Lessons posted:it has nothing to do with canon, but i do think explaining society in terms of The Protestant Work Ethic is fundamentally retarded
Cry about it
AVE_MARIA_GRATIA_PLENA posted:Lessons posted:it has nothing to do with canon, but i do think explaining society in terms of The Protestant Work Ethic is fundamentally retarded
weber was in fact wrong and that has only marginally anything to do with it
Cry about it
babyfinland posted:you're kind of like baby huey in that you have this anti-canon of highly influential people whose thought you outright dismiss as being thoroughly worthless. and it seems like its based on like a superficial reading or disagreement with popular notion of their work rather than a proper engagement with it. like weber not asserting economic determinism therefore he sucks. kind of silly if u ask me
cry about it
AVE_MARIA_GRATIA_PLENA posted:daddyholes posted:AVE_MARIA_GRATIA_PLENA posted:daddyholes posted:Agnus_Dei posted:Protestants, aka secularism/modernity/liberalism
if you're going to continue to fake Catholicism you need to get your game up because this isn't working
what
Pacem in terris
the statement "protestant/secular/liberal modernity invented the concept of human rights toward bourgeois ends" and the statement "the church has since used and/or referenced this concept, long after it became hegemonic, in its official documents" aren't irreconcilable fuckboi
Guess what son, Pacem in Terris says human rights come from Scripture and natural law
(edit to fix quotes)
Edited by cars ()
He who would have the Star of Peace shine out and stand over society should cooperate, for his part, in giving back to the human person the dignity given to it by God from the very beginning; should oppose the excessive herding of men, as if they were a mass without a soul; their economic, social, political, intellectual and moral inconsistency; their dearth of solid principles and strong convictions, their surfeit of instinctive sensible excitement and their fickleness.
He should favor, by every lawful means, in every sphere of life, social institutions in which a full personal responsibility is assured and guaranteed both in the early and the eternal order of things. He should uphold respect for and the practical realization of the following fundamental personal rights; the right to maintain and develop one's corporal, intellectual and moral life and especially the right to religious formation and education; the right to worship God in private and public and to carry on religious works of charity; the right to marry and to achieve the aim of married life; the right to conjugal and domestic society; the right to work, as the indispensable means towards the maintenance of family life; the right to free choice of state of life, and hence, too, of the priesthood or religious life; the right to the use of material goods; in keeping with his duties and social limitations
What is key to all of this, and should not be lost in the mix, is that human rights are part of a complex of rights and duties that cannot be separated. This is one way in which human rights, as understood from reading of Scripture, differ from the secular conceptions with which they are often confused.
daddyholes posted:I am being really, really nice about this but please, know your limits. It is simply not Catholic to say that human rights have their origin in "secular liberalism" rather than the teachings of Jesus Christ in word and deed
I said that it was a secular abstraction of a Christian idea. But I was referring specifically to the idea of "human rights" and not the Christian idea which gave way to it. This particular phrase, which is intentionally non-religious, has its origins in modernity, and the encyclicals you linked which use the phrase do so long after it became popular in modernity. The Vatican actively resisted using the phrase for quite a long time, as the first encyclical you linked which uses it is in the 20th century.
It is important to realize that "human rights" are different from the traditional Christian idea. For one thing, "human rights" includes "religious freedom" (i.e. secularism) which for a long time was not a teaching of the Church, and certainly not of Scripture, which considers tolerance of alternative religious practices the primary form of apostasy. Tolerance of idolatry is the reason Israel and Judah are destroyed. Jesus said clearly and repeatedly that those who did not follow him, and only him, are at risk of going to Hell. The purpose of the Church has always been to convert people to Christianity as commanded by Jesus.
"Human rights" is actually an umbrella term for modernist notions of rights, which has expanded over time, and differs from the traditional Christian idea. Since the secular revolution, "human rights" have been expanded beyond religious freedom to justify all sorts of ideas which contradict traditional Catholic teaching, including the ability to procure abortions, engage in same-sex marriages, etc. Thus when the Church uses this term they are validating the secular idea which was created for the sole purpose of replacing the Catholic idea.
roseweird posted:it sounds like according to you the modernist human rights is just like the christian notion except it differs on the issues the catholic church is fundamentally wrong and viciously petty about
capitalism
Agnus_Dei posted:I said that it was a secular abstraction of a Christian idea.
Agnus_Dei posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:where does the supposedly inviolable nature of 'human rights' come from anyway, some Swiss bureaucrat? i'm always surprised when i hear people talking about human rights to be honest, i thought it would have gone the way of 'where's the beef' or 'workers of the world unite'
Protestants, aka secularism/modernity/liberalism
i can only respond to what you write, Agnus Dei. As stated in the radio address I quoted before, "the supposedly inviolable nature of 'human rights' come(s) from" "the dignity given to (the human being) by God from the very beginning".
Thus when the Church uses this term they are validating the secular idea which was created for the sole purpose of replacing the Catholic idea.
That is not what the Church says about it. Again, I would urge you to read what the Church has to say about it.
as for the rest of your post you seem to be revising your previous statement to conform with the Church's statements (except for the parts about religious freedom, which have already been addressed in the writings I listed to explain why there has not been a 'change'). I accept your revisions in good faith
