D
dochawk
Guest
Civil order is a good, yes. It’s the government, not disorder, that classic liberals distrust. Again and again over history, governments turn on the people–thus the desire to limit government.I think this still clashes with the Catholic conception of government, albeit in a more subtle way. Civil authority is necessary, but not an evil, since it is derived from the moral order (which is good) and human nature (which is good), and comes from God (who is good). It’s role is not just to prevent harm, but to ensure and attain good for the people under it–to “impel them rightly and orderly to the common good.” (Leo XIII, Diuturnum 11),
I don’t think that there has ever been a time in the US where there has been enough national religious consensus to agree as to what “common good” the people should be aimed at–but plenty of times where groups have been forced by other groups (e.g., the pilgrims did not come here for religious freedom as US mythology states, but rather because they weren’t allow to impose their version of theocracy on England [or anywhere in Europe else once they left England])
What I agree with religiously, and what I would like to happen, aren’t the same as what’s politically possible. Much as I might like a Catholic monarchy, you’d probably have over 90% resistance from the population at large . . . with a homogenous nation, different thing are possible.The Liberal conception of religious freedom is different from the Catholic one
hawk