{"id":8679,"date":"2013-06-28T11:42:36","date_gmt":"2013-06-28T11:42:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2013\/06\/28\/kolakowski-on-catholicism\/"},"modified":"2013-06-28T11:42:36","modified_gmt":"2013-06-28T11:42:36","slug":"kolakowski-on-catholicism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2013\/06\/28\/kolakowski-on-catholicism\/","title":{"rendered":"Kolakowski on Catholicism"},"content":{"rendered":"

London Karl points us to this interview<\/a>, some of which I reproduce here:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

It would be silly, foolish, to object to the Church on the grounds that it is "traditionalist". The whole strength of the Church is that it is faithful to its tradition – otherwise, what is the Church for? If the Church is going to become a political party which merely adapts its beliefs to changing opinions, it can be safely dismissed altogether, because there are political parties doing such things. If the Church is there to sanctify and bless in advance every change in intellectual and moral fashion in our civilisation, then again – what is the Church for? The Church is strong because it has a traditional teaching, a spiritual kernel, which it considers its immutable essence. It cannot just yield to any pressure from people who think that whatever is in fashion at the present moment should immediately be adopted by the Church as its own teaching, whether in the field of political ideas or of daily life.<\/span><\/p>\n

I think the Church is not only right in keeping its historically shaped, traditional identity. Its very role, its very mission on earth would become unclear if it did not do that. And so I would not be afraid at all, and I would not take it as an insult, that critics describe the Church as traditionalist or conservative.<\/span><\/p>\n

There must be forces of conservatism in society, in spiritual life, by which I mean the forces of conservation. Without such forces, the entire fabric of society would fall apart.<\/span><\/p>\n

[. . .]<\/span><\/p>\n

In my view, there is no way in which Marxist teaching could be reconciled with Christianity. Marxism is anti-Christian, not contingently, not by accident, but in its very core. You cannot reconcile it.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

There is no Christianity where no distinction is made between temporal and eternal values. There is no Christianity where [the word 'where' is wrong; should be UNLESS<\/span>] one accepts that all earthly values, however important, however crucial to human life, are nevertheless secondary. What the Church is about essentially is the salvation of human souls, and the human soul is never reducible to social conditions.<\/span><\/p>\n

There is an absolute value in the human person. The Church believes that the world – the social world, the physical world – is merely an expression of the divine, and as such it can only have instrumental or secondary value. Without this, there is no point in speaking about Christianity.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Kolakowski is absolutely right about this.  His is an exceedingly penetrating mind.  I recommend his work.  See my <\/span>Kolakowski category<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\nRelated articles<\/span><\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>The Danger of Appeasing the Intolerant<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Are the Dogmas of Catholicism Divine Revelations?<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>The Stove 'Dilemma' and the Lewis 'Trilemma'<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

London Karl points us to this interview, some of which I reproduce here: It would be silly, foolish, to object to the Church on the grounds that it is "traditionalist". The whole strength of the Church is that it is faithful to its tradition – otherwise, what is the Church for? If the Church is going … Continue reading “Kolakowski on Catholicism”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[58,135],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8679","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-christian-doctrine","category-kolakowski"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8679","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8679"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8679\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8679"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8679"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8679"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}