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
I agree with the post. When will you Pro-duuuh-stants realize the that Rome is correct?I think you both long for the old days when Rome had temporal power to silence her critics.
It could be they harken back to the days of Pius IX the infallible, who penned the comical syllabus of Errors.
Separation of church and State condemned!!
"55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852." (Condemned as error).
FREE SPEECH IS AN ERROR
79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856. (Condemned as error).
The Church CAN use force.
24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851. (Condemned as error).
Religous Freedom of public schools condemned.
47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age. Epistle to the Archbishop of Freiburg, "Cum non sine," July 14, 1864. (Condemned as error).
Roman Catholic as the ONLY religion of the State
77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855. (Condemned as error).
No Salvation outside the church of Rome.
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc. (Condemned as error).
Modern Civilization condemned
80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861. (Condemned as error).
He is free to wish for a Monarchy, and I am free to say that I think he is a moron.
When you determine who gets to vote and who doesn't via government decree towards conformity of ideology - that is a call to EXPAND the power and scope of government at the expense of the people.
Never claim for yourself a power in a Republic that you are not willing to see exercised by the loyal opposition. How would you have liked when 0bama and his party had the White House, the House and the Senate - for them to declare that unless you were “moral” (according to their standards) you couldn't vote?
Fine if it was done under Bush and his morality - but not ever if under 0bama and HIS ‘morality’. ?????
The rest of what you have to say seems to be aimed at me. Nowhere did I say that I agree with everything Voris had to say; as a matter of fact I do not, so don't erect a strawman of my position (which you don't know) and then bat at it.
Until you address the fact that people can vote themselves goodies, I don't see how you do that. At a minimum, you have to repeal the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments to even begin to get back to the original republic. So, while I agree that we need to get to the original limits and roles of the government, I don't know how you put the genie of other people's money back in the bottle without first going first back to something like the original ideas about limitations on those who can vote. Maybe there's a way, but I just don't see a large enough majority getting control and heading that way as long as huge numbers of people who work for the government or are cared for by the government remain on the voting rolls. Perhaps not a moral test, but a means test in that you cannot derive your livelihood from the Federal government and vote in Federal elections, but whatever it is, something has to give at the voting level.
My remarks were applicable to anyone, not you. It wasn’t and isn’t about you. It is about what power the government should have in a Free Republic.
I don’t feel that restricting the vote to those who agree with the ruling parties morality and/or ideology is consistent with our Constitution or any form of actual Republican governance.
By saying this I am not intimating, hinting, or suggesting; let alone stating - that you hold the opposite position.
Giving government greater power; and that is what restricting voters to those who agree with the ruling party absolutely is - is no way to limit government - or what goodies people will vote for themselves.
Restrict voting to those with assets of at least one million dollars - and they WILL vote themselves the goodies of legislation that restricts economic competition, gives sweetheart contracts to their families, and hands out bailouts if they ever might actually lose money.
The problem is not WHO is voting - it is that the government they are voting into power has way too much POWER.
Giving them more power is insanity.
Allowing them to say who can vote and who can not vote based upon morality or ideology is giving them more power.
The Curious Republic of Gondour by Mark Twain
(Samuel Clemens); published in 1870/1871 
As soon as I had learned to speak the language a little, I became greatly interested in the people and the system of government.
I found that the nation had at first tried universal suffrage pure and simple, but had thrown that form aside because the result was not satisfactory. It had seemed to deliver all power into the hands of the ignorant and non-tax-paying classes; and of a necessity the responsible offices were filled from these classes also.
A remedy was sought. The people believed they had found it; not in the destruction of universal suffrage, but in the enlargement of it. It was an odd idea, and ingenious. You must understand, the constitution gave every man a vote; therefore that vote was a vested right, and could not be taken away. But the constitution did not say that certain individuals might not be given two votes, or ten! So an amendatory clause was inserted in a quiet way; a clause which authorised the enlargement of the suffrage in certain cases to be specified by statute. To offer to limit the suffrage might have made instant trouble; the offer to enlarge it had a pleasant aspect. But of course the newspapers soon began to suspect; and then out they came! It was found, however, that for onceand for the first time in the history of the republicproperty, character, and intellect were able to wield a political influence; for once, money, virtue, and intelligence took a vital and a united interest in a political question; for once these powers went to the primaries in strong force; for once the best men in the nation were put forward as candidates for that parliament whose business it should be to enlarge the suffrage. The weightiest half of the press quickly joined forces with the new movement, and left the other half to rail about the proposed destruction of the liberties of the bottom layer of society, the hitherto governing class of the community.
The victory was complete. The new law was framed and passed. Under it every citizen, howsoever poor or ignorant, possessed one vote, so universal suffrage still reigned; but if a man possessed a good common-school education and no money, he had two votes; a high-school education gave him four; if he had property like wise, to the value of three thousand sacos, he wielded one more vote; for every fifty thousand sacos a man added to his property, he was entitled to another vote; a university education entitled a man to nine votes, even though he owned no property. Therefore, learning being more prevalent and more easily acquired than riches, educated men became a wholesome check upon wealthy men, since they could outvote them. Learning goes usually with uprightness, broad views, and humanity; so the learned voters, possessing the balance of power, became the vigilant and efficient protectors of the great lower rank of society.
And now a curious thing developed itselfa sort of emulation, whose object was voting power! Whereas formerly a man was honored only according to the amount of money he possessed, his grandeur was measured now by the number of votes he wielded. A man with only one vote was conspicuously respectful to his neighbor who possessed three. And if he was a man above the common-place, he was as conspicuously energetic in his determination to acquire three for himself. This spirit of emulation invaded all ranks. Votes based upon capital were commonly called mortal votes, because they could be lost; those based upon learning were called immortal, because they were permanent, and because of their customarily imperishable character they were naturally more valued than the other sort. I say customarily for the reason that these votes were not absolutely imperishable, since insanity could suspend them.
Under this system, gambling and speculation almost ceased in the republic. A man honoured as the possessor of great voting power could not afford to risk the loss of it upon a doubtful chance.
It was curious to observe the manners and customs which the enlargement plan produced. Walking the street with a friend one day he delivered a careless bow to a passer-by, and then remarked that that person possessed only one vote and would probably never earn another; he was more respectful to the next acquaintance he met; he explained that this salute was a four-vote bow. I tried to average the importance of the people he accosted after that, by the-nature of his bows, but my success was only partial, because of the somewhat greater homage paid to the immortals than to the mortals. My friend explained. He said there was no law to regulate this thing, except that most powerful of all laws, custom. Custom had created these varying bows, and in time they had become easy and natural. At this moment he delivered himself of a very profound salute, and then said,
Now theres a man who began life as a shoemakers apprentice, and without education; now he swings twenty-two mortal votes and two immortal ones; he expects to pass a high-school examination this year and climb a couple of votes higher among the immortals; mighty valuable citizen.By and by my friend met a venerable personage, and not only made him a most elaborate bow, but also took off his hat. I took off mine, too, with a mysterious awe. I was beginning to be infected.
What grandee is that?
That is our most illustrious astronomer. He hasnt any money, but is fearfully learned. Nine immortals is his political weight! He would swing a hundred and fifty votes if our system were perfect.
Is there any altitude of mere moneyed grandeur that you take off your hat to?
No. Nine immortal votes is the only power we uncover for that is, in civil life. Very great officials receive that mark of homage, of course.
It was common to hear people admiringly mention men who had begun life on the lower levels and in time achieved great voting-power. It was also common to hear youths planning a future of ever so many votes for themselves. I heard shrewd mammas speak of certain young men as good catches because they possessed such-and-such a number of votes. I knew of more than one case where an heiress was married to a youngster who had but one vote; the argument being that he was gifted with such excellent parts that in time he would acquire a good voting strength, and perhaps in the long run be able to outvote his wife, if he had luck.
Competitive examinations were the rule and in all official grades. I remarked that the questions asked the candidates were wild, intricate, and often required a sort of knowledge not needed in the office sought.
Can a fool or an ignoramus answer them? asked the person I was talking with.
Well, you will not find any fools or ignoramuses among our officials.
I felt rather cornered, but made shift to say:
But these questions cover a good deal more ground than is necessary.
No matter; if candidates can answer these it is tolerably fair evidence that they can answer nearly any other question you choose to ask them.
There were some things in Gondour which one could not shut his eyes to. One was, that ignorance and incompetence had no place in the government. Brains and property managed the state. A candidate for office must have marked ability, education, and high character, or he stood no sort of chance of election. If a hod-carrier possessed these, he could succeed; but the mere fact that he was a hod-carrier could not elect him, as in previous times.
It was now a very great honour to be in the parliament or in office; under the old system such distinction had only brought suspicion upon a man and made him a helpless mark for newspaper contempt and scurrility. Officials did not need to steal now, their salaries being vast in comparison with the pittances paid in the days when parliaments were created by hod-carriers, who viewed official salaries from a hod-carrying point of view and compelled that view to be respected by their obsequious servants. Justice was wisely and rigidly administered; for a judge, after once reaching his place through the specified line of promotions, was a permanency during good behaviour. He was not obliged to modify his judgments according to the effect they might have upon the temper of a reigning political party.
The country was mainly governed by a ministry which went out with the administration that created it. This was also the case with the chiefs of the great departments. Minor officials ascended to their several positions through well-earned promotions, and not by a jump from gin-mills or the needy families and friends of members of parliament. Good behaviour measured their terms of office.
The head of the governments the Grand Caliph, was elected for a term of twenty years. I questioned the wisdom of this. I was answered that he could do no harm, since the ministry and the parliament governed the land, and he was liable to impeachment for misconduct. This great office had twice been ably filled by women, women as aptly fitted for it as some of the sceptred queens of history. Members of the cabinet, under many administrations, had been women.
I found that the pardoning power was lodged in a court of pardons, consisting of several great judges. Under the old regime, this important power was vested in a single official, and he usually took care to have a general jail delivery in time for the next election.
I inquired about public schools. There were plenty of them, and of free colleges too. I inquired about compulsory education. This was received with a smile, and the remark:
When a mans child is able to make himself powerful and honoured according to the amount of education he acquires, dont you suppose that that parent will apply the compulsion himself? Our free schools and free colleges require no law to fill them.
There was a loving pride of country about this person’s way of speaking which annoyed me. I had long been unused to the sound of it in my own. The Gondour national airs were forever dinning in my ears; therefore I was glad to leave that country and come back to my dear native land, where one never hears that sort of music.
Thanks for the clarification.
Do you have the link to the thread where B-Chan was zotted?
Much deserved; I imagine, as any ideology that anti-Republic has no place on Free Republic other than to be denounced and ridiculed.
I’m interested in what he said that deserved a zot.
I can imagine that the post that Alex quoted was cause enough to be zotted, but all the zots I’ve seen so far (I’m pretty new) are announced on thread by Jim. So I’m thinking he was zotted on another thread.
Per Roamer_1’s request . . . END TIMES PING
FYI . . . could relate to end times stuff, certainly.
Roman Catholicism believes in the authentic and inherent right to power of the super hierarchy. RC adherents WANT to be told what to do because they do not believe in the existence of the individual Christian’s conscience washed clean by the Holy Spirit which can actually discern right from wrong.
This Youtube blather is a GREAT example of the RC mindset control, control, control. And dictatorship is the natural outgrowth of this desire for unchallenged authoritarianism. Spain, Mexico, Italy. Argentina. All fascists. All RC.
Everybody should watch this short video. It’s eye-opening.
Amazing how you know all that. Got a source?
This is exactly what Rome desires.
Rome demands religious tolerance for itself, but it denies it to others, calling other churches "defective assemblies" while championing a Catholic dictatorship.
The papacy is not benign; it only plays it benign on TV.
So much material, so little time......
Only Catholics allowed to vote? Because they’re the only ones with their eyes on God?
That sure doesn’t describe 99.99% of the Catholics I grew up with and worked with, including myself when I was a Catholic before I got saved.
Catholicism produces a benevolent dictatorship??????
Can you say *Inquisition*?????
And last but not least, the moron doesn’t really understand our form of government if he thinks it’s a democracy. This country’s form of government is a representative republic.
Yes, there are inherent dangers like he mentioned, but the answer is not in us giving up our freedom to some alleged *benevolent* control of and by the Catholic church. If the Catholic church is so interested in virtuous and moral people voting, they need to get off their collective behinds and convert people into Christians who keep their eyes on God and vote something besides DEMOCRATIC. And they need to start with a virtuous and moral priesthood setting the example of how to live a pure and godly life.
If he thinks that the Catholic church is the virtuous moral organization to dictate us, all for our own good, of course, he’s living in la-la-land. The level of delusion he’s displaying is staggering. When the Catholic church cleans house and can PROVE, by its appropriate dealing with immorality and corruption within its own ranks, AND grassroots Catholics quit voting overwhelmingly liberal, pro-homosexuality, pro-abortion, democrat, then he might begin to have a case to present. Until then, he has NOTHING of substance to say.
God help us.
The last thing we need is the Catholic church running the government. It gives new meaning to the words, *I’m from the government and I’m here to help you*.
Thank God the Protestant Founding Fathers put the First Amendment in the Constitution, to prevent the kind of power grab that Catholics would obviously love to exercise.
Welcome to FR.
yawn... we see this same garbage on this forum everyday.
So, you're a Catholic monarchist, by your own admission?
This should be interesting.....
Since Feb 28, 2011
Thanks for the ping!
He should pack his bags and move his tail to Venezuela .
It’s 96% Roman Catholic , abortion is illegal and they have their own little dictator in Hugo Chavez .
May God have mercy on individuals awash in such hideousness.
South American countries are impoverished and it certainly isn’t due to lack of natural resources.
If that’s an example of what Catholicism leads to, they can keep their dictatorships.
If thats an example of what Catholicism leads to, they can keep their dictatorships.
The most amazing thing about this link is that we have Roman Catholic FReepers cheering it.
All tyranny is the same tyranny -- "somebody else think for me."
Aristotle, Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers, The Constitution and Toqueville’s Democracy in America.
Our Founding Fathers knew the danger of a true democracy; they tried to protect us from it. The anti-federalists pushed for even greater protection of the Republic because they and Toqueville foresaw exactly the situation we are now in.
The Founding Father envisioned an informed, educated, virtuous electorate. They, as Franklin said, gave us a Republic but we, as he feared, have not kept it.
“It’s amazing for a newbie what you remember.”
What do I remember?
“I’m betting you may even forget you’re a newbie at times.”
“Yeah, you lurked, we all lurked.”
I would just like to point out England, protestant and uber-liberal, Netherlands, protestant and uber-liberal, Sweden, protestant and liberal, Norway, protestant and liberal...
These days, religion seems to have little effect on the politics of any given nation. There are too many atheistic progressive types for religious people to have a big effect.
Get a grip those when Jesus returns He will rule by HIS Word and not the demonic teachings of the Vatican/RCC. Those teachings will burn burn burn!
LOL - like I said...here are a couple of anti-Catholics here who will make hay with whatever they can find.
LOL. Well, you got that half-right. You should have finished the sentence...
The "mantra" of the Protestant reformation was "I will not serve Rome; I will not serve a corrupt institution; I will not serve the monarchy that is the papacy; I will not serve the doctrines of men; I will not serve other men who believe themselves to be an 'alter Christus.'
"I will serve, however, the Triune God alone by the grace of God alone, through His free gift of a new heart of flesh and a mind renewed by the Holy Spirit and a God-given conscience washed clean by the blood of Christ."
"No Bishops; no kings." "No king but Christ."
They became victims of pride; pride in their own flawed thoughts, pride in their rebellion, pride in their power. Pride pride pride...Nothing but pride. And in their pride they've lead thousands astray, right up to the present day.
And the result is the thousands of protestant denominations, such as Baptists, sects such as 'Bible churches', and cults, such as the OPC, that we see today. Continually splintering, rebelling as their original leaders did.
The Reformation returned Christianity to the Bible, and away from the errant doctrines of corrupt men who for centuries had slaughtered anyone who challenged the papacy's imperial bombast.
Rome's sins are legion -- kneeling to a priestcraft made up of deluded "alter Christus;" elevating a simple Jewish girl to "co-redeemer;" praying to dead people as "mediators" when there is only "one mediator between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus;" concocting cruel lies like purgatory which declares that Christ's justification of His sheep was incomplete and lacking, so men have to work to finish Christ's atonement of them; teaching a false baptismal regeneration; believing in a works-based salvation; bowing to a fallen old man in Rome as "the infallible head of the church" when Scripture tells us no man but Christ was infallible and that Christ alone is head of His church on earth.
Actually, the Bible itself shows sola scriptura to be false.
"Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of His disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is The Christ, The Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in His Name" John 20:30-31.
"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written" John 21:25.
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." 2 Thessalonians 2:14.
"believing in a works-based salvation..."
"Then shall The King say to those on His right hand, Come ye, the blessed of My Father, inherit the reign that hath been prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I did hunger, and ye gave Me to eat; I did thirst, and ye gave Me to drink; I was a stranger, and ye received Me; naked, and ye put around Me; I was infirm, and ye looked after Me; in prison I was, and ye came unto Me." Matthew 25:34-36
"For, the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father, with His messengers, and then He will reward each, according to His work." Matthew 16:27
"And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." 1 Corinthians 13:2 (St Paul).
"kneeling to a priestcraft made up of deluded "alter Christus"
And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, This is My body given for you; do this in remembrance of Me. In the same way, after the supper He took the cup, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you." (Luke 22 19-21)
Many, many people were killed by protestant rulers and brigands. There is little sense in even attempting to attribute 'slaughter' to none but the Catholic empires.
The victimhood meme is an easy out by those who are called on their nastiness.
ummm...no I didn't. Strawman.
A trend I've noticed is that protestants tend to throw around terms like that; "Evil teachings of Rome" "The lies of the Vatican" "Imperial bombast of Rome" "The 'Marydolatry' of Catholicism" etc etc.
However, when the rubber meets the road, they can offer nothing beyond cute little catch-phrases and mantras. Those who want actual proof are left thirsty.
Now you're asking? Aren't you a little late?
And why the need to name call/labeling posters who are PRO WORD and; thus, pointing out deceptive teachings of the Vatican/RCC? What's that about?
Weren't you just saying something about "victimhood?"