FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Counter-reformation 2.0
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(02-28-2017, 11:45 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-28-2017, 10:45 PM)Dave01 Wrote: [ -> ]This may be slightly off topic, but I'm baffled as to how you could see a contradiction in libertariansim (not libertinism!) and Catholocism.

Not Catholicism in general, but traditionalist Catholicism specifically.  Libertarianism and theocracy of any sort are mutually exclusive.

A theocracy is mutually exclusive with Libertinism, not libertarianism – at least if we define libertarianism as “the rule of private property” or some such other similar definition.

Imagine a successful Catholic property and business owner decides to implement large elements of the faith into his business, including allowing the Church some authority over the way he runs his property, manages his employees, etc. Imagine he becomes more and more successful, and eventually owns a large swath of land, and has other successful land owners in the area who also agree with allowing the Church to have authority within their lands, paying him a fee, in exchange for his personal protection.

And voila, we have the Catholic Middle Ages. Perfectly in line with libertarianism, and also incorporating theocratic elements.
 
(03-01-2017, 08:29 AM)Dave01 Wrote: [ -> ]A theocracy is mutually exclusive with Libertinism, not libertarianism – at least if we define libertarianism as “the rule of private property” or some such other similar definition.

Imagine a successful Catholic property and business owner decides to implement large elements of the faith into his business, including allowing the Church some authority over the way he runs his property, manages his employees, etc. Imagine he becomes more and more successful, and eventually owns a large swath of land, and has other successful land owners in the area who also agree with allowing the Church to have authority within their lands, paying him a fee, in exchange for his personal protection.

And voila, we have the Catholic Middle Ages. Perfectly in line with libertarianism, and also incorporating theocratic elements.

Libertarianism can't properly be reduced to rule of private property.  That's a big part of it, but not all it is.  The rule of private property is a subset of the non-aggression principle.

So if private landowners want to enact theocratic principles on their land, there's no conflict with libertarianism there.  Using your analogy, the conflict comes in when the one landowner who doesn't want to enact Catholic principles is surrounded by landowners who do, and they then prevent the non-Catholic from leaving his property, or visitors or traders from coming to his property.  That is essentially what was described in the initial post, with heresy and private immorality being punished by the state.  People can't be forced to believe something.  People can only be forced to profess something.  If people are not free to express their true beliefs, and this act of repression, even if it doesn't present a significant hardship, is supported by the Catholic Church, or is seen as a good by a Catholic society, then insofar as that is true of Catholicism, Catholicism is anti-free will.  If Catholicism would prevent people from smoking marijuana, contracepting or having gay sex on their own property, then Catholicism is anti-free will. 

Libertinism, true libertinism, is people wanting to do whatever they want, without repercussion, *even if it causes some moderate harm or hardship to another person.*  Merely dissenting from Catholicism is not libertinism, but it seems some Catholics think it is just that.  If a Catholic state does not protect the right to individuals to dissent, then at best it may peripherally adopt some libertarian principles, but is not compatible with libertarianism in se.
(03-01-2017, 10:44 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]Libertarianism can't properly be reduced to rule of private property.  That's a big part of it, but not all it is.  The rule of private property is a subset of the non-aggression principle.

I would disagree. The NAP flows from the a priori statement that private property is part of the natural law (as even argued by non-Catholics such as Rothbard and Hoppe). Because private property is thus part of the natural law, therefore I do not have the right to aggress against my neighbor's person or property (i.e., the NAP). Hence, the NAP is based on private property, which itself is based on the natural law. 

(03-01-2017, 10:44 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]So if private landowners want to enact theocratic principles on their land, there's no conflict with libertarianism there.  Using your analogy, the conflict comes in when the one landowner who doesn't want to enact Catholic principles is surrounded by landowners who do, and they then prevent the non-Catholic from leaving his property, or visitors or traders from coming to his property.

This sounds like one of those typically anti-libertarian arguments. Why, if we have private roads, a road owner could prevent people from leaving their houses unless they give him a million dollars!!

(03-01-2017, 10:44 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]That is essentially what was described in the initial post, with heresy and private immorality being punished by the state.  People can't be forced to believe something.  People can only be forced to profess something.  If people are not free to express their true beliefs, and this act of repression, even if it doesn't present a significant hardship, is supported by the Catholic Church, or is seen as a good by a Catholic society, then insofar as that is true of Catholicism, Catholicism is anti-free will.  If Catholicism would prevent people from smoking marijuana, contracepting or having gay sex on their own property, then Catholicism is anti-free will.

1) By this logic, a landlord forcing his tenants to adhere to a basic code of conduct, or a mother forcing her child to complete their homework, are both "anti-free will".

2) Freedom =/ free will. A drug addict can choose to do drugs of his own free will, and become a slave (i.e., lose his freedom) to the drug. A murderer can choose of his own free will to murder someone, and thereby justly be put in jail and lose his freedom of mobility.

Just because we advocate the punishment of evil and encouragement of good, does not in any way we are "anti-free will".

3) Political freedom =/ moral freedom.

Let's use two examples:

1) Imagine two people, both with equal musical talent, and will a calling to the music industry. Person A receives no musical education, and only realizes his talent when it is too late to develop it. Person B receives a solid musical education, learns to play the piano at a young age, and spends his life exercising his musical talents. 

2) Person A and person B both have the option to become alcoholics in college. Person A had a poor upbringing with an absentee father, and so for various reasons seeks an outlet in the form of alcohol, and so does indeed become an addict. Person B had a solid upbringing, and so is able to resist this temptation, and does not become an addict.

Now, it would be a complete absurdity to state that in both examples, Persons A and B are "equally free", just because they live in the same country, and are bound by the same political laws.

Thus, in addition to the political element of freedom, there is a still greater moral element of freedom which is based on knowing what the true good for man is, what means are necessary to attain this good, and finally, being able to make use of those means. 

This is the issue with libertarianism, not in itself, but as you posit it. Libertarianism is not a moral philosophy. It does not tell us how a man should treat his wife, how a child should respect his mother, what is good and bad with reagrds to sex, or the answers to a thousand other questions. And that's perfectly OK, so long as we treat Libertarianism within its proper scope.; i.e., that pibertarianism proves the way to an economically prosperous and generally harmonious society is through respect of private property and free markets. No more and no less. As a comparison, the field of plumbing does not give us the answers to the meaning of life, which is perfectly fine, so long as we do not treat the study of pipes as the final answer to all of life's moral questions!

Now it is true that libertarianism does have moral elements to it, just as many other disciplines do.  The field of etiquette, for example, deals with the virtue of temperance. To become a soldier, one must learn fortitude. Just like libertarianism, these are specific fields which involve the moral law, but do not contain the fullness of the moral law. 
I'm not even sure there could be a Counter-Reformation 2.0, at least not today in our very secular, very liberal, irreligious western society. Considering how much the Church promotes "ecumenism" (not ecumenism leading to conversion to the faith, but to mostly useless "dialogue" that further states it's okay for non-Catholics to stay within their religious communities without thought of converting), "tolerance", "social justice", etc. I can see a huge worldwide hullabaloo that the media/secular governments/lapsed or non-Catholics would throw over such a major overhaul...."you mean Fr. Joe is going to be ousted because he can't hold Glitter Wednesday anymore? Bishop John will no longer be a bishop because he officiated and blessed a gay "marriage?" No more religious sisters not wearing their habits and protesting for "reproductive rights" at abortion rallies? Oh the horror!" :LOL:

Maybe it's just me and I'm wrong. I'm such a huge pessimist I can't help but be used to the wonky Catholicism that I've been subdued to my whole life. Four to five-hundred years ago I could see a Counter-Reformation as being possible (as it happened at that time) due to the geopolitics, the Catholic societies at the time, and the more in-depth role the papacy may have had over nations. Now, not so much.
(03-05-2017, 10:51 AM)Sequentia Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not even sure there could be a Counter-Reformation 2.0, at least not today in our very secular, very liberal, irreligious western society. Considering how much the Church promotes "ecumenism" (not ecumenism leading to conversion to the faith, but to mostly useless "dialogue" that further states it's okay for non-Catholics to stay within their religious communities without thought of converting), "tolerance", "social justice", etc. I can see a huge worldwide hullabaloo that the media/secular governments/lapsed or non-Catholics would throw over such a major overhaul...."you mean Fr. Joe is going to be ousted because he can't hold Glitter Wednesday anymore? Bishop John will no longer be a bishop because he officiated and blessed a gay "marriage?" No more religious sisters not wearing their habits and protesting for "reproductive rights" at abortion rallies? Oh the horror!" :LOL:

Maybe it's just me and I'm wrong. I'm such a huge pessimist I can't help but be used to the wonky Catholicism that I've been subdued to my whole life. Four to five-hundred years ago I could see a Counter-Reformation as being possible (as it happened at that time) due to the geopolitics, the Catholic societies at the time, and the more in-depth role the papacy may have had over nations. Now, not so much.

My hope is that the goofiest of Catholics, happen to be old people.  Once the Hippies die-off, then there may be a chance, albeit a very remote.
(03-05-2017, 02:12 AM)Dave01 Wrote: [ -> ]I would disagree. The NAP flows from the a priori statement that private property is part of the natural law (as even argued by non-Catholics such as Rothbard and Hoppe). Because private property is thus part of the natural law, therefore I do not have the right to aggress against my neighbor's person or property (i.e., the NAP). Hence, the NAP is based on private property, which itself is based on the natural law.

I've never thought about the NAP as being part of natural law, although, now that I think about it, that really does make sense.  My thinking was that if the NAP came from property rights, then that would essentially mean that if it is not a property issue, then aggression could hypothetically be ok otherwise, and most Libertarians would disagree with that.  Although, responding to aggression with aggression as a necessary form of self-defense is generally accepted.  So, this would bring to me, what if people are disobeying social norms on their own property? Even if everyone was in agreement that the actions in question violate the moral law, Libertarianism would still consider it unacceptable aggression to force people to obey someone else's moral code, against their will, on their own property.  This is what would make a theocracy anti-free will, or at least potentially if it went so far as to enforce morality on private property. 

Quote:1) By this logic, a landlord forcing his tenants to adhere to a basic code of conduct, or a mother forcing her child to complete their homework, are both "anti-free will".

That's true, they are, at least under those circumstances.  But it is acceptable because they are on their own property. 

Quote:2) Freedom =/ free will. A drug addict can choose to do drugs of his own free will, and become a slave (i.e., lose his freedom) to the drug. A murderer can choose of his own free will to murder someone, and thereby justly be put in jail and lose his freedom of mobility.
Just because we advocate the punishment of evil and encouragement of good, does not in any way we are "anti-free will".

Sure it does.  It just may be acceptable under certain circumstances.  A drug addict can choose drugs, and yes, that may actually enslave him, but ultimately, why should he not be able to submit himself to slavery if he understands the consequences fully and does so willingly?  This would be covered by informed consent, although we usually only think of that term in a medical context.  A murderer can choose to use his free will and kill someone but he is aggressing against another, because the victim presumably did not give consent to be murdered.  It would not be a violation of the NAP to restrict free will when free will violates another person's sovereignty, but that has never been in question.  Enforcing morality, such as drug use, immoral sex or other laws that create victimless criminals is absolutely anti-free will.

Quote:Thus, in addition to the political element of freedom, there is a still greater moral element of freedom which is based on knowing what the true good for man is, what means are necessary to attain this good, and finally, being able to make use of those means.

This is something that can only be taught by religion or philosophy.  It is not something you could prove empirically to someone who does not accept the religion or philosophy. So in the context of a country where there are people who do not accept your religion or philosophy, and want to live their own life (moderate their personal property as they see fit, if we're going to look at it like that) as they choose, insofar as it doesn't harm another, I don't understand how you could restrict that and say in the same breath that you are not anti-free will, at least some of the time, to some people.  And, particularly, in a way that is antithetical to Libertarianism.
(03-05-2017, 11:04 AM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-05-2017, 10:51 AM)Sequentia Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not even sure there could be a Counter-Reformation 2.0, at least not today in our very secular, very liberal, irreligious western society. Considering how much the Church promotes "ecumenism" (not ecumenism leading to conversion to the faith, but to mostly useless "dialogue" that further states it's okay for non-Catholics to stay within their religious communities without thought of converting), "tolerance", "social justice", etc. I can see a huge worldwide hullabaloo that the media/secular governments/lapsed or non-Catholics would throw over such a major overhaul...."you mean Fr. Joe is going to be ousted because he can't hold Glitter Wednesday anymore? Bishop John will no longer be a bishop because he officiated and blessed a gay "marriage?" No more religious sisters not wearing their habits and protesting for "reproductive rights" at abortion rallies? Oh the horror!" :LOL:

Maybe it's just me and I'm wrong. I'm such a huge pessimist I can't help but be used to the wonky Catholicism that I've been subdued to my whole life. Four to five-hundred years ago I could see a Counter-Reformation as being possible (as it happened at that time) due to the geopolitics, the Catholic societies at the time, and the more in-depth role the papacy may have had over nations. Now, not so much.

My hope is that the goofiest of Catholics, happen to be old people.  Once the Hippies die-off, then there may be a chance, albeit a very remote.

Ageist! :O  I'm one of those "old people"* and some of the goofiest, most irreverent, self-centered Catholics I've ever met are young people.  So there  :P!

:LOL: :LOL:







*Though I don't claim to be a "good" Catholic, a "good" Orthodox, or a "good" anything, other than self-proclaimed "heretic"  :grin:.
(03-05-2017, 03:05 PM)J Michael Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-05-2017, 11:04 AM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]My hope is that the goofiest of Catholics, happen to be old people.  Once the Hippies die-off, then there may be a chance, albeit a very remote.

Ageist! :O  I'm one of those "old people"* and some of the goofiest, most irreverent, self-centered Catholics I've ever met are young people.  So there  :P!

:LOL: :LOL:

*Though I don't claim to be a "good" Catholic, a "good" Orthodox, or a "good" anything, other than self-proclaimed "heretic"  :grin:.

Agreed! I'm almost 70 and I was definitely a hippy in the late 60s and early 70s. Now my FB intro says, 'I'm just your average reactionary, distributist, monarchist, Traditional Catholic. Pretty normal! LOL'
Pages: 1 2 3