Democracy Is A Tool Of Satan

[Resurrexi]

I hate Democracy and I think it's a tool of Satan. Does anyone else here feel the same way?

[Aloysius]

this is lame

[Budge]

The USA is a REPUBLIC...

[KnightofChrist]

Hate is a tool of Satan...

Oh and ha! Your Voting Poll is a form of Democracy, watch out!

[Era Might]

[quote]But in matters merely political, as, for instance, the best form of government, and this or that system of administration, a difference of opinion is lawful. Those, therefore, whose piety is in other respects known, and whose minds are ready to accept in all obedience the decrees of the apostolic see, cannot in justice be accounted as bad men because they disagree as to subjects We have mentioned; and still graver wrong will be done them, if - as We have more than once perceived with regret - they are accused of violating, or of wavering in, the Catholic faith.

--Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter "Immortale Dei"[/quote]
[quote]Governmental authority, therefore, is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees passed in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience, since "it is right to obey God rather than men."

Indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse. As St. Thomas teaches, "In regard to the second proposition, we maintain that human law has the rationale of law in so far as it is in accordance with right reason, and as such it obviously derives from eternal law. A law which is at variance with reason is to that extent unjust and has no longer the rationale of law. It is rather an act of violence."

The fact that authority comes from God does not mean that men have no power to choose those who are to rule the State, or to decide upon the type of government they want, and determine the procedure and limitations of rulers in the exercise of their authority. Hence the above teaching is consonant with any genuinely democratic form of government.

--Pope John XXIII, Encyclical Letter "Pacem In Terris"[/quote]

[goldenchild17]

I don't like democracy, but I don't think it is a tool of the devil. I do think it is a highly insufficient model of government, and should be not be in practice in a country where Catholicism is not the only allowed public religion. I think it would be a decent model in a fully Catholic country, but I still have questions about it on a functionality level.

Edited September 29, 2006 by goldenchild17

[Era Might]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1079461' date='Sep 29 2006, 04:36 PM']I don't like democracy, but I don't think it is a tool of the devil. I do think it is a highly insufficient model of government, and should be not be in practice in a country where Catholicism is not the only allowed public religion.[/quote]
It is not necessary, even in a truly Christian democracy, for Catholicism to be the only allowed public religion. In fact, especially today, when the world is inexplicably integrated with people of different backgrounds, it would be gravely injurious to the common good not to allow free exercise of religion. This is why the Second Vatican Council had to address the issue of religious liberty, because the world has changed so much.

[quote]The Church, indeed, deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, but does not, on that account, condemn those rulers who, for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, allow patiently custom or usage to be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having its place in the State. And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, "Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will."

--Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter "Immortatale Dei"[/quote]

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1079467' date='Sep 29 2006, 04:43 PM']
It is not necessary, even in a truly Christian democracy, for Catholicism to be the only allowed public religion. In fact, especially today, when the world is inexplicably integrated with people of different backgrounds, it would be gravely injurious to the common good not to allow free exercise of religion. This is why the Second Vatican Council had to address the issue of religious liberty, because the world has changed so much.
[/quote]

Free private exercise of religion I have no problem with. When it extends into affecting the public and public matters that's when I take issue with it.

[Resurrexi]

[quote]But in matters merely political, as, for instance, the best form of government, and this or that system of administration, a difference of opinion is lawful. Those, therefore, whose piety is in other respects known, and whose minds are ready to accept in all obedience the decrees of the apostolic see, cannot in justice be accounted as bad men because they disagree as to subjects We have mentioned; and still graver wrong will be done them, if - as We have more than once perceived with regret - they are accused of violating, or of wavering in, the Catholic faith.

--Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter "Immortale Dei" [/quote]

all that says is I can't say a Catholic is evil for being a supporter of democracy. There is no offocial Dogma that prohibits me from saying that democracy is evil and a tool of Satan. Now the Church does prohibit her members from calling Monarchy evil becuase the Holy Trinity divinely instituted several kings in the Old Testament, and also several kings have been canonised. Holy Mother Church also prohibits people from calling Theocracy evil because the Her visible Head is the also the head of a Theocracy.

[Era Might]

In what sense? As far as the morals of a nation go? In that sense, those must always be based objectively on the moral law. But you can't confine non-Catholics to private spaces. They have to be allowed to live and express their religion publicly, as should Catholics, and conversion must be carried out by witness and charity, not force and suppression.

This is in response to goldenchild, just to clarify. I forgot to hit reply.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1079424' date='Sep 29 2006, 04:15 PM']
this is lame
[/quote]



[quote name='Budge' post='1079434' date='Sep 29 2006, 04:22 PM']
The USA is a REPUBLIC...


[/quote]

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1079519' date='Sep 29 2006, 05:05 PM']
In what sense? As far as the morals of a nation go? In that sense, those must always be based objectively on the moral law. But you can't confine non-Catholics to private spaces. They have to be allowed to live and express their religion publicly, as should Catholics, and conversion must be carried out by witness and charity, not force and suppression.

This is in response to goldenchild, just to clarify. I forgot to hit reply.
[/quote]

I guess I just don't see where other faiths have the right to express themselves publicly. What they believe, and what they practice themselves is something no one can govern, God knows it sure didn't work for the Pagan Roman emperors in their attempt to stop Christians. But I think, and I say I think because I am open to contrary evidence, that past encyclicals and so forth have made it clear that error has no rights, and that a country should not have freedom of religion, in regards to public practice and influence.

Edited September 29, 2006 by goldenchild17

[tojo]

I don't hate democracy.

I hate evil.

Some evils have been allowed/encouraged by democracy.

I don't like that.

However, evils are allowed/emcouraged by many other governmental systems than democracy also.

[Resurrexi]

The following are [b]condemned[/b] as [i][b][color="#CC66CC"][u]ERRORS[/u][/color][/b][/i] by Pope Pius IX:

[quote]55. [b][i][u][color="#FF0000"][font="System"]The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.[/font][/color][/u][/i][/b] -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

77. In the present day it is [b][i][u][color="#FF9900"]no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State[/color][/u][/i][/b], to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

79. Moreover, [u][color="#3333FF"]it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people[/color][/u], and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

80. The [i][color="#33CC00"]Roman Pontiff[/color][/i] can, and [i][color="#33CC00"]ought to, reconcile himself[/color][/i], and come to terms [i][color="#33CC00"]with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.[/color][/i]- -Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861. [/quote]

Edited September 29, 2006 by StThomasMore

[goldenchild17]

I was going to include this to, along with other stuff. Of course without all the pretty colors.

[Anomaly]

A great demonstration of why catholicsm is a farce, a joke, silliness.
Contrast the above with:

[quote] "Religious Liberty" is defined by Dignitatis Humanae as follows:

"Chapter 2...This liberty means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others WITHIN DUE LIMITS." {Emphasis added.}

Later in Chapter 7, these due limits are defined:

"7. The right to religious freedom is exercised in human society: hence its exercise is subject to certain regulatory norms. In the use of all freedoms the moral principle of personal and social responsibility is to be observed. In the exercise of their rights, individual men and social groups are bound by the moral law to have respect both for the rights of others and for their own duties toward others and for the common welfare of all. Men are to deal with their fellows in justice and civility.[/quote]

So what is it?

And the Faithful Catholics continue to argue...

[Era Might]

It is true that error has no rights. The Catechism touches on this:

[quote]The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.

--#2108[/quote]
If we are going to say that people must search for the truth, then we must respect their path on that search. Suppressing them because they have not come to the end of the path will not foster any legitimate search for truth in society; it will completely eliminate it. The Church becomes nothing more than a propaganda machine that cannot bear the presence of other religions. When the Church respects religious liberty, however, she respects the legitimate dialogue of truth in society, and also respects the common good, which would be dangerously upset by, basically, religious fascism. Error has no rights, but people in error do. In past centuries, it was a different social situation, because the world was mostly divided into certain sectors. Today, however, the world is truly a global community, and we all have live together, regardless of religion. It doesn't hurt the Church when, for example, a group of Jews gather publicly for prayer, or wear yarmulkas. If we do our job as a religious community, the our people should respond to that as Christians, and respect the conscience of other people. When we afford others the right to religious liberty, we ensure it for ourselves, and can freely engage the cause of evangelization.

Strictly speaking, if non-Catholics were not allowed public exercise of their religion, than sedevacantist and SSPX chapels would have to be shut down. Though they may believe themselves Catholic, they are not in communion with the Holy See, and as such, they would have no right to gather for Mass. But religious liberty ensures that right; it doesn't ensure their communion with the Holy See, but it ensures their right to their own religious exercise.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1079553' date='Sep 29 2006, 05:20 PM']A great demonstration of why catholicsm is a farce, a joke, silliness.[/quote]
There is no need to disrespect my religion on a CATHOLIC website. If you do it again, you will be on my ignore list.

[Resurrexi]

Era, I think you are misinterpreting the quote from the Catechism. What it says is that you can't force someone to be Catholic. The quotes which I provided though, make up for the Catechism's ambiguity. So put together, the offocial teaching of the Holy Catholic Church is that you cannot force anyone to convert to Catholicism, though non-Catholics should never be allowed to pracitice their false religions publicly.

[goldenchild17]

How does being in a different era make an impact in this regard? If anything public practice of one's religion becomes even more dangerous now, because this practice by just one individual can be spread much farther than it could centuries ago. Back then one's public display of their faith would only impact those he was directly with or in view of. This view and contact becomes much larger now as people become active members of political parties, spread their influence on message boards and on websites viewable to millions. Such people can print and distribute materials far more than could be done centuries ago. If anything I think it's more dangerous to allow this now than in the past.

I guess I'm still a little bit confused about this "legitimate dialogue of truth" that everybody's talking about. Does Catholicism not have the fullness of the truth? Does the Church need to dialogue to discover more truth?

And yes, technically if this were in practice then my faith would not be able to operate on the public scale. I understand that, however it is my church that believes in this, not the other way around. So I'm not to worried about it happening.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1079557' date='Sep 29 2006, 04:25 PM']
There is no need to disrespect my religion on a CATHOLIC website. If you do it again, you will be on my ignore list.
[/quote] Save yourself the trouble and ignore me now. Within 45 minutes there will be a catholic disagreeing with you and then I'll make a pointed comment and we both already know what that's going to result in.

edit...

I should have said, 'within 4 to 5 minutes', not 'within 45 minutes'.

We got two winning posts. One that says you misunderstood the ambiguity of the catechism and the other saying your qualification about the current cultural circumstances is not applicable.

The catholic denomination is as effective as cracking a walnut with a marshmallow.

Edited September 29, 2006 by Anomaly