Anarchism and dogma

[Christus Imperat]

What is the Catholic (universal) definition of "State"?

Good question.

From the Catholic encyclopedia article "Church and State" http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14250c.htm :

The Church and the State are both perfect societies, that is to say, each essentially aiming at a common good commensurate with the need of mankind at large and ultimate in a generic kind of life, and each juridically competent to provide all the necessary and sufficient means thereto. The State is ethically demonstrated to be such, and the Church has a like demonstration from the theology of Christian Revelation. By reason of coexistence on the earth, community of subjects, and a need in common of some of the same means of activity, it is inevitable that they should have mutualrelations in the juridical order. To declare these relations in brief from an ethical viewpoint, which is the scope of the present article, it will be necessary to state:

    I. The basis of their respective rights;
    II. The range of their respective jurisdictions;
    III. Their mutual corporate relation;
    IV. The union of Church and State;
    V. Counter theories.

[Christus Imperat]

I voted yes, but it might be other.  The "other" would be a bogus position in political philosophy which doesn't rise to the level of heresy.

[dymphna17]

What is the Catholic (universal) definition of "State"?

Good question.

From the Catholic encyclopedia article "Church and State" http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14250c.htm :

The Church and the State are both perfect societies, that is to say, each essentially aiming at a common good commensurate with the need of mankind at large and ultimate in a generic kind of life, and each juridically competent to provide all the necessary and sufficient means thereto. The State is ethically demonstrated to be such, and the Church has a like demonstration from the theology of Christian Revelation. By reason of coexistence on the earth, community of subjects, and a need in common of some of the same means of activity, it is inevitable that they should have mutualrelations in the juridical order. To declare these relations in brief from an ethical viewpoint, which is the scope of the present article, it will be necessary to state:

    I. The basis of their respective rights;
    II. The range of their respective jurisdictions;
    III. Their mutual corporate relation;
    IV. The union of Church and State;
    V. Counter theories.

The most important of these would be IV. The union of Church and State.  If you don't have that, you would not have God's blessing on your State.  And without that it is doomed to failure.  So it would be your duty to make sure this is part of your State, right?  Otherwise your State has no true rights over you.

[SaintSebastian]

Otherwise your State has no true rights over you.

Faith is not required to legitimately exercise temporal authority. It's why the Lord says "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" even though Caesae was a pagan. It should go without saying that no ruler, faithful or not, can go beyond the bounds of the authority God has bestowed upon him; therefore all "laws" which command things contrary to the divine or natural law are null.

The links I provided in my previous post deal with this--see especially chapter 6 of De Laicis which addresses the rule of the pagan emperors and Nabuchodonosor and also Pope Leo's encyclicals which shows the obedience of Christians to their rulers, even the pagan ones (but they resisted their unjust commands of course).

[dymphna17]

Otherwise your State has no true rights over you.

Faith is not required to legitimately exercise temporal authority. It's why the Lord says "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" even though Caesae was a pagan. It should go without saying that no ruler, faithful or not, can go beyond the bounds of the authority God has bestowed upon him; therefore all "laws" which command things contrary to the divine or natural law are null.

The links I provided in my previous post deal with this--see especially chapter 6 of De Laicis which addresses the rule of the pagan emperors and Nabuchodonosor and also Pope Leo's encyclicals which shows the obedience of Christians to their rulers, even the pagan ones (but they resisted their unjust commands of course).

Yes, I understand "render unto Caesar etc..", but my point was that we have a duty to correct the State to follow God's laws.  It's going to happen anyway.  Do we just sit and wait for God to take it to task, or do we try to do something?  And if so, then what?

I'll read your links as soon as I get time.  Thank you for providing them. 

[icecream]

Resurrexi leads SouthpawLink in post count by one!  This is a close race!

 

(Apologies to icecream.  But I just had to use the smiley).

hey its a free forum! when walty gets that selleck avatar you can be sure i be using it too

[Resurrexi]

I think this is a revealed truth, but at the very least it's a doctrine closely connected to revealed truth and held by the Church. A Catholic cannot deny either class of doctrine.

I'm not convinced of this at all; however, I'm open to being convinced if you someone can show sufficient evidence in support of this position.

[SaintSebastian]

Did you read the two works I linked to earlier (Diuturnum of Leo XIII and De Laicis of St. Robert Bellarmine (which basically both adopt and extrapolate on the position of St. Thomas)? It seems pretty clear to me after reading them and other things that it has been the constant teaching of the Church always and everywhere--and found in Scripture--that the natural order established by God is for man to live in society with other men and for that society to be governed. To say otherwise is to violate the natural law. I've never seen any magisterial texts or writings of saints or authorized theologians that say otherwise.

Even if I am wrong about the definitiveness of this doctrine (but I don't think I am) at the very least Leo XIII's encyclical requires a religious submission of will and intellect--meaning you have to seek to assimilate with docility the doctrine he teaches unless there is a very strong and clear reason to the contrary--but I don't think you'll find any recognized Catholic authority going against it.

See also Immortale Dei of Leo XIII.

[Rosarium]

Did you read the two works I linked to earlier (Diuturnum of Leo XIII and De Laicis of St. Robert Bellarmine (which basically both adopt and extrapolate on the position of St. Thomas)? It seems pretty clear to me after reading them and other things that it has been the constant teaching of the Church always and everywhere--and found in Scripture--that the natural order established by God is for man to live in society with other men and for that society to be governed. To say otherwise is to violate the natural law. I've never seen any magisterial texts or writings of saints or authorized theologians that say otherwise.

Do you think a given government has divine right to rule or that government in general is needed?

For example, I am an anarchist. The exact political beliefs I have not been shown by anyone to be wrong and I think they are (obviously) right.

"Praise the Lord, O my soul, in my life I will praise the Lord: I will sing to my God as long as I shall be. Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation."

"It is good to trust in the Lord, rather than to trust in princes."

The commandment to live civilly does not mean we accept the inherent power of the state. We accept the existence of it, and follow the civil laws which do not interfere with higher laws, but we do not worship the state.

[SaintSebastian]

Did you read the two works I linked to earlier (Diuturnum of Leo XIII and De Laicis of St. Robert Bellarmine (which basically both adopt and extrapolate on the position of St. Thomas)? It seems pretty clear to me after reading them and other things that it has been the constant teaching of the Church always and everywhere--and found in Scripture--that the natural order established by God is for man to live in society with other men and for that society to be governed. To say otherwise is to violate the natural law. I've never seen any magisterial texts or writings of saints or authorized theologians that say otherwise.

Do you think a given government has divine right to rule or that government in general is needed?

For example, I am an anarchist. The exact political beliefs I have not been shown by anyone to be wrong and I think they are (obviously) right.

"Praise the Lord, O my soul, in my life I will praise the Lord: I will sing to my God as long as I shall be. Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation."

"It is good to trust in the Lord, rather than to trust in princes."

The commandment to live civilly does not mean we accept the inherent power of the state. We accept the existence of it, and follow the civil laws which do not interfere with higher laws, but we do not worship the state.

We don't worship the state, but it is part of the natural law that man live in society and that society have rulers. Again, see the various magisterial texts and other works I've linked to or mentioned in this thread--especially Pope Leo's Diuturnum, Immortale Dei, and St. Robert's De Laicis.

Also, the CE has some good summaries. See the subsection titled "The state, a natural society" in this article:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14074a.htm

Also, see this article:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02137c.htm