Is Catholicism A Democracy?

[JReducation]

As I read through these threads I’m more amazed at the Catholics than at people of other faiths. I understand that if you’re born into another faith you approach Catholicism with many questions regarding Church authority, questions about Vatican II and the decisions and declarations made by the Popes, especially from John XXIII to the present.

That being said, I came to Catholicism from Judaism. I’m a convert. I became Catholic four-years ago. However, Catholicism was not new to me. My father was Catholic and we attended Catholic schools and even Catholic colleges. My brothers and I were the only kids in the Catholic school who were allowed to wear a yarmulke and allowed to sit during mass or stand quietly. The friars who educated us were very kind. They even encouraged my desire to study theology to become a Rabbi, which ended up in my becoming more interested in understanding Catholic spirituality and studying Mystical Theology and Philosophy. After that the rest was easy. I asked a lot of questions and got a lot of answers. Some I liked and some I thought were nonsense.

But there was one reality that I walked away with. Catholicism, much like Judaism IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. The Catholic Church has always operated as a monarchy, both its infrastructure and its theology has always been hierarchical. I don’t understand why Catholics today feel they have the authority to debate whether this pope was right or wrong in separating Archbishop Lefebvre and his society; whether the Pope is right or wrong on birth control, abortion, homosexual behaviour, capital punishment or mass in Latin.

To the best of my knowledge the laity has never had a voice in formulating dogma or canon law. Correct me if I’m wrong. Every contribution that the laity has made to these has always been subject to the approval of the Magisterium.. What I gather from these forums is that there are both conservative and liberal Catholics, I hate those terms, who would like to see the Church go their way. It isn’t going to happen.

Also, I find it interesting that this phenomenon is more common among North Americans (including Canadians) and Europeans. In the Southern Hemisphere Catholics simply accept what the Church says or ignore it. They don’t debate it. And they don’t seem bent on proving their point. Their understanding seems more in touch with the reality of what the Church is a theocratic monarchy.

What is in it for us to debate? Why can’t we spend our time and energy understanding how to be good Christians and how to apply the spiritual principles that we have inherited to our daily lives and our dealings with others. It would seem to me that time would be better spent understanding how to be saints, such as the great mystics did.

You don’t see a Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Francis of Assisi, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Vincent de Paul, Francis de Sales, Mother Teresa questioning the Church’s position on the issues of their time. They spent their energy on developing a deeper life of prayer, developing their commitment to the poor, trying to see Christ in their brothers and sisters, living closer to the Church despite her weaknesses and teaching others to love the Church.

Francis of Assisi had a vision in which Christ said, “Go rebuild my Church for it’s falling into ruins.” He went out and preached conversion and charity. He didn’t take on the corruption of the medieval Church. In fact he condemned those who would challenge the Church and trusted that the Holy Spirit would repair the damage.

Mother Elizabeth Ann Seton’s last words on her deathbed to her daughters were, “Be children of the Church.” She didn’t tell them to go out and challenge the Church’s every decision or teaching.

I don’t get it.

[Pax]

Well said JR. I suspect that part of the problem is cultural. American pluralism and individualism play a part in people's attitudes and thought. These are not at all friendly to Catholicism.

[Brennan Doherty]

I agree that the Church is monarchical in structure. And certainly there is no debate on matters that have been settled by the Magisterium on Faith and Morals. However, this does not mean that Catholics have to just sit and remain silent if prudential decisions of the hierarchy, which are not infallible, are seen to be imprudent (even though they have to obey). I posted recently a quote from one of Dietrich von Hildebrand's essay here on the distinction:

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....4&postcount=45

[JReducation]

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for asking questions. That’s how we learn. That’s’ how I became a Catholic. I had many questions about what I saw and what I heard in Catholic school, as well as what my Jewish mother taught me about Judaism. However, there was one thing that my parents made clear to us. “It is what it is.”

Judaism was not going to change because I was an American and I believe in self-determination, neither was Catholicism.

When the Church said that there it believes there is rarely a justifiable reason for capital punishment, given the resources that society has to protect the innocent, I can question what those resources are. What’s there to question about the Church’s position? This is its moral position. I don’t have a vote or voice in this matter.

While I may love my relative who is gay, if the Church says that homosexual activity is sinful, then that’s the Church’s last stand. However, when the same Church also says that all injustice against homosexual people is wrong, that’s also its last stand. These are the Church’s moral stands regarding the sin and the individual. I don’t have to buy into it. The Church doesn’t own me, but it is futile to try to save my place in the front pew by trying to prove that the Church is wrong.

It’s like any other community. It has its rules. You either play by their rules or find another community.

This whole argument around Archbishop Lefebvre, the Tridentine Liturgy, Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI is another case in point. John Paul II gave the Archbishop very specific directives. He also warned him that he would incur excommunication. Now Pope Benedict XVI opens up the possibility for Tridentine masses. OK, what’s that big deal? John Paul II was the Pope at the time. At that time, whatever he said was the voice of the Church. Now, Benedict XVI is the Pope, whatever he says is the voice of the Church today. In a monarchy, one monarch is not above another. The reigning monarch has the final voice. We may not like it, but that’s the nature of monarchies, even the Church’s monarchy.

We live in a society where we have taken the idea of freedom and turned it into entitlement. While the Church respects and demands freedom for all, entitlement has never been part of its theology or pastoral practice.

The notion that there are traditionalists and liberals in the Church is a carryover from politics. An individual can embrace or appreciate certain traditions, this is true. But I would like to see how many of the so called traditionalists would like to return to the era before Vincent de Paul when women were not allowed to engage in ministry. The only option for women was to be married or cloistered nuns. How many would like to go back to a time when the Church was an empire? The same goes for the alleged liberals. If liberal means do whatever you think is right, which moral or canon laws should we do away with? Where is the line that we cannot cross before we are no longer one Church? Unity requires discipline. However, discipline is not the same as traditionalism. Unity is a goal and discipline is an internal attitude, not a custom.

JR

[mgy100]

Originally Posted by JReducation

As I read through these threads I’m more amazed at the Catholics than at people of other faiths. I understand that if you’re born into another faith you approach Catholicism with many questions regarding Church authority, questions about Vatican II and the decisions and declarations made by the Popes, especially from John XXIII to the present.

That being said, I came to Catholicism from Judaism. I’m a convert. I became Catholic four-years ago. However, Catholicism was not new to me. My father was Catholic and we attended Catholic schools and even Catholic colleges. My brothers and I were the only kids in the Catholic school who were allowed to wear a yarmulke and allowed to sit during mass or stand quietly. The friars who educated us were very kind. They even encouraged my desire to study theology to become a Rabbi, which ended up in my becoming more interested in understanding Catholic spirituality and studying Mystical Theology and Philosophy. After that the rest was easy. I asked a lot of questions and got a lot of answers. Some I liked and some I thought were nonsense.

But there was one reality that I walked away with. Catholicism, much like Judaism IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. The Catholic Church has always operated as a monarchy, both its infrastructure and its theology has always been hierarchical. I don’t understand why Catholics today feel they have the authority to debate whether this pope was right or wrong in separating Archbishop Lefebvre and his society; whether the Pope is right or wrong on birth control, abortion, homosexual behaviour, capital punishment or mass in Latin.

To the best of my knowledge the laity has never had a voice in formulating dogma or canon law. Correct me if I’m wrong. Every contribution that the laity has made to these has always been subject to the approval of the Magisterium.. What I gather from these forums is that there are both conservative and liberal Catholics, I hate those terms, who would like to see the Church go their way. It isn’t going to happen.

Also, I find it interesting that this phenomenon is more common among North Americans (including Canadians) and Europeans. In the Southern Hemisphere Catholics simply accept what the Church says or ignore it. They don’t debate it. And they don’t seem bent on proving their point. Their understanding seems more in touch with the reality of what the Church is a theocratic monarchy.

What is in it for us to debate? Why can’t we spend our time and energy understanding how to be good Christians and how to apply the spiritual principles that we have inherited to our daily lives and our dealings with others. It would seem to me that time would be better spent understanding how to be saints, such as the great mystics did.

You don’t see a Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Francis of Assisi, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Vincent de Paul, Francis de Sales, Mother Teresa questioning the Church’s position on the issues of their time. They spent their energy on developing a deeper life of prayer, developing their commitment to the poor, trying to see Christ in their brothers and sisters, living closer to the Church despite her weaknesses and teaching others to love the Church.

Francis of Assisi had a vision in which Christ said, “Go rebuild my Church for it’s falling into ruins.” He went out and preached conversion and charity. He didn’t take on the corruption of the medieval Church. In fact he condemned those who would challenge the Church and trusted that the Holy Spirit would repair the damage.

Mother Elizabeth Ann Seton’s last words on her deathbed to her daughters were, “Be children of the Church.” She didn’t tell them to go out and challenge the Church’s every decision or teaching.

I don’t get it.

Exactly!!!! Great post. Excellent indeed.

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by Brennan Doherty

I agree that the Church is monarchical in structure. And certainly there is no debate on matters that have been settled by the Magisterium on Faith and Morals. However, this does not mean that Catholics have to just sit and remain silent if prudential decisions of the hierarchy, which are not infallible, are seen to be imprudent (even though they have to obey). I posted recently a quote from one of Dietrich von Hildebrand's essay here on the distinction:

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....4&postcount=45

Thanks for sharing the article. I read it. But it doesn't change the question.
Look at the wisdom of Dr. van Hilderbrand. Observe what he says in this paragraph.

“The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. Here the maxim Roma locuta: causa finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father--to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.”

He does not give the laity the authority to change the decisions of the Magisterium. He encourages the laity to ask questions, to write letters and make petitions. He deliberately says that “WE MUST OBEY”.

There is no question that there are going to be decisions and declarations that are “loopy”, to quote my son. But even the loopy decisions must be obeyed until such time as the legitimate authority changes their mind. We can ask for reconsideration. That’s not in doubt here. What I’m calling into question is the idea that many Catholics have that they can do whatever they feel is right on either side of an issue.

The question on this thread is when did we become a democracy where we can pick and choose what to obey?

[garytb]

Originally Posted by mgy100

Exactly!!!! Great post. Excellent indeed.

I am glad the USA is not a democracy.
I am very glad it's a republic.
gtb
peace

[I_Believe]

Hi JR,
Well, a great many recent converts don't understand the traditionalist mindset. And we don't expect you to.

The Church is in a crisis and there are those who know full well why. Both laity and, thankfully, some of those in the Curia.

You do have a point, in that many on these fora spend more time trying to be armchair inquisitors, than they do nurturing their Catholic spirituality. Declaring dead Popes heretics serves no purpose.

And you are right, the current Pope should have the last word.

But using terms like "so-called traditionalists", and saying you don't understand why Catholics debate certain trends and directions in which the Church is heading, while adding non Catholics blindly obey their powers that be, kind of waters down your point.

I know you meant no ill intent, but some are going to feel you are saying we can learn from the protestants.

Blind obedience is hard to swallow as long as Modernism is in the equation.

[Brennan Doherty]

Originally Posted by JReducation

Thanks for sharing the article. I read it. But it doesn't change the question.
Look at the wisdom of Dr. van Hilderbrand. Observe what he says in this paragraph.

“The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. Here the maxim Roma locuta: causa finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father--to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.”

He does not give the laity the authority to change the decisions of the Magisterium. He encourages the laity to ask questions, to write letters and make petitions. He deliberately says that “WE MUST OBEY”.

There is no question that there are going to be decisions and declarations that are “loopy”, to quote my son. But even the loopy decisions must be obeyed until such time as the legitimate authority changes their mind. We can ask for reconsideration. That’s not in doubt here. What I’m calling into question is the idea that many Catholics have that they can do whatever they feel is right on either side of an issue.

The question on this thread is when did we become a democracy where we can pick and choose what to obey?

Yes, and I agree completely with von Hildebrand's point here. If I don't like the New Mass and greatly prefer the TLM (which I do), that does not mean I can run off and found my own church with the TLM. The Pope and Bishops do have the authority. Von Hildebrand once put it more succinctly: "We obey, but do not agree."

Again, I think the big distinction is between decisions that are prudential (and fallible) such as whether to allow the vernacular in the liturgy or whether to change the liturgy, and teachings of the Church which are on faith and morals and infallible such as the teaching against homosexual acts.

[RLT]

The OP reminds me of something I read in an article called Cooper's Other Americans: Cultural Diversity and American Homogeneity.

It covers some of Last of the Mohicans author James Fenimore Cooper's attitude towards Catholics.

It states he warned that Catholicism and democracy may be incompatible because "monks, nuns and Catholics revere authority"
An attitude that seems to be prevalent in early America.

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by I_Believe

But using terms like "so-called traditionalists", and saying you don't understand why Catholics debate certain trends and directions in which the Church is heading, while adding non Catholics blindly obey their powers that be, kind of waters down your point.

I know you meant no ill intent, but some are going to feel you are saying we can learn from the protestants.

Blind obedience is hard to swallow as long as Modernism is in the equation.

I don't recall where I said this. But if I did, I don't mean that we learn from Protestants. In fact, Proestantism never attracted my attention because it's too chaotic from my Jewish perspective.

I know Jews who have converted to Protestantism, because they were looking for this kind of freedom to have a private line with God. I don't mean this at all.

Can we learn respect for authority and obedience from other people, regardless of their faith, of course we can. Good can be learned from anyone.

I'm not so sure that modernism is correctly understood by the average person. Originally, modernism referred to the age of scientific skepticism and inquiry. This is not longer the case in the scientific community. I believe that most scientists agree that the supernatural is not within the domain of science and refrain for analyzing it. Einstein said it best when he said, "I only want to know how God did it. The rest are just details." He paved the way for a new generation of scientific inquiry that was very different from modernism.

I believe that what people refer to as modernism, is really the modern age or the contemporary age. It goes to show how poorly educated we are that we can't even use terms correctly. It is little wonder how we fail at logic.

My question on this thread has little to do with the modern age, more with logic.

Logic says that if we spend more time and energy cultivating prayer, penance, asceticism, detachment from material things and prestige, practicing mercy and compassion toward everyone, regardless of who they are or what they believe, we would be much closer to being the people that Christ calls us to be.

As a convert I have a special attachment to St. Elizabeth Ann Seton and St. Edith Stein (Benedicta). Once they discovered the wealth of Catholcism they threw themselves fully into prayer, penance, charity, the Sacraments, sharing their joy and their experience with others.

Neither of these women lacked intelligence. Stein was a PhD in philosophy and Elizabeth well educated in Episcopalian theology. They saw the weaknesses of the Church, but they also saw the Holy Spirit at work through the clouds. They clung to that vision. They nurtured it in their hearts in and in everyone whom they encountered. Above all, they never uttered a complaint against the Church. Their conversion was so profound that they believed in the power of the Spirit to heal the weaknesses of the Chuch. They embraced the Holy Spirit's healing power by beginning with their own souls, because they saw themselves as weak links in Church, as links that needed strengthening. There was no sense of entitlement on their part. They had been brought to the Church through the merits of Christ, not their own.

Regardless of the conditions of the house, they knew they were home. They dedicated their lives to hearing the voice of the master of the house, rather than debating withth housekeeper.

JR

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by Brennan Doherty

Yes, and I agree completely with von Hildebrand's point here. If I don't like the New Mass and greatly prefer the TLM (which I do), that does not mean I can run off and found my own church with the TLM. The Pope and Bishops do have the authority. Von Hildebrand once put it more succinctly: "We obey, but do not agree."

Again, I think the big distinction is between decisions that are prudential (and fallible) such as whether to allow the vernacular in the liturgy or whether to change the liturgy, and teachings of the Church which are on faith and morals and infallible such as the teaching against homosexual acts.

If we take our cue from the Saints, such as Basil the Great, no one says that we have to like it. We just have to love the Church and hang in there.

As I have always taught my children, "You don't have to like it. You just have to do it." Today they are two very healthy, productive and moral adults.

JR

[ProVobis]

I don't understand how anyone can call Catholicism a democracy or a republic. Catholics don't vote at the polls. They don't even decide who their priests or bishops are.

We either accept our priests, bishops, or Pope, or we don't. We are baptized as Christians but choose to follow the path of Catholicism or what we see as Catholicism. Excommunication isn't even an issue anymore. The Church accepts almost anyone who wants to be Catholic. Sometimes I don't even know if I'm attending Mass with Catholics as many of them don't follow Church rules, but I still have to see where someone actually gets physically kicked out of attending Mass.

The Church has its own government but it is hardly a democracy, unless you count voting with your feet.

[revelations]

They let me in!

JR, another solid post. You've been on fire the last couple of days!

As for all the debate, it's in the North American culture. I think it's a bit of a perversion of "free speech!" and right to democracy. Everything is up for debate these days, because everyone is their own judge!

At university, the first week is spent arguing with the teacher about the mid term dates.

Why should anyone tell me what i can/can't do? [sarcasm]

-revelations

trust in the Holy Spirit...he will heal all wounds

[Brennan Doherty]

Originally Posted by JReducation

I don't recall where I said this. But if I did, I don't mean that we learn from Protestants. In fact, Proestantism never attracted my attention because it's too chaotic from my Jewish perspective.

I know Jews who have converted to Protestantism, because they were looking for this kind of freedom to have a private line with God. I don't mean this at all.

Can we learn respect for authority and obedience from other people, regardless of their faith, of course we can. Good can be learned from anyone.

I'm not so sure that modernism is correctly understood by the average person. Originally, modernism referred to the age of scientific skepticism and inquiry. This is not longer the case in the scientific community. I believe that most scientists agree that the supernatural is not within the domain of science and refrain for analyzing it. Einstein said it best when he said, "I only want to know how God did it. The rest are just details." He paved the way for a new generation of scientific inquiry that was very different from modernism.

I believe that what people refer to as modernism, is really the modern age or the contemporary age. It goes to show how poorly educated we are that we can't even use terms correctly. It is little wonder how we fail at logic.

My question on this thread has little to do with the modern age, more with logic.

Logic says that if we spend more time and energy cultivating prayer, penance, asceticism, detachment from material things and prestige, practicing mercy and compassion toward everyone, regardless of who they are or what they believe, we would be much closer to being the people that Christ calls us to be.

As a convert I have a special attachment to St. Elizabeth Ann Seton and St. Edith Stein (Benedicta). Once they discovered the wealth of Catholcism they threw themselves fully into prayer, penance, charity, the Sacraments, sharing their joy and their experience with others.

Neither of these women lacked intelligence. Stein was a PhD in philosophy and Elizabeth well educated in Episcopalian theology. They saw the weaknesses of the Church, but they also saw the Holy Spirit at work through the clouds. They clung to that vision. They nurtured it in their hearts in and in everyone whom they encountered. Above all, they never uttered a complaint against the Church. Their conversion was so profound that they believed in the power of the Spirit to heal the weaknesses of the Chuch. They embraced the Holy Spirit's healing power by beginning with their own souls, because they saw themselves as weak links in Church, as links that needed strengthening. There was no sense of entitlement on their part. They had been brought to the Church through the merits of Christ, not their own.

Regardless of the conditions of the house, they knew they were home. They dedicated their lives to hearing the voice of the master of the house, rather than debating withth housekeeper.

JR

And dear God how I pray that one day all Catholics may once again have access to the liturgy that helped make them Saints.