Monday, June 22, 2020

Envy cancels justice


Envy is often mistaken for anger at injustice, because both can issue in hatred.  But the hatred that issues from a desire for justice is righteous, whereas the hatred that issues from envy is wicked.  How can we know the difference?  One telltale sign is the object of one’s hatred.  Is it what a person does?  Or the person himself?  Aquinas writes:

It is lawful to hate the sin in one's brother, and whatever pertains to the defect of Divine justice, but we cannot hate our brother's nature and grace without sin.  Now it is part of our love for our brother that we hate the fault and the lack of good in him, since desire for another’s good is equivalent to hatred of his evil.  Consequently the hatred of one's brother, if we consider it simply, is always sinful.  (Summa theologiae II-II.34.3)

Morally legitimate hatred is always grounded in love.  One loves both justice and one’s brethren, and thus hates and seeks to correct any injustice that harms both the social order and the brother committing the injustice.  If one hates one’s brother himself, the hatred is evil. 

Now, it is not merely human beings in the abstract to whom we owe love.  The virtue of piety requires that we have a special love for certain others.  Aquinas writes:

Man becomes a debtor to other men in various ways, according to their various excellence and the various benefits received from them.  On both counts God holds first place, for He is supremely excellent, and is for us the first principle of being and government.  On the second place, the principles of our being and government are our parents and our country, that have given us birth and nourishment.  Consequently man is debtor chiefly to his parents and his country, after God.  Wherefore just as it belongs to religion to give worship to God, so does it belong to piety, in the second place, to give worship to one's parents and one's country.

The worship due to our parents includes the worship given to all our kindred, since our kinsfolk are those who descend from the same parents… The worship given to our country includes homage to all our fellow-citizens and to all the friends of our country. Therefore piety extends chiefly to these.  (Summa theologiae II-II.101.1)

(Obviously, Aquinas is using “worship” here in a broad and archaic sense that entails merely the showing of due respect.  He is not talking about “worshipping” parents or country in the way that we worship God, but rather in the sense of showing respect for them.)

So, just as hatred of injustice is legitimate when we see injustice in our brother, so too can it be legitimate when we see it in our parents, family, fellow citizens, or country.  But hatred of parents, family, fellow citizens, or country themselves (and, even more, of God) is evil.  Indeed, these kinds of hatreds are especially evil, given the special duty of piety we owe toward these others.  These hatreds are themselves further instances of injustice, as well as sins against charity.

Of course, hatred of a person, or of parents, country, etc. can be the byproduct of something other than envy, such as an overreaction to injustice.  But that is not usually the case, and even when it is, such an overreaction can morph into envy.  Aquinas again:

Hatred may arise both from anger and from envy.  However it arises more directly from envy, which looks upon the very good of our neighbor as displeasing and therefore hateful, whereas hatred arises from anger by way of increase.  For at first, through anger, we desire our neighbor's evil according to a certain measure, that is in so far as that evil has the aspect of vengeance: but afterwards, through the continuance of anger, man goes so far as absolutely to desire his neighbor's evil, which desire is part of hatred. (Summa theologiae II-II.34.6)

In other words, even when anger starts out as a legitimate desire to punish injustice (which is what Aquinas means by “vengeance” – which, as he uses that term, is a good thing) it can, if the anger gets out of control, mutate into a desire to harm the person, to act contrary to what is good for him.  That is hatred of a wicked kind, and it bears the chief mark of envy.  Thus, as Aquinas writes in the same place, “envy of our neighbor is the mother of hatred of our neighbor.”

What is envy?  People often confuse it with jealousy, the desire to preserve what one has or to acquire for oneself a good of the kind that another has.  Jealousy in that sense is not wrong.  If Bob is worried about losing his job or his wife to Fred (where Fred is trying to take these things from him), there is no sin in that.  Far from it.  Or, if Fred has a wife and a job and Bob, having neither, wishes he had a wife and a job too, there is no sin in that either, and in particular no envy.  Envy would be present only if Bob wants Fred not to have these things either, because Fred’s having them is perceived as an affront to Bob’s self-respect.

As Aquinas says, with envy, “another's good [is] reckoned as being one's own evil, in so far as it conduces to the lessening of one's own good name or excellence” (Summa Theologiae II-II.36.1).  The envious person ties his own self-respect to taking away from others the good that the envious person himself does not have.  Hence, unlike legitimate anger at injustice, which abates when the unjust person shows contrition, envy is not satisfied with anything but the destruction of the person who is its object.  “The envious have no pity” (II-II.36.3).

Envy is a capital sin (Summa Theologiae II-II.36.4).  That is to say, it tends to have as a natural byproduct various other specific sins.  First, envy seeks to defame another, to lower his reputation in other people’s eyes.  Second, envy takes joy in the harm thereby suffered by the person who is its object (or takes sorrow in whatever good the person in question still possesses).  Third, and again, there is hatred of the person himself (and not just hatred of what he does or of the fact that he unjustly has a certain good).

Here is how we know, then, whether we are dealing with righteous anger or envy: Righteous anger is directed primarily at actions, envy is directed primarily at people.  Righteous anger can be abated, envy is pitiless.   Righteous anger seeks to restore the right order of things, envy seeks to tear down, especially by defamation.  Righteous anger evinces love of one’s brother, parents, fellow citizens, country, or God, whereas envy evinces hatred of one or more of these.  Righteous anger can be motivated by charity and piety, but envy is contrary to these virtues.

It is righteous anger we see expressed in grand documents like Frederick Douglass’s “What to a Slave is the Fourth of July?,” which attacks the injustice of slavery, and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” which attacks the injustice of segregation.  Douglass and King are very hard on the people they are criticizing, and rightly so.  But they evince no hatred at all for the people themselves, nor for their country.  Rather, they call on their countrymen consistently to apply ideals they all share, namely those of the Declaration and Constitution.  They seek, not to harm anyone, but rather to secure justice for those who are being harmed.  They deliver stern and well-deserved moral criticism, but criticism that is magnanimous, appeals to reason, and is aimed at restoring fellowship with the people they are criticizing.

Some of what is going on around us today is also motivated by righteous anger at injustice.  But some of it is clearly motivated by envy and its daughters, like tares among the wheat.  The “cancel culture” that aims to destroy reputations and render people unemployable, the destruction of the property and businesses of people who had nothing to do with the injustice protested against, the push to remove police protection from everyone, the insistence on defaming one’s country and one’s fellow citizens as rotten to the core, the cruel refusal of any forgiveness, the relentless resort to intimidation rather than rational argumentation – all of that evinces hatred for persons of the kind that is typical of envy.  It involves grave sins against charity and piety.  It merely adds injustice to injustice. 

125 comments:

  1. Insightful post, Dr. Feser!

    I was wondering how you would reply to the "social justice" activist who would object that you're begging the question against him? After all, the AT moral framework you're assuming here is completely at odds with the moral framework assumed by the activist. What seems necessary is a fundamental critique of the activist's moral framework - otherwise, all these points give the Thomist no dialectical advantage against the activist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Anon,

      I don't think one needs to be a Thomist in order to agree with most of the points made here. I cite Aquinas both because I happen to be a Thomist and because he has thought about these things more thoroughly and systematically than most thinkers. But most of what he says here could be accepted by people coming from very different points of view.

      In addition, of course, I do defend the general Thomistic natural law approach in other places. Here I'm just applying it (can't do everything in one post). But again, even someone who wasn't sold on natural law could agree that there is an important difference between envy and righteous anger, that the former is a character defect and destructive, etc. Not everything that happens to have been said by a natural law thinker like Aquinas requires that one accept natural law theory, and I think that's true in this case.

      Delete
  2. Great analysis Professor!

    This makes it much easier to distinguish virtue signaling from vice signaling.

    The more I read about how jealousy and envy work and manifest themselves, the more I was reminded about all the various battles over sexual identity and gay marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Envy wants to be in the stead of the object of hatred. None of these BLM, Cancel Culture, or whatever have expressed to be "trans-racial" or desired to be white. Whatever sin they're committing, is something other than envy. It may even be a sin that has yet to acquire a name, like schadenfreude.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I assume they do not want to be what their objects of hatred are directly but indirectly, they want the power and influence that their enemies have.

      They do not envy their enemies identities directly, but they envy the identities because they are perceived as giving a oppressor status. Whay they want is the status and not the identity itself. It seems the type of distinction Aquinas would make.

      Delete
    2. Black Americans envy the status and wealth of White Americans.

      Delete
    3. Black Americans envy the status and wealth of White Americans.

      How do you know it isn't the case that Black Americans resent White Americans?

      Delete
    4. The biggest victims of systemic racism and inequality envy the status and wealth of the biggest beneficiaries of systemic racism and inequality. Not too shocking really.

      Delete
    5. Envy wants to be in the stead of the object of hatred. None of these BLM, Cancel Culture, or whatever have expressed to be "trans-racial" or desired to be white.

      No, but they do want the power and status that (they imagine) white people have.

      Delete
    6. I think we ought to be careful here not to say that imply that "black Americans" or "victims of systemic racism" necessarily harbor envy or resent of the kind decried by the OP. That may be the case for many, but there's no doubt that righteous anger is also abundant.

      -Matt

      Delete
    7. Some of the blacks who are angry would like to REVERSE the status / authority / wealth positions of whites and blacks: they would not only increase the wealth of blacks to match that of whites, they would take away the wealth of whites to make it less than that of blacks. Same with status and authority, so that whites would have to live in the condition of an "underclass" that the blacks have been in. They would not be content that society change so that blacks had "merely" the same wealth, status, and authority as whites have.

      Fortunately, this attitude is not universal to all blacks who are angry at the injustices that have been suffered by blacks. But there are middle states between the extremes: between the charity of willing the good for both whites and blacks, and the hatred of willing evil on one of those groups, there are those who, while not directly intending evil on the "other side", are content to see it occur if it means some benefit for themselves.

      Unfortunately, it can be difficult to distinguish, from 3 blocks away, in a crowd, those who are really angry at the injustices and who have no hatred of whites as such, from those who are angry at the injustices AND who are complicitly silent bystanders, being happy to benefit when those who scream hatred of whites achieve some small goal or other on the ladder of that hatred. Just as it is difficult to distinguish, in a crowd, those whites who would be perfectly happy having blacks have the same wealth, status, and authority as whites but do not know what to do to have that come to be, from those whites who are more or less content with the situation in which blacks (on average) have less wealth, status, and authority, and whom would not readily consent to systemic changes that would increase the wealth, status, and authority of blacks.

      Delete
  4. In many of these discussions, what matters is where the emphasis lies. In these days when lives of Black Americans have been snuffed by police with no due process, and after centuries of imperialism, to choose to put the onus of criticism on the excesses of (usually not wealthy) protesters, and not on systemic structures, says much about where Prof. Feser's interests lie. His interests lie primarily with support of the established order, as have the interests of the Catholic Church for centuries.

    Really, is what we need in America now primarily a denunciation of the emotional state, the "envy," of the dispossessed/disadvantaged? We've had this American original sin for centuries. What about a clarion call for change of racist structures?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. says much about where Prof. Feser's interests lie.

      Cut the crap. The well-poisoning fallacy is not tolerated here.

      "envy" of the dispossessed/disadvantaged?

      No, the envy of affluent and powerful people with positions of influence in universities, corporations, newsrooms, journals of opinion, television networks, governments, etc.

      Seriously, think beyond the talking points, would you?

      Delete
    2. Yes, ficino4ml, you infer some of the operant assumptions that underpin Dr Feser's piece. These assumptions are markedly extant in the flavour of his list of examples in the last paragraph, re 'cancel culture', the destruction of property and businesses, the push to remove police protection from everyone etc., all currently popular talking points in conservative and right-wing media. Not one mention of the deeper societal and contextual issues such as Black Lives Matter, police killings of African Americans, systemic abuse of minorities.

      Well-poisoning fallacy? Hardly.

      Delete
    3. "No, the envy of affluent and powerful people with positions of influence in universities, corporations, newsrooms, journals of opinion, television networks, governments, etc......
      ... religious organisations, churches, diocese .......

      Delete
    4. Wasn't Papalinton banned from this blog years ago for accusing Dr. Feser of plagiarism?


      (And am I poisoning the well by raising this question?)

      Delete
    5. ficino4ml, Papalinton, I'd like to ask you some pretty pertinent questions, since you implicitly support violent riots in the name of achieving critical racial justice.

      Black criminals commit 50% of all homicides, 90% of the interracial attacks between blacks and whites, the highest rate of rape, the highest rate of assault, the highest hate crime rate, and are the leading cause of death among black people in America. How will this revolution deal with this problem?

      How can you ensure solidarity black rioters and white workers? What will prevent the blacks from simply creating an ethnic zone, ruling in accordance with their own ethnic group, and treating the white revolutionaries as second-class citizens? Or worse?

      How do you prevent your movement from being hijacked by the establishment, if it’s not already hijacked? Given how all of these politicians, corporations, and universities are on your side in this endeavor, what’s going to stop them from upending a real radical movement?

      What are you actually building in place of things that have been destroyed?

      Thank you.

      Also, yes, Professor Edward Feser is a conservative political philosopher. He's not going to be too concerned with the priorities of left-wing radicals like yourselves nor is it reasonable to expect him to share his priorities. You shouldn't be too shocked that he'd be more concerned with the protection of private property, social harmony, and Christian public morality over and above the pursuit of racial revolution.

      Delete
    6. Also, yes, Professor Edward Feser is a conservative political philosopher.

      People who admire Frederick Douglass and MLK jr. are not right-wing. Not that this is a bad thing, because all right-wing ideologies (conservatism, libertarianism, etc...) are suicidal by nature. And centrist ideologies are even more suicidal than right-wing ideologies, especially liberalism.

      Delete
    7. When you say racist structures, do you mean that synonymously with terms like 'systemic racism' or 'institutional racism'?

      Because structural racism seems clearly defined to me. We are talking about the racism that results from a kind of organising. Now a business, a school, a government etc is primarily going to be organised and defined by policies. So it seems racism from a structural kind are going to stem from something like the policies that organise an institution.

      This is clear and helpful. It's also something than can be empirically checked. The problem is, there can be rule sociological objections that racial inequalities, say, primarily result from these type of structures as opposed to other sociological reasons. But the bottom line is, with a clear definition, we can get a grip on the idea on structural racism and check how bad it is.

      The problem, though, is when people use terms like systemic or institutional racism, its beyond organisational. From what I've seen of the tendency to use those terms and the contexts therein, it seems to be alluding to racial inequalities as the result of systems, whilst being vague enough that's difficult in principle to check whether those inequalities result from racism or a multitude of other non-racist factors.

      In fact, it seems common now to simply assume that if there is a disparity between races by whatever metric, this population result is typically *assumed* to stem from racism without bothering to check other causes.

      What is needed is dispassionate, careful analysis of disparity among groups and why. Including getting our concepts right (is systemic racism the same as structural? Or what is the difference? Mostly importantly how do we check?).

      Feser's post is relevant here. You seem to criticise the focus on the emotional state of america right now but its precisely it's over emotional state right now that makes the neccessary conversations right now impossible.

      Delete
    8. Also, of I could edit that last paragraph I would. Three 'right now's in three sentences. Doh

      Delete
    9. @BalancedTryteOperators

      You are the master of unproven assertions, aren't you? You don't even try to argue for your position. You just blurt out rubbish.

      If you are going to respond to me, actually provide an argument for what you're saying. Otherwise, I'll just call you a troll and laugh at you.

      Delete
    10. It's difficult to argue with people whose metric I can barely discern.

      What's your metric for political convictions? What's your measure for how parallel a political conviction is to a current social order, with 1 meaning "perfectly parallel" and 0 meaning "perfectly orthogonal"?

      Delete
    11. Balanced,

      Since you have difficulty arguing with people that you don't understand, here's a tip from me to you, here's some advice: when you assert something controversial (i.e. something you know your interlocutor would disagree with), you should try to explain your reasoning rather than, I don't know, just shouting it?

      You made two controversial claims in your post: that "people who admire Frederick Douglass and MLK Jr. are not right-wing" and that "all right-wing ideologies are suicidal by nature." These claims are not only controversial, they are downright risible. But they'd probably be less so if you were to actually, you know, explain how you came to such conclusions so that we can judge your reasoning and respond with our own.

      I will also say: your question about "political convictions" is completely baffling to me. I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

      Delete
    12. "Black criminals commit 50% of all homicides, 90% of the interracial attacks between blacks and whites, the highest rate of rape, the highest rate of assault, the highest hate crime rate, and are the leading cause of death among black people in America. How will this revolution deal with this problem?"

      So, while the black population constitutes only some 13% of total US population, they commit the staggering levels of violence, murder, rape, assault, hate crimes and criminality as you report?

      WoW! Black Americans (around one/tenth of the total population) must be working feverishly, even single-mindedly, to reach that level of committed atrocities from such a small demographic base.

      I say, Mister Geocon, victim blaming writ large.

      "Christian public morality over and above the pursuit of racial revolution."
      Your response characterises an unspeakable degree of depraved indifference toward your fellow beings. So much for christian public morality.


      Delete
    13. @Papalinton

      So, while the black population constitutes only some 13% of total US population, they commit the staggering levels of violence, murder, rape, assault, hate crimes and criminality as you report?

      WoW! Black Americans (around one/tenth of the total population) must be working feverishly, even single-mindedly, to reach that level of committed atrocities from such a small demographic base.

      I say, Mister Geocon, victim blaming writ large.

      So your answer is denying that it's even a problem and then blaming white people?

      Your response characterises an unspeakable degree of depraved indifference toward your fellow beings. So much for christian public morality.
      After scapegoating white people for the actions of black criminals, you're taking the moral high ground? I'm sorry, but I'd hardly be Christian if I allowed my entire race to be used as scapegoats for the complete failure of your side's little "Civil Rights" project. Christ called out the Pharisees in his time, so conservative Christian call out the Pharisees of ours. Take your moral preening elsewhere, you viper!

      Delete
    14. "I'm sorry, but I'd hardly be Christian if I allowed my entire race to be used as scapegoats for the complete failure of your side's little "Civil Rights" project."

      I am gobsmacked. I didn't think there still were people around that continue to subscribe to the immoral and ethically unconscionable precept of the race wars. Mister Geocon, are you a segregationist?

      Delete
    15. @ Mister Geocon:

      So your answer is denying that it's even a problem and then blaming white people?

      Reminds me a bit of Dreher's Law of Merited Impossibility: "This will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it!" Now we've got, "This isn't a problem, and it's all your fault!"

      Delete
    16. @Papalinton

      Some questions for you, specifically (since you refused to answer my previous ones).

      If you think race wars are a bad thing, then why do you make excuses for the side that, among other things, portrays Europeans as the unique villains of history in every country where they live and in every historical context where they appear; promotes rank discrimination against people of European heritage for no greater goal than their removal from positions of power; suppresses and covers up heinous crimes against Europeans committed by non-Europeans in order to preserve the narrative of Europeans as history's unique villains; conflates European ethnic pride with racial hatred of non-European ethnic groups; labels common sense assertions like "it's okay to be white" and "all lives matter" as "hate speech"; tears down statues representing European culture on the basis of their "whiteness" for no greater objective than some kind of race-based catharsis; and assert that "whiteness" (by which they presumably mean those traits that make European peoples distinctly European) need to be abolished or destroyed?

      How can you both be against the concept of race wars if your side has all but declared a race war against white Europeans on the basis of some vague idea of social justice?

      It isn't hateful or bigoted to point out that the project of MLK to create an integrated and harmonious multi-racial society has failed. Otherwise, there wouldn't be race riots occurring. Otherwise, we wouldn't have problems with the police. Otherwise, black people wouldn't feel oppressed. So why do you have a hard time admitting that it has?

      As for your question, I oppose Jim Crow-style segregation on the basis that it was designed to systematically humiliate black people and remind them of their lower status in society. It was petty and spiteful.

      Delete
    17. Papalinton, I was skeptical of Mr. Geocon's 50% figure, so I looked it up (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s./2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-43), and it's actually low. According to the FBI, in 2018, African Americans committed 53.3% of murders and non-negligent homocides. In addition, they committed 30.1% of property crime and 37.4% of violent crime. So while African Americans are killed by police at a percentage (23%) almost twice their representation in the general population, they commit crimes at nearly three times their representation in the general population. Ergo, African Americans are disproportionately likely to have negative interactions with the police (the more interactions, the more chance of some going south), and those interactions are even more disproportionately likely to involve violent crime (when their is violence at the outset, police interactions go south even more quickly and lethally). Cpntrol for those factors, and the disparity disappears. I know, I know, facts and logic are racist. What can I say? I guess I'm just not woke. Maybe some coffee would help.

      Delete
    18. @Fred

      I totally agree with you, but I might like to add the mandatory #NotAll. Blacks may make up the majority of criminals, but the majority of blacks are law-abiding citizens. The data shows this. When we're talking about police reform and the like, we're talking about the rights of black criminals specifically. If this was a problem with all black people, then the solution would be very simple: give black communities control over discretionary policing in their own neighborhoods.

      Delete
    19. MLK's dream has not yet been achieved. But America has gone from legalized slavery and laws considering blacks as 3/5th of a person to ending Jim Crow-style segragation. That's progress and that took over 300 years. MLK's dream isn't even a century old yet. Let's give it some more time.

      Delete
    20. @Don

      "MLK's dream has not yet been achieved."

      When will it be achieved, Don?

      Delete
    21. @Mister Geocon

      Your talk about a 'race war' and black people going to 'oppress whites' is literally white supremacist fear-mongering. You guys use it to justify your hatred, desire to kill, or actual acts of killing against minorities. The Quebec Mosque shooter, the Christchurch shooter, the Unite the Right rally, and other acts of white supremacist violence were based on this mindset. You're a dangerous and vile person.

      Delete
    22. You're a dangerous and vile person.

      Noted, angry anonymous troll.

      Delete
    23. You're literally promoting white supremacist rhetoric.

      Delete
    24. @Fred,

      Not really, Fred. Look at the rate of unarmed black people killed compared to unarmed white people. Also with the whole black people commit more crime, you are aware that black neighbourhoods are more policed than whites, the corrupt nature of many police result in many crimes being fabricated, and don't forget white collar crime is rarely criminalized. Why don't you take these into account. I know logic and facts destroy conservative justification for racism, but that's how it is. Drink extra strong coffee as you REALLY do need to be more woke.

      Delete
    25. Unknown,

      Geocon does not, as far as I can tell from reading him, want a race war. He is merely objecting to the widespread vilification of his race as the devils of Hell.

      Delete
    26. @Don

      "laws considering blacks as 3/5th of a person"

      It may seem a bit pedantic, but this is false. It was never about a Black individual being deemed 3/5 of a person, but about counting 3/5 of slave populations and other populations when determining the number of representatives for each state in the house. It was the slave states that wanted to count their full slave populations as it would give them more votes in the house. However, the free north states objected because why should slave states be able to count their slaves as persons when it comes to gaining more political power, while wanting them to remain as property? The free states came to the 3/5 compromise to halt the political power of slave states.

      Gouverneur Morris put it well in response:
      "That the inhabitants of Georgia and South Carolina who goes to the Coast of Africa and, in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity, tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections and damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a government instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the citizens of Pennsylvania or New Jersey who views with a laudable horror so nefarious a practice."

      Delete
    27. Cantus,

      Here's something you have to understand about anti-white ideologues. To them, objecting to their ideological worldview is the essence of white supremacy. There's no reasoning with them. And the sooner people of all races see these vipers for the poisonous snakes that they are, the sooner we'll end this so-called race war before it even begins, and the sooner we can start having honest, peaceful, and rational conversations about race and race relations.

      I never chose to be white. I never got the chance to be anything else. It was thrust upon me by rabid leftists that want to scapegoat me and everyone who looks like me, and have riled up black people through 50+ years of propaganda to believe the same. I'd be happy to be a second-class citizen in a black ethnostate if it means my children aren't subjected to such vile politics any longer.

      Delete
    28. "Look at the rate of unarmed black people killed compared to unarmed white people"

      Context is required for that. Adjusting for behaviour does a lot of it. Blacks are significantly more aggressive with he police than Whites. You dont need to have a weapon for police to justify shooting you.

      "black neighbourhoods are more policed than whites"

      That can be adjusted for, though. Some crimes, like murder, are hardly hidden. What would be important is if crimes are going unresolved more so in White neighborhoods than Black ones. Not only is that not the case, it's actually the opposite.

      The arrest rate for shootings are extremely low in Black neighborhoods, Chicago consistently being only 5%. About half of the victims refuse to co-operate with police, for various reasons. Murders connected to gangs and drugs also suffer as a result of people refusing to co-operate with police.

      You may still be right, but things are more complex than you are making out. This can be discussed without assuming the other side has malicious intent.

      Delete
    29. Billy, please tell me you don't think if someone doesn't cooperate they deserve to die and that the black people killed by the police were justified. Your claim is BS as there is countless video evidence of white people being aggressive with the police but getting out alive while people like George Floyd who were not are killed. It's not about aggressive behaviour. Stop victim blaming and trying to bin everything on "black pathology". You are aware that studies have shown that police offers heavily associate black youth with being older and more responsible for crimes and black people with apes which dehumanizes them and is shown to increase the likelihood of violence against them. Tell me whose fault is it that black people are associated with apes? I hope you won't try to pin this on black people, but if you do I won't be surprised.

      I love you say don't assume the other side has malicious intent but then go on to have malicious intent about black people and try to blame them.

      Delete
    30. Unknown,

      Black.

      Criminals.

      It's entirely fair to assume malice on the part of criminals. Not all black people. Not even most black people. Black criminals.

      Also, it's entirely fair to assume malice on your part, given how you constantly try to demagogue about white supremacy. Conflating the rejection with anti-white narratives with white supremacy is dishonest.

      Delete
    31. Mister Geocon,
      "When will it be achieved, Don?"

      2021? I don't know. We gave legalized racism 300 years though. Progress has been made is all I'm saying.

      Billy,
      "It may seem a bit pedantic, but this is false."

      Not pedantic. I understand your point. I was considering the law itself not the reason behind the law.

      Delete
    32. @Don

      That's not a good enough answer for me. Let me put it in a more clarifying way: what will we see that lets us know that Civil Rights has been achieved? What will an America where Civil Rights succeeds look like, in your mind? Because I have an idea of what happens if we keep going down this path, and I don't think it's something any of us is going to be happy with.

      Delete
    33. Mister Geocon,

      I'm not making big claims or providing answers; nor do I have foreknowledge. My modest, and only, claim is that America has made progress from legalized racism to where we are now. That's it, end if statement.

      The questions you ask though are good and need to be considered. I would like to know your thoughts. (I would request one clarification though. I imagine that you would agree the move in America from slavery to eventually ending Jim Crow-style segregation was a good thing. Assuming that, I would like to know exactly what you mean when you say "this path".)

      Delete
    34. Don,

      One can oppose Jim Crow-style segregation and race-based chattel slavery while being skeptical of the way it was carried out.

      In my analysis, I am indebted to Eric Kauffman's article in Quillette, "The Great Awokening and the Second American Revolution" as well as Christopher Caldwell's Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties. Between the two of these, I think you have a pretty clear picture of what's happening, how we came to this situation, and where we're going from here.

      For most of the twentieth century, there were two stories of America: Constitutionalism and Civil Rights Ideology. Constitutionalism says that America was founded by rugged individualists that swore allegiance to the Constitution and to the Founding Fathers and carved out a spot in the wilderness for us to practice those ideals. Civil Rights Ideology says that American history was a series of emancipations: first for poor whites, then for blacks, then for women, and so on and so forth. These are rival conceptions of America that are, in many ways, incompatible with one another.

      Now, after WWII, the Civil Rights Ideology became the dominant story among the intelligentsia, and they used it as the justification for the reforms of the 50s and 60s. This is why many people who opposed segregation were skeptical of Brown v. Board of Education. Its reasoning was on shaky ground in terms of Constitutionalism. But they weren't operating under that narrative anymore, were they? And so they continued on.

      As Christopher Caldwell notes, "the reforms of the sixties... came with costs that proved staggeringly high - in money, freedom, rights, and social stability." Power and wealth accumulated into a professional managerial class. This was necessary to transform society.

      The logic of the Civil Rights agenda is simple: once a given social issue could be cast as a battle over "civil rights," the "conservative" side would lose 100% of the time, and the PMC would win. It's no wonder then that nearly all of the business types suddenly support BLM. This ideology dominates our country right now, and it's become apparent that it does ever since Obama's second term. The logical consequences of this becoming apparent are playing out in the form of a cultural revolution unlike anything that has ever happened in American society up until this point. What we're seeing in 2020 is the complete discrediting of the Constitutionalist narrative (thanks to the Bostock decision, the Quarantine shutdown, and the establishment-backed attacks on the police as an institution). What will be the results of this revolution? Well, Eric Kauffman's paper shows that items like "destroying Mount Rushmore" and "museum quotas to boost POC art" are supported among liberal-minded people. And now, around 60% of people support Black Lives Matter, an openly Marxist organization.

      So where does this end? Well, I can make a few guesses. There will be increased racial violence against white Americans. Creeping woke totalitarianism, complete with Chinese-style social credit score systems. The destruction of any kind of culture that is "white." And it'll only end when they destroy what's left of "whiteness" - those characteristics that make whites distinct from other races. This'll leave white people without a past or a future, doomed to be consumer/wage-slaves at the mercy of corporate global techno-capital. And then, they'll move on to other ethnic groups, like the Chinese and other Asians. Maybe the Jews in Israel will get their little "apartheid state" taken apart finally. Muslim countries might finally be forced to bend the knee and serve the feminist agenda. All will bow down to woke capital.

      Delete
    35. A follow-up on what I said earlier to Don:

      What makes the Civil Rights narrative so repulsive, I think, is the fact that it is a story of the state that gets confirmed every time something is destroyed. In other words, the more chaotic and destructive things become, the greater the legitimacy of the Civil Rights narrative is in the eyes of those who believe in it, and the more powerful it becomes as a result. The incentives are, therefore, to bring society as close to the brink of anarchy as possible while still maintaining a powerful elite class that can keep enacting the agenda that perpetuates their authority. And it's much easier to do this than to, you know, build something positive.

      These people are basically playing game of Jenga with our entire societies and making bank off of it, all the while they look down at those who oppose them with righteous indignation. A perfect system for the morally bankrupt.

      Delete
    36. You actually think the Civil Rights narrative is bad? My God, you really are a white supremacist in disguise as you are literally promoting white supremacist fear mongering as you're turning Civil Rights into an attack on whiteness which is what people like the KKK said during Jim Crow and still say. You're not skeptical of the way slavery and Jim Crow were opposed. You're skeptical of them being opposed period. You want to justify your belief in minority subjugation.

      Delete
    37. The dishonesty of Mr. Anonymous Troll on full display. "Since you disagree with the narrative that makes white people out to be demonic entities, you must be out to enslave black people!" This kind of rhetoric only confirms my position.

      Delete
    38. Stop trying to play the victim. That's a massive strawman and misunderstanding to think the Civil Rights narrative paints white people as demons. This is literally what the KKK, Neo-Nazis, nationalist movements, and white supremacist, and xenophobic ideas say about the Civil Rights narrative, fighting racism, etc. To even think white people are under oppression is an insult to black people, Indigenous people and countless other groups who have faced REAL oppression. You're just upset you can't get away with being racist, and are trying to justify your racism. Utterly despicable. You're a white supremacist and you don't even realize it.

      Delete
    39. Anonymous troll,

      Two questions for you. Yes or no. Very simple.

      First, is Robin DiAngelo's thesis in her book White Fragility that all white people who deny their racism are perpetuating white supremacy?

      Second, is it possible to disagree with the Civil Rights ideology and not be a racist?

      Looking forward to your answers, troll!

      Delete
    40. Well since denial of racism is a form of racism, if the person in question is a racist and is denying it then yes.

      Second question. No. The ideology is literally about racial equality and built on it. How can you disagree with that and not be racist. Tell me something what "alternatives" to Civil Rights ideology do you have? And for the record a system that has minorities being submissive to white people doesn't count.

      Delete
    41. Thank you for answering the questions. You've just confirmed my view of things: that the Civil Rights narrative does demonize white people through the Kafka trap of "racism"; and that there can be no legitimate dissent from Civil Rights ideology under an authentic Civil Rights regime.

      My alternative to Civil Rights ideology on the race question is multicultural traditionalism and ethno-federalism. The former says that each race/ethnicity/cultural group should have some space in which they are dominant, and all members of other races must respect that cultural group's customs and traditions within that space. Take this to the logical conclusion, and you get the latter idea, under which each race would have their own section of the country to call their own and make their own laws in, but they'd have a system whereby they shared the natural resources equally.

      Delete
    42. And you're further confirming my view you're a white supremacist with your consistent desire to think the Civil Rights narrative is an attack on white people. Typical white supremacist talking points. Also thanks for showing you're mad that you can't get away with racism and face consequences for it. Seriously its beyond offensive to think Civil Rights narrative is about demonizing and oppressing white people when it literally was about freedom from oppression and demonization that minorities actually faced.

      So basically you advocate white separatism. Which is a typical white supremacist position, not surprised at all.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy#White_separatism

      Don't try to deny it as your rhetoric shows this is EXACTLY what you mean.

      Also BTW race is a social construct and not a real thing. But I guess you're a race realist like all white supremacist. I hope you don't think a white person and black person relationships is bad but you probably do.

      Delete
    43. Anonymous Troll,

      You literally think that anyone who disagrees with you on this question is a white supremacist. So you aren't an objective judge on this matter.

      So I'm going to laugh at you.

      LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

      P.S. If you think ethno-federalism is a form of white supremacy, you ought to contact the guy who came up with the idea, Fred E. Foldvary, a geolibertarian. Here's the paper in which he talks about the idea: http://www.foldvary.net/works/globcon.html

      Delete
    44. Mister Geocon,

      Thanks for the thorough responses. To be honest, I'm not read up on American history and the other subjects you discussed in your last two posts to me so I can't discuss these issues deeply. Of the little I remember reading years ago, I do recall being very impressed with the Federalist Papers and the ideas of the Founding Fathers. I do share your concern over the "woke" attitude towards white people in certain regards. For instance the fact that there are numerous publicly advertised black-only dating sites but none for whites. Or that "Black and proud!" is cheered while "White and proud!" is a career ender. Or BET televesion. Whether or not one is for or against any of these is not the issue, but rather the hypocrisy in that it's okay for one race but not another. It's not fair of course. But there are also injustices being done towards blacks and other minorities; many would say greater injustices. As I see it, it's mainly people, not a system, that cause societal issues. And we're not going away no matter what system is implemented. Even though I'm against all of the woke ideology (apart from a responsible call for no more easily avoidable black deaths by police), I am more hopeful about the current state of affairs than you seem to be. (Probably because, while possible, I don't think the extreme conclusions you suggest are likely; though I could definitely be wrong.) Still, I'm not holding out hope for any sort of utopian conclusion.

      Delete
    45. @Geocon

      No, I think who anyone who sounds like a white supremacist and repeats white supremacist rhetoric is a white supremacist. You fit this to a tea. I know based on your past comments what you REALLY want is a white separatist state and nothing like Foldavry offers.

      @Don,

      No, please stop talking. No one is saying its not okay to be white. It's jarring to see you complain about this when minorities for centuries have been oppressed, killed, raped, enslaved etc simply for being minorities and to try and say stuff like BET is saying its OK to be black and not white is an insult to minorities and the oppression they faced. White and proud is looked down upon as its literally the slogan of white supremacist and has been since slavery. The reason there is no white equivalent of BET is because whiteness is the default for everything even in entertainment and the standard all things are judged by. Stop whining about fake oppression.

      Delete
    46. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    47. Sir Unknown Troll III,

      I hope this letter reaches you. I know the under-bridge mail service is spotty at best. I was sorry to hear that you were mistaken for Shrek again. I know how much you despise ogres on account of their "book learnings". Reading is hard but stick with it. Please try to remember to breath constantly. It seems silly but it's necessary for life. If you need anything don't hesitate to write back.

      Your friend, better than you in every way,

      Don

      Delete
    48. Mister Geocon,
      You literally think that anyone who disagrees with you on this question is a white supremacist. So you aren't an objective judge on this matter.

      Among others, I've disagreed with grodriguez, Cantus, Keep Calm and Carry On, and JD, and I don't consider any of them white supremacists based on our exchange. I do think of you as being a white supremacist, because you use white supremacist rhetoric.

      Delete
    49. Don,
      For instance the fact that there are numerous publicly advertised black-only dating sites but none for whites. Or that "Black and proud!" is cheered while "White and proud!" is a career ender. Or BET televesion. Whether or not one is for or against any of these is not the issue, but rather the hypocrisy in that it's okay for one race but not another. It's not fair of course.

      White people can go on eHarmony, or Match, or almost any site without hearing race-based comments or being treated as a sexual fetish because of their race, black people need black-only sites to avoid that noise. Saying "Black and proud" is a response to the many messages black people receive that black people are inferior;, "white and proud" has a different meaning because there is no cultural bias to fight against. There are still today a very large number of movies with no significant black characters at all in mainstream entertainment, BET allows viewers to see black leads in entertainment.

      Of course it's unfair. Most black people would prefer there was no need for black-only dating sites, for saying that they are not ashamed to be black, or for BET. One should not confuse sanctuaries with exclusive clubs, though.

      Delete
    50. "White supremacist rhetoric" = Disagreeing with Civil Rights ideology = Not wanting white people to be called "barbaric devils" and "bloodsuckers."

      That's it. People who call me a white supremacist for calling out Leftists for being anti-white and for offering a different solution to the racial divide really need to take a long look in the mirror and wonder "am I the bad guy"?

      Delete
    51. Here's a question for the people calling me a white supremacist: apply this logic to other races.

      "If you leave Jews alone, they'll commit genocide on other races." (Hello, actual Nazism!)

      "If you leave blacks alone, they'll commit genocide on other races." (European Imperialism is b-b-based? /s)

      If you consider the implications of these statements to be genocidal/supremacist, then what happens when you apply that to white people?

      There's no principled way you can make this distinction without turning white people into devils.

      My "white supremacy" lies in the core assumption that white people are just like everyone else. If you think that this is evil, then there's something wrong with you.

      Delete
    52. No one is even trying to imply this to white people. What we are saying is white people need to stop oppressing minorities and be held accountable for their racism if they are racist. You taking this as demonizing white people is literally what white supremacist do. You just want to get away with hating and oppressing minorities and are mad that you face consequences for it. It's an insult to the oppression that minorities have faced to even think white people are in danger of facing genocide or genocidal talk or language (which again is white supremacist fear mongering used as an excuse to attack and oppress minorities). Seriously research the oppression minorities have faced before even claiming that white people are being demonized or face threats of oppression. But since you can't seem to empathize with minority struggles, I doubt learning this will do anything.

      Delete
    53. One Brow,

      I don't disagree at all that black people receive racist comments on integrated dating sites. No one should have to endure that. But this will happen in every aspect of society in addition to happening on dating sites. This happens in schools. Should black people self-segregate schools in addition to dating sites? (This time the segregation would be self-imposed.) For the record, I'm not against black-only dating sites; never said I was. I'm just also not against white-only dating sites if black-only ones are allowed. But because of the distinction mentioned below I could be talked out of my current position.

      You make a useful distinction between sanctuaries and exclusive clubs. I do think there is a real distinction there but who decides where that line is?

      If someone's response is "Yes" when asked if they're proud of their race I don't take issue. In regards to white pride in particular I just don't hold the following propostion to be true

      All people who say "I'm proud to be white" are racist

      If some else holds that to be true, fine; we'll just disagree.

      Delete
    54. Mister Geocon,
      "White supremacist rhetoric" = Disagreeing with Civil Rights ideology = Not wanting white people to be called "barbaric devils" and "bloodsuckers."

      That's it.


      No, that's not it. You left out your selective use of statistics to claim black people are more criminally minded. You left out your desire to form some sort of ethno-state where European culture does not get questioned. You left out how you refer to people seeking equality as "anti-white". You left out how you believe you are defending "your race". You even left out how you think Quillette is anything other than a haven for racists.

      If you say that, in your mind, you are not a white supremacist, I believe that's how you see yourself. However, your positions and rhetoric betray such an inner vision.

      If you consider the implications of these statements to be genocidal/supremacist, then what happens when you apply that to white people?

      Thibodaux, 1887
      Omaha, 1891
      Wilmington, 1898
      East St. Louis, 1917
      Tulsa, 1921

      There's no principled way you can make this distinction without turning white people into devils.

      History if full of people of all ethnic groups using their position of power to oppress other ethnic groups. In the US, it's the white people who have the power. Noting their suppression makes them like everyone else.

      My "white supremacy" lies in the core assumption that white people are just like everyone else.

      So you'll stop using deceptive quotes of crime statistics, which undermines this conviction?

      Delete
    55. Don,
      I don't disagree at all that black people receive racist comments on integrated dating sites. No one should have to endure that. But this will happen in every aspect of society in addition to happening on dating sites. This happens in schools. Should black people self-segregate schools in addition to dating sites? (This time the segregation would be self-imposed.) For the record, I'm not against black-only dating sites; never said I was. I'm just also not against white-only dating sites if black-only ones are allowed. But because of the distinction mentioned below I could be talked out of my current position.

      You make a useful distinction between sanctuaries and exclusive clubs. I do think there is a real distinction there but who decides where that line is?


      Power decides where the line is. When people with social power form an exclusive club, power concentrates instead of spreading. When people with no power form an exclusive club, there is no power to concentrate.

      Public schools have a purpose of, among other things, creating and sharing power between people with different backgrounds (education is one of the most powerful things you can have in the US, but there are other powers involved as well).

      If someone's response is "Yes" when asked if they're proud of their race I don't take issue. In regards to white pride in particular I just don't hold the following propostion to be true

      All people who say "I'm proud to be white" are racist

      If some else holds that to be true, fine; we'll just disagree.


      Are we talking about casual conversation or in a demonstration? People with signs "Proud to be black" are protesting the negative connotations against black people in society. Since white people don't suffer these connotations, what is the "Proud to be white" protester protesting against/in favor of?

      Delete
    56. One Brow,

      I don't think I've ever seen dating sites associated with power but either way I'm over my quota for time spent on the subject of dating sites.

      If you want to change "All people" to "Protesters" or something else then that's a different issue. My only claim is that I don't hold the following statement to be true

      All people who say 'I'm proud to be white' are racist.

      Again if someone else believes that statement to be true, fine. We just disagree.

      Delete
    57. Don,

      I'm not sure how I feel about a hypothetical all-white dating site, frankly. The reasons someone might use an all-black dating site seem different to me than why one might join a black business association.

      I used "protester" to indicate context matters. There is no reason to be ashamed of being white or black, any more than you would be ashamed of being short or tall, brown or red hair, hairy or bald, etc.

      Delete
  5. "jealousy, the desire to preserve what one has or to acquire for oneself a good of the kind that another has." Oh, so then if Fred doesn't just want any wife, but specifically wants Bob's wife, that would be jealousy rather than envy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've got it backwards. Jealousy would be wanted the same kind of good for yourself, envy would be wanting the specific good taken away from the other. Unless Fred wants to enter into a 3-way marriage with Bob & his wife, then wanted to have Bob's wife would be envy rather than jealousy.

      Delete
    2. jealousy, the desire to preserve what one has or to acquire for oneself a good of the kind that another has.

      This might have been said more clearly. I think what is meant is that there is a good sort of willing in desiring (properly, in due order) the preservation of the goods that one already has; this is sometimes called "jealousy" but it is not meant to impugn the action. Scripture calls God "jealous" in this sense.

      The sin of jealousy is where a man desires the kind of good that another has, but desires it not in due order. For example, when he sees Fred is happy with his new car, he is not led to work harder, earn a big bonus, and thus be able to buy just as good a car of his own. Rather, he is led to desire it without due order, so that he would have it regardless of how he might get it: he might steal it, or defraud someone to get it (if he can get away with it).

      Envy, I think, adds to jealousy the evil of having the good in despite of the other, so that you will not only to get what is just as good as Fred has, but to get into a position that what you have is BETTER than what Fred has, either in desiring to get a better car, precisely so that it be better, i.e. so that you are higher and he lower in comparison, or that you get what he has and he lose it. It may involve Fred losing that specific item to you (e.g. you taking his car from him), or alternatively you getting one like his and his being destroyed. What is essential in the evil of envy is the desire to end up above Fred in the result, i.e. a comparative positioning. What is normal, in envy, is that the envious person is not himself creative of good, and thus the normal pathway for his achieving the goal of being above the other is to tear down the other. And once the tearing down begins, there is no natural end to it because (until the opponent is destroyed) he might eventually come back above you.

      Delete
  6. Please don't EVER cite Frederick Douglas and MLK Jr as you are the type of person they would oppose, and you don't understand what they really said or advocated for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So would Douglas and MLK Jr disagree with Feser's characterization of them as envincing "no hatred at all for the people themselves, nor for their country"? Do you believe that they didn't share the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? Do you disagree that neither of these men sought to arm anyone, "but rather to secure justice for those who are being harmed"?

      Delete
    2. Hey, Mister Geocon,

      As a longtime-reader but seldom commentator of this blog, let me just advise not to engage with these trolls. Professor Feser's post and your attempted arguments are pearls before swine. Let the morally obtuse and intellectually non-discursive bloviate, incriminating themselves and their ideological pretensions. They're fools wasting their own time. They need not waste yours or anyone else's. Save the attempts at dialectic for those who are actually of good will.

      Delete
    3. I'd hardly call my posts "pearls," but I appreciate the sentiment, Modus Pownens.

      Delete
  7. Ah, yes, the whole "You-don't-accept-my-presuppositions-ergo-not-only-your-argument-but-motivations-are-suspect" line of reasoning. Very persuasive, a knock-down argument that...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Someday we may have a clunky and bungling psychology that might be able to somewhat approximate what Guardini said about envy. . . but it’s doubtful.

    Modern psychology is on a protracted and painful errand to unwittingly rediscover what the ancient Christian mystics already codified, but it had to be thrown out in the name of “progress”.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I found the article “The New Truth” (linked in the O.P.) apropos:

    “To insist that the conclusion that the arguer wishes to reach . . . must be accepted by his or her opponent as a premise before the argument begins is not the move of a person who has confidence in their truth. It is the opposite of any form of reasoned argument. It is coercive. Except the people who argue this way claim that they cannot possibly be coercive, because . . . they don’t have power—even if they are editing The New York Times Magazine, or threatening to get you fired from your job. You say they can’t have it both ways? They say, why not—and then accuse you of opposing the powerless, which, it turns out, is a form of authority that cannot be trumped.”

    In the victim olympics, the spoils do go to the victors.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What is envy?  People often confuse it with jealousy, the desire to preserve what one has or to acquire for oneself a good of the kind that another has.  Jealousy in that sense is not wrong.  If Bob is worried about losing his job or his wife to Fred (where Fred is trying to take these things from him), there is no sin in that.  Far from it.  Or, if Fred has a wife and a job and Bob, having neither, wishes he had a wife and a job too, there is no sin in that either, and in particular no envy.  Envy would be present only if Bob wants Fred not to have these things either, because Fred’s having them is perceived as an affront to Bob’s self-respect.

    Yes. I've been saying this for years when I learned it from Monsignor Pope from the archdiocese of Washington. It can get so bad that the envious start seeing Truth, Beauty, and Goodness as offensive in and of themselves and to be destroyed and ugliness exalted out of spite. Brian Niemeier notes this in pop culture in which eventually the light comes on and you realize this isn't political, it's spiritual warfare. Check out his book, Don't Give Money to People Who Hate You https://www.amazon-dot-com/gp/product/B087C4V1GM and his blog Kairos.
    With that spiritual warfare in mind, I'll try to pray a rosary for you tonight as I expect these attacks to step up in the coming months. God bless you.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amen to that Scott. And to Msgr Pope, who is a fantastic priest. We had him over to dinner ages ago, had a great evening. I suspect he too will be attacked in the coming events, and could use our prayers.

      Delete
  11. “Do I not hate those who hate you, LORD, and abhor those who are in rebellion against you?” Psalm 139:21 and 17 more.

    The first-named species of hatred, in so far as it implies the reprobation of what is actually evil, is not a sin and may even represent a virtuous temper of soul. In other words, not only may I, but I even ought to, hate what is contrary to the moral law. Furthermore one may without sin go so far in the detestation of wrongdoing as to wish that which for its perpetrator is a very well-defined evil, yet under another aspect is a much more signal good. For instance, it would be lawful to pray for the death of a perniciously active heresiarch with a view to putting a stop to his ravages among the Christian people.” New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia > H > Hatred

    I would urge you to amend your article with all haste.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is not a sin to desire the just punishment of the wicked, even though "punishment" involves, in its very definition, imposing something of an evil on a wrong-doer. It is not a sin because the intent in punishment is to cause justice, which is a good. In causing justice, the so-called "evil" in the punishment is an evil-in-a-sense because it is of such a nature as to be contrary to the will of the offender, but it is (in the larger scale of things) a good because it re-balances the moral order. So it is good properly speaking, and "evil" only in a qualified or limited sense.

      In this way, the good and just man who "hates" the sinner in the sense of wishing due and condign punishment on them is doing right, not wrong, in so "hating" them. But not even God wishes evil on sinners for its own sake, as St. Thomas says. Thus God "hates" them insofar as he wills them to suffer the due "evil" of just punishment, but this is because he more properly loves the good, in particular loves the good of the whole moral order.

      "The Lord killeth and maketh alive." But when we read that "God hath not made death" (Wisdom 1:13), the sense is that God does not will death for its own sake. Nevertheless the order of justice belongs to the order of the universe; and this requires that penalty should be dealt out to sinners. And so God is the author of the evil which is penalty, but not of the evil which is fault, by reason of what is said above.

      (Summa, Prima Pars, Q 49, A2)

      Thus I believe that Ps. 139 refers to the just man who "abhors" the evildoer qua evildoer and not qua person: the righteous loves what God loves, and hates what God hates. But God only "hates" the evildoer in a sense, and simply speaking he loves those who currently do evils because he more desires their repentance than their destruction, "not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." The hate is qualifiedly, the love is simpliciter.

      Delete
    2. Hi Tony,

      This is a reply to your two latest posts lower down the column in which you quote St. Thomas Aquinas extensively. I read it several times and being a layman I have paraphrased and condensed it in layman’s terms, hope that is OK with you.

      First of all I would remind everyone that “God loves everybody all the time unconditionally no matter what” HAS NEVER and WILL NEVER be declared by the Catholic Church. It is not in the Bible passages others have referred to and it is not in the Catholic doctrine because it is heresy.

      Forgive me for my bluntness in my following condensation but I have no more time to keep repeating myself.

      St. Thomas basically says God loves everybody because…

      ---if he didn’t then He would blast us out of existence

      ---God loves cockroaches because He created them

      ---God loves you because you exist even if you are tormented in the presence of the Lamb and his Holy Angels in fire for all eternity with your blood staining His raiment.

      “The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth”. Psalm 11:5

      Sorry, thanks but no thanks.

      Delete
    3. Besides effectively accusing Saint Thomas, the Church's greatest theologian, of heresy, you are completely failing to understand why God cannot hate anyone. You have simply ignored Aquinas's arguments only to quote a biblical passage, mention cockroaches, and then call it a day. You gotta be joking, right?

      In case you missed, to love is to consistently will the good of another. In the case of rational creatures (which is different from that of cockroaches), that includes the perfection and flourishing of rational faculties of Intellect and Will; to love someone in the most perfect way will include a sincere desire for that rational person to attain the good and perfection of their Intellect and Will - that is, the practice of virtue, love of truth, God, happiness.
      In short, to perfectly love a rational being is to will for that being to become virtuous and close to God.
      Sin is only a problem insofar as it perverts that which is naturally good, the rational individual. If we don't love the individual, we cannot even consistently lament their sinning.

      God UNCONDITIONALLY loves every individual, precisely because God unconditionally wills for every rational person to be virtuous and love Him. If God could hate an individual, He would (logically) have to rejoice in sin, which is an absurdity.

      In case it's still not clear:

      To love -> to will the good of another.

      To love a rational creature -> to desire that that person become virtuous and close to God, the flourishing of Intellect and Will which are made for Truth and Goodness

      Sinning -> willfully going against the good and the true; corrupting the Intellect and Will; corrupting one's nature in going against its natural flourishing

      To hate -> the opposite of love; to will the bad of another thing, to will a defect. It is intrinsically irrational.

      To love a sinner -> to desire that that sinner repents, follows God, starts practicing virtue, etc., ultimately attaining happiness

      To hate a sinner in this case -> to ultimately will evil against an individual sinner, to desire for that sinner to not repent, but rather be consumed by sin, irrationality, etc.

      It should be clear, then, why God unconditionally loves everyone. And why God cannot even possibly hate any individual. God can only hate a sinner QUA sinner, which is tantamount to willing that the individual repents and finds truth, virtue and happiness (therefore ceasing to be a sinner). On the other hand, Satan hates sinners. Be careful not to worship Satan.

      Delete
    4. Addendum: hatred is intrinsically irrational *when applied to positive realities/creatures*. It is not irrational to hate sin, but only because it involves a double negation: sin is the corruption of the good; to hate sin is to will non-being for sin, to will that sin doesn't flourish, etc.

      It is irrational to hate an individual sinner, because that would be tantamount to willing for an individual rational being to continue perverting his faculties, being vicious, etc. Someone who hates an individual sinner should in fact rejoice in sin, since sin is what attains the evil/corruption of the individual. That's why Satan hates individual sinners, and God doesn't. God only hates sin. He unconditionally loves every single individual, desiring their conversion, salvation, and ultimate happiness. He laments sin, the corruption of individuals. If God (bizarrely) hated an individual, He should desire sin and rejoice whenever that individual sins and further corrupts its nature. Clearly satanic and irrational.

      Delete
  12. Hi Tony,

    I challenge anyone to find the phrase or the idea that “God loves everybody unconditionally all the time no matter what”. That is NOT in the Bible and it is NOT a dogma or doctrine of the Catholic Church. The Church has NEVER defined that over the past 2,000 years.

    I know you are trying to be nice and merciful and studious by quoting Aquinas and using Latin words but it misses the mark.

    “I love those who love me ” Proverbs 8:17

    “The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth”. Psalm 11:5 (We are imitators of God. Since God hates them we should also.)

    For equally hateful to God are the ungodly and their ungodliness; for what was done will be punished together with the one who did it Wisdom 14:9-10

    For the most High hateth sinners, and will repay vengeance unto the ungodly, and keepeth them against the mighty day of their punishment. Sirach 12:6.
    And 15 more.

    The obvious proof is that there are somewhere around 60 billion souls burning in hell right now, where the worm never dies and the fire is not quenched and they are tormented in the presence of the Lamb and his Holy Angels. Is that unconditional love? Nobody chooses Hell. It is He who says ”Depart from me.”

    Gods love can be lost and Gods hatred can be engendered. No one can explain these passages away by appeal to nonexistent explanations of Gods unconditional love and the Catholic Church seems to agree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can you know the number of souls in hell? Does this have a source?

      Delete
    2. Nah, I doubt he's even a Catholic. Probably trying to badmouth the Church or something. 60 billion souls in hell lmao

      Delete
    3. "I challenge anyone to find the phrase or the idea that “God loves everybody unconditionally all the time no matter what”."

      Romans 5:8.

      Delete
    4. God causes all good things:

      It must be said that every being in any way existing is from God. (Q 44, A1)

      (Romans 11:36): "Of Him, and by Him, and in Him are all things."

      Evil in a creature does not wholly eradicate the good in a creature:

      Evil cannot wholly consume good … Likewise, addition in sin can be made to infinitude, whereby the aptitude of the soul to grace is more and more lessened; and these sins, indeed, are like obstacles interposed between us and God, according to Isaiah 59:2: "Our sins have divided between us and God." Yet the aforesaid aptitude of the soul is not wholly taken away, for it belongs to its very nature.

      Reply to Objection 1. The good which is opposed to evil is wholly taken away; but other goods are not wholly removed, as said above.
      (Q 48, A4)

      To the extent that a sinner continues to exist, his existence is due to God’s will and command and love.

      Objection 1. It seems that God does not love all things….

      On the contrary, It is said (Wisdom 11:25): "Thou lovest all things that are, and hatest none of the things which Thou hast made."

      I answer that, God loves all existing things. For all existing things, in so far as they exist, are good, since the existence of a thing is itself a good; and likewise, whatever perfection it possesses. Now it has been shown above (I:19:4) that God's will is the cause of all things. It must needs be, therefore, that a thing has existence, or any kind of good, only inasmuch as it is willed by God. To every existing thing, then, God wills some good. Hence, since to love anything is nothing else than to will good to that thing, it is manifest that God loves everything that exists. Yet not as we love. Because since our will is not the cause of the goodness of things, but is moved by it as by its object, our love, whereby we will good to anything, is not the cause of its goodness; but conversely its goodness, whether real or imaginary, calls forth our love, by which we will that it should preserve the good it has, and receive besides the good it has not, and to this end we direct our actions: whereas the love of God infuses and creates goodness. (Q 20, A2)


      Therefore, God loves those in Hell, otherwise they would cease to exist altogether.

      The punishment of those who die being grave sinners will go on forever, but will not annihilate them into non-being:

      Objection 6. Further, the justice of God would seem to require that sinners should be brought to naught: because on account of ingratitude a person deserves to lose all benefits, and among other benefits of God there is "being" itself. Therefore it would seem just that the sinner who has been ungrateful to God should lose his being. But if sinners be brought to naught, their punishment cannot be everlasting. Therefore it would seem out of keeping with Divine justice that sinners should be punished for ever,



      Reply to Objection 6. Punishment corresponds to fault, properly speaking, in respect of the inordinateness in the fault, and not of the dignity in the person offended: for if the latter were the case, a punishment of infinite intensity would correspond to every sin. Accordingly, although a man deserves to lose his being from the fact that he has sinned against God the author of his being, yet, in view of the inordinateness of the act itself, loss of being is not due to him, since being is presupposed to merit and demerit, nor is being lost or corrupted by the inordinateness of sin [Cf. I-II:85:1]: and consequently privation of being cannot be the punishment due to any sin.
      (Supplement, Q 99, A1)

      Since those in Hell will continue to exist, and existence is in principle a good, and all existence comes from God’s will, and is caused by God’s love, it follows that God loves those in Hell insofar as they exist.

      Delete
    5. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish the biblical passages in which it is said that God hates sinners: St. Thomas:

      Objection 4. Further, it is written (Psalm 5:7): "Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity." Now nothing is at the same time hated and loved. Therefore God does not love all things.
      ...
      Reply to Objection 4. Nothing prevents one and the same thing being loved under one aspect, while it is hated under another. God loves sinners in so far as they are existing natures; for they have existence and have it from Him. In so far as they are sinners, they have not existence at all, but fall short of it; and this in them is not from God. Hence under this aspect, they are hated by Him.


      To the extent they exist, they are loved, and to the extent their existence is deformed by defect (i.e. by the privation of the good to which they are ordered), they are hated.

      But the former is said of being simply, and the latter is said of being in a qualified sense, for the sinner exists simpliciter, and is evil to the extent that he has privation of due order. Hence God loves all being insofar as it is, and hates all evil insofar as it defects from full being of that order and nature.

      I would not, then, say that God "loves all unconditionally" without clarifying the sense. He loves all those persons He has made, and He loves them all as long as they have being, and He has deigned that persons should go on being forever, even when they are sinners. However, he loves the good more than he loves the evil, and indeed he hates the evil person to the extent of that sinner's defection from good.

      Delete
    6. Let me re-phrase that last sentence:

      However, he loves the good person more than he loves the evil-doer, and indeed he hates the evil-doer to the extent of that sinner's defection from good.

      Delete
    7. Wow Tony, thanks. Now I have to disprove St Thomas Aquinas - that will take me a day or so!?
      I will get back to you, thanks again.

      Delete
    8. @Tony:
      I think you might reconsider your "simply"/"with qualification" distinction: "for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me, and you have believed that I have come from the Father" (Jn 16:27). "He who does not believe is condemned already" (Jn 3:18). ST I.20.2 ad 3: "Friendship cannot exist except towards rational creatures, who are capable of returning love, and communicating one with another in the various works of life, and who may fare well or ill, according to the changes of fortune and happiness; even as to them is benevolence properly speaking exercised. But irrational creatures cannot attain to loving God, nor to any share in the intellectual and beatific life that He lives. Strictly speaking, therefore, God does not love irrational creatures with the love of friendship; but as it were with the love of desire, in so far as He orders them to rational creatures, and even to Himself." I think the love of friendship is love simpliciter, whereas the "quasi-love of desire" is love with qualification. And the damned, reprobates, hardened sinners, are not actively capable of and do not enjoy friendship with God, so they are loved only in the qualified sense: amore quasi concupiscentiae. God goes so far as to harden their hearts (e.g., Pharaoh), and Jesus speaks to them only in parables so that they hear but do not understand, "lest they repent and be forgiven."

      Delete
    9. Chris,
      "I challenge anyone to find the phrase or the idea that 'God loves everybody unconditionally all the time no matter what'. That is NOT in the Bible and it is NOT a dogma or doctrine of the Catholic Church. The Church has NEVER defined that over the past 2,000 years."

      (In addition to what T N posted) John 3:16, 1 John 4:8 and 16, Catechism 342, Jesus, all of the New Testament.

      You also quote a few Bible verses which say that God hates sinners and only loves those that love Him. But all men sin and so all men hate God at some point. Thus one could conclude that God hates all men. Or if God stops loving us when we sin it would be difficult, apart from some form of Pelagianism which the Church condemned, to explain how anyone would be capable of repentance. We can't merit the love of God thus God's love has to be unconditional. Picking out verses from the Bible is fine but picking them out and divorcing them from the entirety of the Bible and Tradition is problematic. There is obvious truth in what you seem to be getting at--that God can have absolutely nothing to do with sin and fully hates it. But the idea that God doesn't love unconditionally and hates particular people is at odds with the entirety of Scripture and Tradition. I think the idea that God hates sin and loves the sinner, while cliched, is more accurate.

      Delete
    10. @Don:
      "But the idea that God doesn't love unconditionally and hates particular people is at odds with the entirety of Scripture and Tradition. I think the idea that God hates sin and loves the sinner, while cliched, is more accurate."

      Umm... That's nice, but you haven't even begun to respond to Chris's claims. As Chris has pointed out, Wisdom 14:9 explicitly tells us that God hates the sinner and his sinfulness alike. So Chris is thus far right: the unqualified claim that God loves everyone unconditionally is entirely at odds with Scripture and Tradition and is a complete non-starter. We have to make distinctions, and the simple sin/sinner distinction is seriously problematic. Sin isn't some hateful thing independent of the heart of the sinner. "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, (etc.)..." (Mt 15:19)

      Delete
    11. David,

      Lots of theologies can be "proved" by picking a verse or two out of the Bible. (God hates sinners and all men sin so God hates all men, etc.) I don't know how many Protestant denominations we're up to now but it's a lot, in part because bible verses can be used to "prove" a lot of different things. The Bible also says God loves the world and that God is love so you'd have to reconcile your viewpoint with those verses too. The Church has refined its doctrine over a couple thousand years so I doubt we're going to be able to settle much here. Nevertheless, I do agree with you that sin is not independent of the heart. Cancer is not independent of the body. Yet a cancer patient will hate the cancer in his body even while (in a sense because) he loves his body.

      More important than everything just said is this: if we start denying the idea of God's unconditional love it leads to severe problems (namely Pelagianism). It would mean particular people somehow merit the love of God.

      Delete
    12. Don,

      Do you have any reason to think I'd have any difficulty reconciling "my viewpoint" (i.e., the teaching of Scripture) with those verses (i.e., other teachings of Scripture)? If so, what? If not, why raise such banal and irrelevant points?

      Just as you hadn't even begun to respond to Chris's position, you haven't even begun to respond to mine. And you appear not in a position to do so, since you appear to be rather dismally misinformed about basic Catholic doctrine, e.g., the doctrine of merit. FYI, pace Luther, Calvin, and yourself, particular people somehow DO merit the love of God! -- but not independently of grace, so no, that's not Pelagianism.

      Delete
    13. There is no such thing as quasi-love, it either is love or not. While hardened sinners, etc. are not in friendship with God, that is only from their own end. God still loves them in the fullest sense of the term: purely and perfectly desiring their good and well-being, which includes their redemption and salvation. There is no qualification; God's love is unconditional precisely because he is perfectly rational and any perfectly rational being must necessarily will the salvation of sinners, that they turn away from their sin and fulfill their natural ends of virtue and love of truth and good.

      The idea that God hates sinners is laughable, it makes as much sense as saying God could destroy himself. God can only hate "a sinner" in the sense that we might hate sinners QUA sinners, that is, hating their sin, their defective condition. Not in hating the individual, even so because if one were to hate the individual one could not reasonably will for him to attain his natural ends, ergo, one cannot hate sin and will virtue if one hates any individual.

      There's no qualification; God loves every created individual in an unconditional manner. The only reason we don't love unconditionally is because we are not perfectly rational, so we stop willing the good and flourishing of an individual and we mistake the action with the agent. God, however, is perfectly rational. Which is why He extends salvation to all who are willing to accept it.

      He is also not a moron who creates rational beings made for adoring the Good only to then banish them to hell even if they're willing to seek the Good. So it is important not to read this idea into the "hardening of hearts" or the "lest they repent and be forgiven". God made us for the Good, and if an individual in a possible world w0 is willing to sincerely seek the Good, God won't capriciously prevent that; on the contrary He will likely do everything in His power to make sure that His creatures attain the natural end that is proper of their rationality, which is what He created them for in the first place. (Which is another reason why the "60 billion people in hell" idea is monumentally stupid).

      Delete
    14. David, I haven't seen anything you said constituting a reason to reject what I said. Granting that God hates the sinner in the sense that Scripture has it, it is ALSO true that God loves the sinner, as Scripture has it. Then it comes down to this: in what senses does that work? St. Thomas offers one, and I added to what St. Thomas said only to suggest a way of thinking of it: since it is true that the sinner exists simpliciter, and does not merely exist "in a sense", then God's creative act holding his existence is, also, simpliciter and not merely "in a sense." And so God loves the sinner.

      God hates the sinner in respect of his defects, and not in respect of his being. Since, as a concrete, real substance, his being is not real merely "in a sense", it is real simply, it is MORE TRUE to say that God hates the sinner in a sense than that God hates the sinner simpliciter. His defects do not cause his substance not to be, simpliciter, they only cause him not to be perfectly.

      As to friendship: I am OK with the idea of using "love" principally or especially for the love that belongs to a rational being, but this does not provide a reason to say God does not love the sinner: it is precisely in virtue of God loving the sinner and willing him to have the grace of repentance that the sinner repents and is then saved. And God testifies that He MORE desires the repentance of the sinner than his destruction. It is impossible to say of such a sinner that God did not love him while he was a sinner. And this is what John tells us, God loved us while we were sinners, which is why He sent his Son to save us.

      It remains possible that God loves some more than others, that is why there is inequality in goodness in men. And so Thomas explains that God loves a sinner insofar as he is (insofar as his existence extends), and hates the sinner insofar as his defection from good detracts from being (which is never absolute because sin does not annihilate the sinner). If you want to call the latter "not 'true' love" because it is not friendship, then you have to explain how it is that God willed the good of sinners to bring about their salvation: would you call that regard God has for some sinners "not love" because they have not YET repented, but later when they have responded to God's grace with repentance THEN you call it love? This seems to imply God's regard for us is either sometimes love or not love depending on us, not on God.

      I don't think this is helpful language. But either way, it's a semantic point, and you seem to agree with the SUBSTANCE of my basic point, which is that according to Scripture, God's creative activity to make a person to be is to will his being (which is a kind of goodness), and this is at least in SOME sense, "to love" it.

      Delete
    15. David,

      I apologize for being stuck in one of Zeno's paradoxes as apparently I can never even begin to respond to anyone I'm trying to respond to. Let me attempt to ask a question instead. Would you say that God bestows grace unconditionally?

      Delete
  13. I'm new so I thought I would ask on a live thread. Is there an informal rule about posting on a dormant thread? I had some thoughts on the evil God post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not banned so far as I know. Not sure if the comment would need approval or if anyone would reply, though.

      Delete
    2. Typically, you have to wait until Ed posts an "open thread" where you can post on whatever. There's also a classical theism forum where you can ask whatever: https://classicaltheism.createaforum.com/philosophy/

      Delete
  14. Then what is the parable of the Prodigal Son about, Chris? What else if not about the love of God and his will to lead sinners to salvation, even beyond steps that mortal man would consider unreasonable or even unfair? We can throw proof texts at each other till the cows come home, but it won't solve anything. After all, "everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God. Anyone who fails to love can never have known God, because God is love" (1 Jn 4:8). I agree that people nowadays tend to have too nicey nicey a picture of God, but I think that you may have gone too far in the opposite direction, brother. In addition, I would like to point out that unconditional love does not mean never permitting anything bad to happen to someone, necessarily. After all, the mother of a serial killer might well still love her boy while admitting that he deserves to be punished.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Cantus,

    Thanks for your considered reply.
    I have not said that people cannot repent ala the prodigal son. I never said that, that is up to God. Despite that, Gods words that I quoted still stand.
    Yes we can exchange proof texts till the cows come home but we can also debate the meaning of Scripture. Which phrase describes what we are doing?

    At the end of your post you revert back to the false notion of Gods “unconditional love” which does not exist. I will give you one more absolute, undeniable, infallible proof of my position...

    Psalm 15 A psalm of David.
    1 LORD, who may dwell in your sacred tent?
    Who may live on your holy mountain?
    2 The one whose walk is blameless,
    who does what is righteous,
    who speaks the truth from their heart;
    3 whose tongue utters no slander,
    who does no wrong to a neighbor,
    and casts no slur on others;
    4 who despises a vile person

    This Psalm, verse 4, says it is a condition to enter Heaven that we despise vile people. Nobody who loves the wicked will go to Heaven since God despises and hates some wicked people(His foreknowledge knows they will end up in Hell). For example, those who love abortionists will never see Heaven unless they repent and start despising them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. St. Thomas says nothing prevents a person from loving another in ONE sense, and hating him in another sense. "Nothing prevents one and the same thing being loved under one aspect, while it is hated under another." Hence it is possible to BOTH hate and love a person, as long as it is under different aspects. God (and good human beings) love sinners to the extent that they have goodness, and hate them to the extent that they have defection from goodness. Since all sinners have some degree of goodness, (they have the goodness of existence), God loves all sinners to some extent.

      Delete
  16. Chris,

    By mentioning the Prodigal Son, I meant to illustrate that it not only shows that people can repent, it shows that God is positively merciful. The father would have had every right to be furious with his son and to refuse to take him back, or to put him through rigorous and painful repentance, and the Son himself expected to be accepted as nothing more than a servant. Yet the Father accepts him back whole-heartedly, with an overflowing magnanimity that goes far beyond what justice would demand. He doesn't just forgive him, he rejoices that he has come back and throws a banquet. And furthermore, Romans 5:8 supports this, Paul explicitly states that Christ died for us *while we were still sinners*. Furthermore, the Church Herself, in the opening paragraph of the Catechism, quotes 1 Timothy 2:4 in saying that "God our Savior desires all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth".

    Look, I think this is probable a matter of linguistics. I think we may well believe exactly the same thing, but merely talk about it in ways that *seem* contradictory. IF you mean that God hates sinners in the sense that God despises sin and that those who cling to sin to the end will go to Hell, then I agree with you. IF, however, you mean that God hates sinners in the sense that God does not want them to repent, but instead wants to simply destroy them, then I disagree with you. The second reading seems to me incompatible with what we know about God from Jesus. Note that this is still not a nicey-nice doting-grandpa God that never condemns sin either, I fully believe in the wickedness of sin and the reality of Hell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The son repented because his father let him starve. The father didn't follow him and assure him of his unconditional love and convince him to come back. He just waited for his son to repent. Presumably he was righteously angry with his son -- prior to his return the son was 'dead' (to him) (Lk 15:32) -- but obviously not envious. I find people (esp. preachers) almost always manage to miss this aspect of the story.

      Delete
    2. Can we get past the use of the term "unconditional", please? It is a no-win term for this discussion. It is being used to mean different things to different commenters.

      Neither Cantus nor I are arguing that God loves the sinner in the very same way God loves the upright person.

      Delete
  17. Hi Cantus,

    I hope that we are not going around in circles or as you say arguing about worms.. sorry…I mean words.(that is an old Woody Allen joke)

    Paul explicitly states that Christ died for us *while we were still sinners*
    "God our Savior desires all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth".
    As beautiful as they are they do not say unconditional love or that it is impossible to lose Gods love.


    This Psalm 139 says…

    If only you, God, would slay the wicked!
    Away from me, you who are bloodthirsty!
    20 They speak of you with evil intent;
    your adversaries misuse your name.
    21 Do I not hate those who hate you, LORD,
    and abhor those who are in rebellion against you?
    22 I have nothing but hatred for them;
    I count them my enemies.
    23 Search me, God, and know my heart;
    test me and know my anxious thoughts.
    24 See if there is any offensive way in me,
    and lead me in the way everlasting.

    God has “nothing but hatred for them”. There is no ‘but God loves them “sin qua humna’ or “I love them because they exist”. This is pure unadulterated hatred written by the Holy Spirit Himself and verified by God.

    PS. We are commended to love OUR enemies but we are prohibited from loving Gods enemies. We must hate them IE abortionist.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are seriously ignoring Saint Thomas's arguments and basing your gnostic view of an impassionate, weak, hateful God on Psalms written by David when he was bitter, as if everything in the Psalms reflected the character of God?

      Either you're the religious lunatic type, or you're a troll.

      We're never called to hate anyone, or hate "God's enemies" as that wouldn't even make any sense, since if God were to hate sinners (his enemies) He would never will for their salvation - and willing salvation is willing the good of another, i.e., LOVING. And it would make no sense to both love and hate a person at the same time. Through desiring the salvation of sinners, God automatically loves sinners and vice-versa. Your position that we are to hate sinners and that God hates people not only goes against Aquinas, Church Tradition, and turns the Cross into non-sense (God decided to sacrifice Himself for people He hated...??? Or He arbitrarily hates some people but loves others, a la Calvinist insanity), but it doesn't even make philosophical sense.

      Be gone, troll.

      Delete
    2. Atno this for you… “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. Matthew 22:29


      And for the benefit of others on the blog…

      The Catholic Church has never, in 2,000 years, has never defined or declared that “God loves everybody unconditionally all the time no matter what” because that would be heresy.

      The Bible is quite clear that God hates His enemies…

      You destroy those who tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the LORD abhors. Ps 5:6

      Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. Mt 7:6 (God calls some people pigs and dogs)

      For the Most High himself detests sinners, and will repay the wicked with what they deserve." Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), 12:6

      But to God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike. For that which is made, together with him that made it, shall suffer torments. Wisdom 14:9

      We are commanded to hate Gods enemies…

      The righteous detest the dishonest; the wicked detest the upright. Pr 29:27

      I look on the faithless with loathing, for they do not obey your word. Ps 119:158

      Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and abhor those who rise up against you?
      If only you would slay the wicked, O God! Psalm 139

      Delete
    3. Chris,
      What about Wisdom 11:25? "You love all beings, you abhor none of the things you have made, for, hating something, you would not have made it." You're only half wrong, but still half wrong. You have to think about the reality that God is love. So as Dr. Feser pointed out, God's morally legitimate hatred, which arises from his righteous anger, is always grounded in love. This is a matter of metaphysical and moral necessity.

      Delete
  18. Where oh where is Stardusty to provide an antidote to the toxic and delusional world view promoted by Chris Griffin's comments

    ReplyDelete
  19. Atno,

    Scientist say there have been 100 billion people who have ever lived on the earth.

    Jesus said…

    “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and FEW there be that find it” Matthew 7:14.

    So 60 billion in Hell is a conservative estimate.

    The Bible says to be patient with people of little Faith but my patience with your kindergarten posts is at an end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Taking the narrow gate passage to mean that God is a moron whose creation is a monumental failure (60 billion rational creatures in hell) is terrible exegesis, especially considering that same passage has never even seen to pose problems to universalists such as Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint Isaac, etc. (And I am *not* a universalist myself, but the point still stands).

      Don't try to use contentious biblical exegesis to back up your gnostic view of an irrational God who doesn't will the natural and supernatural ends of his rational creatures, i.e., hates His own creatures qua individuals and not only qua sinners. You really have no idea how insane your view is, which is why you're even fundamentally at odds with Saint Thomas Aquinas - himself an extremely "conservative" theologian, and smart enough to know God cannot hate His creatures.

      Delete
  20. "They've come to raid your stockings
    And to steal your Christmas pud
    But don't be too downhearted
    It's all for your own good
    The economic infrastructure
    Must be swept away
    To make way for call centres and lower rates of pay..."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NWB5wdDAyQ

    ReplyDelete
  21. Professor

    Thanks for the clear explanation of envy. And how it differs from jealousy. I found them very helpful.

    xavier

    ReplyDelete
  22. Atno,

    I cringe that anyone would believe your posts so here is my final answer.

    1. You refuse to address the fact that the Catholic Church has never and will never declare that “God loves everybody all the time unconditionally no matter what”. You are unlearned, unprepared and without wisdom and you run away from this truth.

    2. There is no cogent rebuttal to “Do I not hate those who hate you, LORD,
    and abhor those who are in rebellion against you? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies. PS 139. This was written by the Holy Spirit, written by God himself.

    3. There is no rebuttal possible to the greatest moral theologian in Catholic Church history…

    “In the Great Deluge in the days of Noah, nearly all mankind perished, eight persons alone being saved in the Ark. In our days a deluge, not of water but of sins, continually inundates the earth, and out of this deluge very few escape. Scarcely anyone is saved.”
    -- St. Alphonsus Liguori

    “God loves all those who love him: I love them that love Me.”
    -- St. Alphonsus Liguori

    4. This greatest giant of moral theology rightfully directly contradicts Aquinas…

    God cannot but hate sin, which is his enemy and diametrically opposed to his will; and therefore, in hating sin he necessarily hates the sinner who is united with his sin.
    -- St. Alphonsus Liguori

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1- what is there to address? From "The Church has never declared X" it does not follow that X is therefore false. The Church has never declared a number of things, so what? The Church has never formally declared that anyone is in hell, either - do you therefore think universalism is plausible? I think not.

      2- Yes, there is. Are you sure you're a Catholic? Because if you are, you should know that Scripture is not exactly easy to interpret and we don't simply base our theology on literalistic readings of biblical passages. Setting aside an exegesis that would take such Psalms to reflect David's state of mind instead of perfect descriptions of God's Intellect (remember there are imprecatory psalms and doctrine and practice holds that Catholics are not allowed to use those against sinners, that should tell you something), one could perfectly accept that God hates sinners QUA sinners. That is, the abstract notion of a corrupted individual. But God cannot hate the concrete individual whose natural end is the Good as God Himself established.

      3- Neither of these passages you quoted mentions that God actually hates any individual. Also, what is the point in quoting Saint Alphonsus while ignoring Aquinas's argument? If it's authority for authority's sake, it is undeniable that Saint Thomas Aquinas is the single biggest and most important theologian of the Catholic Church. I take it that I don't have to reproduce the many documents mentioning the seminal importance of Aquinas, right? With all due respect to Saint Alphonsus, but he's not as influential as Aquinas. Aquinas is, quite literally, the most influential theologian of the Catholic religion. So if your whole schtick is to just quote an authority, I need but remind you that Saint Thomas Aquinas strongly disagrees with you, and you went so far as to (in effect) accuse him of heresy.

      4- "Hates the sinner who is united with his sin" I am fine with that statement provided we also understand that God necessarily loves the same sinner, in the sense that He wills for the conversion and ultimate happiness of that sinner. Again, God can hate a sinner qua sinner, but He unconditionally loves the individual. You have yet to respond to my or Aquinas's argument. You have completely ignored everything I wrote on this topic - the issue is that, provided that "to love" is to consistently will the good of another, God necessarily and unconditionally loves all creatures. And in the case of rational creatures, God always unconditionally loves them and wills for their natures to flourish with the good and the true. Otherwise He should rejoice in sin, since sin is what corrupts the rational creature, and if God hated the rational creature then He should rejoice to see that creature being further corrupted and having its ends frustrated.

      You have yet to interact with the argument. Your Satanic view of God doesn't withstand any logical scrutiny. Saint Thomas Aquinas knew that. God must necessarily will the natural ends and flourishing of all rational creatures; ergo, God must necessarily and unconditionally love all rational creatures.

      Delete
  23. Atno

    Sorry I can’t help but feel sorry for you.

    Well here is another truth that I will give you that you will call insane just like you called 60 billion souls in Hell insane. You showed your ignorance when I proved you wrong on that one and I can prove you wrong on the following that you will also probably show your ignorance…

    I have personally and righteously condemned about 50,000 people to Hell.

    I have given everyone a hint twice in my previous comments but I doubt you will discern it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. '''Do Brown Black Lives matter...if they're Israelis'''?


    BLACK, BROWN, WHITE, YELLOW ISRAELIS

    Since color has become a language somehow, and anti Israel bigots distort, then let's remind, most Israelis are "brown," in terms of stats. You have also many Ethiopian Jews.

    No wonder the propagandists will never show democratic multiracial Israel in day to day lives.


    SECURITY VS RACISTS

    But of course Israeli security concerns are just that. Unrelated to any "color" or "race." Actually, speaking of racism, yes, Arab Muslim attackers target only Jews. Talk about real racism.


    BACKGROUND ON HIJACKING TERMINOLOGY

    True, hijacking of term 'it's racism," is as old as Palestine propaganda emerged by holocaust denier Issa Nakhleh who began in June-17-1949 the "like the Nazis and worse than nazis" line (and by Nov-14-1972 said all 6,000,000 were alive and Hitler "didn't" kill, and represented 'Muslim Congress' at Holocaust deniers convention in 1981), then picked up in 1960 by Nazi Tacuara saluter Ahmad Shukairy who by Oct-17-1961 added that garbage-touch apartheid slur too and questioned Catholic Uruguayan rep. Enrique Fabregat's loyalty, stating because he's (supposedly) a Jew. And both, of course were Hitler's ally ex-mufti Islamic leader al-Husseini avid fans. With Shukairy his aide.

    Speaking of ex Mufti's admirers... Sufi Abdul Hamid, infamous 'Black Hitler' in NY who called to drive out Italians and Jews in the 1929-30, was also his admirer.


    RE FARAKHANNISTS & FAKE "PRO-"

    One might begin to argue there is such a thing as "pro Palestine", when Farrakhan linked Ilhan Omar / Linda Sarsour / Rashida Tlaib will have a routine of decrying Arab Muslim suffering when it's not in context of Israel (who has been facing existential threat ever since) but suffering when by Arab Muslim entities. One would then hear about a real en-masse massacre. Such as hundreds of thousands in Syria, current example. And if they begin to do anything along the line, then no lip service please. But with that same "passion" as in fake "symparhy" played at the 'other' case.

    The absenty reason is clear. Self explanatory. Because pro Palestine is a cover for anti Israel and often anti ALL Jews.

    A note re L Farrakhan, that guy with his "blue eyes are the devil," when he uttered his "termites" venom, his genocidal hint was clear under the veil. For more about Dehumanization in radical Islamic Arab or even mainstream racist "Palestinian" education and sermons, search for "apes and pigs, Palestinians". Or see PalWatch and MEMRI.

    ReplyDelete