Is the American form of government inherently wrong?


#1

Is it inherently wrong to have a representative government, since it always, always leads to immoral law?

Is the best form of government from a moral perspective to rather have a theocracy/Papal monarchy with the Church ruling the world? I know it is not likely to happen, with few chronological and geographical exceptions, but entertain the idea. I also know that even if this were to happen, the system would still not be perfect, but I am almost certain that the following would be illegal:

baby murder
euthanasia
nasty groups trying to force public money to fund immoral acts
homosexual "marriage"
etc.


#2

As a wise man once said, "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms that exist."

Also, power can and has corrupted the Church in the past. Also, when you start letting the Church directly influence the government, the writers of history blame the error of the government on the Church (like burning heretics).

Also, there's no guarantee any of those things would be outlawed. Already people in the Church are splitting and supporting immoral actions such as these.


#3

:popcorn: this is gonna be interesting


#4

[quote="YoungTradCath, post:1, topic:302811"]
Is it inherently wrong to have a representative government, since it always, always leads to immoral law?

Is the best form of government from a moral perspective to rather have a theocracy/Papal monarchy with the Church ruling the world? I know it is not likely to happen, with few chronological and geographical exceptions, but entertain the idea. I also know that even if this were to happen, the system would still not be perfect, but I am almost certain that the following would be illegal:

baby murder
euthanasia
nasty groups trying to force public money to fund immoral acts
homosexual "marriage"
etc.

[/quote]

Democracy isn't wrong, the laws are wrong and we can change them. Try changing a law under a theocracy such as Islam.


#5

[quote="april32010, post:3, topic:302811"]
:popcorn: this is gonna be interesting

[/quote]

Something tells me THIS is gonna happen.
http://guycodeblog.mtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/cat-fight10.gif


#6

[quote="YoungTradCath, post:1, topic:302811"]
Is it inherently wrong to have a representative government, since it always, always leads to immoral law?

Is the best form of government from a moral perspective to rather have a theocracy/Papal monarchy with the Church ruling the world? I know it is not likely to happen, with few chronological and geographical exceptions, but entertain the idea. I also know that even if this were to happen, the system would still not be perfect, but I am almost certain that the following would be illegal:

baby murder
euthanasia
nasty groups trying to force public money to fund immoral acts
homosexual "marriage"
etc.

[/quote]

The Catholic Church has NEVER advocated a theocracy. The only example in any Catholic country of a theocracy has been the Papal States and the present day Holy See. And that has only been done in order to perserve the Pope from a temporal ruler who will try to impact spiritual matters. And that is justified, based on the history of caesaropapism in the Eastern churches.

The Church has never said that the best form of government would be a theocracy or a Papal monarchy ruling the world. As a matter of fact, the Church has consistently and for a long time said no to this.

The Church does not advocate or denounced particular forms of government, unless that form is inherently evil (eg Communism). The Church realizes that we are a fallen race, and that no form of government will be best in all circumstances.


#7

[quote="Catholic1954, post:4, topic:302811"]
Democracy isn't wrong, the laws are wrong and we can change them. Try changing a law under a theocracy such as Islam.

[/quote]

Yes, but part of me says that it is utterly impossible to have a moral system of democratic government. And Catholicism isn't Islam or some pagan religion.


#8

[quote="YoungTradCath, post:7, topic:302811"]
Yes, but part of me says that it is utterly impossible to have a moral system of democratic government. And Catholicism isn't Islam or some pagan religion.

[/quote]

It is utterly impossible to have a completely moral system of any type of government. And do not thing that a Catholic theocracy would work, the Pope is not protected by infallibility in his governance and administrative decisions, and Popes are sinners also.

We are told bhy the church to participate in whatever system of government we find ourselves in, in order to try to always make it better. But do not look to perfection in any mode of government, the desire and belief in the possibility of a Utopia will always lead to tyranny.


#9

[quote="YoungTradCath, post:1, topic:302811"]
Is it inherently wrong to have a representative government, since it always, always leads to immoral law?

Is the best form of government from a moral perspective to rather have a theocracy/Papal monarchy with the Church ruling the world? I know it is not likely to happen, with few chronological and geographical exceptions, but entertain the idea. I also know that even if this were to happen, the system would still not be perfect, but I am almost certain that the following would be illegal:

baby murder
euthanasia
nasty groups trying to force public money to fund immoral acts
homosexual "marriage"
etc.

[/quote]

All forms of government lead to immoral laws and or acts by said government. As for the Church being the secular ruler of the world, the last time the Church even got close to having that sort of power it ended up interfering with the Church's true mission.


#10

[quote="YoungTradCath, post:1, topic:302811"]
Is it inherently wrong to have a representative government, since it always, always leads to immoral law?

Is the best form of government from a moral perspective to rather have a theocracy/Papal monarchy with the Church ruling the world? I know it is not likely to happen, with few chronological and geographical exceptions, but entertain the idea. I also know that even if this were to happen, the system would still not be perfect, but I am almost certain that the following would be illegal:

baby murder
euthanasia
nasty groups trying to force public money to fund immoral acts
homosexual "marriage"
etc.

[/quote]

Centessimus Annus seems to speak to the moral goodness of democracy. Consider Paragraph 46:

The Church values the democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the participation of citizens in making political choices, guarantees to the governed the possibility both of electing and holding accountable those who govern them, and of replacing them through peaceful means when appropriate.

(The above quote references Gaudium et Spes.)

Also, check out CCC 1915, quoting GS 31, section 3:

one must pay tribute to those nations whose systems permit the largest possible number of the citizens to take part in public life in a climate of genuine freedom.


#11

Illegal does not mean these things will NOT occur. They took place all through human history

Abortions took place before Roe v. Wade
Death of eldely and disabled under questionable circumstances took place in the past.
Gay people lived in relationships like marriage – look up the term “Boston marriage”

They may have occured under the radar,or behind closed doors, but as long as human beings are flawed, you will have immoral acts.

You can control behavior of a population through rules, but you cannot control the heart.


#12

I don’t think its democracy in of itself that’s creating the biggest destruction to morality per say.

Capitalism itself is the biggest enemy to the freedoms of a real democracy and morality.
(GREED)

Free markets were supposed to lead to free societies. Instead, today’s supercharged global economy is eroding the power of the people in democracies around the globe. Welcome to a world where government takes a back seat to big business.

Capitalism’s role is to increase the economic pie, nothing more. … Democracy, at its best, enables citizens to debate collectively how the slices of the pie should be divided and to determine which rules apply to private goods and which to public goods. Today, those tasks are increasingly being left to the market. What is desperately needed is a clear delineation of the boundary between global capitalism and democracy-between the economic game, on the one hand, and how its rules are set, on the other. If the purpose of capitalism is to allow corporations to play the market as aggressively as possible, the challenge for citizens is to stop these economic entities from being the authors of the rules by which we live.
Most people are of two minds: As consumers and investors, we want the bargains and high returns that the global economy provides. As citizens, we don’t like many of the social consequences that flow from these transactions. We like to blame corporations…, but in truth we’ve made this compact with ourselves. After all, we know the roots of the great economic deals we’re getting. They come from workers forced to settle for lower wages and benefits. They come from companies that shed their loyalties to communities and morph into global supply chains. And they come from industries that often wreak havoc on the environment.
Such conflicting sentiments are hardly limited to the United States. The recent wave of corporate restructurings in Europe has shaken the continent’s typical commitment to job security and social welfare. In Japan, many companies have abandoned lifetime employment, cut workforces, and closed down unprofitable lines. A nation that once prided itself on being an “all middle-class society” is beginning to show sharp disparities in income and wealth. Like many free countries around the world, Japan is embracing global capitalism with a democracy too enfeebled to face the free market’s many social penalties.
On the other end of the political spectrum sits China, which is surging toward capitalism without democracy at all. That’s good news for people who invest in China, but the social consequences for the country’s citizens are mounting. … And those who are affected most have little political recourse to change the situation, beyond riots that are routinely put down by force.
But citizens living in democratic society have the ability to alter the rules of the game so that the cost to society need not be so great. And yet, we’ve increasingly left those responsibilities to the private sector-to the companies themselves and their squadrons of lobbyists and public-relations experts-pretending as if some inherent morality or corporate good citizenship will compel them to look out for the greater good. We forget that they are simply duty bound to protect the bottom line.
Why has capitalism succeeded while democracy has steadily weakened? Democracy has become enfeebled largely because companies, in intensifying competition for global consumers and investors, have invested ever greater sums in lobbying, public relations, and even bribes and kickbacks, seeking laws that give them a competitive advantage over their rivals. The result is an arms race for political influence that is drowning out the voices of average citizens. … The only way for the citizens in us to trump the consumers in us is through laws and rules that make our purchases and investments social choices as well as personal ones. …
Let us be clear: The purpose of democracy is to accomplish ends we cannot achieve as individuals. But democracy cannot fulfill this role when companies use politics to advance or maintain their competitive standing, or when they appear to take on social responsibilities that they have no real capacity or authority to fulfill. That leaves societies unable to address the tradeoffs between economic growth and social problems such as job insecurity, widening inequality, and climate change. As a result, consumer and investor interests almost invariably trump common concerns.
For those of us living in democracies, it is imperative to remember that we are also citizens who have it in our power to reduce these social costs, making the true price of the goods and services we purchase as low as possible. We can accomplish this larger feat only if we take our roles as citizens seriously. The first step, which is often the hardest, is to get our thinking straight.


#13

Last I checked the Church doesn't teach that Church and State should be separate. It teaches that it's the duty of the State to uphold the (our) faith. That would be the biggest flaw with our democracy as it stands right now. And honestly, it's kind of common sense. If our religion is the truth, then of course the government is bound to upholding it.

Yeah, and what the person above me said as well. Capitalism is a MAJOR issue.


#14

[quote="YoungTradCath, post:1, topic:302811"]
Is it inherently wrong to have a representative government, since it always, always leads to immoral law?

Is the best form of government from a moral perspective to rather have a theocracy/Papal monarchy with the Church ruling the world? I know it is not likely to happen, with few chronological and geographical exceptions, but entertain the idea. I also know that even if this were to happen, the system would still not be perfect, but I am almost certain that the following would be illegal:

baby murder
euthanasia
nasty groups trying to force public money to fund immoral acts
homosexual "marriage"
etc.

[/quote]

You could be right. In a democratic government, everyone is given a voice. Sometimes that tiny voice is that of a dissident.


#15

[quote="WoundedIcon, post:13, topic:302811"]
Last I checked the Church doesn't teach that Church and State should be separate. It teaches that it's the duty of the State to uphold the (our) faith. That would be the biggest flaw with our democracy as it stands right now. And honestly, it's kind of common sense. If our religion is the truth, then of course the government is bound to upholding it.

Yeah, and what the person above me said as well. Capitalism is a MAJOR issue.

[/quote]

The Church never asked for secular rule, even within the Holy Roman Empire or in other Christian empires throughout history. Even before the Incarnation, Jewish Kings are not High Priests or any religious person. Only Jesus is King and Priest.


#16

[quote="YoungTradCath, post:1, topic:302811"]
Is it inherently wrong to have a representative government, since it always, always leads to immoral law?

Is the best form of government from a moral perspective to rather have a theocracy/Papal monarchy with the Church ruling the world? I know it is not likely to happen, with few chronological and geographical exceptions, but entertain the idea. I also know that even if this were to happen, the system would still not be perfect, but I am almost certain that the following would be illegal:

baby murder
euthanasia
nasty groups trying to force public money to fund immoral acts
homosexual "marriage"
etc.

[/quote]

I've also thought of this in the past, I wish Our Holy Father would be ruler of the world. However, that isn't going to be a Likely happening :( . I could Imagine Him, as cute as a button, in in His White Cassock, Holding the world in peace....


#17

[quote="april32010, post:3, topic:302811"]
:popcorn: this is gonna be interesting

[/quote]

Verrrry interestioning! :popcorn::popcorn:


#18

[quote="mymamamary, post:16, topic:302811"]
I've also thought of this in the past, I wish Our Holy Father would be ruler of the world. However, that isn't going to be a Likely happening :( . I could Imagine Him, as cute as a button, in in His White Cassock, Holding the world in peace....

[/quote]

Even Jesus Christ, when he was on earth, wasn't able to unite people. There will always be people that has hardness of heart and will refuse to be ruled by particular people, even righteous people.

Images like this is unrealistic. Even within the Church today there are many quarells and disagreements. There are schisms and rebellion. It is just the reality of the world we live in.


#19

No I do not believe democracy is inherently wrong! It is not perfect ,nothing is, nor is any person.
A democratic government should always be working toward a perfect balance of both Social Justice and free enterprise(capitalism) that is my opinion.
However, let us continue to pray God's will be done in all things. Peace, Carlan


#20

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

A market place that is not forced into taking responsibility for the common good, but is instead directed toward the well being of the individual alone, is in danger of making Satan a God.

The problem with capitalism today, is that its goal is not for the common good, but rather it puts profit before people.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.