Anarchy - Catholic Encyclopedia
#11
ONeill Wrote:
Telemaque Wrote:Catholicism and Anarchism are like Catholicism and Marxism - Christ and Antichrist.

Exactly. I knew you'd agree.

Another nonsense post.
Reply
#12
QuisUtDeus Wrote:I see what ONeill is saying, but I also want to add that I think it is imprudent to go against the commonly accepted meaning of a word.
I only use it on the forum profile, I don't actually discuss it like that. I typically when personally asked say I'm "Catholic" or "not political". When doing profiles on forums however, I may indulge my "poetic" use of the word.

Quote:So, while I agree with you, ONeill, on your views, I think it may be imprudent to cling to Anarchist because of the commonly accepted meaning of that word.  Though, I certainly don't think it is anything more than imprudent based on your statements.
I know, I would not use that as the official declaration of my beliefs or if I didn't have the oppurtunity to clarify. It sort of invites discussion, which, on a forum, is a good thing I think.

Reply
#13
Telemaque Wrote:
ONeill Wrote:
Telemaque Wrote:Catholicism and Anarchism are like Catholicism and Marxism - Christ and Antichrist.

Exactly. I knew you'd agree.

Another nonsense post.

If you read what I wrote, you'd see I view politics as I see them as against the Church.

Reply
#14
Anastasia Wrote:Perhaps anarchist isn't the right word for ONeill's political views, then. Seems more like an "anti-utopian" system. In a way, I kind of agree; even if we did have a catholic state, it could never be perfect, as all states are run by sinners. Walter de la Mare-"There are no fields of amaranth on this side of the grave".

I often say "Politics corrupt and attract the corrupt" for this reason my true political view is flexible. I believe governments should be small and close to the people. The closest political party defined in the USA at one point would be "anti-federalist" but that is no longer an option unless the federal government collapses as I think will eventually happen.
Reply
#15
Some members of the Austrian school of economics (Rockwell, Schiff, Rogers, etc.) use the term "Anarcho-Capitalist" to describe themselves. [Image: shrug.gif]

It might be entirely different, though.
Reply
#16
QuisUtDeus Wrote:Anarchist because of the commonly accepted meaning of that word.  Though, I certainly don't think it is anything more than imprudent based on your statements.

What if he called himself a Marxist?

Would that just be "imprudent"?
Reply
#17
Telemaque Wrote:What if he called himself a Marxist?

Would that just be "imprudent"?

Marx believed his ideals where the natural state of man. I do not. I think Marx had a point, but in the end, I think Nietzsche described fallen man best. Without the Church, we can be no more than what Nietzsche describes.
Reply
#18
Stephanos Wrote:Some members of the Austrian school of economics (Rockwell, Schiff, Rogers, etc.) use the term "Anarcho-Capitalist" to describe themselves. [Image: shrug.gif]

It might be entirely different, though.

They are not really anarchists.

Opposing the Austrian Heresy
Reply
#19
Civil Allegiance

Quote:The state of civil society then is the state of nature; there never was, nor, man's nature being what it is, could there be could there be a state in which men led a solitary life of freedom without the restraints and the advantages of civil society, such as was dreamed of by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. The authority of the state is derived not from a social compact, voluntarily entered into by men, but, like the authority of the father of a family, it is derived from nature herself, and from God, the Author and the Lord of nature.
Reply
#20
The Sublimity of Monarchism, posted in Traditio in Radice.

Today, Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh said goodbye to Canada after a nine-day tour that was for the most part in honour of the province of Saskatchewan's Centennial Celebration. I would be remiss if I did not on this occasion express my loyalty to the Sovereign of Canada and extoll the virtues of monarchy.

Monarchies are, of course, the form of government most consistent with Catholicism. In his allocution on the death of Louis XVI, Pourquoi Notre Voix, Pope Pius VI declared that Monarchy is "the best of all governments." His Holiness also went on to attack the French Revolutionaries for abolishing the French monarchy in that same document. In writing after writing, before and since, divers Popes heave praise monarchism, pointing out its roots in the Kingship of Christ Himself. In 1925, Pius XI wrote an encyclical on the topic, Quas primas, in which he maintained that Christ Himself speaks of His own Kingly authority. In that document he wrote:

Quote:"When once men recognise, both in private and in public life that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well ordered discipline, peace and harmony. Our Lord's regal office invests the human authority of princes and rulers with a religious significance; it ennobles the citizen's duty of obedience."
A monarchy best reflects the hierarchical reality of heaven. When we pray the Pater Noster we say: fiat volúntas tua, sicut in cælo, et in terra (thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven). By this very phrase we pledge our support of monarchism as heaven (the Church Triumphant) is a monarchy with God as the head, just as the Church Militant has the Pope as its monarchical head. It is because of this that I call monarchism sublime.

Monarchies, some might think ironically, also afford citizens much more freedom than democratic states. In lands where mob rule and popularity determine the course a government takes, it is never long before the masses realise that they can vote themselves a share of their neighbour's goods. This leads to the socialistic welfare states we see today and the "salary equalization" taxes. Furthermore, monarchs are always tightly bound by tradition, custom, and law. They tend to have much smaller bounds than the ever-expanding powers of democracies. In the Middle Ages, if a King broke the law, the great men of the realm would oppose him for his own sake as was done with the famous Magna Carta. If the king went too far, the Church would excommunicate him. On the other hand, democracy has given us the likes of Hitler and on a much lesser scale we see the impunity with which some modern democratic leaders act. Admittedly, local ordinaries and popes willing to exercise their office on such leaders are necessary for a monarchy to function properly and would probably help with the current situation to a degree.

Pope Leo XIII said in Rerum Novarum, that "if society is to be healed now, in no other way can it be healed save by a return to Christian life and Christian institutions". One such Christian institution is that of the Catholic monarchy. A Catholic republic is paradoxical, for it is really an anti-Catholic form of government staffed by Catholics. The principles that underlie "democracy", those of 1776 and 1789 are absolutely incompatible with Catholicism.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)