A Catholic Guide to Thomas Hobbes: 12 Things You Should Know

Interesting.

The autonomy of the individual expressed in “individual rights” becomes the hallmark of modern political and moral thought. Extrinsic standards, e.g., natural law, are pulled down as the individual is lifted up. Studying the moderns and how they interrelate is vital to a Catholic attempting to live an authentic faith in a modern world. It is unsettling to realize that the philosophies that shaped the modern world almost always shared a common trait: they were only able to posit their ideas by rejecting Catholicism".

Why not post the full article, and let us know what the twelve things are?

Never take any class where they make you read ‘Leviathan’.

Never take any class where they make you read ‘Leviathan’.

LOL too late.

The money quote:

As modern philosophy devalues religion, it lifts the state up to take its place. Under Hobbes, religion becomes a tool of the state by which it finds a means to keep the citizens obedient. Catholicism stands in direct conflict with this approach. First, Catholicism holds the state accountable to natural law, an extrinsic standard placed upon the state. Second, Catholicism is universal – it extends past the boundaries of the state and is thus considered “foreign” by the moderns. The Church in Rome is a foreign threat to the now great Leviathan. The idea of Catholicism as a threat to the new modern way of living will endure throughout the modern philosophers and in Locke will manifest in seeing Catholic citizens as untrustworthy members of the state due to their foreign allegiances. A critique that was heavily submitted in the history of the United State of America and arguably only waned not because America became more tolerant, but because American Catholics became less Catholic.

In all the "Catholic" (read -- Roman Catholic) fancy-pants, pseudo-intellectual philosophical blathering of this latest presentation and discussion, seemingly engaged in for reason of promotion of the RCC as the "cure", ie; popery-dopery as ultimate form of all Government even though *they* won't be entirely honest and come right out and say it (leaving it to be assumed by the Roman Catholic whom would read their presentation) truth itself is turned upon it's ear when the writers gave short-shrift to Locke --- who was no Hobbes, but rather instead was opposed to the extremism Hobbes wrote about, doing a fine job of putting his finger precisely upon aspects where Hobbes was either wrong, or hopelessly pessimistic.

Let's face it, there are those within the RCC who are jealous of the still stirring and arising, evil Leviathan, and whom desire again for that particular institution, the past Leviathan-like powers and authority which they once wielded.

That's the unspoken reality really behind the far less-than 'neutral' evaluation of Hobbes --- and the tucking in mentions of Locke as if he was some sort of follower of Hobbes. They needed to hint at some condemnation of Locke -- in order to have aspersions to the United States in general apply without then openly doing so.

Boo-hoo, cry me a river, then wipe those silly tears from one's face, and wash from the mouth (use soap) the fraudulent claims wherein 'Rome' (like "Mary"?) is projected as having been in effect; "font from whom all blessings flow", having never themselves been among the central players in what was a Leviathan-like, proto-Beast (whom can make war with the Beast?) and "the flow" having been a much polluted stream.

Know too that unless one is born again/born from above --- all the religious jurisdictional powers and [claims to] authority in the world simply cannot and will not bring about the type of conversion as is sought for by the Lord Himself --- primarily among individuals most of all -- whom then once truly converted (not just programmed by way of RCIA instruction, or give mental assent to an assemblage of dogma, doctrine, and yet further philosophy) could then come together in fellowship with one another -- and truly have much to be thankful for in spirit and in truth (like-- how one is to worship God?), upholding and uplifting one another, each one eventually taking their own place among the gifted, as listed and discussed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12.

In the meantime;
Quite kicking at the U.S. Constitution, if doing so but in 'roundabout ways (lumping Locke in with Hobbes). The United States, or the Republic which it is supposed to be, is not the enemy of natural law freedom.

Here's part of the subtle "kicking";

"...The idea of Catholicism as a threat to the new modern way of living will endure throughout the modern philosophers and in Locke will manifest in seeing Catholic citizens as untrustworthy members of the state due to their foreign allegiances. A critique that was heavily submitted in the history of the United State of America and arguably only waned not because America became more tolerant, but because American Catholics became less Catholic."

American Catholics...became "less" Catholic?

The "new modern way of living"? Like --- the first people the "modernists" such as alluded to there are not first and foremost 'bible Christian' Evangelicals of most any make and model, even before the Roman Catholic Church?

I do not believe here the writer intended to limit that being "less Catholic" only to the much criticized "cafeteria catholics" but includes all those whom would not look to 'Rome' and the pope and (so-called) Magesterium there as ultimate 'deciders', leaving things to be and extend to powers of temporal government being yet again afforded to the Church of Rome (as Supreme) not only justified in even sweeping away the U.S. Constitution and inserting themselves as "highest authority" if *they* could pull that coup off -- but thinking themselves even called to do so ---- which they know they can't accomplish, and so are frustrated, and thus in lashing out condemn all the righteous of America, along with the Godless libertines who give them excuse to condemn "Americanism".

That shining beacon upon a hill Reagan spoke of has long been something of an embarrassment to them, sort-of similar to how the Muslims of the world resent the prosperity of what they perceive as the "godless" West --- thinking themselves more "godly" and deserving of that prosperity (the Muslims by-and-large are not, even when factoring in just how un-Godly those of the West can truly be).

Almost each and every time I hear Romanists of whatever stripe -- speak their own minds -- I hear the hiss of serpents and those whom would enslave us all IF they could get away with it.

Hobbes obviously heard that hissing, but not merely out of Rome alone, for the Leviathan which he wrote of (rightly or wrongly) was not limited to the Church of Rome, but rather is one of the sickening aspects far too much part of the fallen-from-grace nature of man.

To make it out that he was writing chiefly against Rome --- what's up with that, anyway?

Did the man hit too close to home -- like maybe a hitting few bullseyes?

Papal bulls -- my foot. I spit on the pretenses of them, the convoluted nature of them which often have polluted God's own truth by having portions of it come out of Romish mouth -- which would always add it's own self-interests into the mix, if that not be among primary driving force behind the entire "bull-[blank]' in the first place!

As it seems to me, 'Rome' as it were is just one of the players whom would, even by force (and IF they could get away with doing so using force) require all to unilaterally submit and be in subjugation to themselves, and those whom they most approve of as their agents and allies --- divvying the spoils, and the tribute monies.

*They* did it before --- who would stop *them* from doing it again? What would restrain them -- the goodness of their hearts? Yeah, right. How again did that play out, the last time around? Not all that well...only liars (for Rome) refuse to SEE it.

And now of course there are yet others, the Statists of the Party of the Democrats, in the persons of Obama, Hillary, Harry Reid, Pelosi, and a legion of sympathizers and fellow travelers whom seek to pull down and fundamentally transform the very nature of the United States, which despite it many failings had for a couple of centuries now stood for basic inalienable rights having been gifted unto men by Nature's God.

One could point towards Aquinas and yet later Scholastics as for discussions of "natural law", but if those laws be truly natural -- then those of Rome cannot proclaim that they or their scholastics are the source for those, without turning it all into the philosophies --- most particularly when those same natural laws could and would be rescinded when those same scholastics would speak out of the other side of their faces -- the other fork of the tongue, and take back all which was said to have been given to men in the way of freedom, turning to having it all defined and codified foremost by those of the RCC, which itself was not subject to the same restraints which would be imposed upon others.

Sort of like how many of the members of the Leviathan-like, present-day U.S. Congress would exempt themselves from laws all others must follow, with the Obamas and the Hildabeasts among them not needing to very much follow any laws at all, breaking the very laws they would prosecute others under.

Submit-- or else risk losing your property and possessions -- even your life. Or so it once went at times and place under the (not so) tender mercies of the RCC. And now, take a stand against the Democrat Party, be perceived as possible threat to them, and have the IRS make like they were (figuratively) proctologists...and even worse in other ways, ways which I suspect few are much aware of.

Islamo-facists (Islam means "submit) seek this for themselves also, but are much more willing in this modern era to use force of arms in the attempt.

That the Church of Rome long ago was called out for having engaged in such high-handed (and simultaneously, grossly low) tactics -- is hardly the fault of those whom would dare to point things like that out.

Correction; intended to write;

Like --- the first people the "modernists" such as alluded to there are most consciously against, are not first and foremost 'bible Christian' Evangelicals of most any make and model, even before the Roman Catholic Church?

I would add, who are they trying to kid? themselves?

Look around at popular culture, think back upon the recent past -- who has been most vilified of them all but those identified by Obama as "bitter clingers" to their guns and religion".

Since when were 'Catholics' known as gun-toting rednecks?

Since when in this nation, when those of the far left would make their shrill statements about those whom in their own eyes would seek to establish a theocracy -- were not thinking first and foremost about "bible thumpers"?

Ah-HA. Gotcha.

They know where the true authority lay -- not primarily in men, but in as it is written, in the (records of) the very word of God himself, as is in the Scriptures.

“Papal bulls — my foot. I spit on the pretenses of them”.

Well Happy Easter to you too!

12 reasons I don’t click on blogs:

1. They block the text with a splash page asking you to subscribe.

(Excerpt. Click on my blog for the rest of the reasons. Be sure to subscribe.)

Is that all you have to say?

I could as well have given yourself the same tone as you just flung in my direction for yourself having initiated this thread --- and left it at that, with no further explanation.

Locke, although one whom could possibly be faulted for some things, was simply not Hobbes. Yet the writers seemed to blur the distinctions, while they went about their selective cherry-picking.

Of the two, Locke ended up being by far the more influential. The framers of the U.S. Constitution were very much influenced by Locke, though one could possibly give some thanks to Hobbes for having drawn it out of him...

Hobbes himself presented Leviathan as in the end --- all must (and even should) submit themselves too, and that "beast" was government (as men historically have used and abused powers of such).

It's not like he singled out the Roman Catholic Church out of all forms of government, but rather that he included that institution.

Yet to hear Catholics with an agenda (an agenda to have all submit to "popery" --- as if that would make peace break out like a hockey game at a boxing match) tell it, Hobbes was "persecuting" the RCC, proving in their eyes that once again "they" are the center of everything -- or at least should be, while crediting themselves (those of the RCC) with having Invented Every Good Thing (but seemingly none of the "bad").

Meanwhile --- as I did also point out --- that lacking actual conversion of individuals to Christ ---we have nothing. Philosophy, and understandings of it, may help but often can be cul-de-sac of *thinking*, ending up in the end, going nowhere much.

One simply must gain vision of --- what to do next, what is the next step (as noted by Hayek).

Do not confuse conversion (or submission) to the RCC as to being equivalent to actual conversion and submission of an individual to the Lord, and His Spirit.

Those are simply not fully interchangeable sets, albeit at least there can be some degree or extent of overlap...

Merry Christmas, and a happy birthday too.