Catholicism Accepts Different Forms Of Government For The Common Good
Table of Contents
The Church Accepts Different Forms Of Government
Despite what many Catholics believe, the Church actually does accept different forms of government.
As long as the government is directed towards the common good of the people (which means it is consistent with Catholic Faith and morality) the Church accepts the form of government used.
In this article, we will go through different forms of government and show the Church accepts these.
Papal Encyclicals Teaching Different Forms of Government Valid
The Church teaches different forms of government are valid, as long as they are oriented toward the common good and moral order.
In his encyclical Immortale Dei, Pope Leo XIII writes:
The right to rule is not necessarily, however, bound up with any special mode of government. It may take this or that form, provided only that it be of a nature of the government, rulers must ever bear in mind that God is the paramount ruler of the world, and must set Him before themselves as their exemplar and law in the administration of the State. For, in things visible God has fashioned secondary causes, in which His divine action can in some wise be discerned, leading up to the end to which the course of the world is ever tending. In like manner, in civil society, God has always willed that there should be a ruling authority, and that they who are invested with it should reflect the divine power and providence in some measure over the human race.
Immortale Dei, 1885, 4
Likewise, in Au Milieu des Sollicitudes, Pope Leo XIII writes:
Various political governments have succeeded one another in France during the last century, each having its own distinctive form: the Empire, the Monarchy, and the Republic. By giving one’s self up to abstractions, one could at length conclude which is the best of these forms, considered in themselves; and in all truth it may be affirmed that each of them is good, provided it lead straight to its end – that is to say, to the common good for which social authority is constituted; and finally, it may be added that, from a relative point of view, such and such a form of government may be preferable because of being better adapted to the character and customs of such or such a nation. In this order of speculative ideas, Catholics, like all other citizens, are free to prefer one form of government to another precisely because no one of these social forms is, in itself, opposed to the principles of sound reason nor to the maxims of Christian doctrine.
Au Milieu des Sollicitudes, 1892, 14
In condemning the Sillonists, who committed the error of believing that democracy was the only legitimate form of government, Pope St. Pius X quotes Pope Leo XIII:
The Sillonists once again clash on this point with the teaching of Leo XIII. In the Encyclical on political government which We have already quoted [Diuturnum, 1881], they could have read this: “Justice being preserved, it is not forbidden to the people to choose for themselves the form of government which best corresponds with their character or with the institutions and customs handed down by their forefathers.”
Notre Charge Apostolique, 1910
So in other words, as long as the form of government is consistent with Catholic faith and morality, it is valid.
The Church On Particular Forms of Government
Let me quickly go over some popular forms of government to show whether the Church affirms or condemns them.
Democracy
Catholicism accepts democracy as a legitimate form of government, as long as it is oriented toward the common good and moral order.
Here are a few quotes from Papal Encyclicals that prove this.
In his encyclical Libertas, Pope Leo XIII addresses democracy as a form of government:
It is not of itself wrong to prefer a democratic form of government, if only the Catholic doctrine be maintained as to the origin and exercise of power. Of the various forms of government, the Church does not reject any that are fitted to procure the welfare of the subject; she wishes only – and this nature itself requires – that they should be constituted without involving wrong to any one, and especially without violating the rights of the Church.
Libertas, 1888, 44
This shows that Leo XIII, while cautious about democracy, recognizes that is can be legitimate.
Also, Pope Leo XIII even wrote an encyclical defending Christian Democracy. He wrote:
Christian Democracy, by the fact that it is Christian, is built, and necessarily so, on the basic principles of divine faith, and it must provide better conditions for the masses, with the ulterior object of promoting the perfection of souls made for things eternal. Hence, for Christian Democracy, justice is sacred; it must maintain that the right of acquiring and possessing property cannot be impugned, and it must safeguard the various distinctions and degrees which are indispensable in every well-ordered commonwealth. Finally, it must endeavor to preserve in every human society the form and the character which God ever impresses on it…
Moreover, it would be a crime to distort this name of Christian Democracy to politics, for, although democracy, both in its philological and philosophical significations, implies popular government, yet in its present application it must be employed without any political significance, so as to mean nothing else than this beneficent Christian action in behalf of the people.
Graves de Communi Re, 1901, 6-7
While criticizing aspects of secular democracy, Pope Pius XII affirms democracy based on Christian principles:
A sound democracy, based on the immutable principles of the natural law and revealed truth, will resolutely turn its back on such corruption as gives to the state legislature in unchecked and unlimited power, and moreover, makes of the democratic regime, notwithstanding an outward show to the contrary, purely and simply a form of absolutism.
Democracy And A Lasting Peace, 1944, 47
Thus, democracy is a form of government that the Church endorses, as long as it adheres to Church teaching.
Republics
Catholicism accepts republics as legitimate forms of government, as long as they are oriented toward the common good and moral order.
One of the longest lasting Catholic states in history is the Republic of Venice, which lasted 1,100 years!
Moreover, Gabriel García Moreno was president of the Republic of Ecuador.
He received praise by Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII for his martyrdom for turning Ecuador into a Catholic state.
Thus, republics are a form of government that the Church endorses, as long as they adhere to Church teaching.
Monarchies
Catholicism accepts monarchies as legitimate forms of government, as long as they are oriented toward the common good and moral order.
It’s no secret that Christendom was mostly full of monarchies throughout Europe.
Thus, monarchies are a form of government that the Church endorses, as long as they adhere to Church teaching.
Socialism and Communism
Catholicism rejects both socialism and communism as being legitimate forms of government.
Why? Because they go against Catholic teaching.
I have already written about these before, but I will reuse the quotes again, to show these are both condemned.
What does the Church say about Socialism?
Pope Leo XIII writes:
Their habit…is always to maintain that nature has made all men equal…on the contrary, in accordance with the teachings of the Gospel…The inequality of rights and of power proceeds from the very Author of nature…
Quod Apostolici Muneris, 1878, 5
Pope Leo XIII also writes:
Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal.
Rerum Novarum, 1891, 15
Moreover, Pope Pius XI writes:
Socialism…affirms that human association has been instituted for the sake of material advantage alone.
Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, 118
Society, therefore, as Socialism conceives it, can on the one hand neither exist nor be thought of without an obviously excessive use of force; on the other hand, it fosters a liberty no less false, since there is no place in it for true social authority, which rests not on temporal and material advantages but descends from God alone, the Creator and last end of all things.
Ibid., 119
Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.
Ibid., 120
What does the Church say about Communism?
Pope Pius XI writes:
Communism teaches and seeks two objectives: Unrelenting class warfare and absolute extermination of private ownership. Not secretly or by hidden methods does it do this, but publicly, openly, and by employing every and all means, even the most violent. To achieve these objectives there is nothing which it does not dare, nothing for which it has respect or reverence; and when it has come to power, it is incredible and portent like in its cruelty and inhumanity.
Ibid., 112
The Communism of today, more emphatically than similar movements in the past, conceals in itself a false messianic idea. A pseudo-ideal of justice, of equality and fraternity in labor impregnates all its doctrine and activity with a deceptive mysticism, which communicates a zealous and contagious enthusiasm to the multitudes entrapped by delusive promises. This is especially true in an age like ours, when unusual misery has resulted from the unequal distribution of the goods of this world.
Divini Redemptoris, 1937, 8
According to this doctrine there is in the world only one reality, matter, the blind forces of which evolve into plant, animal and man…In such a doctrine, as is evident, there is no room for the idea of God; there is no difference between matter and spirit, between soul and body; there is neither survival of the soul after death nor any hope in a future life…Hence they endeavor to sharpen the antagonisms which arise between the various classes of society. Thus the class struggle with its consequent violent hate and destruction takes on the aspects of a crusade for the progress of humanity. On the other hand, all other forces whatever, as long as they resist such systematic violence, must be annihilated as hostile to the human race.
Ibid., 9
Communism, moreover, strips man of his liberty, robs human personality of all its dignity, and removes all the moral restraints that check the eruptions of blind impulse. There is no recognition of any right of the individual in his relations to the collectivity;…In man’s relations with other individuals…Communists hold the principle of absolute equality, rejecting all hierarchy and divinely-constituted authority, including the authority of parents. What men call authority and subordination is derived from the community as its first and only font. Nor is the individual granted any property rights over material goods or the means of production…all forms of private property must be eradicated, for they are at the origin of all economic enslavement.
Ibid., 10
…Such a doctrine logically makes of marriage and the family a purely artificial and civil institution…There exists no matrimonial bond of a juridico-moral nature that is not subject to the whim of the individual or of the collectivity…Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is denied to parents, for it is conceived as the exclusive prerogative of the community, in whose name and by whose mandate alone parents may exercise this right.
Ibid., 11
It would have only one mission: the production of material things by means of collective labor, so that the goods of this world might be enjoyed in a paradise where each would “give according to his powers” and would “receive according to his needs.” Communism recognizes in the collectivity the right, or rather, unlimited discretion, to draft individuals for the labor of the collectivity with no regard for their personal welfare; so that even violence could be legitimately exercised to dragoon the recalcitrant against their wills. In the Communistic commonwealth morality and law would be nothing but a derivation of the existing economic order, purely earthly in origin and unstable in character. In a word. the Communists claim to inaugurate a new era and a new civilization which is the result of blind evolutionary forces culminating in a humanity without God.
Ibid., 12
Pope Pius XII writes:
If Christians declare openly the materialist and antichristian doctrine of the communists, and, mainly, if they defend it or promulgate it, “ipso facto”, do they incur in excommunication (“speciali modo”) reserved to the Apostolic See?
Affirmative
Pope Pius XII, Decree Against Communism, 1949, Q. 4
Thus, socialism and communism are condemned by the Church.
Fascism and National Socialism
Catholicism rejects both fascism and national socialism as being legitimate forms of government.
Why? Because they go against Catholic teaching.
I have also written about these before, but I will repeat the Papal quotes here.
Pope Pius XI writes, condemning Fascism:
And here We find Ourselves confronted by a mass of authentic affirmations and no less authentic facts which reveal beyond the slightest possibility of doubt the resolve (already in great measure actually put into effect) to monopolize completely the young, from their tenderest years up to manhood and womanhood, for the exclusive advantage of a party and of a regime based on an ideology which clearly resolves itself into a true, a real pagan worship of the State – the “Statolatry” which is no less in contrast with the natural rights of the family than it is in contradiction with the supernatural rights of the Church. To propose and to promote such a monopoly to persecute for this reason Catholic Action, as has been done for some time more or less openly or under cover to reach this end by striking at the Catholic Association of Youth as has lately been done; all this is truly and literally to “forbid the little children to go to Jesus Christ,” since it impedes their access to His Church and where His Church is, there is Jesus Christ. This usurpation goes so far as to snatch the young from Christ and His Church even with violence.
…
A conception of the State which makes the rising generations belong to it entirely, without any exception, from the tenderest years up to adult life, cannot be reconciled by a Catholic either with Catholic doctrine or with the natural rights of the family. It is not possible for a Catholic to accept the claim that the Church and the Pope must limit themselves to the external practices of religion (such as Mass and the Sacraments), and that all the rest of education belongs to the State.
…
You ask us, Venerable Brethren, in view of what has taken place, what is to be thought about the formula of the oath, which even little boys and girls are obliged to take, that they will execute orders without discussion from an authority which, as we have seen and experienced, can give orders against all truth and justice and in disregard of the rights of the Church and its souls, which are already by their very nature sacred and inviolable. Takers of this oath must swear to serve with all their strength, even to the shedding of blood, the cause of a revolution which snatches the young from the Church and from Jesus Christ, and which inculcates in its own young people hatred, violence and irreverence without respecting (as recent occurrences have superabundantly proved) even the person of the Pope.
…When the question is posed in such terms, the answer from the Catholic point of view, as well as from a simply human point of view, is inevitably only one, and We, Venerable Brethren, do not wish to do otherwise than confirm the answer already given. Such an oath, as it stands, is unlawful.
Non Abbiamo Bisogno, 1931, 44-57
Moreover, Pope Pius XI writes:
Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community – however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things – whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.
…
None but superficial minds could stumble into concepts of a national God, of a national religion; or attempt to lock within the frontiers of a single people, within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe, King and Legislator of all nations before whose immensity they are “as a drop of a bucket” (Isaiah xI, 15).
Mit Brennender Sorge, 1937, 8-11
Also, Pope Pius XII says this, condemning the totalitarian state:
Among the many errors which derive from the poisoned source of religious and moral agnosticism, We would draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to two in particular, as being those which more than others render almost impossible or at least precarious and uncertain, the peaceful intercourse of peoples.
…The first of these pernicious errors, widespread today, is the forgetfulness of that law of human solidarity and charity which is dictated and imposed by our common origin and by the equality of rational nature in all men, to whatever people they belong, and by the redeeming Sacrifice offered by Jesus Christ on the Altar of the Cross to His Heavenly Father on behalf of sinful mankind.But there is yet another error no less pernicious to the well-being of the nations and to the prosperity of that great human society which gathers together and embraces within its confines all races. It is the error contained in those ideas which do not hesitate to divorce civil authority from every kind of dependence upon the Supreme Being – First Source and absolute Master of man and of society – and from every restraint of a Higher Law derived from God as from its First Source. Thus they accord the civil authority an unrestricted field of action that is at the mercy of the changeful tide of human will, or of the dictates of casual historical claims, and of the interests of a few….
…The idea which credits the State with unlimited authority is not simply an error harmful to the internal life of nations, to their prosperity, and to the larger and well-ordered increase in their well-being, but likewise it injures the relations between peoples, for it breaks the unity of supra-national society, robs the law of nations of its foundation and vigor, leads to violation of others’ rights and impedes agreement and peaceful intercourse.
…A disposition, in fact, of the divinely sanctioned natural order divides the human race into social groups, nations or States, which are mutually independent in organization and in the direction of their internal life. But for all that, the human race is bound together by reciprocal ties, moral and juridical, into a great commonwealth directed to the good of all nations and ruled by special laws which protect its unity and promote its prosperity.
…Now no one can fail to see how the claim to absolute autonomy for the State stands in open opposition to this natural way that is inherent in man – nay, denies it utterly – and therefore leaves the stability of international relations at the mercy of the will of rulers, while it destroys the possibility of true union and fruitful collaboration directed to the general good.
Summi Pontificatus,1939, 34-73
Thus, fascism and national socialism are condemned by the Church.
Forms Of Government Conclusion
In conclusion, Catholicism accepts many forms of government as being legitimate, just as long as they are consistent with Catholic teaching.
The Church only rejects those forms of government that by their very nature reject Catholic teaching.
A lot of syncretists will argue here and say that you could just remove the problematic parts and make them fit.
Let’s consider this.
If you allowed private ownership of the means of production, would communism still be communism?
Also, if you allowed the state to be subservient to the Church in matters of Faith and morality, would fascism still be fascism?
I would argue the answer is “no” to both of those questions.
Plus, why be attached to forms of government the Church rejects, when it is open to anything that doesn’t contradict Church teaching?
Also, for those who argue that of the forms of government allowed by the Church, we should choose one and reject the rest.
You are welcome to your own pious opinion.
But at the same time, please don’t speak for the Church in such matter.
Please remember that one of the errors that Pope St. Pius X condemned of the Sillonists is their insistence of Democracy as being the only legitimate form of government.
Hopefully, this article helped you, my dear reader, in understanding what the Church teaches regarding the forms of government.
Thanks for reading, and God bless!