World Government System Catholics Could Live With?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

What form of a New World Order could Catholics live with? Are we looking at a type of Utopian Society? Any thoughts? I don't see it as happening mostly because of such issues as national pride, serious religious differences, etc.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 29, 2004

Answers

Since the only world order Catholics could accept would be one in total compliance with the teaching of the Catholic Church, and since the social agendas of all current national govenments are at least partially in direct opposition to the teaching of the Church and constantly moving farther from it, I don't see it happening either.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 29, 2004.

The advent of a Universal Republic, which is longed for by the worst elements of disorder, and confidently expected by them, is an idea which is ripe for execution. From this republic, based on the principles of absolute equality of men and community of possessions, would be banished all national distinctions, nor in it would the authority of the father over his children, or of the public power over the citizens, or of God over human society, be any longer acknowledged. If these ideas are put into practice, there will inevitably follow a reign of unheard of terror...” --Bonum Sane 1920, Pope Benedict XV

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), September 29, 2004.

I would like to see a benevolent Catholic theocracy. If Dubya converts maybe it’ll have a chance.

-- John Sammon (romanrite@aol.com), September 29, 2004.

Hang on Paul, if we can’t accept a world government unless it’s in total conformity with the Church’s teachings, how can we accept all our national, state and local governments, none of which are in total conformity with Church teachings?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 29, 2004.

Well it isn't all or nothing. I accept the goverment we have now but I don't accept all of its decisions and policies. And any generalized world government would undoubtedly be even farther from the will of God in its policies than our present government is. We are obliged to oppose any government decisions, policies or laws that conflict with the law of God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 29, 2004.


“any generalized world government would undoubtedly be even farther from the will of God in its policies than our present government is.”

“Undoubtedly”? Why? Provided the government is democratically elected, I’d say that, IN GENERAL (there are many exceptions), governments of larger entities tend to be closer to the will of God. – eg. The Federal Govt forced the southern states to abolish segregation. When a certain sin exists in one geographic area, those in other areas can more easily point it out, raise the consciousness of those who are close it, and together correct it.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 30, 2004.


The Federal Govt forced the southern states to abolish segregation. When a certain sin exists in one geographic area, those in other areas can more easily point it out, raise the consciousness of those who are close it, and together correct it.

Be careful what you wish for. How about when the Union forced the southern states to abolish slavery? Did the Union "point it out (the evils of slavery), raise the consciousness of those who are close it, and together correct it?" No! It was bloody. Don't think a world government would not be worse.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), September 30, 2004.


And by sheer numbers, I don't think the democratic-leaning peoples are a majority....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 30, 2004.

And in the meantime the U.S. Government continues to coerce other nations into accepting abortion and artificial contraception under threat of withholding humanitarian aid. "Either you kill your children before they are born or we will make sure they die of disease and malnutrition after they are born". One nation under God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 30, 2004.

No way can you blame just the US for not giving humanitarian aid--and you can point the finger at the UN as well as far as pushing abortion. And it wouldn't matter how much money we gave, as long as the corrupt leaders are still in power, the poorest will never get aid.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 30, 2004.


Brian, not long ago you were arguing that it was OK to fight a bloody war in Iraq to free the Iraqis from Saddam’s tyranny. But you say it was wrong to fight a war to free your own countrymen from slavery, because “It was bloody”!

“by sheer numbers, I don't think the democratic-leaning peoples are a majority” What exactly are you saying here GT? – only white people lean towards democracy? – other races prefer to live under tyranny?? Please name all those peoples, comprising the majority of the world, who you think don’t want democracy?

"as long as the corrupt leaders are still in power, the poorest will never get aid.” And the corrupt leaders will stay in power as long as it suits the USA’s commercial, military and political interests to keep them there.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 30, 2004.


Steve, I don't know why there aren't more democracies in the world. One of the most populous countries in the world, China, is Communist. Does culture/religion have anything to do with the type of government that evolves somewhere? I would imagine it does to some extent.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 30, 2004.

Democracy isnt relaly favoured in most places, for social and religious reasons. Its not to do with race, however, in the Middel East, Islamic Law is seen as sacred, and many nations under Islamic Law have their pwoer granted by Clerics. In the Middle East, tis a clear example of how cultural conditioning and religious beleifs can shape ow one woudl live.

Likewise, the Vatican city-sttae is a recognised naiton, and, unlike the Islamic worlsd, is a free state, not a trryanny. However, the Pope is seen as the Head of state and is nto elected, it too is not a Democracy.

Many Socialist and communist nations are so because the people often get so use to livign a certain way, that they procceed to even if they arent willign to because they feel they cannot change it, its " How the world is".

Another thing to consider, Democracy is not relaly the only way a people can live fre, nor is it true that all democracies are fre in and of themselves.

We otn even liv ein a democracy, we live in a Federal republic, if American Citesens.This is actulaly preferable to the ideal of a pure democracy that woidltn work on so large a scale.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 01, 2004.


But you say it was wrong to fight a war to free your own countrymen from slavery, because “It was bloody”!

Where did I say it was wrong? I said it was bloody, and it was. You seem keen to the idea of a world government. Are you prepared to wage bloody wars all over the globe for the sake of upholding such a government? Such wars would make the current world order, imperfect as it is, seem like a day at the beach. People and nations will not be brought into the fold and under the authority of a world government by dialogue and cooperation.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 01, 2004.


What about the Vatican? The Vatican itself isn't even in total compliance with Church teaching. It discriminates on who may be its leader. It doesn't offer equal oppurtunity for women to become elected its leader. And if you say that it is different, that it isn't a country in the same way as the US or Britian, then I demand that it immediately be stripped of its place at the UN. Also, there is no more need for ambassadors, because it is not a country. You see? There is no such thing as a system that may be in total compliance with Church teaching, not even the Vatican.

-- Bill (BillHearst@yahoo.com), October 03, 2004.


You're a little confused about the Vatican. Because you believe the Vatican is the Catholic Church. The Vatican is basically a city or cities.

Also, the Church has no vocation whatever from Christ to govern the world. That's OUT. Not that a Pope couldn't govern this world, at least the western world. He just isn't ordained by God for such work. The world will forever have nations. Only the Antichrist at some stage in history is prophesied as one who might enlist all the nations into his cause, BRIEFLY. Rest assured, the Antichrist will NOT be the Pope. Likely as not, in the final days our last Pope will have been martyred. DEAD.

Our Lord is to come in glory on the clouds, and then He will bring divine Justice to all nations; and there will

nevermore be any dispute who is King. The short reign of Antichrist, who ruled over the world (nations) will be over. Christ is to destroy him immediately, with ''the breath of His mouth.''

Seems fantastic; and it is. Yet that is what the Church teaches us, and what's written in the Bible.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 03, 2004.


Following the teaching of Christ regarding the ordination of women IS being in full compliance with Church teaching. Anything else would be in violation of Christian teaching from the beginning.

Incidentally, the Vatican representative at the U.N. is there merely as an observer, not as a voting member.

-- Paul M.. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 03, 2004.


As Zarove implies, democracy flowers and flourishes most strongly in countries which have inherited a Christian culture. This is no accident. It flows from the Christian concepts of the individual and the community.

No Brian, just as I did not endorse a war on Iraq although I wished to see Iraq freed from Saddam, I would not endorse a war to impose a world government although this is a result I would like to see achieved by peaceful means. GT, in answer to your question, I guess I would like to see a world government come about the same way the USA came about – by States voluntarily agreeing to form a democratic federation.

“People and nations will not be brought into the fold and under the authority of a world government by dialogue and cooperation.” Why not, Brian? It may or may not happen but I don’t see how you can definitively state it won’t ever happen. (Eugene, most of what you said is speculation which has not been endorsed as the teaching of the Church.)

Bill, Church teaching doesn’t say that a country may not “discriminate” in who it chooses to be its leader. Anyway the Pope is elected by 100-odd Cardinals from all around the world. That’s a lot more democratic than the way many countries select their leaders, eg the Queen of England is boss just because her father was king.

The Vatican is, under international law, a country just like the USA. But it is not a member of the UN, and it has no ambassadors, as its affairs are of no consequence to any other country except Italy. But the HOLY SEE (i.e. the Pope and those who work for him in his spiritual role) has ambassadors in just about every country in the world and has official observer status at the UN.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 05, 2004.


We don't live in a democracy - we live in a federated constitutional republic with some democratic traditions - such as the vote. It's important to make these distinctions because in a pure democracy mob rule (simple majority) can certainly legalize anything.

But in a constitutional republic the mob (demos) isn't as easily let off the hook - they can't just foist anything on the rest of the people, and the minority has rights too.

Many of our modern problems, especially with respect to morality have more to do with the COURTS foisting some new idea or mores down our throats which NEVER would have made it past the Congress or the various state legislatures. If we could roll back or put back in check the power of courts which think it's their job to pass law, then we may save the republic.

If not...if either the Rockefeller Republicans or Democrats got in power long enough to put in place enough judges who did not interpret the law based on what is written but rather on their own personal (secularist) ideology, then we will see the collapse of the republic because law and order, the rules which ALL are supposedly bound by, will become another blunt instrument of power weilded by the victor over those defeated.

And the nature of power as vast as that held in the USA is to corrupt those who use it.

I fear an uneducated Catholic electorate. But more than that, I fear evil judges who will sooner rather than later find a right to prostitution - and sweep away 250 years of democratically ennacted law. Then they'll find a right to polygamy - and every conceivable permutation of "marriage" except monogamy.

Once sexual vices take root in a sizable minority if not majority does anyone think they'll be hoo hum or live and let live with a minority of good Christians? History always shows that the vicious pogroms and open persecution of the Church takes place with a generation or two of henchmen and women with vested interest in a new moral ethic based on whim - the will to do what they want, not because it's been proven to be good or true but merely because they want it - and have the power to seize it.

Now we quibble and debate and argue (or not). Now the political vitriol is at most harsh words and heated emotions. But if the country's morality, the habits that direct our lives become ever more degraded, how can we NOT expect open warfare to be the ultimate price to pay for institutionalized immorality?

Or is there some historical evidence of a happy and lacksadasical pagan regime not particularlly minding that a resurgent Christian Church starts to make inroads and threatens their license with the Gospel?

The Church is right now persecuted in scores of nations around the globe - and always seen by a threat to the very "meaning of life" by those who hate the Gospel and Our Lord. It's likely that in our lifetimes - the very counter-cultural nature of Christian ethics and "meaning of life" will become so aparent in this country that people will really have to choose between martyrdom or apostasy.

You may all disbelieve me. But what are we to make of history? Every nation on earth, every region and culture, every where across the centuries have seen the same dynamics at work.

The only reason we haven't seen more burnt churches (and we've seen hundreds in the last 2 decades, largely squelched by the Media or made into a "race" issue not anti-Christian one) is the still sizable number of politically active Christians. And thus far our morality, the core of our faith is not made impossible to live and still be politically active.

But what should happen if the Constitution itself is turned against us by some supreme court mandating a moral view of humanity anti- thetical to ours? What if oaths and allegiance were written (as they've commonly been used elsewhere) to FORCE Christians to choose either apostasy or to leave politics all together? Once the arena that controls the police powers is purged of Christians...then ask yourselves...how much could we really do to maintain what's left of a "Christian culture"? What could we do to keep an anti-Catholic or anti-Christian regime from persecution?

They would tax us first - then pass repressive laws against our morals while enforcing ever greater laws allowing for their morality and honoring it...without political access to allow for redress of ills, police repression would come next, as it happened in Mexico and happened in Europe... Catholics would have to choose between fidelity to the Gospel and poverty on the one hand or apostasy and wealth on the other.

It gets worse...without Christian charities who will really speak for the poor? The Bureaucracy? It speaks chiefly for itself and its own ever expanding budget.

To conclude... the best form of government in this city of man is that which best respects our rights and allows the Gospel freedom to be preached. If that can happen in a kingdom or empire, fine...but history seems to have shown that a constitutional republic works best given the frailty of human morals. But while the former regimes absolutely required good princes, the latter absolutely requires holy laity actively engaged in the "political process" - remove the Christian and you remove the soul from the body politic and get brute animal force instead.



-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 05, 2004.


Dear Steve,
I'm clearly speculating on the possibility of the last Pope becoming a martyr. Otherwise, the teaching of the church supports all I've posted. The coming of antichrist, his brief domination of all the world and endangering even of the elect. It's about as close as we will see to a world under one gov't. Christ says so, when He tells us that in the last days before He returns, there will be WARS. That means nations.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 05, 2004.

Gee Joe, you’re even more pedantic than me. I think we all understand that when we talk about “democracy” in this discussion we don’t mean “pure democracy” where everything is put to a vote of all citizens, but representative democracy.

Eugene, not long ago you were telling us the teaching of the Church is that Mohammad was the Antichrist. Now you say it's someone in the future. In fact both these assertions are wrong. The Church has never declared the identity of the Antichrist. Nor has it declared that any world government will only be a brief one instituted by the Antichrist.

Christ was right about the wars. There have been wars pretty well continuously from 30 AD to now. But “wars” does NOT mean “nations”. MOST of the wars fought in the last century or so were civil wars within a single nation – and civil wars are usually bitterer, longer and more damaging than nation vs nation wars.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 07, 2004.


Well, let's see the whole verse of Our Lord. He said "nations will rise against nations...there will be wars and rumors of war...earthquakes, famines, etc. etc." lots of bad stuff - and that will only be the birth pangs! He mentioned woe for pregnant women in those days (abortion anyone?) and the prospect that Christians must be ready to flee at a moment's notice.

So sure, the end times are not going to be a pic nic. But you are right Steve that he doesn't specify times, dates, places, or names. That's never been God's style because duh, the devil is listening just as much as evil would-be anti-christs hoping to get the big part.

All prophecies are such that people will see but not understand or listen but not hear... riddles hidden in plain sight - which after the fact become obvious but before were opaque. How else did so many people - including Satan - not realize that the Messiah would do what Christ did and die the way he did and so redeem the human race?

Don't we as Catholics routinely acknowledge that God pulled a fast one on the devil and indeed most of the Jews at that time? Didn't Peter in Acts acknowledge as much too when converting the 3000?

Scriptural prophecy isn't an easy thing to figure out ahead of time. So it's pointless to try as if that were the purpose. Instead, we ought to take prudential decisions to make sure we're "safe" from WHOMEVER AND WHATEVER enemy comes along like a lion looking for someone to devour.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 07, 2004.


So with respect to Lions, you either avoid their territory (avoiding occasions of sin) or you arm yourself (breastplate and shield, sword and spear: faith, hope, charity, etc).

Ditto with the evils of our time and the future. We are warned that evil doers and evil days are ahead - and to be clever as serpents (beating the devil at his own game) and yet innocent as doves...

Reminds me of a story of a woman who was walking to her parked car in a dark garage. A man came out of the shadows and swiftly walked up behind her. She heard him coming, turned around and pulled a shiny .357 revolver out of her purse. The man stopped, still in shadow and suddenly seemed to recall he left his car keys somewhere and so left. Now she was clever as a serpent - having a hidden power he didn't suspect, but was innocent as dove and no one got raped or killed.

Or the story of the child being indocrinated by the marxists in Nicaragua. The teacher grandstanded about how there is no God and to prove it, had the children ask the "party" for bread. They closed their eyes, asked for bread and viola! when they openned their eyes, each had a loaf of bread on their desk. Then he asked them to close their eyes and ask God for cake. They did so. When they openned their eyes, there was no cake. The teacher triumphantly claimed that this proves that there is no God. A little girl then pipped up "No senor it only means that God said "no"".

Clever child, innocent child. Beat the marxist idiot at his own game.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 07, 2004.


Steve,
This is what I wrote:
I stated the obvious; Mohammad is a false prophe-t--, I never said he is antichrist. But their religion is patently antichristian because they deny the Father and the Son.

NEVER did I say the Church taught such a thing as the false prophet is antichrist. Yet, Christ prophesied the arrivals of false Christs, and you can't deny it. While the Church is mainly silent about the future, the scriptures make it plain antichrist will perform wonders and in some way take over the world. We just can't say when. If Christ told us that just before His 2nd coming there would be these signs, wars and rumors of wars, it MUST be inferred at least, that one nation will attack another nation. This is not brain surgery. He definitely didn't prophesy peace and harmony under a central government. There would be an indication in the scripure, leading us to the conclusion of a future world order.

It's plausible enough to guess the ONLY such order would be with antichrist in the throne. I said clearly enough it was a conjecture. The Bible describes just such a brief tenure for the man of Perdition. MUSLIM? I wonder. Even you ought to be able to imagine something like it. But I've never said the Church teaches us that. Don't put those words in my mouth.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 07, 2004.


Anyone ever read Thomas Aquinas' Summa contra Gentiles? It was written for the Muslims, I think - gotta check this - as in 1250 there weren't a whole lot of "gentiles" left in Europe!

As we have seen before, the anti-christ is "he who denies that the Christ came in the flesh" i.e. denies the incarnation, which, ahem, both the jews and muslims do in fact deny.

Both refuse to accept as possible the very idea that God could become man (to say nothing about the idea that God could possibly be triune).

As one who has encountered some pretty sophisticated Muslim apologists, I know that if you don't have a good grasp of trinitarian and incarnational theology and metaphysics, you'll be quickly argued into a corner by them - yes, they study Aristotelian logic.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 07, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ