The Church and fascism
#21
JonathanCid Wrote:
Quote:You are simply confusing terms. Frankly, you are doing it throughout your post.

I have been very clear about the terms, and you may seek their definitions.

Agreed, and I will hold you to those terms.

Quote:
Quote:The simple answer is: no.

The simple reason is: the Church existed having those properties long before the political theory of fascism. Therefore, it cannot be fascist. Maybe fascism stole some ideas, or got some ideas from the same source (i.e., the Roman Empire), but that doesn't make the Church fascist.

Quis, I understand what you're saying but I use the term "fascism" because, as I've demonstrated already, the Church meets the characteristics of fascism. I couldn't call the Fascism of Mussolini a perverted "political Catholicism" because Catholicism is not a political ideology/philosophy. But in terms of the Church's polity and political views, the Church meets the characteristics of fascism. And again, the negative associations of that word must be removed if one intends to be objective... if one associates feelings with the word, or allows their feelings and devotion for the Church to involve itself with definitions, one is not being objective.

No, the Church does not meet the characteristics of "fascism"; as I said, it cannot because "fascism" did not exist when the Church started nor throughout most of its history.  You cannot take an approach to governance that was invented in the early 1900's and apply it to 300 A.D.  What the Church was and is stands alone from fascism.

It has nothing to do with so-called negative feelings.  You can ask if the Church is tyrranical, totalitarian, etc., because those types of government and political policies did exist at its inception.  Fascism did not.

Asking if the Church is fascist is akin to asking if a horse and buggy is a sports car.

Quote:I couldn't call the Fascism of Mussolini a perverted "political Catholicism" because Catholicism is not a political ideology/philosophy.

Exactly.  And since Catholicism is not a political ideology/philosophy, you cannot apply the political ideological and philosophical term "fascist" to it without being intellectually dishonest.

Further, even if we were to ignore all these flaws in logic whereby the Church CANNOT be fascist, you are using a criteria of fascism that, as far as I can tell, was invented by you.  We can start simple and go from there.  Here's the dictionary definition:

fas·cism [Image: audio.gif]
Pronunciation:
\ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date:
1921 1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition Does the Church exalt nation above individual?  No.Does the Church exalt race above individual?  No.Does the Church have a centralized autocratic government?  No - the bishops are autonomous in their dioceses.Does the Church have a dictatorial leader?  Yes, in the sense the Pope can issue bulls and define dogma unilaterally.Does the Church have severe economic and social regimentation?  No.Does the Church engage in forcible suppression of opposition?  Historically, yes; currently, no. So, even if we ignore the logical fallacy of applying a term from 1921 to something that existed in current form from like 300AD (at least), and if we take the dictionary definition of fascism, then it is clear the Church is not fascist because the only criteria it meets is the one you came up with yourself. If you want to be objective, then be objective.  Don't make the list of criteria fit the question;  ask the question with objective criteria.
Reply
#22
Quote:In a Catholic state, you would be able to believe whatever you want, as long as you don't endanger others.

In the USA, a very broad term, for it is a bunch of states with different laws, freedom of expression varies anyway. Freedom has a different meaning for such a state. In the USA, the freedom to kill your babies, have unnatural sexual relations with anyone you please as long as they are 18 and consensual, speak against God, actively try to pull people away from God is what freedom means. In the Catholic state, freedom would be freedom to do what is right. One would not be allowed to be a danger to others.

Consider that. Which is more admirable?

"Endanger" is a very misleading term. The Church considers debating what the Church teaches "dangerous", and thus punishable. In other words, you'll have to take me away in handcuffs or line me up and shoot at me if you want to silence me. That, is not freedom. It is not about "freedom to do what is right", because I may argue that what is right is not at all what the Church says is right... however, I would not be allowed to express that point to begin with. I am forced to live like a dog, and cower in silence. To forsake my integrity, if you will. That's not something I can fathom, and you won't for a second convince me that that is the true freedom.

Also, as a side note, I wonder if someone could answer this question for me. Under the confessional state, one who isn't Catholic is still required to pay a tax for the Church correct?
Reply
#23
Rosarium Wrote:
Quote:Yes, but the difference is that in the modern USA you are free to say what you like, and people are free to dislike what you say. Under, say, a Catholic confessional state, I may not say what I like. Period. And if I do, there are consequences. Freedom is not a political value for such a state.
In a Catholic state, you would be able to believe whatever you want, as long as you don't endanger others. 
In the USA, a very broad term, for it is a bunch of states with different laws, freedom of expression varies anyway. Freedom has a different meaning for such a state. In the USA, the freedom to kill your babies, have unnatural sexual relations with anyone you please as long as they are 18 and consensual, speak against God, actively try to pull people away from God is what freedom means. In the Catholic state, freedom would be freedom to do what is right. One would not be allowed to be a danger to others. 
Consider that. Which is more admirable? 

Allegedly, this is how America is supposed to work....but because of hyperegalitarian, pseudo socialist perversion of the word "freedom" (positive liberty to "do what you want" vs. the "negative liberty" to "avoid having what you don't want done TO you" that our founding fathers envisioned) this is not what we have.  Sound insight on Catholic radio talks a lot about how, as when Israel was laitized after the Calf apostasy, Israel was not just "free FROM the restrictive confines of Egypt" but free TO xyz....True freedom is the freedom to act as God wills, defined by the Church...and the hypothetical "Catholofascist" state which I previously said would be acceptable would be advocating just that: the state as a singular, hierarchical mediator of God's law (no abortion, probably no unnatural contraception, harsh, public penalties for things like theft or sexual misconduct, etc.)  Additionally, certain constitutional precepts just don't always fit in with the scheme of God's plan for our lives: "freedom of speech" no more means blasphemy or calling our troops babykillers, than "freedom to bear arms" means hunting squirrels with an RPG...and in the state of which I'm talking about, public caning administered by a one-party, (necessarily God-motivated) government would not be too harsh a penalty. 
Reply
#24
Quis, because I am not intellectually dishonest and I feel that your points are valid and well-explained, I will concede that my argument that the Church is fascist fails my own standard. I only care about the truth, and I am happy to concede.

Norbert's point is probably more logically in line in terms of a hypothetical "Catholofascist" state being in line with the Church, even if the Church itself does not meet the definition of fascist.
Reply
#25
JonathanCid Wrote:Quis, because I am not intellectually dishonest and I feel that your points are valid and well-explained, I will concede that my argument that the Church is fascist fails my own standard. I only care about the truth, and I am happy to concede.

Thank you, you are a gentleman.

Now, it's not that I don't think your question is interesting, and as I mentioned, rephrased a different way it could probably get a discussion going vis-a-vis the Church vs. liberalism.  So, if that is still of interest to you, by all means rephrase it and ask again.  I think there will be some interesting answers such as Rosarium's comments on what real freedom is (and Rosarium is using an answer that has been given by the Church on that topic).
Reply
#26
JonathanCid Wrote:Norbert's point is probably more logically in line in terms of a hypothetical "Catholofascist" state being in line with the Church, even if the Church itself does not meet the definition of fascist.
On that note, allow me to introduce the mother of all threads on this issue:

Fascism and Catholicism:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens...topic=1084
Reply
#27
Quote:Allegedly, this is how America is supposed to work....but because of hyperegalitarian, pseudo socialist perversion of the word "freedom" (positive liberty to "do what you want" vs. the "negative liberty" to "avoid having what you don't want done TO you" that our founding fathers envisioned) this is not what we have
No, America defined endanger differently, almost purely physical or property. There are more important things than flesh and property.
Reply
#28
The problem is that due to propaganda and re-education, the Western world and the former Soviet world, in fact the entire world, associates Hitler with "Fascism" and Fascism no longer is the Italian Party ideology of Benito Mussolini, who was ambivalent on issues like antisemitism and racism.

But Fascism is a state-oriented ideology, exalting the collective at the cost of the individual. While the Church does not exalt itself at the cost of the individuals, but in order to sanctify and exalt the individual too.

Fascism historically is a complex phenomenon. Far more complex than Marxism for instance.

The word Fascism should not be used in the sense of Roosevelt and Stalin in WW2.

National-Socialism may incorporate elements from Fascism, but Fascism is Italian, and originally is not antisemitic. It remains an etatist error mostly though.

You should read Mit brennender Sorge  (1937) and Non abbiamo bisogno (1931), encyclicals.
Reply
#29
Rosarium, to argue that there are greater dangers, i.e., spiritual ones, you must first convince people that these exist to begin with.

HMiS, I'll check out those encyclicals. Fascism with a capital-"f" definitively speaks of the Italian movement, and fascism has various forms... Franco's Spain? As for National-Socialism, I can see how it has characters of "small-'f'" fascism, but it is itself a different ideology.
Reply
#30
Quote:Rosarium, to argue that there are greater dangers, i.e., spiritual ones, you must first convince people that these exist to begin with.
No. What is, is. It doesn't matter if people believe or not. 

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)