The Church and fascism

[kjvail]

I have no knee-jerk fear of "fascism" but I am curious as to where you get your definition if we are to classify Mussolini's (ghost written) philosophy as something else.
Fascism  (as I understand it) is a anti-liberal ideology of nationalism. It features a partnership between the state and big business (corporatist) with limitations on "free" speech, press and assembly for the benefit of the "public peace".
Now I get my idea of fascism from reading Mussolini, is there someone else who wrote on the topic? (I know Mussolini did not actually write the major treatises).
Aside from that it's a fascinating discussion. As a philosopher I'm sure you will appreciate it if we get to the core of the matter

Is the Church fascist?

No, because there are real fundamental difference in the notions of polity.
I suppose ecclessiology has to come into it right away.
What is the Church?
The body of Christ. A sacramental (supernatural) communion of persons.
The state is, by its own definition, natural. Therein lies our first distinction.

What are the characteristics of this communion?
It is one, holy, catholic, apostolic.
One - united. That fits with fascism well enough.

Holy -(" set apart"). Strictly speaking this fits, though certainly if the term "holy" is to retain its moral connation then there is a distinct problem historically.

catholic - definitely does not fit. One consistent feature of fascism is "nationalism". Exclusion of the other.

apostolic - fascism has no connection to the apostles or the government they lived under and advocated. St. Paul says, while living under pagan monarchy that we should respect the de facto authority because it is of God. But that is a long way from approving of Roman authority de jure.

Fascism assumes several things. It assumes, first and foremost, the authority of the state as an independent entity. I think this is problematic. It's definitely an "enlightenment" notion (actually it comes from the Renaissance period).
St. Augustine wrote of the Church replacing the state as the primary social organization of man, not justifying it or kowtowing to it. So perhaps we should ask is "the state" Catholic rather than is it is a Catholic state?

In the apostolic age the state justified it's authority by divine mandate. That became a Christian mandate under Theodosius. Dante has a theory that the Roman Empire is designated as a permanent temporal authority by virtue of its participation in the redemption of the world. Though compelling, we have to ask the question, is this a valid claim?
It's no coincidence that the authority of the state virtually disappears from the collapse of the Western empire until the Renaissance. It was at this point that unaltered pagan philosophy again became primary.
Machiavelli asserted the authority of the state over and against the Church. And its no coincidence that Machiavelli is from Northern Italy. The claims of the empire were strong there for many centuries.
The creation of the "secular" as an allegedly more basic and fundamental organization of society comes from this period. Later, it would be asserted that religion was added to "society", which apparently must exist in its secular form prior to this addition.
You decide, does that make sense?
Only then can you talk about church and state and therefore only then can you talk about a state where "nothing is above the state, nothing is outside the state".
 

[JonathanCid]

Don't presume to say what I'm trying to do. I didn't say the whole thing was a product of the Enlightenment.

The Church obviously teaches the supernatural, but is definately not relativistic. There is no "reconciliation" needed. God is Truth and eternal.

You say this first, and in your very next statement, you group the Enlightenment as one "ever changing collection of ideas". You can't have your cake and eat it too. Make clear what you mean, or I'm forced to presume what you mean.

Also, the reconciliation is not between absolutism and supernaturalism. Read what I said, and be accurate when you "quote" me, please. I said the Enlightenment's rationalism and absolutism were irreconcilable with modern relativism and supernaturalism.

I'm not sure what your point is. Do you not know anything about the Church?

Do you not know anything about Enlightenment thought, rationalism, and naturalism? Did you see that? I could just as easily respond the same.

That is what I meant. The Enlightenment is not an institution but an ever changing collection of ideas which are like leaves on a pond. The Church is an impenetrable pillar of Truth.

No - the Enlightenment is a historical period of time. Not a "collection of ideas which are like leaves on a pond." Very poetic. But poetry without veracity is vain.

Rosarium, O'Neill, La Roza, every discussion I try to be as courteous as possible, but I am indeed trying to have discussions, to test my own ideas, to contemplate things, to potentially learn from others. But if your remarks are going to be haughty and you're going to presume to talk down to me (and every now and then kindly "remind" me that this is a Catholic forum as though I need reminding or supervision) I will simply ignore your remarks from this point forward. I'm happy to have a substantive discussion, to find means whereby myself and others can be educated, but I won't participate in vain tit-for-tat. I very much enjoy logical, productive discussion, that is in line with my own search for truth, and respects the beliefs and faith of the members of this forum, but I don't have forever to live, and thus I don't much enjoy wasting time on pointless arguing.

[Historian]

Rosarium, O'Neill, La Roza, every discussion I try to be as courteous as possible, but I am indeed trying to have discussions, to test my own ideas, to contemplate things, to potentially learn from others.

It is only necessary to refer to me by my forum id. Not others.
Sorry if I'm wrong, but you came across as trying to test our ideas, rather than your own. 

But if your remarks are going to be haughty and you're going to presume to talk down to me (and every now and then kindly "remind" me that this is a Catholic forum as though I need reminding or supervision) I will simply ignore your remarks from this point forward.

Don't dig too deeply into my statements. If I wanted to be haughty, I'd say so. If I wanted to talk down to you, I would do it. 
I say this is a Catholic forum because it is. That means that Catholic beliefs are sort of presumed right? Going on a Catholic forum and asking if the Church is fascist is rather odd.

but I don't have forever to live, and thus I don't much enjoy wasting time on pointless arguing.

No we don't. We should spend more time praying than arguing. 
EDIT: Telling someone you are going to ignore them is kind of silly. I ignore people, instead of telling them I'm going to ignore them. Telling them sort of is a contradiction :)

[NathanSoc]

The problem is the inability of fascism to get a fair trial.

As cousin of the more famous Gilbert Keith, the former British Fascist A.K. Chesterton once wrote,

Fascism certainly failed. It failed so disastrously that it is impossible even to mention the word without invoking not what its adherents meant when they used it, but what its deadliest enemies intended people to believe it to have meant. And that is defeat indeed.