Pope and Kant

Anonymous Guest's picture
Submitted by Anonymous Guest on Sat, 2009-05-30 09:44

" We cannot depend on material property...we must learn self-denial, simplicity, austerity, moderation...resist the temptation to make desires the first rule of life"-said Benedict XVI during a general audience at Rome's St Peter Square-as reported by Sapa-AFP in "The Citizen" (SA) 28 May 2009.

"" self-love which, when taken as the principle of all our maxims, is the very source of evil...It is a duty to do good to other men according to our power, whether we love them or not. Consequently man (even the best) is evil only in that he reverses the moral order of the incentives (desires, inclinations-Leonid) when he adopts them into his maxim." Immanuel Kant

So what's in common between contemporary catholic Pope and 18th century German philosopher who was an atheist?
The answer is the hatred for Man, altruism which is still venomous evil today as it was 200 years ago when created by Kant. The “Holy Sight” went much farer from the orthodox Christian teaching “Love your neighbour as yourself” or biblical Golden Rule. Both presuppose first and foremost self-love. Pope demands self-denial which is not Christ but pure Kant. I wonder whether Pope’s German origin has anything to do with his position.


( categories: )

Mindy

jeffrey smith's picture

Jeffrey, do you actually believe there are priests, that is, educated adults who buy into religion on the same terms that they use to preach to their congregations?

I don't *believe* there are such priests. I *know* there are such priests, having encountered a number of them over the years. And their congregants, at least here in the USA, are relatively educated (more educated, say, than your average fundamentalist/evangelical/pentecostal Protestant).

I think, however, that much of the problems with the Catholic Church come from the fact that it is an institution which dogmatically believes that its leadership is infallible because it is always led by the Holy Spirit, even when the technical conditions of papal infallibility are not met (speaking ex cathedra, etc.) Hence the organizational core long again turned to defending the institution and forgot that its declared purpose is to be Mater et Magistra. Every big institution faces such problems; the Catholic Church, having been around longer and in general being bigger than most, has the problem to that greater of a degree. And the infallibility thing only aggravates it. Witness Iran for another aspect of that.

And while a lot of priests at the parish level are on a power trip, there are a lot of others who are not; and even the ones who are on a power trip started off as sincere believers.

Celibacy is unreasonable?

Ptgymatic's picture

We are talking about a dogmatic cult of self-sacrifice that holds new-borns to be wicked...we are talking about the people who want to preach guilt and martyrdom, and listen to people's confessions...you think celibacy is any more unreasonable than what they've bought in to, what they set out to promulgate?

Mindy

Sincere clergy?

Ptgymatic's picture

Jeffrey, do you actually believe there are priests, that is, educated adults who buy into religion on the same terms that they use to preach to their congregations?

Mindy

Obligations to Others

Stephen Boydstun's picture

Natural Motives and the Motive of Duty
Hume and Kant on Our Duties to Others

———————Christine M. Korsgaard

Cf. Rand:
“Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None—except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and theirs demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs” (AS 1022).

“If men are to live together in a peaceful, productive, rational society and deal with one another to mutual benefit, they must accept the basic social principle without which no moral or civilized society is possible: the principle of individual rights” (CUI 330).

“For every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights” (CUI 322).

See also: A, B.

whose apologizing for the Church?

jeffrey smith's picture

And in case anyone is reading and believing any of the nonsense written here by the apologists for the Catholic Church, at least be absolutely clear on one fact: no, and hell no, pedophilia is not some modern phenomena within the Catholic Church that has sprung up suddenly within the last 2 or 3 generations.

I don't see anyone apologizing for the Church here. I was merely pointing out that the claim that the only motivation to enter the priesthood is the opportunity to sexually abuse children is so absurd that only a buffoon would make it. There are other motives to enter the church, and not all of them creditable. I pointed out the most important one--the opportunity to force other people to believe and act in certain ways, to the increase in power of the enforcer.

And it also does a disservice by pretending that no one enters the priesthood because he actually believes in what the Church teaches. Not to mention all those women who want to become RC priests, who don't need to go through all that trouble just for the chance to have an illicit thrill.

It is true, however, that pedophilia is not a recent phenomena. There's a fairly recent book about one such episode in the 1600s, in which the cover-up reached up to and including the then reigning pope. Unfortunately, I've forgotten the title of the book or any other details, but I suspect you'll find it on recent best seller lists.

I see that Lindsay is giving

Howard's picture

I see that Lindsay is giving the Catholic Church and Immanuel Kant the sound caning they deserve. Bravo.

And in case anyone is reading and believing any of the nonsense written here by the apologists for the Catholic Church, at least be absolutely clear on one fact: no, and hell no, pedophilia is not some modern phenomena within the Catholic Church that has sprung up suddenly within the last 2 or 3 generations. Quite the contrary, given the inherent sexual repression that is demanded by Catholic Church’s doctrine, one does not have to be Sigmund Freud to realize that the entire history of that church would be riddled with cases of pedophilia and the rape of women. What’s more, given the greater scrutiny the modern church is under, in all likelihood, sexual deviancy within the Church was probably far greater in the past than today.

As to Kant, I would not go so far as Lindsay has in saying Kant was probably a pedophile; since to my knowledge, there is no historical or even anecdotal evidence of such. But given the overall vileness of Kant’s anti-life philosophy, along with the horrorific legacy that philosophy left as a forerunner and inspiration to both Nazism and Communism … at the very least, Kant was a rapist of the human spirit.

Howard

Stephen

Leonid's picture

"Kant’s claim that prudentially motivated actions are at best nonmoral and at worst immoral will be familiar to those brought up to think that actions performed merely to satisfy our own desires cannot be morally admirable and that selfishness is a, if not the, fundamental moral vice.” (pp. 310–11)
That's true. We discussed that in great details on another thread " And the winner is..."

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

Celibacy and Kiddy-Fiddling

Robert Campbell's picture

Is Mr. Perigo serious?

Folk become priests in the first place because they want to kiddy-fiddle. Renouncing marriage is not a problem for them. They get a job where there are kids galore. Kids who trust them because of their status. It's the Church of Pedophilia.

It's clear that some men with pedophilic inclinations have been attracted to the Catholic priesthood over the past two or three generations. It's also clear that some in authority in the Catholic church both underestimated the extent and severity of the problem and tried to conceal it.

But I strongly suspect that most of the actual offenders, let alone those who have tried to keep their offenses quiet, have more complex motivations than Mr. Perigo seems to be willing to recognize.

To be clear, I consider celibacy unnatural and take it as a further strike against any religion if it imposes priestly celibacy or monasticism. My opinion appears to be widely shared at the present time. Monasteries and convents are shuttered, a huge percentage of the surviving nuns live in retirement homes, and the church is having more and more trouble recruiting priests.

During most of its history, the Catholic Church enforced priestly celibacy rather unevenly and spasmodically. Does Mr. Perigo really think that Padre Antonio Vivaldi was a "kiddy-fiddler"? Or Canon Nicolaus Copernicus? Both were belatedly chastised by their bishops for keeping mistresses...

Robert Campbell

Perigo

jeffrey smith's picture

Use your noggin! Folk become priests in the first place because they want to kiddy-fiddle. Renouncing marriage is not a problem for them

Well, that would obviously be news to this fellow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

And, since he's Cuban, the name is pronounced is Coo-tee-ay.

The fact that some men become priests because they actually believe in it apparently has never crossed Perigo's mind, which says loads about him. Although the fact that others become priests because it allows them to demand that other people think in the way that they approve, ought to have been more apparent to him--but that probably require far greater self knowledge than he has ever demonstrated.

Prof ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Use your noggin! Folk become priests in the first place because they want to kiddy-fiddle. Renouncing marriage is not a problem for them. They get a job where there are kids galore. Kids who trust them because of their status. It's the Church of Pedophilia. Just see the stuff that came out of Ireland last week! And those dirty old bastards then presume to tell the rest of us what we may and may not do on pain of hellfire. It's the sickest racket ever.

And the Rest?

Robert Campbell's picture

The summary that Mr. Perigo provided of a BBC documentary, if the claims are true, shows that Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) helped to cover up for pedophile priests.

Where's the evidence for Mr. Perigo's other assertions?

Robert Campbell

Prof

Lindsay Perigo's picture

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/pro...

A secret document which sets out a procedure for dealing with child sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church is examined by Panorama.
Crimen Sollicitationis was enforced for 20 years by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became the Pope.

It instructs bishops on how to deal with allegations of child abuse against priests and has been seen by few outsiders.

Critics say the document has been used to evade prosecution for sex crimes.

Crimen Sollicitationis was written in 1962 in Latin and given to Catholic bishops worldwide who are ordered to keep it locked away in the church safe.

It instructs them how to deal with priests who solicit sex from the confessional. It also deals with "any obscene external act ... with youths of either sex."

It imposes an oath of secrecy on the child victim, the priest dealing with the allegation and any witnesses.

Breaking that oath means excommunication from the Catholic Church.

Reporting for Panorama, Colm O'Gorman finds seven priests with child abuse allegations made against them living in and around the Vatican City.

One of the priests, Father Joseph Henn, has been indicted on 13 molestation charges brought by a grand jury in the United States.

During filming for Sex Crimes and the Vatican, Colm finds Father Henn is fighting extradition orders from inside the headquarters of this religious order in the Vatican.

The Vatican has not compelled him to return to America to face the charges against him.

After filming, Father Henn lost his fight against extradition but fled the headquarters and is believed to be hiding in Italy while there is an international warrant for his arrest.

Colm O'Gorman was raped by a Catholic priest in the diocese of Ferns in County Wexford in Ireland when he was 14 years old.

Father Fortune was charged with 66 counts of sexual, indecent assault and another serious sexual offence relating to eight boys but he committed suicide on the eve of his trial.

Colm started an investigation with the BBC in March 2002 which led to the resignation of Dr Brendan Comiskey, the bishop leading the Ferns Diocese.

Colm then pushed for a government inquiry which led to the Ferns Report.

It was published in October 2005 and found: "A culture of secrecy and fear of scandal that led bishops to place the interests of the Catholic Church ahead of the safety of children."

The Catholic Church has 50 million children in its worldwide congregation and no universal child protection policy although in the UK there is the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children & Vulnerable Adults.

In some countries this means that the Crimen Sollicitationis is the only policy followed.

The Vatican has refused repeated requests from Panorama to respond to any of the cases shown in the film.

Panorama: Sex crimes and the Vatican was on BBC One on October 1 2006.

Huh?

Robert Campbell's picture

Mr. Perigo makes some astounding claims about pedophilia:

The Pope, I have no doubt, is a pedophile. As, probably, was Kant.

How the hell does Mr. Perigo claim to know this about either of them?

Benedict, under John Paul's tutelage (another pedophile, for sure) provided a mechanism for the suppression of evidence of pedophilia within the Catholic Church.

There were cover-ups of pedophilia in the Catholic Church, both in the USA and elsewhere. What was Cardinal Ratzinger's role in them?

And where did Mr. Perigo get the notion that John Paul II was a pedophile?

Does he intend to produce any evidence, or is he just making stuff up as he goes along?

Robert Campbell

Note on Kant - Religion and Ethics

Stephen Boydstun's picture

On Kant’s conception of rational faith, see Kant from A to Bxxx.

Roger Sullivan has a neat chapter on Kant’s philosophy of religion. It is the eighteenth chapter in Immanuel Kant’s Moral Theory (Cambridge 1989).

Concerning self-love and selfishness, Prof. Sullivan writes that in Kant’s view:

“When we act prudentially our motive is always self-interest. Conceptually, for Kant, it is not possible for us to act prudentially from anything but a self-serving motive; we would not act as we do unless we found it in our own interest. (See Gr. 10–11/389–99; Pr.R. 22.) Such a motive, Kant holds, is equivalent to what we ordinarily mean by self-love (Selbstliebe), which he conflates with selfishness (Eigenleibe), that is, caring mainly or only about ourselves and our own welfare, however we conceive it. (See Pr.R. 73–74.)” (p. 32)

“In his Nicomachean Ethics, Book 9, Chapter 8, Aristotle had argued that conflating the notions of ‘self-love’ and ‘selfishness’ (as Kant did) was a common mistake, yet still a mistake because it is ‘not in harmony with the facts’. According to Aristotle, the morally best person ‘is an egoist or self-lover in the truest sense’. Kant makes a bow in this direction when he states that selfishness becomes morally acceptable ‘rational self-love’ when it is subordinated to the moral law. (See Pr.R. 73.) By contrast, ‘self-conceit’ or arrogance (Eigendünkel) has no place in the life of moral virtue and needs to be suppressed as completely as possible.

“Today the theory that claims that all human conduct can be explained by a Kantian-like analysis of prudential action is called ‘psychological egoism’ or ‘psychological hedonism’. . . . [Cf.] Kant’s claim that prudentially motivated actions are at best nonmoral and at worst immoral will be familiar to those brought up to think that actions performed merely to satisfy our own desires cannot be morally admirable and that selfishness is a, if not the, fundamental moral vice.” (pp. 310–11)

I recall Dorothea Frede once remarking that a “Kantian” identification of virtue with altruism was the doing of Lutheran clergy turning Kant to their own canon.

Note.

Lindsay

Leonid's picture

"The Pope, I have no doubt, is a pedophile." That I don't know. BTW, do you know what's difference between pedophile and pedagogue?
Pedophiles at least love children. Altruists have no loves, only duties. So pedophilia is lesser evil. Kant himself was apparently asexual which no doubt influenced his philosophy. By intuition from the noumenal dimension one can infer just about any kind of nonsense.

Leonid ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I agree with all that. I just wanted to know why you called him an atheist? Beyond what you say here, Kant taught that we can infer God by intuition from the noumenal dimension.

Lindsay

Leonid's picture

"Where do you get the idea that Kant was an atheist from? "
Kant was cynical agnostic. He didn't accept the idea of Biblical God but as you pointed out wanted to save religious superstition for its as he called it "regulatory" function since it fits his ethical theory based on duties. In other words Kant reduced religion to morality. For Kant " "Religion is...the recognition of all duties as divine commands"(Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone). Kant started with the statetement "Hence for its own sake morality does not need religion at all". But since man is such an evil, self-loving creature he needs divine authority to obey his duties. "...since the command, Obey the authorities! is also moral, and since obedience to it, as to all injunctions of duty, can be drawn into religion, it is fitting that a treatise which is dedicated to the definite concept of religion should itself present an example of this obedience..." Kant needed religion to implement his morality of obedience and altruism.

Leonid ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Where do you get the idea that Kant was an atheist from? His whole project was to save the God superstition from science.

Of course, the generality of your post is correct. Fred Seddon notwithstanding, Kant was a vicious altruist.

The Pope, I have no doubt, is a pedophile. As, probably, was Kant. Benedict, under John Paul's tutelage (another pedophile, for sure) provided a mechanism for the suppression of evidence of pedophilia within the Catholic Church. I'm surprised Babs Branden hasn't written hagiographies of these evil bastards with a Foreword by Jim Peron. Such twisted souls hate nothing more than the spectacle of adult-to-adult sexual/romantic happiness and fulfillment.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.