Optimal Government Structure

[son_of_angels]

Actually, in the catechism it is pretty clear that men simply have the right to own property in order to provide for their own family and freedom. However, the regulation of ownership, and even the means of ownership itself are to be controlled by political authorities. They have the right to limit and deny ownership.
Moreover, it is also clear that the people in charge of the means of production MUST use their occupations for the common good.
Furthermore, all ownership, if allowed, must be directed towards its higher purpose, the stewardship of believers under God.

[quote]I. The Universal Destination and the Private Ownership of Goods

2402 In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits.186 The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. the appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.

2403 The right to private property, acquired by work or received from others by inheritance or gift, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. the universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.

2404 "In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself."187 The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

2405 Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.

2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.188

[/quote]


Now, what defines "political" in a government mostly devoid of political activity. Certainly there would be some beaucratic organization in place by lay members to oversee and direct land, but, also, any gathering of people, whether in a Church or a Congress, to excercise control over the matters of interest to them could be considered "political." In some sense going to mass on Sunday is the most political activity many Catholics will ever do. This is the same for Baptists and many other denominations.

What I'm trying to say is that the teachings of a Catholic church do not negate the possibility of a mostly theocratic communism, or, for that matter, of a monarchy. It is the duty of the people to establish a means to use resources in such a way as benefits all. Whether they decide in a Church at the presidency of a Bishop or priest, or in a Town Hall, the only difference is that one is sanctified and the other not.

These are very radical ideas, and, sometimes I still like the notion of King to rule the secular and a Pope to rule the religious, and to have good examples of each in such a nation. However looking, for example, at the system of missions set up in Paraguay by Jesuits, (look it up on newadvent.com) one can also see how a society could simply grow organically around the Church structure, with ownership of property and goods being a non-issue (as they all belonged to the Church or to an administration). Theocratic Communalism, yes, I think it has a ring to it.

[son_of_angels]

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

Yes, and we see how wonderfully Iran is doing right now....

[yiannii]

I believe that in Catholic nation it would be quite possible to have a democracy. If members were all practicing Catholics who were obedient to the Magisterium I doubt that anything could go wrong with a democratic form of government.

I am against Monarchs because the nation's ruler would only be in that position because of who his parents were. Therefore the nation’s direction would be flavoured by the King’s personal tastes rather than the general public. Monarchs may have been successful in history but I very much doubt that they could work in a modern nation. Educated people like to have a say on how their nation is governed. Monarchs have proved to not be suitable for the modern era as the world has witnessed a shift from Monarchs to Democracy.

I acknowledge that today there are many faults in the democratic practices of governments world wide – but that by no means spoils the pure concept of democracy. In a Catholic nation, with Church and State working together there could be an example for the whole world.

[yiannii]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='May 7 2005, 05:12 AM'] Another option is to borrow the current Iranian model in which a "Guardian Council" of Catholic Clergy keeps the secular democracy in check. [/quote]
You could have a Clergy/Theologian House of Check...LOL Maybe one of the Houses of Parliament could be made up of Religious and people with particular degrees in Theology etc.

[son_of_angels]

I disagree with the notion that education and monarchy are incompatible. True education, an education that supports one's function in a hierarchy, a hierarchy which opposes the totalitarian notion behind democracy, will ultimately support the notion of a monarchy.
I think "democracy" which implies rule by the people is inherantly flawed, as it supports the notion of popular control over God control. However, certainly some "democratic" or I would call them "collegial" power structures could be in place. Ultimately, however, I am against, in a Christian nation, the notion that any power may be construed as purely secular. Some positions, like those that prosecute crime, oversee trade, etc. could be through bureacratic positions, or positions organized by a central capital bureacracy, functioning within the most powerful Archdiocese of course, but I generally feel those positions should be temporary and exist as needed. Christ is the only Eternal King.

[Aloysius]

[hijack]
I am planning on starting my own country some day. My latest idea is to build a floating island not QUITE like the one they're builidng at [url="http://new-utopia.com"]http://new-utopia.com[/url] (I had a whole different idea before I ever found that site) but the same principal being that if we're in international waters we are not bound by any other country. anyway, it'll probably be like a Catholic Principality or something cool like that... what exactly is the difference between a principality and a kingdom other than the title 'prince' vs. 'king'

I'm gonna go start a thread about this in Open Mic though... I will need the help of a few good engineers

[/hijack]

[toledo_jesus]

I would say that it would be ideal for the Church to have influence and authority, but absolutely no secular power. The government should be charged with upholding the teachings of the Church. As for the actual set up, I would like to model it somewhat on the Roman Republic, with public figures holding various offices and the like. Also, with dictators entrusted with temporary governance in times of crisis to eliminate partisan bickering.
I have been playing Rome Total War lately, it seems like it would be interesting if people were Christians. You know, no assassinations and the like.
Hey, someone critique the Republican system. It seems to me that if Caesar hadn't taken a military opportunity for power it might have worked.

[son_of_angels]

As I said above, I agree that the Church should have no secular power. THERE SHOULD BE no separate "secular" power.

As to my opinion concerning the Roman Republic. The Republic, even before Caesar, hardly functioned at all anyway. The system was designed to cycle individuals through a line of offices culminating in the Consulate, and finally ending in the Senate, where the individual began.
The problem I have with it is that at least in some theocratic and/or feudal or oligarchical (I think that is the word) the Church only has SOME "secular" power. In the Republic the Senate wielded supreme religious and secular power over all the nation. Julius Caesar, for example, was made a god by the Senate. Much better to have secular popes than religiously-empowered politicians.
Moreover, the system was notoriously corrupt, as movement from office to office was key, meaning that individuals were constantly fighting over advancement. The system itself was designed for it, and came out of an inherently bickering society.
You talk about what it would be like if there were Christians in charge. Well, look at the Vatican. The power structure for the Vatican is basically a relic of the Old Republic functioning under the authority of the Successor of St. Peter. The Curia, for example, in Latin refers to the "Senate-house." The system is similar in other ways, as well.
The Roman system just works better if there is someone, like a Caesar, in charge who transcends the fight for position with a personal conviction. Thus the pope.
Major advancements were not made by Rome in terms of wealth and technology and so forth until the Emperors began. Also, you could say that Caesar was more the symptom of a government so focused on hierarchy and upward mobility among the oligarchs that the people were just searching for a hero. They found it in Caesar, an ambitious, successful, beautiful, and often benevolent leader.
This is much the same with many youth today. We look above the face of the mundane crowd of successfuls and see true success, beauty, fatherhood, and leadership in the Holy Father. Thus, I think, most devout Catholic youth are more devoted to the papacy than their devout Catholic parents.

A Republic speaks burgeouise values to burgeouise people in modern times, just like in ancient times the people saw the nobles as all being mundane and alike. Then BAM you have a hero and it doesn't matter what his ideas are. That is why I say either have all power be spiritual power or have a King who transcends all worldliness and speaks to a people of the glories of other-worldliness.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 7 2005, 05:09 PM'] [hijack]
I am planning on starting my own country some day. My latest idea is to build a floating island not QUITE like the one they're builidng at [url="http://new-utopia.com"]http://new-utopia.com[/url] (I had a whole different idea before I ever found that site) but the same principal being that if we're in international waters we are not bound by any other country. anyway, it'll probably be like a Catholic Principality or something cool like that... what exactly is the difference between a principality and a kingdom other than the title 'prince' vs. 'king'

I'm gonna go start a thread about this in Open Mic though... I will need the help of a few good engineers

[/hijack] [/quote]
[QUOTE]


Sure hope you plan on doing this soon...Check out the LOST treaty going through the United Nations. (There is one crappy government system you want to avoind for your book)

[MichaelFilo]

You are letting your philosophy get in the way of reality. God made a distinction between secular and religious power. The two are seperate spheres. If you remove one sphere, then you can no longer give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's because then everything goes to the Church. The Church functioning as a political institution would be ruinous to the religious duties of the Church, since each Church head would have to play some role in the political spheres as well as their religious spheres.

God bless,
Mikey

[son_of_angels]

As I said before the most politcal thing many people ever do is go to Church on Sunday. You can't remove politics from the Church because the church is a church of men, and men are inherently political creatures.

As for the Caesar thing,
Let me ask you this. You have a friend named Bob who loaned you an axe. Now that axe doesn't belong to Bob, really, because all things belong to and are given by Bob. That doesn't make it all right for you to just hang on to Bob's axe just because you think God gave everyone everything.
That would be immoral and quite un-Catholic.

Give to Bob what's Bob's and to God what is God's.

That is how I interpret the verse.

On the other hand, if you need an axe and God gives you one the best thing you can do is hang on to it and use it to serve him. It wouldn't be right just because you formerly borrowed an axe from Bob to go and give Bob this axe just because you were accustomed to returning axes to Bob. God gave the axe to you for a reason.

So, what the "Caesar" verse is about is brotherly and communal love, applied even on a national level. That verse can be applied to every day life, not just to some "Caesar" notion of government.
But when you are talking about a non-secular government, you have to apply that notion especially on a day to day basis with everyone, treating lot's of different people as a Caesar. What's better, to have a wealthy corrupt Caesar, or someone across the street that you know and love.

[yiannii]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='May 8 2005, 04:19 AM'] I disagree with the notion that education and monarchy are incompatible. True education, an education that supports one's function in a hierarchy, a hierarchy which opposes the totalitarian notion behind democracy, will ultimately support the notion of a monarchy.
I think "democracy" which implies rule by the people is inherantly flawed, as it supports the notion of popular control over God control. However, certainly some "democratic" or I would call them "collegial" power structures could be in place. Ultimately, however, I am against, in a Christian nation, the notion that any power may be construed as purely secular. Some positions, like those that prosecute crime, oversee trade, etc. could be through bureacratic positions, or positions organized by a central capital bureacracy, functioning within the most powerful Archdiocese of course, but I generally feel those positions should be temporary and exist as needed. Christ is the only Eternal King. [/quote]
A monarch is a form of secular control - where does the King get his authority from?

I would rather my nation be lead by a person who has won a majority vote rather than a person who only leads because he/she was born in a particular family.

The state is secular, after all, it is a created concept of the human mind.

It would be up to the Church in this Catholic nation to make sure that all voters were well taught the Catholic faith so as to make the correct decisions. I am sure if this was the case the secular government, run by fellow practicing Catholics, with the influence of the Catholic Church would do a fine job.

A monarch would never work.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='yiannii' date='May 9 2005, 07:37 AM'] A monarch is a form of secular control - where does the King get his authority from?

I would rather my nation be lead by a person who has won a majority vote rather than a person who only leads because he/she was born in a particular family.

The state is secular, after all, it is a created concept of the human mind.

It would be up to the Church in this Catholic nation to make sure that all voters were well taught the Catholic faith so as to make the correct decisions. I am sure if this was the case the secular government, run by fellow practicing Catholics, with the influence of the Catholic Church would do a fine job.

A monarch would never work. [/quote]
Yeah because the most successful form of government ever would never work.


A monarch get s his authority from God.

[MC Just]

An Orthodox Catholic King sounds good to me.