not to devalue any aspect of it, wondering why is it not even democratic and still gives the feel of dictatorship.
AStonesThrow•9mo ago
Well, for starters, Vatican City is an absolute monarchy. There is simply nothing about it which is “democratic” and nobody needs to apologize for having a system of government that you don’t approve.
Secondly, that “absolute monarchial” system is quite impeded by the current lack of a monarch, and therefore operates on strict rules where not a lot of said rules can be changed or revoked, only carried out. There is, in fact, no dictator at all to dictate anything, only a devolved sort of “regency” keeping things intact until a new election can be accomplished.
serf•9mo ago
>nobody needs to apologize for having a system of government that you don’t approve.
that was never implied, and the question parent posited was never answered.
Given the world landscape, and the obvious and apparent trend towards democratization by nearly all of the worlds' actors -- it's a curiosity why this trend hasn't seemed to grab at the Vatican.
There are plenty of ancient/old organizations that have reorganized their political and internal structures to abide recent trends, it's at the very least interesting that the Vatican has moved so slowly in deciding what to keep and what to toss. We have seen plenty of monarchies transition into other organizations, it's not somehow rare -- but the Vatican has resisted this; it's interesting and worthy of discussion.
AStonesThrow•9mo ago
It is interesting if you consider that the Roman Curia has been reformed at least 3 times in the past 60 years, rather dramatically, in fact.
The other fact, that Popes not long ago enjoyed significant temporal power over the Papal States and Holy Roman Empire, shows that the Papacy has indeed been one of the most dynamic and enduring forms of governance in the world.
I fail to see why anyone, especially inconsequential worthless outsiders, would demand that they “go with the flow” and become democratic, for no particular reason, other than it is the new hotness in the world and it may help you win Sid Meier games?
curias•9mo ago
> Given the world landscape, and the obvious and apparent trend towards democratization by nearly all of the worlds' actors -- it's a curiosity why this trend hasn't seemed to grab at the Vatican.
I don't find it obvious that a church (with a "higher calling") should necessarily follow trends by secular governments with different purposes. As best I understand (being not a Catholic), The Vatican is not a frail government at risk of being overthrown by discontented citizens but rather a representative of divine authority to its "citizens" (i.e. Catholics worldwide). Why would it need to change its governmental structure to follow trends in secular governments?
I'm also unsure what to think of the idea that "nearly all the world's actors" are democratized. While most countries are nominally republics in some fashion, it's probably too simplistic to think they are all similarly democratized. For example, Russia is on Wikipedia's list of "presidential-parliamentary" governments[0] but in practice it's likely a pure dictatorship.
As an aside, there is an interesting report from Varieties of Democracy[1] indicating that world governments are roughly split 50/50 between democratic and autocratic implementations but 71% of the worlds population are under the latter[2]. I don't know this organization, but they look legitimate at a cursory glance and thinking about the numbers in terms of affected population is interesting. The "apparent trend towards democratization" may not be as apparent as you think?
> We have seen plenty of monarchies transition into other organizations, it's not somehow rare -- but the Vatican has resisted this
This is not surprising? I might need to read more history books but it seems like other monarchies, including ones where the head of state is also the head of a church, have an actual state to manage. The Vatican (again, I might just be uninformed) seems to be just a church? It answers to a deity, not its members, and has no purpose other than the perpetuation of its deity's mission. It is a sovereign City State, but no meaningful trade or military footprint. Contrast that with the British monarchs who ran the Church of England but also _The British Empire_.
The better question is: why would you think popular democracy is a good thing, especially where the Church is concerned? In the Church's understanding of itself, the pope is the vicar of Christ, which is to say, he represents Christ on earth, not the people. What you suggest is an inversion. It would be horrifying to authority, especially moral and religious authority, to democratic rule. And self-refuting.
It is a common fallacy in liberal democratic societies to believe that not only is democratic rule necessarily a sign of social political progress, and that democracies somehow guard against bad politics, but also that anything that isn't democratic is ipso facto a dictatorship. This is not the case and it is a caricature that has been encouraged by some with an ax to grind against monarchies, categorically. Monarchies in general are bound by numerous obligations, traditions, duties, institutions, etc. that weigh heavily on a monarch. He is not some god who is at liberty to do whatever he wants. Indeed, as is the case with the presidency, even the honor that is due to a monarch is not because of who occupies the throne (he may very well be a scoundrel), but in virtue of the office.
The pope is no different. In fact, his role as pope is highly constrained. He only has authority to guard the deposit of faith, not to innovate. He is "not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on" [0]. Prelates, including the pope, if they err, can be corrected, even publicly if the error was publicly made, for his own benefit and the benefit of the Church. The pope is not supposed to micromanage the Church either. They should instead enable bishops to do their jobs. This is the true meaning of leadership: to serve those you lead by enabling them to be who they are and to do what they are called to do. Popes and bishops are best thought of as referees. Frankly, that is what a good monarchy is like.
(Curiously, contrary to the image peddled by the media of the "kindly pope", Francis was unusually dictatorial in temperament. Many felt alienated by his imperious, heavy-handed style. He routinely avoided discussion with bishops and allowed problems to fester as a result. In part, the excess centralization of power in the papacy beyond the authority prudently circumscribed to it is a development that arose in the 19th century, most notably in the form of an ultramontane reaction to Gallicanism and hostile revolutionary attacks on the Church, like the bloody ones in France we like to downplay.)
b0a04gl•9mo ago
AStonesThrow•9mo ago
Secondly, that “absolute monarchial” system is quite impeded by the current lack of a monarch, and therefore operates on strict rules where not a lot of said rules can be changed or revoked, only carried out. There is, in fact, no dictator at all to dictate anything, only a devolved sort of “regency” keeping things intact until a new election can be accomplished.
serf•9mo ago
that was never implied, and the question parent posited was never answered.
Given the world landscape, and the obvious and apparent trend towards democratization by nearly all of the worlds' actors -- it's a curiosity why this trend hasn't seemed to grab at the Vatican.
There are plenty of ancient/old organizations that have reorganized their political and internal structures to abide recent trends, it's at the very least interesting that the Vatican has moved so slowly in deciding what to keep and what to toss. We have seen plenty of monarchies transition into other organizations, it's not somehow rare -- but the Vatican has resisted this; it's interesting and worthy of discussion.
AStonesThrow•9mo ago
The other fact, that Popes not long ago enjoyed significant temporal power over the Papal States and Holy Roman Empire, shows that the Papacy has indeed been one of the most dynamic and enduring forms of governance in the world.
I fail to see why anyone, especially inconsequential worthless outsiders, would demand that they “go with the flow” and become democratic, for no particular reason, other than it is the new hotness in the world and it may help you win Sid Meier games?
curias•9mo ago
I don't find it obvious that a church (with a "higher calling") should necessarily follow trends by secular governments with different purposes. As best I understand (being not a Catholic), The Vatican is not a frail government at risk of being overthrown by discontented citizens but rather a representative of divine authority to its "citizens" (i.e. Catholics worldwide). Why would it need to change its governmental structure to follow trends in secular governments?
I'm also unsure what to think of the idea that "nearly all the world's actors" are democratized. While most countries are nominally republics in some fashion, it's probably too simplistic to think they are all similarly democratized. For example, Russia is on Wikipedia's list of "presidential-parliamentary" governments[0] but in practice it's likely a pure dictatorship.
As an aside, there is an interesting report from Varieties of Democracy[1] indicating that world governments are roughly split 50/50 between democratic and autocratic implementations but 71% of the worlds population are under the latter[2]. I don't know this organization, but they look legitimate at a cursory glance and thinking about the numbers in terms of affected population is interesting. The "apparent trend towards democratization" may not be as apparent as you think?
> We have seen plenty of monarchies transition into other organizations, it's not somehow rare -- but the Vatican has resisted this
This is not surprising? I might need to read more history books but it seems like other monarchies, including ones where the head of state is also the head of a church, have an actual state to manage. The Vatican (again, I might just be uninformed) seems to be just a church? It answers to a deity, not its members, and has no purpose other than the perpetuation of its deity's mission. It is a sovereign City State, but no meaningful trade or military footprint. Contrast that with the British monarchs who ran the Church of England but also _The British Empire_.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of... [1] https://v-dem.net/about/ [2] https://v-dem.net/documents/43/v-dem_dr2024_lowres.pdf
lo_zamoyski•9mo ago
It is a common fallacy in liberal democratic societies to believe that not only is democratic rule necessarily a sign of social political progress, and that democracies somehow guard against bad politics, but also that anything that isn't democratic is ipso facto a dictatorship. This is not the case and it is a caricature that has been encouraged by some with an ax to grind against monarchies, categorically. Monarchies in general are bound by numerous obligations, traditions, duties, institutions, etc. that weigh heavily on a monarch. He is not some god who is at liberty to do whatever he wants. Indeed, as is the case with the presidency, even the honor that is due to a monarch is not because of who occupies the throne (he may very well be a scoundrel), but in virtue of the office.
The pope is no different. In fact, his role as pope is highly constrained. He only has authority to guard the deposit of faith, not to innovate. He is "not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on" [0]. Prelates, including the pope, if they err, can be corrected, even publicly if the error was publicly made, for his own benefit and the benefit of the Church. The pope is not supposed to micromanage the Church either. They should instead enable bishops to do their jobs. This is the true meaning of leadership: to serve those you lead by enabling them to be who they are and to do what they are called to do. Popes and bishops are best thought of as referees. Frankly, that is what a good monarchy is like.
(Curiously, contrary to the image peddled by the media of the "kindly pope", Francis was unusually dictatorial in temperament. Many felt alienated by his imperious, heavy-handed style. He routinely avoided discussion with bishops and allowed problems to fester as a result. In part, the excess centralization of power in the papacy beyond the authority prudently circumscribed to it is a development that arose in the 19th century, most notably in the form of an ultramontane reaction to Gallicanism and hostile revolutionary attacks on the Church, like the bloody ones in France we like to downplay.)
[0] https://firstthings.com/the-future-of-the-catholic-church/