The Catholic Communications Service for England & Wales have delivered a nifty rejection of a host of the intellectual bits of the Catholic church’s philosophical underpinnings which actually make sense, via a press release called Catholic Bishops: Why we must render unto Caesar. This pertains to a booklet called ‘Taxation for the Common Good’.
Yet again the church in England shows it has no problem superceding individual moral choice (there is no other kind really because a decision cannot be moral if it is not the product of individual free will) by using the collective force of the state.
Moreover taking the property of others is just fine by them. The problem is that when they say the word ‘moral’, they do not actually know what that means. Hint: it is not the same as ‘manners’ or ‘social conventions’ and is certainly not the same issue as ‘desirable outcomes’. If some members of a church (i.e. Catholic bishops in England and Wales) find the rarified air of pure moral theory too taxing compared to issuing pronouncements on plain ol’ politics, perhaps they are in the wrong line of work.
The Tenth Commandment:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s
Presumably this has now been updated:
The Tenth Commandment, revised:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s… unless the manner in which thou shall covet these things is intermediated by the state
If the Catholic church wants to spurn its role as a persuader of individual moral decisions and instead be just another collectivist political advocacy group, albeit one with rather interesting buildings and distinctively dressed employees, that is fine by me… but it should not then be surprised if people treat it as just another shrill NGO or perhaps think of it as being rather like that paragon of virtues, the United Nations.
For a far more interesting discussion regarding Christianity and Liberty than you will ever find on the arid pages of the Catholic Communication Service, take a peek at the interesting Volconvo site.
Well, as a Catholic myself, I have long been dissatisfied with the leadership, who all too often seem to want to make socialism the one and only commandment. It is sure easier than teaching the “deal-breaker” rules on sexual morality, for example.
I predict this phase will end, fairly soon. The ’60s generation of Catholic leadership is entering its Brezhnevite stage of grumbling, ineffecutal senility.
In five years we’ll see visible progress. It’s happening now, but spottily. The Church will become more forthright about the hard stuff and drop much of the intellectually vacuous leftish fellow-travellerism. In other words, it will start acting like a Church again.
Or so I hope, anyway.
I think you may well be correct. The Catholic priests I know personally, which is to say several, one of whom is a good chum I went to university with (and one of whom recently became a bishop) are a fair old distance from the sort of view being spewed forth in ‘Taxation for the common good’.
The Catholic Church is the most successful multi-national of all-time. Head-Quartered in Rome it has offices all over the world. The current management thinking favours social-democracy/solidarism.
Be assured that the
will continue to prosper in a competitive environment. This century’s triumphant Ism has yet to be decided.
The Church of Rome will settle for Western Dominance.
The way I read it, Jesus was tortured and executed by the Roman army at the order of the imperial Roman government of occupation as an exercise of political power. Pilate could have told the Jewish leadership to pound sand… he didn’t.
Ergo: Jesus was killed by Italians (the same hereditary strain who directed the slaughter of more Jews centuries later in Spain, for example).
Then again, maybe the New Testament was just the propaganda of a new state religion, and the judgement/crucifixion didn’t really happen that way. (Unfortunately, the Holy Inquisition really did.)
We put a big graphic at the end of each article and a divider line across the page above the large bold title of the next piece and still some people post comments to the wrong article. Perhaps we should add flashing red strobe lights and the message WARNING! NEXT ARTICLE FOLLOWS!
The lefty revisions of the 10
It’s “superseding”, not “superceding”.
[I’m sorry: I can’t help it.]
I notice the name of the pro tax booklet is entitled “Taxation for the Common Good”. I have another booklet entitled “The Common Good”. I wonder have the Catholic bishops replaced Jesus with Chomsky as their son of God.
Lexington:
And don’t forget the talking like they have oatmeal in their mouths.
All this to simply point out that the Church is collectivist? No surprise here. The Church exists on the left and right, merely opposing means to try and reach the perceived same goal shrouded in Biblical babble. When it is the State, it is merely one form of the tithe/alms system, the system of dependency, reward and obligation. It’s no wonder that whoever controls the State there will be religious folk egging it on. I have not met many libertarians who are involved in a church. I have met a few who are Deists but that’s about it. I am aware of a ‘clan’ of ‘libertarians’ in the US South (one of the Carolina’s as memory serves) who call themselves libertarians and are active Church goers.
toolkein,
I still consider myself a christian, but I dont involve myself in church, they are all beurocracies. Besides, even an exhaustive study of scripture will not reveal anything remotely similar to churches. In short, I agree, there is no suprise whatsoever that churches are collectivist, or in some cases, dictatorial.
fnyser,
brilliant.
Two better sources for the teaching of the Church are:
Acton Institute: http://www.acton.org
This group presents the Catholic teaching in the light of virtue and freedom (they are strong supporters of Capitalism).
For the Pope’s views….
http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0214/_INDEX.HTM
You will find with both of these resources that collectivism is rejected outright.
However, helping others in need is still a moral requirement – the question is how to best help them (hint: collectivism is not one of the answers)
It is unfortunate that the teachings of the Church with regards to economics are not promulgated clearly.
I still consider myself a christian, but I dont involve myself in church,
I contrast myself with my brother. I am an atheist (though agnostic) and my brother I’d classify as a Deist. He believes in a higher force or power that controls the universe while I don’t believe any such thing, yet we both consider outselves right libertarian. His belief does not translate into a specific religion or a Church as he finds them too meddling and constricting as you seem to. While I think his view point is superstitious, he is welcome to his ‘illusions’ as he doesn’t use it as an excuse to muscle other people in the conduct of their lives, and that is all that can be asked. Ultimately we all operate under our own illusions of form and function of the world and endeavor to invest it with meaning or else we would be unhinged from ‘reality’. It is when we are so enamored of our contructs that we feel obligated and entitled to coerce others that the problem arises. In the case of organized Churches, the mentality and focus is already there and it is not surprising that one faction or the other (left or right), if not allowed to be the State, will certainly support its endeavors to interfere in the lives of individuals.
Toolkien,
It is clear that you are personally opposed to any type of collectivism but it isn’t axiomatic that libertarians oppose collectivism per se. Surely what we all object to is coerced collectivism?
The problem with the Church propounding statist propaganda is not only that this is objectionable to a libertarian but that it directly contradicts their own teaching. There is no virtue in assenting to theft. Surely virtue resides in doing good works voluntarily?