Just a follow up to my previous post. Back in the comments thread over at Ferdinand's, I made this reply to commentator Thursday;
- @Thursday
"There is this myth that formerly Catholic countries are somehow more immune to liberalism than those that were Protestant."
Catholic countries aren’t immune to liberalism, it’s just that when they succumb to liberalism it assumes a different form to that of Protestantism. When Catholics go liberal, their liberalism is much more openly hostile, there’s no “niceness” about it at all. It tends to be an all or nothing phenomenon with Catholics.
The largest communist parties in Europe were not in the Anglosphere, rather in Italy and France.
It must be borne in mind that democratism and leftism in Europe have two distinct branches, one in Catholic countries and one in Protestant countries. This is the reason why communistic tendencies in the Protestant world are a direct outcome of mammonistic democratism with the background of a terrorizing society, while in Catholic and schismatic countries they are largely a reaction of anarchical liberalism. In the latter countries they smack often of undiluted and undisguised satanism. In Russia they may also be a reaction against the Manichaean tradition of the Eastern Church.* The frequency of parlor pinks in the large democratic domains of the Protestant world indicates the origins of communism from an ultramammonistic and ultramaterialistic mentalityNow, from what I've read of Von Keunhelt-Leddihn he does seem to overplay the pro-Catholic anti-Protestant thing. His analysis doesn't really account for the fact that, the U.S., a culturally Protestant nation, was the perhaps the most staunchly anti-communist nation of them all, still I think his analysis has some validity.
This is also no doubt the reason why socialism and the more violent forms of ochlocracy and superdemocracy — Fascism — have to blaze their trails into the Catholic world by revolts, revolutions, and assassinations. The deep antagonism between "backward" Catholicism and these new "progressive" philosophies make a compromise impossible.
This can be easily illustrated and demonstrated by the manifold examples of revolutionary socialism in Spain and Portugal, from the socalled "Communists" of Andalusia and Catalonia in 1835 to the FAI, CGT, UGT, and POUM, the revolutionary socialism of Italy which reached its zenith in 1921, the revolutionary social democracy of Vienna with its two risings in 1927 and 1934, the sanguinary revolutions in Budapest (1919), in Munich (1919 and 1923), Paris (1792, 1830, 1848, 1871, 1934), and Baden (1848). We also find strongly revolutionary forms of socialism in the domains of the Eastern Church (Russia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Greek Macedonia, and Thrace) as well as in Catholic Poland and Lithuania. In the Protestant countries on the other side we find socialism usually tame, bourgeois, and parlor pinkish. Only Berlin and Hamburg knew, apart from the central German industrial area, the meaning of revolutionary socialism, whereas the tributary parties of the II International in Great Britain, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Latvia, the United States, and Canada were all imbued by a nice sedentary bourgeois spirit. In Catholic Mexico on the other hand we see socialism closely connected with violence and terror.
It's my contention that Protestantism's weakness is it's legitimisation of the Rationalisation Hamster, and it is this what makes "compromise" with the devil possible. However, the more scriptural a Protestant is, then it's much much harder to make the compromise. This would explain why the Anglicans are lefty while the Baptists push more to the right.
(Note to my Protestant readers. I'm not having a dig at you. I'm trying to be fair here. Catholicism, in its corruption, has its faults. It tends to deny empirical evidence, placing faith above reason, drifts towards superstition and tends towards authoritarianism. I think von Keunhelt-Leddihn tends to gloss over these points.)
9 comments:
I've not seen the word "ochlocracy" in a while, the last time being in the now-defunct blog of Owen White (Baptist-turned-Catholic-turned-Eastern Orthodox-turned Catholic, whilst far Leftist the entire time). I wonder how he'd feel about your comment that there are Leftist Christians insofar as there are stupid Christians.
At any rate, I'm not sure if Eastern Communism had anything to do with Orthodox Christianity. I also think painting Orthodoxy as "Manichean" is unfair since Orthodoxy considers Manicheanism a heresy.
I admit I only skimmed your post. I'll read it more in depth, but I initially do not accept your conclusions.
"Catholicism, in its corruption, has its faults. It tends to deny empirical evidence, placing faith above reason, drifts towards superstition and tends towards authoritarianism."
Does the Church do these things, or does its followers? Can you also give examples?
If this is something you wish to discuss off of here, I can email you. The charges you make, sound like what many think of the Church but happen to be incorrect or misunderstood. The Church is terrible at its own PR and even its followers misunderstand Her.
I don't deny She screws up, and I certainly won't deny that Catholics screw up, but I'd like to see clarification.
@Ingemar
I really don't know that much about Orthodoxy to comment in any depth. What I do know is that while there were some Orthodox priests who suffered grievously, most went with the flow. It was the opposite with the Catholic Church.
@Durandel.
The Church itself doesn't do these things, but it's members, when intellectually weak, tend to have faults which, tend to drift towards certain lines.
One of the first things to notice is that whilst Catholicism has always had educational institutions they've always pushed the faith rather than the science. The Protestant faiths seems to have pushed both. In Europe the level of technical education was far greater amongst the Protestant nations rather than the Catholic.
Amongst the Catholic peasantry,there seemed more an embrace of superstition than amongst the Protestants. For example, the use of crucifixes and holy water as some form of "charms".
Thirdly, I think that the failure of Catholic countries to develop thriving middle classes, stems from the authoritarian nature of Catholicism. Protestantism, which diluted authority also diluted responsibility, thus facilitating the growth of the middle class. Unlike most conservative commentators, I have a strong love of the bourgeois and what's really apparent is the Catholic Church has a hard time fostering the middle class.
With regard to Papal Authority, Catholic writers have always stressed the authoritarian nature of the position, whilst Ratzinger himself stresses the ontological inerrancy of the office. i.e the Pope has Authority because what he says is true (when infallible) as opposed to the Pope has authority because he is Pope. A subtle but important difference.
For example, on the death penalty issue, there is no obligation to support it's abolition, but many Catholics think, that because the Catechism has taken a softly-softly view and JPII was against it, it suddenly the obligated thing.
The differing intellectual underpinnings both religions mean that when they are apprehended by weak minds they corrupt in different ways.
If you wish to contact me privately then try;
slumlord@optusnet.com.au
Sorry Durandel
But the spaz factor was through the roof yesterday.
My reply should have read;
The Church itself doesn't do these things, but its members, when intellectually weak, tend to have faults which, tend to follow certain patterns.
One of the first things to notice, is that whilst Catholicism has always had educational institutions they've always pushed the faith rather than the science whilst the Protestant faiths seems to have pushed both,. In Europe, the level of technical education was far greater amongst the Protestant nations rather than the Catholic.
Amongst the Catholic peasantry,there seemed more an embrace of superstition than the Protestants. For example, amongst simple Cathloics, holy water and crucifixes were used as some form of "charms".
Thirdly, I think that the failure of Catholic countries to develop thriving middle classes stems from the authoritarian nature of Catholicism. Protestantism, which diluted authority also diluted responsibility, thus facilitating the growth of the middle class. Unlike most conservative commentators, I have a strong love of the bourgeois, and what's really apparent is that the Catholic Church has a hard time fostering the development of a middle class.
With regard to Papal Authority, Catholic writers have always stressed the authoritarian nature of the position, whilst Ratzinger himself stresses the ontological inerrancy of the office. i.e the Pope has authority because what he says is true (when infallible) as opposed to the idea that Pope has authority because he is simple the top of the hierarchy; a subtle but important difference.
For example, on the death penalty issue, there is no obligation to support it's abolition, but many Catholics think that because the Catechism has taken a softly-softly view and JPII was against it, it suddenly the obligated thing by virtue of papal imprimatur.
The differing intellectual underpinnings both religions mean that when they are apprehended by weak minds they corrupt in different ways.
Once again, apologies for the crappy reply, but it was late in the night, I was tired and the booze didn't help.
I just wanted you to elaborate SP, so thank you.
As an atheist, what you said was how I felt about the Church, so I found it odd seeing an avowed Catholic make simple generalizations about the Church as I did prior to really studying up on it.
"The differing intellectual underpinnings both religions mean that when they are apprehended by weak minds they corrupt in different ways."
Agreed, that is the real issue.
Fides et ratio.
God bless,
D
I should clarify, I was an atheist for about 15 years. A few years back I converted.
@Durandel
No worries. I'm glad that you were able to discern the meaning of the passage.
The differing intellectual underpinnings both religions mean that when they are apprehended by weak minds they corrupt in different ways
Should have been;
The differing intellectual underpinnings of both religions means that when they are apprehended by weak minds they corrupt in different ways
I don't want you to think I'm an idiot. I suffer from minor dyslexia which gets worse when I'm tired. I "drop" words and, no matter how much I proof read, can't see the faults. My apologies.
My view of Catholicism is that it is the most right of all reglions, but that there is still scope for further doctrinal development, development which I feel will help solve some of the social and intellectual crises of our time.
For exmaple, the theology of the body, whilst proceeding in fits and starts seems to reaffirm the "goodness" of the flesh in opposition to much of practical Christianity. The Chruch has never said that the flesh was bad, but many of its saints have acted as if it was. For example, St Francis, near the end of his life, "apologised" to his body for not taking it into consideration enough.
On core issues there will be no change, but perhaps a stressing of some factors which were previously neglected in order to "balance" things.
Religion must not be a hindrance for us to be united. Religion won't save us. What matters most is our personal relationship with our God.
They were even less satisfied with the autonomy of their job, and the level of their professional, social, and community interaction. Home health nursing is another field that registered nurses can be employed in. Nursing students will be taught to deal with sensitive situations and provide explanation for complicated information to patients in the level of their understanding. All in all, you are going to be able to work on getting your degree during the times that suit you the most. Naturally, these will vary according to your nationality, and the following are the requirements for anybody, male or female, with a desire to work as a veterinary nurse in the UK.
Post a Comment