Classical Liberalism

[ATraveller]

Edmund Burke is usually claimed to be the father of classical conservatism but he did sympathise with the American Revolution so there’s that. And things do overlap.

 

[deMontfort]

Actually the same encyclical condemns Socialism as well. Any ideology that wishes to abolish private property is explicitly condemned.

 

[dochawk]

Modern liberals are just classical liberals who’ve observed that entities other than the government can limit people’s “freedom”.

That’s, if any, a small corner of the difference.

Classic Liberalism focuses on “negative rights”, rights to not have things done to one, or to be compelled.

Modern Liberalism is indeed a direct offshoot, but focuses on Positive rights"–then rights to something, generally at someone else’s or society’s expense, and is willing to use state power to achieve this.

A major strain modernly called “conservative” is another direct descendant of Classic Liberalism, but uses state power to enforce behaviors it approves and suppress those it doesn’t. This strain, of which the Religious Right is a subset, lives in an uncomfortable alliance and overlap with the handful of remaining Classic Liberals, and an other handful of Burkes derived conservatives, all under the same label.

Ronald Reagan’s rhetoric was fairly consistently Classic Liberal, but in governance was mixed with pragmatism and moral conservatism.

Catholicism is consistent with all of these forms (save the subset of the Religious Right that wants to teach anti-Catholicism in the schools!).

The US Supreme Court does not have the two wings commonly described, and as a 5-4 right leaning majority, but rather a 4-2.5-2.5 split between modern liberals, conservatives, and classic liberals (Kennedy is both of the .5s, flipping between his good days as a classic liberal, and a conservative the other days). It really wasn’t hard to predict when the mislabeled “far right” justices would vote with the left edge. And when Thomas was alone in dissent (without Scalia), you needed to look around to see which individual right you’d just lost to the state (usually in the name of police safety; when that came up, Scalia’s knee jerked so far right that he needed medical attention!).

hawk

 

[LoyalViews]

American political discourse is so interesting.

In countries like Canada and the UK, each party is increasingly becoming more like its name. The Conservatives in both country, are increasingly becoming classically liberal and morally conservative, the Liberal Party of Canada is becoming a progressive echo-chamber full of lunatics who control their MP’s with iron rods, the New Democrats and Labour are becoming ever more socialist day by day.

But with the Democrats and Republicans, you get conservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans and Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans.

Classical liberalism is a Catholics best bet for political involvement. We are all born without a voice, and so our maturity is geared toward guaranteeing freedom for the next generation. The state isn’t to be our moral compass, the Church is.

 

[dochawk]

But with the Democrats and Republicans, you get conservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans and Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans.

Unfortunately, those crossovers are becoming more and more rare each cycle. The Democratic Party itself will be targeting the handful of pro-life members of Congress that are left this next election.

Now, if I could find a pro-life moderate Democrat with the respect for and understanding of the rule of law to see Scalia/Thomas/Gorsuch as the best appointments to the USSC in the last half century, and who understands enough economics that he would have voted for the JFK/Reagan/reent tax cuts . . . I’d probably be so shocked that I missed the election in the ICU from a heart attack!

hawk

 

[LoyalViews]

Growing up I would always ask my grandmother what party in the US were “our Conservatives.” She used to say the Democrats - they always had Catholic support, and so she only assumed they were the conservatives.

Looking back on it, I can see it - in her day, at least. How far they have come.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

mainstream liberalism

Out last liberal prime minister before this is staunchly Catholic. And staunchly liberal.

And his last name is Abbot.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Could a Catholic be in favor of absolute free speech?

As long as that speech doesn’t harm another, yes. A well-informed Catholic will win a debate every single time on even ground.

 

[ATraveller]

The Conservatives in both country, are increasingly becoming classically liberal and morally conservative

I and many don’t see that at all. They’re cowering to ‘progressives’ (Stalinist would be more appropriate). Especially in the UK. They are practically indistinguishable from Labour or the Lib Dems. The Tories were the ones that introduced same-sex ‘marriage’, facilitated abortion on demand for Northern Ireland, pushing for and implementing de facto drug legalization, and preventing Catholic charities to be involved in adoptions. There was also something about Catholic schools too that I can’t remember.
In Canada, it’s slightly better but in Ontario, I’m aware the leadership there tried to push out a social conservative but the leadership failed to do that. In Saskatoon, recently a social conservative was prevented from running in the next election despite winning several elections in his riding.

 

[dshix]

The Catholic Church condemns the idea of “absolute” free speech, because the freedom of speech should not be protected in cases where it harms the public good, or in cases where speech is used to tear down or attack the Catholic Church, because no state should protect any actions which are done to harm the religion which God founded.

It’s a very counter-intuitive idea to those of us who are Americans, since we were raised with the concept of absolute free speech being an absolute tenet of freedom itself.

 

[Hereiam]

What do you guys think?

You “know” mainstream liberalism is totally incompatible with Catholicism?

You gave your definition of “classical liberalism”, and some might argue with it. But you gave no definition of “mainstream liberalism”, and without it, its hard to determine if the characteristics of mainstream liberalism you give is accurate.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The Catholic Church condemns the idea of “absolute” free speech, because the freedom of speech should not be protected in cases where it harms the public good, or in cases where speech is used to tear down or attack the Catholic Church, because no state should protect any actions which are done to harm the religion which God founded.

Yes, I’ve noticed a lot of “Catholics” can’t handle criticism of the Faith or of it’s leaders. =

Not being able to accept criticism of one’s ideas or Faith is so destructive to the Mission I cannot even begin to describe it other than to say people who act like this have ZERO credibility in the eyes of those practice other Faiths and have no chance of evangelization whatsoever.

 

[Arkansan]

In a pluralistic society, one must often tolerate attacks on the Faith for fear of greater evils (as you say, a loss of credibility in the eyes of potential converts).

However, that’s a pragmatic consideration. In a society that was already overwhelmingly Catholic, there would be no good reason for allowing attacks on the Faith. That would be downright insane.

 

[pnewton]

Neither of which is contrary to the teachings of the Church.

That is not something I agree with you on. But this is nothing new. Conservatives here have been denying Catholic social doctrine for quite a while here, taking the complexity of the issues and the wide range of acceptable beliefs as an excuse for a free-for-all.

Actually the same encyclical condemns Socialism as well. Any ideology that wishes to abolish private property is explicitly condemned.

Yes, pure socialism that denies any right to private property is condemned. The Bernie Sanders (et al.) type is not, kind of like capitalism

 

[pnewton]

Unfortunately, those crossovers are becoming more and more rare each cycle. The Democratic Party itself will be targeting the handful of pro-life members of Congress that are left this next election.

Did you catch where Cardinal Dolan said that the “Big Tent” of the Democratic party has become a pup tent? Ironically, the Tea Party influence on the Republican Party seems to have a similar effect, though to a lesser degree.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

to a lesser degree.

hahaha --good one! But with a healthy dose of hypocrisy—only deficits run by Democrats are bad. Apparently deficits run by Trump (what are we at after a year…3 trillion??) don’t matter. Either deficits matter, or they don’t. Be consistent. Have a principle or two.

 

[Genesis315]

Yes, the Church has condemned the principles of Classical Liberalism, which was the denial of the role of God’s revelation in civil life. Classical Liberalism also denies that authority comes from God. The Church rejects absolute freedoms of religion and speech.

The Church teaches that the public authority receives authority from God (see CCC 1899). Likewise, since public authority exists to serve the common good (see CCC 1898), it can and should restrict freedoms according to the needs of the common good (see e.g. CCC 2109). The common good, however, is objective and based on the moral order and the true religion and includes man’s supernatural good and end as well as his temporal well-being (see CCC 1924 to 1925 and 2244).

The Church’s teaching on civil power is found here:
Diuturnum Ilud

Certain principles of Liberalism were definitively condemned by the Pope in Quanta Cura (FYI these are cited in CCC 2109)–I have extracted some relevant quoted errors and the condemnation below:

“the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.”

“liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.”

“the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.”

Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.

A few other points from Pacem in Terris

He has a right to freedom in investigating the truth, and—within the limits of the moral order and the common good—to freedom of speech and publication…

The attainment of the common good is the sole reason for the existence of civil authorities.

1. Consisting, as he does, of body and immortal soul, man cannot in this mortal life satisfy his needs or attain perfect happiness. Thus, the measures that are taken to implement the common good must not jeopardize his eternal salvation; indeed, they must even help him to obtain it.(44)

 

[dshix]

religion which God founded.

Yes, I’ve noticed a lot of “Catholics” can’t handle criticism of the Faith or of it’s leaders. =

Not being able to accept criticism of one’s ideas or Faith is so destructive to the Mission I cannot even begin to describe it other than to say people who act like this have ZERO credibility in the eyes of those practice other Faiths and have no chance of evangelization whatsoever.

To be clear, this teaching does not refer to criticism of church men. It applies to criticism of the Church itself, that holy institution which God founded. In an ideal society, no man should have a protected right to offend God.

See the encyclical “Libertas”, Pope Leo XIII.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html

Comments on free speech begin at paragraph 23.

 

[thistle]

You cannot be Catholic and Communist.

Please remember that socialism is not communism.

There are only 6 communist countries left in the world and in other countries where communist parties are legal they are almost non-existent in terms of having any sway or power in the country.

 

[deMontfort]

Please remember that socialism is not communism.

Actually it doesn’t matter: The Church condemns BOTH.