Optimal Government Structure

[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.

[son_of_angels]

I don't know, a government with a nobility recognized together with the ecclesiastical government might be problematic in that it would encourage such a view of the church. I think the intermediary between the two should be those who minister to the people but represent the church, namely local parish priests and religious orders (provided Rome put the crackdown on some of the heresies being spawned among some orders these days, good grief!). Having these people in a position of political power would speak to the lower classes of the laity, whereas the actual representatives of the laity would likely mostly be representatives of the ambitious and wealthy among the laity.

After all, despite all pretentions, it is usually the lowest class, least educated, and most humble who desire to serve God the most, and thus the affairs of a nation. Get them separate from the wealthy and give them the banner of the Church and they'll follow you to Hell, er, Heaven, I mean (hehe).

[Don John of Austria]

I have no problem with Priest in postions of power , especially in local government, but "representitives" seem to invariabley cease to representthose they are suppose to serve, perhaps positions in the national government could always be filled with Priest, perhaps rotating between a certian number of diocese or orders, however giveing them authoritative power over government seems very dangerous, Priest are suppose to be ministering the sacraments to the laity, not concerned with the affirs of government. I also think giving "the people" more power in local issues is far better than giving them power over national ones.

[MichaelFilo]

The wealthy and the poor tend to serve equally devout lives. I would hate to think that the poor of this city are more devout than the bishop. I have sen the poor, and have heard of the bishop. I would quesiton that pretense.

I'd have to insist in nominal representation. Representation is only needed if the king and subjects are serpeated, and that should never be the case. However, as I said, the Estates General of France allowed for representation while successfully trumping the will of the majority, which is always a good thing, since we don't live by majority rule, or shouldn't anyway.

God bless,
Mikey

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 4 2005, 09:34 PM'] The wealthy and the poor tend to serve equally devout lives. I would hate to think that the poor of this city are more devout than the bishop. I have sen the poor, and have heard of the bishop. I would quesiton that pretense.

I'd have to insist in nominal representation. Representation is only needed if the king and subjects are serpeated, and that should never be the case. However, as I said, the Estates General of France allowed for representation while successfully trumping the will of the majority, which is always a good thing, since we don't live by majority rule, or shouldn't anyway.

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
This is the heart of my problem with repesentation at all, the Estates general KILLED the King, and his Family and waged war on the Church. The Rule of the Majority is always dangerous, even nominal rule.

[MichaelFilo]

They could only do so by setting up a fourth estate. Either way, if it had stayed to a 3 party system, it would have been fine.

God bless,
Mikey

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 4 2005, 09:39 PM'] They could only do so by setting up a fourth estate. Either way, if it had stayed to a 3 party system, it would have been fine.

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
Yeah but it didn't.

If the French King hadn't been bound by the silly custom to disband the army while the estates where meeting it probably would have been fine as well. But regardless meetings of the repersentitive must only be at the behest ofthe ruler and be Under his administration, much like a Council is under the authority of the Pope. There must be protections to prevent the " assembly" from gettting out of hand. THe direct rule of a Fuedal system is much neater and less likely to result in catastrophy .

[argent_paladin]

Thomas says (echoing Aristotle) that the best form of government is a monarchy, followed by aristocracy and finally a timocracy (a sort of democracy). The worst forms are a tyrrany (bad monarchy), oligarchy (bad aristocracy) and democracy (the least bad form).
I would agree and say that a monarchy is the best, but not a dynastic monarchy. I would pattern it after the papal monarchy. The king would be elected for life by the princes and bishops of the country. I think it would look a lot like England in the 15th century, with a House of Lords and House of Commons and a monarchy. Knowing that if they govern their own territory well, princes would be more likely to do a good job and less likely to contemplate a coup.

[Don John of Austria]

Poland and the HRE where both elected monarchies, they only did well when there was a defacto hereditary monarch.

[son_of_angels]

It is not so much that I think it absolutely necessary in national matters to have representation or any such thing. However national matters often have to translate into local matters. Having the people who would have to do that in a tidy Council could only help things. However, I also think another approach would be to not have a powerful monarch, but only small, infinitely restricted bureaucrats appointed at each ecclesiastical level, from among those in minor orders, for a limited term to excercise specific powers, like prosecution of criminals, taxation, etc. and avoid the whole government bit all together. In other words a theocracy with the Bishops hands-off on matters like execution and such, but still having control over them. That is just another concept.
Or, perhaps, a communal-based government, where all property belongs exclusively to religious orders and/or the bishops who organize communes of lay people, which function in harmony with the monasteries. These orders function at the guardianship of the Bishop but, in a sense, act mostly independent of it. The larger cities would be the affairs of Archbishops and diocesan priests, with governments like a city council. The only national authority would be placed in a nominal hereditary monarch who simply mitigated different groups and gave a moral vision for the nation, under the Church of course. The military would be a religious order like the Knights Templar and, w. Call it theocratic communism if you will.
I'm just throwing out things like this in order to point to the fact that the church believes itself to be the Perfect Community. I believe it to be capable of governance and guidance, thus my reasons, in the case of a more secular government, like the one I mentioned earlier, for the need of a Council which brought together all the aspects of the Church so that She might govern Herself better, under a King which served her purposes. After all, we are members of the Church as well.
Ideally all the aspects of a theocratic government would come together naturally, a King under the support of the laity, a Synod with the power of the Church, and a representative of the major religious orders all participating in the crafting of a Church-society.

[Socrates]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='May 4 2005, 10:05 PM'] It is not so much that I think it absolutely necessary in national matters to have representation or any such thing.  However national matters often have to translate into local matters.  Having the people who would have to do that in a tidy Council could only help things.  However, I also think another approach would be to not have a powerful monarch, but only small, infinitely restricted bureaucrats appointed at each ecclesiastical level, from among those in minor orders, for a limited term to excercise specific powers, like prosecution of criminals, taxation, etc. and avoid the whole government bit all together.  In other words a theocracy with the Bishops hands-off on matters like execution and such, but still having control over them.  That is just another concept.
Or, perhaps, a communal-based government, where all property belongs exclusively to religious orders and/or the bishops who organize communes of lay people, which function in harmony with the monasteries.  These orders function at the guardianship of the Bishop but, in a sense, act mostly independent of it.  The larger cities would be the affairs of Archbishops and diocesan priests, with governments like a city council. The only national authority would be placed in a nominal hereditary monarch who simply mitigated different groups and gave a moral vision for the nation, under the Church of course. The military would be a religious order like the Knights Templar and, w. Call it theocratic communism if you will.
I'm just throwing out things like this in order to point to the fact that the church believes itself to be the Perfect Community.  I believe it to be capable of governance and guidance, thus my reasons, in the case of a more secular government, like the one I mentioned earlier, for the need of a Council which brought together all the aspects of the Church so that She might govern Herself better, under a King which served her purposes.  After all, we are members of the Church as well.
Ideally all the aspects of a theocratic government would come together naturally, a King under the support of the laity, a Synod with the power of the Church, and a representative of the major religious orders all participating in the crafting of a Church-society. [/quote]
Worldly power corrupts the Church by making churchmen worldly princes preoccupied with worldly things - see the Rennaiscance Rome for an example.

Bishops need to be servants of God, not politicians (and they need to be less wordly, not more so). Look how badly the bishops here f---ed up and abused thier power during the priestly scandals - they were not able to handle even simple Church administration. Do we really want those people in charge of everything?

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
There will be no utopia before the Second Coming.

Edited May 5, 2005 by Socrates