|
The Catholic Church Is Not A Democracy
|
|
Topic Started: Tuesday, 21. November 2006, 23:08 (779 Views)
|
|
nelly k
|
Tuesday, 21. November 2006, 23:08
Post #1
|
|
- Posts:
- 549
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #43
- Joined:
- November 1, 2006
|
Maybe the Moderators will move this to Church and State, which may be the right thing to do , Ill leave that decision to them, sorry for the work...
I am of the opinion that the Church is not a Democracy, personaly I do not have a problem with that, but I think many do. Maybe I dont have a problem because on the whole I live in a secular democratic state, and I have many rights and the like.
Did Democracy or has Democracy undermind Church Authority? Or was it done through our own somtimes shamefull history?(not sure if that is a fair comment) I am often taken aback by my Generation which I would regard as PostV2... who bang on about the mess of the Church of my era, but if we were born in a diffrent era we would not have rebelled or tore at the Church as we now can... I am getting confused, I just think sometimes there is a kind of hypocracy or double standards, hope this makes sense. nelly
|
|
|
| |
|
Rose of York
|
Tuesday, 21. November 2006, 23:17
Post #2
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 28,796
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- September 25, 2006
|
- nelly k
- Nov 21 2006, 10:08 PM
Maybe the Moderators will move this to Church and State, which may be the right thing to do , Ill leave that decision to them, sorry for the work...
Nelly you did right. We will leave it here as a separate discussion.
|
Keep the Faith!
|
| |
|
Poesy
|
Wednesday, 22. November 2006, 22:02
Post #3
|
|
- Posts:
- 805
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #8
- Joined:
- September 26, 2006
|
- nelly k
- Nov 21 2006, 10:08 PM
Maybe the Moderators will move this to Church and State, which may be the right thing to do , Ill leave that decision to them, sorry for the work...
I am of the opinion that the Church is not a Democracy, personaly I do not have a problem with that, but I think many do. Maybe I dont have a problem because on the whole I live in a secular democratic state, and I have many rights and the like.
Did Democracy or has Democracy undermind Church Authority? Or was it done through our own somtimes shamefull history?(not sure if that is a fair comment) I am often taken aback by my Generation which I would regard as PostV2... who bang on about the mess of the Church of my era, but if we were born in a diffrent era we would not have rebelled or tore at the Church as we now can... I am getting confused, I just think sometimes there is a kind of hypocracy or double standards, hope this makes sense. nelly
Nelly,
Not really sure that democracy has any real meaning in the church or its organization. Should it have ? I am not aware a vote of priests is taken, or even less of the laity, when some organizational decision has to be taken - surely the bishop does this on his own or with an advisor or two. Matters in Rome are usually dealt with by the head of whatever order it is. This can lead to an interesting situation with the Pontiff and with JPll, there was quite a famous difference of opinion between Vatican authority and the head of the Jesuit order in the 1980's as to who was really the one who should be taking ultimate decisions about the Jesuits particularly over so called, ' liberation, Marxist theology ' .
I think we have to be very careful about importing liberal notions into the structure of the church, which it cannot be over emphasized enough is guided by the Holy Spirit and not the ideas of Jefferson or Locke .
|
|
Domine Jesu, noverim me .
|
| |
|
Derekap
|
Wednesday, 22. November 2006, 22:24
Post #4
|
|
- Posts:
- 7,732
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #14
- Joined:
- September 26, 2006
|
I don't think the Church could be a Democracy in the civil government sense. It would not be practical to have Lower and Upper Houses Parliament with parties proposing Beliefs, Practices and Rules. No doubt Cardinals and other Church Officials and experts when they get together debate pros and cons in confidence and come to eventual conclusion then seek the opinion or decision of The Pope. At the parochial level a parish council may vote on whether to paint the walls of the Parish Hall white or yellow and they may vote on whether to recommend they have a Tridentine Holy Mass once as month etc but on serious matters the final decision must be by the Parish Priest and hopefully it is the right decision.
I hope I interpreted the topic correctly and have not waffled on foolishly.
|
|
Derekap
|
| |
|
nelly k
|
Wednesday, 22. November 2006, 22:38
Post #5
|
|
- Posts:
- 549
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #43
- Joined:
- November 1, 2006
|
Derek, I think your interpretation of my post is right, Poesy thankyou for your thought out reply, to a great degree I think your reply makes sense to me in that I believe the Church is not and should not be a Democracy, the basics that Derek is refering to make sence re Parish care of the Church and to Degree with Pastoral care, I think what I find upseting is those of my generation who are for ever critical of the Church and Her Management, as you say She is hopfully in the Hands of God who knows how to intersed and help those, particularly our Pope and Senior Clergy, who have this responsibility. I was interested on the comments re the Liberation Theology, I think I was at an impressionable age at the time, and being very confused with who was right ... I know conclude that Pope John Paul was right to give those involved a severe repremand ,,, nelly
|
|
|
| |
|
Rose of York
|
Wednesday, 22. November 2006, 23:17
Post #6
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 28,796
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- September 25, 2006
|
- Derekap
- Nov 22 2006, 09:24 PM
At the parochial level a parish council may vote on whether to paint the walls of the Parish Hall white or yellow and they may vote on whether to recommend they have a Tridentine Holy Mass once as month etc but on serious matters the final decision must be by the Parish Priest and hopefully it is the right decision.
A good advisory committee may be useful, but some think they have authority to make decisions. In Canon and English Charity law, they have no authority whatsoever.
Canon Law states that the priest is responsible to his Ordinary (ie Bishop or Abbot) for all that happens in the parish. He can he alone can make decisions about worship, money, building maintenance, whether or not to have childrens liturgy etc. The committee can advise him, and give feed back from the parishioners. The problem comes when there is a committee composed of people who think the pp is one of the several (equal) members of the committee.
Charity Law is that the responsibility of the Diocesan Trust or Religious Order's main purpose (usually stated as the spread of the Roman Catholic Church) lies with the trustees, most of whom will be clergy, chaired by the Bishop or Abbot. The parish is a part of the Charity, one wee small part. That is a safeguard against one small group of people taking over, and voting to do all sorts of peculiar things with our buildings, ie demolish them, spend unaffordable amounts on them or worse still, sack the priest and make the building non denominational.
The bishop is Big White Chief, with the parish priests acting on his behalf. So may it remain. It's the safest way.
|
Keep the Faith!
|
| |
|
Gerard
|
Thursday, 23. November 2006, 10:41
Post #7
|
|
- Posts:
- 7,841
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #12
- Joined:
- September 26, 2006
|
Nelly
Yes, the church is not a democracy, but neither should it be an authoritarian power structure. The model of church leadership is "servant leadership".
- Quote:
-
And Jesus called them to him and said to them, "You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. (From Mk:10)
When the church takes on a power role in the world it gets into trouble as your first post made reference to.
As for the mess in the church? What mess? The church is doing very well in the world. Expanding greatly - particularly in third world countries and ex-communist countries. It is, however, shrinking in the rich west. And I suggest precisely because we are rich. Rich people tend to depend on themselves rather than God.
Gerry
|
|
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
|
| |
|
nelly k
|
Thursday, 23. November 2006, 16:35
Post #8
|
|
- Posts:
- 549
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #43
- Joined:
- November 1, 2006
|
You know Gerry, you are a very good man. When I was refering to the mess the Church is in, it`s often what I hear from some that so much is wrong since V2, but speaking to older generations of Catholics it was not a bed of roses before hand, I think you are spot on about the materilistic west, most on the forum who know me have heard me say time and agian that I did not grow up with a lot of Catholic Chilhood friends, I was n`t involved in Catholic youth groups or culture, to a degree Iam realeved about that because the peers I now know, who did seem to have this background, are to a degree anti Catholic or anti Catholic Establishment, and they bang on about terrible stuff that I dont seem to see, or I always think there is more to it.
Sounds daft but I worry that my Catholisim that I want to hand on to my Children can be a burden, now I know that may sound off the wall, because in reality It is simple so much has been passed down through the ages...I think what I am getting at is that it is very difficult and lots of challenges trying to be Catholic in such a Secular world,
nelly
|
|
|
| |
|
Eve
|
Thursday, 23. November 2006, 19:04
Post #9
|
|
Former Admin/Moderator
- Posts:
- 660
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #3
- Joined:
- September 26, 2006
|
- This week's sermon from the Dominicans
-
Rulers of the Kings of the Earth David Sanders O.P.
26 November 2006 Solemnity of Christ the King (B)
fr David Sanders wonders how we can share in the kingship of Christ.
As we come to the end of the Church's year we are given a vision of Christ as the universal king. He is, as Revelation tells us, 'The Ruler of the kings of the earth'. But then it adds that we too share in his kingship for he has made us 'a line of kings, priests to serve his God and Father'.
So what is the connection between Christ's kingship and ours? Is there any link between the way he governs and exercises power and the way we should perform these functions? First we should know what kind of king Christ is and how he exercises power.
For there is no doubt that he has immense power. As the one who fulfils Daniel's prophecy about the Son of Man, his sovereignty, we are told, 'is an eternal sovereignty which never passes away nor will his empire ever be destroyed.' But to understand how he has exercised this power we need to turn to John's Gospel. And there we get a shock, for in today's reading Jesus seems powerless. He is arraigned before the powers of the world, standing in front of the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate who starts the interrogation, 'Are you the king of the Jews?'
Jesus does not deny being a king, just as he did not deny Peter's acknowledgement that he was the messiah, but this designation is not enough. He does not want to be limited to a kingship of this world: the sort of worldly king which the crowds wanted him to make him after he had had performed the miracle of the loaves.
If he had been this sort of king, dependent entirely on worldly power, his followers would have used force and violence to prevent his arrest. This is the sort of kingship seen throughout world history; it thrives on self-serving ambition, despises weakness and exalts the power of the nationalistic superman. But such a kingship is turned in on itself in inevitable failure.
But does this mean that Jesus kingship is essentially not of this world in the sense that his rule is otherworldly, concerned only with the transcendent realm and detached from any involvement in the compromises of human government? This approach would appeal to many in our own society. They have given up on what they see as the deceit and spin of politics. They prefer to opt out and cultivate their own private, even spiritual, world.
But Jesus does not sanction this escapist approach. At the last supper he had told his disciples that he was not asking God to take them out of the world, only to protect them from evil one so that they could be sent back into the world to bear witness to the truth. For God does not despise the world; in fact he loved it so much that he gave his only Son.
Jesus then is not of the world but he is very much in the world and has a mission to it. In fact he admits that he is a king but his sovereignty is exercised by bearing witness to the truth. He has come from the Father and so he can reveal the truth, a truth which transcends the limitations of an unbelieving world.
Yes I am a king, I was born for this to bear witness to the truth and all who are on the side of truth listen to my word.
But Pilate refuses this truth. With the high priests he embodies the corruption of worldly government. To save his skin, Pilate condemns the one whom he has recognised as innocent and the priests, to preserve their power, acknowledge Caesar as their king. 'We have no king but Caesar!'
In the midst of this hostile world Jesus bears witness to God's kingdom. St John does not use the language of kingdom but rather focuses on the way Jesus embodies the truth. 'I am the truth', he claims. If we want to see what happens when God's rule is present in a human being -- look at Jesus. Behold the man. And what do we see? A man mocked as a king, crowned with thorns, arrayed in a purple cloak and then finally lifted up on to the throne of the cross.
The pretensions of worldly kingship are mocked but as the crucified Christ reigns from the cross he reveals the self giving love of God and it possesses a power which can draw all men and women into his kingdom. In fact on the cross his kingship is universally proclaimed in Hebrew, Latin and Greek.
/b]As we come ourselves to worship Christ the King on this final Sunday of the Church's year how can we exercise the kingship he has given to us through baptism? We do not achieve this by escaping into a private world. Rather, by bearing witness to the truth in our political worlds we can acknowledge his universal rule in our lives and then pray that his kingdom may become fully present on earth as it is in heaven.[/b]
fr. David Sanders teaches scripture at Blackfriars, Oxford, and is former editor of Priests and People.
Christ is the King. The bishops act for Christ's Church. When bishops speak on worldly affairs people say "They should keep religion out of politics." I think politics is religion and religion is politics.
|
|
Howdy Folks. Has anybody seen my husband lately?
|
| |
|
Rose of York
|
Saturday, 12. January 2008, 16:21
Post #10
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 28,796
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- September 25, 2006
|
- nelly k
- Nov 21 2006, 10:08 PM
I am of the opinion that the Church is not a Democracy, personaly I do not have a problem with that, but I think many do. Maybe I dont have a problem because on the whole I live in a secular democratic state, and I have many rights and the like.
Did Democracy or has Democracy undermind Church Authority? Or was it done through our own somtimes shamefull history?(not sure if that is a fair comment) I am often taken aback by my Generation which I would regard as PostV2... who bang on about the mess of the Church of my era, but if we were born in a diffrent era we would not have rebelled or tore at the Church as we now can... I am getting confused, I just think sometimes there is a kind of hypocracy or double standards, hope this makes sense. nelly
Thanks to Eve opening a topic about Catholic Women of the Year, with a link to the Joanna Bogle blog, I followed links from the blog and came across this article. It may give us food for thought and discussion.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-catholi...rticle_2430.jsp
- Quote:
-
The Catholic church is not a democracy Joanna Bogle The heartbeat of the Catholic church is in the poor south, and it pulses for fundamental truths not liberal nostrums, says Joanna Bogle. 17 - 04 - 2005
When Jesus Christ founded a church, he did not found a democracy. He did not follow the fashions of the time and place in which he lived and worked. He did not establish a meritocracy – whether of intellectual skills, acquired expertise in team management or inspirational leadership. Rather, he went against the pattern established by the pagan religions of his day, where the priesthood was female, and chose twelve men. As leader of these, and in anticipation of his own ascension to heaven, Christ chose as his designated representative one who had once in a cowardly moment denied him and then repented with bitter tears.
Today, 18 April 2005, when the direct spiritual descendants of those first apostles meet in Rome to choose Peter’s successor, they will have scripture to guide them, and the knowledge that in the choices they make and the way they arrive at them, they are answerable to Christ himself who will one day judge their every action.
None of this makes sense to commentators in modern western Europe. In a dying culture – our birthrate now so low that we are no longer reproducing ourselves – and in a social milieu where deliberate and conscious commitment to a revealed religious truth is regarded as rather sinister, Christ and his church are objects of scandal.
This is to be expected. Christ told us that the meek would inherit the earth. Not the well-paid media commentators of the rich half of the world, or the pressure-groups from which they feed. Not the well-to-do scurrying from moderately comfortable hotel to busy TV studio via a recommended restaurant. Nor the purveyors of comfortable opinions that chime with political trends and ease the consciences of those for whom raw church teachings have proved a bit too challenging.
Also in the openDemocracy debate on the Catholic church and democracy, articles by Neal Ascherson, Lavinia Byrne, Laura Greenhalgh, Ariel Dorfman, Timothy Radcliffe, Michael Walsh, and Arthur Waskow
Please add your views to our forums; and if you can afford it send us a donation to help keep openDemocracy free
There has been something enjoyably ridiculous in the confusion among “liberal commentators” in the aftermath of the funeral of Pope John Paul II. Unexpectedly, vast hordes of banner-waving young people – over a million of them – had poured into Rome for prayers and hymns and vigils, honouring an 85-year-old whose chief message to them had urged unfashionable virtues of unselfishness, courage, chastity, truthfulness and obedience to church teachings. And across the world, especially in its poorest parts, this pope had engendered huge popularity – cheering crowds, sometimes of millions-strong as in the Philippines, always predominantly young.
The Catholic faith is spreading rapidly in Africa and in Asia, in countries where just a hundred years ago missionaries were still being slaughtered for teaching it and enduring appalling hardships in its service. Worldwide, the church is the biggest single provider of education and healthcare, reaching remote districts and decaying city slums where other agencies are unable or unwilling to provide a presence.
Meanwhile, media debates about the church, including most of those on the internet, are dominated by western Europeans and north Americans. Many of the commentators were brought up in Catholic families or educated at Catholic schools at a time when it was fairly easy to be a Catholic in their particular corner of the world. They did not experience the gulag of the Soviet Union or the flimsy hut of an African shanty-town. For some, life went on to offer employment within the church itself – a situation which, while having its restrictions and irritations, also offered in the 1960s and 1970s considerable rewards: status, excellent opportunities for study and creative work, companionship, financial security, even freedom from some of the more mundane obligations of family life.
The first apostles were a lot more like the bishops of poorer districts of what is fashionably called the “developing world” or the “global south” today. These bishops have enthusiastic and swiftly growing numbers of followers, great missionary zeal, considerable practical difficulties especially when travelling, and a need for real courage in the face of local wars and passionately held tribal and racial loyalties. It is hard for “liberal Catholics” of the west to understand or feel empathy with such men: they seem odd and simplistic.
“Liberals” think that Catholicism should make us feel comfortable. It must adapt itself, they believe, to accepted current notions popular in London or Brussels or New York about feeling good about oneself, even if (perhaps especially if) these entail transgressing Christian teachings on chastity or the sinfulness of hom osex ual behaviour or of creating one’s own image of God to replace that revealed in scripture.
Across the globe, but perhaps especially in the poor places – the dirty ugly Soviet-era blocks of flats lacking decent kitchens or lavatories, the miserable huts fringing south American cities, the grief-stricken camps where tsunami victims still mourn their dead – prayers will rise for those electing the new pope. They will probably not be very congenial or comfortable prayers to those who like things to be phrased in media-friendly language. They may be chanted rosaries, Hail Mary’s counted on beads, invocations of much-loved saints, popular local prayers taught by rote. They may even be accompanied by genuine sacrifices – acts involving pain and suffering that are “offered up” by people not too proud to do so, of the sort that liberals today tend to recall only with sneers, as the anachronistic customs transmitted by aged nuns.
Among those praying will be me – not in a slum or refugee camp but in our small suburban maisonette, pondering the awesome reality of successors of the apostles gathering to elect one of their number to be another Peter, knowing that the last holder of that office has now gone to meet God.
The pope’s task – Peter’s task – is to pass on faithfully the message that all must seek salvation through Jesus Christ. This message brought Peter, and many of the other early popes, martyrdom. Today, the pope can expect ridicule, hatred and attempts to undermine and derail his work. The church has many enemies: she always has had. As ever, these include those who cannot accept the “hard sayings” of the church, who resist the notion of a God who loves and will one day judge us, who are appalled at the blood-sacrifice of the cross and the notion that it was the price paid by a loving saviour to redeem us from our sins.
In my lifetime, the church has seen off communism – that evil notion that the fruits of human work should be seized by the state and distributed according to the will of those in power. It is likely that the church will see off her other enemies too. God bless our new pope.
Copyright conditions adhered to
|
Keep the Faith!
|
| |
|
Papa Buck
|
Sunday, 13. January 2008, 00:38
Post #11
|
|
- Posts:
- 15
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #114
- Joined:
- December 5, 2007
|
Assigning a label for church governance from the library of civil structures is quite inadequate and limiting for the church's mission.
It would be like asking, is the family unit a democracy, monarchy, or dictatorship?
The headship of the church is the servant (or at least it should be.)
Bishops should conduct themselves like loving fathers and elder sons not like presidents or kings. Nor should they look on the church as a corporation with themselves as CEO.
Bill
|
|
|
| |
|
MickCook
|
Sunday, 13. January 2008, 02:17
Post #12
|
|
- Posts:
- 661
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- September 26, 2006
|
The Church a democracy, yeah right! Like we should all get to vote for who should be God - or did someone forget that He's the head of the Church, the real President with real power. Thank God He's God and not a Clinton or a Bush (unless it's burning).
A democratic Church? Don't be daft!
|
:) Mick The Cook Companies
|
| |
|
James
|
Sunday, 13. January 2008, 16:44
Post #13
|
|
James
- Posts:
- 3,574
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #54
- Joined:
- January 13, 2007
|
Nelly,
I don't see it it as Democracy or Authoritarian.
It is like any "science" to me, Take Mathematics, Music, languages, electronics, etc.
There are "laws" if you like, which you must observe to progress. without these principles or observing them you will make no headway.
And then there must be people to preserve, build on and teach them to others.
Having achieved a degree , as it were, you end up with freedom of choice, knowledge and understanding - not subjugation
James
|
|
|
| |
|
Rose of York
|
Monday, 11. May 2009, 00:02
Post #14
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 28,796
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- September 25, 2006
|
Discussion revived.
In the Church of England laity have votes at Synod. Should we have a say at conclaves?
|
Keep the Faith!
|
| |
|
OsullivanB
|
Monday, 11. May 2009, 00:27
Post #15
|
|
- Posts:
- 7,930
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #205
- Joined:
- August 14, 2008
|
Definitely. It may be the first step towards achieving the sublime harmony we find in the Anglican Communion.
|
|
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|