{"id":191289,"date":"2017-05-06T03:08:20","date_gmt":"2017-05-06T07:08:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/pope-franciss-attack-on-libertarian-individualism-not-about-crux-covering-all-things-catholic\/"},"modified":"2017-05-06T03:08:20","modified_gmt":"2017-05-06T07:08:20","slug":"pope-franciss-attack-on-libertarian-individualism-not-about-crux-covering-all-things-catholic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/transhuman-news-blog\/libertarianism\/pope-franciss-attack-on-libertarian-individualism-not-about-crux-covering-all-things-catholic\/","title":{"rendered":"Pope Francis&#8217;s attack on &quot;libertarian individualism&quot; not about &#8230; &#8211; Crux: Covering all things Catholic"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    In a recent message by Pope Francis to the Pontifical    Academy of Social Science he outlines some moral concerns about    a phenomenon he sees as invading (his term) high levels of    culture and education in both universities and in schools,    namely libertarian individualism.  <\/p>\n<p>    On the first day of my philosophy classes, the professor    admonished us that if we want to have an intelligent discussion    or debate, we must begin by defining our terms. Exchanges can    become heated and rambunctious but ultimately pointless without    observing this first step in clarity.  <\/p>\n<p>    So lets consider the popes own definition of what he is    criticizing. Like the word capitalism, the word libertarian    is encrusted with numerous definitions, broad and narrow as    well as nuanced and blunt. What, then, is the pope talking    about?  <\/p>\n<p>    When the pope speaks of libertarian individualism, he has    in mind something which he says exalts the selfish ideal,    whereby it is only the individual who gives values to things    and interpersonal relationships and where it is only the    individual who decides what is good and what is bad.      <\/p>\n<p>    This, he says, result is a belief in self-causation,    which I take to mean the denial of any givenness in human    nature in favor of a radical autonomy in which morality is no    longer a question of free adherence to the truth about good and    evil but rather simply a matter of whatever I will it to    be.  <\/p>\n<p>    All of this, the pope contends (and I agree), denies the    common good. One could add that it also denies the entire    tradition of natural law via an exaltation of subjectivity and    the detachment of conscience from the truths knowable via faith    and reason.  <\/p>\n<p>    But the most interesting part of Pope Franciss comments    arise when he states that libertarian individualism denies the    validity of the common good because on the one hand it supposes    that the very idea of common implies the constriction of at    least some individuals, and the other that the notion of good    deprives freedom of its essence. This, then, is anti-social    at the root.  <\/p>\n<p>    At one level, the pope is expressing concern about the    type of mindset that denies that there are conditions which    enhance human flourishing (which is how the Catholic Church    understands the common good) through the acceptance of common    constraints (the rule of law being a good example).  <\/p>\n<p>    He also seems to be critiquing any ethical system that    sees freedom, in the sense of absence of constraint, as its own    end and finality. For Catholics and other Christians, liberty    is more than just negative freedom or the capacity to will X    rather than Y.  <\/p>\n<p>    All this is standard Catholic teaching. The question that    remains is whether the pope is offering a fair or accurate    definition of libertarianism.  <\/p>\n<p>    Consider, for example, that there are many schools of    libertarianism  Lockean libertarians, bleeding heart    libertarians, Nozickian libertarians, Hayekian libertarians,    Randian libertarians, even Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists, to    name just a few.  <\/p>\n<p>    By no means do they agree about everything. As    interesting as it might be to examine the differences between    these positions, I think it is more productive to outline some    concepts to which I suspect all serious believers could    subscribe and see if these can provide an alternative to the    specific kind of libertarianism the pope is denouncing but also    inoculate us against collectivist alternatives that some might    believe the pope could be advocating.  <\/p>\n<p>    Human beings are not simply individuals, even if we    colloquially employ this word to describe people. Certainly,    human beings enjoy the kind of legitimate liberty and    distinctiveness which some (e.g., Aristotle and Aquinas among    others) refer to at times as an expression of    individuality.  <\/p>\n<p>    Even the Vatican IIs Pastoral Constitution    Gaudium et Spes speaks of private    property as conferring on everyone a sphere wholly necessary    for the autonomy of the person and the family, and it should be    regarded as an extension of human freedom.  <\/p>\n<p>    We also know, as a matter of natural reason and natural    science, that from the moment of conception, each human being    is biologically distinct from his father and mother. Their DNA,    for instance, is different. Yet at the same time, that very    same individual human being is in relation to his mother and    father.  <\/p>\n<p>    In short, the human person is both individual and social    simultaneously. Perhaps in this light it is better to speak of    human beings not so much as individuals but as persons.  <\/p>\n<p>    The social reality of persons to persons is what    constitutes a human community. This is a bond  one which    certainly comes with some constraints, but one which cant be    reduced to constraints.  <\/p>\n<p>    This brings me to the popes concern about bonds and    constraints in relation to human freedom. In this regard I have    long found the writings of the sociologist Robert Nisbet to be    helpful, particularly the distinction he draws between power    and authority.  <\/p>\n<p>    Both power and authority are forms of constraint, Nisbet    explains. Power is a form of constraint external to the    person. This means that a constraint is forced upon a person    without regard to that persons free will, such as an act of    violence to conform anothers behavior.  <\/p>\n<p>    Authority, on the other hand, is a form of constraint    interior to the person, some overarching code that the person    himself believes in and to which he acquiesces, as begrudgingly    as the case may be, such as abstaining from meat on    Friday.  <\/p>\n<p>    Most of us freely submit to all sorts of authority, in    Nisbets sense of the word, and rightly resent what Nisbet    regards as impositions of power.  <\/p>\n<p>    Another form of authority long recognized by the Church    is, of course, legitimate law and the legitimate acts of    sovereign governments. Law and government certainly impose    constraints upon people but they also create particular bonds    between particular groups of people.  <\/p>\n<p>    From this standpoint, we start to see that many of the    debates engaged in by people of all political persuasions     including self-described libertarians  concern when a bond has    become an illegitimate constraint; or where a constraint,    however necessary, is mistaken for a bond.; or when societies    are relying too heavily on constraints to do the work of what    is normally undertaken by bonds.  <\/p>\n<p>    Alexis de Tocqueville summed this up in one succinct    question when he asked, How is it possible that society should    escape destruction if the moral tie is not strengthened in    proportion as the political tie is relaxed?  <\/p>\n<p>    These are the questions which are, and should be, engaged    in by societies that seek to take liberty, justice, and the    common good seriously. They are also perpetual works in    progress.  <\/p>\n<p>    The irony, however, is that we live in a time when a    concern for liberty  especially in the specifically Christian    sense of the term  far from invading our cultures, is under    siege.  <\/p>\n<p>    In some parts of the world, it is threatened by the type    of populism that has done so much damage in Pope Franciss    Latin America (and is presently destroying Venezuela). In other    countries, it is being slowly strangled by the bureaucracies    which rule European social democracies.  <\/p>\n<p>    Then there is the jihadism that is destroying the freedom    of many, and literally killing thousands of Christians ever    year.  <\/p>\n<p>    So while the popes warnings against the radical    individualism against which the Catholic Church has always    cautioned are important, lets hope that his words dont    distract attention from some of the profound violations of    freedom occurring across the world.  <\/p>\n<p>    Father Robert A. Sirico is president and co-founder of the    Acton Institute in    Grand Rapids, Michigan.  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>Read the original:<br \/>\n<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/cruxnow.com\/commentary\/2017\/05\/05\/pope-franciss-attack-libertarian-individualism-not-libertarians\/\" title=\"Pope Francis's attack on &quot;libertarian individualism&quot; not about ... - Crux: Covering all things Catholic\">Pope Francis's attack on &quot;libertarian individualism&quot; not about ... - Crux: Covering all things Catholic<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> In a recent message by Pope Francis to the Pontifical Academy of Social Science he outlines some moral concerns about a phenomenon he sees as invading (his term) high levels of culture and education in both universities and in schools, namely libertarian individualism.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/transhuman-news-blog\/libertarianism\/pope-franciss-attack-on-libertarian-individualism-not-about-crux-covering-all-things-catholic\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-191289","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-libertarianism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191289"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=191289"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191289\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191289"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191289"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191289"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}