Why do Catholic political commentators hate individualism?

Being as I am a proponent of what that bastion of Italian-American morality Commonweal once characterized as "all-consuming, amoral individualism", and as such responsible for everything from heroin to HIV, I always find it amusing to see what those who disagree with my views regard them as.

The National Catholic Reporter is especially good at blasting anything which smacks of independent thought:

Paul Ryan is a Catholic, but his economic worldview is essentially non-Catholic. His devotion to Ayn Rand, whose moral beliefs are nothing but a simple, sophomoric inversion of Christianity (just as her economic beliefs are an inversion of Marxism), makes that clear. One aspect of this devotion, however, is particularly interesting to note because it is shared by far too many American Catholics—the embrace of individualism, a mentality that is inconsistent with Catholicism.

Ryan, the architect of the Republican budget, praises Rand for explaining “the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism.” Ryan is not alone in his admiration of individualism. From liberals to centrists to conservatives, there is a cult of individualism that pervades American life.

This individualism, which is rooted in various atheist philosophies and Protestant theologies, is entirely incompatible with Catholic social thought.

Click to expand...

And lest you think this mentality is limited to "liberation theologists", the Catholic Right is virulently anti-individualist, and I don't simply mean Rick Santorum's inane rants about the Paulite movement. One Catholic blogger I read regularly has gone so far as to call Barry Goldwater a baby-murdering anarchist:

It’s hilarious when American right-liberals confidently assert that they’re the “real conservatives” because they support limited government; you just want to ruffle their hair, give them a lollipop, and tell them not to interrupt while the adults are talking. If you’re ever in a masochistic mood, read Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” for lots and lots more of this kind of thing (apparently I’m a left-wing fascist because I agree with some of Hegel’s ideas and want to restrict abortion).

Click to expand...

Of course, Jonah Goldberg is an imbecile and Hegelianism is quite useful to thinkers of any persuasion (including radical individualists like Max Stirner, the gentleman in my avatar). But the fact remains that the overt hostility to individualist thought by Catholics, Left or Right, boggles my mind. It's gotten so I can't help but think of Catholics in the way I'd think of a self-aggrandizing hegemonic swarm of space insects in bad science fiction.

Now, before I'm accused of anti-Catholicism - a charge which has gained currency recently - I'll head you off at the pass and cop to it, full-bore: I'm anti-Catholic. But only because Catholicism was anti-me first.

Any Catholics want to take a crack at this?

Liberation theology is Marxist. I don't know why you brought that up. Even as an Italian advocate, you should be angry with Hispanic mutations of Catholicism that are comparable to the Protestant Work Ethic.

Anyway, yes, Rand is just a utilitarian egoist who doesn't recognize moral univeralism at all. You have to be careful when describing individualism because it has a social and economic side. Economic individualism is fine because it acknowledges how different people have different talents, endurance, and tastes, so we can't expect everyone to work and live at the same thing.

Social individualism, however, is extremely frigid because it suggests social Darwinism where people aren't entitled to respect by default.

Many Catholics have taken modern capitalism's embrace of social individualism as a sign that economic individualism cannot be upheld. You see this especially in the ideology of distributism which advocates large scale welfare programs in light of modern nationalism. Ideally, this wouldn't happen because people would be tighter knit and only economically interact with those they know, but today's world is industrialized and globalized, so distributism compensates.

Barry Goldwater was full of crap too. His support of abortion pushes burden of proof on personhood which doesn't consent to exist. It basically endorses hostage taking.

Daktoria said:

Liberation theology is Marxist. I don't know why you brought that up. Even as an Italian advocate, you should be angry with Hispanic mutations of Catholicism that are comparable to the Protestant Work Ethic.

Click to expand...

An "Italian advocate"? I was mocking Commonweal in not-very-politically-correct terms.

As for Liberation Theology being 'Marxist', it looks Catholic enough to me. I'm not invested enough in Catholicism to care about playing No True Scotsmen with it; as far as I'm concerned, you're Catholic if you root yourself in Catholicism.

Anyway, yes, Rand is just a utilitarian egoist who doesn't recognize moral univeralism at all. You have to be careful when describing individualism because it has a social and economic side. Economic individualism is fine because it acknowledges how different people have different talents, endurance, and tastes, so we can't expect everyone to work and live at the same thing.

Click to expand...

Rand held that egoism was an objective moral good - hence, Objectivism. I differ from her; I am a Stirnerian, and regard all absolutes as the enemy of the individual, who is always his own only absolute. Rand's individualism was very -- Catholic.

Social individualism, however, is extremely frigid because it suggests social Darwinism where people aren't entitled to respect by default.

Click to expand...

I consider myself a 'social individualist', but I rather suspect that I mean something very different than you by it. I take 'social' as a political adjective in its original, left-wing incarnation, and am a champion of support structures outside the official hierarchy of the State.

Many Catholics have taken modern capitalism's embrace of social individualism as a sign that economic individualism cannot be upheld. You see this especially in the ideology of distributism which advocates large scale welfare programs in light of modern nationalism. Ideally, this wouldn't happen because people would be tighter knit and only economically interact with those they know, but today's world is industrialized and globalized, so distributism compensates.

Click to expand...

I have no problem at all with distributism, so long as it's stripped of its Chestertonian nonsense. It's pretty harmonious with my own views, actually. It's when Catholics begin to call for remaking the State in their own image that I start to have problems with it.

Barry Goldwater was full of crap too. His support of abortion pushes burden of proof on personhood which doesn't consent to exist. It basically endorses hostage taking.

Click to expand...

So Barry Goldwater didn't endorse the Catholic conception of 'personhood'. Why should he? He wasn't Catholic.

Einzige said:

Any Catholics want to take a crack at this?

Click to expand...

I'm not catholic, or even religious in the dogmatic sense, but I find that most Americans are fairly anti-individualism, and prefer the safety of numbers, so I doubt it has anything to do with Catholocism at all.

lizzie said:

I'm not catholic, or even religious in the dogmatic sense, but I find that most Americans are fairly anti-individualism, and prefer the safety of numbers, so I doubt it has anything to do with Catholocism at all.

Click to expand...

There's definitely a streak in the Catholic intelligentsia that is not only tribalistic, in the way most Americans are, but actually anti-individualistic in an existential sense. They nearly deify Tradition; it's a sort of socialism-of-the-spirit.

Einzige said:

Being as I am a proponent of what that bastion of Italian-American morality Commonweal once characterized as "all-consuming, amoral individualism", and as such responsible for everything from heroin to HIV, I always find it amusing to see what those who disagree with my views regard them as.

The National Catholic Reporter is especially good at blasting anything which smacks of independent thought:



And lest you think this mentality is limited to "liberation theologists", the Catholic Right is virulently anti-individualist, and I don't simply mean Rick Santorum's inane rants about the Paulite movement. One Catholic blogger I read regularly has gone so far as to call Barry Goldwater a baby-murdering anarchist:



Of course, Jonah Goldberg is an imbecile and Hegelianism is quite useful to thinkers of any persuasion (including radical individualists like Max Stirner, the gentleman in my avatar). But the fact remains that the overt hostility to individualist thought by Catholics, Left or Right, boggles my mind. It's gotten so I can't help but think of Catholics in the way I'd think of a self-aggrandizing hegemonic swarm of space insects in bad science fiction.

Now, before I'm accused of anti-Catholicism - a charge which has gained currency recently - I'll head you off at the pass and cop to it, full-bore: I'm anti-Catholic. But only because Catholicism was anti-me first.

Click to expand...

You begin by begging the question. You end by describing your fellow human beings, your brothers and sisters, if you will, as a "self-aggrandizing hegemonic swarm of space insects in bad science fiction."

I think your OP is bizarre, weakly uninformed, and pretentious twaddle.

Einzige said:

An "Italian advocate"? I was mocking Commonweal in not-very-politically-correct terms.

As for Liberation Theology being 'Marxist', it looks Catholic enough to me. I'm not invested enough in Catholicism to care about playing No True Scotsmen with it; as far as I'm concerned, you're Catholic if you root yourself in Catholicism.

Click to expand...

It's certainly Catholic, but it twisted Catholicism to accommodate Latin American struggle.

The worst of it began during the Cristero War in Mexico where Catholics had enough and allied with socialists against the abusive government (which they ended up losing).

Rand held that egoism was an objective moral good - hence, Objectivism. I differ from her; I am a Stirnerian, and regard all absolutes as the enemy of the individual, who is always his own only absolute. Rand's individualism was very -- Catholic.

Click to expand...

Well I'm a Kantian, so this will make for an interesting foil. Rand hated Kant in opposing the analytic-synthetic dichotomy, but she did an odd job showing that.

Anyway, yes, rational self-interest was justified by how the internal individual is the best judge of pain and pleasure. Hence, her utilitarianism.

What Rand failed to appreciate was how intersubjective interaction cannot be justified through that. After all, rational egoism would tolerate using others, even in anti-libertarian ways, if circumstances dictate.

On the other hand, Catholics recognize the regular practicing of sacraments to preserve salvation. That way, people remain in the proper state of mind to respect God's judgment over all rather than judging each other.

(Similarly, Kantians recognize the autonomy of personhood as the basis of perspective, imagination, and judgment. Ethics are determined by capacity, not pain or pleasure.)

I consider myself a 'social individualist', but I rather suspect that I mean something very different than you by it. I take 'social' as a political adjective in its original, left-wing incarnation, and am a champion of support structures outside the official hierarchy of the State.

Click to expand...

By social individualism, I'm referring to civil rights. In Catholicism, people are treated as dignified by default who everyone must respect. After all, Jesus died for our sins.

In contrast, social individualism allows people to pick and choose on a case by case basis who they're willing to respect. Rational self-interest would risk jeopardizing this as previously described.

I have no problem at all with distributism, so long as it's stripped of its Chestertonian nonsense. It's pretty harmonious with my own views, actually. It's when Catholics begin to call for remaking the State in their own image that I start to have problems with it.

Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on what you don't like about Chesterton?

So Barry Goldwater didn't endorse the Catholic conception of 'personhood'. Why should he? He wasn't Catholic.

Click to expand...

Catholics emphasize the soul. I referred to personhood to demonstrate a universal, nonreligious perspective.

By not doing so, he jeopardized the dignity of all existing people as if we're obligated to satisfy others' mandates just to deserve respect.

He also jeopardized the dignity of future people who will not have a say as to whether or not they join society.

nota bene said:

You begin by begging the question. You end by describing your fellow human beings, your brothers and sisters, if you will, as a "self-aggrandizing hegemonic swarm of space insects in bad science fiction."

I think your OP is bizarre, weakly uninformed, and pretentious twaddle.

Click to expand...

I don't particularly care whether or not you think it's pretentious, and it's certainly not 'uninformed'. Would you prefer I go straight to the horses mouth?

As to state regulation or state ownership of certain industries and utilities, this too is entirely a question of expediency for the public welfare. There is no a priori principle — political, ethical, economic, or religious — by which it can be decided. Many individualists, and others likewise, who oppose state intervention in this field are victims of a fallacy. In their anxiety to safeguard individual liberty, they forget that reasonable labour legislation, for example, does not deprive the labourer of any liberty that is worth having, while it does ensure him real opportunity, which is the vital content of all true liberty; they forget that, while state control and direction of certain industries undoubtedly diminishes both the liberty and the opportunity of some individuals, it may increase the opportunities and the welfare of the vast majority.

Click to expand...

Daktoria said:

It's certainly Catholic, but it twisted Catholicism to accommodate Latin American struggle.

The worst of it began during the Cristero War in Mexico where Catholics had enough and allied with socialists against the abusive government (which they ended up losing).

Click to expand...

And if Catholicism lends itself well to such 'twisting', perhaps there's something inherently wrong in it.

Well I'm a Kantian, so this will make for an interesting foil. Rand hated Kant in opposing the analytic-synthetic dichotomy, but she did an odd job showing that.

Anyway, yes, rational self-interest was justified by how the internal individual is the best judge of pain and pleasure. Hence, her utilitarianism.

Click to expand...

Rand never held to the pain/pleasure dichotomy, and blasted John Stuart Mill for doing so:

Utilitarianism is a union of hedonism and Christianity. The first teaches man to love pleasure; the second, to love his neighbor. The union consists in teaching man to love his neighbor’s pleasure. To be exact, the Utilitarians teach that an action is moral if its result is to maximize pleasure among men in general. This theory holds that man’s duty is to serve—according to a purely quantitative standard of value. He is to serve not the well-being of the nation or of the economic class, but “the greatest happiness of the greatest number,” regardless of who comprise it in any given issue. As to one’s own happiness, says Mill, the individual must be “disinterested” and “strictly impartial”; he must remember that he is only one unit out of the dozens, or millions, of men affected by his actions. “All honor to those who can abnegate for themselves the personal enjoyment of life,” says Mill, “when by such renunciation they contribute worthily to increase the amount of happiness in the world . . . .”

Click to expand...

I'm not a Randian, and actively oppose her conception of the individual and of egoism. But accusing her of 'utilitarianism' is curious, to say the least.

What Rand failed to appreciate was how intersubjective interaction cannot be justified through that. After all, rational egoism would tolerate using others, even in anti-libertarian ways, if circumstances dictate.

Click to expand...

Stirner's take on it is basically inviolate:

Morality is incompatible with egoism, because the former does not allow validity to me, but only to the Man in me. But, if the State is a society of men, not a union of egos each of whom has only himself before his eyes, then it cannot last without morality, and must insist on morality.Therefore we two, the State and I, are enemies. I, the egoist, have not at heart the welfare of this “human society,” I sacrifice nothing to it, I only utilize it; but to be able to utilize it completely I transform it rather into my property and my creature; i. e., I annihilate it, and form in its place the Union of Egoists.

Click to expand...

This hardly reduces men to a state of "nature red in tooth and claw".

On the other hand, Catholics recognize the regular practicing of sacraments to preserve salvation. That way, people remain in the proper state of mind to respect God's judgment over all rather than judging each other.

(Similarly, Kantians recognize the autonomy of personhood as the basis of perspective, imagination, and judgment. Ethics are determined by capacity, not pain or pleasure.)

Click to expand...

It's fascinating to me you regard yourself as a Catholic Kantian, as the Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about Kant:

Some philosophers and theologians have held that the objective data on which the Catholic religion is based are incapable of proof from speculative reason, but are demonstrable from practical reason, will, sentiment, or vital action. That this position is, however, dangerous, is proved by recent events. The Immanentist movement, the Vitalism of Blondel, the anti-Scholasticism of the "Annales de philosophie chretienne", and other recent tendencies towards a non-intellectual apologetic of the Faith, have their roots in Kantism, and the condemnation they have received from ecclesiastical authority shows plainly that they have no clear title to be considered a substitute for the intellectualistic apologetic which has for its ground the realism of the Scholastics.

Click to expand...

It's also worth noting that Kantian ethics, while universal like Catholic moral teaching, are rooted in perception, not innate capacity.

By social individualism, I'm referring to civil rights. In Catholicism, people are treated as dignified by default who everyone must respect. After all, Jesus died for our sins.

In contrast, social individualism allows people to pick and choose on a case by case basis who they're willing to respect. Rational self-interest would risk jeopardizing this as previously described.

Click to expand...

Not so. It would be interesting to evoke Sartre here: if I overstep the bounds of my ego, if I behave in a way that assumes I know what's best for another man, then I have actually betrayed my own ego, and have behaved inauthentically, because I have ceased to recognize myself in myself, but have instead begun to assume the role of a multitude.

Can you elaborate on what you don't like about Chesterton?

Click to expand...

The fact that he basically wrapped middle-class sentimentalism in the guise of 'deep thinking' and sold it to the masses. The man's writing is one cliche after another, a long line of pish and posh from front to back. His is a terribly effete moral system.

Catholics emphasize the soul. I referred to personhood to demonstrate a universal, nonreligious perspective.

By not doing so, he jeopardized the dignity of all existing people as if we're obligated to satisfy others' mandates just to deserve respect.

He also jeopardized the dignity of future people who will not have a say as to whether or not they join society.

Click to expand...

Why should one respect everyone? Universal love would render 'love' itself meaningless. And respect is inherently discriminatory. You have essentially endorsed what Stirner wrote; you would deny me to get at the Man, the Humanity, in me. This I must reject.

Einzige said:

And if Catholicism lends itself well to such 'twisting', perhaps there's something inherently wrong in it.

Click to expand...

What?

That's like saying if you're vulnerable to getting sick, there's something wrong with you.

No... the problem is with where the sickness (or twisting) came from.

Rand never held to the pain/pleasure dichotomy, and blasted John Stuart Mill for doing so:

I'm not a Randian, and actively oppose her conception of the individual and of egoism. But accusing her of 'utilitarianism' is curious, to say the least.

Click to expand...

Rand's criticism there doesn't deal with pain and pleasure. It deals with quantity versus quality. She's criticizing the idea of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, not greatest happiness in itself.

Stirner's take on it is basically inviolate:

This hardly reduces men to a state of "nature red in tooth and claw".

Click to expand...

I'm very lost by that quote since he seems to suggest that morality is dogma - dogma unites people for being concretely similar (being men), not for being abstractly identified (having egos).

That said, he's also naive in believing everyone's egos are respectful of others'. At best, he's a spoiled elitist who didn't struggle in the working class. ignoring how some working class egos exploit the weakness and sensitivity of other working class egos.

Ironically, Stirner criticized Protestantism for solidifying the spiritual with the sensuous, yet he's excusing how Protestants exploit "Catholic guilt".

It's fascinating to me you regard yourself as a Catholic Kantian, as the Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about Kant:

It's also worth noting that Kantian ethics, while universal like Catholic moral teaching, are rooted in perception, not innate capacity.

Click to expand...

Kant is often misinterpreted because his dialectic was the foundation for future Germanic romanticists Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Heidegger, and Marx.

In fact, your citation criticizes practical reason, but Kant's paralogisms mention the fallacy of "empirical idealism" when applying practical reason without pure reason; it's similar to the problem of induction:

Not so. It would be interesting to evoke Sartre here: if I overstep the bounds of my ego, if I behave in a way that assumes I know what's best for another man, then I have actually betrayed my own ego, and have behaved inauthentically, because I have ceased to recognize myself in myself, but have instead begun to assume the role of a multitude.

Click to expand...

No... don't get me wrong. It's nice to see you're sympathetic, but someone's ego is not everyone's ego. Heck, some people's egos expect others' egos to conflict, and if others' egos DON'T conflict, they deserve to be exploited.

You see this especially when considering the conflict between freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Some people believe that those who refuse to speak up for themselves in contesting others' ideas (including [deliberate] logical fallacies) deserve to be driven mad.

Why should one respect everyone? Universal love would render 'love' itself meaningless. And respect is inherently discriminatory. You have essentially endorsed what Stirner wrote; you would deny me to get at the Man, the Humanity, in me. This I must reject.

Click to expand...

You're proving what I said above about someone's ego not being everyone's ego. I don't know if you're really sympathetic at this point.

Einzige said:

There's definitely a streak in the Catholic intelligentsia that is not only tribalistic, in the way most Americans are, but actually anti-individualistic in an existential sense. They nearly deify Tradition; it's a sort of socialism-of-the-spirit.

Click to expand...

That permeates our culture, and isn't specific to Catholics. A case *might* be made that it's a result of Judeo-Christian western culture in general, but it's present in the formally religious and the non-religious alike.

Always the attempt by those who can not or will not understand actual Catholicism, is to create their own version of Christianity/Catholicism which they know will justify their bias, here you as much as said so, which is appreciated.

In what is essentially an OPED piece in the National Catholic Reporter is actually found a perfect example of the opposite of this thread's assertion, in that the opinion represents the reality of Catholicism which is the very wide range of diversity within Catholic political thought by practicing Catholics.

The Catholic Church is in the individual business, individual salvation, not that its individuals and institutions do not play politics, they most certainly do. But the Catholic Church itself is not an institution of priests, nuns, bishops and cardinals any more than music is a record label, a genre, an artist or a song.

As Fulton Sheen said many years ago "There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.".

One of the things I really can't stand is how some people chastise WASP culture, but then they carry on and on about Catholics.

It's like they completely forgot about the "P".

I am a former Catholic, and former seminarian, so I was for a short time on the road to being a priest.

There is a particular strain of Catholicism that holds that if you don't hold everything the church represents close to the heart, you aren't a "real Catholic." I think that the hatred of individualism that is percieved is not that they hate individuals, but that they think they are absolutely correct, and anybody who disagrees is not only wrong, but will be eternally damned.

rocket88 said:

I am a former Catholic, and former seminarian, so I was for a short time on the road to being a priest.

There is a particular strain of Catholicism that holds that if you don't hold everything the church represents close to the heart, you aren't a "real Catholic." I think that the hatred of individualism that is percieved is not that they hate individuals, but that they think they are absolutely correct, and anybody who disagrees is not only wrong, but will be eternally damned.

Click to expand...

As a former seminarian you then know that there are no "strains" of Catholicism" but there are opinions of some Catholics.

Also as a former seminarian you were taught to find joy in the uniqueness of each individual even if they did not find it in themselves. We are as servants of God servants of his children, and that means ALL of His children.

So if we stick with Christ as the perfect example He is pretty specific that if you don't follow him then get your asbestos underwear ready. So He delivers that message and goes so far as being voluntarily put to death and miraculously rising from the dead to make sure people are paying attention to His message.

If that is not enough, His disciples go out into the world repeat the story and message and try to convince more and more people of the same idea. Here we are 2000+ years later and the Church is still doing the same thing.

As a former seminarian you also know that there can be no hate in that message, in fact there can only be love in that message and in fact many Catholics are committed to serving the most desperate of human being regardless of their faith or lack thereof.

I am surprised how a simple point of faith stated by a believer, that without Christ one is destined to spiritual death in an afterlife equates into "hating" in the present life? In fact the opposite is true within Catholic teaching and proscribed practice, if we hate the sinner we must by definition hate ourselves, which is contrary to Catholicism.

Here the symbolism of Judas' choice and resulting death is contextually applicable to us all, he is not struck dead for betraying Christ and sealing Christ's death, Judas is not crushed by the hand of God in vengance, Judas runs away, hides and consumed by shame he then rejects Christ love and forgiveness one more time by killing himself.

Contrast Judas with Peter who denies Christ several times as we all do but seeks the forgiveness he knows awaits him. Both men are weak, both are sinners, one loves enough to sublimate his pride to accept his weakness and overcome it the other is consumed by his weakness.

Christ does not hate Judas the Church does not hate those who reject Christ they seek to arm them in the voluntary battle over their own betrayal and spiritual suicide.

It is the individualistic rejection of God which is typically inspired by the adoration of the self that the Church rejects not the individual for whom the Church exists as sanctuary, but I'm sure as a former seminarian knew that too.

Einzige said:

Being as I am a proponent of what that bastion of Italian-American morality Commonweal once characterized as "all-consuming, amoral individualism", and as such responsible for everything from heroin to HIV, I always find it amusing to see what those who disagree with my views regard them as.

The National Catholic Reporter is especially good at blasting anything which smacks of independent thought:



And lest you think this mentality is limited to "liberation theologists", the Catholic Right is virulently anti-individualist, and I don't simply mean Rick Santorum's inane rants about the Paulite movement. One Catholic blogger I read regularly has gone so far as to call Barry Goldwater a baby-murdering anarchist:



Of course, Jonah Goldberg is an imbecile and Hegelianism is quite useful to thinkers of any persuasion (including radical individualists like Max Stirner, the gentleman in my avatar). But the fact remains that the overt hostility to individualist thought by Catholics, Left or Right, boggles my mind. It's gotten so I can't help but think of Catholics in the way I'd think of a self-aggrandizing hegemonic swarm of space insects in bad science fiction.

Now, before I'm accused of anti-Catholicism - a charge which has gained currency recently - I'll head you off at the pass and cop to it, full-bore: I'm anti-Catholic. But only because Catholicism was anti-me first.

Click to expand...

Liberalism is evil. It is amoral and against civilized order. And the lie of laissez faire individualism is, amongst other things, that it essentially denies God, holding the individual up as the supreme good.