Edward Feser, one of the best Catholic thinkers in the blogosphere, delivers the Hayek memorial lecture at the Austrian Scholars Conference in Auburn, 2005:
“Three things would seem to follow from this. The first is that the only freedom of action we can have an absolute natural right to is whatever level of freedom is required for us to be able to make truly voluntary moral choices and thus develop genuinely virtuous character. The second is that this would seem to entail that to some significant degree, determining the specific amount of freedom we ought to have from outside interference with our moral choices must be a matter of prudential judgment and contingent circumstances rather than a clear-cut appeal to self-ownership rights. The third is that this is bound to entail that it is at least in principle legitimate for government to outlaw actions that are, from the point of view of natural law, intrinsically immoral, such as prostitution, the sale of illicit drugs and pornography, and so forth.
I want to emphasize that none of this is meant by itself to prove that there ought at the end of the day to be laws against every behavior considered vicious from a natural law point of view. It is rather to say that the Catholic natural law tradition holds that to a significant degree the question of whether there ought to be such laws is a matter of prudence, not a matter of respecting rights. Rothbardian arguments to the effect that certain specific drug laws, for example, are draconian and entail a dangerous increase in government power, or that the cost in some circumstances of outlawing vicious behavior might outweigh any benefits to be gained, lose none of their force. But the Rothbardian view that such laws against intrinsically immoral behavior are always inherently unjust, always violations of natural rights of self-ownership, is incompatible with the Catholic conception of natural law. “
Comment:
And that is roughly where my thinking on the matter is, although of course I’m on the opposite side of Feser’s positions on the Iraq war ….and on several other issues, I imagine.
But that is for prudential reasons.
I think one can with ease call oneself a Christian and a libertarian…..
I think it’s self-delusion to claim to be a traditional Catholic and a consistent Rothbardian.
That doesn’t make me part of any anti-Rothbard cult.
In fact, it’s a busy day when I see anything other than a gecko or a squirrel…let alone so sophisticated a mammal as an anti- Rothbardian.
And I’ve no wish to change that.
Not that I’m a Catholic, traditional or otherwise, either. And I don’t subscribe to Feser’s assertion that the Judeo-Christian monotheistic tradition alone establishes the dignity of man.
That sounds like reaching.
It’s just that when it comes to furnishing my mind, I’ll take the quality and style that’s stood up to all weather for some twenty centuries before I’ll spend good time and energy on inventory assembled in the shadow of the Cold War.
screw Christianity and especially Catholicism. Who could take any hierarchical religion seriously that looks the other way as its’ field workers rape little boys?
I am convinced that there is a god and its’ name is Ahura Mazda. That humanity has abandoned it is probably why Nietzsche proclaimed “god is dead.” The creator of the universe wanted sentient beings who sought wisdom and independence of mind. Instead, mankind chose voluntary servitude to the ideology of choice. In the end, Islam was easier than Zoroastrianism for the Persians..it tells you what to do. But Nietzsche was either wrong or merely a smart-ass. Ahura Mazda isn’t dead, it is still out there…waiting patiently. Mankind still has another billion years or so to get its’ shit together, assuming it doesn’t ruin the planet in the meantime.
“screw Christianity and especially Catholicism. Who could take any hierarchical religion seriously that looks the other way as its’ field workers rape little boys?”
Lila: Christianity isn’t Catholicism, and the Catholic faith or the institution of the church isn’t collectively guilty for every action of every priest, even if they are legally responsible.
What happened to all that famous libertarian anti-collectivist sentiment?
Raping little boys and girls seems to be trending in the past few decades, right across society..so I’m inclined to think it’s not a Catholic thing.
The media likes to make it look that way.
At the risk of pissing off the entire web, I’d say maybe all that insistence on opening the church to people who were in the closet rather than in possession of a specific vocation for celibacy didn’t help.
In other words, which part of the boy-rape epidemic was because of anything Catholic and which part was because of succumbing to PC pressure?
I don’t keep up with Ahura Mazda. Don’t speak the lingo. It’s hard enough between Hinduism and Christianity….
I’m in the middle of this “let me read the Bible from cover to cover” route.
I’m at the end of Deuteronomy now.
I used to hate the OT when I was young…all that warring.
But that’s how it was..and that’s how it still is.
And now, it just seems like a fairly good portrait of reality.
Also, I don’t have anything against hierarchy. It would be like being against gravity.
Possible…but pointless.
Alright fine. In previous centuries the priests could simply have sex with nuns. But there aren\’t many nuns anymore and those that remain are old…
As for Catholicism not being Christianity, either St. Peter was the first pope or not. Of course who knows what early Christianity was all about anyway since its\’ diversity was obliterated once Rome acquired ownership of Christianity Inc.
Are you a lapsed Catholic?
Many of the more bile-laden critics of the Catholic church seem to be lapsed Catholics..
I see the Orthodox church and the eastern churches in general as more representative of traditional Christianity.
I think the Catholic church has always been too directly mixed up with the state and the banking sector.
No, my ancestry is French/Lutheran…alsacian. I just think that Jesus is just another false prophet and that the real one was Zarathustra. No magic, no tricks…just the truth (if you can handle it).
Hi Lila, Nice to have you back. The issue you discuss–Catholic social teachings and Rothbardian libertarianism–is one that interests me greatly. I find much to admire in the libertarians. But at the end of the day I come down very much on the Catholic teaching, as you do. Are you still living in S. America? I\’m back in Philly! take care, Caryl
Hi Caryl,
Thanks.
No, I’m not in S. America.
Too much of a hop for me.
There are lots of things to admire and like about Rothbard…and some things not to.
It’s more a question of style.
Rothbard is easily one of the most readable and approachable of theorists, but in the end, it’s not about what other people think or how popular someone is.
You have to trust your own judgment about whether to find someone a reliable guide on moral questions on not.
And that doesn’t mean that they have to be right on everything.
I think Feser got Iraq wrong for reasons other than his thinking powers.
I think he got it wrong because he didn’t like the kind of people criticizing it and reflexively defended the US because of it.
Which shows that even with powerful minds, very often there is an emotion behind the judgment.
Hi JC,
I think your interpretation of Jesus is odd. The whole point of the temptations was the abjuring of magic…which is not defined as “tricks” but as the coercion of other people’s will through (apparently) supernormal means.
The so-called miracles were demanded from Jesus, not volunteered, and were always a response to human suffering.
Miracle, mystery and authority, were Dostoevsky’s charges against the Catholic Church, not against Jesus.
I don’t know Zoroaster except through Nietzsche.
But Nietzsche himself is so replete with Buddhist and Hindu notions, it’s a pity not to go to the original.
I’m quite willing to accept anything about Jesus (gay, cannibal, drunk, married with children, ancestor of Normans, prophet of Mormons, failed jihadist etc. etc.), if it’s credible.
But all I get from people is texts written hundreds of years later, filled with anachronistic language that smells like an agenda to me.
No interest in changing anyone’s mind, and always eager to hear new facts, if any.
“The second is that this would seem to entail that to some significant degree, determining the specific amount of freedom we ought to have from outside interference with our moral choices must be a matter of prudential judgment and contingent circumstances rather than a clear-cut appeal to self-ownership rights. The third is that this is bound to entail that it is at least in principle legitimate for government to outlaw actions that are, from the point of view of natural law, intrinsically immoral, such as prostitution, the sale of illicit drugs and pornography, and so forth….”
Non sequitur. Just because something isn’t right according to God doesn’t mean human government has been granted– or should be granted — authority to prohibit it.
The purpose of political philosophy, as opposed to moral philosophy or theology, is to govern government, which throughout history has proven to be the most anarchistic force of all.
Catholics who conflate the moral and the political have yet to shake off the grandiose claims of temporal supremacy that Rome claimed for herself centuries ago.
If people feel their theology is the right law for secular civil government, they have the burden to prove this. And they should be entirely consistent in enforcing that theology. Meaning, for example, be willing to kill all heretics. None of these weak arguments about “prudence” — if it’s wrong it’s wrong. Off with their heads!
The truth is, Christianity as understood as the teachings of Christ and the Apostles contains not a hint of a breath of a whisper about Christians taking over temporal rule or civil government in the present world era.
The only historical recorded example of a divinely instituted government occurred over 3,000 years ago. We have not been so blessed at any time since.
We do look forward to the coming of Christ to destroy and replace human governments. No matter how one interprets the second coming, it sure ain’t the Roman church and it sure ain’t any present Protestant church and it sure ain’t Rome on the Potomac. We remain in the “times of the gentiles.” Our duty is to uphold righteousness and justice to the extent we can — first and foremost in our own behavior and amongst our own communities. Not to impose upon others.
The Scriptural and other evidence is that early pure Christianity did utilize the available laws where consonant with Divine law (eg, against murder, theft, and fraud). In case of conflict they had to take sides, and which side was and is a matter of individual conscience.
The Christians who founded America did so to escape “Catholic natural law” as filtered through the mini-Catholic Church headed by the king of England. Some sought to create their own version of church tyranny, while the most enlightened sought a haven for freedom of conscience — the only basis for true righteousness. (“Coerced righteousness” is an oxymoron. )
Real Christianity demands the individual choose. Real Christians today should emphasize that — not the sword of state coercion.
Besides, professing Christians in virtually every century since the first (the least corrupt) have shown themselves equal to the Pharisees in concocting Talmuds of labyrithine “commandments of men” which have often “made the law of God of none effect” (Mark 7:13). Beyond enforcing a few big items — don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t defraud, similar to the “noahide laws” for Gentiles — human secular government cannot be trusted with administering personal conscience or behavior.