Skip to comments.CatholicTV calls for "Benevolent Dictatorship"?!
Posted on 04/08/2011 2:27:55 AM PDT by HarleyD
This may be one of the more disturbing things I have ever seen. This video is shown to people, and even more frightening, many are likely inspired by it. This guy basically says that the problem with our country is that "everyone can vote", both ignorant know-nothings who only care about themselves(aka people who support abortion, gay marriage, etc), and informed people(aka people who agree with his/the organizations particular views)
and this is all presented in such a way as if it is incontrovertible. as if having an opinion that a woman has a right to choose or that homosexuality is someone's own business means you havent read a book in your life and are just saying that because you only care about your own "selfish interests".
and scariest of all, they actually use the words "Benevolent Dictatorship", where only those who agree with this guy's views are allowed to vote. true freedom. i think im gonna be sick
That’s what happens when people make up their own rules and then accuse others of breaking them.
And how, exactly, do you square that with cutting out how many books from the Bible? The 'apocryphal' books?
The YouTube-hosted video was originally the subject of this FR thread: Catholic Government [Michael Voris video]. The video itself has since been pulled from the RealCatholicTV YouTube channel, but copies exist elsewhere such as the one featured on this thread. So that there is no mistaking the message, I took the time to transcribe the entire video. Here's the complete text for the Michael Voris/RealCatholicTV video episode titled "Catholic Government", dated August 12, 2010:
Hello everyone, and welcome to "The Vortex", where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed. I'm Michael Voris.On August 18, 2010, Voris posted a video titled Some Clarity, in which he backpedals furiously, apologizing profusely for more than a minute. He claims that the negative reaction to his (now pulled) pro-Monarchy message was the result of his bad explanation. He fully accepts the blame for his audience missing his larger point in the prior broadcast. He then presents a heavily re-written version of the previous (now-deleted) message, attempting to placate his American audience by avoiding discussion of specific courses of action, that democracies are "doomed from the start", that "the only way to run a country" is through a monarchy. Here are some excerpts (call it "Catholic Government 2.0"), where he talks specifically about democratic republics:
There's an inherent problem with democracy. Actually, it's definitional. It's this: everyone gets to vote. That's right, EVERYONE gets to vote.
Consider for a moment: the informed get to vote, those who have studied the candidates and issues, and consider the impact not only on themselves but the society at large. But in addition to the informed, the ignorant get to vote as well, those who have studied nothing and don't care about anything except themselves and their own narrow interests.
Imagine the scene: two voters, walking into voting booths side-by-side. One casts a vote with an eye to improving society at large, by rolling back abortion, defending traditional marriage, or reducing government's ability to crush families with heavy taxation, etc. Such a voter casts his vote with an eye to the common good - the authentic common good, what's best for the culture as a whole. Right next to his is a voter who doesn't give a hoot about society at large. All he cares about is his own selfish interests: insuring abortion stays legal so he can have sex with no consequences, or have his decision to have sex with another man celebrated as a right. Such a voter exhibits little else than an adolescent preoccupation with self-absorption. Imagine, he actually gets to vote! What a country! What a system! And it is a system that will end in self-destruction.
The nature of man is to be self-absorbed. That is because our nature is fallen. It no longer looks at God. Rather, it looks into a mirror. In fact, it stares into the mirror, totally absorbed, and can think of little else. This is why, if we're going to insist on a system where we're going to elect leaders - if we're going to insist on that system - only virtuous people should be allowed to vote. Ruthless men and women who, knowing human nature very well, and thereby the means to control and manipulate it, hold great influence over the selfish masses. They connive and scheme their way to power by appealing to the most base level of human ignorance, namely, to a false sense of liberty. They class everything in terms of "rights": a "right" to marry your homosexual sex partner, a "right" to kill your child, a "right" to have others in society pay for your lack of effort, your desire for contraception, food, housing, medical services, education, clothes - anything that can be imagined. Such societal parasites will cast their votes in such a way that will only hasten the destruction of a nation. It's like a cancer destroying its host. It enjoys ravaging the body, until the body is dead.
The cancer must be eliminated, and the only way to prevent a democracy from committing suicide is to limit the vote to faithful Catholics. Only a true Catholic nation in fact will survive, can survive, because only truly Catholic people will be the ones looking at God & not staring in the mirror. When they cast their their votes, they cast them with an eye to what God desires, not fallen human nature. But as the body politic continues to be ravaged by the cancer of ignorant self-centered voters, it becomes more and more clear that a national euthanasia is occurring.
But in truth, this is really the way the whole idea of democracy is little less than an experiment doomed to failure from the outset. Eventually, the evil in the heart of man overtakes him, when he dismisses God. No, the only way to run a country is by benevolent dictatorship. A Catholic monarch, who protects his people from themselves, and bestows on them what they need, not necessarily what they want, who protects their rights as human beings. It was this political system that caused Europe to emerge from the morass of marauding barbarians and create Western Civilization. A noble Catholic monarch advances the common good while loving and caring for his people. If you think about it, this is exactly how the universe is governed, isn't it? "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven."
God bless you, I'm Michael Voris.
No matter what form of government a country has, the lives people will live under that government will depend on the quality of virtue: the virtue of the governed, and the virtue of the governing. In the case of a democracy or a democratic republic, where power is supposed to derive from the people, a lack of virtue on their part - the people's part - will lead to a government lacking virtue. It's the old adage that a nation gets the leaders it deserves....
....In our current system a lot of people, who don't care one lick about virtue, have a say in who rules over all of us. As Catholics, what should our response be to that? Well, we can either discuss changing the system completely, which would be monumental because there is no clear path to do that, or we can talk about fixing the current system, which means making at least a majority of the population realize the value of virtue. That is also a monumental task, but there is a slightly more clear path to that. It's called evangelization, and the only way that's going to happen is if Catholics, virtuous Catholics, get out there and start making it happen. Now if that fails, well, who knows?
The reason for Roman Catholic hatred of Calvinism becomes oh so clear when one considers such quotes compared to the content of the following threads
July 4th -- Happy "Presbyterian Rebellion" Day!
John Calvin: Religious liberty and Political liberty
Calvin's 500th Birthday Celebrated: Critics and Supporters Agree He was America's Founding Father
AMERICA AND JOHN CALVIN
Thanks for the ping!
No end of such hideousness, it seems.
lol. If all men are fallen where does one find the virtuous?
Poor deluded fool.
After seeing the behavior and language of your average faithful FRoman Catholic, heaven help us if they get elected in larger numbers.
Such examples of Christian charity and piety lately.
Not to mention all those faithful Catholic politicians that the church has
disciplined done nothing about. Think JFK, Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Gillibrand, Shumer, Pelosi, etc.
Why, we'd have legalized same sex marriages and unrestricted abortion on demand paid for by your friendly, bankrupt, corrupt, government healthcare system.
And just who gets to decide who's *virtuous*?
The Catholic church?
Would they decide that only Catholics can truly be virtuous, therefore eligible to vote?
2008 Presidential Election demographics, footnoted and annotated
Your "by the numbers" breakdown of the 2008 vote, with emphasis on the Catholic voter (as of 04/07/09):
55% McCain, 43% Obama - Weekly mass-attending Catholics 6,9
52% McCain, 47% Obama - White "regular-mass-attending" Catholics12
52% McCain, 47% Obama - White Catholic14
51% McCain, 49% Obama - White Catholics1,7,11
45% McCain, 54% Obama - Catholics1,4,6,8,9,10,11,12
45% McCain, 54% Obama - Catholic14
37% McCain, 61% Obama - Non-weekly-mass-attending Catholics6,12
xx% McCain, 67% Obama - Hispanic Catholics8,11**,***, ****
** No source provided voting percentages for the other party.
*** Associated Press (citation #11) reports this number as 72%, instead of the 67% other media gave it.
**** Note that some media are reporting the same numbers for the Hispanic and Black vote in general, as well as for those same groups with Catholic or Protestant affiliation.
1 The Awesome Blue God -- How Obama Forged A New Faith Coalition
4 Obama's Religious Appeal: Still Missing Evangelicals - which TIME renamed as Obama: Bringing (Some) Evangelicals In
6 What's wrong with Catholic voters? What's wrong with Catholics?
7 Evangelical Voters Favor McCain by Wide Margins
8 Catholic voters heavily favored Obama, analysis shows
9 What Happened to the Catholic Vote?
10 Loyal to the End: Evangelicals Stay the Course
11 Obama results show gains in key religious voters
12 How the faithful voted
14 Pew Forum - How The Faithful Voted
All numbers cited above are the earliest ones reported in the press. In cases of multiple reports, some percentages cited were not exact. However, the numbers above are within 2% of all sources cited, lending credence to the general number & placement overall.
With the Help of Catholics Obamas Victory
Mainline Protestants and Latino evangelicals surge toward Obama [pre-election article]
Poll: Latino Protestants switching back to Democrats this election [pre-election article]
The Hispanic Protestant swing vote [pre-election article]
Believers in the Pews--and the Polling Booth
McCain Beats Bush on Evangelical Vote
This entire anti-Catholic diatribe only makes sense in the context of those who are either too intellectually lazy, intellectually dishonest, or too intellectually incapable of comprehending the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic. Democracies are indeed inherently evil and transitional.
The arrogance of flawed mortal man knows no bounds . . . and persistently inflates, descends into tyranny, devilish tyranny.
‘Intentions’ and ‘fine breeding’ . . . even education . . . do NOT solve the problem.
Thank you for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!
Corporatavism, aka the Third Position has been the economic doctrine preferred by the RCC since Rerum Novarum.
& LIKEWISE, DEAR SIS.
Indeed - which is IMO why a functional, constitutional representative republic is the best form of government over any country, at any time in history. In design, it restrains mens' fallen natures. May God have mercy on the United States of America, when monarchism and dictatorships (benevolent or not) are being pushed by Catholic "conservatives".
The pastor at the church I attended Sunday in Grand Rapids briefly talked about how the doctrine of sola scriptura (scripture alone) is directly related to the ideas and concept of the American Constitution. While Protestants interpret scripture through Christian tradition, for the reformers scripture trumps the decrees and councils of men. Likewise, for the American Founders at least, the U.S. Constitution is above any human official, elected or not.
Luthers doctrine of the priesthood of all believers also heavily influenced the emergence of representative democracy. In addition, the Presbyterian style of church government further set the stage for individual rights and liberties. Responsibility for the governance of the church is not just for the clergy , but laity as well. This model of church government, where elders serve as leaders can be contrasted with the episcopal style of church government, which better reflects a monarchy. King James I of Great Britain rightly predicted, If bishops go, so will the king. At its very heart, it expresses a belief that humans in their depravity cannot set themselves above the law of God, no matter their office.
-- from the thread Reformation Faith & Representative Democracy
I was referring to the defense of democracy spread used as a thinly veiled assault on Catholicism. This is particularly in light of the constant defense of the "Enlightened Absolutism" that was the hell hole of Calvin's Geneva.
Every Catholic I know prefers a constitutional republic to protect the individual rights given us by God. "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery." (Gal 5:1)
Given the choice between the transitional soft tyranny of secular democracy and a benevolent Catholic dictatorship I will choose the later.
Seems to me,
the tones, word choices, attitudes of dictatorship
tends to reek from posts above your screen name.
Must be a coincidence.
I haven't got a clue about what you are trying to say and it appears that neither do you. Try it again in English.
I think the problem is
that I don’t use the Vatican Cult’s DAFFYNITIONARY.
Then you can thank these Calvinists, among a great many others;
The 55 Framers (from North to South):
John Langdon, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Nicholas Gilman, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Elbridge Gerry, Episcoplian (Calvinist)
Rufus King, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Caleb Strong, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Nathaniel Gorham, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Roger Sherman, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
William Samuel Johnson, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Oliver Ellsworth, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
Alexander Hamilton, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
John Lansing, Dutch Reformed (Calvinist)
Robert Yates, Dutch Reformed (Calvinist)
William Patterson, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
William Livingston, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Jonathan Dayton, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
David Brearly, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
William Churchill Houston, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Benjamin Franklin, Christian in his youth, Deist in later years,
then back to his Puritan background in his old age
(his June 28, 1787 prayer at the Constitutional Convention was from no "Deist")
Robert Morris, Episcopalian, (Calvinist)
James Wilson, probably a Deist
Gouverneur Morris, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Thomas Mifflin, Lutheran (Calvinist-lite)
George Clymer, Quaker turned Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Thomas FitzSimmons, Roman Catholic
Jared Ingersoll, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
John Dickinson, Quaker turned Episcopalian (Calvinist)
George Read, Episcopalian, (Calvinist)
Richard Bassett, Methodist
Gunning Bedford, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Jacob Broom, Lutheran
Luther Martin, Episcopalian, (Calvinist)
Daniel Carroll, Roman Catholic
John Francis Mercer, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
James McHenry, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Daniel of St Thomas Jennifer, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
George Washington, Episcopalian (Calvinist; no, he was not a deist)
James Madison, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
George Mason, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Edmund Jennings Randolph, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
James Blair, Jr., Episcopalian (Calvinist)
James McClung, ?
George Wythe, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
William Richardson Davie, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Hugh Williamson, Presbyterian, possibly later became a Deist
William Blount, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
Alexander Martin, Presbyterian/Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Jr., Episcopalian (Calvinist)
John Rutledge, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, III, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
Abraham Baldwin, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
William Leigh Pierce, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
William Houstoun, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
William Few, Methodist
For further consideration, at the bottom of this page; http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/dutch_indepen_1581.html --- The Dutch Declaration of Independence 1581
can be found
The declaration given [above] -- the first in modern times -- brings forward prominently the great idea that rulers are responsible to the people and can be deposed by them. The growth of this idea is center of the development of constitutional and republican government.
Oliver J. Thatcher (1907)
The only form of socialism that conforms to the biblical worldview is the form that is commonly practiced on a small scale within families, within churches, and other organizations. It is always going to be a voluntary sharing of resources.
The Bible teaches that the church and the family should care for the poor rather than the state.
8th Commandment: You shall not steal. This is a guarantee of private property.
10th Commandment: You shall not covet. Again, a guarantee of private property.
Acts 5: Barnabas sellls a piece of property and brought the money to the Apostles.
Ananias and Saphira decided to do the same - except they sold a property - kept some of the money back - and lied about how much they had been paid.
Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own power? "
There you go! An apostolic confirmation of the right of private property. Not only the means of production, but also the results of that production were in Ananias and Saphiras power, not in the power or hands of the state or the church.
Proudhon , the French socialist said, "Property is theft."
But the commandment forbidding theft teaches the right of private property and is in complete contradiction to socialist concepts.
Excerpts From Pacem In Terris: Peace on Earth
Encyclical of Pope John XXIII, On Establishing Universal Peace In Truth, Justice, Charity, And Liberty, April 11, 1963
"Man's personal dignity requires besides that he enjoy freedom and be able to make up his own mind when he acts.
In his association with his fellows, therefore, there is every reason why his recognition of rights, observance of duties, and many-sided collaboration with other men, should be primarily a matter of his own personal decision.
Each man should act on his own initiative, conviction, and sense of responsibility, not under the constant pressure of external coercion or enticement.
There is nothing human about a society that is welded together by force.
Far from encouraging, as it should, the attainment of man's progress and perfection, it is merely an obstacle to his freedom."
"Hence, a regime which governs solely or mainly by means of threats and intimidation or promises of reward, provides men with no effective incentive to work for the common good.
And even if it did, it would certainly be offensive to the dignity of free and rational human beings."
"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.'"
"Only capitalism operates on the basis of respect for free, independent, responsible persons. All other systems in varying degrees treat men as less than this. Socialist systems above all treat men as pawns to be moved about by the authorities, or as children to be given what the rulers decide is good for them, or as serfs or slaves. The rulers begin by boasting about their compassion, which in any case is fraudulent, but after a time they drop this pretense which they find unnecessary for the maintenance of power. In all things they act on the presumption that they know best.
"Therefore they and their systems are morally stunted. Only the free system, the much assailed capitalism, is morally mature." ~ Arthur Shenfield
Excerpted from: In Defense of Capitalism - by Dr. Ronald H. Nash Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 12:12:18 PM by Matchett-PI
Capitalism is not economic anarchy. When properly defined, it recognizes several necessary conditions for the kinds of voluntary relationships it supports.
One of these is the existence of inherent human rights, such as the right to make decisions, the right to be free, the right to hold property, and the right to exchange peacefully what one owns for something else.
Capitalism also presupposes a system of morality. Under capitalism, there are definite limits, moral and otherwise, to the ways in which people can exchange.
Capitalism should be viewed as a system of voluntary relationships within a framework of laws that protect peoples rights against force, fraud, theft, and violations of contracts. Thou shalt not steal and Thou shalt not lie are part of the underlying moral constraints of the system. After all, economic exchanges can hardly be voluntary if one participant is coerced, deceived, defrauded, or robbed.
Deviations from the market ideal usually occur because of defects in human nature. Human beings naturally crave security and guaranteed success, values not found readily in a free market. Genuine competition always carries with it the possibility of failure and loss. Consequently, the human desire for security leads people to avoid competition whenever possible, encourages them to operate outside the market, and induces them to subvert the market process through behavior that is often questionable and dishonest.
This quest for guaranteed success often leads people to seek special favors from powerful members of government through such means as regulations and restrictions on free exchange.
One of the more effective ways of mitigating the effects of human sin in society is dispersing and decentralizing power. The combination of a free market economy and limited constitutional government is the most effective means yet devised to impede the concentration of economic and political power in the hands of a small number of people.
The Religious Left should be aware that their opposition to amassing wealth and power is far more likely to bear fruit with a conservative understanding of economics and government than with the big-government approach of political liberalism.
Every persons ultimate protection against coercion requires control over some private spheres of life where he or she can be free.
Private ownership of property is an important buffer against the exorbitant consolidation of power by government.
Liberal critics also contend that capitalism encourages the development of monopolies. The real source of monopolies, however, is not the free market but governmental intervention with the market.
The only monopolies that have ever attained lasting immunity from competition did so by governmental fiat, regulation, or support of some other kind.
Governments create monopolies by granting one organization the exclusive privilege of doing business or by establishing de facto monopolies through regulatory agencies whose alleged purpose is the enforcement of competition but whose real effect is the limitation of competition.
Economic interventionism and socialism are the real sources of monopolies.
This is illustrated, for example, in the success of the American robber barons of the nineteenth century. Without government aid such as subsidies, the robber barons would never have succeeded.
Liberals blame capitalism for every evil in contemporary society, including its greed, materialism, selfishness, the prevalence of fraudulent behavior, the debasement of societys tastes, the pollution of the environment, the alienation and despair within society, and vast disparities of wealth. Even racism and sexism are treated as effects of capitalism.
Many of the objections to a market system result from a simple but fallacious two-step operation.
First, some undesirable feature is noted in a society that is allegedly capitalistic; then it is simply asserted that capitalism is the cause of this problem.
Logic texts call this the Fallacy of False Cause.
Mere coincidence does not prove causal connection. Moreover, this belief ignores the fact that these same features exist in interventionist and socialist societies.
The Issue of Greed
Liberal critics of capitalism often attack it for encouraging greed. The truth, however, is that the mechanism of the market actually neutralizes greed as it forces people to find ways of serving the needs of those with whom they wish to exchange.
As long as our rights are protected (a basic precondition of market exchanges), the greed of others cannot harm us.
As long as greedy people are prohibited from introducing force, fraud, and theft into the exchange process and as long as these persons cannot secure special privileges from the state under interventionist or socialist arrangements, their greed must be channeled into the discovery of products or services for which people are willing to trade.
Every person in a market economy has to be other-directed. The market is one area of life where concern for the other person is required.
The market, therefore, does not pander to greed. Rather, it is a mechanism that allows natural human desires to be satisfied in nonviolent ways.
Does Capitalism Exploit People?
Capitalism is also attacked on the ground that it leads to situations in which some people (the exploiters) win at the expense of other people (the losers).
A fancier way to put this is to say that market exchanges are examples of what is called a zero-sum game, namely, an exchange where only one participant can win. If one person (or group) wins, then the other must lose. Baseball and basketball are two examples of zero-sum games. If A wins, then B must lose.
The error here consists in thinking that market exchanges are a zero-sum game. On the contrary, market exchanges illustrate what is called a positive-sum game, that is, one in which both players may win.
We must reject the myth that economic exchanges necessarily benefit only one party at the expense of the other. In voluntary economic exchanges, both parties may leave the exchange in better economic shape than would otherwise have been the case.
To repeat the message of the peaceful means of exchange, If you do something good for me, then I will do something good for you. If both parties did not believe they gained through the trade, if each did not see the exchange as beneficial, they would not continue to take part in it.
Most religious critics of capitalism focus their attacks on what they take to be its moral shortcomings.
In truth, the moral objections to capitalism turn out to be a sorry collection of claims that reflect, more than anything else, serious confusions about the real nature of a market system.
When capitalism is put to the moral test, it beats its competition easily. Among all of our economic options, Arthur Shenfield writes: "Only capitalism operates on the basis of respect for free, independent, responsible persons. All other systems in varying degrees treat men as less than this. Socialist systems above all treat men as pawns to be moved about by the authorities, or as children to be given what the rulers decide is good for them, or as serfs or slaves. The rulers begin by boasting about their compassion, which in any case is fraudulent, but after a time they drop this pretense which they find unnecessary for the maintenance of power. In all things they act on the presumption that they know best. Therefore they and their systems are morally stunted. Only the free system, the much assailed capitalism, is morally mature."
The alternative to free exchange is coercion and violence. Capitalism is a mechanism that allows natural human desires to be satisfied in a nonviolent way. Little can be done to prevent people from wanting to be rich, Shenfield says. Thats the way things often are in a fallen world. But what capitalism does is channel that desire into peaceful means that benefit many besides those who wish to improve their own situation in life.
The alternative to serving other mens wants, Shenfield concludes, is seizing power of them, as it always has been. Hence it is not surprising that wherever the enemies of capitalism have prevailed, the result has been not only the debasement of consumption standards for the masses but also their reduction to serfdom by the new privileged class of Socialist rulers.
Once people realize that few things in life are free, that most things carry a price tag, and that therefore we have to work for most of the things we want, we are in a position to learn a vital truth about life. Capitalism helps teach this truth. But under socialism, Arthur Shefield warns, Everything still has a cost, but everyone is tempted, even urged to behave as if there is no cost or as if the cost will be borne by somebody else. This is one of the most corrosive effects of collectivism upon the moral character of people.
And so, we see, capitalism is not merely the more effective economic system; it is also morally superior. When capitalism, the system of free economic exchange, is described fairly, it comes closer to matching the demands of the biblical ethic than does either socialism or interventionism.
These are the real reasons why Ron Sider and his friends in the Religious Left should have abandoned the statist economic policies they promoted in the past.
These are also the reasons why they should now end their advocacy of economic interventionism, which only encourages the consolidation of wealth and power in the hands of the few.
Christians who are sincere about wanting to help the poor should support the market system described in this chapter."
Excerpted from a chapter of Dr. Nashs book, "Why the Left is Not Right - The Religious Left -Who they Are and What They Believe" by Ronald H. Nash, PhD
If you believe that Hugo Chavez is Catholic you know nothing of Catholicism or Chavez.
You can thank the non-Calvinists for the first 10 Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, ratified as a precondition to the work of your framers. Jefferson, Adams and numerous others railed against the Presbyterian "Popes of Boston" and the opposition to individual freedom they posed.
What an astonishing statement. Are you saying that a dictatorship is "non-evil"? Can you cite an example?
Democracies, for all their flaws, have brought prosperity to nations. Dictatorships have brought nothing but ruin. You may want to check the scriptures for this.
Indeed, I would never agree to a benevolent Catholic dictatorship because there are always mere mortal occupying the throne. We must wait for the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
I prefer a constitutional republic.
HA! And should we assume Hugo Chavez has any virtue?
It sounds like he just dug himself a deeper hole to try to crawl out of.
It makes sense within Romanist theology since they believe that men are separated in a chain of being, some achieving higher steps on the chain. Priests and Bishops are at a higher level of being so therefore entitled to rule over the lower beings. The concept of equality of rights being foreign.
That’s why we must be eternally vigilant when it comes to Romanists in seats of power.
Selling one’s soul
to the ‘Company Store’
. . . to idolatry . . .
results in all manner of TYRANNY
. . . always in the name of some pretended collective good, of course.
Some people live in deep holes and pretend that the sun traversing the top of the hole is merely a light carried by the night watchman.
Then they pretend that THAT’S TRUTH and attempt relentlessly to beat it into the heads of all the others in their hole—and yell it stridently to those outside their hole.
Voris is not the speaker for all Catholic TV and at times can be “over the top”
Traditional Catholics are mis-characterized as being anti Democracy ,but that is not the case.
The great Pope Leo XIII wrote about Christian Democracy in 1901. This is what we would want to see
GRAVES DE COMMUNI RE
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON CHRISTIAN DEMOCRACY
Here are a few excerpts...
Christian Democracy, by the fact that it is Christian, is built, and necessarily so, on the basic principles of divine faith, and it must provide better conditions for the masses, with the ulterior object of promoting the perfection of souls made for things eternal. Hence, for Christian Democracy, justice is sacred; it must maintain that the right of acquiring and possessing property cannot be impugned, and it must safeguard the various distinctions and degrees which are indispensable in every well-ordered commonwealth. Finally, it must endeavor to preserve in every human society the form and the character which God ever impresses on it. It is clear, therefore, that there in nothing in common between Social and Christian Democracy. They differ from each other as much as the sect of socialism differs from the profession of Christianity.
Moreover, it would be a crime to distort this name of Christian Democracy to politics, for, although democracy, both in its philological and philosophical significations, implies popular government, yet in its present application it must be employed without any political significance, so as to mean nothing else than this beneficent Christian action in behalf of the people. For, the laws of nature and of the Gospel, which by right are superior to all human contingencies, are necessarily independent of all particular forms of civil government, while at the same time they are in harmony with everything that is not repugnant to morality and justice. They are, therefore, and they must remain absolutely free from the passions and the vicissitudes of parties, so that, under whatever political constitution, the citizens may and ought to abide by those laws which command them to love God above all things, and their neighbors as themselves. This has always been the policy of the Church.
In the same manner, we must remove from Christian Democracy another possible subject of reproach, namely, that while looking after the advantage of the working people it should seem to overlook the upper classes of society, for they also are of the greatest use in preserving and perfecting the commonwealth. The Christian law of charity, which has just been mentioned, will prevent us from so doing. For it embraces all men, irrespective of ranks, as members of one and the same family, children of the same most beneficent Father, redeemed by the same Saviour, and called to the same eternal heritage. Hence the doctrine of the Apostle, who warns us that “We are one body and one spirit called to the one hope in our vocation; one Lord, one faith and one baptism; one God and the Father of all who is above all, and through all, and in us all.”(2) Wherefore, on account of the union established by nature between the common people and the other classes of society, and which Christian brotherhood makes still closer, whatever diligence we devote to assisting the people will certainly profit also the other classes, the more so since, as will be thereafter shown, their co-operation is proper and necessary for the success of this undertaking.
Nor are we to eliminate from the list of good works the giving of money for charity, in pursuance of what Christ has said: “But yet that which remaineth, give alms.”(13) Against this, the socialist cries out and demands its abolition as injurious to the native dignity of man. But, if it is done in the manner which the Scripture enjoins,(14) and in conformity with the true Christian spirit, it neither connotes pride in the giver nor inflicts shame upon the one who receives. Far from being dishonorable for man, it draws closer the bonds of human society of augmenting the force of the obligation of the duties which men are under with regard to each other. No one is so rich that he does not need another’s help; no one so poor as not to be useful in some way to his fellow man; and the disposition to ask assistance from others with confidence and to grant it with kindness is part of our very nature. Thus, justice and charity are so linked with each other, under the equable and sweet law of Christ, as to form an admirable cohesive power in human society and to lead all of its members to exercise a sort of providence in looking after their own and in seeking the common good as well.
17. As regards not merely the temporary aid given to the laboring classes, but the establishment of permanent institutions in their behalf, it is most commendable for charity to undertake them. It will thus see that more certain and more reliable means of assistance will be afforded to the necessitous. That kind of help is especially worthy of recognition which forms the minds of mechanics and laborers to thrift and foresight, so that in course of time they may be able, in part at least, to look out for themselves. To aim at that is not only to dignify the duty of the rich toward the poor, but to elevate the poor themselves, for, while it urges them to work in order to improve their condition, it preserves them meantime from danger, it refrains immoderation in their desires, and acts as a spur in the practice of virtue. Since, therefore, this is of such great avail and so much in keeping with the spirit of the times, it is a worthy object for the charity of righteous men to undertake with prudence and zeal.
18. Let it be understood, therefore, that this devotion of Catholics to comfort and elevate the mass of the people is in keeping with the spirit of the Church and is most conformable to the examples which the Church has always held up for imitation. It matters very little whether it goes under the name of the Popular Christian Movement or Christian Democracy, if the instructions that have been given by Us be fully carried out with fitting obedience. But it is of the greatest importance that Catholics should be one in mind, will, and action in a matter of such great moment. And it is also of importance that the influence of these undertakings should be extended by the multiplication of men and means devoted to the same object.
Hugo Chavez is a Leninist, the complete antithesis of Catholicism, and is far closer to you in his opinion of the Catholic faith than he is to Catholics.
To quote News max:
"The Catholic Church has been one of the most critical voices against the leftist Venezuela president, who has in the past called the church leadership a "tumor."
But a month ago, you wrote this:
[in reply to a question re "what is your ideal political system?"] My personal opinion is that a Catholic monarchy would work best if it could be applied today. This article pretty much sums up what I believe...Liberty: The God that Failed
-- FReeper stfassisi, April 1, 2011
Monarchy can’t be applied today and sadly our democratic system is failing us because true liberty was not defined .
That’s just reality ,dear brother.
“”Liberty: The God that Failed””
Alex, here is an excerpt from the article.What part do you think is wrong?
In sum, the god of Liberty has imposed upon Western civilization what Pope Leo XIII succinctly denounced as that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law.[viii] This new conception of law expressed itself in utterly revolutionary principles which contemporary man, abysmally ignorant of his own Christian heritage, now unquestioningly accepts as the received wisdom of the ages:
[T]hat all are equal in the control of their life; that each one is so far his own master as to be in no sense under the rule of any other individual; that each is free to think on every subject just as he may choose, and to do whatever he may like to do; that no man has any right to rule over other men .that the judgment of each one’s conscience is independent of all law; that the most unrestrained opinions may be openly expressed as to the practice or omission of divine worship; and that every one has unbounded license to think whatever he chooses and to publish abroad whatever he thinks [ix]
That these principles would destroy the foundations of our civilization was self-evident. Only forty years after Leo, Pope Pius XI observed that With God and Jesus Christ, excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation.[x] But perhaps not even Leo and Pius could have imagined the full extent of the civilizational debacle Liberty has wrought: not only the abortion holocaust, but an epidemic of divorce, the universal practice of contraception, the depopulation of Western nations, the relentless advance of homosexualism, the destruction of the family, the spread of orgiastic consumerism, the debasement of art, music and architecture, and finally the emergence of a veritable neo-pagan social order in which Christians increasingly face persecution for mere utterances against the orthodoxy of liberty.
Our history is replete with examples of just how "democratic" our Calvinist brothers and sisters have been. They overwhelming denied voting and participation rights to persons based upon race, gender, literacy, and property ownership. They are all for a system in which the actions of others can be dictated, providing they are doing the dictating.
Given the choice between a system, as Voris describes, in which the unvirtuous can vote and the rights of all are subject to the will of the mob, and a system administered by those sworn to obeying Gods laws I would still choose the later, but not in preference to a system obedient to God's will that each are endowed with inalienable rights by God.
Non- Calvinists? Perhaps some sentiment that-a-ways, but George Mason and Patrick Henry were most assuredly not Roman Catholic.
Otherwise, the idea of individual freedoms for the common man, we don't find coming much from the Roman papacy of some centuries ago, no matter how much they may now be persuaded of it's benefits.
The criticism you refer to concerning "the Popes of Boston", doesn't exactly reflect well upon papal thought, now does it? It seems you've sort-of shot yourself in the foot.
Now if one wished to argue that unbridled "freedom", without moral restraint is a formula for self-destruction, there could be wide agreement found among a great many of us here.
Thanks, Gamecock! Bookmarked all four tremendous links.
I would suggest that our republic is failing not because true liberty is not defined but because we have left our Christian heritage.
Hab 1:4-5 So the law is paralyzed, and justice never goes forth. For the wicked surround the righteous; so justice goes forth perverted. Look among the nations, and see; wonder and be astounded. For I am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if told.
And do you agree with Voris that only Catholics are capable of voting? How about Catholics and evangelical Baptist? How about Reformers (we already know the answer to that)? How about liberal churches?
Frankly, God tells us we're all corrupt. So how do you pick and choose who have the "right" morals? If your criteria is based upon those "sworn" to obeying God's laws, we know how well this has worked out over the years.
First, I am not buying into the premise that Democracies sometimes work. Democracies only work temporarily until the will of the majority is imposed on whichever minority they consider exploitable.
That being said, within republican boundaries, I don't care who votes.