I know that some key fighters for Irish independence were Anglican, and that Ireland has had an ambivalent relationship with Catholicism in modern times. That said, has there been any serious effort by Irish Catholic bishops to reclaim Church of Ireland properties like Christ Church Cathedral or St. Patrick's Cathedral?

According to Catholic moral theologians, does voting for a pro-abortion candidate constitute formal cooperation in the politician's crime of promoting child killing? My question is very similar to "Does the Catholic Church teach that it is sinful to vote for a pro-abortion politician? ", but I am more interested whether such an action is formal or material cooperation .

Are Catholics allowed to oppose women holding public office? related question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103246/1787

Are Catholics allowed to oppose women's suffrage? related question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103247/1787

Within American evangelicalism a debate has recently been reignited on economic policy, and I've been astonished at the number of people saying that some or all taxation should be considered to be theft. This recent debate got started with a blog post by Rick Phillips on the Alliance of Confessing Evangelical's Reformation21 site, entitled ["Socialism Is Evil"](http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/02/socialism-is-evil.php) : > So, biblically speaking, why is socialism evil? ... Because socialism is a system based on stealing. The whole point of socialism is for the government to seize control of private property, mainly involving the proceeds of peoples' work, in order to give it to others. (Note the compulsory aspect of socialism, which so differs from voluntary forms of communalism.) This activity is the very thing pronounced as evil by the 8th Commandment: "You shall not steal" (Ex. 20:15). ... While there is a legitimate basis for government taxation, the simple taking of one's possessions in order to give them to others is not one of them. Socialism is evil because it inherently involves stealing. R. C. Sproul Jr [has written](http://rcsprouljr.com/blog/the-non-volunteer-state/) : > Now, in my political circles, there are plenty of hot-headed young men that love to make the claim, have as their own particular banner, “Taxation is theft.” I’m not sure what I think about that, I do believe certainly, at the very least, that any taxation above and beyond what is needed to do the biblically and constitutionally limited functions of government is in fact theft, but even if you don’t believe that, you have to recognize at least this, that taxation is done by force. That’s why it’s called taxation. That’s its defining quality. It is the government taking wealth from its citizens. You can say it’s not theft if you want, but it has in common with theft that you don’t have a choice. When a man comes up to you with a gun in his hand and he says “Your money or your life”, he doesn’t mean “I’m going to give you a choice. You can keep your life or you can keep your money.” There is no choice where you get to keep your money. If he takes your life, do you know what he’s going to do next? He’s going to take your money. He also [reportedly wrote](http://theweeflea.com/2016/02/23/is-the-church-capitalist-is-the-american-church-too-compromised-with-the-culture/) : > I wonder if the author would affirm that any tax can be theft. His argument that Jesus said to pay our taxes, means that taxes can’t be theft is odd. I wonder if, because Jesus says we should give our shirt to someone who takes our coat that taking coats cannot be theft. And in [a comments section on theweeflea.com](http://theweeflea.com/2016/02/22/is-socialism-satanic-why-has-the-alliance-of-confessing-evangelicals-gone-all-political/#comments) , several other people agreed and put forwards arguments that taxation was theft: > Socialism is theft, as all taxation is theft. Yes, Christ told us to render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and because of that, I do… but that doesn’t negate the act of taxation being theft just like “if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” doesn’t negate the first slap from being assault. If I saw someone getting punched in the face, especially if they are a non-Christian, I wouldn’t tell him “That’s not assault, as Christ told you to turn your other cheek as well.” No, it’s assault and all taxation is theft. How are we to react? Just like Christ told us. But it doesn’t absolve the aggressor (Caesar or an abuser) of their sin. [](http://theweeflea.com/2016/02/22/is-socialism-satanic-why-has-the-alliance-of-confessing-evangelicals-gone-all-political/#comment-7091) > > Are you seriously saying that taxation is not theft, simply because Christ told His followers to pay Caesar? What about our non-believing neighbors that abhor paying taxes? I understand that Christ’s words are binding on my soul, they compel me, but my non-Christian neighbor doesn’t feel that way. Is it theft for him? Who will stick up for him? [](http://theweeflea.com/2016/02/22/is-socialism-satanic-why-has-the-alliance-of-confessing-evangelicals-gone-all-political/#comment-7097) > > So are taxes theft? Absolutely. We submit to paying those taxes only because the consequences of not paying them are worse. This is no different than a highway bandit that positions himself at the beginning of a route and demands all passers-by pay a toll in exchange for “safe passage” along the road. Is the bandit a thief? Or a champion of wealth redistribution? You are splitting hairs. [](http://theweeflea.com/2016/02/22/is-socialism-satanic-why-has-the-alliance-of-confessing-evangelicals-gone-all-political/#comment-7101) As an outsider to the American situation, from a country which must seem extremely socialistic to those who hold views such as these (because of course *only* socialists could support universal health care), this taxation-is-theft idea seems like a political ideology its adherents have unquestioningly accepted, which they then confused with their theology, and have then desperately looked for any proof texts they can find to support their position. But is this the case? Or is there a longer theological history and background to this economic policy? Can this position be traced back to before the modern libertarian ideology arose?

Is a Catholic who belongs to a political party that supports sins in its party platform excommunicated? Before Vatican II, a Catholic belonging to the Communist Party (or any other association machinating against the Church) was *ipso facto* excommunicated. 1917 Code of Canon Law : >Can. 2335— Those giving their name to masonic sects or other associations of this sort that machinate against the Church or legitimate civil powers contract by that fact excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See. 1983 Code of Canon Law : >Can. 1374— A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict.

According to Catholic theologians, is every lawfully-constituted civil authority divinely-instituted like the Church (Mt. 16:18-19 )? Pope Leo XIII, in his 1881 encyclical on the origin of civil power, *Diuturnum * §8, says that "political power […] comes from God"; cf. Romans 13:1-5 .

I have some but not much idea about the differences between Mainline and Evangelical. I looked up the two words in dictionary, but I am wondering what relations are between their general non-religious meanings to their religious usages? For example, I can't tell how the meanings in https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mainline relate to its religious usage.

***Jehovah’s Witnesses take a neutral stance in politics and in the military.*** Participating in politics or becoming a member of the armed forces is a serious offence that can result in a baptised Witness being disfellowshipped from the organisation. This article explains why Jehovah's Witnesses will not engage in warfare and says, in part: >Christians chose to remain politically neutral. No injustice or threat to them or the country in which they lived justified taking part in military action. (["Is War Compatible With Christianity?"](https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20091001/Is-War-Compatible-With-Christianity/) , Watchtower October 2009) Shepherd the Flock of God (2011) Elder’s Manual – includes the following as a disfellowship offence: >No 19 – Non-neutral activities (involvement in politics and the military) – Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock (ks91-E) p.96 >No 20 – Military service and non-military service including working casual work (certain civilian work has recently been made a conscience matter Watchtower 96 5/1 p.20) – Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock (ks91-E) p.96 I can understand why being trained to kill and using weapons to kill the enemy can be deemed as a serious offence, resulting in disciplinary action being taken. ***But how does political neutrality affect employment that is NOT connected with the military?*** What if a Jehovah’s Witness is employed as a civilian within, for example, the police or a political department within Government? Take someone working in public office in the finance department, or in administration, or as a secretary/stenographer. Would that level of employment be viewed as a serious offence? P.S. This question, asked in 2017, deals mainly with being conscripted into an army but does not deal with the question of employment within an organisation deemed to have political links: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/57385/have-jehovahs-witnesses-always-been-politically-neutral

Has any monk or nun in Church history ever left a monastery to be married to a king or queen? St. Margaret of Hungary , according to *Short Lives of the Dominican Saints* p. 16 , almost did: >Her parents afterwards obtained a Papal dispensation in order to marry her to the King of Bohemia, but this only gave Margaret an opportunity of showing that her religious life was the result of her own free choice, for no prayers or entreaties would induce her to quit the cloister. Addressing the question of whether it is expedient to marry, Fr. Thomas Crean, O.P., writes : >There could also be other reasons why it could be expedient for him to marry, for example, if some great good of a spiritual nature would result for a multitude, for example, woman who foresees that she would convert her pagan husband who is a very powerful man, such as a king, or some other man of great power. Despite the common good being greater than an individual's good , St. Thomas Aquinas argues that an individual religious person (monk or nun) cannot be called back to the world, no matter the human good that may result (II-II q. 88 a. 11 "Whether it is possible to be dispensed from a solemn vow of continency?" arg./ad 1; Freddoso transl. PDF pp. 2395,7): > \[arg. 1:\] one reason for granting a dispensation in the case of a vow is that the vow impedes a greater good. But a vow of continence, even if it is a solemn vow, can be an obstacle to a greater good, since the common good is more godlike than is the good of a single individual. But someone’s continence can impede the good of the whole multitude, e.g., when the peace of the fatherland could be secured through a contract of marriage between persons who have vowed continence. Therefore, it seems that a dispensation can be granted in the case of a solemn vow of continence. > > Una enim ratio dispensandi in voto est si sit impeditivum melioris boni, sicut dictum est. Sed votum continentiae, etiam si sit solemne, potest esse impeditivum melioris boni, nam bonum commune est divinius quam bonum unius; potest autem per continentiam alicuius impediri bonum totius multitudinis, puta si quando per contractum matrimonii aliquarum personarum quae continentiam voverunt, posset pax patriae procurari. Ergo videtur quod in solemni voto continentiae possit dispensari. > > \[ad 1:\] The dangers associated with human things should by obviated by means of human things and not by means of divine things being turned to human use. But those who have professed the religious state are dead to the world and life for God. Hence, they are not to be called back to human life by reason of any turn of events whatsoever. > > Ad primum ergo dicendum quod periculis rerum humanarum est obviandum per res humanas, non autem per hoc quod res divinae convertantur in usum humanum. Professi autem religionem mortui sunt mundo et vivunt Deo. Unde non sunt revocandi ad vitam humanam occasione cuiuscumque eventus. My question here is sort of the converse of: "Are Catholics allowed to leave marriage in order to become a monk or nun? " Religious like Pope St. Celestine V have been recalled from their monasteries to become bishops—though the episcopal state is a more perfect state than the religious state , because "bishops are in the position of 'perfecters'" of others, which is a greater thing than those (religious) who "are in the position of being 'perfected'" (e.g., as a teacher is greater than his students or a general than his soldiers).

Is there any biblical justification for a monarchy in either the New or Old Testament of the bible (ie a system of government with a monarch at the head) and if so where in the bible do we see this?

The Book [Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth](https://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Reza-Aslan-audiobook/dp/B00DYMLQEU/) by Reza Aslan argues that Jesus was actually a Zealot, a Jewish revolutionary attempting to challenge Roman rule. Christians will overwhelmingly reject this hypothesis, but I think the book may help us in some ways to understand the human side of Jesus and is very well argued. I would like to see answers about what readers learned from the book. Those who only saw reviews and excerpts are welcome to answer too, but please provide evidence, not just opinions. Aslan sees Jesus as attempting to fulfill the Zealots' hope for the Jewish messiah, who would re-establish his people's independence from Rome and become the literal king of the Jews. In other words, Jesus actually attempted to do what the Roman government executed him for. Writes [Gary Manning Jr. of the Talbot School of Theology](https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2013/a-response-to-zealot-by-reza-aslan) : > [Aslan claims that] ...like other messianic figures of his day [Jesus] > called for the violent expulsion of Rome from Israel. Driven by > religious zeal, Jesus believed that God would empower him to become > the king of Israel and overturn the hierarchical social order. Jesus > believed that God would honor the zeal of his lightly armed disciples > and give them victory. Instead, Jesus was crucified as a > revolutionary. Early Christians changed the story of Jesus to make him > into a peaceful shepherd. They did this for two reasons: because > Jesus’ actual prediction had failed, and because the Roman destruction > of rebellious Jerusalem in AD 70 made Jesus’ real teachings both > dangerous and unpopular. Paul radically changed the identity of Jesus > from human rebel to divine Son of God, against the wishes of other > leaders like Peter and James. This summary is basically accurate. However, I found important food for thought in the book: - Why does the angel tell Mary the "Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end. - Why does Zechariah prophesy of that: "[God] has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all who hate us... (Luke 1) - Why did Jesus begin his ministry in Nazareth by quoting Isaiah to the effect he had been sent to "set at liberty those who are oppressed"? (Luke 40) - Why did he say "I came not for peace but the sword?" (Matthew 10:34) - What was Simon the Zealot doing with Jesus if he was still a Zealot? - Why did Jesus use violence against the moneychangers at the same time that there was an insurrection going on led by Barabbas - Was it just a coincidence that Jesus was imprisoned with these revolutionaries? - Why did he tell his disciples to bring swords to the Garden of Gethsemane? (Luke 22:38) I found myself thinking deeply about the human side of Jesus while reading this book. Particularly, it gave me a possible insight into Jesus' agony in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the Cross. Did part of him pray so desperately that God would "let this cup pass" because he hoped to fulfill the prophecies of a Davidic messiah who would literally restore David's throne? Did Jesus tell his disciples to brig swords to the Garden to protect him from those who would come to arrest him? Did the disciples commit a providential error when they fell asleep? When he cried out "why have you forsaken me?" was he still, even at that moment, hoping that God would rescue him so that he could fight on? Personally I do not think that Jesus was a Zealot, but I do think that he might have had hopes to be the Jewish messiah in some sense. Those hopes, of course, could not be fulfilled if Jesus were to realize God's will that he act as the Suffering Servant. But they might have figured into to the human aspirations he had to leave behind at Gethsemane, and even on the Cross. **What other questions does Aslan's book raise for us, and what insights can we gain from reading his book, whether we agree with it or not?**

What was the Cathars' or Albigensians' political philosophy? Was it the same as the Manicheans'? Who were these movements' prominent political philosopher-theologians? All these dualists thought that marriage and the body were evil; so it would seem that they would think the family, the fundamental cell of society, is evil, too, and thus all of civil society evil.

My friend is a very strong Progressive Christian and I am a somewhat Conservative Christian. He said that I contradict myself, calling myself a Conservative and a Christian. He contends that Conservatives show a lack of care for the poor. Can a Christian be a Conservative, or do they have to be a liberal Progressive?

I know the Catholic Church excommunicates Catholics who join Freemasonic lodges, as well as Catholics who the Church judges to be willful heretics. But has the Church ever excommunicated a Catholic purely for being a member of a Communist or National Socialist party? The Church has never excommunicated Adolf Hitler, and some other Catholics who belong to Marxists groups, so I'm curious.

Anarchy is the belief that the state in all its forms should be abolished (by rebellion or other means) and replaced entirely by groups that freely associate with each other. What doctrines or disciplines would prevent a faithful Catholic from believing in anarchy? Does the Church teach the necessity of the state? Jesus says to pay taxes to rulers and Paul says to respect them but there is no mention on their necessity.

Romans 13:1-2 (ESV): >Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. Note the “do not resist the authorities”. If you read the book of acts, you will find many instances of the disciples preaching the gospel (even after being commanded not to by the governing authorities) and being jailed for it. Thus, my question. Do the acts of the disciples contradict Romans 13:1-2?

Did any Catholic theologians think the State ever has the right to correct the Church in theological matters? For example, when Pope John XXII (r. 1316-1334) denied the then-material (i.e., not-yet-infallibly-defined) dogma that the souls of the deceased destined to heaven behold the Beatific Vision immediately after death, he had >the gravest responsibilities before the tribunal of history [since] he offered the entire Church the humiliating spectacle of the **princes** [French King Philip the Fair, Emperor Louis IV the Bavarian, Philip VI of Valois], clergy [cardinals] and universities [Chancellor Jean Gerson of U. of Paris's theology college, the Sorbonne] **steering the Pontiff onto the right path of Catholic theological tradition**, and placed himself in the very difficult situation of having to contradict himself.
—Cdl. Alfredo Idelfonso Schuster, O.S.B., *Gesù Cristo nella Storia della Chiesa* (Benedictina Editrice, Rome 1996), 116–17, quoted in De Mattei, *Love for the Papacy and Filial Resistance to the Pope in the History of the Church* cf. "When did a 'formal act of correction' of a pope's statement happen in the past? "

Pope Pius XI, encyclical *Quas primas* (1925) instituting the feast of Christ the King, says that the "lordship of Christ […] consists […] in a [threefold [tripartite] power][2] which is essential to lordship" (§14): 1. **Legislative**:

• "If you keep *my commandments*, you shall abide in my love: as I also have kept my Father's commandments and do abide in his love." (Jn. 15:10 ; also Jn. 14:15 )
• "If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey: let him be anathema." (*Conc. Trid.* Sess. VI, can. 21 )

2. **Judicial**: "neither does the Father judge any man: but hath given all *judgment to the Son*." (Jn. 5:22 ) 3. **Executive**: "Executive power, too, belongs to Christ, for all must obey his commands; none may escape them, nor the sanctions he has imposed." Cdl. Ottaviani, *Compendium Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici* (1954) defines each of these powers:
1. Legislative: "right of determining in an obligatory manner the things which are necessary and useful for attaining the end of the society" (p. 43)
2. Judicial: "the right of declaring and proposing in an obligatory manner which concrete acts of subjects are conformed or contrary to right, and the legitimate effects of this conformity or contrariety" (p. 49)
3. Executive: "right of enforcing the application of laws and sentences, of directing persons or of disposing of things, and of removing all obstacles which impede the full possession of the social end" (p. 61) Pius XI shows the tripartite power is united in the one Divine Person, the Son. Yet Jn. 15:10 shows that the Father and the Son both have legislative powers, but Jn. 5:22 shows the Father does not have judicial power (at least not over men). And what about the Holy Ghost's power of governing the Church? As Cdl. Manning wrote in *Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost* p. 68 : >from the indissoluble union of the Holy Spirit with the Church flow […] the *endowments* of the Church; namely, Indefectibility in life and duration, Infallibility in teaching, and **Authority in governing** the flock of Jesus Christ. ¿Have theologians compared the tripartite division of authority to the Trinity, e.g.: 1. Father → legislative 2. Son → judicial 3. Holy Ghost → executive

Full Libertarianism is generally accepted as incompatible with Catholic teaching. What parts are generally opposed to Catholicism and the Catechism?