national capital, who would of course, be subject to the pope. The Council would have most of the political/legislative power in governing the local governments and imposing laws localities. However the King would have the prerogative in conducting the national government, e.g., the appropriation of federal revenue, the conduct and laws of the national government, the agenda of the Council, the governance of national territories, the command of the national Army (however, in order to effectively do this he would have to get a Conscription from the council, the funds to do so, unless they were already provided, and a declaration of war from the council).
In the council, a majority from at least two of the classes, one of them being the Bishops, would be required to pass any legislation.
Let's see and the King could be removed by Synod of Bishops or the Pope himself and/or a 2/3 majority of each of the classes in the Council

Well that is my outline, which represents some basic Catholic principles of government.
1.) Submission to the spiritual authority (Unam Sanctam, Boniface VIII)
2.) Participation by the people.
3.) Defense of the religious nature of a society.


A final principle I would suggest is the need for personal government, that is, where each member of a government functions as a unique moral individual free of obligation to any particular political faction. The representative of the priestly order, for example, would be put there because he was a good and effective priest, who was looking after the interests of the local church and religious orders, likewise with the bishops. In order to do this a government should not overlook the natural hierarchy with which each class is embued. The popular class, for example, is by nature a social/political one wherein election is a decent way of determining rank. Thus the representative of the laity should probably be elected. Priests are by nature collegial and therefore a system whereby priests who have received the confidence of the leaders of local presbyteral councils should be elevated to the council. The representative of the Bishop should probably be or be sent by the most influential, senior, and highest ranking bishop therein, and not elected, as this could undermine the nature of the episcopate. [/quote]
I am hesetent about any form of council which has direct Authority over the King, This is particularly true with regards to taxes, people never want Taxes to be increased even when they need to be, the Estates General was called by Louis XVI because he was constrained by this very thing and it cost him his head, his wife her head his children their heads, and it cost the Church a nation. And the Bishops sat in that Council. There should be some formal and Authoritive means of Protest which would be outside of the Kings powers to stop, such as a Council of Nobles ( which of course would include the Bishops) which could be called by the Primate or by any of the vassals in Chief ( those that are direct vassals of the King instead of another Lord) but this should only be a reactive Council not an active one, Bishops and Priest need to be in there diocese, and nobles need to be administering their districts.

I completly agree with you about individual moral persons Parties are bad news.

[Don John of Austria]

Elections among the laity are a really bad Idea, people always gravitate to those who will look out for their interest not the nations.

[son_of_angels]

While I generally agree, this lay membership of this council would not necessarily have to be elected, they could hold position by heredity, or simply by holding an office in the See of their diocese.
At the same time, the participation of certain elements of the laity in their selection could be beneficial in maintaining a broad range of support for the government.

The notion of a council is only to deal with the inevitable disconnect between national and local government, a means of mitigation, if you will. Note that the only way it could actually yield control over the King is with the assent of the Bishops, in which case, that control is warranted.

The laity are, and always will be, more capable of advancing the more temporal aspects of national government. By giving them their ten cents, you avoid the possibility of a completely outsmarted clergy and nobility should a revolution break out.

Allowing the priests to have a say in government seems to me to be a part of the solution. If the people who excercise direct pastoral responsibility over the faithful are involved, the lower classes should be the one's most supportive of this government. This could be helped by giving the most influence to parish priests of local churches and limiting the authority of merely beuracratic priests, balanced, of course, with religious priests.

Another solution is simply to let the laity have quite a bit of control with regard to matters like taxes and such. That way the rich and influential won't have a bone to pick with the Church, and the laity being elected will be more likely to have a good view on the Church's temporal authority.

[Don John of Austria]

I really want to reply here but I have to finish a paper, i'll post on this later.

[MichaelFilo]

A monarchy. Feudal is a plus. A prefer one with a constitution. It should give supreme authority to the Church in matters of Faith and religious structures (schools, Churches, etc.) and taxation. A constitution that would have the people in mind to avoid extreme forms of tyranny from a nobility and king who have their own interest, not the peoples', in mind. That or give the Catholic Church overriding authority on the king, however, this may lead to secular popes.

The only form of representitive government is that of France with the estate's general. It would have a clergy, a nobility, and a people estate, with king presiding over affairs. This way, the greatest threat to the people (that being the people of course) is in check by the nobility and the clergy, and those two are in check by the king. The king may have overriding power to veto anything brought up unless all three estates agree on it. Anything further is more details.

Either way, these two forms of government are ideal to the Christian life. Please note, both require a king. Democracies and republics are aligned on the premise that the people are the highest authority. I think the vote of any one man is much to much power. Of course, I believe in rule by Divine Right... but that is another story.

God bless,
Mikey

[philothea]

Thanks oodles son_of_angels and Mikey.

Ponder, ponder.

[Don John of Austria]

I think I come down a bit more with Michael but I think there is really very little disagreement here anyway all three of us have pretty simular ideas.