Burke Vs Hobbes.....
source link: here
CAMPAIGN 2012: Burke vs. Hobbes?
September 5, 2012 - You likely think, gentle reader, that the 2012 presidential race is a contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. That, of course, is true, insofar as the names on our Nov. 6 ballots go. But the 2012 race for the White House is something more, something more profound—something with deeper historical roots in modernity’s wrestling with political power and how that power contributes to the common good.
This is a contest, to take symbolic reference points, between Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Edmund Burke (1729-1797).
Both were British subjects. Both had a profound impact on modern political theory. Both knew that religion and politics—Church and state—had been thickly interwoven into the history of the West, although here the deep differences between these two paradigmatic figures begin to sharpen: Hobbes tried to drive religious conviction out of the modern public square, while Burke fashioned a vision of political modernity that drew in part on the rich social pluralism of the Catholic Middle Ages.
In a Hobbesian world, the only actors of consequence are the state and the individual. In a Burkean world, the institutions of civil society—family, religious congregation, voluntary association, business, trade union and so forth—“mediate” between the individual and the state, and the just state takes care to provide an appropriate legal framework in which those civil-society institutions can flourish.
In a Hobbesian world, the state—“Leviathan,” in the title of Hobbes’s most famous and influential work—monopolizes power for the sake of protecting individuals from the vicissitudes of a life that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” In a Burkean world, civil society provides a thick layer of mediation—protection, if you will—that cushions the interactions between individuals and life’s challenges.
A Hobbesian world is a world of contracts and legal relationships, period. A Burkean world is a world in which there are both contracts—the rule of law—and covenants: those more subtly textured human associations (beginning with marriage) by which men and women form bonds of affection, allegiance and mutual responsibility.
Catholic political theorists have always had major difficulties with Hobbes, and not simply for his promotion of what we would call, today, the “naked public square”: a public space shorn of religious conviction. Hobbes’s vision of the state is far too cold for the social sensibilities of Catholics, who habitually think of society as organic, not artificial or contrived.
By contrast, Burke’s defense of society’s “small platoons” has numerous affinities with Catholic social doctrine, from Leo XIII through Benedict XVI. John Paul II, for example, was particularly forceful in his defense of the mediating institutions of civil society, describing them in the 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus as schools of freedom: those natural human associations, beginning with the family, where beautiful, willful little tyrants (which is a precise description of every 2-year-old ever born) are transformed into the kind of civil, tolerant adult citizens who can participate in public life through their minds, not just their muscles.
No American presidential candidate is going to run on an explicitly Hobbesian platform. And the complexities of life in a post-modern world are such that a purely Burkean republic is unlikely anytime soon. The issue here is one of tendencies, orientations, visions of possibility. And at that level, 2012 really is shaping up as a contest between “Hobbes” and “Burke.”
For as the candidates have presented themselves to the country over the past months, and most recently at their conventions, it has become ever more clear that America will choose in 2012 between two paths into the future. Along one path, there is, finally, room for only the individual and the state. Along the other path, the flourishing institutions of civil society empower individuals and contribute to real problem-solving. In the former, the state defines responsibilities and awards benefits (and penalties). In the latter, individuals and free, voluntary associations assume responsibility and thereby thus make their contribution to the common good.
Hobbes vs. Burke. It’s an old argument. It’s also the argument we shall have between now and Nov. 6.
CAMPAIGN 2012: Burke vs. Hobbes?
September 5, 2012 - You likely think, gentle reader, that the 2012 presidential race is a contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. That, of course, is true, insofar as the names on our Nov. 6 ballots go. But the 2012 race for the White House is something more, something more profound—something with deeper historical roots in modernity’s wrestling with political power and how that power contributes to the common good.
This is a contest, to take symbolic reference points, between Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Edmund Burke (1729-1797).
Both were British subjects. Both had a profound impact on modern political theory. Both knew that religion and politics—Church and state—had been thickly interwoven into the history of the West, although here the deep differences between these two paradigmatic figures begin to sharpen: Hobbes tried to drive religious conviction out of the modern public square, while Burke fashioned a vision of political modernity that drew in part on the rich social pluralism of the Catholic Middle Ages.
In a Hobbesian world, the only actors of consequence are the state and the individual. In a Burkean world, the institutions of civil society—family, religious congregation, voluntary association, business, trade union and so forth—“mediate” between the individual and the state, and the just state takes care to provide an appropriate legal framework in which those civil-society institutions can flourish.
In a Hobbesian world, the state—“Leviathan,” in the title of Hobbes’s most famous and influential work—monopolizes power for the sake of protecting individuals from the vicissitudes of a life that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” In a Burkean world, civil society provides a thick layer of mediation—protection, if you will—that cushions the interactions between individuals and life’s challenges.
A Hobbesian world is a world of contracts and legal relationships, period. A Burkean world is a world in which there are both contracts—the rule of law—and covenants: those more subtly textured human associations (beginning with marriage) by which men and women form bonds of affection, allegiance and mutual responsibility.
Catholic political theorists have always had major difficulties with Hobbes, and not simply for his promotion of what we would call, today, the “naked public square”: a public space shorn of religious conviction. Hobbes’s vision of the state is far too cold for the social sensibilities of Catholics, who habitually think of society as organic, not artificial or contrived.
By contrast, Burke’s defense of society’s “small platoons” has numerous affinities with Catholic social doctrine, from Leo XIII through Benedict XVI. John Paul II, for example, was particularly forceful in his defense of the mediating institutions of civil society, describing them in the 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus as schools of freedom: those natural human associations, beginning with the family, where beautiful, willful little tyrants (which is a precise description of every 2-year-old ever born) are transformed into the kind of civil, tolerant adult citizens who can participate in public life through their minds, not just their muscles.
No American presidential candidate is going to run on an explicitly Hobbesian platform. And the complexities of life in a post-modern world are such that a purely Burkean republic is unlikely anytime soon. The issue here is one of tendencies, orientations, visions of possibility. And at that level, 2012 really is shaping up as a contest between “Hobbes” and “Burke.”
For as the candidates have presented themselves to the country over the past months, and most recently at their conventions, it has become ever more clear that America will choose in 2012 between two paths into the future. Along one path, there is, finally, room for only the individual and the state. Along the other path, the flourishing institutions of civil society empower individuals and contribute to real problem-solving. In the former, the state defines responsibilities and awards benefits (and penalties). In the latter, individuals and free, voluntary associations assume responsibility and thereby thus make their contribution to the common good.
Hobbes vs. Burke. It’s an old argument. It’s also the argument we shall have between now and Nov. 6.
comment share
on the tragedy of gay adoption, gay marriage, and IVF/egg sperm donors....
and another awesome one
The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. According to this moral maxim, because I would never not want to know and be raised by both my biological parents I can not approve of other people being denied their right to a mommy and a daddy.
Why has the Left seemingly abandoned this principle? Isn't it universal? Afterall 100% of all people have had one mommy and one daddy. Yes, including 100% of all gay men and women in the world.
PS About gay adoption: Well why if you could choose between 2 sets of equally capable parents one two men and one one man and one women why would you rather choose two men? It doesn't make sense to me from a fairness perspective. Adoption agencies try to match kids' background to their adoptive parents so a native american child will go to a native american couple first. So because every child is the result of a man and women coming together wouldn't you want to place them as close to their background as possible? ie mom and dad? Also because 98% of kids grow up to be straight and those raised by gay parents are like maybe 90-95% likely to be straight wouldn't you want for fairness and for basic justice to put them with a couple to whom they will be most likely to relate? and on whom they can most easily model their behaviour? This has nothing to do with any religious convictions just basic reasoning, or am I missing something?
Anyway great article and yes, look at even what Elton John said last week, that his adoptive boy will be crushed to find out he doesn't have a mum. Of course the truth is that he does, but she's just decided to have nothing to do with him, short of giving him half his genes via an egg, but look if I found out that I actually had a mum but was denied her by her and my dad and my so-called adoptive other dad I think I'd have a mental breakdown. I would be crushed and emotionally I think I'd be devastated. Maybe that's just be but I suspect it isn't.
Maybe our society is going too far to make a group of people feel welcome that I suspect will never feel welcome enough.
and another awesome one
"Most people approve of gay couples adopting. I am one of these people. ,,, Being raised by one’s biological parents is not only ideal according to social science research, but according to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is a human right. My biggest fear is that the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples will strip children of the right to be raised by their natural parents, because law and culture will demand that we celebrate all the means by which same-sex couples become parents."
If "being raised by one's biological parents is not only ideal" but is also "a human right," then being raised by a mother and a father is also "ideal" and "a human right." If Alana Newman's biggest fear is that "children will be stripped of their "right to be raised by their natural parents," how is it that she approves of gay couples adopting, which not only leaves the child without either a mother or a father, but also forces the child into the unnatural home environment created by two adults of the same sex sleeping together. It is not like children don't figure out what that means.
We won't really know until a generation of children have been raised that way what the most common psychological impact an unnatural home environment has on children. It is hard to imagine how that most common psychological impact will be anything but negative. Our willingness to use them like millions of guinea pigs in a huge social experiment is indicative of the loss of respect for children that is so rampant in our culture.
Acceptance of same-sex adoption and the disrespect for children inherent in it should not surprise us. After all, another blatant indication of our dramatic loss of respect for children is late abortions. According to the Guttmacher Institute, in the United States, 1.5% of abortions are at 21 weeks or after. There have been well over 50 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe. That is at least 750,000 late 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions where children clearly recognizable as just that were murdered. Taking innocent human life at any stage of its development is gravely wrong, but you can show even a small child a picture of an unborn child at 21 weeks or later and they will know it is a baby. So should we. Or maybe we know that all too well and the problem is that we just don't respect children anymore.
The living out of "Liberty"
False Liberty by Joseph Sheppard originally found at this site
| It is most revealing to discover what modern man’s search for “liberty” or human rights has accomplished. At last we have arrived at utopia on Earth. We have established a society in Europe and North America that affords everyone freedom to pretty much do anything they please. In our contemporary man-made “heaven” on Earth we have the freedom to kill our own children before birth (and in some case, partially born). We can do away with those troublesome folks on any kind of life support, be it oxygen or a feeding tube (they are so expensive!) We have the freedom to be engaged in any kind of “relationship” with anyone, regardless if it be morally degrading and unhealthy. We have liberated millions of our “dumb animal friends” from a primitive, outdoor life and given them the privileges of children. We have freedom of speech, which has come to mean the right of anyone to be as obnoxious and foul-mouthed as they desire. We have the freedom to be “married” as many times as we fancy, and to someone of the same gender. In short, due to the enlightened and compassionate wisdom of the modern judicial system, man can commit almost any sin imaginable without fear of reprimand, at least in this life. In the religious sphere, we have freed ourselves from all intolerance by proclaiming a new world religion. Credit for this breakthrough must be given to the leadership of the Church over the past forty-plus years. This new world religion recognizes the legitimacy of all religions and their equality and commonality. Hindus are encouraged to become better Hindus. Buddhists are encouraged to become better Buddhists. There is an exception. Traditional Catholics are encouraged to become … members of the new world religion. Of course, the result of this new world accord regarding belief will result in the end to all religious wars. Notwithstanding, the so-called Orthodox church is hardly very tolerant of Catholics. Nor is there much love of late for Christians poured out by our Muslim “brothers." Ah.... such liberty! Such fraternity! Such equality among the world’s religions! How can so many be blind to the true liberty we have lost and are losing. Man has simply allowed himself to become a slave of Satan. While demanding tolerance for all, only evil seems to be tolerated. The right of witches to “pray” in a public forum is upheld, while another Ten Commandments monument [in Caspar, Wyoming] must be removed. It is no coincidence that as judges and laws favor moral decadence, the courts are forbidding public displays of God’s Laws. A society whose laws are not based on God’s laws is a society of evil. On the eve of the 20th century, Frs. Spirago and Clarke described this false notion of liberty in The Catechism Explained: "5. God’s Commandments do not deprive men in any way of true freedom. They rather serve to make him independent of creatures. It is the sinner who falls under the yoke of an ignominious servitude. 'Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty' (2 Cor 3:17). Besides, liberty does not consist in the right to do whatever we will, but whatever is permitted. The word is much abused in the present day; many consider it to mean license, and they call the restraint which the laws impose on their evil work tyranny and despotism. Others think it signifies liberty for themselves and servitude for others. Hence we often find so-called liberals the most intolerant of mankind." (1)Indeed, today liberty has clearly been defined as license. Man is free to sin, and even encouraged in some cases to do so, by our legal and judicial systems. And yes, any opposition to such license is labeled tyranny. For this reason, reminders of God’s law and true liberty must be obliterated. It is also true that liberty (or license) for many today has come to mean our servitude. Some members of the Hierarchy who continue to call themselves Catholic have already enslaved themselves to the Masonic dream of a universal false religion that has Satan as its spiritual head. Many will follow these false shepherds. While judges remove the Decalogue from public places, these apostates are doing the same in a more subtle way. They have ignored God’s First Commandment and have publicly insulted Our Lady. They seek to liberate themselves from what they view as an anachronistic, medieval Church. They believe that such liberation will bring peace and freedom to all men. Those who are lovers of true liberty, those friends of the Cross and slaves of Our Lady, are called to be saints in these times of apostasy and impurity. To quote St. Louis de Montfort: "'Be brave,' they keep saying to each other, 'be brave, for if God is for us and leading us, who dare be against us? The One Who is dwelling within us is stronger than the one who is in the world; no servant is above his master; one moment of light tribulation works an eternal weight of glory. There are fewer elect than man may think; only the brave and daring take heaven by storm; the crown is given only to those who strive lawfully according to the Gospel, not according to the fashion of the world. Let us pour all our strength into the fight, and run very fast to reach the goal and win the crown.'” (2) |
On Interpretation of the Faith
Just read an awesome awesome excerpt from J.J. Espinosa.....so relevant to hear in our current moment in time with the problems of false theology among modern Christian 'theologians' .....enjoy!
"No Matter how necessary the role of theologians may be, it is not to the learned that God has entrusted the mission of interpreting the faith of the Church. This faith rests on the life of the people, whose responsibility before God is borne by the bishops; it is they who must teach the people what God wants the faithful to believe"
One of the tragedies of our times is that certain pseudo-theologians have chosen to ignore this clear and unequivocal teaching of the Church. They and their followers have formed themselves into "select" groups and skillfully manipulating the press-both Catholic and secular, have imposed a minority opinion on an unsuspecting public. Typical of their methods is the self-righteous fashion in which they purport to have discovered "grave errors" in the traditional practices of Christian devotion. With the ostensible purpose of bringing this subject into the open, they have analyzed it almost to death.
The influence of these false theologians of our time has been sadly effective. If many of the faithful today no longer know what to believe, the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of these "false prophets" (Mt 7:15). For, no matter how much they proclaim a true "evangelical spirit," it is quite obvious that they have forgotten that being a Christian means going to God along the path shown to us by Christ: a path which requires that all become as little children -including those who are doctors in sacred theology; a path that cannot be traveled by the conceited, nor by those who lack faith, no matter how learned they may be. Nor is it a path that can be trodden by those who feel ashamed of believing the same things that are believed by the illiterate, by old women, by children who can hardly recite from memory the Lord's Prayer or the Hail Mary.
If believing in Christ and loving Christ were to be something as confused and ambiguous as some theologians describe, many would think Christ had revealed himself for the exclusive benefit of sophisticated groups of specialists who, by methodic doubt, arrive at the explanations far above the heads of ordinary people. Yet the Gospel was written in simple language intelligible to the less endowed, to men from all backgrounds, to children, and to the old.
The teaching of the Church cannot be identified with the isolated opinions of an "elite" bent on distorting (purifying they will say) her doctrine and her customs. This is a point to be insisted upon, in order to avoid deceptions. Both piety and theology are essential elements of Christian life. If some are found lacking in doctrinal formation, they should be given proper instruction; but nobody has the right to take their devotional practices away from them. Should some others be still unaware of the importance of the exercise of piety, let them be encouraged to practice them without neglecting their theological instruction. That is why there cannot possibly be any misunderstanding or incompatibility between theology and popular devotions, as they both take their origin from the faith transmitted by the Church."
Cardinal Newman: To believe in a Church is to believe in the Pope
"I say the Pope is the heir of the Ecumenical Hierarchy of the fourth century, as being, what I may call, heir by default. No one else claims or exercises its rights or its duties. Is it possible to consider the Patriarch of Moscow or of Constantinople, heir to the historical pretensions of St. Ambrose or St. Martin? Does any Anglican Bishop for the last 300 years recall to our minds the image of St. Basil? Well, then, has all that ecclesiastical power, which makes such a show in the Christian Empire, simply vanished, or, if not, where is it to be found?
I wish Protestants would throw themselves into our minds upon this point; I am not holding an argument with them; I am only wishing them to understand where we stand and how we look at things. There is this great difference of belief between us and them: they do not believe that Christ set up a visible society, or rather kingdom, for the propagation and maintenance of His religion, for a necessary home and a refuge for His people; but we do.
We know the kingdom is still on earth: where is it? If all that can be found of it is what can be discerned at Constantinople or Canterbury, I say, it has disappeared; and either there was a radical corruption of Christianity from the first, or Christianity came to an end, in proportion as the type of the Nicene Church faded out of the world: for all that we know of Christianity, in ancient history, as a concrete fact, is the Church of Athanasius and his fellow Bishops: it is nothing else historically but that bundle of phenomena, that combination of claims, prerogatives, and corresponding acts, some of which I have recounted above. There is no help for it then; we cannot take as much as we please, and no more, of an institution which has a monadic existence. We must either give up the belief in the Church as a divine institution altogether, or we must recognize it at this day in that communion of which the Pope is the head. With him alone and round about him are found the claims, the prerogatives, and duties which we identify with the kingdom set up by Christ. We must take things as they are; to believe in a Church, is to believe in the Pope. And thus this belief in the Pope and his attributes, which seems so monstrous to Protestants, is bound up with our being Catholics at all; as our Catholicism is bound up with our Christianity. There is nothing then of wanton opposition to the powers that be, no dinning of novelties in their startled ears in what is often unjustly called Ultramontane doctrine; there is no pernicious servility to the Pope in our admission of his pretensions."
Bl. John Henry Newman
Letter to the Duke of Norfolk
1875
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)