LIBERTAS (What Pope Leo XIII wrote about Liberals)

[Akalyte]

ive read so many quotes from popes and articles on the church condemning liberalism, the messages are quite clear.

"liberals are termites, they eat away at the foundations of society saying "what do we do wrong?", well all the while its all about to collapse on them.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Akalyte' date='Feb 12 2006, 08:36 AM']all i know is, if this "its ok to be a little liberal" stuff keeps going on here, im taking a long vacation until its gone.
[right][snapback]884603[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I hope you get a nice tan.

Then again, I suppose if you continue to misunderstand the entymology of the word, then you'll never be back. That would be unfortunate.

Looking at what Era Might hot stuff and I have been saying, there is a misunderstanding.

And smeagol,

Part of the reason that I will go tangental from time to time is that as a Scholar, I am obliged to teach the proper way to understand why things are the way they are. I have spoken to the proper understanding of how the US government is formulated and I have spoken to the proper understanding of the word liberal. Looking at why I posted the explanation of Appeal to Authority, is because qfnol31 is still a student in philosophy/theology. It is charitable for me to correct him when he makes a philosophical mistake.

[Akalyte]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 12 2006, 07:10 AM']I hope you get a nice tan. 

Then again, I suppose if you continue to misunderstand the entymology of the word, then you'll never be back.  That would be unfortunate.

Looking at what Era Might hot stuff and I have been saying, there is a misunderstanding.

And smeagol,

Part of the reason that I will go tangental from time to time is that as a Scholar, I am obliged to teach the proper way to understand why things are the way they are.  I have spoken to the proper understanding of how the US government is formulated and I have spoken to the proper understanding of the word liberal.  Looking at why I posted the explanation of Appeal to Authority, is because qfnol31 is still a student in philosophy/theology.  It is charitable for me to correct him when he makes a philosophical mistake.
[right][snapback]884608[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

how is it a misunderstanding?? Liberalism in all forms have been condemned by past popes, i dont care what yall say about it, i care what the popes have said and thats what im going to follow!. No disrespect meant. I love you all, but I will listen to the popes first.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Akalyte' date='Feb 12 2006, 09:24 AM']how is it a misunderstanding?? Liberalism in all forms have been condemned by past popes, i dont care what yall say about it, i care what the popes have said and thats what im going to follow!. No disrespect meant. I love you all, but I will listen to the popes first.
[right][snapback]884613[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

But that is disrespectful Akalyte. "I don't care.....?" Nope. Don't buy it.

You are misunderstanding the term. Am I evil because I have a degree in "liberal arts?" No. The word liberal is derived from the Latin [i]liber[/i], free, and up to the end of the eighteenth century signified only "worthy of a free man", so that people spoke of "liberal arts", "liberal occupations". Later the term was applied also to those qualities of intellect and of character, which were considered an ornament becoming those who occupied a higher social position on account of their wealth and education.

Liberalism may also mean a political system or tendency opposed to centralization and absolutism. In this sense Liberalism is not at variance with the spirit and teaching of the Catholic Church.

However, since the end of the eighteenth century, however, the word has been applied more and more to certain tendencies in the intellectual, religious, political, and economical life, which implied a partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order. The most fundamental principle asserts an absolute and unrestrained freedom of thought, religion, conscience, creed, speech, press, and politics. The necessary consequences of this are, on the one hand, the abolition of the Divine right and of every kind of authority derived from God; the relegation of religion from the public life into the private domain of one's individual conscience; the absolute ignoring of Christianity and the Church as public, legal, and social institutions; on the other hand, the putting into practice of the absolute autonomy of every man and citizen, along all lines of human activity, and the concentration of all public authority in one "sovereignty of the people". This is what we are opposed to.

Modern Liberalism adopts and propagates them under the deceiving mask of Liberalism in the true sense. As a direct offspring of Humanism and the Reformation in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, modern Liberalism was further developed by the philosophers and literati of England especially Locke and Hume, by Rousseau and the Encyclopedists in France, and by Lessing and Kant in Germany.

I think that if we are to properly think about this, then we must first understand something.....liberalism in it's pure form is not evil nor is it contrary to Catholic thought. It is only in it's modern application where we find problems and that is precisely what the papacy has condemned.

The more theological and religious form of Liberal Catholicism had its predecessors in Jansenism and Josephinism. In general it advocates latitude in interpreting dogma, oversight or disregard of the disciplinary and doctrinal decrees of the Roman Congregations, sympathy with the State even in its enactments against the liberty of the Church, in the action of her bishops, clergy, religious orders and congregations, and a disposition to regard as clericalism the efforts of the Church to protect the rights of the family and of individuals to the free exercise of religion. This is what Pope St. Pius X calls [i]Modernism.[/i]

By proclaiming man's absolute autonomy in the intellectual, moral and social order, Liberalism denies, at least practically, God and supernatural religion. If carried out logically, it leads even to a theoretical denial of God, by putting deified mankind in place of God. No one denies this, but this is only the modern application of liberalism. And this condemnation is good and right. I don't think that you'll find a serious Catholic who will disagree with that idea.

What you are really opposed to is [i]Modernism,[/i] not liberalism. And that is good and quantifiable. However, in it's pure form, liberalism is NOT evil. This is what Thumper was getting at several weeks ago; it is what hot stuff and I are pointing out and I believe that it is part of what Era Might is speaking about right now (although, I won't speak for Era.)

So, while it takes years and years to get around this; and I am no authority on this aspect of Catholicism, I can tell you what I know. The understanding that I have is consistent with Catholic thought.

[Akalyte]

I see, yes that was disrespectful and i'm sorry for that..

Liberalism is the root of heresy, the tree of evil in whose branches all the harpies of infidelity find ample shelter; it is today the evil of all evils. (Ch. 4).

"The theater, literature, public and private morals are all saturated with obscenity and impurity. The result is inevitable; a corrupt generation necessarily begets a revolutionary generation. Liberalism is the program of naturalism. Free-thought begets free morals, or immorality. Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. Whoever thinks what he pleases will do what he pleases. Liberalism in the intellectual order is license in the moral order. Disorder in the intellect begets disorder in the heart, and vice-versa. Thus does Liberalism propagate immorality, and immorality Liberalism." (Ch. 26).

Liberalism "is, therefore, the radical and universal denial of all divine truth and Christian dogma, the primal type of all heresy, and the supreme rebellion against the authority of God and His Church. As with Lucifer, its maxim is, 'I will not serve.'" (Ch. 3).

"Liberalism, whether in the doctrinal or practical order, is a sin. In the doctrinal order, it is heresy, and consequently a mortal sin against faith. In the practical order, it is a sin against the commandments of God and of the Church, for it virtually transgresses all commandments. To be more precise: in the doctrinal order, Liberalism strikes at the very foundations of faith; it is heresy radical and universal, because within it are comprehended all heresies. In the practical order it is a radical and universal infraction of the divine law, since it sanctions and authorizes all infractions of that law." (Ch. 3).

[Cam42]

Let's see if I can be even more clear.....

YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT!!!!!!

You are speaking about MODERN Liberalism and nobody disagrees with that. Was that clear enough?

However, in it's pure form, LIBERALISM is not evil. Only the modern application as adapted through the Enlightenment period of the late 18th century. This was the philosophy of Locke, Hume, Kant and Rousseau. Do those names ring a bell? They are the basis for Franklin's and the US model of democracy. So, does this mean that the government of the US is incompatible with Catholicism? You'll have to decide that for yourself.

As I said before, you are opposed to MODERNISM (ie. the modern adapted philosophical application of liberalism) and that is laudable. However, in it's pure form, liberalism is not opposed to centralization and absolutism. In this sense it is not at variance with the spirit and teaching of the Catholic Church.

I cannot be any more clear. When you get your head around the distinction, then you will understand what is being said.

Also would you please provide sources for your citations. It would be helpful in determining just what is being said. Thank you.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Feb 11 2006, 10:41 PM']Don't most people appeal to authority here?  Normally that works well.

He knows what he's talking about.    [b]I know my politics department pretty well and they all say what he said.  [/b]
[right][snapback]884411[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 11 2006, 11:00 PM']Nope.  Most people don't fall into that fallacy.

Zach's roomate is (claimed to be) an authority on governmental rule.
Zach's roomate (through Zach) makes the claim listed in posts #23 and #48 about governmental rule.
Therefore, said statement about governmental rule is true.

Appeal to Authority is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if Zach's roomate is not qualified to make reliable claims on governmental rule, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:

1.  The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
2.  The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
3.  There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
4.  The person in question is not significantly biased.
5.  The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
6.  The authority in question must be identified.

I am almost certain that your roomate doesn't meet these standards.

No, most people don't fall into this fallacy, because most people don't tout their current college roomate as an authority.
[right][snapback]884440[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This may be true, except I used my politics department, as I bolded in the part you responded to. Even in the first post I made reference to the politics department here, I used him to confirm this. Six people, each with a doctorate.

Here is the bio of one of them:

[quote]Dr. West is Professor of Politics at the University of Dallas, where he has taught since 1974. He is also a Director and Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute, which has generously supported and publicized his research. Born in 1945, Dr. West received his B.A. from Cornell University in 1967 and his Ph.D. from Claremont Graduate University in 1974. He served in Vietnam as a Lieutenant in the U.S. Army in 1969-70. Far from being traumatized by the experience, he greatly enjoyed a year of hospitality and good food with his Vietnamese counterparts at 7th ARVN Division headquarters G-2 in My Tho. He was Bradley Resident Scholar at the Heritage Foundation in 1988-89, and Salvatori Visiting Scholar at Claremont McKenna College from 1990-92.[/quote]

Now that we've gotten over the issue of whose authority I'm relying on, the country is a republic in part because we have representatives, and also because we have a head of state (as the definition I provided earlier indicates), similar to ancient Rome in a way.

Each of them says that we're in a Republic.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Libertas #2'][b]We have on other occasions, and especially in Our encyclical letter I[i]mmortale Dei[/i], in treating of the so-called modern liberties, distinguished between their good and evil elements; and We have shown that whatsoever is good in those liberties is as ancient as truth itself, and that the Church has always most willingly approved and practiced that good: but whatsoever has been added as new is, to tell the plain truth, of a vitiated kind, the fruit of the disorders of the age, and of an insatiate longing after novelties.[/b] Seeing, however, that many cling so obstinately to their own opinion in this matter as to imagine these modern liberties, cankered as they are, to be the greatest glory of our age, and the very basis of civil life, without which no perfect government can be conceived, We feel it a pressing duty, for the sake of the common good, to treat separately of this subject.[/quote]

This speaks directly to my point. Liberty and Liberalism have the same root. Freedom. When it is practiced in it's pure form it is good, as stated by Pope Leo XIII. However When it is perverted through what he calls "modern liberties" it is at odds.

What part is not clear enough?

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Feb 12 2006, 12:12 PM']This may be true, except I used my politics department, as I bolded in the part you responded to.

Each of them says that we're in a Republic.
[right][snapback]884696[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Still don't buy it. You were speaking as though your roomie was the authority, not the politics department. Sorry. You can't wiggle out of this one.

We are a republic insofar as we don't have a monarch. However, as a form of government, we are a democracy. If you have proof, I would like to see it. Until then, I will contend that you are embroiled in a fallacy.

[Cam42]

Zach,

What does post #48 state? There is your fallacy. End of Story.

[Akalyte]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 12 2006, 09:54 AM']Let's see if I can be even more clear.....

YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT!!!!!!

You are speaking about MODERN Liberalism and nobody disagrees with that.  Was that clear enough?

However, in it's pure form, LIBERALISM is not evil.  Only the modern application as adapted through the Enlightenment period of the late 18th century.  This was the philosophy of Locke, Hume, Kant and Rousseau.  Do those names ring a bell?  They are the basis for Franklin's and the US model of democracy.  So, does this mean that the government of the US is incompatible with Catholicism?  You'll have to decide that for yourself.

As I said before, you are opposed to MODERNISM (ie. the modern adapted philosophical application of liberalism) and that is laudable.  However, in it's pure form, liberalism is not opposed to centralization and absolutism.  In this sense it is not at variance with the spirit and teaching of the Catholic Church.

I cannot be any more clear.  When you get your head around the distinction, then you will understand what is being said.

Also would you please provide sources for your citations.  It would be helpful in determining just what is being said.  Thank you.
[right][snapback]884685[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


My whole argument against liberalism comes from Liberalism is a sin by Father Felix sarda y Salvany. I'm starting to see what you mean, i know the church condemns this "corrupted" liberalism. Religious liberalism and political. But i can see how it doesnt condemn "pure" liberalism. lol its all confusing. im not going to debate this anymore, i just want to be one with yall. i cant stand debating with fellow Catholics.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Akalyte' date='Feb 12 2006, 01:08 PM']My whole argument against liberalism comes from Liberalism is a sin by Father Felix sarda y Salvany. I'm starting to see what you mean, i know the church condemns this "corrupted" liberalism. Religious liberalism and political. But i can see how it doesnt condemn "pure" liberalism. lol its all confusing. im not going to debate this anymore, i just want to be one with yall. i cant stand debating with fellow Catholics.
[right][snapback]884723[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I am glad you are seeing the proper position......

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 12 2006, 11:15 AM']Still don't buy it.  You were speaking as though your roomie was the authority, not the politics department.  Sorry.  You can't wiggle out of this one. 

We are a republic insofar as we don't have a monarch.  However, as a form of government, we are a democracy.  If you have proof, I would like to see it.  Until then, I will contend that you are embroiled in a fallacy.
[right][snapback]884700[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I used my politics department in my last post. How is that a fallacy?

Can you answer to the fact that they all say the form of our government is a republic? I cannot post this from something they've written because it was from class notes...

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 12 2006, 11:31 AM']Zach,

What does post #48 state?  There is your fallacy.  End of Story.
[right][snapback]884709[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually, I just responded the first time to you implying I was just ignorant. I didn't quote him originally because I wanted to say my feelings. I used him afterwards saying he had the backing of the politics department, so not only did I not ascribe to him as an authority, except to show that my belief is not from ignorance.

You seem to have taken my quote out of context...please place it back and see if you can actually reject my claim. Thank you.

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Feb 12 2006, 04:54 PM']I used my politics department in my last post.  How is that a fallacy?

Can you answer to the fact that they all say the form of our government is a republic?  I cannot post this from something they've written because it was from class notes...
Actually, I just responded the first time to you implying I was just ignorant.  I didn't quote him originally because I wanted to say my feelings.  I used him afterwards saying he had the backing of the politics department, so not only did I not ascribe to him as an authority, except to show that my belief is not from ignorance.

You seem to have taken my quote out of context...please place it back and see if you can actually reject my claim.  Thank you.
[right][snapback]884890[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Nope. You used your roommate as the basis for your discernment and set him up as the authority. Because you simply state the politics department exists, in a later post doesn't give it any credence. That is the classic example of the fallacy. Thanks for confirming it for me.

I have already posted several times on how we understand the title of republic. Why can't you post your class notes? You know how to type don't you? There is more to this site than cutting and pasting.

You may not have quoted your roommate, however, you did use him as a resource and then set him up as the authority on the matter; NOT teh politics department (as stated in post #48).

I have not taken your quote out of context. I don't have to refute your claim. You have not made one. You have yet to refute MY position. So, I will will wait for you to offer some proof, Zach.

You are looking quite foolish.

[Era Might]

[quote]Since Traditionalism, in its fundamental principles, is a kind of Fideism, it falls under the condemnation pronounced by the Church and under the refutation furnished by reason and philosophy against Fideism.[/quote]

That's from the 1913 Catholic Encylopedia.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15013a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15013a.htm[/url]

If I cited that condemnation, against the SSPX, would it be valid? After all, it says the Church condemns "Traditionalism". The word is used, so it must be valid today, yes?

Well, not exactly. "Traditionalism" in an SSPX context is not the same "Traditionalism" spoken of here, which was a philosophical error. So we see that just because a word is used, and condemned, does not mean it cannot change in meaning over time, in a different context.

This, as I have proposed, is exactly the nuance we must keep in mind when reading pre-modern Encyclicals, and their treatment of "liberalism".

Edited February 12, 2006 by Era Might

[Cam42]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 12 2006, 05:59 PM']That's from the 1913 Catholic Encylopedia.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15013a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15013a.htm[/url]

If I cited that condemnation, against the SSPX, would it be valid? After all, it says the Church condemns "Traditionalism". The word is used, so it must be valid today, yes?

Well, not exactly. "Traditionalism" in an SSPX context is not the same "Traditionalism" spoken of here, which was a philosophical error. So we see that just because a word is used, and condemned, does not mean it cannot change in meaning over time, in a different context.

This, as I have proposed, is exactly the nuance we must keep in mind when reading pre-modern Encyclicals, and their treatment of "liberalism".
[right][snapback]884948[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yep...exactly right.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 12 2006, 04:52 PM']Nope.  You used your roommate as the basis for your discernment and set him up as the authority.  Because you simply state the politics department exists, in a later post doesn't give it any credence.  That is the classic example of the fallacy.  Thanks for confirming it for me.

I have already posted several times on how we understand the title of republic.  Why can't you post your class notes?  You know how to type don't you?  There is more to this site than cutting and pasting.

You may not have quoted your roommate, however, you did use him as a resource and then set him up as the authority on the matter; NOT the politics department (as stated in post #48).

I have not taken your quote out of context.  I don't have to refute your claim.  You have not made one.  You have yet to refute MY position.  So, I will will wait for you to offer some proof, Zach.

You are looking quite foolish.
[right][snapback]884944[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I do not have my notes anymore. I remembered them well enough and figured I wouldn't need them anymore. However, my roommate (authority or not, he has the notes of the authorities) says you're welcome to his own. Since it is his field of studies, he has kept them all.

Now, leaving this aside, because I have used the politics department as an authoritative source for continuing this argument. I think it's in #67, where I tried both to answer your claims and to keep going. But since I don't have any sources for you to read (I guess I could ask another friend sitting here for his class notes as well). However, since you probably would not accept this, I offer for you our own Constitution:

[quote]Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.[/quote]

That is in Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution.

[quote name='OED']Republic - 2. a. A state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler; a commonwealth. Now also applied loosely to any state which claims this designation.[/quote]

[quote name='OED']Democracy - 1. Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege.[/quote]

[Cam42]

In other words, AS I HAVE SAID, we are a representative democracy. Thanks for supporting my position.

I think that you simply can't bring yourself to agree with me on any topic. I have sufficently spoken to those points which prove nothing more than what I have offered.

Perhaps you'd like to speak to my posts? Perhaps not. In any case, the representative democracy in which we live is loosely called a republic.

In summation:

[quote name='Cam42']However, we live in a representative democracy. This is the case, precisely because we were founded on the exercice of popular sovereignty by the people's representants. But we are not a republic in the sense that you are speaking.

Benjamin Franklin knew this, as did most Americans of the day. This is based upon the philosophies of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Most republics (in the sense defined above) and many constitutional monarchies are theoretically based on popular sovereignty. However, a legalistic notion of popular sovereignty does not necessarily imply an effective, functioning democracy: a party or even an individual dictator may claim to represent the will of the people, and rule in its name, pretending to detain auctoritas.

In U.S. history, the terms popular sovereignty and the equivalent but more disparaging squatter sovereignty refer generally to the right claimed by the squatters, or actual residents, of a territory of the United States to make their own laws, and in particular to the idea championed by Stephen A. Douglas that the residents of each territory were allowed to determine whether it would accept or reject the practice of slavery, for example.

This is why we are not a direct democracy nor are we a participatory democracy. We are a representative democracy, which is often called (incorrectly) a republic. Again, Ironmonk, we are a republic insofar as we have no monarch, but we are not a republic in the sense that you are proposing.

Remember the war cry of the Revolution: "Taxation without Representation."

Representation usually refers to representative democracies, where elected representatives speak for their constituents in the legislature. Generally, only citizens are granted representation in the government in the form of voting rights, however some democracies have extended this right further. In the United States and other democracies, typically the lower house of a bicameral (two-chamber) system is based on population - more or less - while the upper House is based on area.[/quote]

[quote name='Cam42']In political theory and political science, the term "republic" is generally applied to a state where the government's political power depends solely on the consent, however nominal, of the people governed, along with some form of written constitution, limitations against absolute power by a single individual or a combination of individuals, and other characteristic mechanisms of freedom, such as economic freedom, or a "commonwealth".

This however, is a very broad term and not one that is by definition correct. It is a colloquial term applied to Republican democracy.

If by the that term you mean the Presidential system, then you are supporting the idea of a democracy, for that is precisely what it is.

A presidential system, or a congressional system, is a system of government of a republican democracy where the executive branch is elected separately from the legislative. Such systems generally have some combination of historical and/or cultural ties to the former Roman Republic and later Roman Empire and, more commonly, to the United States of America. The Constitution of the United States is credited by some people with being the oldest document constituting a government still in existence, and the Presidential system of government is widely accepted as having originated from it.[/quote]

This is supported by your posts. Thanks so much for citing those for me. Would you care to show where there is error on my part?

[morostheos]

OK boys, you're BOTH right!

From the CIA World Factbook (if they can't get it right, I don't know who can):
[quote]Government type:

Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition[/quote]
[url="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Govt"]http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...os/us.html#Govt[/url]

[Cam42]

Amazing.....

Ya know, I wasn't looking for another fight with Zach. However, it always seems to be the case.....

Sad really, sad.

In case you didn't see it, I stated that we are both....thanks Morostheos.....you are a calming influence and a voice of reason.....