Calling all Catholics

[Osborne Russel]

Been reading and have changed my mind somewhat as to the Catholic Church.

After the "fall" of the Roman Empire, in Italy, the Church was the only social institution with any cohesion. They could have tried to leverage this into temporal power if not rule, but resisted the temptation -- for a long time. For quite a while it was all the Church could do to consolidate itself.

With the growth of feudal powers north of the Alps, the Church might have chosen any one of them as partner, but resisted the temptation -- mostly.

In the process of all this the Church developed the principle of avoiding entanglement with the state, which is expedient, morality aside. They followed it -- mostly.

In short, the Church became a political player in Europe by default, and over the centuries got good at it. It started out in a role the state couldn't play and wound up as a player the state couldn't ignore. But it isn't because the church chose that role at the outset and set out to gain temporal power, at least initially. That is the change in my opinion.

Unfortunately it remains my opinion that it is near to impossible to be a political actor and not become enmeshed in politics, and whether you admit to being a political actor or not doesn't matter. Then you are responsible for what happens to the extent of your influence, overt or covert. That's the moral side. The practical side is that, if there is to be such a thing as a sovereign nation, it cannot tolerate any competing claim to sovereignty.

So the Church, per se, should stay out of politics, per se, as much as possible, acknowledging that it can't, altogether.

[Meerkat]

The Catholic Church is embroiled in politics up to the hilt around the world. One need look no further back than the 2004 elections in the US for an example.

[George.]

Been reading Gibbon, have you, Osborne? ;)

[uncas]

George...you are really dating yourself...When was Gibbon last published? :rolleyes:
You'd have to be a pack rat at an old, antique book store to find a copy... tongue.gif

[ 12-10-2005, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: uncas ]

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by uncas:
George...you are really dating yourself...When was Gibbon last published? :rolleyes:
You'd have to be a pack rat at an old, antique book store to find a copy... tongue.gif Published at least as recently as 1993 in a 3 volume boxed set. Available @ amazon... ;)

[uncas]

I'm surprised...I don't even know how old my copy ( three vol.) is...at leat early 1900's.
Really did not think it was still around...as in fairly new.

[Bob Cleek]

I'm not sure I see the point. All churches are involved in "politics" to the extent their interests are at stake, and why not? Churches are nothing more than the sum of their members, who, as citizens, have a right, if not even an obligation, to promote the betterment of their cultures and societies. If the Baptists and so on stayed out of politics, we'd never have made the progress fostered by Rev. Martin Luther King. Should he have "stayed out of politics?" Should not "pro-life" religious groups not also politically oppose the death penalty? Is this a problem? (BTW, Meer, the pollsters I've heard reported interestingly that the Catholic demographic did not indicate any difference from the electorate as a whole in the last presidential election.)

[Meerkat]

Can't help but think that when a precher stands up before his flock and says "Don't vote for X because of his/her stance on Y" that a disproportionate influence is exerted. In spades for the fundies, who are desperate (IMO) for an authority figure in their lives as it is.

[Meerkat]

Drat - meant "preacher" - editing is turned off!!

[Bob Cleek]

Actually, Meer, I don't think that happens as much as you think. If a preacher of any stipe gets up and starts saying, "Vote for this or that." their tax exempt status goes bye-bye. Churches are not allowed by the tax laws to take political positions and still retain their exemptions.

[Mrleft8]

What's a "Catholic"?

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
Actually, Meer, I don't think that happens as much as you think. If a preacher of any stipe gets up and starts saying, "Vote for this or that." their tax exempt status goes bye-bye. Churches are not allowed by the tax laws to take political positions and still retain their exemptions.May I remind you that there were 2 widely (and repeatedly!) reported cases of Catholic Bishops standing up at Sunday Mass and urging their congregation not to vote for John Kerry? One was in Denver, and I disremember where the other one was, other than it was back east. Seems like the fundies were probably pushing their flocks to vote the republican ticket during the same period.

I don't see this as a partisan issue. I would be just as concerned if a Baptist preacher or a Buddhist priest stood up and encouraged their congregations not to vote for George Bush.

Politics and religion is a molotov cocktail just waiting to happen! :( :mad:

[Hughman]

Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
Actually, Meer, I don't think that happens as much as you think. If a preacher of any stipe gets up and starts saying, "Vote for this or that." their tax exempt status goes bye-bye. Churches are not allowed by the tax laws to take political positions and still retain their exemptions.Ahem. Baptist churches here post political signs indicating the candidate and position on which their members are encouraged to vote. I've met members who vote lock step, no dissent tolerated.

[ssor]

I knew an old priest that declared that the Roman empire never fell, it morphed into the Roman Church. That was his opinion. His opinion was that religion and politics have not changed very much in 2000 years just became more subtle. I don't know I am just a plain old country carpenter.

[Meerkat]

ssor; Good point. Did you know that the pope's robes and regalia are based on the robes and regalia of the State high prist (Pontifex Maximus) of the Roman Empire? "Pontifex Maximus" sounds remarkably similar to "Pontif" too, doesn't it?

[peb]

Originally posted by ssor:
I knew an old priest that declared that the Roman empire never fell, it morphed into the Roman Church. That was his opinion. His opinion was that religion and politics have not changed very much in 2000 years just became more subtle. I don't know I am just a plain old country carpenter.IIRC, Belloc's opionion was very close to this. The central government of Rome lost power. The local govenors evolved into the nobility class of the middle ages. And the Church took up the role of the central government, but excersised it in a very loose fashion.

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by George.:
Been reading Gibbon, have you, Osborne? ;) No, been reading Luigi Barzini, *The Italians* (1964). If you will pardon another lengthy quote:


The Church was not an alien machination forcing an alien way of life on a reluctant people. We now know that no domination will last and be effective if it is imposed by force
alone. It must be accepted by some of the people, at least, as the genuine expression of their hopes and illusions. The Church went about its sacred, eternal and universal mission with Italian prudence, savoir faire, and intelligence. It was manned by Italians. It could not help embodying also some Italian ideals. It would not have had its success otherwise. The will of the people also determined the intensity and depth of the political and moral domination. The Spanish viceroys, and the local quislings, after all, were as overbearing and greedy as the Italians allowed them to be. The Church was all-pervading because it had to shoulder responsibilities which the Italians had thrust upon it. There is no final answer to the problem.

(emphasis added) P. 323-324. Note the pessimistic conclusion.

The wind-up seems to be: If the Romans could have held on to power, they would have. During the dark ages, there were plagues, invasions, famine, anarchy. The Church wasn't set up to deal with this, but was the only institution that even had a shot at doing anything about it.

Meanwhile, slowly, the "barbarian" French and Germans became powerful, in part by claiming to represent "true" Christianity, and therefore sought the Church's seal of approval for its propaganda value. The Church initially tried to stay out of it but couldn't. The Italians still couldn't get it together to resist the barbarians.

Thereafter, the Church, and therefore Rome and therefore Italy became a stage for the playing out of the ambitions of foreigners. The Italians, and thus the Church, got good at accepting a succession of sovereigns, alternately flattering, sabotaging, robbing, and supporting them all, as circumstances might dictate. Sort of a "same Mafia, different boss" attitude. Not as good as your own government, the rule of law, and so on, but better than anarchy.

So yes, the Church became a political player. I wonder if you could pinpoint this decision. Then they went through phases where they became overtly political, claiming actual sovereignty
over the Papal states; and since then have progressively more covert. Of course only a fool would claim that they aren't still a political institution, regardless of the change in posture.

The "power vaccuum sucked in the Spanish and the Church" theory doesn't make the Spanish and
Church doings any less sinister, on the contrary. It shows what can happen. And if you allow it to happen again after an example like this, it proves, basically, that you deserve it.

Barzini says basically if you put together the famous Italian skill at "the art of living" together with the shame of many centuries of disunity and foreign domination, you have the yin and yang of Italy.

[Bob Cleek]

I supposed it depends on what you call "political." If the Church can further its human rights agenda politically, I suppose it does. The last pope's support, covert and overt, for Solidarity was a lot more effective than Regan's plaintive plea, "Mr. Gorbachev, tell down this wall!" ;)

[George.]

In my opinion, the great accomplishment of the Church was the Christianizing of the Germanic tribes just before, or just after (as with the Franks), they took over the Roman Empire.

This kept the Dark Ages from being much, much darker. Witness the Norsemen, who were not Christianized until later, and their impact on life and culture in Europe through 1000 or so.

On the other hand, there was no lack of attempts by Churchmen (who after all were only men) to take over temporal power. Witness the "donation of Constantine," and the struggles between Popes and Emperors of the mid-Middle Ages.

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by ssor:
I knew an old priest that declared that the Roman empire never fell, it morphed into the Roman Church. Except no military, so Italy got carved up. The Church got money from everybody. Good for everybody except the Italians.

[Sam F]

Originally posted by Osborne Russel:
Been reading and have changed my mind somewhat as to the Catholic Church.

After the "fall" of the Roman Empire, in Italy, the Church was the only social institution with any cohesion. They could have tried to leverage this into temporal power if not rule, but resisted the temptation -- for a long time...
but resisted the temptation -- mostly...
In short, the Church became a political player in Europe by default, and over the centuries got good at it...
It started out in a role the state couldn't play and wound up as a player the state couldn't ignore. But it isn't because the church chose that role at the outset and set out to gain temporal power, at least initially. That is the change in my opinion.
Pretty good Osborne! One other thing to remember is that the state - and there is usually a state of some sort even in the most barbarous of times - That state was always trying to interfere with the Church and the Church has to continually fend it off. This goes back to the Caesaropapism of the Eastern Roman emperors and has continued through to every ephemeral ruler/state since.


Originally posted by Osborne Russel:
It started out in a role the state couldn't play and wound up as a player the state couldn't ignore. But it isn't because the church chose that role at the outset and set out to gain temporal power, at least initially. That is the change in my opinion.That’s a valid insight. The paranoid notions of Catholicism as a power mad institution plotting to run every state from its inception has roots in propaganda from the Protestant Revolt. It served its purpose at the time, but always was as un-historical as the paranoiac Protocols of Zion


Originally posted by Osborne Russel:
Unfortunately it remains my opinion that it is near to impossible to be a political actor and not become enmeshed in politics, and whether you admit to being a political actor or not doesn't matter. But we’re all enmeshed in that aren’t we? There are more than two players in this game besides the Church and the state that are involved in politics. In almost any country or era you’ll have to add the influence of business, labor, guilds, cities, farmers, various ethnic minorities and more ominously, the military.


Originally posted by Osborne Russel:
Then you are responsible for what happens to the extent of your influence, overt or covert. That's the moral side. The practical side is that, if there is to be such a thing as a sovereign nation, it cannot tolerate any competing claim to sovereignty. But Osborne who says that must be so? It is certainly true that Nationalism insists that the
state and only the state must be sovereign, but that’s a modern development.
Nationalism as we know it never seems to have occurred to anyone in the Middle Ages.
Given the bloody events of the 19th and 20th Centuries, one could certainly make a good case that certain attributes of civilized society had severe limits placed on them by the rise of Nationalism.


Originally posted by Osborne Russel:
So the Church, per se, should stay out of politics, per se, as much as possible, acknowledging that it can't, altogether. But the Church is like any other institution. Business interests, Labor Unions, so-called Fringe Parties (Greens, etc.) and a host of NGO’s (AKA: Non-Governmental Organizations) should have the ability to represent their point of view in the political arena. Shouldn’t they? If not, why not?

[ahp]

You forget that there was the other half of the Roman Empire, which evolved into the Byzantine Empire, and went on for another 1000 years.

As for the Roman Catholic Chucrh, it is modeled on Plato's Republic, ruled by a Philosopher King.

[Keith Wilson]

. . . the Roman empire never fell, it morphed into the Roman Church.I think this makes a lot of sense, although it’s not exactly accurate. I think the Roman church absorbed a lot of the characteristics of the Roman Empire – after all, what other model did they have? Patriarchy, for one; by law and custom, Roman society was male-dominated to an extent that most modern folks would find quite oppressive. Even by the standards of the time, they went pretty far in that direction. The church still is, although western society has lately developed in quite a different way.

Another is the fairly rigid centralized hierarchical stricture, with the Pope or Emperor at the center, and a well-defined chain of command all the way down. The Romans pretty much invented this sort of large-scale bureaucracy in the West, although the Chinese have to be given credit for doing it first.

[Osborne Russel]

It is certainly true that Nationalism insists that the state and only the state must be sovereign, but that’s a modern development.
Nationalism as we know it never seems to have occurred to anyone in the Middle Ages. But the same situation obtained, i.e. the competition for power. Instead of a nation-state, the church dealt with more or less petty princes. To them, and to the people, it seemed, because it was true, that the Church came out on top of most squabbles, or at least remained standing, because they had a broader, firmer base, and were more skillful. Over time this builds the idea that the Church is a formidable power, because it is. They get money and allegiance from governments, from rich people, and from poor people, continuously. No ruler of any kind can be happy with that in the long run.

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by Sam F:
But the Church is like any other institution. Business interests, Labor Unions, so-called Fringe Parties (Greens, etc.) and a host of NGO’s (AKA: Non-Governmental Organizations) should have the ability to represent their point of view in the political arena. Shouldn’t they? If not, why not?They should but as the Church realizes better than most it's a difficult path to tread. With money and influence come power. Contrary to popular belief, it is difficult to wield power in such a way as to not lose it. The possession of power tends to make you stupid.

The problem of the Church in politics is that politics requires cooperation as well as competition. The Church ostensibly puts a higher priority on faithfulness to principle than other groups, and so is limited in its ability to "cooperate" and to compete. It tends to have longer-term goals and thus to be conservative. But as we see, success brings its own problems. The Church is still around after many regimes have come and gone. That alone makes people distrust the Church. What is to be done about it? Get more power, defeat more rivals? Sooner or later you need a statement of fundamental principles on the relations of church and state, and people have to understand them and believe in them.

[George.]

I agree with Osborne's original post, but let's not get carried away here. They didn't call them the "Papal States" for nothing. And the Popes did try to take over secular power - they forged the "Donation of Constantine," and for centuries they struggled against the Holy Roman Emperors for secular supremacy.

[Osborne Russel]

Yeah. At various points they figured, we're calling the shots anyway, why not just say so? And besides, who better than us? But overt temporal power is a difficult thing to manage.

The wind-up is: Catholics better than most should know the expediency of the separation of church and state.

Speaking of Papal States, I understand that St. Francis did time as a POW when Perugia lost the armed struggle to maintain her independence from the Vatican. Now's he's a Saint. Hm.

[Bob Cleek]

One fact that seems always to be overlooked in discussions such as this one is that the Catholic Church is a living, moving, evolving community of people. Too often, folks reach back to one point or another in its history, bring those historical facts forward and argue, "THIS is the Church today." Not so anymore than the United States is today the nation that allowed slavery, or sought to create a colonial empire at the turn of the last century, or, fifty years from now, will be the country that sanctioned the torture of prisoners in Iraq. Things change. Today's Catholic Church is not the Church of the Borgias.

[ 12-13-2005, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Bob Cleek ]

[George.]

Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
Too often, folks reach back to one point or another in its history ... Today's Catholic Church is not the Church of the Borgias.That wouldn't happen so much if some people (not you, Bob) didn't insist on apologetics for everything the Church ever did, since day one. We have even have people trying to justify the trial of Galileo here... ;)

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
living, moving, evolving community of peopleYeah but there are certain core themes. They rise and fall in popularity and are combined differently but they don't go away. They are characteristically Catholic. Otherwise "Catholic" doesn't mean anything.

[Sam F]

Something I ran across only a few days ago for the first time... According to his personal physician, Winston Churchill recited the following quote from memory on three separate occasions:

She [the Church] saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. She was great and respected before the Saxon set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveler from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul's. From Macauley's review of Ranke's History of the Popes

[Sam F]

Originally posted by Osborne Russel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It is certainly true that Nationalism insists that the state and only the state must be sovereign, but that’s a modern development.
Nationalism as we know it never seems to have occurred to anyone in the Middle Ages. But the same situation obtained, i.e. the competition for power. Instead of a nation-state, the church dealt with more or less petty princes. To them, and to the people, it seemed, because it was true, that the Church came out on top of most squabbles, or at least remained standing, because they had a broader, firmer base, and were more skillful. Over time this builds the idea that the Church is a formidable power, because it is. They get money and allegiance from governments, from rich people, and from poor people, continuously. No ruler of any kind can be happy with that in the long run.</font>[/QUOTE]Of course no ruler can be happy with that in the short run - never mind the long run!
While I can appreciate the Ruling class's hostility to that state of affairs - after all it's not called a Ruling Class for nothing - I still fail to see why it's a bad thing to have competing centers of authority (a more appropriate term than power in the Church's context). I mean why, given the abundant proof of the Nation State's repeated abuse of its power, should anyone object to competition for the state?

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by Sam F:
I still fail to see why it's a bad thing to have competing centers of authority Other things being equal, it's not. We have a three-branch government.

Each center must swear and be bound to allegiance to the whole, otherwise, one center is less accountable than the rest, and winds up with all the marbles.

Would the Church swear to uphold "the whole" in Liberia, a different "whole" in Romania, etc.? I would hope not.

[Sam F]

Originally posted by Osborne Russel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sam F:
I still fail to see why it's a bad thing to have competing centers of authority Other things being equal, it's not. We have a three-branch government.

Each center must swear and be bound to allegiance to the whole, otherwise, one center is less accountable than the rest, and winds up with all the marbles. </font>[/QUOTE]I think there are structural reasons why one branch will tend to not end up with "all the marbles". It was designed that way for starters. Congress would make a hash out of executive functions and the Supremes HAVE made a hash out of their attempts to legislate from the bench. In the process they've created a world of trouble for themselves as evidenced by the various contradictory opinions the court has issued in recent years.
But all branches of government are still just that - government. As such, it is inherently ingrown and inward looking.
It strikes me that may be one reason governments so often do such stupid things - there's is no one outside the power structure to say... just to pick an example out of thin air ;) "Do not invade Iraq because it violates the Just War doctrine."

But to get back to your opinion that "the Church, per se, should stay out of politics, per se, as much as possible, acknowledging that it can't, altogether."

I actually agree with that, though perhaps from different motives. ;D
I would only add a bit of emphasis to "it can't".
That's because the Church's mission, while decidedly non-political (Jesus' kingdom is not of this world after all) must of necessity grapple with politics to function. The Church needs the freedom to carry out its' mission and also it must be allowed to advocate its beliefs. To use an example, the Catholic Church is certainly limited by the "Nativist" policies of China.
In a democracy, the Church's members are of course just as entitled to voice their point of view as any other citizens.


Originally posted by Osborne Russel:
Would the Church swear to uphold "the whole" in Liberia, a different "whole" in Romania, etc.? I would hope not.That's right. The Church should NEVER swear to uphold any government unconditionally (nor should you for that matter).