Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 08/22/2003 1:41:14 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: NYer; Loyalist
And now the last time, for your lists.
2 posted on 08/22/2003 2:16:28 PM PDT by sinkspur (Get two dogs and be part of a pack!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Akron Al; Alberta's Child; Aloysius; AniGrrl; Antoninus; As you well know...; BBarcaro; ...
PING
3 posted on 08/22/2003 2:41:54 PM PDT by Loyalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
Interesting piece, sinkspur. Thanks.

However, I, for one, can't let your boy get away with this one

Witness his proud claim that Christianity actually shaped the core tenets of liberalism in his August 17 Angelus address: “The Christian faith gave form [to Europe], and some of its fundamental values in turn inspired ‘the democratic ideal and the human rights’ of European modernity,” the Pope said.

The Pope did no such thing. First of all, Allen doesn't define "liberalism" here and, secondly, the Pope is speaking of CHRISTIAN FAITH which is not equivalent to Liberalism, no matter how one defines it, and who is Allen to say what the "core tenets" of such a political construct as "Liberalism" means from day to day.

Whatever it does mean, liberalism certainly does not mean the protection of the individual against the ever-growing Leviathan State.

5 posted on 08/22/2003 3:01:15 PM PDT by As you well know...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
Very interesting reading. Thanks for posting this.
6 posted on 08/22/2003 3:29:01 PM PDT by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
This is a brilliant analysis. John Allen gets better every time he writes. There is an emerging fault line here which may be below the surface today, but which will grow more visible as time goes on. Alasdair Macintyre is usually ahead of his time, so his critique of Western culture is likely to be prescient. One fact that should have been mentioned in the article: Macintyre was formerly a Marxist, that's why his attitude of opposition to bourgeois culture comes naturally to him.

First Things has published numerous articles on all the topics mentioned. They've written a lot about Alasdair Macintyre and the revival of Thomism. They've been very pro "Whig Catholics" Weigel and Novak. And for a while there was a running feud between Neuhaus and Schindler. First Things has an excellent search engine:

http://www.firstthings.com/menus/search.html
8 posted on 08/22/2003 3:36:48 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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

Summary, per JPII: "One does not have a right to do wrong."
28 posted on 08/22/2003 4:21:54 PM PDT by ninenot (Democrats make mistakes. RINOs don't correct them.--Chesterton (adapted by Ninenot))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
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.


34 posted on 08/22/2003 7:50:53 PM PDT by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
Surely, Allen is not trying to subtly suggest that Catholics of a certain persuasion are not good Americans.

Schindler's critique of American culture, as it exists presently, is spot-on. Let's see what he has to say:

... So, as a culture, we have an enormous problem -- and it's a religious one. Catholics need to respond by working to reinstate a sense of God so that we can regain an adequate sense of our own creatureliness -- in other words, "I'm not the source of my own being, my own moral norms. I'm not the author of my life and therefore not the one who decides about my death."

What's happened in U.S. Catholicism -- thanks in part to [Jesuit Father] John Courtney Murray, who did many good things otherwise -- is that we now assume that we can't bring God into the heart of this discussion because, there are a lot of non-believers out there. But that's precisely the point. It's because religious questions have been so radically removed from our culture that we're so vulnerable to phenomena like Jack Kevorkian and abortion.

As the philosopher Will Herberg observed in his book, "Protestant, Catholic, Jew," Americans are privately very religious, but then in public we all agree to subscribe to the virtues that make us good democrats and good free marketeers, so that faith becomes essentially a fragmented, private reality. In effect, we're private theists and public atheists.

...Americans are religiously sincere and morally generous. This country has a tremendous energy and abundance of good will. In the light of God's infinite mercy, that's always a good reason to hope.

My fear is that we don't see the subtlety of how -- as the pope says in Evangelium Vitae -- democracy can invert into totalitarianism. We have the illusion that we're free because no one tells us what to do. We have political freedom. But at the same time, a theological and philosophical set of assumptions informs our freedom, of which we're unconscious. A logic or "ontologic" of selfishness undermines our moral intention of generosity. We don't have the requisite worldview that would help us address abortion or the more general, current threat to the family.

Can we unmask the assumptions of our culture and deal with them in a way that will free the latent generosity of the culture? Or will those hidden assumptions overcome our generosity? This is the real battle, both globally and in America. It calls for a new effort of evangelization -- which consists, above all, in first getting clear about the ideas in Evangelium Vitae; understanding the logic of self-centeredness in a post-Enlightenment liberal culture. Alasdair McIntyre has a great line: that all debates in America are finally among radical liberals, liberal liberals and conservative liberals.

....the conservative wing of liberalism... wouldn't even deny that, insofar as their project is to show that a benign reading of American liberal tradition is harmonious with Catholicism. That's what I'm challenging. Their approach doesn't go to the roots of our [cultural and spiritual] problem, as identified in this pontificate and in the work of theologians like De Lubac and Balthasar.

Contemporary U.S. culture is rooted in] self-centeredness. A false sense of autonomy centered in the self; an incomplete conception of rights. So we need to reinstate a right relation to God on all levels -- not only at the level of intention, but at the level of the logic of our culture. Our relation to God has to inform not only our will, but how we think and how we construct our institutions.

The debate over public display of the ten commandments is a perfect example of the problems discussed by Schindler.
42 posted on 08/23/2003 6:06:19 AM PDT by independentmind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
... the classic notion of liberalism as belief in democracy, human rights, and free markets?

That's what it used to mean. Now it means Bolshevik.

The Leftists are hijacking our language. (e.g., Have you felt gay lately?)

47 posted on 08/23/2003 10:01:00 AM PDT by Barnacle (A Human Shield against the onslaught of Leftist tripe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur; All
Good article, thanks for posting. I am intrigued by discussions of the compatibility of Christianity and liberalism. Many interesting articles have been written pro and con about this topic.

One of the first things I noticed was that many intelligent people would end up focusing on this or that aspect of liberalism as the problem; i.e. egalitarianism, humanism, atheism, feminism etc. It took me quite a while to recognize that its not just the tail or the trunk, but the whole elephant that's the problem.

I believe that Goethe talked about periods of art going through three distinct phases: the Classic phase with its clean lines and economy of form is the healthy stage, next is the Romantic phase marked by an increasing ornateness and complexity and lastly the Decadent phase with its disintegration and dissolving forms.
This also applies to cultures and ideologies. I think that liberalism is bad even in its "Classic" phase.

That is why I have a hard time on FR: its mostly Classic liberals arguing with Romantic liberals in a society that is completely abandoning itself to Decadent liberalism.
59 posted on 08/24/2003 7:44:14 PM PDT by TradicalRC (Bibo ergo sum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson