Optimal Government Structure

[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.

[MichaelFilo]

Thanks for the heads up.

God bless,
Mikey

[son_of_angels]

First of all, I am not advocating a union of secular and spiritual power, but a removal of secular power all together. For instance, in the notion of property. There was in the Middle Ages a great deal of corruption with clergy owning huge estates and fiefdoms. However, if all land, by default, belonged to the Church, the true union of lay, religious, and priestly, then there would be hardly any corruption because that commerce would be ended. Commerce, except with other nations would be ended, and, after all the love of money is the root of all evil. This goes with other things as well. Tithes would be cared for by deacons. All social services would be through the church, etc. In other words, secular power would slowly cease to exist and the country would simply congregate through its parishes, with a few lay administrators to oversee certain tasks.
Catholicism I think provides the perfect government.

[Don John of Austria]

Accept the Church demands that people have the right to privater property.

[Norseman82]

Another option is to borrow the current Iranian model in which a "Guardian Council" of Catholic Clergy keeps the secular democracy in check.

[philothea]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='May 6 2005, 01:12 PM'] Another option is to borrow the current Iranian model in which a "Guardian Council" of Catholic Clergy keeps the secular democracy in check. [/quote]
That's interesting. Do you have any more details, or do I have to do my own work?

(And thanks everyone for the discussion. It's perfect.)