Optimal Government Structure

[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

[MichaelFilo]

That is very nice. However, the bishops should play a secular role, because if your country recognizes the sole authority of the Catholic Church, then you'd need a group to represent the Catholic Church. Who better than the bishops? Unless you are suggesting ambassadors from the Vatican... which is plausible..

God bless,
Mikey

[philothea]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 4 2005, 10:16 PM'] Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
There will be no utopia before the Second Coming. [/quote]
Hey, don't be so picky, I'm writing a science fiction novel here!

OTOH, what goes wrong is the next step.

Well, and then the aliens wipe them out... but we're getting ahead of ourselves.

[son_of_angels]

Actually, Bishops and, especially, religious orders have shown themselves to be mostly competent at running govenments, usually more competent than the national leaders themselves.
However, it should be remembered that the image of political power as being corrupting and necessarily separate from religious power has come into being in a world which never has had religious leaders in charge.
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, why then is God not a despotic maniac?

Also, in any system I would suggest, it is important that there IS NO SECULAR POWER only the Church's authority in various forms. The Church, after all, is the perfect society created by God, admittedly full of imperfect people.

[MichaelFilo]

Give unto Ceasar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.

Secular power, when in the hierarchy of the Church's hand will cause for more secular popes. That is why I don't suggest all power invested in the Church, but only to serve as part of that power.

God bless,
Mikey

[son_of_angels]

I never suggested that we put secular power in the hands of the clergy, only that we either give them authority to control it or remove the notion of secular power all together.
Another aspect to this is that secular power should only exist in a nation that has foundations other than Christianity. Christianity has given us a perfect form of government in the Church, but not all are Christians. Therefore the "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar" principle only applies in a society in which there is a Caesar.

[son_of_angels]

As for the notion that there will be no utopia before the Second Coming, then what was the point in Jesus coming the first time? He came to establish a utopia of people redeemed in Christ. There will be successes, sucesses on a long line of failure, but that doesn't detract from the possibility of a few moments in history where things go right. History proves it, and disproves it, and proves it again.

[MichaelFilo]

Your err here is in the fact that you claim that Caesar represents non-Christian governments. Caesar is a sign of secular power. That is why he is juxtaposed to God, one is secular, one is ecceletial. I'd say the verse is most relevant as to how you hand out the money from taxes. However, even if you applied them to (God and Caesar in this case ) mean secular and eccelestial power, it would still make no sense to give an eccelestial authority Caesar's position. He is secular, the pope is the head of a spiritual. IF we are to be ruled by the Catholic Church as a secular and eccelestial authority, we lose something very important, a check on the clergy's political power. Believe it or not, in a Catholic nation the clergy should have a special place in the government, but to avoid them just being secular thinker's in the wrappings of a bishop or priest, you must put a valid check. That being, of course, a secular head. That was the big error of the Renaissance era. The popes and bishops held secular roles that put them on at least equal level with the secular authorities. The problem arises when a secular authority cannot run into churchman's position but the churchman can move into the secular arena. Therefore, the churchman always has a "base" for his political activies, and effectivly becomes a political man with little to stop him. The Church is not a competent institution to carry out the secular job.

I suggest reading the article on Catholic.com about seperation of Church and State. Jesus made that distinction for a reason, it is because He knew that the two should not be one. The two could, should and have worked together, but they should never be one. The outcome is horrible.

Just in advance, the Vatican isn't a valid example, it is hardly much of a secular authority, and is hardly large enough to simulate the views on secular and Church power that you have.

God bless,
Mikey

[argent_paladin]

I disagree. All power comes from God, both secular and ecclesiastical. The Byzantine Empire lasted far longer than the US has existed. In a country that is 100% Catholic, it is only natural for the Church to play a large role in governance. The separation of Church and State seems to lead directly to the swift demise of whatever society tries to enact it. It was not introduced into American governance until the 40's and didn't take full hold until the late 1960s. The European countries that embrace separation or secularization are committing demographic suicide. It is simply an empirical fact that monarchies with strong religious influence last the longest. Yes, there was great corruption in the medieval and rennaisance world, when governments worked hand in hand with the Church, but that is no argument against it. The question is, did the Church have a positive influence? It is impossible to answer, but one can look at the corruption of Imperial Rome, the bloodthirstiness of the Aztecs, the ossification of China, etc. One can also look to your own faith. Do you honestly believe that the involvement of the One, Holy, Apostolic Church in government would make government worse? I can see how you would say that it would make the Church less perfect, or more corrupt but aren't we called to transform the world, rather than stay apart, worried about our own holiness? And would you honestly say that, if the Church had the power, it shouldn't try to overthrow immoral laws, like abortion?

[MichaelFilo]

It is not some "seperation" that I argue for. No, that is death to the country itself. Simply put, the two are not united. They should not be more seperated. Jesus made it clear that the Church and the secular powers are not one. They should work together to create a strong Catholic influence, and in some parts intertwine, but if they are the same thing, that is, the Church is the head o all Catholic nations, then the Pope becomes a political leader. However, history DOES point to what happens to the papacy when vast power is involved.

God bless,
Mikey

[Don John of Austria]

I would recomend both of you read the essay " The Sovreignty of Christ or Chaos" by Frederick Wilhelmsen published as the 100th aneversery edition of The Wanderer in 1967, it goes into great detail about the seperation of Authority and Power, which is what I believe Michael is promoting. Authority should rest with the Church while Power should rest in the State. It is a very important distinction.