Catholicism: Ask the "Expert"

[AqAd]

SoftwareNerd,

To elaborate: the Church teaches, according to the Catechism: "Socialization (here it is referring to socialism) also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good." (CCC 1883)

"The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends towards the establishment of true international order." (CCC 1885)

"In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies." (CCC 1894)

Obviously, that does not square with Objectivism, but it doesn't square with socialism either.

As for monarchy: that's an interesting question. The Catechism states, "The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed." (CCC 1901) I suppose, then, if people willingly submit to a monarchy, and they like the guy and he does a good job, then it's their business. I'll have to do some more research.

[AMERICONORMAN]

SoftwareNerd,

To elaborate: the Church teaches, according to the Catechism: "Socialization (here it is referring to socialism) also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good." (CCC 1883)

"The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends towards the establishment of true international order." (CCC 1885)

"In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies." (CCC 1894)

Sorry, Felipe: I posted this before the post was moved. I have posted this there as well.

Obviously, that does not square with Objectivism, but it doesn't square with socialism either.

As for monarchy: that's an interesting question. The Catechism states, "The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed." (CCC 1901) I suppose, then, if people willingly submit to a monarchy, and they like the guy and he does a good job, then it's their business. I'll have to do some more research.

The quotes do indeed jive with Socialism, if it is a socialism whose central principle is altruism, an altruism where one's moral duty is to live for others, where one is an means to the ends of others.

Because economics is a way to change society for the better ...because, as an example and indication of a wider idea, a bar owner can refuse entry to who ever he like, accordinng to true natural law. An owner of a highways can prohibit entry to those who drive too slow. A private school university, in an atmosphere where private schools compete against each other, where a school of Objectivism, and Nietzsche, and Marx, all compete with each other as possibilities to a fulfilling life long life--will win out and change the electorate and thus the nature of politicians.

The point is is that money is an instrument of peace and not the root of all evil, as Francisco had to remind Rearden of.

Americo.

Americo.

[AqAd]

I see that I've missed some questions above since this was moved. I'll answer the quick ones.

Rational One, you asked, " Is not the bible the ultimate philosophical source for christianity?" Not in Catholicism.

Gabriel, you asked, "I'm confused. If they don't have a clue as to what they believe or why, are they still Catholics?" Good question! Personally, I think that if one calls themselves a Catholic, they ought to know why.

Tortured One, there's a huge flaw in your statement, "actually, the Bible is rather explicitly against Capitalism. Allow me to demonstrate": None of your demonstrations prove anything, since you aren't the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church interprets the Bible, not you. Address your demonstrations to Protestants, not Catholics.

Ann R Kay, you asked, "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"?.

Flawed. Again, read the newspapers and open a history book---do you see examples of all men using their intellects rightly; solving all problems perfectly; with no examples of hideous cruelty to others? Is that perfect?

And you wrote: "But please, back it up with a cite from what the Church actually teaches, and not your own questionable claim to expertise on Catholicism.

I never claimed to be an expert on Catholicism. Therefore my "claim" cannot be "questionable", since it was never made.

Edited April 8, 2005 by AqAd

[the tortured one]

Tortured One, there's a huge flaw in your statement, "actually, the Bible is rather explicitly against Capitalism. Allow me to demonstrate": None of your demonstrations prove anything, since you aren't the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church interprets the Bible, not you. Address your demonstrations to Protestants, not Catholics.

Wait a minute... the Catholic ministry overrides the very book it's faith is based upon? I thought the Bible was supposed to be the perfect book, written by God himself? What make's the Church's interpretation (which has been known to contradict itself on more than one occasion) intrinsically superior to anyone elses? I mean, if the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" what gives the Catholic church (which has broken this rule plenty of times) intrinsic superiority over a Christian pacifist?

it sounds like you are A: defaulting to an authority, and B: avoiding the question. If there is a flaw in the logic of any of the conclusions I came too, by all means enlighten me. I mean, I could say to you "you don't know enough about Objectivism to refute anything, because you have not read enough Ayn Rand scholars like Leonard Peikoff and Harry Binswanger to come to such a conclusion" is the same thing you told me to do. Forget reading Ayn Rand herself, you haven't read enough Peikoff and Binswanger, so you can't speak for Objectivists.

It's a rediculous presupposition, one none of the Objectivists have resorted too. I am going to the very base of Christian ethics (we haven't even started with Christian Metaphysics) which is the Bible, the book which Catholic doctrines are based off of. There is no reason going after the intricacies of the church when I can question the foundation of the entire thing and bring the whole thing down in a fraction of the effort.

Edited April 8, 2005 by the tortured one

[AqAd]

Tortured One,

It would make the discussion much more worthwhile if non-Catholics were reasonably familiar with Catholicism before criticizing it. As I have mentioned before, the Objectivists on this forum would---very correctly---dismiss the opinions of a critic of Objectivism who not only had not read any essential works of Ms. Rand, but clearly misunderstood even the basic foundations of the philosophy. That's what you and others are doing with Catholicism. I provided a list of what I consider essentials of Catholicism; perhaps until you familiarize yourself with the topic it would be best to refrain from statements such as yours.

This is one example of ignorance: "Wait a minute... the Catholic ministry overrides the very book it's faith is based upon?" What makes you think that Catholicism is based solely on the Bible? Did Jesus found a publishing company?

You also asked, "What make's the Church's interpretation (which has been known to contradict itself on more than one occasion) intrinsically superior to anyone elses?" The Church was founded by Jesus, and the "keys to the kingdom" given to Peter. The authority to "bind and loose" (and all that that implies) was given first to Peter and then later to the rest of his apostles. So, in answer to your question, that authority trumps Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, etc....and you.

I'd be interested in knowing about those contradictions you mention. Please be specific, and be sure to know the distinction between doctrine (big "T" tradition) and discipline (small "t" tradition). I mention this because invariably when someone claims what you have about the Church contradicting itself, I find that they haven't a clue as to what these differences mean. If they had studied the topic beforehand, they would have answered their own questions (and saved me much time). This has been my simple advice all along: know what you are criticizing before you criticize it.

You claimed to have been a devout Catholic at one time. This is hard to believe given the very basic nature of the questions you have raised, and the misconceptions that they reveal. And it is quite surprising that you write, "I mean, if the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" what gives the Catholic church (which has broken this rule plenty of times) intrinsic superiority over a Christian pacifist?" ---as even a poorly taught Catholic (let alone a "devout" one) has probably been told at sometime, or has found out on their own, that the commandment is more accurately translated as "Thou shall not murder", as self-defense is perfectly legitimate, and there are cases when war is necessary as a last resort. If someone considers themselves a "Christian pacifist", well, they are free to be one. But I would not regard them as having any authority. They aren't the Church.

Your statement, "I mean, I could say to you "you don't know enough about Objectivism to refute anything, because you have not read enough Ayn Rand scholars like Leonard Peikoff and Harry Binswanger to come to such a conclusion" is the same thing you told me to do", contains a fatal flaw: I'm not refuting Objectivism as you are attempting to refute Catholicism. My understanding is that any attempt to do so on my part would be against forum rules and I would likely be banned. (Which is OK---you have the right to make up your own rules for your own forum.) I have restricted myself to correcting the misconceptions about Catholicism that frequently appear here, and answering other questions that have been asked of me. (By the way, I have read Peikoff (OPAR) in addition to Ms. Rand.) So my advice to you, "learn at least the essentials of a philosophy before you criticize it", still stands.

And it is very difficult to give credence to the idea that you were a "devout Catholic" when you write this: "There is no reason going after the intricacies of the church when I can question the foundation of the entire thing and bring the whole thing down in a fraction of the effort." You are claiming that the foundation of the Catholic Church is the Bible---what are you basing this assertion upon?