Author Topic: Is American model of Democracy completely incompatible with Catholicism? (Read 1869 times)

Vladimir · « **on:** April 15, 2010, 05:16:49 PM »

Is democractic state completely opposed to Catholicism? I've been reading up on Jefferson Davis and the War of Northern Aggression, etc and its all gotten me rather fond of Davis, even though he was a firm Democrat. He is also very eloquent. Reading some of his quotations have completely changed my views on slavery and abolition.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** April 15, 2010, 05:50:25 PM »

Quote from: Vladimir

Is democractic state completely opposed to Catholicism? I've been reading up on Jefferson Davis and the War of Northern Aggression, etc and its all gotten me rather fond of Davis, even though he was a firm Democrat. He is also very eloquent. Reading some of his quotations have completely changed my views on slavery and abolition.

The secular state is completely opposed. The Econe is in a Catholic Swiss Canton.

Vladimir · « **Reply #2 on:** April 15, 2010, 11:45:49 PM »

I'm sorry, I don't understand your second sentence.

So if it were a Catholic democratic society, then it would not be opposed?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** April 16, 2010, 05:52:36 AM »

Quote from: Vladimir

I'm sorry, I don't understand your second sentence.

So if it were a Catholic democratic society, then it would not be opposed?

Provided it was recognized that authority comes from God and not from "the people."

Catholic Samurai · « **Reply #4 on:** April 22, 2010, 08:17:23 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Vladimir
I'm sorry, I don't understand your second sentence.

So if it were a Catholic democratic society, then it would not be opposed?

Provided it was recognized that authority comes from God and not from "the people."

But as soon as the people have that false sense of authority they quickly forget God. The idea of a Catholic Democracy is one of those "what if..." fantasies, because nature (let alone human nature) doesnt work that way. If you put everyone on the same level, then someone is going to take advantage of the situation and assume a position of authority immediately. What your really asking for in a Democracy is an anarchical mob-rule, and someone who's smart will tell the mob what to do and thus will control the mob making himself the head hauncho. Just re-read your history books and you will see "power-to-the-people" is really just transferring "power- to- someone- else".

I'll give you a good example... suppose you had a family of 100. The father and mother abdicate their authority, and give the children the power to do whatever they want so long as 2/3rds of them approve of it... oh, and also they would like to give them a list of rules they would prefer they follow. Now one of those kids who has an intelligence, cleverness, and character stronger than any of his siblings is naturally going to assume the place of the father formerly had. He will then make his siblings think that whatever he does in his position of authority is what they want since they all vote on it, but all the while he will be the one who shapes their opinions and how they look at the situation.

Vlad, do I have to explain this to you? :shocked:

Belloc · « **Reply #5 on:** April 27, 2010, 08:06:07 AM »

Quote from: Vladimir

Is democractic state completely opposed to Catholicism? I've been reading up on Jefferson Davis and the War of Northern Aggression, etc and its all gotten me rather fond of Davis, even though he was a firm Democrat. He is also very eloquent. Reading some of his quotations have completely changed my views on slavery and abolition.

Davis considered early in his life about becoming a Catholic and remember, the Democrats then were for small farms, shops, Jeffersonian....The South, despite slavery, was much more Catholic in actual everyday life. Remember, too, it was Northern shippers that brought slaves and outlawed blacks from living in the North in some areas. Many shippers were reportedly Jєωs.....

spouse of Jesus · « **Reply #6 on:** April 27, 2010, 08:16:29 PM »

I have heard that in America ordinary people are allowed to possess guns. And that you are allowed to shoot a person who enters your yard without permission. It is worse than the the amputation of hands of thieves done in Saudi Arabia.
They are catholic-friendly laws???

Telesphorus · « **Reply #7 on:** April 27, 2010, 10:34:47 PM »

Quote from: spouse of Jesus

And that you are allowed to shoot a person who enters your yard without permission.

That is an exaggeration. Only in a few states can home invaders be shot. I doubt people who trespass can be shot in any state.

Catholic Samurai · « **Reply #8 on:** May 01, 2010, 12:02:52 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: spouse of Jesus
And that you are allowed to shoot a person who enters your yard without permission.

That is an exaggeration. Only in a few states can home invaders be shot. I doubt people who trespass can be shot in any state.

Heres what a copper told me.

"If someone is trying to kill you, anything is legal."

Catholic Samurai · « **Reply #9 on:** May 01, 2010, 12:16:50 PM »

Oh. Your talking about Jefferson Davis. I dont know why I was thinking about someone else. Now this makes sense to me.

The Confederate states, though Protestant, were more Catholic in regards to their economy which was closer to Distribustism than Capitalism because of they had an agrarian character.

Politically they labeled their government "Democratic" but it was really just another Republic, however, it would have had an Aristocratic factor involved, which isnt a bad thing because that naturally evolves more or less quickly in every system. Unfortunately the Confederate Constitution was almost as insufficient as the American Constitution though it had "Christianity" as it's "preferred" religion and left a lot of loop holes for manipulation.

The best form of Republican government came about with Gabriel Garcia Moreno of Ecuador. It had a Catholic constitution and ensured the rights of the Church and gave the nation a solid Catholic character, however, despite his Republican ideals Moreno had no choice but to assume dictatorial powers and resort to means we would consider socialistic. What succeded him was a system of loop holes that allowed the Masons to take back the power they had lost during his terms. You might as well have a Monarchy in order to maintain that power seal.