Philosophical Discussion Of Authority And Freedom

[Nihil Obstat]

First off, I'd like to make somethings clear.
I don't know if it's presumptuous or inappropriate of me to ask this, but I'd like to request that the powers-that-be that are our lovely moderating team keep a rather tighter handle on this thread than we're normally accustomed to. If that's not an option, then so be it, but I did ask.

I have intended this to be the most detailed, thorough, and exhaustive thread on Phatmass that deals with:
[list]
[*]the nature of authority;
[*]the nature of freedom; and
[*]the philosophical and theological basis of the above.
[/list]

Stern's particular political thought has been picking at my brain for months now. I accept some parts, some parts I'm not so sure about. Anyway, the thread isn't about me. I believe that Phatmass as a whole would be well served by a rational discussion of the ideas he brings forward, and an in-depth inquiry into the basis of Catholic thought on authority and freedom. We've discussed it on a variety of threads when the subject arises, but it too-frequently devolves into a mess of unsubstantiated assertions and a stubborn impasse.

I want this thread to be debate in its truest form.
From any who participate on this thread, I want you to promise, out of respect for me, that you refrain entirely from:
[list]
[*]ad hominem attacks;
[*]spam;
[*]off-topic posts;
[*]emotionally charged posts; and
[*][b]unsupported arguments.[/b]
[/list]

If you wish to make a point, then I hope that you will make it. I also expect however, that you back up your point with logical arguments and avoid scrupulously any and all kinds of personal comments. I want to emphasize this over and over again: YOU MAY ONLY ADDRESS THE ARGUMENTS AND POINTS MADE; YOU MAY NOT ADDRESS THE PERSON THEMSELVES OR THEIR MOTIVES OR ANYTHING BEYOND THE CONTENT OF THEIR POST.


Of course I'm not a mod and cannot enforce this, but if you have respect for my own intellectual inquiry, and if you also believe that an exhaustive discussion of these issues could be a valuable future resource for Phatmass, then please respect my suggestions.




I wrote up a list of basic questions that I think would be a decent starting point. The idea I had is that anyone can take any (or all) of these points and present what they believe to be rational answers which are intellectually consistent, and in keeping with our Catholic faith. Please post with some detail and as much thought as you can put into it, and don't worry about brevity. This is a situation that calls for as much detail as we can lend.
We should discuss the questions and offered answers and see if we are led to any conclusions.

[center][size="5"][b]List of Starting Questions:
[/b][/size][/center]
[indent][list]
[*]What is authority?

[*]From where does legitimate authority come?

[*]Who has authority? How was it gained?

[*]What is the purpose of authority?

[*]How is authority properly exercised?

[*]What are rights?

[*]What rights does Man possess?

[*]What is legitimate freedom?

[*]What is the ideal nature of freedom?

[*]Can authority and freedom be in conflict? If so, how must conflict between the two be resolved?

[*]How do freedom and rights differ?

[*]If a person with authority violates the rights of a group under him, is his authority entirely lost? Why or why not?
[/list][/indent]




[center]Enjoy.
[/center]

[right]-J.G.B.[/right]

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1281735948' post='2156672']
First off, I'd like to make somethings clear.
I don't know if it's presumptuous or inappropriate of me to ask this, but I'd like to request that the powers-that-be that are our lovely moderating team keep a rather tighter handle on this thread than we're normally accustomed to. If that's not an option, then so be it, but I did ask. [/quote]
Gotta love threads that start like this...

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' timestamp='1281739412' post='2156764']
Gotta love threads that start like this...
[/quote]
Sorry. You know I don't say things like that very often.
Past experience leads me to think that it's necessary on a thread like this.

[ThePenciledOne]

Nihil, all I can say is that I definitely support this thread!

Good post. : )

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1281742473' post='2156811']
Nihil, all I can say is that I definitely support this thread!

Good post. : )
[/quote]
Feel free to repay me/show your support by riffing on some topics.

[TeresaBenedicta]

I'd like to come back to this when I have a little more time to think about and articulate some responses.

[CatherineM]

It seems a tad like a school assignment, and you do not have the authority to make me answer, however:

My overall feeling about the topic is that I feel most free when I willingly accept authority. It's a bit like being married and those nights when you are completely exhausted, and your spouse makes all the decisions about dinner. There is an instant feeling of relief. Authority is pretty much what we are willing to yield to.

[Bennn]

I believe that the traditional Catholic perception is that we are to submit ourselves to all temporal authority in so far that it does not contradict the eternal laws of God. Sacred Scripture teaches us that temporal authority is invested by the Lord, so when the laws of that authority are in submission to the laws of God, then obeying them would be obeying God. Good citizenship is an example to those who are outside of the Church, that they may see the citizen's good works and behaviour and glorify God for his sake.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Bennn

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Bennn' timestamp='1281790227' post='2157094']
I believe that the traditional Catholic perception is that we are to submit ourselves to all temporal authority in so far that it does not contradict the eternal laws of God. Sacred Scripture teaches us that temporal authority is invested by the Lord, so when the laws of that authority are in submission to the laws of God, then obeying them would be obeying God. Good citizenship is an example to those who are outside of the Church, that they may see the citizen's good works and behaviour and glorify God for his sake.
[/quote]

Agreed, and this is why Anarchy is akin to Atheism.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Bennn' timestamp='1281790227' post='2157094']
I believe that the traditional Catholic perception is that we are to submit ourselves to all temporal authority in so far that it does not contradict the eternal laws of God. Sacred Scripture teaches us that temporal authority is invested by the Lord, so when the laws of that authority are in submission to the laws of God, then obeying them would be obeying God. Good citizenship is an example to those who are outside of the Church, that they may see the citizen's good works and behaviour and glorify God for his sake.
[/quote]
Fair enough. So how, in your opinion, does one gain temporal authority, and how should it be properly exercised?

[Bennn]

I prefer monarchy over democracy, and I believe this to be the best way. The Church (pope/bishops) would elect a monarch who is orthodox in his faith and would exercise his temporal power in obedience to the Magisterium of the Church. The Church would also have the authority to dethrone him if he were to become disobedient to the divine laws and enthrone someone who has proven to be orthodox in faith in his stead. Abominations such as abortion, euthanasia and false marriages between two people of the same gender would be punished by law because these things call down divine wrath upon a nation. If such crimes put a nation in danger of being divinely punished, then the temporal powers have every right to forbid them.

So, the monarchy would be constitutional, but the constitutions would only be in favour of orthodox Catholicism.

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm with you in not regarding democracy as some sacred cow.

[Nihil Obstat]

So would it be an accurate summary of your views to say that "the nature of authority is to forbid (by force if necessary) that which displeases God"?

[Hassan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1281735948' post='2156672']
First off, I'd like to make somethings clear.
I don't know if it's presumptuous or inappropriate of me to ask this, but I'd like to request that the powers-that-be that are our lovely moderating team keep a rather tighter handle on this thread than we're normally accustomed to. If that's not an option, then so be it, but I did ask.

I have intended this to be the most detailed, thorough, and exhaustive thread on Phatmass that deals with:
[list]
[*]the nature of authority;
[*]the nature of freedom; and
[*]the philosophical and theological basis of the above.
[/list]

Stern's particular political thought has been picking at my brain for months now. I accept some parts, some parts I'm not so sure about. Anyway, the thread isn't about me. I believe that Phatmass as a whole would be well served by a rational discussion of the ideas he brings forward, and an in-depth inquiry into the basis of Catholic thought on authority and freedom. We've discussed it on a variety of threads when the subject arises, but it too-frequently devolves into a mess of unsubstantiated assertions and a stubborn impasse.

I want this thread to be debate in its truest form.
From any who participate on this thread, I want you to promise, out of respect for me, that you refrain entirely from:
[list]
[*]ad hominem attacks;
[*]spam;
[*]off-topic posts;
[*]emotionally charged posts; and
[*][b]unsupported arguments.[/b]
[/list]

If you wish to make a point, then I hope that you will make it. I also expect however, that you back up your point with logical arguments and avoid scrupulously any and all kinds of personal comments. I want to emphasize this over and over again: YOU MAY ONLY ADDRESS THE ARGUMENTS AND POINTS MADE; YOU MAY NOT ADDRESS THE PERSON THEMSELVES OR THEIR MOTIVES OR ANYTHING BEYOND THE CONTENT OF THEIR POST.


Of course I'm not a mod and cannot enforce this, but if you have respect for my own intellectual inquiry, and if you also believe that an exhaustive discussion of these issues could be a valuable future resource for Phatmass, then please respect my suggestions.




I wrote up a list of basic questions that I think would be a decent starting point. The idea I had is that anyone can take any (or all) of these points and present what they believe to be rational answers which are intellectually consistent, and in keeping with our Catholic faith. Please post with some detail and as much thought as you can put into it, and don't worry about brevity. This is a situation that calls for as much detail as we can lend.
We should discuss the questions and offered answers and see if we are led to any conclusions.

[center][size="5"][b]List of Starting Questions:
[/b][/size][/center]
[indent][list]
[*]What is authority?

[*]From where does legitimate authority come?

[*]Who has authority? How was it gained?

[*]What is the purpose of authority?

[*]How is authority properly exercised?

[*]What are rights?

[*]What rights does Man possess?

[*]What is legitimate freedom?

[*]What is the ideal nature of freedom?

[*]Can authority and freedom be in conflict? If so, how must conflict between the two be resolved?

[*]How do freedom and rights differ?

[*]If a person with authority violates the rights of a group under him, is his authority entirely lost? Why or why not?
[/list][/indent]




[center]Enjoy.
[/center]

[right]-J.G.B.[/right]
[/quote]


Authority is the ability to employ violence, the more monopolistic the right to inflict violence is, the more solid the authority. That authority is legitimate if the people under that authority view it as legitimate, which makes it a social construction. Man possesses whatever rights he can get from the power structure that exercises the ability to inflict violence upon him.

[Bennn]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1281816891' post='2157362']
So would it be an accurate summary of your views to say that "the nature of authority is to forbid (by force if necessary) that which displeases God"?
[/quote]


Yes. Of course I do not mean killing heretics and all that. But the law should forbid immoral practices and false religions. Christ was incarnated and took a Human nature. Separating Church and state is like separating Christ's divinity and humanity from each other. It cannot be done.

I plead for a constitutional monarchy in favour of Catholicism. Democracy only works if only orthodox catholics get to vote, which is much harder to attain then one person who exercises his power in submission to Christ. And if he would rebel against Christ, it would be in the pope or bishop's duty to depose him and to elect another.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Bennn

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hassan' timestamp='1281817291' post='2157370']
Authority is the ability to employ violence, the more monopolistic the right to inflict violence is, the more solid the authority. That authority is legitimate if the people under that authority view it as legitimate, which makes it a social construction. Man possesses whatever rights he can get from the power structure that exercises the ability to inflict violence upon him.
[/quote]
That's pretty relativistic and Darwinian. Is that your intention?

[quote name='Bennn' timestamp='1281817324' post='2157371']
Yes. Of course I do not mean killing heretics and all that. But the law should forbid immoral practices and false religions. Christ was incarnated and took a Human nature. Separating Church and state is like separating Christ's divinity and humanity from each other. It cannot be done.

I plead for a constitutional monarchy in favour of Catholicism. Democracy only works if only orthodox catholics get to vote, which is much harder to attain then one person who exercises his power in submission to Christ. And if he would rebel against Christ, it would be in the pope or bishop's duty to depose him and to elect another.
[/quote]
I do understand what you're getting at. Doesn't such a situation though, set the stage for social abuses, such as potentially...... I dunno, confining Muslims to a ghetto unless they convert? Seems to me that we'd be opening ourselves up to a very slippery slope. Inasmuch as we're dealing with flawed people, we're going to end up with flawed systems, and as we both know, Catholics can be just as flawed and broken as anyone else.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1281817748' post='2157380']
That's pretty relativistic and Darwinian. Is that your intention?
[/quote]


My intention was to give a brief sketch of what happens, and has happened, in the world. Including Christendom.

[Bennn]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1281817748' post='2157380']
I do understand what you're getting at. Doesn't such a situation though, set the stage for social abuses, such as potentially...... I dunno, confining Muslims to a ghetto unless they convert? Seems to me that we'd be opening ourselves up to a very slippery slope. Inasmuch as we're dealing with flawed people, we're going to end up with flawed systems, and as we both know, Catholics can be just as flawed and broken as anyone else.
[/quote]


Yes, but I believe that precisely because all systems are limited by human flaws, we should choose that which is the most ideal and in favour of the divine laws of God. Monarchy is the manner in which God Himself rules the universe so I honestly do not believe it can be discarded as not working. Also, monarchy has endured the test of the time and actually proved itself to be good (there are always exceptions).

And I believe that the authority of the bishops would be a good way to avoid abuses. One can throw out the argument of what would happen if the bishops would be corrupted, but if one follows that reasoning then one would have to support stripping the bishops of their spiritual authority as well, which is of course ridiculous. Perhaps de- and enthronement would be decided by a council of bishops instead of just one bishop to avoid one corrupted bishop to abuse temporal powers?

Either way, democracy is also abused. Much more than monarchy even. Just look at the holocaust of the thousands and thousands of unborn babies who are slaughtered. If that can happen, a democratic vote can also decide to kill you and me.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Bennn

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hassan' timestamp='1281817970' post='2157387']
My intention was to give a brief sketch of what happens, and has happened, in the world. Including Christendom.
[/quote]
Oh, I see. I thought you were describing your ideal.

[quote name='Bennn' timestamp='1281818366' post='2157394']
Yes, but I believe that precisely because all systems are limited by human flaws, we should choose that which is the most ideal and in favour of the divine laws of God. Monarchy is the manner in which God Himself rules the universe so I honestly do not believe it can be discarded as not working. Also, monarchy has endured the test of the time and actually proved itself to be good (there are always exceptions).

And I believe that the authority of the bishops would be a good way to avoid abuses. One can throw out the argument of what would happen if the bishops would be corrupted, but if one follows that reasoning then one would have to support stripping the bishops of their spiritual authority as well, which is of course ridiculous. Perhaps de- and enthronement would be decided by a council of bishops instead of just one bishop to avoid one corrupted bishop to abuse temporal powers?
[/quote]
Why have a monarch at all when the final authority appears to be with the bishops? Could we not just have an all-out Catholic theocracy and achieve the same ends?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1281746892' post='2156864']
It seems a tad like a school assignment, and you do not have the authority to make me answer, however:

My overall feeling about the topic is that I feel most free when I willingly accept authority. It's a bit like being married and those nights when you are completely exhausted, and your spouse makes all the decisions about dinner. There is an instant feeling of relief. Authority is pretty much what we are willing to yield to.
[/quote]

What one is willing to yield to is not a universally applicable attribute of authority. We agree that God has authority, and that all authority comes from God, and not everyone yields to God's authority. The same would apply to "authority" as it is used in reference to other entities. Not everyone is willing to submit, but authority still may exist.

~Sternhauser