Is This Success?
Individualism is to Catholicism as Satan is to God. Individualism promotes the Satanic “you can be just like God.” It reinforces the fallen ego, promotes ungodly pride. It bases its credibility based upon greed. We are told that the great achievements of the modern world prove the value of individualism. Those nations which have promoted a rugged individualism have proven successes, those which have promoted Catholic morality have proven to be failures. Of course, if someone forgoes all sense of community and the common good, one can easily trample on others and, taking from them all one wants, one will indeed become a “success.” If we want to promote American culture because of its “worldly success,” we must also remember how it achieved such success: slavery, genocide, theft, and war. We must also keep in mind that the fruit of our labor lies all before us: we have used the resources of the world, we have taken from others, and now there is nothing left to be taken but our own. Abortion is just one example of where we are doing just that; it is the fruit of individualistic success to be free to kill one’s own. But as we do so, we will destroy ourselves. The American Tower of Babel is falling. Many have yet not understood this. The economic crisis which has brought about a high level of unemployment and underemployment should have been a warning. The system is toppling. The oil spill in the gulf is but another symptom of our fall. To continue as we were, we no longer will be taking from others, we will be taking from ourselves. Is this what we want? Is this how we measure success?
Comments are closed.
I think it is very true that American rhetoric now is a rhetoric of fear and decline. People are afraid of losing things, and when they are afraid, they talk more and more like beasts and less and less like men.
I am really beginning to think that many a Catholic’s expectation that the Church should get behind the social ideology that makes us the most prosperous is the result of too much faith in “realized eschatology”. Maybe this has to do too much with scholastic theology. (How many whig Thomists now run behind the Summa to justify greed? Again, don’t allow the Gospel to get in the way of your theology.) It also has to do with the Puritanical concept of “earthly blessings for the elect”.
The Church does not teach us how to be better capitalists, but better Christians. Maybe that means that society will not run at “optimum performance”. The weak are weak for a reason. The poor are poor for a reason. Taking care of the least of our brethren may drag us down, but if we are all one body, can we really leave them behind?
Maybe a real Catholic society would not look perfect from the American, white suburban, middle class point of view. Maybe you couldn’t conquer the world with it, just as the Anglo-Saxon Protestant ethic conquered the world. But I remember a vaguely familiar voice stating something about gaining the whole world but losing… something. If I remember what that thing is, I’ll get back to you.
Once again Karlson, I don’t disagree with a word you say.
And yet your tone suggests to me that you draw very different conclusions than I do.
To be specific, I smell the sulphur of Obamunism in your publication history. Obamunism is not the solution a Catholic Christian would endorse, and I’m very concerned that you appear to endorse it.
The response of a Christian to societal collapse is an individual response, not the forcible imposition of a utopian ideology, your Obamunism.
Jeff
I’ve written against utopia time and again. The utopia of capitalism and socialism both are errors. The fact that we are not to have a utopia is not just cause to accept social ills, however. What I have said here, and in other places, has nothing to do with Obama, and I have written critiques of him here as with the rest of the system around us. Whether or not one thought he was the better of two bad choices doesn’t make one a follower of “Obamunism.” Nonetheless, Catholicism has always said the response is more than a mere individual response. Again and again I have posited texts on here through the centuries of Church history which point this out.
And if you wish, here is an example where President Obama clearly follows the errors of our society. Strangely enough he is removing regulations which were put in place by President Reagan — strange that a “small government” President put in a good regulation which a “big government” President is removing, eh? The problem is not “small” or “large” government, and as long as people focus on that distinction, they are already on the wrong track.
http://www.barking-moonbat.com/index.php/weblog/what_was_his_price/
And, though this is a Catholic concern, there are many Protestants who see many of the elements of Catholic social doctrine, because it is being drawn from Holy Scripture. One of my favorite modern Protestant critiques of American society is Steve Taylor, and I think this song is very apropos:
What Is The Measure Of Your Success lyrics
In this city I confess
I am driven to possess
Answer no one, let them guess
Are you someone I impress?
I am a big boss with a short fuse
I have a nylon carpet and rubber shoes
And when I shake hands, you’ll get a big shock
You’ll be begging for mercy when the champ is through
You better believe I’ll put my clamps on you
In this city, be assured
Some will rise above the herd
Feed the fatted, leave the rest
This is how we won the west
I am a safebox, I am the inner sanctum when the door locks
I hold the passkey
You say you can’t take it with you?
We’ll see about that won’t we?
push….push….push
In the city, I confess
God is mammon, more is less
Off like lemmings at the gun
I know better, still I run
I am an old man
and the word came
But you can’t buy time or a good name
Now when the heirs come around
Like buzzards on a kill
I see my reflection in their envious eyes,
I’d watch it all burn to buy another sunrise
Some men find the fire escape
Old men learn it all too late
push….push….push the alarm
Old MacDonald’s bought the farm
And the satanic twin of individualism is collectivism, in which classes, races, corporations or nations become gods. The divine counterpart to both is personalism. Mounier defines personalist civilization as “one whose structure and spirit are directed towards the development as persons of all the individuals constituting it. They have as their ultimate end to enable every individual to live as a person, that is, to exercise a maximum of initiative, responsiblity, and spiritual life.”
Personalism is not individualism because it doesn’t set individuals against one another in a competition over “rights:” “… the sovereign lord of a liberty unlimited and undirected, turning towards others with a primary mistrust, calculation and self-vindication…”
On the other hand, personalism it isn’t collectivism because it holds the individual human person to be “an absolute in comparison with any other material or social reality and with any other human person. [The human person] can never be considered merely as part of a whole, whether of family, class, state, nation or even humanity.”
Mark
Right, personalism is not individualism, but it is also not collectivism. Both individualism and collectivism have elements of truth found in personalism, but both neglect great elements of truth outside of their own limited perspective, they both lead into great indignity if left to run rampant.
Well, this is a helpful dialogue. Henry’s original post, understood with Mark’s refinement and Jeff’s statement “Once again Karlson, I don’t disagree with a word you say” shows a good general agreement.
As Mark develops on Henry’s post, I would make a further development on Mark and take issue with part of Jeff’s statement.
Mark correctly notes that: “the satanic twin of individualism is collectivism”
While Jeff writes; “I smell the sulphur of Obamunism in your publication history.”
Pope John Paul II warned us against “Collectivization without socialization.” (Max Shachtman would have strongly agreed with the Pope). The Communists practiced collectivization but what was collectivized was neither for social benefit nor under social control. It benefited and was controlled by an elite Party dictatorship. The Pope recognized what democratic Socialists hold — Communism is not Socialism but is Bureaucratic Collectivism, a new form of social oppression no better or even worse than capitalism.
The first principle in the question of the role of government in the economy is parliamentary democracy.
Leftists who would dispense with the burden of electoral democracy, pretending they are just “liberals in a hurry” are responsible for untold human suffering in the XXth Century.
Rightists who seek not to simply offer policy objections to social insurance proposals considered in a parliamentary democracy but who seek to delegitimitize democratic decision making and democratic elections (by using terms like ‘Obamunism’ and by support of the “birther” movement as well as some of the Tea Party rhetoric) propose a philosophy equally as dangerous as Communism.
Along with a healthy trade union movement, parlimentary democracy is essential for an economy that serves man rather than forcing man to serve the economy.
Jeff and Mark Gordon, the antidote to what Henry has pointed out is NOT “Obamunism” or “collectivism”–you are right–it is genuine Catholicism, which is not found in the cultural underpinnings or theological temper of this society.
You had best take a closer look at what Arturo, above, is trying to tell you: the problem is PROTESTANTISM–and, more particularly, the dour Calvinist fundamentalism that has always told Americans that they can only be “saved” “individually”–and not, as the Orthodox have always insisted, as part of a community.
Ask yourselves this, Jeff and Mark, and then, perhaps, you’ll be a little closer, mentally, to the opposing temperaments of genuine Catholicism and Protestantism: What is it about monasticism–life in religious community–that Protestantism has always found contemptible?
And remember what John Henry Newman said, in relation to these political arguments: ALL SERIOUS DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN SERIOUS MEN ARE DUE TO DIFFERENCES OF THEOLOGY.
America CANNOT be “socially democratic”–cannot, in other words, adhere to the spirit of the Gospels because America, true to her Protestant temper, MUST put higher stock in the myth of Horatio Alger than in that of the Virgen of Guadalupe.
Also, I endorse everything Kurt has written above; what he spells out is, in practical political terms, precisely aligned with Catholic social justice teachings as enunciated in papal encyclicals. And “bureaucratic collectivism” (a brilliant term) is, indeed, NOT true “Christian democracy” or “social democracy,” either.
I don’t know if slavery, genocide, war and theft are the exclusive domain of Americans. In fact slavery was introduced to America by Europeans. In fact most slaves were not in American but in the European colonies of the Carribean and South America – Catholic for the most part, at least nominally.
How do we square the success of the social democracies of Europe with their use of slavery, genocide etc. in their past and with their current denial, in the European Union Constitution, of Christianity?
Perhaps, Phillip, the point is that it really isn’t that much of a success, that we shouldn’t rest in our laurels and embrace the ways of the world because of “the successes” we can point to. Often, all too often, this is used to undermine the constant need for reform. This is especially true, however, if all those successes are at the expense of human people.
digby, why are you lumping me in with Jeff, whose use of the contemptible term “Obamunism” reveals his bias? I didn’t contradict Henry’s original post at all; I merely expanded upon it by introducing the personalist critique of both individualism and collectivism. And Kurt expanded on my expansion, drawing the important distinction between democratic and undemocratic forms of socialism. Remove your ideological goggles and read what is there, not what you expect to be there.
Well that in part is my point. Its not just that Americans have used these methods, however individualistic America is or not, they have been the way of the (fallen) world. That includes those societies that have not been traditionally considered individualistic.
Should we adopt such methods? No. Are successes that have been achieved completely the result of such methods? I would say no. What solutions to the problems of the world are there? As many as there are (ahem) individual persons. Because there will be no specific “Catholic” solution to the problems of the world. These differences are licit and part of the teaching of Catholic Social Teaching.
These differences are not necessarily the result of individualistic thinking, but application of differenct historical, economic, social etc. understandings of individual persons seeking to apply CST to specific situations.
The problem is that with systems based upon the common good, there will be a link which connects the moral objection to immoral practices to the system of thought. With individualism, what we find is that the individual will continue to find reasons to excuse more and more immoral positions as justified for the pursuit of individual liberty. “You can’t tell me what to do with my body.”
“Ask yourselves this, Jeff and Mark, and then, perhaps, you’ll be a little closer, mentally, to the opposing temperaments of genuine Catholicism and Protestantism: What is it about monasticism–life in religious community–that Protestantism has always found contemptible?”
I think that happened because a lot of reformers wanted to get married and oh yeah Henry VII wanted the land and money
How do we square the success of the social democracies of Europe with their use of slavery, genocide etc.?
I guess by noting that European social democracy never practiced nor tolerated slavery. We must remember that a mere 100 years ago, Switzerland was the only European nation that might be called a full democracy. Lost to most Americans is the fact that the Socialists were generally the driving force in bringing about electoral reform and parlimentary democracy in western Europe while it was the Christian Democrats who generally designed and implemented the social welfare programs.
Another great post on Vox Nova! I am not a scholar or theologian, but I am an american catholic seeking the “third way”. If you’re critical of capitalism, you must be a socialist, if you’re critical of republicans, you must be a democrat. Can’t we think outside the box? I personally believe in the catholic worker philosophy; advocating personalism, distributism, and a consistent life ethic. This seems to be the closest representation of catholic social teaching.
Of course it was American democracy (individualistic or not) that also eliminated slavery, restored civil rights etc. It also has established a very extensive social network. Maybe not to everyone’s liking but not as absent as some think.
And since we’re on facts related to the Gulf oil spill. BP is headquatered in London and the Deepwater Horizon was built in South Korea and is flagged in the Marshall Islands. The drilling was in international waters. The only real American input was evil American Halliburton which reportedly advised BP that their drilling practices were risky. Hard to say this was the direct result of American individualism.
I think a lot of what you guys are classifying as good personalism or evil individualism is really simple anti-authoritarianism.
And where do we find the first anti-authoritarian position within sacred history?
Phillip,
The American democratic model has contributed greatly to the world. The amazing feat of peacefully achieving civil rights for Blacks, led by Dr. King under the able counsel of his (socialist!) advisors Bayard Rustin, A. Philip Randolph and Walter Reuther, is something every American should be proud of.
And Catholic Social Teaching, particularly under the guidance of Msgr. John A. Ryan, Msgr. George Higgins and Msgr. Charles Owen Rice has had a profound impact on our country, countering a tendency towards excessive individualism.
That is why it is so sad to see too many these days reject this noble history — as they throw around the labels “socialist” and “communist”, insist the Constitution give the right for they and their children to live without health care and to bristle with resentment to the idea of a free people operating through a democratic process, working to see that we have an economy that serves man rather than man serving the economy.
Maccabees? :)
Kurt,
Sometimes socialists helped. But also (as in slavery) Americans applying American foundational principles. Even without socialists.
Henry, thanks for an honest and thougth-provoking post. I wonder if what your post points to is that we have failed to understand and live as human beings created in the image and likeness of the Holy Trinity. Seems that a Trinitarian model goes a long way to balancing between individualism and collectivism and even authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism.
Peace, Mike
Mike
Thanks for the compliment
Yes, we often neglect our Trinitarian nature, though I have to say, because of the great mystery of the Trinity, I think even those of us who try to reflect upon the relationship between the Trinity and society often miss something in our attempts to use the Trinity as a model. But it certainly is, I think, the right model
The Catholic Church places an emphasis on the individual person and on the community of persons. An ethic of individual responsibility is not opposed to Catholic morality. Individualism, the tendency to withdraw into oneself, certainly is. But the two are not identical, and the latter is not celebrated by intelligent thinkers of any political opinions.
And contrary to your blanket assertion that all American success comes from slavery, genocide, theft, and war is the story (history) of real human persons and real American communities that have embraced a culture largely conducive to the common good. It’s easy to sound high and mighty and condemn everyone with a few great evils. It’s much more difficult to understand that American society, culture and politics does not so easily fit into your magnum malum, individualism. Your use of the term is so expansive that it encompasses everything you find wrong with the world. You would be a better thinker if you could make distinctions.
Let us look at what Henry wrote:
we must also remember how it achieved such success: slavery, genocide, theft, and war.
Let us look at these fruits, regardless of the
“ism”. Why doesn’t the Catholic Church have
critical thinking as part of the cathechism?
The last time I posted a comment was around
Memorial Day. I wrote something along the lines
that a Catholic teengage boy is likely to be
taught the evils of masturbation rather than
why wars are fought. The majority being
control of resources.
I know my answer is not concentrating on
“individualism”. But I also believe that
negative things were done to create the
USA and others countries of course.
This is where I have a problem with the
“pro life” groups. They will join forces
coast to coast to prevent one person being
pulled off life support, but won’t whisper
a word against empire. There is no need
for me to explain empire, all of you that
read at this site know what I mean.
I believe some of the people that that write
for vox-nova teach at universities. So,
why aren’t we taught to question things such
as the Indian Removal Act, the Monroe Doctrine,
Manifest Destiny, etc, etc? Why isn’t this
bread and butter teaching at churches all
across the US/world? How can the Catholic
Church put out Humanae Vitae but neglect
empire or the race to control resources?
The problem is orginal sin. Greed will manifest
itself differnetly from a rich European
in the 16 century versus a tribal person
in the Amazon. Of course, some societies
make it easier to be greedy or lust, etc.
So I do agree that the mindset of Americans
will influence certain sins or attitudes.
Phillip,
Without a doubt. The Abolitionist Movement is the crowning achievement of the American Protestant Social Gospel movement. The 1835 condemnation of slavery by the Kentucky Synod of the Presbyterian Church was an act of Christian bravery.
The Sanitary Movement, the effort for Womens’ Suffrage, and the Peace movement all owe a great debt to American Protestantism.
Line me up with catholichippie.. Great comment!
It’s one thing to lay the evil consequences of materialism and individualism at the feet of an “Anglo-Saxon Protestant ethic” and quite another to demonize Protestants or Protestantism as this social disease’s primary vector. I like Henry’s post and many of the comments, but I’m not buying Digby’s position that this has anything to do with Protestant or Catholic identity or theology. That could even be a “Catholic” version of exceptionalism.
This is not to say that I think Christianity or Catholicism is not exceptional. Rather, that I think we make a mistake if we try to “justify” our faith on the basis of having better communities or a more peaceful existence, or better wine and cheese. Real faith ought to stand on its own, without explanations, comparisons or better-than’s.
I usually attend Mass in a well-to-do parish. For the most part, my fellow Catholics there are just as individualistic and materialistic as our Protestant and unaffiliated neighbors. So how people manifest their religious identity is more relevant than which identity they claim. As for the bit about embracing monastic life, don’t expect to find any ascetics among my fellow parishioners. The Shakers are (to the extent any remain) an example of a completely monastic Protestant group. And it isn’t hard to think of non-Christian faith/cultural groups who operate much less individualistically than mainstream America does.
All of the world’s “traditional” cultures I can think of are less individualistic than modern America, and in many cases dramatically so. Can anyone think of some counter-examples? I have to wonder if natural selection among and within cultures eliminated such self-centered attitudes. If, indeed, this is what happened generations ago, the falling “American Tower of Babel” isn’t the system toppling, but the system righting itself.
How do you explain the fact that all of the bloodiest, most corrupt 20th century dictators in the West were spawned and nutured in Catholic societies? Hitler’s family was from Austria. Then we have Mussolini; we have Franco; we have Batista on the right, followed by Castro on the left in Catholic Cuba; we have rank upon rank of larcenous, homicidal strong men throughout Latin America. And finally, in Orthodox Russia, we have Lenin and Stalin. No Protestant society has hatched and nurtured a monster to compete with any of these.
It would seem to me that the Catholic stifling of the individual conscience, of the ability to have confidence in one’s own moral point of view, as opposed to that of the herd, has the effect of making one into a compliant drone, incapable of resisting the dicatates of “authority,” regardless of its source. (What I am saying here also, btw, with regard to Hitler, highlights the superiority of Calvinism over Lutheranism. Luther remained too much under the influence of his Catholic yearnings. And Lutheran Germans are clearly too fond of the herd instinct, combined with Prussian discipline. Both Nietsche and Kierkegaard were reactions to a Lutheran upbringing.)
Rodak
As for a brief answer, I think Ellul deals with this question. Hitler and Stalin represent the turn towards technique, but the thing which we ignore, is the same pull to technique remains the pull for most modern society. We have the same corruptions of the human person going on because of that pull towards technique in the US, though we tend to be blind to it. There was a small “pause” from that pull as a result of Hitler and Stalin. Now that we are turning back to technique and ignoring moral questions for the sake of technique, the combination of individualism and technique remains a scary adventure indeed.
I have always found the “I am an individual, not a part of the herd” herd to be interesting because it is consistently inconsistent. Always the ones who claim to be the most individual tend to be the most herdlike. I’m not saying this of you, but the general populace of those who keep talking about “sheeple” etc. Beyond that, as has been discussed here, collectivism is also a problem. Personalism respects the dignity of the human person, but realizes the interdependent nature of society.
I would also add that one of the other problems of individualism is that everyone thinks they are an expert on everything. They are, of course, the top of the chain, so no one has to listen to anyone else. Of course conscience has a role, but we must always recognize that we can be wrong, and experts, amazingly enough, can be right. (Again, not saying you are anti-intellectual, but I know many “individualists” who are).
Henry you completely avoided addressing my questions. The “turn toward technique” is just as much a factor in the Protestant world (if not more so), yet nations such as the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, the U.S. have not thrown up dictators and their compliant followers.
Also your “herd of individualists” is a silly attempt at an “I’m rubber and you’re glue” turning of the tables. You can do better than that.
Rodak
First, I believe many of the things which are being done to harm people and destroy them (such as done with large numbers of IVF leading to the destruction of many such embryos; abortion; the constant manipulation of genes; the constant manipulation of individuals through all kinds of propaganda techniques) have hidden the full impact of this brutality from view, but it remains.
As for the second, it is not just a “silly attempt.” It’s just that I see “be an individual” is just another part of the propaganda of the herd, where it is a controlled opposition, so to speak. And this is easily noticed by how the individuals all do the same thing..
It makes no linguistic (or any other) sense to speak of a herd of rogues. Just because all canines can be classified as “dogs,” it doesn’t follow that all dogs are useful on a pheasant hunt.
I’ve been called a “solipsist” on Catholic blogs for insisting that interpreting scripture is the responsibility of the individual. I don’t see how you can have it both ways. Please describe to me the characteristics of a solipsistic conformist.
According to your way of thinking it is impossible to be a nonconformist; simply because the word exists every person to whom it can be applied is a card-carrying member of a like-minded congregation.
All of that said, you have still not answered, or even acknowledged my initial question. The medical technology to which you refer is no less in evidence in Catholic societies than it is in Protestant ones. The reverse is not the case with regard to dictatorships of the kind I’ve cited; they have occurred exclusively in Catholic countries, and I ask why you think that is.
It’s the illusion of being an individual, while being socialized to do what they do as individuals.
Kurt,
Glad we agree that reducing the American experience to one of radical individualism based on greed, etc. is false as it would be to reduce socialism only to the horrific wrongs done in its name in the 20th Century.
All human nature is fallen. Within that fallen nature, humans seek to form political structures. Some tend more towards central control and others less. Both have their benefits and weaknesses. Neither are perfect but both perspectives are valid with CST.
Within the American experiment, there have been a number of wrongs, but that has not stopped American from correcting many of those wrongs within its own political and philosophical traditions. Those traditions have been contributed to by socialists at times. But this work has been carried out in large extent by those who were merely acting out the best instincts of the American Tradition.
Again, glad we agree on this.
Okay, since you’re clearly not going to attempt an answer, I’ll throw out a tentative one: the mind of the Protestant individualist is less conditioned to unquestioning acceptance of “authoritative” propaganda, and is therefore less reflexively obedient. Note that I say only “less.” There are all kinds and degrees of conformism and Protestants have surely been guilty of much in that regard.
That said, there is still the historical reality, which has occurred too many times in too many places to be mere coincidence, that dictatorships and totalitarian systems in the West have originated exclusively in Catholic societies.
“Being socialized to do what they do as individuals” would need to be explained to me in more detail. One can surely be “socialized” to think for oneself. That does not make one more, but rather less, susceptible to joining a mob; to “keeping up with the Joneses”; to buying an SUV where a compact sedan is all that’s needed; to caring which new film made the most money over the weekend; to believing that Saddam has WMD; or to seeing BP’s side of it.
Rodak
As for how to describe it, I think Frank gave a good example. But I see “non-conformist” “individuals” all doing the same thing, whatever is the in thing to be “non-conformist.” If it is to have tatoos, they all get them. If it means “wear your pants on the ground,” then you will see many people doing just that. Something is used to be a common protest, but the question then is, why do they all do it? There is the problem that we are often easily led astray by views of self-importance based upon how we are unique. It’s easy to manipulate people on that level, which also goes to the root of the fall — how it is portrayed in Scripture. This is also way it is all pervasive, individualism is directly connected (imo) to the root sins from which others flow.
There is now a political coalition in this country consisting of pro-life Catholics, what might be called “Sarah Palin” evangelical Protestants, and Zionists, each of which groups has its own agenda, but has shown itself willing to play ball with its former strongest opposition in order to make political hay. Each of these groups is also characterized by its conformity to an inflexible ideology. This trend, if it should continue to gain momentum, may result in a totalitarianism here that will bring down my thesis above.
Brian: “You’re all individuals!” Crowd: “Yes! We’re all individuals.” Voice: “I’m not.”
From Life of Brian.
BTW, anybody know how to include a youtube clip in-line as part of a comment?
Frank
You just put in the url of the youtube video, and it shows up. Most of the time.
Phillip,
I too am glad we are in agreement. The fundamental division is not between the American and the European experience, nor the Catholic and Protestant ethic, nor between capitalism and socialism. It is between democracy as practiced in the Free World and dictatorship.
The democracies have done a better job at preserving freedom and human rights than any other system. Even though operating from a principle of majority rule, they have better protected the rights of minorities than other systems. They have developed the role appropriate for government in the economy of their society. And they have done better at advancing religious freedom than other societies.
Frank is right. Demonizing Protestantism is absurd. There are many “protestantisms,” Calvinism being just one – and, increasingly, a minor one – among many. Truth is, there are even many “calvinisms.” This blanket indictment of Protestantism and Calvinism makes no sense.
This trend, if it should continue to gain momentum, may result in a totalitarianism here that will bring down my thesis above.
Good that you admitted this, Rodak, but I doubt that you understand the theological underpinnings of the political disposition you are describing. The problem with Protestantism, as it impinges on politics, is that the theological temper MUST induce a fragmentation of authority into FUNDAMENTALISM—because, in both Lutheranism and Calvinism, there is ultimately no higher authority than a TEXT. In Catholicism, the “highest authority” is human SCHOLARSHIP, as it is “led” through a time-space continuum, by the Holy Spirit. (We have Scriptural authority for this, and it has been admirably explained and defended by John Henry Newman, in The Development of Christian Doctrine.)
This inherent fundamentalism of Protestant theology makes AMERICAN Protestantism the twin and complement of Islamic Fundamentalism on the world stage, and the religious wars that Palinism and Zionism and Islamism are likely to inspire could make anything dreamt up by devotees of the hodge-podge of crackpot Enlightenment ideas of 19th century American “liberals” (who have generally called themselves “conservatives”) and Marxists look like a veritable picnic.
But Henry, what you are describing is adolescent rebellion, not individualism. You will get no argument from me about teenagers–who are striving to separate themselves from their nests and the adults who have feathered them–donning the faddish threads of the day in order to do so in the comfort of a herd.
But, what I would be talking about in terms of individualism would be a figure like Kierkegaard, or like Simone Weil, or like St. Paul.
And you have still not addressed your reasoning on why, in the West, in the 20th century, it has been Catholic nations which have produced dictators, and mostly Catholics who have gathered to follow the political agendas of those dictators into spectacularly un-Christian modes of behavior.
If individualism/Protestantism can be shown to be the better preventative agains totalitarianism, then it must be doing something right.
Rodak
St Paul is not an individualist, and indeed, promotes authority contra individualism. I think, beyond that, there might be some mixed communication going between us; the fact that I do not support individualism doesn’t me I neglect the good of the unique, but it is a unique in relation, not independent of its own.
And as for dictators, well, I don’t think Israel is a “Catholic nation.” And its support is given directly by those who support “individual choice” for “nations.” I would also add the totalitarian nature of businesses as defended by many such “individualists” as a part of ‘liberty to make one’s success’ demonstrates an end product which is often ignored. Look to the kind of destruction wrought on countries which are used by the West. Individualism has no way to stop such destruction, and indeed, questions those who seek to end it. Look to how many are saying “Ok, so there was an oil spill, but we can’t stop drilling, it’s wrong to ask for drilling to stop.” It’s based upon the individualistic ethic which sees business as a part of the expression of the individual will; of course, it sees, in the way of Rand, the value of others in achieving that end, but the framework of our capitalistic enterprise is always framed in the context of individual doing things of their own to make their own success – with a blind eye to all the moral questions of how they obtained their success, because, again, individualism has a hard time to justify one individual ever saying no to another other than as a will to power.
Digby–
What you have in Catholicism is a professional priestly cult that interprets everything so as to make a professional priestly cult indispensible. By contrast, what you have in Protestanism is true pastors who provide guidance, but not so much “instruction” (in the imperative sense of the word.) One problem with Catholicism is that once the priesthood becomes corrupt, the flock, which knows only how to follow, is lost. A corrupted Protestant pastor simply gets fired (or turned over to the secular authorities, if necessary) and is replaced by a congregation composed of individuals who take a full share of responsibility for their own moral/religious lives. There is no corporate entity comparable to the Church, covering up the sins of a Protestant minister in order to preserve itself.
And don’t speak as though the Church has the Holy Spirit locked in a closet somewhere. The Holy Spirit guides Protestant study and prayer just as surely as it does the Catholic variety, if not better.
You are dead-wrong, Rodak, for the simple reason that Christ commanded his followers to be “one”–and I won’t even talk about the lack of sacramental union with the only “Body” that Christ has left on earth–the Catholic and Apostolic Church.
And your talk about a corrupt “professional priestly cult” makes me wonder why you are tolerated here. I have, myself, been accused many times by the “conservatives” here of being a “neo-Catholic,” but I’ve never damned the entire clergy of the Church with such a sweeping statement as yours above.
Henry–
St. Paul promoted HIS authority over that of James, the head of the Church in Jerusalem, and over that of Peter, despite his “rock-hood,”–I’ll grant you that. But Paul’s theology was totally individualistic. He virtually invented Christology and the Cosmic Christ. He single-handedly dispensed with the Law, going his own way, literally in the face of the “pillars of the church” in Jerusalem, the immediate successors to the ministry of Jesus; men who had all actually walked and talked with Our Lord. But Paul knew better, didn’t he? All on his own; there was Paul and there was the Cosmic Christ–the rest of them could go fish. I’d call him the prototypical Protestant.
Israel is not a Catholic nation, that’s true. And Israel has transgressed, that’s also true. But Israel has not produced a dictator of the kind of Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, et al. Nor is Israel a totalitarian state, regardless of how reprehensible its treatment of the Palestinian Arabs has been. As you know, I’m no supporter of Israel; but I’m not going to mischaracterize her just to express my disdain for her conduct.
I’m not discussing simple nationalism here; or racism; or warmongering in general. I’m discussing the tendency of a certain kind of society–Catholic ones–to raise up charismatic, totalitarian dictators to lead them. Why does that happen?
Rodak
Paul is very clearly in support of issue of authority; he himself points for his own authority, which means he has authority, and expects it to be followed (example: the excommunication he gave, and the restoration to communion later to that same man). The conflict between Peter and Paul was not one of authority. Correcting people does not make one an individualist. Nonetheless, the whole of Paul’s theology of grace is completely contrary to self-sufficiency of the individual. He completely puts forth the dying to the self, the need to be in Christ, and yes, even passages where he promotes authority.
We will disagree here, I am sure. But as for Israel, the ethnic cleansing which is going on, and continues to be supported by America, does represent the threat of before, but now justified under different guises. More importantly, the issue of business and their practices and how they are justified — and how success is measured in the US — is exactly the issue. How does the people who “get on top” get there? What kind of ethic is there? Sure, you can point to a few examples of truly generous people who were fortunate, but the vast majority are ruthless in getting to the top, and then ask for others to do what they didn’t do. It’s all about self. Individual. And how the individual is to do all they can to get on top. The fact is that is the kind of problem remains, but now ignored.
I have written extensively on my own blog about why I think that capitalism is antithetical to Christianity. So you won’t get any argument from me in that direction. That said, socialism is not inevitably totalitarianism. Western Europe is much more socialist than we are without impinging any more upon the conscience of the individual that we do here. They have their aberrations along those lines, as do we; but Western Europeans are essentially free peoples.
Exactly. Paul had his own authority and expected it to be followed. Isn’t that what I said? But he also makes it clear that he didn’t receive his authority from any earthly source; nor would he be dictated to by the authorities in Jerusalem, regardless of from whence they claimed to derive that authority. To my mind, that puts St. Paul vis-a-vis the Jerusalem establishment in the same relationship as Luther found himself in relation to the Church hierarchy.
And Paul was not “correcting” Peter, in the sense that Peter was mistaken; rather, Paul was amending that which Peter correctly knew to be according to the Law.
As I said, Paul looked only to heaven for instruction. He did not look to any earthly authority. This is what Protestants do.
Again, you are not addressing the point that I’m making w/r/t Israel. If they, with the support of various Western democracies (principally ours) are committing an ethnic cleansing, they are doing it as a people with freely elected leaders. None of these leaders has declared himself a dictator, or a leader-for-life. None of them has been elected on the basis of the kind of charismatic public persona capitalized on by Mussolini or Hitler. You are comparing rotten apples to rotten oranges, and in so doing continuing to not answer my question by changing the subject.
Rodak
Actually, that still doesn’t get Paul’s position properly. He wasn’t on the level of Luther, because, unlike Luther, Paul was made into an Apostle, and recognized as such by the other Apostles. He was given a level of authority which Luther didn’t have, nor does the ordinary Christian have. Paul would be the first to go against the notion of individuals being the authority to decide for themselves; if they were all equal, then there can be no excommunication as such, and no hierarchy which he developed.
And the point you are ignoring is that your focus is on “dictator,” while my point is that the whole question of “dictator” is a distraction to the real question of human rights and its violation.
Rodak,
I have long asked myself, why is Latin America, in general, such a troubled place? It has all the advantages of a Catholic culture. I do not accept the hypothesis that “Yankee Imperialism” is entirely to blame. The only speculation I can offer is that “Catholic culture” is not 100% good and “Protestant culture” is not 100% bad, that there are some aspects of Protestant culture that are superior to some aspects of Catholic culture, and that these aspects contribute to the relative political difference between the historically Protestant and historically Catholic parts of the New World. However, this is only a speculation.
I think the Protestant police states that you find conspicuously absent today, however, did exist at one time. Calvinist Geneva comes to mind. Puritan Massachusetts also comes to mind. These were states that commanded total obedience and did not tolerate individualism. I think that the Protestant police states no longer exist because Protestantism rapidly evolved, through lack of structure, into a generally more latitudinarian and tolerant system. Catholicism has not evolved as rapidly, because it does not lack structure, and thus Latin America is, politically, still like Medieval or Renaissance Europe, which means that the rule of law is rather arbitrary, and human rights virtually non-existent. Thus, much of Latin America does have the advantages of Catholic culture, but it also has the disadvantages. Again, this is just speculation.
Rockliff,
I do think there are many issues together which bring out the situation in Latin America. Contemporary issues, of course, are the imperialism of the North upon the South, with the resources being drained. But this would not have happened so easily if such a policy had not been done before by Catholic powers like Spain. Nonetheless, I think there is a more systematic, technological approach to it with the way modern businesses handle the situation, that they have helped keep the situation to their liking by encouraging and supporting, in various ways, regimes which best suit them, regimes which can be very dictatorial.
That is one side of the question.
Another issue, however, I think has to do with the fact that Latin America, though colonized to be Catholic, also had strong resistance to that religious imperialism. The people there really keep many of their pre-Catholic sensibilities with them. While there were great feats done by the people, there nonetheless was no real sense of progress as we know in the West for a far longer time than the time they have been Catholic. I think their cultural situation continues to influence such a failure to progression even today. This is then reinforced by the first point, where those who can benefit from their lack of progress do so.
Then I also think the fact that Protestantism has a different view about salvation and works has freed Protestant nations to do things Catholics would not do. The Protestant work ethic is also tied to Protestant notions of salvation, so that material success is seen as the goal of earthly life. While Catholicism does not deny earthly success, it certainly didn’t focus on it in the same way, that is, its views of success were quite different and so not as directed at the things which allowed Protestant nations to become “successful.”
Finally, tradition and the approach to tradition I think made Catholics “lag” behind at the time during the industrial era. The tradition allowed for the Catholic nations to hold to a more moral position, but less earthly success.
R. Rockcliff. Yes, I agree w/r/t Latin America. You make some cogent points. I don’t know, however, how well these points translate to 20th century Western Europe (Spain, Italy, Russia). Yet in these more advanced countries you find the same phenomena of the dictatorial leader, lording it over a police state.
Henry–
W/r/t Paul: same position as Luther; slightly different outcome. Luther wanted to reform the Church, not to found a competing one. In this, Church power successfully fended him off. The difference with Paul is that the competing churches that he founded based on his new interpretation of God’s will, won out. The Jerusalem church died with the temple. Peter apparently adopted Paul’s theology (although we have only tradition to back up that assumption; no historical record exists.) So Paul won a zero sum game. Luther founded only a successful competitor. I don’t think that makes the two so very different. Had the Romans not trashed Jerusalem, we might well have had two surviving institutions in the First Century, as well.
The main point, however, remains that Paul did not recognize the established earthly authority, but went his own way, based on his individual and personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This is absolutely central to Protestantism, and antithetical to Catholicism.
Rodak
Your history of the early centuries are off, but it would take a post of its own to go through it all. Paul certainly recognized the earthly authority and referred to it, and he didn’t promote just individual relationship with Jesus as the answer. Whether or not Luther wanted to make a new church, however, does not deal with the issue of authority and his lack of authority to do what he thought he could do. Paul’s authority was recognized — there is a reason why Paul mentions being seen by Peter, and Peter and him associating together — and why Peter refers to Paul (if you believe the epistle is Peter’s). Historical documentation exists from the earliest periods of the church about their association. And the Jerusalem church didn’t die out.
If every Protestant sees himself as autonomous–a moral and intellectual free agent, subject only to the revealed word of God–his orientation is such that following a charismatic leader may not be all that compatible to his either his self-image or his value system. If, on the other hand, one has been conditioned from the cradle towards unquestioning obedience to one category of authority (the priest), one might not be so very resistant to the call of another category (the charismatic nationalist politician.)
The Apostles referred to by Paul as “the pillars” of the Jerusalem church, agreed to allow Paul to have the “Gentile franchise,” so to speak, on the provision that he collect funds to support the Jerusalem congregation. They were not, at this time, much interested in the uncircumsized, non-kosher, doctrinally suspect Gentiles, and figured that they could get Paul out of their hair (and possibly reap some material benefits) by dispatching him off to the hinterlands. That Paul was antagonized by the orthodox Jewishness of James and totally without awe in the presence of Peter (he angrily confronts him–and wins, btw) is without dispute.
The disciples in Jerusalem continued with temple worship. They pooled their material resources and distributed them according to need. They met in each other’s homes for communal meals. None of these practices survived the destruction of the temple, the end of the priesthood, and the dispersion of the people throughout the empire. Out of those historical situations emerged a Christianity based on the the groundwork laid by Paul, and rabbinical Judaism. Nothing resembling the practices of the Jerusalem congregation, as described in Acts, has survived (although there is at least one tiny sect in somewhere Asia Minor which traces itself back to the theology of James, rather than to Peter or Paul, I believe.)
Rodak,
I would hesitate to identify Nazi Germany as principally “Catholic,” on account of Hitler’s family background being Catholic, on account of his family background being Austrian, which is principally Catholic. Hitler’s parents apparently were Catholic. Hitler himself never identified himself as a practicing Catholic. My understanding is that the majority of Austrians were not enthusiastic about the Anschluss. Bavaria is a large and significant part of Germany, and the one part of it that is principally Catholic, and the Bavarians have long been reported to have a national character very different from that of other Germans. But, counter to your hypothesis, the Bavarians are reputed to be more relaxed, and less authoritarian and disciplined than their northern neighbors. During the early years of WWI, British units in the trenches were very anxious to learn which German unit faced them. If they were Bavarians, the two units often made informal agreements not to shoot at each other. If the unit facing them was from northern Germany, or worst of all, actually Prussian, the British did not even bother asking. The “Protestant” Germans were not expected to be willing to bend the rules. I have not read that devotion to Hitler was greater in Bavaria than elsewhere in Germany. The Bavarians are actually the ones who imprisoned him. I do not know if Nazi party membership was skewed in favor of Catholics. I would be surprised if it was. The rest of Germany was Lutheran, and seemed to follow Hitler with as much enthusiasm, if not more enthusiasm, than the Bavarians or the Austrians. This willingness to follow leaders was, in Germany, the exact opposite of your theory that Catholics are more willing to follow than Protestants. By temperament, the most willing to “follow the leader”, in general, were the staunchly Lutheran Prussians, while the least willing to follow, in general, were the staunchly Catholic Bavarians. The thesis that modern dictatorships are principally Catholic, therefore, has these flaws. Nazi Germany was not “principally” Catholic, and Soviet Russia was not Catholic at all, though one might argue that the Orthodox are the “equivalents” of Catholics. (Do not let the Orthodox hear you say it.) That leaves the “Romance” countries: Italy, Spain, Latin America, and I agree, they are dictatorship prone indeed. I am not convinced that it is because they are Catholic. I am not convinced it has to do with religion at all. It may have to do with “ethnic temperament,” if one is allowed to speculate about such things.
I still have problems of looking to dictatorships in general. What exactly is a dictatorship, and where do they come from? Depending upon who you go to you will get different answers. Nonetheless, I think individualistically leaning countries following modern notions of democracy tend to socialize people to think a dictatorship/monarchy/etc are the worst things possible. It is, to me, really a red herring. The question is not whether or not there is a democracy or a “dictatorship,” for in either there can be liberty or abuse; the question is whether or not there is such liberty or abuse, and if there is abuse, how that abuse is justified. One of the reasons why I brought into the discussion big business is because of how its abuses tend to be defended upon individualistic notions of liberty, yet the consequences of such businesses affect us all.
It may have to do with “ethnic temperament”
R. Rockcliff–
First, I would suggest that one’s religious milieu is a major part of one’s ethnicity. If you want to have it that it’s “more nature than nuture,” are you, then, making a racial comment?
Rodak
No, it is not a racial comment — the question of what different cultures look for as to ideas of success are important to remember; we are judging others based upon the “culture” we have been socialized into, while they would often look to us as barbarians for other reasons.
Henry,
A famous author once said that slavery never was abolished, but only moved out of sight.
If, instead of talking about “dictatorship,” we talk about “oppression,” then it is possible to speculate that different cultures oppress people in different ways.
In the hot Latin “South,” oppression comes suddenly in the middle of the night in the form of a death squad that spills all your blood at once. In the cold Teutonic “North,” oppression comes inch-by-inch in the form of soulless omnipotent corporations that suck your blood out of you drop-by-drop over a lifetime.
Rodak,
No, I am not making a “racial” comment.
Nevertheless, people in different parts of the world have different values, and it is not always and only about religion, therefore it must be about something else. Irish Catholics are different from German Catholics. I would say that is because the Irish are different from the Germans. They are different for historical, and not biological, reasons, which is why I used the word “ethnic” and not “racial.” I could have said “national.” I would not say that it has anything to do with “race,” because these different communities do indeed pass on their values to those who join them and become assimilated to them. Irish Catholics tend to have “Jansenist” tendencies for historical, not biological reasons. A person of any “race” could acquire these tendencies by being a part of that community. So it has nothing to do with “race,” but it is also not only and always about religion, because in many cases the religion is the same, but the values are not.
So the consensus is that it’s all simply a matter of coincidence, and there is no objective explanation to be made of it?
Okay.
Nevertheless, you all certainly have a very low opinion of the importance of religion in the formation of a given society’s value system.
Apparently all of these disparate societies became totalitarian despite the fact that they happen to be Catholic societies. Interesting.
I would also note (see Sam Rocha’s post above, for instance) that the religious beliefs of American Catholics seem to factor largely in the types of political leaders for whom they will vote, and to whom they will give their support in political discourse. This, then, must be yet another example of American exceptionalism, since it has been determined on this thread that the Catholicism of peoples speaking the the Romance languages does not factor into their political lives, or their choices of leaders, in any important way.
I dispute that Germany or Russia were “Catholic” societies. I have seen no evidence presented to establish that they were. I have presented evidence to the contrary.
I dispute that there never has been a Protestant totalitarian society. I have seen no evidence presented to establish that there never has been. I have presented evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, I dispute hypotheses that associate Catholicism with totalitarianism, and especially if these hypotheses rest on a selective presentation of the evidence. However, I do not dispute that totalitarian societies have something in common, but I dispute that this something is necessarily religion.
Apparently all of these disparate societies became totalitarian despite the fact that they happen to be Catholic societies. Interesting.
This is either sarcasm, or condescension, or both. I can indulge a fair amount of unsupported speculation, and I overlooked your suggestion that I am a “racist,” but the sarcasm and the condescension I will not suffer. I do not have time for it.
What I am looking for is a definition of terms. I did not suggest that you are a racist. I was merely asking whether you considered race to be more important than ethnicity in determining a society’s tendencies. I apologize for having given the wrong impression. Obviously my choice of words was less than precise.
What I seem to be hearing in this conversation is that the word “Catholic”–with reference to the values of a given society–lacks full significance until it is modified by “Irish” or “Teutonic” or “Latin American” etc. But is it not then paradoxically the case that, to the same extent this modification renders the word “Catholic” significantly descriptive, it also makes it oxymoronic? I.e., if it’s not everywhere the same, in its effects as well as in its structure, how then is it “catholic?”
It would seem to me that only if we stipulate this paradoxical situation to exist, can we ignore the “coincidence” of the clear majority of totalitarian dictatorships that have, in recent times, arisen in Catholic societies. (I will allow Nazi Germany, despite Hitler’s origins, as the exception that proves the rule.)
Re: Irish Catholicism=Janenist….It’s a shame this myth gets endless repetition in the blogosphere.
A lot of what we regard as ‘Jansenism’ was simply Puritan-derived Victorian values – which were not uniquely Catholic nor uniquely Irish (…and neither of the two in origin). John Stuart Mill also discerned “two influences which have chiefly shaped the British character since the days of the Stuarts; commercial money-getting business, and religious Puritanism”.
“Jansenism”. The Oxford Companion to Irish History. 2007.
“Jansenism was viewed with great suspicion by Rome, and 17th‐century Irish synods toed the Roman line. Indeed, while its moral rigorism made it attractive to elements of the Counter‐Reformation church, Jansenism’s theological and political radicalism alienated both local hierarchies and Catholic monarchs. This was especially the case in France and most Irish clerical students there associated with milieux hostile to the movement. Indeed their anti‐Jansenist opinions were singled out for criticism by the pro‐Jansenist journal Nouvelles ecclésiastiques, Irish clerics, in general, being more attracted to Jesuit‐style humanism. The success of the anti‐Jansenist bull Unigenitus (1713) marginalized the movement but it survived as a popular millenarian‐cum‐miracle cult. Neither as a theology nor as a political attitude did Jansenism recommend itself to the Irish Catholic community, either at home or abroad. The frequent claim that Irish Catholicism was Jansenist‐influenced springs from the tendency to confuse Jansenism with mere moral rigorism.”
Dr Thomas O’Connor. Ph.D.
Senior Lecturer – Department of History, National University of Ireland, Maynooth faculty
https://history.nuim.ie/staff/oconnorthomas
author of:
_Irish Jansenists 1600-1670: politics and religion in Flanders, France, Ireland and Rome (Dublin, 2008)
_Strangers to Citizens: the Irish in Europe 1600-1800 (Dublin, 2008)
_An Irish Jansenist in seventeenth-century France: John Callaghan 1605-54 (Dublin, 2005)
_An Irish Theologian in Enlightenment Europe: Luke Joseph Hooke 1714-96 (Dublin, 1995)
Healy, John. Maynooth College : its centenary history (1895). Dublin : Browne & Nolan, 1895.
“During the eighteenth century many of the most eminent Churchmen in France were, to some extent, tinctured with these Jansenistic views, even when repudiating the Jansenistic errors regarding the operation of grace and free will. But although so many of our Irish ecclesiastics were educated in France during the eighteenth century, none of those who came to Ireland ever showed the slightest trace of this Jansenistic influence, either in their writings or their sermons. Nor has any respectable authority asserted, so far as we know, that the French Professors of Maynooth were in any way tinged with the spirit of Jansenism.”
Most Rev. John Healy, D.D., LL.D., M.R.I.A
Depends quite a bit what one associates with the position tagged ‘individualism’. I agree with much of the spirit of what is said. But I also suspect what people in our current society defend as individualism is really narcissism. And not entirely of other historical understandings of the term.