Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Catholicism: Ask the "Expert"

Rate this topic


AqAd

Recommended Posts

RationalOne,

No, I do not "admit" that the Church condemns the "only moral political system known to mankind". I do admit that the Church condemns the Objectivist notion of capitalism. It is quite supportive of other forms---and yes, I am referring here to the term "capitalism" as understood by the rest of the world. That you think it is the "only moral political system known to mankind" is interesting, but since I reject your particular morality, I can be expected to reject the conclusions, such as the above, which you have drawn.

As for your battle scenario: there are very few people who can truly call themselves Objectivists---I believe Burgess, on another thread some time ago, posited that it was only in the thousands. Objectivism is declining from its heydey of the seventies, with most of its adherents being high-school or college-aged kids who later leave it behind as they mature (the age poll on this forum tends to supports this, though it is obviously not a scientific poll). Not that Objectivism is without influence: "Atlas Shrugged" always sells well, and I believe that many, if not most, of all those youngsters who are so fired up by Ms. Rand's writings (as I once was) will probably go on to become good conservatives. Meanwhile, many orthodox religions such as orthodox (NOT liberal) Catholicism are experiencing a resurgence, not a decline. There are 1.1 billion of us, and we've been around for 2000 years. So, I wouldn't bet on the outcome...And as for any conflict between reason and faith, I would posit that there isn't any conflict---Catholicism teaches that the two are complementary, not opposed. It's a false dichotomy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your battle scenario: there are very few people who can truly call themselves Objectivists---I believe Burgess, on another thread some time ago, posited that it was only in the thousands. Objectivism is declining from its heydey of the seventies, with most of its adherents being high-school or college-aged kids who later leave it behind as they mature (the age poll on this forum tends to supports this, though it is obviously not a scientific poll).  Not that Objectivism is without influence: "Atlas Shrugged" always sells well, and I believe that many, if not most, of all those youngsters who are so fired up by Ms. Rand's writings (as I once was) will probably go on to become good conservatives. Meanwhile, many orthodox religions such as orthodox (NOT liberal) Catholicism are experiencing a resurgence, not a decline. There are 1.1 billion of us, and we've been around for 2000 years. So, I wouldn't bet on the outcome...And as for any conflict between reason and faith, I would posit that there isn't any conflict---Catholicism teaches that the two are complementary, not opposed. It's a false dichotomy.

Could you provide some numbers to back this up, please? The age poll on this forum is only an indicator of the age of those members of this forum that decided to vote on the poll: they may be a representative minority, but, then again, they may not. Older Objectivists (as was mentioned elsewhere, and there are MANY of them) that aren't interested in teaching tend to be less online-forum active.

I also have a substantial difficulty with the statistics you give on how many "Catholics" there are and have been. Since Catholicism warps and changes YEARLY if not DAILY because it is "handed down from on high" at the whims of the clergy, NO ONE can consistently practice Catholicism, (in fact, this is the reason that one must give confession, is it not?) Objectivism limits the definition of an Objectivist to people who have a complete integration of ALL Objectivist principles AND practice them consistently. If you applied THAT standard to "Catholics" there might be, hmm, THREE, and the ENTIRE RELIGION could be said to date ONLY from the LAST TIME IT WAS CHANGED, because anyone that was a "Catholic" that died before the change can't be considered a "Catholic" now . . . as you say it is on earth, so shall it be in heaven, no?

Objectivism is closed; the basic principles are immutable and do not change. Those who may "turn away" from Objectivism were NEVER integrated and practicing Objectivists. THAT is the standard you are dealing with.

So, I'd say that the thousand or so "real" Objectivists are a serious threat to the endless flux of "maybe" Catholics, no matter how many you "claim" there are. ANY Objectivist would fight to the DEATH for ANY ONE of our principles . . . how many Catholics will do that? Assuming they can even figure out what their principles ARE to fight for. It is more likely that the Church will do what it has always done to survive, and eventually bow to "practical necessity".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that Objectivism is without influence: "Atlas Shrugged" always sells well, and I believe that many, if not most, of all those youngsters who are so fired up by Ms. Rand's writings (as I once was) will probably go on to become good conservatives.

Ms. Rand's writings have nothing to do with the desire to serve the truth. I am living proof, as I have never read any of her writings thus far, but determine morality objectively.

Meanwhile, many orthodox religions such as orthodox (NOT liberal) Catholicism are experiencing a resurgence, not a decline. There are 1.1 billion of us, and we've been around for 2000 years.
Wow! That sounds like a collective threat. A return to the Dark Ages is the last thing we need.

So, I wouldn't bet on the outcome...And as for any conflict between reason and faith, I would posit that there isn't any conflict---Catholicism teaches that the two are complementary, not opposed. It's a false dichotomy.

What the Catholic Church teaches and what it practices are two very different things. How is it reasonable that confessing my immoral behavior to a priest suddenly makes it all better? Explain that to me in rational terms. Because God has forgiven me? How can you see no conflict here between reason and faith?

Edited by ann r kay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JMeganSnow,

You asked, "Could you provide some numbers to back this up, please? The age poll on this forum is only an indicator of the age of those members of this forum that decided to vote on the poll: they may be a representative minority, but, then again, they may not".

Regarding the numbers: I believe that Burgess said that there were "a few thousand" Objectivists---since he was the source for that number, ask him. I figured that as an Objectivist he would know better than I would. I may not be exact with his words, but then I wasn't claiming a word-for-word quote. Regarding the poll: if you read what I wrote, you will see that I did, in fact, say that it was not a scientific poll.

I'm afraid you don't understand Catholic theology if you claim, "Since Catholicism warps and changes YEARLY if not DAILY because it is "handed down from on high" at the whims of the clergy, NO ONE can consistently practice Catholicism". I doubt very seriously if you could give me, for instance, examples of the distinction between doctrine, which does not reverse itself; and matters of discipline (what are known as "small "t" traditions), which are changeable. Of course, it is simply easier to criticize than to actually have to do the work of learning what one is going to criticize. As for your claim that "NO ONE can consistently practice Catholicism"---what are you basing that on? I consistently practice Catholicism, and know many, many others who do as well. Are we a majority of those who call themselves Catholics? In this country, probably not: most are what are called "cafeteria Catholics" (liberal Catholics), but it's the orthodox Catholics whose numbers are increasing. But those people could practice Catholicism consistently if they so desired. It's counter-cultural, yes, but very do-able.

What, if anything, have you read regarding a topic as complex as Catholicism? Is your opinion simply based on your personal, subjective feelings? If you have not taken the effort to read or study a topic seriously using the material from the source (the "Summa Theologica" by Aquinas; "The Catechism of the Catholic Church"; "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" by Newman; "The Theology of the Church" by Journet; the writings of the Early Church Fathers; and at least some of the writings of this pope are what I would regard as essential works), then you are not likely to contribute anything worthwhile to this discussion. (And no, having been raised Catholic and attended Catholic schools does not qualify as "familiarity" or "study", as the teaching has been notoriously poor for the last 40 years and most Catholics haven't a clue as to what they believe or why). I have not spent my time on this forum attacking Objectivism because that is not why I am here, however, I have at least read most of Ayn Rand's works, and certainly all of what could be regarded as the essentials. It doesn't appear that you, or most of the other posters here, have much depth of knowledge on this topic. It is difficult, then, for me to take your criticisms seriously, anymore than you would have much regard for anyone who criticized Objectivism without having read the essential works of Objectivism.

Edited by AqAd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, it is the whole concept of "original sin", that a man is depraved or evil in someway because he is a man, that is one of the most EVIL ideas in the history of mankind, and when followed consistently leads to... the dark ages. Or at least back to them. And contrary to the opinion previously expressed in this thread, it is why Christianity is ANTI-LIFE and not pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you practice Catholicism consitently, you have NEVER ONCE had anything to confess after your initial confession."

Someone ought to have informed JPll of this: he went to confession weekly. I guess he just didn't understand Catholicism as well as you.

Since this obviously is contrary to Catholic theology, this simply confirms what I wrote in my last post: if you have not read the essentials of a philosophy, you are unlikely to have anything of value to contribute to a discussion of it. I am sure that you would find it ludicrous for an individual to criticize Objectivism if that individual had not at least read the essentials of Objectivism: I would recommend that you do the same (I provided a list of "essentials" in my last post) before you continue to expose your ignorance of the topic by posting laughable posts such as this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RationalOne,

Catholicism does not teach that man is "evil" or "depraved". If you are ignorant of the essentials of a particular philosophy, then familiarize yourself with the essentials (I provided a list) before commenting further on what you know nothing about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see I've read the bible, was brought up in a christian family and society, and have attended church services, even though admittedly as a child, also I have also studied Aquina's five proofs that you seem to love. I think I understand the essentials of the religion. And I don't see how they could be listed in the philosophic sources you meantioned and not the bible itself. Is not the bible the ultimate philosophical source for christianity?

Edited by Rational_One
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RationalOne,

Catholicism does not teach that man is "evil" or "depraved".  If you are ignorant of the essentials of a particular philosophy, then familiarize yourself with the essentials (I provided a list) before commenting further on what you know nothing about.

Then how does Catholicism explain man's "fall from Paradise"?

According to Catholic teachings, man sinned, therefore he was not worthy of Eden and was cast out because of his "evil" nature.

If Catholicism does not teach that man is "evil" or "depraved", then why is the story of Adam and Eve still part of their teachings?

If the Church now teaches that man has dignity and self-worth, to be consistent, and not arbitrary, Catholicism would need to reject the story of Adam and Eve and their fall from Paradise, because man never deserved to be cast out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ann r kay,

Another example of what happens when people comment on what they don't know anything about: "According to Catholic teachings, man sinned, therefore he was not worthy of Eden and was cast out because of his "evil" nature."

The Catholic Church does not, in fact teach that man has an "evil" nature. Nor has the Church's position changed. If you are unfamiliar with a particular philosophy, then do not presume to tell one who is familiar what it does and does not teach. If you wish to discuss the matter intelligently, please read the works suggested in my previous post---I suggest Aquinas's "Summa Theologica", for starters, if it's not too far above you---and then, perhaps, there would be something to discuss instead of straw-men to be attacked. This isn't Sunday school---do your own homework.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Total depravity" is indeed not a Catholic concept; it is the Calvinists who love to call man evil and depraved by nature. Catholics believe in free will and teach that man's actions on Earth determine whether or not he can go to Heaven. Calvinists reject this because they think it's an insult to God to say that man has any choice whatsoever; instead, they teach that God has randomly selected some people who will be saved, no matter what they do on Earth--and the rest will burn in Hell, no matter what they do on Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Paul II's pivotal role in the fall of communism is indisputable.  The rise of the Solidarity labor movement in Poland [...]

Perhaps he played some role in the fall of Communism in Poland. But the liberation of Hungary happened quite independently of him and, if I may remind, it was the events in Hungary that triggered the collapse of the other Eastern European regimes and ultimately the Soviet Union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Catholic Church does not, in fact teach that man has an "evil" nature. Nor has the Church's position changed. If you are unfamiliar with a particular philosophy, then do not presume to tell one who is familiar what it does and does not teach.

I do not presume anything in regards to the teachings of Catholicism. I was raised Catholic, and have my own copy of the Catholic bible and the Catechism. Maybe this will refresh your memory as to what the Church teaches on the nature of man.

Catechism of the Catholic Church "The Profession of Faith" 402

All man are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms. "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men), were made sinners....Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation of all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."

In other words, man cannot be be moral upon his own merits. The sins of Adam are the sins of mankind. Therefore, it is in man's nature to be evil. Only through the righteousness of one man (Jesus Christ) can mankind be saved. Again, a man cannot be moral upon his own merits. He can only be saved from his wickedness because the Son of God died for mankind's sins.

This isn't Sunday school---do your own homework.

I am not here to learn about Catholicism. This is not a site about the teachings of Catholicism. I have no desire to study what I already know. If you disagree with what I have been taught, then you should quote where I may be in error from either the Catechism or the Catholic bible, as you are the one that is trying to prove that the beliefs of the Catholic Church and reason are not incompatible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capitalism Forever,

You are correct identifying as Calvinist the teaching that man is totally depraved.

However, it's not quite accurate to say, "Catholics believe in free will and teach that man's actions on Earth determine whether or not he can go to Heaven."

The belief that one earns heaven solely on the basis of man's actions on earth is known as Pelagianism, a teaching that was condemned by the Church in early centuries. But you are correct in saying that Catholivs believe in free will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ann R Kay,

If you indeed you were raised Catholic, and have your very own copy of the "Catholic Bible"---by the way, what is that?---and the Catechism, then you should be able to provide the relevant quotes from the Catechism that support your position that Catholicism teaches that man is evil. So---provide the quotes, please. Since I am very, very familiar with the Catechism, I am left wondering where these mystery paragraphs will be found...

I'm not impressed with the fact that you were raised Catholic. The level of catechesis has been extremely poor for the last 40-50 years (although it is improving slowly), and many (probably most in this country) who call themselves Catholics haven't a clue as to what they believe or why. Your assertion that Catholicism teaches that man is evil by nature is a vindication of this.

As for the quote you do provide, nowhere does it state that man is evil by nature, which was your contention. What it does support is the concept that man is flawed---which ought to be obvious by simply reading the newspaper or picking up a history book. Since, by Objectvist standards, most people (non-Objectivists) are flawed by virtue of their failing to have a proper "sense of life", I am sure you would have no difficulty with the idea of flawed human nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How rational is it to think that man is born anything? Flawed, blessed, evil, deranged? It isn't rational--man is born tabula rasa, and not only is there zero evidence to prove otherwise, none can exist: how could man possess any cognitive content before his faculty for cognition even existed? The concept of "flawed at birth" is yet another dubious assertion by the Church, to be discarded along with the entirety of the institution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AqAd,

Again, it says in the Catholic Catechism that man is in a "fallen state" or a "state of sin". What is your definition of "state of sin"?. Or, what is the Churches definition of "state of sin"? There is the absolute definition, but I would suppose that the Church will define it so it will fit their arbitrary teachings.

It was not my intention to impress you as far as my knowledge of Catholicism. If I am wrong, fine. Prove that I am wrong. But please, back it up with a cite from what the Church actually teaches, and not your own questionable claim to expertise on Catholicism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow the eloquent Dr. Binswanger to Elaborate. And yes, I was a devout Catholic at one point in time. I am well aware of the various dogmas of the church. I think the worst (or best, depending on how you look at it) thing I ever did for my faith was read the Bible cover to cover.

[www.CapMag.com] Now that the Supreme Court is going to hear two cases about government displays of the Ten Commandments, we can expect a continuation of the loud debate about the legal and constitutional issues. But this debate needs to go deeper than that. We need to ask more challenging questions, questions of a fundamental nature. We need to ask: What “are” the Ten Commandments? What is their philosophic meaning and what kind of society do they imply?

Religious conservatives claim that the Ten Commandments supplied the moral grounding for the establishment of America. But is that even possible? Let’s put aside the historical question of what sources the Founding Fathers, mostly Deists, drew upon. The deeper question is: can a nation of freedom, individualism and the pursuit of happiness be based on the Ten Commandments?

Let's look at the commandments. The wording differs among the Catholic, Protestant and Hebrew versions, but the content is the same.

The first commandment is: “I am the Lord thy God.”

As first, it is the fundamental. Its point is the assertion that the individual is not an independent being with a right to live his own life but the vassal of an invisible Lord. It says, in effect, “I own you; you must obey me.”

Could America be based on this? Is such a servile idea even consistent with what America represents: the land of the free, independent, sovereign individual who exists for his own sake? The question is rhetorical.

The second commandment is an elaboration of the above, with material about not serving any other god and not worshipping “graven images” (idols). The Hebrew and Protestant versions threaten heretics with reprisals against their descendants--inherited sin--“visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation . . .”

This primitive conception of law and morality flatly contradicts American values. Inherited guilt is an impossible and degrading concept. How can you be guilty for something you didn’t do? In philosophic terms, it represents the doctrine of determinism, the idea that your choices count for nothing, that factors beyond your control govern your “destiny.” This is the denial of free will and therefore of self-responsibility.

The nation of the self-made man cannot be squared with the ugly notion that you are to be punished for the “sin” of your great-grandfather.

The numbering differs among the various versions, but the next two or three commandments proscribe taking the Lord’s name “in vain” and spending a special day, the Sabbath, in propitiating Him.

In sum, the first set of commandments orders you to bow, fawn, grovel and obey. This is impossible to reconcile with the American concept of a self-reliant, self-owning individual.

The middle commandment, “Honor thy father and mother,” is manifestly unjust. Justice demands that you honor those who deserve honor, who have earned it by their choices and actions. Your particular father and mother may or may not deserve your honor--that is for you to judge on the basis of how they have treated you and of a rational evaluation of their moral character.

To demand that Stalin’s daughter honor Stalin is not only obscene, but also demonstrates the demand for mindlessness implicit in the first set of commandments. You are commanded not to think or judge, but to jettison your reason and simply obey.

The second set of commandments is unobjectionable but common to virtually every organized society--the commandments against murder, theft, perjury and the like. But what is objectionable is the notion that there is no rational, earthly basis for refraining from criminal behavior, that it is only the not-to-be-questioned decree of a supernatural Punisher that makes acts like theft and murder wrong.

The basic philosophy of the Ten Commandments is the polar opposite of the philosophy underlying the American ideal of a free society. Freedom requires:

-- a metaphysics of the natural, not the supernatural; of free will, not determinism; of the primary reality of the individual, not the tribe or the family;

-- an epistemology of individual thought, applying strict logic, based on individual perception of reality, not obedience and dogma;

-- an ethics of rational self-interest, to achieve chosen values, for the purpose of individual happiness on this earth, not fearful, dutiful appeasement of “a jealous God” who issues “commandments.”

Rather than the Ten Commandments, the actual grounding for American values is that captured by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged:

“If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man’s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a ‘moral commandment’ is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.”

Edited by the tortured one
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, it's not quite accurate to say, "Catholics [...] teach that man's actions on Earth determine whether or not he can go to Heaven."

Well, they (and all non-determinist Christian denominations) teach that man's actions on Earth, specifically the choice to "accept" Jesus, plays a part in salvation. If you accept Jesus, you will be saved, but if you don't, you will be damned to Hell. Calvinists think this is a sacrilege because it doesn't paint man as completely powerless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I did not see it before, I happened to notice this statement:

I do admit that the Church condemns the Objectivist notion of capitalism. It is quite supportive of other forms---and yes, I am referring here to the term "capitalism" as understood by the rest of the world.

actually, the Bible is rather explicitly against Capitalism. Allow me to demonstrate.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

True Christians should be paying double the amount of money if they lose a lawsuit

And [John the Baptist] said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you. And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? and he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages

True Christians can not ask for a raise.

Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

True Christians can not hold depts, nor can they file charges if someone steals from them. If I were to walk into your house and just start taking stuff that appealed to me, It would be a sin for you to do anything to stop me. I wonder what kind of society could exist without respect to property laws... oh I know, let's ask the people who lived in Soviet Russia.

And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.

Jesus never condemns slavery, in fact he seems to be endorsing it! I mean, if Jesus hated slavery, why would he use such an example? And no, this is not part of the parable Jesus was giving in Luke 12:41-48, this is an explanation Jesus was giving in response to a question by Peter. This is one of many verses in the Bible which proclaims that slaves need to be unquestionably obedient.

by the way, in the hebrew bible, the term used is Doulos, which is used to mean both slave and servant.

The idea of slavery is in every way anti-capitalist.

"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? . . . Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor; and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."

That is collectivism, in every essence of the word, and completely incompatible with ANY hybrid form of Capitalism one can come up with.

These are but a few of the good ones. I could go into the old testament, which is filled with so many inane laws that it would simply be too easy for me to bring up. Modern historians doubt the ancient Isrealites could have abided by them, because it would have meant the economic suicide of ancient Israel.

Don't think that being Christian excuses you from the old testament either

For I verily say unto you, Till Heaven and Earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fufilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the few quotes above, it would appear that modern church theory does not support dictatorships, whether communist or fascist. Also, I will believe the resident expert (AqAd, that's thee) when he says that the modern church does not support our (Objectivist) system: unbridled Capitalism (with the "unbridled" slipped in so that we do not get side-tracked about definitions of our terms).

I assume that modern church theory no longer supports monarchies in the form that older church did. (Or we could discuss if they ever did.)

So, this leads me to conclude that the church supports some form of mixed-economy.

Edit by Felipe: Inserted hyperlink to quotes being refered to since this post was moved to another thread

Edited by Felipe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...