|
|
|
|
|
|
by toyg
49 days ago
|
|
|
> This sounds like a whiggish progressive distortion of history. Proceeds to argue that the Catholic Church is not in the business of policy, when it ran an actual, sizeable _nation state_ all the way to 1870 and in fact was extremely pissy when it was taken from them. And you call me distorting? Lol. They are in the business of policy, they've always been. Dude, I'm from a city that was directly ruled by popes for centuries. We've dealt with all that rubbish over and over, Gelasius' swords etc etc. The reality is that the institution does what it does in order to survive and maintain as much power and influence as possible, by any means necessary. They will find ways to justify anything and its opposite, because theology is just a literary game. Rerum novarum was an attempt to maintain power and influence in a situation where their power system was fundamentally challenged (or unmasked, some would say). It remained a niche and largely ignored effort all the way to Council II. For all the effort of some local clergy, most of the real powerbrokers in the Catholic Church still don't give two shits about redistribution and social justice, and never will. |
|
|
Yes, there actually is a distinction between ecclesiastical authority and secular authority. The same person can hold both secular and ecclesiastical offices. The Church - the institution - wasn't deciding policy in the Papal States, and it is not deciding it in the Holy See today. It is simply nonsensical to claim that.
Of course, the Church does maintain that all states must conform their laws (ius civile/lex) to the natural and divine law, but that's a general moral claim. I think most sane people would reject positivist conceptions of law as crazy and tyrannical, and would agree that the civil law should be a determination of general moral principles according to particular circumstances within a jurisdiction, and not arbitrary. Policy thus properly belongs to the state which is guardian of the particular common good of its jurisdiction. So, yeah, I would expect someone holding both offices to enact policies that coherently agree with the teaching he is transmitting through his ecclesiastical office. But as I said, the Church already expects all secular authority to conform prudently to the natural law at the very least, and the fullness of the Church's teachings if they are a Catholic confessional state.
But more to the point, it is irrelevant, because even if the Church had been directly deciding policy in the Papal States, it wouldn't follow that the Church has the authority to enact policy just anywhere. Its authority rests above it, like a referee.