Why Vatican II avoided Communism
#21
(10-05-2012, 04:02 PM)verenaerin Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 02:50 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: No, communism isn't liberal. It was also far less destructive than liberalism, but that's another question.

How is this even possible. Isn't the count up to 100,000,000 people being slaughter in the name of communism over the last century ? Not only that, the Blessed Mother specifically mentioned communism by name, as something to be on guard about corrupting the entire world.

Liberals want to make us slaves to the state. They want to control every aspect of our lives under the guise of knowing better then us.They think that the government is the answer to everything. -How is that not part of the communist mentality?

Well, once I was speaking with a SSPX Priest about liberalism, and he told me that liberal democracies have already killed more people than Soviets... how? with abortion.
Reply
#22
(10-05-2012, 04:29 PM)Cesar_Augustus Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 04:02 PM)verenaerin Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 02:50 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: No, communism isn't liberal. It was also far less destructive than liberalism, but that's another question.

How is this even possible. Isn't the count up to 100,000,000 people being slaughter in the name of communism over the last century ? Not only that, the Blessed Mother specifically mentioned communism by name, as something to be on guard about corrupting the entire world.

Liberals want to make us slaves to the state. They want to control every aspect of our lives under the guise of knowing better then us.They think that the government is the answer to everything. -How is that not part of the communist mentality?

Well, once I was speaking with a SSPX Priest about liberalism, and he told me that liberal democracies have already killed more people than Soviets... how? with abortion.

But Communist regimes go even further than Western democracies via forced abortions and "one child" policies.  How are they any less destructive?
Reply
#23
CP is right that Communism is not liberalism. Even Marx said himself "Those dogs of democrats and liberal riff-raff will see that we're the only chaps who haven't been stultified by the ghastly period of peace." True liberalism placates to the poor and needy in a reallocating style of society whereas true Communism will eliminate the "useless eater" and "undesirable elements" of society to further perfect the society to the ideal utopian state and all efforts, monetary and work, are focused towards improving the functions of the proletariat and state. They may seem similar in government operation as far as it is the central authority, but the liberals operate under baseless naturalism and rationalism of morality and law whereas the Communists reject such things completely and only attribute an idea of good in law towards improving the state.

But CP is deeply wrong in placing liberalism's destructive power above Communism's. One hundred million people have been slain (that's excluding all the abortions they have done) and continue everyday, it has made concerted efforts in attacking Holy Mother Church by physical means, intellectual means and infiltrative means and it's goal is the complete antithesis of Christ's Kingdom.
Reply
#24
I would point out that communism is not authoritarian. In fact, totalitarianism is the antithesis of true authority.

(10-05-2012, 04:02 PM)verenaerin Wrote: Liberals want to make us slaves to the state. They want to control every aspect of our lives under the guise of knowing better then us.They think that the government is the answer to everything. -How is that not part of the communist mentality?

Well, there are several different kinds of liberalism, but I think they all share a belief in individual autonomy as their underlying motivation. The "classical" liberalism of the 18th and 19th century, for instance, wanted to destroy the old institutions of Christendom because these were considered to be oppressive. The idea that the Church, the aristocracy, guilds, and certain towns and regions might have particular rights and privileges was offensive to them because they believed that the basis of any just polity must be a recognition of the man's universal right to life, liberty, and property. So, at the time liberalism's goals were mainly negative: disestablish the Church, eliminate the privileges given to certain social classes, and so on. However, it is also important to note that even here liberalism went beyond this purely negative agenda. Many liberals supported active persecution of the Church because they realized that it would still hold quite a bit of influence over the common people even if it were disestablished, and many of them were also early proponents of public education, which makes sense when you consider that most education at the time was religious. Providing education for all also fits in with the belief in individual autonomy. At the far end of this movement you have someone like Thomas Paine, who by the end of his life was advocating policies that many today would consider "socialist."

In the late 19th and early 20th century we see a new kind of liberalism develop. People were starting to realize that a mainly negative program focused on eliminating supposedly oppressive political institutions was not enough to secure individual autonomy. People were still tied down by poverty, prejudice, religion, the family, a lack of education, and what was left of the organic institutions of the past. These liberals were also taken with the scientivistic optimism of the time, leading them to believe that they could use scientific principles to organize a new and better society. This was the more interventionist sort of liberalism: new educational programs needed to be implemented aggressively in order to eliminate prejudice and ignorance, new technologies and methods of social organization needed to be used to weaken the patriarchal family, and the economy needed to be organized in a rational way in order to eliminate poverty and ensure equality. Liberals at this time also supported eugenics. So, here there is a strong confidence in the ability of centralized, rational institutions to improve society, but the emphasis is still on individual autonomy. We need to teach children that gender roles are nonsense so that this will not interfere with the private motivations of the individual, we need to create a more egalitarian society so that individuals are not held back by irrational customs, and so forth. This sort of liberalism became more prominent as a result of the destruction of the classical liberal order in WWI.

By the 1980s we see the rise of neo-liberalism, the third main phase of liberalism. In some ways, neo-liberalism is a return to the classical liberalism of the 18th and 19th century. It puts less faith in the ability of bureaucratic institutions to organize the economy, so it once again supports a free market, and it also places a good deal of emphasis on free trade and the free migration of the commodity known as "labor." The idea of a "border" is oppressive and collectivist, after all. It is still very hostile to what it deems to be "irrational" traditions or institutions that interfere with market logic and individual autonomy, which partly explains the recent push to convert Islamic nations into Western democracies, and it is probably the most explicitly nihilistic form of liberalism yet seen, glorying in directionless desire and the will to will.
Reply
#25
(10-05-2012, 04:31 PM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 04:29 PM)Cesar_Augustus Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 04:02 PM)verenaerin Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 02:50 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: No, communism isn't liberal. It was also far less destructive than liberalism, but that's another question.

How is this even possible. Isn't the count up to 100,000,000 people being slaughter in the name of communism over the last century ? Not only that, the Blessed Mother specifically mentioned communism by name, as something to be on guard about corrupting the entire world.

Liberals want to make us slaves to the state. They want to control every aspect of our lives under the guise of knowing better then us.They think that the government is the answer to everything. -How is that not part of the communist mentality?

Well, once I was speaking with a SSPX Priest about liberalism, and he told me that liberal democracies have already killed more people than Soviets... how? with abortion.

But Communist regimes go even further than Western democracies via forced abortions and "one child" policies.  How are they any less destructive?

Hmmm, yes, these policies, I forgot about them when speaking with the Father... there is any data of which system has killed more included abortions?
Reply
#26
(10-05-2012, 04:49 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote: CP is right that Communism is not liberalism. Even Marx said himself "Those dogs of democrats and liberal riff-raff will see that we're the only chaps who haven't been stultified by the ghastly period of peace." True liberalism placates to the poor and needy in a reallocating style of society whereas true Communism will eliminate the "useless eater" and "undesirable elements" of society to further perfect the society to the ideal utopian state and all efforts, monetary and work, are focused towards improving the functions of the proletariat and state. They may seem similar in government operation as far as it is the central authority, but the liberals operate under baseless naturalism and rationalism of morality and law whereas the Communists reject such things completely and only attribute an idea of good in law towards improving the state.

It seems a very subtle distinction, if this is in fact the case. Both are materialist philosophies. Both directly rebel against God. And both (at least in practice) adopt moral relativism for the sake of material ends. The revolutions of Marx seem to be a natural extension of the French Revolution.
Reply
#27
(10-05-2012, 10:53 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: I think his vision of ecumenism was focused on the Orthodox primarily. He worked in Bulgaria and Greece and I think he had a strong affection for them. Perhaps he realized they are the closest to us, and that reunion was much more realistic a venture with them.
And the result of the council was only to scare off the Orthodox even more, as Card. Ottaviani's mentioned in §VII: The Alienation of the Orthodox in his "Ottaviani Intervention"…
Reply
#28
(10-05-2012, 02:50 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: No, communism isn't liberal. It was also far less destructive than liberalism, but that's another question.
It depends how you define liberal. Pope Gregory XVI defined it as "liberty of conscience," from which follows religious indifferentism, unrestricted freedom to publish, and the separation of Church and State, which he discusses in Mirari Vos. Communism isn't religiously indifferent; it's anti-religion and atheist. Communism supports State-controlled censorship and the separation of Church and State. So, Communism shares quite a lot with Liberalism.
Reply
#29
(10-05-2012, 10:58 AM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(10-04-2012, 08:31 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Something to consider is that Vatican II, or at least its "spirit," was at least partly an attempt to bring the Church closer to liberal humanism. A stronger condemnation of communism would have made it seem as if the Church were throwing in completely with the liberal democracies of the West. I think this is a problem that continues to plague the Church.

And communism isn't the epitome of liberal humanism?
Haha yeah Vatican II would be even more self-contradictory if it condemned Communism. :)
Reply
#30
(10-05-2012, 09:47 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-05-2012, 02:50 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: No, communism isn't liberal. It was also far less destructive than liberalism, but that's another question.
It depends how you define liberal. Pope Gregory XVI defined it as "liberty of conscience," from which follows religious indifferentism, unrestricted freedom to publish, and the separation of Church and State, which he discusses in Mirari Vos. Communism isn't religiously indifferent; it's anti-religion and atheist. Communism supports State-controlled censorship and the separation of Church and State. So, Communism shares quite a lot with Liberalism.

But of the things mentioned the only one shared between liberalism and historical communist regimes is separation of church and state. However, even here there are differences. For the liberal, "separation of church and state" ultimately means state neutrality in the face of competing visions of the good. The communist, by contrast, does not wish for neutrality in this regard but for the state to actively promote a certain vision of the good while persecuting those who are in disagreement with this vision. Of course, the liberal claim to neutrality is bogus, but it is still an important theoretical difference.

I think another important difference between the two is the fact that the communist typically views society and history as being shaped by class struggle while the liberal sees the individual as the fundamental social unit. Certainly, the two have things in common, but I think this is more a result of their both being modern political ideologies.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)