Catholic Theory of Rights

[tonyrey]

Which rights are you thinking of in particular? The Church has condemned slavery, for instance, many times in the past and, as Greg has pointed out, developed a theory of legal rights which was the basis of the rule of law and documents like the Magna Carta.

That is not surprising because human rights are implicit in Christian doctrine - of which the Catholic Church was the sole guardian for many centuries.

I’ve also heard that Catholicism eradicated slavery soon after Constantine but even there I find little support. The New Advent entry (newadvent.org/cathen/06058c.htm) doesn’t seem to give the Church much credit there.

It is notorious that even popes have not lived up to the teaching of Christ and that the Church has often failed in its duty to apply His principles but there have always been individual Catholics who have condemned such abuses as slavery and inequality.

It’s difficult to find any Catholic teaching on anything we might call “rights” (as opposed to duties) until relatively recently (i.e. post WWII).

Duties and obligations imply the existence of rights!

Quote:Article 1 of the UN Declaration states that all human beings are free, equal in dignity and rights, endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood - which presupposes the Christian teaching that we are all members of the same family created by God and not merely animals without objective rights which exist for no reason or purpose.

Virtually all of that can be true without reference to the concept of rights, much less to a distinctly Catholic theory of rights. If this is such a straightforward deduction, why did it take 1900 years to figure out?

How can it possibly be true without reference to the concept of rights? On what do you base the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity?

One of the earliest references I find to the Catholic Church and rights is that the Catholic Church was opposed to the idea fearing it may become a justification of regicide. When did the Church teach that serfs had equal rights to lords?

The Church has always taught that all human beings have equal rights in the sight of God. As a result slaves were liberated in the Roman Empire and even became bishops - and possibly popes. To overthrow an entire social and economic system such as feudalism could not be achieved rapidly without causing chaos and bloodshed. Men always cling to their wealth and privileges regardless of what they claim to believe. Catholics have been no exception but their failure does not indict the Church founded by Christ. To this day it has upheld the sanctity of human life in the face of abortion and euthanasia.

 

[tonyrey]

This is a very interesting distinction which goes toward what I’ve been thinking about the subject. But inferring a right from a duty to be good seems to be contradicted by some of Jesus’ teachings such as to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, give to Caesar (an occupying power), etc. You just don’t find Jesus teaching to assert one’s corresponding rights.

You give a distorted picture of a meek and mild Jesus who encouraged evil and injustice. Why did He condemn the Pharisees and extortionists so ferociously on behalf of the poor and downtrodden? It is simplistic to regard His teaching as one of subservience and an incentive to injustice. Turning the other cheek has to be balanced against driving the traders and moneychangers out of the temple. Obedience to human authority has to be balanced against obedience to God. Self-defence is not a sin but it may do more harm than good. Most important of all, worldly success and even survival are not the most important considerations. Ultimately our rights are less important than His command to love others. We would have no rights at all if we had not been created by God…

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’m gong to take things out of order to focus the discussion.

Duties and obligations imply the existence of rights!

It is not a simple deduction and the assumption that duties and obligations imply rights leads in peculiar directions. The more I think about this the more I suspect that the Church may have been right to have avoided baptizing rights for so long.

Cosider, for example, the (second) most basic Christian duty: love your neighbor as yourself. Does this imply that I have a right to be loved? Do I have a right to be loved by you? If you do not love me can I sue you? Have you thrown in jail?

So one way to pose the question is as follows: Is it good Christian behavior to assert one’s rights?

What is a right, after all? It is not merely a restatement of a duty otherwise it would be a redundent concept. It is a license to assert a demand and to punish for breach. In a rights-oriented legal or moral model, boundaries are carefully defined and people are encouraged to navigate freely within those boundaries. (Let’s set aside, for the moment, that these boundaries are ever changing, as for example in the case of homosexuals demanding a right to marry each other.)

And then you have the second order consequences in which rights are created and duties inferred. For example, we have a right to health care, therefore it becomes necessary to create a duty to provide health care (as opposed to reasoning the othe way around).

You give a distorted picture of a meek and mild Jesus who encouraged evil and injustice. Why did He condemn the Pharisees and extortionists so ferociously on behalf of the poor and downtrodden? It is simplistic to regard His teaching as one of subservience and an incentive to injustice. Turning the other cheek has to be balanced against driving the traders and moneychangers out of the temple. Obedience to human authority has to be balanced against obedience to God. Self-defence is not a sin but it may do more harm than good. Most important of all, worldly success and even survival are not the most important considerations. Ultimately our rights are less important than His command to love others. We would have no rights at all if we had not been created by God…

It’s your second to last point which is where my thinking on this is headed. One of the questions I am raising here is whether the concept of rights adds anything of value to this.

Again, I’m not suggesting that Jesus demands pacifism. Jesus didn’t teach us to brush our teeth either. But Jesus did repeatedly cousel in the direction of pacifism. Yes, Jesus argued with, and condemend the Pharisees but that is consistent with a pacifist view of “speaking truth to power”.

That is not surprising because human rights are implicit in Christian doctrine - of which the Catholic Church was the sole guardian for many centuries.

It’s important here to distinguish human rights and our duty to treat peope with dignity, respect, and even love. They are not the same.

It is notorious that even popes have not lived up to the teaching of Christ and that the Church has often failed in its duty to apply His principles but there have always been individual Catholics who have condemned such abuses as slavery and inequality.

I think this is a deeper matter than a simple transgression like playboy popes.

The Church has always taught that all human beings have equal rights in the sight of God. As a result slaves were liberated in the Roman Empire and even became bishops - and possibly popes. To overthrow an entire social and economic system such as feudalism could not be achieved rapidly without causing chaos and bloodshed. Men always cling to their wealth and privileges regardless of what they claim to believe. Catholics have been no exception but their failure does not indict the Church founded by Christ. To this day it has upheld the sanctity of human life in the face of abortion and euthanasia.

I’m not trying to indict the Church. I’m trying to make a distinction between the techings of the Church for 1900 years and in the last 50 years.

tonyrey:

Bubba:

tonyrey:

Quote:Article 1 of the UN Declaration states that all human beings are free, equal in dignity and rights, endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood - which presupposes the Christian teaching that we are all members of the same family created by God and not merely animals without objective rights which exist for no reason or purpose.

Virtually all of that can be true without reference to the concept of rights, much less to a distinctly Catholic theory of rights. If this is such a straightforward deduction, why did it take 1900 years to figure out?
How can it possibly be true without reference to the concept of rights? On what do you base the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity?

As discussed above, the Church taught equality and fraternity for centures without a concept of rights. I think it’s entirely reasonable to say that the Church has made a reasonable attempt to teach Lords to treat their serfs with dignity.

That leaves us with liberty. Is liberty a Christian teaching? When and how did it become so? I submit that it is principally a teaching of Protestantism. The best historical example of this is the Scottish Enlightenment, which is arguably the most benign insofar as it did not lead to the bloodbaths that the continental enlightenment did.

The Scottish enlightenment began when Scotland turned Protestant. Suddenly people were liberated to explore new ideas not only in theology but in all spheres of life.

 

[tonyrey]

The more I think about this the more I suspect that the Church may have been right to have avoided baptizing rights for so long.

It has become increasingly difficult to define rights in an increasingly complex society. The Church was wise to confine her attention to fundamental rights and teaches that our ultimate authority is our own conscience.

Consider, for example, the (second) most basic Christian duty: love your neighbor as yourself. Does this imply that I have a right to be loved?

Yes - if we understand love to be concern for your well-being and happiness.

Do I have a right to be loved by you? If you do not love me can I sue you? Have you thrown in jail?

No. Legislation cannot cover lack of concern for others even if it means leaving a person to die in the street. There is a limit to what can be enforced. Rights are meaningless unless we are motivated by love.

So one way to pose the question is as follows: Is it good Christian behavior to assert one’s rights?

It depends on the situation and the consequences. As a general rule we should assert our rights because not to do so encourages others to disregard them - but if we go too far we bring them into disrepute. Many people in our society assert their rights and neglect their obligations.

What is a right, after all? It is a license to assert a demand and to punish for breach. In a rights-oriented legal or moral model, boundaries are carefully defined and people are encouraged to navigate freely within those boundaries.)

Moral rights cannot be imposed on people by force. Legal rights can but with undesirable consequences. Rights presuppose the willingness of the majority to abide by them.The rights of the unborn child are largely ignored in the UK despite the Catholic Church’s efforts to uphold them.

For example, we have a right to health care, therefore it becomes necessary to create a duty to provide health care (as opposed to reasoning the way around).

This bears out my point about the increasing complexity of society.

One of the questions I am raising here is whether the concept of rights adds anything of value to this.

It does because in modern society there are conflicts of interests which did not exist in the past. The very size and complexity of society makes it necessary to establish laws which
are necessary but at the same time defective. That is why it is only relatively recently that the Church has become involved in social issues.

Yes, Jesus argued with, and condemned the Pharisees but that is consistent with a pacifist view of “speaking truth to power”.

We can see that He was right to do so in the light of the continuing bloodshed in the world and “the war to end all wars”. It has taken a non-Christian like Gandhi to prove non-violence can be successful. Jesus is regarded as a failure by many but he has transformed the world with His moral teaching.
I

t’s important here to distinguish human rights and our duty to treat people with dignity, respect, and even love. They are not the same.

But they are closely related. Those who lack respect, let alone love, for their neighbours are less likely to respect their rights.

I think this is a deeper matter than a simple transgression like playboy popes.

I agree but the point is that the Church cannot always enforce the observance of human rights. It did so with some success by excommunicating Spaniards in South America but only succeeded in alienating those who questioned and rejected its authority when it resorted to the excesses of Inquisition to “save men’s souls”. To be blamed for doing too little or too much is always the fate of a guardian of morals because it is extremely difficult to judge at what stage we cease to be justified in using force to maintain peace and harmony in society.
I

'm not trying to indict the Church. I’m trying to make a distinction between the teachings of the Church for 1900 years and in the last 50 years.

I think 1900 years is an exaggeration but in any case I have already explained the main reason for the difference. There is also the fact that an international organization cannot be expected to respond as quickly as we would wish. The immense responsibility of interpreting Christ’s teaching for modern society entails more care and caution than for any other institution.

Virtually all of that can be true without reference to the concept of rights, much less to a distinctly Catholic theory of rights.

How can it possibly be true without reference to the concept of rights? On what do you base the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity?

I think it’s entirely reasonable to say that the Church has made a reasonable attempt to teach Lords to treat their serfs with dignity.

By reminding them that we are all equal in the sight of God and that we should remember Christ’s teaching that what we do to others we do to Him.

Is liberty a Christian teaching? I submit that it is principally a teaching of Protestantism. The best historical example of this is the Scottish Enlightenment, which is arguably the most benign insofar as it did not lead to the bloodbaths that the continental enlightenment did.

Scotland is not in the centre of Europe but a relatively sparsely populated outpost of Christendom. It was also dominated by Calvinists and Presbyterians who were and are the least compromising of Christians with a highly austere code of Puritannical morality.

The Scottish enlightenment began when Scotland turned Protestant. Suddenly people were liberated to explore new ideas not only in theology but in all spheres of life.

That was a reaction to the tyrannical Christian establishment which produced such sceptics as David Hume who condemned Christianity - but not openly.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Toneyrey, thanks for all your points. At this stage, rather than respond to them in detail I want to try to fashion a hypothesis in view of your points and mine. I don’t think we are in total agreement but nor are we in stark disagreement.

Note that I am still working out my thoughts on this and what follows is partly inspired by the discussion we’ve had here.

Modern moral and political theory is largely centered around the concept of rights. But rights are, at best, a crude means to an end. It is a legalistic concept that is more similar to the Mosaic Law than to Christian ethics. It is a secular substitute for Christian morality. And, it is a distraction from what I will propose is a better approach.

I don’t think, therefore, that the Church was remiss in it’s long hesitation to embrace the rights paradigm. Where the Church errred was in its failure to undervaluing of liberty.

The Protestant Reformation provided an umbrella for liberty to take flower. It’s not that Protestant theology, itself, is true, but rather that the Reformation, itself, led people to thinking about liberty as a personal and social value.

The concept was taken up by the Enlightenment which, being principally secular, needed an alternative to Christian ethics. That is where the concept of rights entered the picture. Rights became a vehicle for expressing both ethics and liberty and to the extent that it enabled these it was beneficial. Of course, some took these ideas in destructive directions (e.g. the French Revolution and it’s many children).

So the question I am exploring is whether Christian morality ought to include liberty, whether liberty is a more natural extrapolation than the more popular rights model. That requires, of course, a more careful definition of liberty.

One way that we might define liberty is to say that it is the freedom and space that we allow others (as opposed to freedom and space that we might claim for ourselves). This defintion, then, is a human equivalent to God’s gift of free will and dominion over the earth.

One point you made, really an ongoing one, I think deserves a direct response:

How can it possibly be true without reference to the concept of rights? On what do you base the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity?

My claim here is that Christian morality plus what I will call Christian liberty (I will set aside for the moment the question of whether Christian moraity ought to include liberty), is sufficient. Rights are a superflaux legality. You might argue that we need something like rights to realize Christian morality and liberty in secular society but that’s a secondary question. Insofar as the ultimate aim is a Christian world then there are merely a temporary means to an end. In particular, we can easily conceive of a community that realizes the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity without rights.

 

[tonyrey]

Toneyrey, thanks for all your points. At this stage, rather than respond to them in detail I want to try to fashion a hypothesis in view of your points and mine. I don’t think we are in total agreement but nor are we in stark disagreement.

Thanks, Bubba. It would be amazing if we agreed totally!

Modern moral and political theory is largely centered around the concept of rights. But rights are, at best, a crude means to an end. It is a legalistic concept that is more similar to the Mosaic Law than to Christian ethics. It is a secular substitute for Christian morality.

That is an excellent point!

I don’t think, therefore, that the Church was remiss in its long hesitation to embrace the rights paradigm. Where the Church erred was in its failure to undervaluing of liberty.

I don’t think it was undervaluation so much as caution - which is understandable after having had to dedicate much time and energy to combating all kinds of heresies.

The Protestant Reformation provided an umbrella for liberty to take flower. It’s not that Protestant theology, itself, is true, but rather that the Reformation, itself, led people to thinking about liberty as a personal and social value.

That is true to some extent but they have always been intellectuals within the Church who have questioned its teaching on a variety of issues - and sometimes been excommunicated. We have to decide whether our personal views are sufficiently important to undermine the unity of the Church. I believe, for example, that there should be women priests but we can see how the issue has split the Church of England. Perhaps the time is not yet ripe. When the number of priests is decimated in twenty years or so and there is no Mass in their parish the hardliners may realise the urgency of the situation. The Catholic Church has survived for two thousand years despite heresies and schisms precisely because its members have recognised the need for unity. Liberty has led to thousands of different sects which often undermine the credibility of Christianity. Alas!

The concept was taken up by the Enlightenment which, being principally secular, needed an alternative to Christian ethics. That is where the concept of rights entered the picture. Rights became a vehicle for expressing both ethics and liberty and to the extent that it enabled these it was beneficial. Of course, some took these ideas in destructive directions (e.g. the French Revolution and its many children).

That is the flaw in making liberty our supreme value. It fails to take into account our fallibility as individuals.

So the question I am exploring is whether Christian morality ought to include liberty, whether liberty is a more natural extrapolation than the more popular rights model. That requires, of course, a more careful definition of liberty.

I think individual liberty is presupposed in the Church’s teaching that our ultimate authority is our conscience. We are each ultimately responsible for our decisions.

One way that we might define liberty is to say that it is the freedom and space that we allow others (as opposed to freedom and space that we might claim for ourselves). This definition, then, is a human equivalent to God’s gift of free will and dominion over the earth.

I agree - because otherwise liberty infringes on the rights of others. Put bluntly, our liberty is curtailed by the liberty of others and theirs by ours. It cannot be absolute so the problem is to determine its exact limits. Obviously a criminal should not have the same amount of physical liberty as a law-abiding person but should he have as much in other respects, e.g. to express his ideas (which may be pernicious, seditious…)?

My claim here is that Christian morality plus what I will call Christian liberty (I will set aside for the moment the question of whether Christian morality ought to include liberty), is sufficient. Rights are a superflaux (superfluous?) legality. You might argue that we need something like rights to realize Christian morality and liberty in secular society but that’s a secondary question. Insofar as the ultimate aim is a Christian world then they are merely a temporary means to an end. In particular, we can easily conceive of a community that realizes the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity without rights.

It’s a tempting proposition but I’m not sure it would work in practice. Anyway we don’t and won’t live in a Christian world so it’s not really a secondary question! It looks as if rights are here to stay so we may as well make sure they are well defined - as far as that is humanly possible…

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It’s a tempting proposition but I’m not sure it would work in practice. Anyway we don’t and won’t live in a Christian world so it’s not really a secondary question! It looks as if rights are here to stay so we may as well make sure they are well defined - as far as that is humanly possible…

So let me clarify that I don’t actually believe that we can get rid of rights anymore than we can get rid of laws. However, what I’m really arguing for is treating the concept of rights as a purely legal concept, a practical means to a higher end. That higher end is Chrstian morality and ethics plus liberty.

The real question here is whether and why liberty was such a late bloom. Part of the reason is as you noted:

That is the flaw in making liberty our supreme value. It fails to take into account our fallibility as individuals.

Just to be clear, I’m arguing for liberty to be a supreme value, not the supreme value. But clearly it is a two-edged sword as it is an invitation to error.

The history is all the more interesting because Protestant theology does not lead to liberty. Rather, it implicitly requires and validates it. You can’t protest dogma unless you are at liberty to do so. And once you dare to question dogma, it’s a piece of cake to question the more mundane accepted truths such as Aristotilian physics or the divine rights of kings.

I don’t think it was undervaluation so much as caution - which is understandable after having had to dedicate much time and energy to combating all kinds of heresies…Liberty has led to thousands of different sects which often undermine the credibility of Christianity. Alas!QUOTE]
So one interesting question is why Protestantism had to come first. Why didn’t the enlightenment occur within the context of Catholicism. Why did people need to question Church dogma first before they moved on to science and politics?

To put it another way, did the Church overreact to heresies not bending, and therefore breaking (with the Reformation)?
tonyrey;6298883:

I think individual liberty is presupposed in the Church’s teaching that our ultimate authority is our conscience. We are each ultimately responsible for our decisions.

But this is a relatively modern teaching, the result of Vatican II. Though it’s certainly true that the Church has always relied on persuasion, it’s not fair to say that it didn’t enlist the state to be its enforcer.

I agree - because otherwise liberty infringes on the rights of others. Put bluntly, our liberty is curtailed by the liberty of others and theirs by ours. It cannot be absolute so the problem is to determine its exact limits. Obviously a criminal should not have the same amount of physical liberty as a law-abiding person but should he have as much in other respects, e.g. to express his ideas (which may be pernicious, seditious…)?

So, of course, as noted above, laws and rights are inevitable as a working out of the details by lawyers and politicians.

 

[tonyrey]

So let me clarify that I don’t actually believe that we can get rid of rights anymore than we can get rid of laws. However, what I’m really arguing for is treating the concept of rights as a purely legal concept, a practical means to a higher end. That higher end is Christian morality and ethics plus liberty.

The Christian view is certainly more reasonable than the futile attempt to attribute rights to advanced animals!

Just to be clear, I’m arguing for liberty to be a supreme value, not the supreme value. But clearly it is a two-edged sword as it is an invitation to error.

It must be one of the highest values because it presupposes free will but it has to be balanced against love - as St Augustine implied: “Love God and do what you will!”

The history is all the more interesting because Protestant theology does not lead to liberty. Rather, it implicitly requires and validates it. You can’t protest dogma unless you are at liberty to do so. And once you dare to question dogma, it’s a piece of cake to question the more mundane accepted truths such as Aristotilian physics or the divine rights of kings.

It is important to question dogma but if we reject that which is fundamental - like the Credo - we undermine our own position.

I don’t think it was undervaluation so much as caution - which is understandable after having had to dedicate much time and energy to combating all kinds of heresies…Liberty has led to thousands of different sects which often undermine the credibility of Christianity. Alas!

So one interesting question is why Protestantism had to come first. Why didn’t the enlightenment occur within the context of Catholicism. Why did people need to question Church dogma first before they moved on to science and politics?

Probably because they rightly regarded religion as more fundamental. But Vitoria had already laid the foundations of human rights in the 16th century. In 1552 there was a momentous debate and to this day Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas, a Spanish Dominican friar, is revered as a saint for his defence of the rights of Indians in South America.
There is a fascinating book with online extracts about their work:
books.google.co.uk/books?id=zVDR2ZePzvUC&dq=history+of+human+rights+in+catholic+church&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=sPh4S7_jPIr60wTMwsm2CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12&ved=0CC4Q6AEwCw#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20human%20rights%20in%20catholic%20church&f=false

To put it another way, did the Church overreact to heresies not bending, and therefore breaking (with the Reformation)?

When you are faced with a heresy which strikes at the heart of the Church you have no option but to condemn it. There can be no compromise with such issues as the nature of the priesthood and the sacraments.

I think individual liberty is presupposed in the Church’s teaching that our ultimate authority is our conscience. We are each ultimately responsible for our decisions.

But this is a relatively modern teaching, the result of Vatican II.

The teaching was implicit in the teaching of Christ that we should be motivated by love. Parables like the Good Samaritan imply that we should use our own judgment as to how to behave in particular situations.

Though it’s certainly true that the Church has always relied on persuasion, it’s not fair to say that it didn’t enlist the state to be its enforcer.

The identification of the Church with the Roman Empire led to the blurring of the distinction between spiritual and temporal authority - which in turn led to abuse. The case of St Joan of Arc in a later era is an example of a victim of both religious and secular power.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

There is a fascinating book with online extracts about their work:

That’s actually one I’ve been meaning to read. I just started The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success by Rodney Stark and it promises to challenge the traditional view of the Protestant Reformation as the origin.

It sounds like we are mostly in agreement, or at least you’ve said nothing that make me question my hypothesis. But I’m still bothered by the seeming necessity of the Protestant Reformation. One alternative possibility is that the Reformation was an effect, and not a cause, of these social changes.

It must be one of the highest values because it presupposes free will but it has to be balanced against love - as St Augustine implied: “Love God and do what you will!”

Thanks. I hadn’t heard that. I wonder if anyone has tried to trace the history of liberty. Perhaps the two books above will suffice to answer this.

It is important to question dogma but if we reject that which is fundamental - like the Credo - we undermine our own position.

On the other hand, if you question dogma and arrive at a contradiction you’ve learned something in the process.

Probably because they rightly regarded religion as more fundamental. But Vitoria had already laid the foundations of human rights in the 16th century. In 1552 there was a momentous debate and to this day Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas, a Spanish Dominican friar, is revered as a saint for his defence of the rights of Indians in South America.

That’s very interesting because it’s usually the atheists Hobbes and Locke who are given credit. I have heard about the Church’s struggles to defend the Indians which certainly predates Hobbes and Locke.

When you are faced with a heresy which strikes at the heart of the Church you have no option but to condemn it. There can be no compromise with such issues as the nature of the priesthood and the sacraments.

Compromise, though, implies a conclusion. But skepticism does not necessarily entail drawing heretical conclusions, merely entertaining them. (I realize that much of the controversies surround the teaching of heresy, not merely the investigation of it.)

The identification of the Church with the Roman Empire led to the blurring of the distinction between spiritual and temporal authority - which in turn led to abuse. The case of St Joan of Arc in a later era is an example of a victim of both religious and secular power.

Yes, Protestants love to point to Constantine as the origin of Catholicism and the perversion of “true” Christianity. There is at least a grain of truth to that insofar as state power was a source of corruption.

The other side of the coin that I’ve been thining about, which I mentioned earlier, is that the pursuit of justice ought to be regarded with suspicion if not hostility. This is a very tricky question, I’ll admit, but it’s easy to see how fallen humans have caused great suffering in their pursuit of justice, utopia, etc.

 

[tonyrey]

It sounds like we are mostly in agreement, or at least you’ve said nothing that make me question my hypothesis. But I’m still bothered by the seeming necessity of the Protestant Reformation. One alternative possibility is that the Reformation was an effect, and not a cause, of these social changes.

There were a variety of causes amongst which Hilaire Belloc singled out:

1. The Great Schism of the West (caused by two men claiming to be Pope) which weakened Papal authority.
2. The Black Death which led to scepticism about Providence and a decline in morality.
3. The corruption of clergy with their financial power.
4. The election of Leo X who was ordained and consecrated as a bishop after he became Pope. The Papacy had become dominated by the nepotism of rich Italian families.
5. The avarice of German princes who supported Martin Luther to precipitate a break with Rome and appropriate the lands and properties of the Church. Henry VIII, of course, created the Church of England to obtain a divorce and then dissolved the monasteries to appropriate their wealth.

On the other hand, if you question dogma and arrive at a contradiction you’ve learned something in the process.

You’ve learned that the doctrine is false!

Yes, Protestants love to point to Constantine as the origin of Catholicism and the perversion of “true” Christianity. There is at least a grain of truth to that insofar as state power was a source of corruption.

More than a grain! But the corruption was moral rather than doctrinal!

The other side of the coin that I’ve been thinking about, which I mentioned earlier, is that the pursuit of justice ought to be regarded with suspicion if not hostility. This is a very tricky question, I’ll admit, but it’s easy to see how fallen humans have caused great suffering in their pursuit of justice, utopia, etc.

The supreme irony is that an incredible number of people have been sacrificed in the name of Christ. Nothing seems to make people more unChristian than their “Christian” fervour -which is motivated by bigotry not love. By making martyrs of heretics they make themselves anti-Christs! They follow the example of those who had Jesus executed rather than the example of Jesus Himself. The blood of the martyrs became the seed of the Protestant churches…

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You’ve learned that the doctrine is false!

I was thinking more of the situation where you follow a line of argument that doctrine X is false. If you then arrive at a contradiction, or undermine your own methodology, then you can be sure that either X is true or ~X is a pointless proposition. (I see this a lot arguing with atheists.)

The supreme irony is that an incredible number of people have been sacrificed in the name of Christ. Nothing seems to make people more unChristian than their “Christian” fervour -which is motivated by bigotry not love. By making martyrs of heretics they make themselves anti-Christs! They follow the example of those who had Jesus executed rather than the example of Jesus Himself. The blood of the martyrs became the seed of the Protestant churches…

This is unfortunately true, but I think history has shown in the last century that whatever the sins of organized religion, they pale in comparison to secular absolutism. I think the worldview founded on secular rights systems and worldly justice is not something that the Church should be hitching its wagon to, which is not to say that it shouldn’t try to influence these in a Christian direction.

I’ll finish the book I mentioned, it is promising to be quite enlightening, and return to this thread then.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

This is not exactly on the topic of rights theory but it is very closely related:

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/are-there-secular-reasons/

Regarding the book:

The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse

amazon.com/Disenchantment-Secular-Discourse-Steven-Smith/dp/0674050878

In part:

A somewhat less stringent version of the argument permits religious reasons to be voiced in contexts of public decision-making so long as they have a secular counterpart: thus, citing the prohibition against stealing in the Ten Commandments is all right because there is a secular version of the prohibition rooted in the law of property rights rather than in a biblical command. In a more severe version of the argument, on the other hand, you are not supposed even to have religious thoughts when reflecting on the wisdom or folly of a piece of policy. Not only should you act secularly when you enter the public sphere; you should also think secularly.

Whether the argument appears in its softer or harder versions, behind it is a form of intellectual/political apartheid known as the private/public distinction: matters that pertain to the spirit and to salvation are the province of religion and are to be settled by religious reasons; matters that pertain to the good order and prosperity of civil society are the province of democratically elected representatives and are to be settled by secular reasons.

And:

But the debate takes another turn if one argues, as the professor of law Steven Smith does in his new book, “The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse,” that there are no secular reasons, at least not reasons of the kind that could justify a decision to take one course of action rather than another.

It is not, Smith tells us, that secular reason can’t do the job (of identifying ultimate meanings and values) we need religion to do; it’s worse; secular reason can’t do its own self-assigned job — of describing the world in ways that allow us to move forward in our projects — without importing, but not acknowledging, the very perspectives it pushes away in disdain.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’m 2/3 through The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success. Having reached the Reformation I am confident to conclude that the author has made his case convincingly: all of the essential positive features of modern society were in place before Protestantism. Protestantism, and the even later Enlightenment, don’t deserve the credit they’ve been given.

This book should be required reading in every Catholic school.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

To give a concrete example, people have a right to their property (thou shall’t not steal) but it doesn’t follow that we ought to violently resist a starving man who tries to steal a loaf of bread.

I do not know if this was addressed but I must comment on this.

There is no prohibition on a property own from protecting his property. How is he to know that the man is really starving? What he is called to do is to give.

Stealing, even when starving, is still a sin, it is mitigated in its severity because of the state of “starvation” but that does not mean that the property own must act differently than he would with any other theft.

Off topic, what is a “Zen Catholic”? You can not really hold to two differing religious philosophies.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I do not know if this was addressed but I must comment on this. There is no prohibition on a property own from protecting his property. How is he to know that the man is really starving? What he is called to do is to give.

While intuitively I sympathize with this, I have yet to understand the Christian justitication of this.

Stealing, even when starving, is still a sin, it is mitigated in its severity because of the state of “starvation” but that does not mean that the property own must act differently than he would with any other theft.

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the thief is commiting a sin. It does not follow that the property owner is not also commiting a sin if he resist the theft.

As Jesus said: “Do not resist an evil person.” (Matt 5:39)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

While intuitively I sympathize with this, I have yet to understand the Christian justitication of this.

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the thief is commiting a sin. It does not follow that the property owner is not also commiting a sin if he resist the theft.

As Jesus said: “Do not resist an evil person.” (Matt 5:39)

Not according to the Teaching of the Church he is not. You must understand that the Catholic Church is not a bible only Church nor does it allow for private interpretation.

Relevant paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church;

2401 The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one’s neighbor and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods. It commands justice and charity in the care of earthly goods and the fruits of men’s labor. For the sake of the common good, it requires respect for the universal destination of goods and respect for the right to private property. Christian life strives to order this world’s goods to God and to fraternal charity.

2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.

2409 Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment: thus, deliberate retention of goods lent or of objects lost; business fraud; paying unjust wages; forcing up prices by taking advantage of the ignorance or hardship of another.

The following are also morally illicit: speculation in which one contrives to manipulate the price of goods artificially in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others; corruption in which one influences the judgment of those who must make decisions according to law; appropriation and use for private purposes of the common goods of an enterprise; work poorly done; tax evasion; forgery of checks and invoices; excessive expenses and waste. Willfully damaging private or public property is contrary to the moral law and requires reparation.

No where does the Church Teach that you must allow someone to take your private property.