From the latest post by Bryan Cross:
Of the various philosophical factors that helped me become Catholic, one was teaching through Plato’s Republic.
That’s always what a Catholic apologist must fall back on. Since exegetical theology is not his friend, since historical theology is not his friend, he must ultimately appeal to what (according to him) is antecedently probable.
First, it is reasonable to expect that Christ, being God and therefore all-wise, would establish for His Church the best form of government, not a form of government faulty in some respect. That does not mean that the government that Christ established for His Church would never err, only that the form of this government would be the best one.
i) An obvious problem with this assertion is the presumption that there’s a best form of gov’t. But on the face of it, there are tradeoffs between one form of gov’t and another. Some have advantages the others do not–but with the advantages come corresponding disadvantages.
ii) We don’t have to speculate on how God governs or establishes his church. We actually have an inspired history of the NT church. What do we find when we read Acts? Do we find Peter headquartered in Rome, where he directs and coordinates the expansion of the church? No.
We see free-lance agents like Philip. We also see Peter as one among several different delegates to the council of Jerusalem.
Second, the best form of government is one that is capable of preserving the unity of the society it governs.
That’s hardly self-evident, or even evident. Isn’t justice more important than unity?