Catholic and libertarian? Pope’s top adviser says they’re incompatible

[Tony_the_mad]

I saw no quote from the Cardinal that said Catholicism is not compatible with libertarianism. He does specify certain things that needs to be done like removing the systematic bias of economic systems against the poor. Libertarians can presumably find a way to do this using their own political philosophy.

People need to remember that while the teachings of the church are constant the emphasis of Papacy reflects the experiences of the Pope and the needs of the church. Pope John Paul II grew up in communist led Poland and dedicated his Papacy to eradicating it. Before John Paul II the Church was also strong against socialism and communism because of movements like the French revolution, etc which were anti-elite and anti-Catholic as they saw the Catholic Church as protectors and enablers of the elite. (Rightly or wrongly). It is only natural that the Church would fight tooth and nail against these philosophies.

But, a lot has changed in the last 30 years. The soviet empire has fell and has eventually been replaced by a person who wants to be a Tsar with the support of a nationalistic religion. Europe still has socialist tendencies but the new movement toward tightening the belts has muted it. More importantly the scariest part about Europe is not socialism but apathy toward the Church. The US, which never experienced the real problems of aristocracy, is now moving toward something like an aristocracy and people on both sides are starting to worry. While it is extremely doubtful the US will become anything like a socialist state, it is not in our DNA, unrest at the bottom is beginning to build up and can lash in almost any direction.

The big shift came though, with a Pope from the Americas. Communism has a few strong holds in the Americas, but crucially, the biggest problem that these countries face is due to its strongest neighbor, the US with its Banana Republic style of capitalism.

The most amazing transformation of the Papacy in the 20th century is the slow but persistent shedding of its trappings of aristocracy and the embrace of the common man. The papacy has truly started to become a servant of all.

This shift with the corresponding shift from a fight against socialism to a fight for the common man and the poor is, I believe, a long lived and greatly needed if long due transformation.

I don’t want to be too smug about it, but libertarians and economically conservatives are going to have to learn to deal with what us economically liberals had to deal with for so long: a church, that while it does not necessary disapproves of you, places a lot of emphasis on your weaknesses while ignoring your strengths and the weaknesses of the other side.

 

[China123]

Isn’t that what the goal of the Catholic Church is? “All creatures being subject to the Roman Pontiff”?

Huh? Wow, I must have missed that memo in all my years of Catholic school and all my reading. And all Baptists are from the Westboro branch right This is just a silly nonsense comment.

 

[isaacalsop]

Huh? Wow, I must have missed that memo in all my years of Catholic school and all my reading. And all Baptists are from the Westboro branch right This is just a silly nonsense comment.

They know that theyre just trying to cause a fight…

 

[Mulligan2]

Libertarians are pro family, pro life…

I’m not sure if you are talking about the positions of the Libertarian Party or of libertarians in general (in the context of their personal lives). The following is from the LP.org website:

*Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.*

Seems logical to me. These are not issues for government. Full stop.

 

[isaacalsop]

I’m not sure if you are talking about the positions of the Libertarian Party or of libertarians in general (in the context of their personal lives). The following is from the LP.org website:

*Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.*

Seems logical to me. These are not issues for government. Full stop.

Well i guess i was referring to libertarians in general, and i get that not all agree but for example Ron Paul is extremley pro life.

 

[Mulligan2]

Well i guess i was referring to libertarians in general, and i get that not all agree but for example Ron Paul is extremley pro life.

Yes he is, and this is something I have never understood. Dr. Paul knows that government generally makes things worse as opposed to better, yet he wants government involved in an emotional issue where there is no consensus that this issue is wrong.

 

[isaacalsop]

Yes he is, and this is something I have never understood. Dr. Paul knows that government generally makes things worse as opposed to better, yet he wants government involved in an emotional issue where there is no consensus that this issue is wrong.

Both you and I and Dr. Paul would agree that the government should enforce that murder is illegal, and that is what abortion is, so…

 

[Trigonometric]

T

They believe in legalizing pot, but so? If that is forbidden in the church thats news to me.

I’ve got some news for you then. CCC 2291clearly condemns the use of drugs, and Saint John Paul II had this to say:“It is imperative that the criminal activity of drug production and trafficking should be directly opposed and ultimately stopped. In this regard, my encouragement and admiration go to all those countries in which government leaders and citizens are truly committed to combatting the production, sale and misuse of drugs, sometimes paying a very high price, even sacrificing their own physical integrity”

.

the idea that corporations are not to run everything, ect, and more that the liberty party preaches?

The problem is, that bit about corporations isn’t something the Libertarian Party teaches. The libertarians sure as heck aren’t going to stop corporations from running everything; they’d consider that interference in the market.

 

[isaacalsop]

T
I’ve got some news for you then. CCC 2291clearly condemns the use of drugs, and Saint John Paul II had this to say:“It is imperative that the criminal activity of drug production and trafficking should be directly opposed and ultimately stopped. In this regard, my encouragement and admiration go to all those countries in which government leaders and citizens are truly committed to combatting the production, sale and misuse of drugs, sometimes paying a very high price, even sacrificing their own physical integrity”

.
The problem is, that bit about corporations isn’t something the Libertarian Party teaches. The libertarians sure as heck aren’t going to stop corporations from running everything; they’d consider that interference in the market.

So Im sayign what about medical use? Then its not really misuse, right? I dont need its benefits mediclly plus its illegal in idaho so I dont smoke it. BUT it could be abused, just like every other medically helpful drug you probable dont care about. I agree misusing drugs is wrong but with pot it can be used for good purposes…I wish pot was not so misused. then people would have more open minds about legalizing it. I guess the problem is we cant truse the american public to use it well, can we? So is using pot for medical purposes in a place where it is legal(so not here) immoral?

 

[isaacalsop]

T
I’ve got some news for you then. CCC 2291clearly condemns the use of drugs, and Saint John Paul II had this to say:“It is imperative that the criminal activity of drug production and trafficking should be directly opposed and ultimately stopped. In this regard, my encouragement and admiration go to all those countries in which government leaders and citizens are truly committed to combatting the production, sale and misuse of drugs, sometimes paying a very high price, even sacrificing their own physical integrity”

.
The problem is, that bit about corporations isn’t something the Libertarian Party teaches. The libertarians sure as heck aren’t going to stop corporations from running everything; they’d consider that interference in the market.

And looking deeper into what the party teaches of corporations, maybe i need to stop affiliating myself as libertarian…i still consider myself pseudo anarchist. No companies, no government. Just the family, the Church, and God. I call it Catholic Anarchism.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Cardinal Mariadiaga is absolutely correct. Christ, St. Paul and all of scripture teach that among fallen man, an earthly government is necessary and legitimate. I challenge anyone here to quote me ONE New Testament scripture (or one Church Father) that teaches that political liberty is the highest good. The “liberty” taught in the scriputres and the Fathers is the liberty from sin and injustice. Rather, read Sts Ambrose, Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas: they ALL teach the legitimacy of the earthly government, and the legitmiacy of governmental powers far beyond those any contemporary libertarian would recognize. Aquinas, for example, taught the concepts of just wages and prices. Libertarians, along with most so-called “conservatives” don’t even recognize the legitimacy of the concepts of just wages and prices, much less their enforcement by government.

Modern libertarianism derives not from any scripture or Catholic or Orthodox teaching, but from the secular, Deist and liberal Protestant thinkers of the 17th and 18th centuries, such as David Hume and Adam Smith. At its core it is antiChristian, because it denies the effects of original sin and posits that fallen Man can govern himself.

 

[TK421]

I was an enthusiast libertarian in recent years past. Like any other political label, “libertarian” can be pretty broad in its meaning, but in the purist sense of the world, it is definitely not fully compatible with Catholic social teaching. A secular libertarian would ascribe to a “hands off” approach to subjects such as marriage, divorce, and possibly abortion on the basis that it is not their business and that it should be dictated by the individual alone. This is not Catholic teaching. Men are not islands. These subjects are the business of wider society.

 

[isaacalsop]

Cardinal Mariadiaga is absolutely correct. Christ, St. Paul and all of scripture teach that among fallen man, an earthly government is necessary and legitimate. I challenge anyone here to quote me ONE New Testament scripture (or one Church Father) that teaches that political liberty is the highest good. The “liberty” taught in the scriputres and the Fathers is the liberty from sin and injustice. Rather, read Sts Ambrose, Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas: they ALL teach the legitimacy of the earthly government, and the legitmiacy of governmental powers far beyond those any contemporary libertarian would recognize. Aquinas, for example, taught the concepts of just wages and prices. Libertarians, along with most so-called “conservatives” don’t even recognize the legitimacy of the concepts of just wages and prices, much less their enforcement by government.

Modern libertarianism derives not from any scripture or Catholic or Orthodox teaching, but from the secular, Deist and liberal Protestant thinkers of the 17th and 18th centuries, such as David Hume and Adam Smith. At its core it is antiChristian, because it denies the effects of original sin and posits that fallen Man can govern himself.

I do not argue the legitimacy of government for spiritual or scriptural reasons, but for practical reason. Fallen Man cannot govern himself so we have the Church as our guide, with the Holy Spirit and the teachings of Christ, and the word of God in scriptures. I argue that secular government is not the best way to govern ourselves, but the Church is. I believe that the Church should be the one authority, not the government. I call this Catholic Anarchism.

 

[isaacalsop]

Men DO need authority, but it should not be a secular corporation or a secular bank or a secular government. The Church should be our authority, with the Bible and the Holy Spirit. We should follow what the Church says, and function off of barter and subsidiarity and solidarity in community and family. This is Catholic Anarchism. Our laws are whatever the Church says.

 

[Mulligan2]

Both you and I and Dr. Paul would agree that the government should enforce that murder is illegal, …

Yes, everyone would agree with this.

and that is what abortion is, so…

No, everyone does not agree with this.

 

[isaacalsop]

No, everyone does not agree with this.

It is the sad truth that not everybody agrees on that. Well it does not have to be agreed on by everybody for it to be true. Simply it ceases the life in a human body. Thats called murder.

 

[isaacalsop]

Hmm…is “Catholic Anarchist” an oxymoron? I mean some say that “Theist Anarchist” is an oxymoron, because some hard core no exceptions anti authority anarchists say no gods, governments, parents, or community. Well that is illogical, there is a God and parents are a must even if your an atheist. But what about no government? A community, meaning a group of families operating under the production principle of “From each according to ability, to each according to need” could survive without any state or corporations or worker unions. Sounds like anarchism but how do we reconcile anarchism with the needed worship of Christ, an acceptance of God as the ultimate authority in our lives? Well Leo Tolstoy made popular what is called “Christian Anarchism” or “Anarcho Christianity”. This supposes no authority but God, embodied in the teachings of Jesus, and this anarchy operated under the principles of The Sermon on the Mount. This seemed to fit perfectly with my views, except for a huge fallacy. It rejects God’s representatives on Earth. And by intellectual study I have come to believe that The Catholic Church is the true church which Jesus Christ himself founded. So here we have an Earthly infallible organization…and Christian Anarchism totally rejects such a thing. To them there is no authority except God. And in a way that is true. But remember when Pilate is talking to Jesus, and Jesus says to him, “You have no authority except for what has been given to you from above,”. So obviously the authority of Earthly organizations is not non existent but given by God. And if we look at Christ’s time on Earth, he gave the authority, the keys to the Kingdom, to one organization. Not a government, not a CEO, not a syndicate, not a worker’s union. The one organization on Earth that was granted the Keys to the Kingdom by Jesus Christ was a church. That Church grew extremely quickly as we can see in Acts. On Pentecost it was given the Holy Spirit, which has the authority of God. The Catholic Church has lasted 2000 years, unlike any other earthly organization. So, if it has authority of God, than it is an authority in this world. Even an anti company, anti government anarchist must see this. Leo Tolstoy did not…and what do you do when you dont have just the right think available? You create it. So I want to, along with The Catholic’s Cookbook, write up a political essay by the end of summer about a new thing…“Catholic Anarchism”. All of the teachings of God, which includes Jesus, and the Catholic Church, which has the authority of God, are to be accepted. You would be wise in so many ways to not rebel against God, right? Of course parents are also an authority as a child because a) thats how biology works, and b) the Church says they are and THEY are an authority. BUT to fulfill the anarchistic part, any organization claiming to have power over me, such as some company who wants to make money off of me, some government who wants to control me, or some peer pressure urging me into a stupid pop culture trend, is all meaningless. And I would not become some bomb crazy terrorist, because I will follow all the teachings of the Church. If I do that I will fit in somewhat normally in society. For now. But if say the Church was attacked by an immoral or unjust law, I would protest and demand the government to change. If a corporation acted unethically I would do the same…and if they tell me to stop that is too bad because the Church, representing the authority of God, is my guide, not them. Needs work but thats why I will write an essay…

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Men DO need authority, but it should not be a secular corporation or a secular bank or a secular government. The Church should be our authority, with the Bible and the Holy Spirit. We should follow what the Church says, and function off of barter and subsidiarity and solidarity in community and family. This is Catholic Anarchism. Our laws are whatever the Church says.

You oppose Christ and St. Paul, who recognized the authority even of a PAGAN government except where it directly opposed the Faith. No scripture or Church Father or Doctor ever authorized the Church to exercise authority over secular matters, that is the province of the government. Read in your own tradition about the teaching of the “two swords”. Your idea is heterodox and outlandish.

 

[isaacalsop]

You oppose Christ and St. Paul, who recognized the authority even of a PAGAN government except where it directly opposed the Faith. No scripture or Church Father or Doctor ever authorized the Church to exercise authority over secular matters, that is the province of the government. Read in your own tradition about the teaching of the “two swords”. Your idea is heterodox and outlandish.

But a secular or pagan government can only bring bad things. A government cannot be spiritually neutral is is for christ or anti christ, and if it tells you that it is secular than it is antichrist for secularization and tolerance is a lie. But you must draw the line. Jesus was a revolutionary. We can protest, change things, have dissent. Yes I agree we must accept the current syatem, you are right. BUT my ideas are for the future, a possible future society which i think would be better than this one. BUT I am in this age in histroy and you are right i do have to accept the governments current authority. HOWEVER that does not mean everything it does is correct. unlike the church the state is not infallible and if it is secular…or pagain…it is prone to huge mistakes. I do not propse getting rid of this system immediatley, that is unchristian. BUT im laying down the idea for an alternative society after the curreent one falls naturally. And fall naturally it will. Soon…

 

[ProVobis]

As an ex-member of the US Libertarian Party for roughly 3 1/2 years, I agree with the papal advisor.

When I was in that party, I saw a lot of atheistic and agnostic utopianism associated with the movement. I also saw an unhealthy obsession with the Paul political family, almost as if Ron Paul was some sort of quasi-messiah. There also seemed to be a modest degree of anti-black racism and Confederate nostalgia (though I admit this was by no means universal to the party).

Ron Paul admitted that what brought him into politics was the corruption brought upon the government by the Federal Reserve. Nixon’s dropping of the gold standard allowed the Fed to print unlimited amount of money. Paul found tooth and nail against that evil entity, which apparently even many conservatives unfortunately find themselves agreeing with their policies of monetary expansion, not only in the U.S. but across all countries now.