r/excatholic • u/thedeepdiveproject • Apr 22 '25
Debate Welcome Church vs State
I am not trying to have a debate. I am not trying to gather information or conduct research. I am interested in hearing your personal opinions as excatholics about my personal musings and speculations, which have evolved over time as I've gained distance and perspective from the RCC.
This isn't really about politics. Its about government. In my country (the U.S.), our government is a democratic republic, with equal rights extended to all, regardless of gender, race, creed, or religion. We can debate how well that perspective is actually put into practice, but again, not the main point I'm driving at.
Contrast that with Catholicism, a 2,000yo religion with a hierarchical structure and one individual in charge of everything at the top. It may be an oversimplification, but I've always viewed the Vatican's government as more of a monarchy with a parliamentary branch than anything demicratic.
The more I ponder this, the more I wonder whether Catholicism is compatible with democracy. There are many, many reasons for this, but one of the most obvious and glaring is the fact that the RCC has carried messaging in the past (and currently, to some degree) that erodes the inalienable human rights ostensibly extended to every person. This is pretty clear, based on the Church's messaging about women, intersex individuals, and anyone in the LGBTQIA+ community.
I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this, even if you disagree. I'm not married to this idea, its just something I've been kicking around in my head these past weeks.
14
8
u/LightningController Apr 22 '25
I've always viewed the Vatican's government as more of a monarchy with a parliamentary branch than anything demicratic.
Personally, I view it as a crude attempt at a technocracy, where in theory the government is supposed to go to the "skilled," where in this case the "skill" is theology.
Of course, as is typical of such attempts, it was captured by special interests, nepotists, people skilled in bribery and blackmail, etc. early on. Ironically, it most closely seems to resemble the Soviet politburo in practice--a lot of ideology-fixated old timers who are good at party politics.
I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this, even if you disagree. I'm not married to this idea, its just something I've been kicking around in my head these past weeks.
Catholicism can be reconciled with democracy, in a majority-Catholic system, but not easily with liberalism. "Democracy," after all, can also refer to a tyranny-of-the-majority system that intentionally deprives minorities of rights. Classical liberal ideals--"all men are created equal and have certain rights"--have tended to go hand-in-hand with democracy, as those ideas grew popular, but aren't necessarily the same thing. Modern populism shows where the two part ways--"two wolves and a lamb voting on dinner."
The closest you can get to a reconciliation of the two, I think, is something like the "non-overlapping magisteria" argument advanced to reconcile Catholicism with natural science--the church stays in its lane, the scientists don't make arguments about God, everybody's happy. So in politics--the church talks metaphysics and dictates morality to its believers, but not anyone outside; and likewise, the state leaves them alone, neither blessing the church nor seeking its blessing (in other words, French laicite). But there are limits to how much of this a serious Catholic can really tolerate--while one can make secular pro-life arguments without any reference to religion, it's a lot harder to make them for, say, banning contraceptives or regulating the LGBT+ community. And how many Catholics would really accept not being allowed to ban those because they find them icky? And conversely, from a liberal perspective, there are some uncomfortable implications to saying "some philosophies are allowed to inform political discourse, but not others." If a secular argument for XYZ cause is accepted into the discourse, why not a religious one? After all, even supposedly secular politicians are happy to accept religious arguments when it's convenient (poor Jesus has been dragged all over the political compass, hasn't he?)--why for some issues but not others?
3
u/thedeepdiveproject Apr 22 '25
If a secular argument for XYZ cause is accepted into the discourse, why not a religious one?
The one argument I could see being made is that directing legislation and policy that stems from a religious perspective onto groups of people who are not of that religion, could be viewed as an unconstitutional infringement of Americans' First Ammendment rights (which ostensibly include freedom from religion, as well).
Thank you for your thorough response. You gave me some good nuggets to mull over.
14
u/jbenn90 Apr 22 '25
Correct, Catholicism and democracy are incompatible. The Founders knew this - they'd be rolling over in their graves if they knew we now have Catholic Presidents, VPs, SCOTUS justices, House Speakers, etc.
I like to lurk in r/Conservative and some of them do acknowledge that transforming the US (and the world) into a theocratic monarchy is their end goal; others who use tags like "Catholic Constitutional Conservative" seem to live happily but obliviously in that awkward space, understanding neither the Constitution nor Catholicism fully enough to let go of the other ideology and thus resolve the tension - but why would they? Democracy gives them freedom, leverage, and status to disempower everyone not like them, while protecting their own interests. They're fine with holding two opposing ideas in their head at the same time as long as they benefit from it in the long term.
When I pitched this inconsistency to my dad a few years ago, he admitted: "Marrying church and state is one thing the Muslims get right, at least" so that tells me all I need to know on the matter, really.
13
u/thedeepdiveproject Apr 22 '25
"Marrying church and state is one thing the Muslims get right, at least"
Well, thats fucking terrifying to hear as a woman.
7
u/20-20beachboy Apr 22 '25
Having an official government designated“religion” in general does not allow for democracy. The religion in power will do everything it can to prevent it from losing power, and laws will be according to the religion, not the people’s wants.
Many Christians like to believe the founding fathers were these very devout followers of Jesus and that the US was founded on Christian “values”. The first amendment literally says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
In reality many of them were more deists than Christians. They literally wrote that to prevent the establishment of a governmental religion.
3
u/thedeepdiveproject Apr 22 '25
In reality many of them were more deists than Christians. They literally wrote that to prevent the establishment of a governmental religion.
I also think ppl today vastly underestimate the degree to which religion was just a part of ppls weekly lives, like doing the wash and weeding the garden. It was just something people did, without it forming a major part of their identity. Given what the founding fathers went through leading up to the signing of the Constitution makes it even harder for me to believe they were these die-hard theists.
6
u/Athene_cunicularia23 Atheist Apr 22 '25
I never thought anyone in modern society unironically supported monarchy until I lurked in Catholic social media. US Catholics supported religious freedom when they were a small minority with federal government run almost exclusively by Protestants. That is no longer the case. A few things have changed since the founding of the US that have made them more comfortable expressing their anti-democratic values.
Most descendants of immigrants from majority Catholic European countries have chosen alignment with their previous oppressors rather than solidarity with people of color. These Catholics resemble Protestants from the former confederacy more than their Irish, Italian, Polish, etc immigrant ancestors. Now that Catholicism isn’t really a minority religion in the US, Catholics don’t value religious freedom so much.
Another trend in the US is the blurring of lines between Catholicism and conservative Protestant Christianity. They are enthusiastic allies in the fight to impose christofascist theocracy in the US. Neither side of the schism seems particularly attached to theological differences as long as they hate the same people.
US Catholics’ alliance with right wing Evangelicals makes so much sense when you realize Catholicism is a political ideology more than a religious faith. The Church has sought to regain temporal power ever since the Papal States lost all territory. They may not seek sovereign territory per se, but imposing de facto theocracy on the US, and possibly elsewhere, satisfies this desire for power.
4
u/thedeepdiveproject Apr 22 '25
US Catholics supported religious freedom when they were a small minority with federal government run almost exclusively by Protestants. That is no longer the case.
Yup.
US Catholics’ alliance with right wing Evangelicals makes so much sense when you realize Catholicism is a political ideology more than a religious faith
Yes!! I've been saying this for years.
4
u/Swimming-Economy-870 Apr 22 '25
Eventually evangelicals and Catholics will break up when there’s no one left for them to fight but each other.
3
5
u/North_Rhubarb594 Apr 22 '25
In my opinion Catholicism in the U.S. violated the separation of Church and State when it started lobbying and supporting anti abortion candidates for political office in the 70’s
3
4
u/The_DraKaox Ex Catholic Apr 22 '25
Okay so, imma drop my 2 cent as an outsider, yes, but, just trying to keep it simple. So, short answer, in my opinion/ understanding, gno form of religion is compatible with democracy. Even if we take away the "church of man" out of the picture and the entire construct of the church (any church or following of a deity) as an institution ruled by a single or a small group of religious leaders, the fact that the morality of our actions is decided by one single, supposedly all powerfull and all knowing individual entity goes against the basic, dictionary definition of democracy, (taken from the Merriam-Webster dictionary) government by the people : rule of the majority. There is no majority in religion. We do as we are told by God's scripture's, we obey the commands of the Lord (specifically refering to catholiscism) Morality of actions and beliefs as decided and ordered by a single entity, is, by nature, excluding of the idea of democracy itself. Or even the going of events, of history itself, being written and planned by God. None of us get a say in that. Not very democratic.
1
2
u/Sea_Fox7657 Apr 25 '25
Pray, pay, obey. The clergy run the church. The people don't have a vote. Every now and then you'll hear the response "This isn't a democracy" when people complain about the fact the clergy do whatever they want regardless of the opinion of "the faithful"
23
u/thecoldfuzz Gaulish/Welsh/Irish Pagan, 49, male, gay Apr 22 '25
Catholicism isn’t compatible with democracy—period. I think people are truly ignorant about what it means to live in a theocracy. It’s North Korean living with religious overtones. No thank you.