How Does One Resolve the Differences Between Catholicism and Ayn Rand's Objectivism?

[nsper7]

Technically, I don’t believe the Church requires one to make acts of self-sacrifice (i.e. the Church acknowledges, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on wealth that a person is not usually required to give up money needed for basic needs or to maintain their present social status, but only to give up a portion of purely extraneous wealth, and even then, not all of it) for others. It says “love thy neighbor as thyself”, not MORE THAN thyself. The only time one would be required to sacrifice their life is if it is a case of being required to deny one’s faith or directly participate in the wrongful killing (murder) or harming of another (i.e. you are being told to pull the trigger or else).

Also, you forget that Hell is the presence of immense physical torments that just about anyone would want to avoid.

 

[nsper7]

Jesus’ Church is formed by those devoted to giving up of themselves for sake of that other and thus defeating the Devil, the Divider. Such self-sacrifice places your soul in Heaven automatically, not Hell.

Can you imagine Hell being filled with those who love so purely?

Try to imagine 10 people in a large home who have devoted themselves to only servicing the needs of the other 9, every true need. Each person has 9 people serving them in all things as each person serves 9 others. What is the likelihood that an individual can do more for himself than 9 similar others could do for him if they were truly devoted?

Look at the cells of a human body. A cell by itself dies very quickly, yet surrounded by others of its own kind, survives for many years. For what purpose does each cell live if not to keep the body alive? For what purpose has the body if not to keep its cells alive? Each existing only for sake of the other. Each devoted to the union.

The objective in survival is the maintenance of the union, the harmony both within and of the surroundings. As long as the surroundings are in harmony, no division can come from outside. As long as there is only harmony within, no division can come from within. Without division, there can be no death.

The devoted mother keeps herself alive for sake of the baby. Secularism/Satanism is the mother who keeps herself alive by consuming the baby.

Harmony is the make of Heaven. Disharmony is the make of Hell.

ALL of Jesus’ principles are from the needs of Harmony. How else could he claim anything to be eternal? It is only by disharmony that anything can perish.

Jesus’ Church is formed by those who agree, “I will live solely for the union” as the union exists solely for those who have agreed. The Church is that union, or it isn’t. When it is that union, it cannot perish.

Again, it comes down to selfish interests. Usually, harmony benefits the individual (read up on Hobbes and the perils of disharmony, or anarchy, and on social contract theory in general). Harmony is better for the individual than disharmony. That is why governments make laws: to maintain order (who would want to live in a society where they could be murdered with impunity by random individuals with no fear of retribution/punishment by the state).

From a purely selfish perspective, does it not benefit the individual more to just look out purely for their own interests (i.e. why worry about the plight of the widows, orphans, etc.), except for the fact that Hell is threatened if one’s ‘looking after one’s own interests’ leads them to mortal sin (this brings up the question of what the individual is strictly required to do for others in order to stay out of the realm of mortal sin)?

One could argue that if too many people are living high on the hog at the expense of others, it may cause social unrest, revolution, violence, etc, but then it all comes back to personal interest. One might provide help for others, but not because they care about who they are helping, but because, they either:

A) Fear Hell
B) Fear social unrest and have come to the conclusion that it is easier/cheaper to provide help than to keep them pacified by force (large armies, security forces, gulags and the like are expensive and can lead to the infringement of the deciding individual’s rights…after all, it’s like the Ancient Greek who developed the brutal execution method of the brazen bull…he ended up being roasted alive in the manner he devised for others)

 

[nsper7]

One could argue that they help others because they seek a positive: fulfillment, true happiness, etc. Again, self-interest not much different from the person who does drugs, has a lot of sex, etc. because they feel it will make them happier. fulfilled, whatever. Even though both our faith and even secular research shows that sex, drugs, etc.do not fulfill the person, it is the same impetus all around. Kind of G. K. Chesterton’s statement that anyone who goes knocking at the door to a brothel is seeking God.

EDIT: Thus, it can be reduced to the fact that all people are driven by seeking a positive (could be a material benefit, a psycho-emotional benefit * or a spiritual benefit) and/or avoiding a negative. What separates a Christian from a secularist is how long-term their desires are and how much weight they put on the spiritual desires/fears.*

 

[lothariorowe]

Look, nsper7 is entirely right with regard to one’s focus.

The entire purpose, the ultimate goal of man’s existence is to get himself to heaven - not to get someone else to heaven - but rather, through temporal self-sacrifice on earth, earn himself the right to an eternity in heaven. The eternal resting place for one’s own soul is the primary motivating factor for a Christian - a point not up for argument.

The self sacrifice must be temporal - no Christian expects an eternity of self-sacrifice. It is expected, that after an uncertain length of time of self-sacrificial service, you will be given the reward of everlasting life, at which point self sacrifice no longer exists, nor is required.

Asking the question, “would you sacrifice yourself to hell for another person’s entry into heaven,” is a perfect and valid hypothetical question that can in fact be asked, as it just was. No Catholic would ever commit this sacrifice (hypothetically), because the self sacrifice must be temporal! It must have a beginning and an end - at which point he earns his reward. Committing one’s self to eternal hell for the good of another (hypothetically) warrants no consideration because it causes the self sacrifice to be atemporal - without end - and banishes the hope of eternal salvation for one’s own soul.

It is sufficiently clear that a Christian’s ultimate focus is his selfish desire for his own salvation - and you’ve been taught to ignore and deny that reality because of the guilt the word “selfish” has been taught to cause you.

 

[lothariorowe]

Keep in mind, Ayn Rand escaped communist Russia. She was raised in a world where the purpose of the person was for the good of his society - anything done for the good of the state was good, anything done for the good of the self was evil.

As she defines:
*
“Altruism holds that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only moral justification for his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty.”*

Would you then say that the ideal political system for a Catholic is the ideal form of Communism? A state dedicated to the good of the people before the good of the self - a state who’s primary goal is the altruistic sacrifice of the self for the good of the people?

 

[lothariorowe]

One could argue that they help others because they seek a positive: fulfillment, true happiness, etc. Again, self-interest not much different from the person who does drugs, has a lot of sex, etc. because they feel it will make them happier. fulfilled, whatever. Even though both our faith and even secular research shows that sex, drugs, etc.do not fulfill the person, it is the same impetus all around. Kind of G. K. Chesterton’s statement that anyone who goes knocking at the door to a brothel is seeking God.

EDIT: Thus, it can be reduced to the fact that all people are driven by seeking a positive (could be a material benefit, a psycho-emotional benefit * or a spiritual benefit) and/or avoiding a negative. What separates a Christian from a secularist is how long-term their desires are and how much weight they put on the spiritual desires/fears.*
To elaborate, Ayn Rand writes:

“The evil…does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest; not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level”

 

[lothariorowe]

It is sufficiently clear that a Christian’s ultimate focus is his selfish desire for his own salvation - and you’ve been taught to ignore and deny that reality because of the guilt the word “selfish” has been taught to cause you.

To elaborate again:

“If it is true that what I mean by “selfishness” is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others. It means that altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites—that it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men—that it permits no concept of justice.”

 

[ChadS]

Keep in mind, Ayn Rand escaped communist Russia. She was raised in a world where the purpose of the person was for the good of his society - anything done for the good of the state was good, anything done for the good of the self was evil.

Why does this matter that she lived in communist Russia? If a true understanding of objectivism requires us to keep that in mind then of what use is it to 21st century Americans or perhaps even 21st century Russians or even 21st century communists? The usefulness or the applicability of a philosophy should not be dependent upon keeping in mind its author’s origins.

As she defines:
*
“Altruism holds that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only moral justification for his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty.”*

This unfortunately is not the classical definition of altruism, so can you see why so many on this thread reject this definition. To give a common word a definition that radically departs from its original meaning you have to have more to back that up.

In another post you quote rand as saying:

“If it is true that what I mean by “selfishness” is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others. It means that altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites—that it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men—that it permits no concept of justice.”

I don’t believe the classic definition of altruism necessarily as a function of its definition excludes the things Rand claims it excludes. I suppose it could exclude it but it isn’t necessary for it to. I mean you can still have a “concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others” and still be altruistic. None of the things she claims are excluded need to be excluded for the classic definition of altruistic to be true.

ChadS

 

[Pax]

lothariorowe,

One of the things that has jumped out at me in your remarks seems to be a tendency to ignore a very important element of human nature. Human beings are hard wired for relationships. It is part of our very nature. Life is filled with relationships and we value them deeply. Broken relationships between those that are close to one another are very painful. The pain is there because of the natural importance of relationships and the value we place on them.

This life is but a preparation for the next. The relationships that we have in this life are but shadows of the ultimate relationship for which we were created. The first and foremost relationship that a man must have in order to be fully human and to reach the fullness of his human potential is his relationship with God. The earthly relationships that we have help train us and discipline us so that we grow in our relationship with God.

Objectivism is flawed from the get go because it does not operate with this important foundational principle. Look at the foundational principles upon which Ayn Rand operates and you soon see the problems therein. Ultimate happiness comes from the ultimate fulfillment of what it means to be a human being. If you make your “work” and your desires of self fulfillment your god, then you will not ultimately be fulfilled nor will you reach the full potential for which God created you.

Jesus’ “human will” was always aligned with the divine will. If it had not been, he would not have fulfilled his mission as our savior and redeemer. Likewise, as brothers and sisters in Christ, we must align our wills with that of the Father to be in Christ. Our relationship with almighty God does not allow for our own personal primacy. If we fall into such a thing, we fall into idolatry. We make ourselves the most important thing in the universe. Moreover, it matters not whether others like or dislike what we might accomplish on our own. It is still idolatry and many a rich and famous person has followed that road to their own peril and eternal destruction.

 

[aspirant]

It says “love thy neighbor as thyself”, not MORE THAN thyself.

The Bible also says “greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” and “in humility count others more significant than yourselves.”

Also, you forget that Hell is the presence of immense physical torments that just about anyone would want to avoid.

“The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. More than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: ‘To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell”’ (n. 1033).” Pope John Paul II

Hell, like sin, is refusing to receive love and to love. Any physical torment experienced by the damned is the inevitable consequence of not loving God and his saints, and it’s secondary to the spiritual torment of never attaining the fulfillment of freely loving God and his saints.

 

[aspirant]

One might provide help for others, but not because they care about who they are helping, but because, they either:

A) Fear Hell
B) Fear social unrest and have come to the conclusion that it is easier/cheaper to provide help than to keep them pacified by force (large armies, security forces, gulags and the like are expensive and can lead to the infringement of the deciding individual’s rights…after all, it’s like the Ancient Greek who developed the brutal execution method of the brazen bull…he ended up being roasted alive in the manner he devised for others)

“If I give away all I have… but have not love, I gain nothing.”

 

[Pax]

The post’s title is a question from me, not to me.

I don’t know if one can resolve the differences, that’s why I posited the question. I still go to church by myself every week, but find it harder and harder to sit through certain parts of the mass - the “I’m not worthy’s,” and the “consider your neighbor as more important than yourself’s.” Not that I don’t understand the reasoning behind them, but rather whether I can continue to morally agree with that reasoning.

…
…

"

Please explain to me how it is that a sinful and finite man can somehow consider himself to be worthy of a perfect and infinite creator.

After thinking about that awhile, you can then move on to studying the purpose of loving your neighbor as yourself per Jesus teaching.

Perhaps, understanding something about relationships and the value of self giving would help you to begin to understand why it is important to love your neighbor as yourself. The apostle John has something to say about this that provides a starting point. Try the following:

1 Jn 3:10
By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother.

1 John 4:20-21
If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also.

These two quotes are not all that John says about love of God and our fellow man. I strongly recommend reading the first letter of John in its entirety as well as the rest of the NT where it addresses this very important issue.

I would also suggest making an effort to study historical examples of self giving vis-a-vis examples of simple human achievement.

Study the life of Mother Theresa of Calcutta and the impact that she has had. Contrast her life to that of a famous architect. (I chose an architect in deference to Rand’s use of an architect.) I happen to like Frank Lloyd Wright so you might want to take a look at him.

If you study them both and analyze “everything” prayerfully through the eyes of Christ, you may begin to see the merits of Christ’s teachings and the weaknesses of Rand’s. For me, there is simply no contest. If nothing else, you will easily see that Catholicism is incompatible with objectivism. It seems to me that you may have a choice to make, and I pray that it is the right one.

God bless.

 

[lothariorowe]

lothariorowe,

One of the things that has jumped out at me in your remarks seems to be a tendency to ignore a very important element of human nature. Human beings are hard wired for relationships. It is part of our very nature. Life is filled with relationships and we value them deeply. Broken relationships between those that are close to one another are very painful. The pain is there because of the natural importance of relationships and the value we place on them.

This life is but a preparation for the next. The relationships that we have in this life are but shadows of the ultimate relationship for which we were created. The first and foremost relationship that a man must have in order to be fully human and to reach the fullness of his human potential is his relationship with God. The earthly relationships that we have help train us and discipline us so that we grow in our relationship with God.

Objectivism is flawed from the get go because it does not operate with this important foundational principle. Look at the foundational principles upon which Ayn Rand operates and you soon see the problems therein. Ultimate happiness comes from the ultimate fulfillment of what it means to be a human being. If you make your “work” and your desires of self fulfillment your god, then you will not ultimately be fulfilled nor will you reach the full potential for which God created you.

Jesus’ “human will” was always aligned with the divine will. If it had not been, he would not have fulfilled his mission as our savior and redeemer. Likewise, as brothers and sisters in Christ, we must align our wills with that of the Father to be in Christ. Our relationship with almighty God does not allow for our own personal primacy. If we fall into such a thing, we fall into idolatry. We make ourselves the most important thing in the universe. Moreover, it matters not whether others like or dislike what we might accomplish on our own. It is still idolatry and many a rich and famous person has followed that road to their own peril and eternal destruction.

Few people genuinely interest me. I view my time as an investment, and I detest giving it to actions and people that don’t provide value in return. If I can’t come away from a relationship a better person - emotionally, psychologically, intellectually, spiritually - then I have absolutely no interest in that relationship. Unfortunately, I find few people worth my time. Small talk is the bane of my day - if a person does not engage me in some useful way, then expending my time to allow them to waste is tantamount to sin. The few people who I find interesting, witty, funny, smart - I enjoy my time with them and I can only hope that I reciprocate enough value to continue to selfishly be given more of their time. I view this rationally and guilt free. Most people adhere to the same underlying premise, but refuse to verbalize or even acknowledge it, yet that makes it no less rational or true. Actions as they say however, speak louder than words.

Most protestants view Marian devotion as idolatrous because they mistakenly equate respect with worship - the same mistake you may be making with your claim of idolatry.

 

[Pax]

Few people genuinely interest me. I view my time as an investment, and I detest giving it to actions and people that don’t provide value in return. If I can’t come away from a relationship a better person - emotionally, psychologically, intellectually, spiritually - then I have absolutely no interest in that relationship. Unfortunately, I find few people worth my time. Small talk is the bane of my day - if a person does not engage me in some useful way, then expending my time to allow them to waste is tantamount to sin. The few people who I find interesting, witty, funny, smart - I enjoy my time with them and I can only hope that I reciprocate enough value to continue to selfishly be given more of their time.

Most protestants view Marian devotion as idolatrous because they mistakenly equate respect with worship - the same mistake you may be making with your claim of idolatry.

How sad…God bless.

 

[aspirant]

The entire purpose, the ultimate goal of man’s existence is to get himself to heaven

And heaven is giving oneself to others in love. Only in doing this can one find true fulfillment.

The entire purpose, the ultimate goal of man’s existence is to get himself to heaven - not to get someone else to heaven

This is a false dichotomy. You cannot get into heaven without doing something to help other people into heaven. Nor, prior to the last judgment, can you be in heaven without doing something to help other people into heaven. It’s impossible.

the ultimate goal of man’s existence is to get himself to heaven… through temporal self-sacrifice on earth

The temporal self-sacrifice is itself the warm-up for the real dance. If you ever think you are giving yourself away here, it does not even begin to compare to the self-giving that awaits us.

to earn himself the right to an eternity in heaven.

You cannot earn the right to heaven, no matter what you do. The right can only be received from God’s grace through faith informed by love.

The self sacrifice must be temporal - no Christian expects an eternity of self-sacrifice.

On the contrary, self-giving is the very essence of God’s inner life and therefore heaven. We do not love here so we can stop loving in the future. We love here so that we will also be able to love in the future. We will no longer be doing it in a fallen world, the heavens and earth will be put right, but we will still be doing it. Love is our goal. There is no alternative fulfillment.

Asking the question, “would you sacrifice yourself to hell for another person’s entry into heaven,” is a perfect and valid hypothetical question

Except that it’s like asking whether there can be a “square circle” or a “married bachelor”: the question itself makes no sense.

 

[Pax]

Few people genuinely interest me. I view my time as an investment, and I detest giving it to actions and people that don’t provide value in return. If I can’t come away from a relationship a better person - emotionally, psychologically, intellectually, spiritually - then I have absolutely no interest in that relationship. Unfortunately, I find few people worth my time. Small talk is the bane of my day - if a person does not engage me in some useful way, then expending my time to allow them to waste is tantamount to sin. The few people who I find interesting, witty, funny, smart - I enjoy my time with them and I can only hope that I reciprocate enough value to continue to selfishly be given more of their time.

Most protestants view Marian devotion as idolatrous because they mistakenly equate respect with worship - the same mistake you may be making with your claim of idolatry.

I suspect that you felt this way long before reading Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Could it be that her philosophy touched an existing predisposition and thus seems to be convincing and persuasive validation?

 

[lothariorowe]

I suspect that you felt this way long before reading Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Could it be that her philosophy touched an existing predisposition and thus seems to be convincing and persuasive validation?

Yes.

 

[Pax]

…
…

Most protestants view Marian devotion as idolatrous because they mistakenly equate respect with worship - the same mistake you may be making with your claim of idolatry.

Would you like to elaborate on this? You are making a great deal more out of self than you’re willing to admit. If that is not true, then you need to explain why you accept Rand’s philosophy of objectivism over the teachings of Jesus himself. That is the summary of getting from A to Z of my point…there are a few dots that you can easily connect in between in order to arrive at the point concerning idolatry.

 

[Pax]

Yes.

All the more reason for you to be skeptical of her philosophy.

 

[lothariorowe]

This is a false dichotomy. You cannot get into heaven without doing something to help other people into heaven. Nor, prior to the last judgment, can you be in heaven without doing something to help other people into heaven. It’s impossible.

To be for sure, but one is the means to an end, the other is the end. Both are required - one is the goal.

The temporal self-sacrifice is itself the warm-up for the real dance. If you ever think you are giving yourself away here, it does not even begin to compare to the self-giving that awaits us.

Heaven is a place of perpetual self-sacrifice? Please point me to where you got this idea.

You cannot earn the right to heaven, no matter what you do. The right can only be received from God’s grace through faith informed by love.

Come on, works are a large part of the Catholic faith. You can’t earn your paycheck - it can only be received from your boss. I’m not interested in semantics.

Love is our goal. There is no alternative fulfillment.

I completely agree.