Theology

[wizards8507]

That's the nub of our disagreement. Liberalism has always pretended to a sort of moral neutrality, but it's simply not true. It contains a full set of metaphysical commitments that directly conflict with Christianity; which is why I frequently refer to it as a hostile religion.

By focusing exclusively on the rights and preferences of a mythical autonomous individual, concepts like duty become incoherent; family life begins to unwind, society atomizes, and the world quickly goes to pot (literally, in modern times, since we now have to technology to destroy it).

First, the autonomous individual is not a myth. It's as old as Genesis. "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Individual sovereignty was instilled in each of us by the Creator through His choice to make us in His image. We've debated imago dei in the past and your answer usually boils down to something along the lines of "I don't care."

You cannot coherently endorse personal charity and political indifference.

Of course you can!

Matthew 20:25-28 - But Jesus called them to him and said, 'You know that among the gentiles the rulers lord it over them, and great men make their authority felt. Among you this is not to happen. No; anyone who wants to become great among you must be your servant, and anyone who wants to be first among you must be your slave, just as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Mattew 22:16-21 - And they sent their disciples to him, together with some Herodians, to say, 'Master, we know that you are an honest man and teach the way of God in all honesty, and that you are not afraid of anyone, because human rank means nothing to you. Give us your opinion, then. Is it permissible to pay taxes to Caesar or not?' But Jesus was aware of their malice and replied, 'You hypocrites! Why are you putting me to the test? Show me the money you pay the tax with.' They handed him a denarius, and he said, 'Whose portrait is this? Whose title?' They replied, 'Caesar's.' Then he said to them, 'Very well, pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar -- and God what belongs to God.

Matthew 17:24-27 - When they reached Capernaum, the collectors of the half-shekel came to Peter and said, 'Does your master not pay the half-shekel?' 'Yes,' he replied, and went into the house. But before he could speak, Jesus said, 'Simon, what is your opinion? From whom do earthly kings take toll or tribute? From their sons or from foreigners?' And when he replied, 'From foreigners,' Jesus said, 'Well then, the sons are exempt. However, so that we shall not be the downfall of others, go to the lake and cast a hook; take the first fish that rises, open its mouth and there you will find a shekel; take it and give it to them for me and for yourself.'

2 Corinthians 9:6-7 - Consider this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each must do as already determined, without sadness or compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

TL;DR: Jesus said "Amen, I say to you. I don't give a shit about earthly rulers."

You cannot coherently endorse personal charity and political indifference. Those two ideas are radically incompatible. Which, in short, is why I've often argued that you cannot be both a Christian and a liberal. The fact that you keep insisting otherwise leads me to believe you're profoundly confused as to what the former requires of you.

On the contrary, it's you who's eschewing Christianity in favor of Aristotelian political naturalism.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

First, the autonomous individual is not a myth. It's as old as Genesis. "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Individual sovereignty was instilled in each of us by the Creator through His choice to make us in His image. We've debated imago dei in the past and your answer usually boils down to something along the lines of "I don't care."

God himself isn't an autonomous individual, but a society of three distinct persons. And yet you somehow think that line from Genesis is bullet-proof evidence for Christian "self ownership'?

Of course you can!

Matthew 20:25-28 - But Jesus called them to him and said, 'You know that among the gentiles the rulers lord it over them, and great men make their authority felt. Among you this is not to happen. No; anyone who wants to become great among you must be your servant, and anyone who wants to be first among you must be your slave, just as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Mattew 22:16-21 - And they sent their disciples to him, together with some Herodians, to say, 'Master, we know that you are an honest man and teach the way of God in all honesty, and that you are not afraid of anyone, because human rank means nothing to you. Give us your opinion, then. Is it permissible to pay taxes to Caesar or not?' But Jesus was aware of their malice and replied, 'You hypocrites! Why are you putting me to the test? Show me the money you pay the tax with.' They handed him a denarius, and he said, 'Whose portrait is this? Whose title?' They replied, 'Caesar's.' Then he said to them, 'Very well, pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar -- and God what belongs to God.

Matthew 17:24-27 - When they reached Capernaum, the collectors of the half-shekel came to Peter and said, 'Does your master not pay the half-shekel?' 'Yes,' he replied, and went into the house. But before he could speak, Jesus said, 'Simon, what is your opinion? From whom do earthly kings take toll or tribute? From their sons or from foreigners?' And when he replied, 'From foreigners,' Jesus said, 'Well then, the sons are exempt. However, so that we shall not be the downfall of others, go to the lake and cast a hook; take the first fish that rises, open its mouth and there you will find a shekel; take it and give it to them for me and for yourself.'

2 Corinthians 9:6-7 - Consider this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each must do as already determined, without sadness or compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

TL;DR: Jesus said "Amen, I say to you. I don't give a shit about earthly rulers."

On the contrary, it's you who's eschewing Christianity in favor of Aristotelian political naturalism.

You'd make a great Episcopalian, wizards, but there's no support for your worldview in Catholic orthodoxy.

 

[Cackalacky]

The autonomous individual is a myth. Man has never operated alone. He has always existed in a group. From a societal aspect, from an anthropological aspect, from an environmental aspect, and from cultural and religious aspects man has to have other humans and other organisms macroscopic and microscopic. I see that an inherent concern and possible unsustainable path arising from Liberalism is the primacy placed on individualism both right and left. Based on Spinoza's reasoning and also Rouseau's arguments the concept of Deep Ecology expounds on this. Man can't be autonomous because we inherently require a relationship with the rest of creation to survive.

Inspired by Spinoza’s metaphysics, another key feature of Næss’s deep ecology is the rejection of atomistic individualism. The idea that a human being is such an individual possessing a separate essence, Næss argues, radically separates the human self from the rest of the world. To make such a separation not only leads to selfishness towards other people, but also induces human selfishness towards nature. As a counter to egoism at both the individual and species level, Næss proposes the adoption of an alternative relational “total-field image” of the world. According to this relationalism, organisms (human or otherwise) are best understood as “knots” in the biospherical net. The identity of a living thing is essentially constituted by its relations to other things in the world, especially its ecological relations to other living things. If people conceptualise themselves and the world in relational terms, the deep ecologists argue, then people will take better care of nature and the world in general.

As developed by Næss and others, the position also came to focus on the possibility of the identification of the human ego with nature. The idea is, briefly, that by identifying with nature I can enlarge the boundaries of the self beyond my skin. My larger—ecological—Self (the capital “S” emphasizes that I am something larger than my body and consciousness), deserves respect as well. To respect and to care for my Self is also to respect and to care for the natural environment, which is actually part of me and with which I should identify. “Self-realization”, in other words, is the reconnection of the shriveled human individual with the wider natural environment. Næss maintains that the deep satisfaction that we receive from identification with nature and close partnership with other forms of life in nature contributes significantly to our life quality. (One clear historical antecedent to this kind of nature spiritualism is the romanticism of Jean-Jacques Rousseau as expressed in his last work, the Reveries of the Solitary Walker)

 

[wizards8507]

The autonomous individual is a myth. Man has never operated alone. He has always existed in a group. From a societal aspect, from an anthropological aspect, from an environmental aspect, and from cultural and religious aspects man has to have other humans and other organisms macroscopic and microscopic. I see that an inherent concern and possible unsustainable path arising from Liberalism is the primacy placed on individualism both right and left. Based on Spinoza's reasoning and also Rouseau's arguments the concept of Deep Ecology expounds on this. Man can't be autonomous because we inherently require a relationship with the rest of creation to survive.

Except that's not what the word autonomous even means. It's about free will and rationality, not isolation. At the very core of it, I cannot control what you do without the use of force. If I'm only in control of my own actions, then any system of morality or ethics wherein the condition of my soul is contingent on the behavior of a group, none of which I can control, is perverse. Whiskey seems to be endorsing the collective salvation / liberation theology movement that's become a cancer in the Church, right to the very top. Benedict XVI called it a "singular heresy."

 

[woolybug25]

This is one of those times where a dear friend starts saying things that don't even make you mad, they sadden you. I disagree with you here, Whiskey. It saddens me that you openly are stating that anyone that disagrees with conservative ideology, aren't Christian and particularly not Catholic. Sometimes people can analyze and get so granular into their thoughts, that they lose themselves. I hope you can find it in yourself to try taking a step back. To make an attempt to self evaluate.

You're always my homie though. That's all I'll say.

 

[Cackalacky]

Except that's not what the word autonomous even means. It's about free will and rationality, not isolation. At the very core of it, I cannot control what you do without the use of force. If I'm only in control of my own actions, then any system of morality or ethics wherein the condition of my soul is contingent on the behavior of a group, none of which I can control, is perverse. Whiskey seems to be endorsing the collective salvation / liberation theology movement that's become a cancer in the Church, right to the very top. Benedict XVI called it a "singular heresy."

Except thats exactly what the word autonomous means... It implies you are islolated from from the reactive nature of society or the environment or any other interaction in reality.

autonomous
[aw-ton-uh-muh s]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
adjective
1.
Government.
self-governing; independent; subject to its own laws only.
pertaining to an autonomy, or a self-governing community.
2.
having autonomy; not subject to control from outside; independent:
a subsidiary that functioned as an autonomous unit.
3.
Biology.
existing and functioning as an independent organism.
growing naturally or spontaneously, without cultivation.

A person can NEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEERRRRRRR be fully autonomous under any scenario. Even in your Kantian use of the word it is still subject to heteronomy. Your free will only extends as far as your survival is allowed.

 

[wizards8507]

Your free will only extends as far as your survival is allowed.

Of course. Free will does not exempt me from the laws of nature. But I don't take it as a given that "survival" necessarily be a constraint on my free will. I'm free to starve to death.

 

[Cackalacky]

Of course. Free will does not exempt me from the laws of nature. But I don't take it as a given that "survival" necessarily be a constraint on my free will. I'm free to starve to death.

That's not really a choice though. Death is inevitable. The manner in which it occurs is dependent upon many things let alone your choice to not eat. Whether you choose to eat or not is still a function of not only your interaction with nature and reality but also the end game of your spirituality. Choosing to starve to death is suicide. That's not real great for a Catholic. So you really aren't free from dogmatic beliefs even in choosing to starve to death.

Since I know you love the Catechism:

Suicide

Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.

Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide

 

[wizards8507]

That's not really a choice though. Death is inevitable. The manner in which it occurs is dependent upon many things let alone your choice to not eat. Whether you choose to eat or not is still a function of not only your interaction with nature and reality but also the end game of your spirituality. Choosing to starve to death is suicide. That's not real great for a Catholic. So you really aren't free from dogmatic beliefs even in choosing to starve to death.

Since I know you love the Catechism:

Sure, from a theological perspective I agree. But my broader point is that theology, ethics, and political philosophy are not one in the same. The simplest illustration of this is through the principle of "consent of the governed." As God's authority is absolute, there's no consent to be given. We're under God's authority no matter what. The State's authority, however, is not absolute. State power is derived justly only from the consent of the governed.

 

[Cackalacky]

Sure, from a theological perspective I agree. But my broader point is that theology, ethics, and political philosophy are not one in the same. The simplest illustration of this is through the principle of "consent of the governed." As God's authority is absolute, there's no consent to be given. We're under God's authority no matter what. The State's authority, however, is not absolute. State power is derived justly only from the consent of the governed.

Yeah.... I am with Whiskeyjack on this one. You are profoundly confused. You can't just dissociate yourself like this. I don't think you understand what you are saying. You are moving the goal posts and positing something that is just not true. You won''t ever be fully autonomous even in your mythical land of Libertarianism, and since it is based in Liberalism, you just can't dissociate your individualism into separate political and metaphysical entities. Its all related.

 

[wizards8507]

Yeah.... I am with Whiskeyjack on this one. You are profoundly confused. You can't just dissociate yourself like this. I don't think you understand what you are saying. You are moving the goal posts and positing something that is just not true. You won''t ever be fully autonomous even in your mythical land of Libertarianism, and since it is based in Liberalism, you just can't dissociate your individualism into separate political and metaphysical entities. Its all related.

I'm not confused, because it's much simpler than you both are making it. God has the authority to tell people what to do. People do not have the authority to tell other people what to do. That's it. Those don't conflict one another at all. I do not reject the notion of authority in and of itself. I reject the notion of authority vested in the state.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Except that's not what the word autonomous even means. It's about free will and rationality, not isolation. At the very core of it, I cannot control what you do without the use of force. If I'm only in control of my own actions, then any system of morality or ethics wherein the condition of my soul is contingent on the behavior of a group, none of which I can control, is perverse. Whiskey seems to be endorsing the collective salvation / liberation theology movement that's become a cancer in the Church, right to the very top. Benedict XVI called it a "singular heresy."

Each soul is judged individually, but you're judged on how well you loved. One cannot love in a vacuum; it requires an object outside of oneself (in other words, community). So while you cannot be damned due to the actions of others over which you had no control, salvation is in a very real sense a communal good, since it cannot be achieved alone.

Liberation theology is heresy because it is Marxist, not because it has political implications.

This is one of those times where a dear friend starts saying things that don't even make you mad, they sadden you. I disagree with you here, Whiskey. It saddens me that you openly are stating that anyone that disagrees with conservative ideology, aren't Christian and particularly not Catholic. Sometimes people can analyze and get so granular into their thoughts, that they lose themselves. I hope you can find it in yourself to try taking a step back. To make an attempt to self evaluate.

You're always my homie though. That's all I'll say.

Where did I say that? In arguing that Christianity is incompatible with liberalism, I'm describing the entire American political spectrum-- Progressives on the left and neo/ classical liberals on the right. Which is why I'm primarily arguing with wizards here...

Sure, from a theological perspective I agree. But my broader point is that theology, ethics, and political philosophy are not one in the same.

They all depend on first principles, though. And your theology is starkly at odds with your politics.

The simplest illustration of this is through the principle of "consent of the governed." As God's authority is absolute, there's no consent to be given. We're under God's authority no matter what. The State's authority, however, is not absolute. State power is derived justly only from the consent of the governed.

How is God not an unjust tyrant then? No one consents to his authority; we don't even have the option of removing ourselves from his jurisdiction.

I'm not confused, because it's much simpler than you both are making it. God has the authority to tell people what to do. People do not have the authority to tell other people what to do. That's it. Those don't conflict one another at all. I do not reject the notion of authority in and of itself. I reject the notion of authority vested in the state.

We've been over this many times before, but this is laughably inaccurate. Authority is unavoidable, regardless of our Western egalitarian pretensions. As you mentioned, God has authority over all of creation. And I think you'd agree that parents naturally have authority over their children. But you believe that when such a child has survived for 18 solar orbital periods, he suddenly becomes imbued with a magical essence which immunizes him from the authority of every other human being on earth. That's quite obviously incorrect, but its a myth we all have to profess allegiance to in liberal regimes.

My argument is that this myth-- of "self-ownership"-- is both radically incompatible with Christianity (which demands radical selflessness), and that it creates serious problems in our society:

• A legal regime built upon the myth of individual autonomy admits only negative rights, so positive rights/ duties become incoherent as the religious bases for such fall by the wayside. This results in a decline of community, and general social atomization. See the steady decrease in marriage rates, the increase in illegitimate births, etc.
• An economic model premised entirely on maximizing shareholder value, instead of recognizing employees/ communities as legitimate stakeholders, promotes short-termism and disincentives investing for the future.
• A philosophy centered on self-ownership refuses to formally recognize the duties most adults owe to each other, let alone the duties humanity owes to generations past and future regarding the whole of creation. This results in policies that favor maximum resource extraction over sustainability, which may literally bring about Armageddon within the next century or so.

That's all due to liberalism. And it's completely at odds with the catechism. Yet you remain utterly convinced that God intended for everyone to embrace rugged individualism and ruthless capitalism.

Getting back to my prior comment about your affinity for Episcopalianism, this article does a good job of describing how capitalism is the economic instantiation of Protestantism. So your worldview would be coherent within many Protestant sects, but it aint Catholic.

 

[wizards8507]

How is God not an unjust tyrant then? No one consents to his authority; we don't even have the option of removing ourselves from his jurisdiction.

Because God is exempt. He is not human, therefore he is not subject to human limitations on legitimate authority.

We've been over this many times before, but this is laughably inaccurate. Authority is unavoidable, regardless of our egalitarian pretensions.

Just because political authority exists does not mean it is legitimate. What would you do, as a Catholic and a citizen of the United States, if the federal government passed a law directly contradictory to your faith?

As you mentioned, God has authority over all of creation. And I think you'd agree that parents naturally have authority over their children. But you believe that when such a child has survived for 18 solar orbital periods, he becomes imbued with some magical essence which immunizes him from the authority of every other human being on earth. That's quite obviously incorrect, but its a myth we all have to profess allegiance to in liberal regimes.

I never endorsed 18 or any age as the age of majority. And again, the "immunization from authority" is only immunization against State authority, because the State wields the force of law. Parental authority doesn't entail imprisonment.

My argument is that this myth-- of "self-ownership"-- is both radically incompatible with Christianity (which demands radical selflessness)...

That's exactly my point. You can't be selfless unless you're free to be selfish. Greed is bad, but generosity can only exist within a framework in which greed is permitted. If I'm compelled to give of myself under threat of imprisonment, I'm not really giving at all.

I'd love for you to formally lay out your position that I must accept State authority in order to recognize Divine authority. There's something broken, either in the construct of your framework, or one one of your premises themselves.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Because God is exempt. He is not human, therefore he is not subject to human limitations on legitimate authority.

If unchosen authority is de facto unjust, then God isn't just. God isn't exempt from his own moral laws.

Authority is legitimate when it is just. Not when it is chosen. The Catholic Church doesn't claim jurisdiction only over those practicing Catholics who continually chose to submit to it. It claims to be the church universal, the undivided hearth of Christendom, with the same mass, the same doctrines and the same authority worldwide. This idea that the only legitimate authority is that to which you explicitly consent is a very Protestant idea.

Just because political authority exists does not mean it is legitimate. What would you do, as a Catholic and a citizen of the United States, if the federal government passed a law directly contradictory to your faith?

If the Federal government mandated that I publicly recant my faith, or participate in the commission of a gravely immoral act, I would prepare myself for martyrdom (and I pray I would be equal to the ordeal if such a day ever comes). Short of that? I'd "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" and continue trying to live out my Christian mission as best I'm able.

I never endorsed 18 or any age as the age of majority. And again, the "immunization from authority" is only immunization against State authority, because the State wields the force of law. Parental authority doesn't entail imprisonment.

State authority isn't so different from the authority of your parents. You don't consent to either, and whether its just or not is largely a random circumstance of birth. And how does parental authority not entail imprisonment? Kids get grounded all the time.

That's exactly my point. You can't be selfless unless you're free to be selfish. Greed is bad, but generosity can only exist within a framework in which greed is permitted. If I'm compelled to give of myself under threat of imprisonment, I'm not really giving at all.

You keep presenting this false dichotomy between an allegedly morally neutral government (not possible) under which one is free to be selfish, and a theocratic dystopia under which everyone is compelled by some sort of police state to be morally upright. First, there's a huge swath of gray area between those options (not to mention that the Christian monarchies of the Middle Ages looked nothing like the ridiculous portrait you're painting). Second, I'm arguing that liberalism isn't neutral on questions of morality; that by enshrining individual autonomy as its animating principle, it is actively undermining the virtue of its citizens and slowly destroying the fabric of society.

I'd love for you to formally lay out your position that I must accept State authority in order to recognize Divine authority. There's something broken, either in the construct of your framework, or one one of your premises themselves.

Your contention that the only just authority is one to which one explicitly consents is a Protestant idea that you won't find anywhere in the catechism. Jesus didn't preach open rebellion against Emperor Tiberius or King Herrod, despite the poor treatment he received from both.

 

[wizards8507]

Your contention that the only just authority is one to which one explicitly consents is a Protestant idea that you won't find anywhere in the catechism. Jesus didn't preach open rebellion against Emperor Tiberius or King Herrod, despite the poor treatment he received from both.

Not everything has to come from the catechism to be compatible with it. Jesus didn't preach the greatness of Notre Dame football, yet here we are.

 

[wizards8507]

Whiskey, give a listen.

https://www.mixcloud.com/MBITLectures/thomism-for-the-21st-century-mary-hirschfeld/

 

[Cackalacky]

The World Religions Tree - Infographic
Definitely worth a few minutes reviewing. Actually pretty amazing.

 

[Cackalacky]

I have an interesting anecdote I would like to share that occurred last night. I was entertaining last night and one of the couples are planning to adopt a 0-6 month old baby. They are both Catholic. The service they are using is licensed to perform adoption services in several of the southern states. The process is fairly strict and thorough to the point they decided to hire someone to put together the couple's profile. The person they hired has a very good success rate meeting the placements she is given.

So they moved forward, providing photos which show a wholesome environment, detailed CV's professional and private, and descriptions of the religious and personal beliefs. Specifically they had to list their religious affiliation and personal history within that context. They obviously put "Catholic" and described how they would raise the child in the Catholic church.

They submitted it to the consultant and waited. They got a call from the consultant few days later. She was concerned about the application but would not specify any issues. She sent them a marked up copy and asked them to review as her version would be more acceptable to prospective mothers ( in the southern states) looking to give up their child. She basically struck out all references to Catholicism or the Catholic church in the entire application. For their affilitation they put Catholic. She replaced it with STRONG CHRISTIAN.

They were quite upset and even went to speak with their priest. Obviously this is a long and difficult process and time is always wasting. They were having significant conflicts of interest in whether to allow the application go out as the consultant changed it or start over with another service, which will set them back a good bit of time and money.

The point I want to make is that you all have seen my posts on the complete dislike, distrust, or misunderstanding of Catholics here in the south. The consultant removed all references from the application because it would be less desirable choice for the mother to give up her child to a Catholic family than a Christian one.

Anyway crazy. It was a tough conversation to have.

 

[ACamp1900]

Even here in the LA area I've encountered practicing and self proclaimed Christians who get quite upset when you state that Catholics are Christians too... It's like they view them as some off shoot demon sect.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Because the parents-to-be have essentially zero chance of evangelizing any hypocrites involved, but a HUGE chance of raising a fine Catholic Christian person, I'd say that this is not a test of faith and therefore should be handled "pragmatically."

The only "scandal" possibility involved is with that social worker. To clear that up, what they should do is talk this decision out with her to flush out any weird thoughts from her mind --- then, in my opinion, they're completely morally clear.

 

[Cackalacky]

Because the parents-to-be have essentially zero chance of evangelizing any hypocrites involved, but a HUGE chance of raising a fine Catholic Christian person, I'd say that this is not a test of faith and therefore should be handled "pragmatically."

The only "scandal" possibility involved is with that social worker. To clear that up, what they should do is talk this decision out with her to flush out any weird thoughts from her mind --- then, in my opinion, they're completely morally clear.

From my understanding that is what the priest said. He also said if she is emphatic about having their description being STRONG CHRISTIAN, then the priest said they would be justified putting STRONGEST CHRISTIAN. Haha.

Seriously, I think their biggest concern was being rejected by the mother for being Catholic and whether or not they should just let the consultant do what she felt needed to be done in order to make the mother's more comfortable with the choice of adoptive families.

 

[wizards8507]

The Left Has Its Pope - Thomas Sowell - Page full

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The Church has always been uncomfortable with capitalism. There was a brief period (3rd quarter of the 20th century) during which it was the obviously preferable alternative to communism, but that's a far cry from being "God's favorite form of political economy".

But, putting aside religious or philosophical questions, we have more than two centuries of historical evidence of what has actually happened as the ideas of people like those Enlightenment figures were put into practice in the real world -- beginning with the French Revolution and its disastrous aftermath.

Sowell rightly disparages the violence and destruction inherent in the revolutionary/ French strain of Enlightenment philosophy; but it's odd to read such criticism of "the Enlightenment" generally from one who endorse its Scottish strain so fervently.

In 1900, only 3 percent of American homes had electric lights but more than 99 percent had them before the end of the century. Infant mortality rates were 165 per thousand in 1900 and 7 per thousand by 1997. By 2001, most Americans living below the official poverty line had central air conditioning, a motor vehicle, cable television with multiple TV sets, and other amenities.

That's great, Sowell, but is any of that sustainable? ""For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?" Similarly, what good are horseless carriages and universal communicators if the extractive industries needed to produce such sorcery render large swathes of the planet uninhabitable? Sowell doesn't address any of that. He just points to technological advancement (which capitalism is undoubtedly good at producing, at least for a time) and states that capitalism should be approve reproach. Underlying that argument is a Whiggish faith (incompatible with Christian notions of the Fall) that's just as Progressive as anything you'll find on the Left.

Just another article trying (and failing) to shoe-horn Francis into the American political dichotomy. He's not a Marxist; just a Christian. And if the Christian philosophy articulated in Laudato Si offends your neo-liberal sensibilities, you ought to reassess what you really believe in.

 

[GowerND11]

Question Whiskey...

What would you think would be the best approach at a sustainable economy in the US (or the world since it is an ever connected entity these days) that is more in line with Pope Francis.

* I realize this is more of an economics base question, but still fits in this discussion.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Question Whiskey...

What would you think would be the best approach at a sustainable economy in the US (or the world since it is an ever connected entity these days) that is more in line with Pope Francis.

* I realize this is more of an economics base question, but still fits in this discussion.

Sudsidiarity/ federalism. Every company or government agency inevitably becomes evil once it reaches a certain size, because it no longer sees people as ends but as means. Keeping things as small and local as possible keeps the focus on community.

If he had to endorse a specific economic model, he'd probably pick seek2.com.

 

[wizards8507]

The Church has always been uncomfortable with capitalism. There was a brief period (3rd quarter of the 20th century) during which it was the obviously preferable alternative to communism, but that's a far cry from being "God's favorite form of political economy".

Sowell rightly disparages the violence and destruction inherent in the revolutionary/ French strain of Enlightenment philosophy; but it's odd to read such criticism of "the Enlightenment" generally from one who endorse its Scottish strain so fervently.

That's great, Sowell, but is any of that sustainable? ""For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?" Similarly, what good are horseless carriages and universal communicators if the extractive industries needed to produce such sorcery render large swathes of the planet uninhabitable? Sowell doesn't address any of that. He just points to technological advancement (which capitalism is undoubtedly good at producing, at least for a time) and states that capitalism should be approve reproach. Underlying that argument is a Whiggish faith (incompatible with Christian notions of the Fall) that's just as Progressive as anything you'll find on the Left.

That's exactly the opposite of the impact capitalism has. The natural state of man is poverty, disease, and war. Capitalism didn't cause those things, those things are present in the state of nature. Crude, nasty, brutish and short. To the extent that poverty, disease, and war are no longer part of our everyday lives, capitalism is responsible. Economic cooperation through markets has brought us out of the state of nature and into prosperity. When Francis writes, "The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth," he's just objectively wrong. The earth was an immense pile of filth until capitalism came along and subdued it. There's no virtue in choosing to live in an untainted forest if that means life expectancy is 28 and both mother and baby are likely to die in childbirth.

Just another article trying (and failing) to shoe-horn Francis into the American political dichotomy. He's not a Marxist; just a Christian. And if the Christian philosophy articulated in Laudato Si offends your neo-liberal sensibilities, you ought to reassess what you really believe in.

Wake up, Whiskey. He's not "just a Christian." "Just a Christian" has nothing to opine about a one-world central authority with unlimited power over commerce. You might want to brush up on your Revelation reading if you think the proposals called for in Laudato Si are, in any way, Christian.

Sudsidiarity/ federalism. Every company or government agency inevitably becomes evil once it reaches a certain size, because it no longer sees people as ends but as means. Keeping things as small and local as possible keeps the focus on community.

Wh... what are you talking about? Francis uses Laudato Si to call for a global, secular authority over everything. Once a government agency reaches a certain size it becomes evil? He want the biggest governmental agency the world has ever seen.

To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago.

That's evil.

John Schellnhuber, Francis' adviser on climate change, and man who was present when Laudato Si was delivered, is on record as saying:

Let me conclude this short contribution with a daydream about those key institutions that could bring about a sophisticated — and therefore more appropriate — version of the conventional “world government” notion. Global democracy might be organized around three core activities, namely (i) an Earth Constitution; (ii) a Global Council; and (iii) a Planetary Court. I cannot discuss these institutions in any detail here, but I would like to indicate at least that:

– the Earth Constitution would transcend the UN Charter and identify those first principles guiding humanity in its quest for freedom, dignity, security and sustainability;

– the Global Council would be an assembly of individuals elected directly by all people on Earth, where eligibility should be not constrained by geographical, religious, or cultural quotas; and

– the Planetary Court would be a transnational legal body open to appeals from everybody, especially with respect to violations of the Earth Constitution.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

That's exactly the opposite of the impact capitalism has. The natural state of man is poverty, disease, and war. Capitalism didn't cause those things, those things are present in the state of nature. Crude, nasty, brutish and short. To the extent that poverty, disease, and war are no longer part of our everyday lives, capitalism is responsible. Economic cooperation through markets has brought us out of the state of nature and into prosperity. When Francis writes, "The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth," he's just objectively wrong. The earth was an immense pile of filth until capitalism came along and subdued it. There's no virtue in choosing to live in an untainted forest if that means life expectancy is 28 and both mother and baby are likely to die in childbirth.

To no one's surprise, you've just described Lockean anthropology. It's also incredibly inaccurate. Regardless of its accuracy, Locke really didn't like Catholics, so you might want to think twice before endorsing his philosophy.

Wake up, Whiskey. He's not "just a Christian." "Just a Christian" has nothing to opine about a one-world central authority with unlimited power over commerce. You might want to brush up on your Revelation reading if you think the proposals called for in Laudato Si are, in any way, Christian.

First, let's be clear. I've read the actual document in full. I'm willing to bet you've only read neo-liberal criticism of it from American pundits. So if you'd like to debate it on its merits, I'm happy to do so, but you'll have to familiarize yourself with the actual document first.

Also, if that's how you feel about Francis, do you still consider yourself Catholic?

Are you aware that Pope Benedict was known as the "Green Pope" for the importance he placed on environmental awareness? Probably not, since he was viewed here in America as a "conservative" Pope, and thus an ally of the GOP. Francis cited Benedict more than any of his other predecessors in Laudato Si. So your issue is not just with Francis, but with Catholic doctrine on the sanctity of creation.

Wh... what are you talking about? Francis uses Laudato Si to call for a global, secular authority over everything. Once a government agency reaches a certain size it becomes evil? He want the biggest governmental agency the world has ever seen.

That's evil.

Subsidiarity involves the devolution of as much power as practicable to states, cities, parishes and families. Given the size and power of multinational corporations, as well as the interconnectedness of the global economy, it's unlikely that there's any way to address anthropogenic climate change aside from a supra-national regulatory body.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Pope Francis Reverses Position on Capitalism After Seeing Wide Variety of American Oreos:

WASHINGTON—Admitting the startling discovery had compelled him to reexamine his long-held beliefs, His Holiness Pope Francis announced Tuesday that he had reversed his critical stance toward capitalism after seeing the immense variety of Oreos available in the United States. “Oh, my goodness, look at all these! Golden Oreos, Cookie Dough Oreos, Mega Stuf Oreos, Birthday Cake Oreos—perhaps the system of free enterprise is not as terrible as I once feared,” said the visibly awed bishop of Rome while visiting a Washington, D.C. supermarket, adding that the sheer diversity of flavors, various colors and quantities of creme filling, and presence or absence of an outer fudge layer had led to a profound philosophical shift in his feelings toward the global economy and opened his eyes to the remarkable capabilities of the free market. “Only a truly exceptional and powerful economic system would be capable of producing so many limited-edition and holiday-themed flavors of a single cookie brand, such as these extraordinary Key Lime Pie Oreos and Candy Corn Oreos. This is not a force of global impoverishment at all, but one of endless enrichment.” At press time, the pontiff had reportedly withdrawn his acceptance of capitalism, calling any system that would unleash a Roadhouse Chili Monster Slim Jim on the public “an unholy abomination.”

 

[wizards8507]

To no one's surprise, you've just described Lockean anthropology. It's also incredibly inaccurate. Regardless of its accuracy, Locke really didn't like Catholics, so you might want to think twice before endorsing his philosophy.

I can't believe I need to point this out to you. Locke disliking Catholics has nothing to do with the validity of his political philosophy. Hitler loved chocolate cake and committed mass genocide. That doesn't make chocolate cake evil.

First, let's be clear. I've read the actual document in full. I'm willing to bet you've only read neo-liberal criticism of it from American pundits. So if you'd like to debate it on its merits, I'm happy to do so, but you'll have to familiarize yourself with the actual document first.

I've read it, and I've quoted it in this space. So you'd lose that bet.

Also, if that's how you feel about Francis, do you still consider yourself Catholic?

That's a fair question. Going line-by-line through the Nicene Creed, I can profess my faith in that context in good conscience.

Are you aware that Pope Benedict was known as the "Green Pope" for the importance he placed on environmental awareness? Probably not, since he was viewed here in America as a "conservative" Pope, and thus an ally of the GOP. Francis cited Benedict more than any of his other predecessors in Laudato Si.

Yes, I'm well aware. In fact, this line I quoted from Laudato Si was, in fact, Francis quoting Benedict. Posted again here:

To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago.

To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago.

So your issue is not just with Francis, but with Catholic doctrine on the sanctity of creation.

Incorrect. My issue has nothing to do with doctrine, but with Francis' specific "to-do list" in the name of it that directly conflicts with other, higher-priority doctrines. The plan outlined in Laudato Si in the name of the environment would have disastrous implications for the world's poor, ensuring that they have no hope of ever improving their station in life. Say what you will about the sanctity of creation as it relates to the planet Earth, that pales to the sanctity of creation as it realates to human life; human life created in the image and likeness of God. But you've ignored imago dei in the past so I don't expect anything different now. Crippling the global economy in the name of the environment is akin to sterilizing poor women as a way to combat abortion. It's just replacing one evil with another.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I can't believe I need to point this out to you. Locke disliking Catholics has nothing to do with the validity of his political philosophy. Hitler loved chocolate cake and committed mass genocide. That doesn't make chocolate cake evil.

It does matter, because rather than springing from reasoned first principles, Locke's antipathy towards "Papists" was rooted in his opposition to James II, the last Catholic monarch of England. And similarly, his "philosophy" is a self-serving justification for the expropriation of property by his WASPy American benefactors.

That's a fair question. Going line-by-line through the Nicene Creed, I can profess my faith in that context in good conscience.

That makes you a Christian, but not necessarily a Catholic. This also matters because if you'd simply own up to the fact that your beliefs are more in line with the Protestant than the Catholic tradition, we'd have nothing further to argue about.

But you've ignored imago dei in the past so I don't expect anything different now.

I haven't ignored anything. I've asked you explain how the concept of imago dei supports neo-liberal economics, and you simply linked me to an hour+ long video which I did not have time to watch then (and still do not have time for).

Crippling the global economy in the name of the environment is akin to sterilizing poor women as a way to combat abortion. It's just replacing one evil with another.

Multiple popes have connected Western materialism and consumer culture to anthropogenic climate change, the negative effects of which are projected to be borne overwhelmingly by the global poor. Recognizing this as a grave injustice, and realizing that there is currently no supra-national authority that could address this collective action problem, they have called for the formation of such a body before billions of people are displaced by rising sea levels, drought and desertification.

Your description of that chain of events as a call to "crippl[e] the global economy" is ridiculously hyperbolic. And it is in no way similar to sterilizing the poor.