Catholic Anarchism

[Ghosty]

One thing that needs to be borne in mind in such discussions is that anarchism, in the classic sense, does not imply “no rules”, but rather no coercive government. When I sit down to play a game of chess I play by very strict rules, and if I didn’t there wouldn’t even be a game to play. When I set a bed time for my child, or we all sit as a family at the dinner table, we are following rules. All of these things, and countless more, are normal human interactions that traditional anarchism not only accepts, it actively embraces.

Anyone who’s worked with traditional anarchists will know that they tend to follow more rules and conventions than the average person, and they do so precisely because they don’t believe in a coercive government that forces people of behave. Anarchy doesn’t mean “no rules”, it means “no rulers”, and the basis for this belief is precisely the fact that humans are not angels, and can’t be trusted with so much power over others. If all people are fallen, why give some of those people the power and authority to arrest and kill others?

I consider myself a Catholic anarchist, but I always place my Faith first. For me, Anarchism is a practical and prudential guide to secular living. When I was an atheist it was my religion, and I followed its tenets like dogmas, but now as a Catholic I don’t need such a rigorous secular model to base my life around. Where there is a contradiction the Faith wins out, but such contradictions are much rarer than people might suppose. I point out to those who question how an anarchist could become a Catholic of all things that anarchism is an answer to secular questions, much like any other style of governing, and does not apply to Divine matters; I have no problem obeying a Bishop or a Canon Law, because that is a matter of Divine jurisdiction.

Peace and God bless!

 

[tafan]

Anyone who’s worked with traditional anarchists will know that they tend to follow more rules and conventions than the average person, and they do so precisely because they don’t believe in a coercive government that forces people of behave. Anarchy doesn’t mean “no rules”, it means “no rulers”, and the basis for this belief is precisely the fact that humans are not angels, and can’t be trusted with so much power over others. If all people are fallen, why give some of those people the power and authority to arrest and kill others?

How does this work? For example, you have a law (rule) against murder. But no one enforces that law or imposes penalties. Someone commits murder what happens? Should we have a speed limit, but no cops to enforce it?

. I point out to those who question how an anarchist could become a Catholic of all things that anarchism is an answer to secular questions, much like any other style of governing, and does not apply to Divine matters; I have no problem obeying a Bishop or a Canon Law, because that is a matter of Divine jurisdiction.

Peace and God bless!

Yes, the Church’s authority was established by Jesus, the divine. He instituted a hierarchical church to govern the Church on earth. Why would he have placed rulers in charge of the Church, if it was no need to govern the day-to-day lives of men? From a practical standpoint, if men need to be told they cannot break the seal of the confessional, and there are penalties for violating that seal; why would there not be penalties for violating another’s private property rights?

 

[JHow]

If you accept family, Church, society, private associations… but want as little government as possible you should be what is called a ‘Libertarian’ in the US.

 

[albertus_magnus]

Dorothy Day identified herself as an anarchist, but I digress.

What about Minarchism?

 

[Ghosty]

How does this work? For example, you have a law (rule) against murder. But no one enforces that law or imposes penalties. Someone commits murder what happens? Should we have a speed limit, but no cops to enforce it?

I apologize for not being able to give a detailed answer at this time; the device I’m using makes it difficult to edit. I’ll do what I can, and write more tonight.

In brief, anarchism can be viewed as extreme subsidiarity, where rules are established in the narrowest and most local manner possible. Neighborhood rules are established by neighbors, agreed upon by neighbors, and mutually enforced by neighbors. The broader and higher tiered a society gets, the more that rules become abstract laws removed from their local intent and value. Once you get to higher levels of government you have the absurdity of people in a distant capitol making laws for an arbitrary jurisdiction, and enforcement has minimal actual consent from the governed. Why should the cultural norms of the Pacific Northwest, which has a high tolerance for marijuana use and little danger from allowing it, be dictated by folks in Washington D.C.? The DEA is a government entity that is inherently distant from the people it supposedly serves, and its rules become arbitrary and lack the consent of the people.

Free association implies the acceptance of the rules of the group, and mutual enforcement of the norms. It implies a choice to join, and a choice to accept those who wish to join. Just as I agree to abide by, and enforce, the rules of chess when I play a match, I can do the same with my associates in other endeavors. In doing so I’m accountable to the group I associate with, not any outside, arbitrary organization.

Yes, the Church’s authority was established by Jesus, the divine. He instituted a hierarchical church to govern the Church on earth. Why would he have placed rulers in charge of the Church, if it was no need to govern the day-to-day lives of men? From a practical standpoint, if men need to be told they cannot break the seal of the confessional, and there are penalties for violating that seal; why would there not be penalties for violating another’s private property rights?

Rulers are needed for the Church precisely because it is not, and can’t be, a free association. The Church is not merely a human organization, it is primarily a relationship with God. I could not have a true relationship with my wife if my mouth could only speak after a vote by the community. The very nature of interpersonal relation requires that I’m able to speak freely and clearly for myself
The same holds true for God and His Bride, the Church as a people. We need to have a clear and direct voice for our relationship with God, and that implies the need for obedience and hierarchy, just as my mouth is subject to my mind.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

If you accept family, Church, society, private associations… but want as little government as possible you should be what is called a ‘Libertarian’ in the US.

Anarchism has traditionally been called libertarian socialism, and there is overlap between the groups. I myself support Ron Paul for President, not because I agree with him on everything, but because I believe his approach to government is most inline with my beliefs.

That said, there are some major disconnects between typical Libertarian thought and traditional anarchism. While anarchists believe in personal property, historically the emphasis has been on personal utilization rather than on private ownership of vast resources. The primary purpose of property is to support human life, and simply putting yor name on a huge swath of land, or a factory, doesn’t mean you personally utilize it. Private profit is fine, but private profit off of group labor is problematic. Just because your name is on something that is more than you can use doesn’t give you the natural right to deny its utilization by those who truly need it, and doesn’t give you the right to take the lion’s share of the wealth generated by the utilization of that property. In this regard anarchism actually more closely approaches Catholic social teaching than Libertarianism does.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Bill_7154]

My understanding of Anarchism is that there is absolutely NO negative, evil, or violent connotations to it whatsoever. It simply means a society that has no central government, no territorial monopoly.

Do I think it’s possible to have a peaceful anarchistic society in todays day and age? No. But that is only because we are simply not civilized as a human race. We murder for pleasure, for blood lust, for money, because someone orders us to, etc. Not to mention all of the other horrible acts that we as a race engage in on a regular basis across the globe.

But there is no connotation between Anarchy and violence, etc.

Give a look at Anarcho-Capitalism as one possible way that a society could be structured.

 

[Bill_7154]

I imagine the Church’s 2000 years of recording History would suggest that She knows what happens when government is removed (even willingly) from a civilized people.

From Lancer’s quote from the Catechism, it should be clear that it is a contradiction to be Catholic and an anarchist.

What on earth are you talking about when you reference a ‘civilized people’? To my mind this has never existed as far as I can tell (with the exception of Adam and Eve prior to the eating of the apple).

 

[Bill_7154]

The government allowed Jesus to be killed. Governments murder millions and millions of their own citizens. Governments send off their own citizens to be killed while others (connected to the same government) make financial profits off of the wars (war profiteering).

Civilized people (when we evolve to being such a people, if ever) don’t need commanders ordering them what to do. They simply cooperate in a peacful manner to live life.

 

[Bill_7154]

Okay, then your definition more or less matches with what the three major dictionaries claim and what New Advent states. From my brief reading of the New Advent article, it seems to be indicating that this is what would happen in an anarchist environment, and not necessarily that that is what anarchists actually believe.

What the heck does that mean 'not necessarilly what anarchists actually believe?

What do governmentists/statists actually believe?

 

[Bill_7154]

Government is still recognized as a good, as it helps to maintain the civil order (so long as it is working in the interest of the common good). We see things which this would contradict in Church teaching, beginning with the Gospels themselves–Jesus saying “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God’s that which is God’s” (Matthew 22,22) comes to mind. Here Jesus is emphasizing the importance of certain civil duties along with the duties of faith. Paul tells us to pray for our civil leaders, since all earthly power is ultimately derived from God (Romans 13, 1; cf. 2 Timothy 2, 3). In more recent times, we see the social teaching inaugurated by Leo XIII and continuing to the present day with Bl. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI telling us the proper place of government. Also, the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s section on man in society is pretty clear on this as well: we need laws, and we need a government to make and preserve the rule of law.

So government is a civil good, and the Church has always affirmed this. The principle objection to anarchy would simply be that man is necessarily a communal being, and just because sometimes there are abuses of this communal nature in the form of repressive or inept governments or internal strife within communities does not necessarily negate the need for community and government. Just the opposite–it is a call for governments and communities to be more greatly ordered toward the common good.

-ACEGC

I consider the government to be harmful, deceptive, and self-serving. There is a big difference between what is the supposed ideal of goverment and what is the reality of government.

Power corrupts.

 

[Bill_7154]

Thank you for your response.

What about Dorothy Day? I believe she was an anarchist.

Also, anarchy doesn’t mean a community can’t exist, it just means that the community cannot use force to make people do things, unlike the government which can. Community can be good, but governments have caused more trouble than I think they’ve solved.

Yes, this is the big difference between anarchism and government. Government uses force (pointing guns at people, actually or theoretically, to get them to do what it wants them to do). Governments are territiorial monopolies that use force to accomplish their ends.

Territorial monopolies have a lot of flaws, to say the least. Maybe we are doing the best we can as a people in todays day and age, but that does not change the fact that governments are responsible for murdering millions and millions of their own citizens and plenty of other atrocities.

 

[Hokomai]

Anarchists believe that if coercive power over others is limited, people will in general make better and better decisions. Property is seen as theft from others. Community, rather than state action is seen as the way to right wrongs and prevent people coercing others. This is very different from the Catholic view, but has resonance with parts of the gospels and some early Vhurch fathers, especially those creating monastic communities. Interestingly the Church used to argue against the state having power over the Church communites, which ruled themselves, somewhat in an anarchistic way. To the OP: read Tolstoy.

 

[Bill_7154]

Anarchism, at its root, falls under the anti-establishment theory. Though you may view it simply as a belief in a system of existence without the Government (big ‘G’), it truly is a rebellion against all government (little ‘g’), or any institution (whether formal or not) that seeks to create rules / codes which its members / citizens must abide by.

.

I don’t think this is true. Groups of people can create rules and codes for them to abide by, the difference is that all the people in the group all choose to agree on the codes and rules. It isn’t mob rule, as we have today. People can live under anarchy and create voluntarilly any set of rules and codes they choose and all agree upon.

Another way of looking at anarchy is voluntarism. This, contrasted to forced abiding by rules that you may not only disagree with but may also be against God and Jesus’ will.

I think there are a heck of a lot of governments that clearly have great parts of how they operate in stark contrast to what Jesus will would be. And other governments have less than great parts of their operation, but clearly part of their operations against what I think Jesus will would be/is.

And as a people living under such a government they are forced to abide by this or face jail, or if they resist the force of those who would put them in jail (men with guns) they most certainly face death.

Call me an idealist, but I would like the human race to evolve into a civilized race where people do not do ill will to others, and if they do so by mistake they actively seek out to make reparations to those harmed. A society where everyone is honest and accountable for themselves and their neighbors out of their own choice from within their hearts and souls.

 

[edward_george]

I consider the government to be harmful, deceptive, and self-serving. There is a big difference between what is the supposed ideal of goverment and what is the reality of government.

Power corrupts.

Sin corrupts. Governments are not of themselves good or evil. Any system can be used for good or misused. Abusus non tollit usum.

-ACEGC

 

[Bill_7154]

Sin corrupts. Governments are not of themselves good or evil. Any system can be used for good or misused. Abusus non tollit usum.

-ACEGC

Point taken, it’s a very fair one.

But the current government I live under I believe is corrupt and sinful. And I also believe that since all men are subject to temptation to sin, to have a tiny minority of people ruling over the masses is a recipe for bad things to happen. Power corrupts.

I would prefer a system where all men and women have equal power over their own lives, without a tiny minority having tons of power, having men with guns who will blindly follow orders at their finger tips to do their bidding. And I would perfer not to be forced to pay for such a system.

If government is truely good why does it have to use force to get people to pay for it? I voluntarilly pay for lots of things, lots of services, as I find value in them so choose to pay for them. Government forces me to pay for it even if it does a terrible job and does things I completely disagree with. And people tell me I have ‘implied my consent’ by being born and raised and living here?

What are my options, go with the status quo or move to Siberia if I don’t like it?

 

[edward_george]

I would say the best option is to realize that any human system of governance is always going to be limited since it is governed by humans, who are tempted to sin; having realized that, do as the Psalmist says and “put not your trust in princes, in men in whom there is no salvation,” and realize that God does not allow us to be burdened more greatly than we can handle it. Perhaps this is a time of trial for you and for the whole world that will purify the Church and cause us to draw nearer to God. Hope in God and his promises.

-ACEGC

 

[Bill_7154]

I would say the best option is to realize that any human system of governance is always going to be limited since it is governed by humans, who are tempted to sin; having realized that, do as the Psalmist says and “put not your trust in princes, in men in whom there is no salvation,” and realize that God does not allow us to be burdened more greatly than we can handle it. Perhaps this is a time of trial for you and for the whole world that will purify the Church and cause us to draw nearer to God. Hope in God and his promises.

-ACEGC

Nice post. Makes sense to me.

Thanks,
Bill

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

What on earth are you talking about when you reference a ‘civilized people’? To my mind this has never existed as far as I can tell (with the exception of Adam and Eve prior to the eating of the apple).

Easy: A group of people who have established laws and rules that everyone recognizes, and a hierarchy of positions and roles (leaders, laborers, academics, etc).
Your mind is clearly ignoring history. Wikipedia has a list of about a dozen or so anarchist societies.

What the heck does that mean 'not necessarilly what anarchists actually believe?

I do not know how you can be confused about that line. There are some anarchists who believe that at least some of what is on the New Advent article should happen (elimination of religion, for one). There are some who accept religious tolerance in a non-governed area.

What do governmentists/statists actually believe?

Statists (which, if I am not mistaken, has a rather negative connotation attached to it when being discussed by anarchists) believe that there should be a government to protect its citizens, something an anarchist society could not provide.

 

[Mumbles140]

The government allowed Jesus to be killed. Governments murder millions and millions of their own citizens. Governments send off their own citizens to be killed while others (connected to the same government) make financial profits off of the wars (war profiteering).

Civilized people (when we evolve to being such a people, if ever) don’t need commanders ordering them what to do. They simply cooperate in a peacful manner to live life.

You are proposing a true democracy, but that is, in itself, a formalization of government, and so would be fought against by anarchism.