John Paul II is too liberal; and "the corrosive effects of American culture"

National Catholic Reporter ^ | 8/22/2003 | John L. Allen

[nickcarraway]

Don Felix Sarda y Salvany?

[Maximilian]

I am trying to remember the name of the Spaniard who wrote "Liberalism is a sin"

Are you thinking of Ortega y Gasset's Revolt of the Masses?

[nickcarraway]

Well, that's why I say he is an influence on the. Some consider Hobbes a classical liberal, others a totalitarian. But, importantly, he posits the idea that government is based on people who willingly transfer their power to it.

[nickcarraway]

Liberalism is a Sin Englished And Adapted From The Spanish of Dr. Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany

[Maximilian]

More to the point, is their an ``approptiate'' system for Christianity to exist in? It existed in the Roman Empire, which was at times as hostile as possible.

Yes, this is an excellent question. Is a society based on enlightenment principles good for Christianity because it allows religion the freedom of separation from the state? This has been the reigning philosophy of the last few decades, based on John Courtney Murray and others.

However, a more sophisticated analysis might point out that the "opposition" of enlightenment society is much more insidious than the opposition of crude repression, working as a continuous corrosive and effecting a much more complete destruction of faith in the ultimate analysis. It's like the difference between the Leninist approach and the Gramsci approach. Gramsci is much more dangerous.

Would Christianity be better under communism?

The comparison makes it seem that communism is not a branch of enlightenment liberalism. Certainly it is true that they have been seen as separate, and communism has defined itself in opposition to "bourgeois" society. But when one examines the foundational principles, should they be classified in the same genus or a separate one?

[Maximilian]

Liberalism is a Sin Englished And Adapted From The Spanish of Dr. Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany

Thanks for this great link. Too long to read right now, but I have saved it.

[NYer]

Please forgive me if I seem paranoid,

Just curious ... which religion do you practice?

[ninenot]

A paean to ChesterBelloc. Certainly not what I expected from these guys.

Summary, per JPII: "One does not have a right to do wrong."

[Desdemona]

Actually, this is a very good article. There is a lot here we can all use.

I'm not sure, though, that liberalism in the classic sense would be so whole-sale rejected. What it's turned into, yes, but in the beginning the ideals were noble, although a bit naive.

Could it be that conservatives are using the wisdom of hindsight in turning the other direction abnd rejecting any sort of liberalism?

[ninenot]

Naaah.

Look at it as seeing the same goal from two different perspectives. Ari and Nietzsche --Niet. representing the Will, Ari the primacy of the Good...

This is not new stuff--and it's sort of like the Athens v. Jerusalem "debate." It's really not a debate--it's a matter of perspective.

That's why Chesterton alluded to Orthodoxy not as a pinpoint, but as a circle--a small one, but large enough to accomodate 'holy proximity,' to coin a sure-to-be-flamed phrase.

[ninenot]

"how did we get where...?"

In politics, by ignoring Edmund Burke

[ninenot]

Feudalism--the guilds, etc., was not all that bad for Christianity.

[ninenot]

same genus or a separate one

Statism--Nazi, Communist, or Big SCOTUS/Fed--

[Notwithstanding]

One of my favorite experiences in law school was a seminar course on religious freedom led by Professor Gerard Bradley of Notre Dame Law, visiting at Ave Maria Law.

We chewed on these questions at length and ultimately it seems apparent that the USA was founded by excessively anti-Catholic zealots, and some of the most important ideas - though not all - of the founders have been detrimental in the long run.

Having said that, the ability to exercise free will is required for man to choose to exhibit virtue. Thus increased freedom is rightly viewed as largely a moral good.

This is an important topic to dwell upon, but there are no easy answers. And studying it too much can lead one to discover some not-so-very-pleasant (down right damning) facts about our nation's founders.

[RaginCajunTrad]

"Liberalism is a Sin"

by Fr. Felix Sarda Y Salvany

BTW, your post of the speech by Dr. Edwin Vieira was very good. As a CPA, I have very deep feelings about the 16th amendment and the IRC, none of which are good.

[Notwithstanding]

Lord Acton is a classic liberal and a devout Catholic - as well as a celebrated genius of his generation.

http://www.acton.org

[RaginCajunTrad]

"Feudalism--the guilds, etc., was not all that bad for Christianity."

Nor for society in general either.

[Thorondir]

Just curious ... which religion do you practice?

Shameless LIAR! You are not curious at all! You are just goading me and everybody here knows it. This is typical of the disgusting scummy anti-Catholic tactics I am so sick of.

And I am not curious about which religion you are trying to destroy. It's obvious.

[St.Chuck]

Modern political liberalism doesn't mean protection of the individual against the state. But classical liberalism certainly does.

Perfectly said. Succinct and true.

[St.Chuck]

...is their an ``approptiate'' system for Christianity to exist in?

Good question. It might be argued that Christianity thrived best, at least in America, during the period of time referred to by some as the Old Republic. That time, and that system, before FDR's modern welfare state was created. Before the State replaced the Church as the ultimate authority and moral arbitrator, and Man replaced God as Supreme Being.