Eseu asupra catolicismului, liberalismului şi socialismului

    De către
    Daniel Francesco
    -
    6

    Editura ANTET XX PRESS a avut lăudabila iniţiativă în anul 2007 de a aduce la cunoştinţa publicului românesc o lucrare cândva faimoasă ce a apărut la mijlocul secolului XIX, este vorba despre Eseu asupra catolicismului, liberalismului şi socialismului de Juan Donoso Cortes în traducerea Ruxandrei Luca, ediţie îngrijită de Cristi Pantelimon. Acesta din urmă semnează şi cuvântul înainte al lucrării în care aduce câteva precizări semnificative privind biografia autorului, geneza lucrării şi elementele de bază ale gândirii filosofului.

    Dacă pentru Cristi Pantelimon Donoso Cortes este un filozof reacţionar datorită faptului că a teoretizat necesitatea dictaturii într-o perioadă de mari frământări sociale şi politice – este vorba despre un discurs ţinut în anul 1849 – alţii, cum ar fi Francis G. Wilson, îl consideră un tradiţionalist (sau conservator) în sensul larg al şcolii istorice a gândirii contrareformei spaniole. Pasionat apărător al monarhiei şi un conservator catolic de marcă, Donoso Cortes s-s dovedit a fi un critic acerb a liberalismului al şi ideilor socialiste ce au stat la baza revoluţiilor de la 1848.

    Ideile pe care le aduce Europa în discuţie Eseul lui Donoso sunt subscrise ariei dogmatismului creştin, pentru care numai credinţa poate aduce adevărul. Catolicismul este generator de ordine şi o construcţie perfectă se poate face numai cu gândul la Dumnezeu.

    “Cel care , rasculându-se contra lui Dumnezeu, exclamă cu frenezie: ”Te urăsc, tu nu exişti”, nu face decât să expună un sistem întreg de teologie, în celasi fel în care cel care îşi ridică inima către Dumnezeu îşi zice: “doamne, răneste-l pe supusul tău care te adoră”. Cel dintâi îi aruncă în faţă o blasfemie, cel de-al doilea îi pune la picioare o rugă; amândoi, însă, Îl afirmă, deşi în feluri diferite, pentru că amândoi Îi rostesc numele…”
    Capitolul I, pagina 26.

    Teologia catolică este teologia perfectă, atributul bunătăţii perpetue a lui Dumnezeu stă la bază oricărui discurs. “Omul cunoaşte ordinea prin catolicism” iar “dogma catolică a fost criteriul ştiinţelor, etica sa criteriul acţiunii, al faptelor, iar caritatea criteriul sentimentelor”.
    Capitolul II, pagina 34

    Liberul arbitru – o chesiune fundamentală a credinţei creştine – este tratat de Donoso Cortes într-un mod particular. El spune: “Eroarea pe care o combat constă în a presupune că libertatea rezidă în facultatea de a alege, când ea rezidă de fapt în facultatea de a voi, care presupune la rândul ei facultatea de a judeca. Orice fiinţă dotată cu puterea de a judeca şi cu voinţă este liberă, iar libertatea ei nu este ceva distinct de voinţă şi de judecata sa; libertatea este chiar această voinţă şi această capacitate de a judeca unite într-un tot. Când se spune despre o fiinţă că are judecată şi voinţă, şi despre o altă fiinţă că este liberă, se spune în ambele cazuri unul şi acelaşi lucru, exprimat în două moduri diferite”.
    Capitolul VII, pagina 85.

    Despre şcoală liberală de gândire Donoso Cortes spune printre altele: “În ceea ce priveşte şcoala liberală, voi spune despre ea doar că, în trufaşa ei ignoranţă, dispreţuieşte teologia, şi aceasta nu pentru că n-ar fi teologică în felul ei, ci pentru că, deşi este teologică, nu ştie acest lucru. Această şcoală încă nu a ajuns să înţeleagă, şi poate niciodată nu va înţelege, legătura strânsă care uneşte între ele cele divine şi cele umane, marea înrâurire a chestiunilor politice cu cele sociale şi cele religioase, şi dependenţa tuturor problemelor legate de guvernarea naţiunilor de cele ce au legătură cu Dumnezeu, legislatorul suprem al tuturor asociaţiilor umane”.
    Capitolul VIII, pagina 137

    Cea mai puternică critică o aduce şcolii socialiste de gândire, în special lui Louis Proudhon. Astfel, despre raţionalismul lui Proudhon se afirmă: “În cazul despre care vorbim, raţionalismul este acea contradicţie care resoarbe toate celelalte contradicţii în suprema sa unitate. Într-adevăr: raţionalismul este şi acelaşi timp deism, panteism, umanism, maniheism, fatalism, scepticism, ateism; şi dintre rationalisti, cel mai raţionalist şi mai consecvent este aceala care este în acelaşi timp deist, panteist, umanist, maniheist, fatalist, sceptic şi ateu”.
    Capitolul IX, pagina 155

    Puteți sprijini activitatea noastră cu o donație unică sau una recurentă prin Patreon.

     
    Print Friendly, PDF & Email

    6 COMENTARII

    1. Francesco, nu stiam nimic despre acest ginditor-teolog spaniol. Am gasit un sumar al ideilor lui la
      Juan Donoso Cortés (1809-1853)
      si citez citeva fragmente.

      … his ideas had an enormous influence in the spheres of politics and religion in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Donoso’s theories were uniquely influential in shaping the ideological trajectory that began with the reaction against the Enlightenment and the French Revolution in the eighteenth century and culminated in the rise of fascism in the twentieth century. This Spanish Catholic and conservative thinker was the philosophical heir of Joseph de Maistre, one of the most prominent reactionary conservative thinkers of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
      …
      His most notable idea-the theory on dictatorship-was Donoso’s most significant and unique contribution to modern political thought.
      ….
      Until the European revolution of 1848, the primary concern of reactionary conservative thinkers was the restoration of the pre-1789 monarchical ancien régime. The authority and hierarchical order that were the centerpieces of conservative thought, were seen only in the context of restoring and preserving a monarchical régime. The revolution of 1848 exposed the inability of many of the European monarchies to maintain authority and hierarchical order. Donoso was one of the first and most vociferous of conservative thinkers to acknowledge this. While like de Maistre he was something of a romantic medievalist who advocated a hierarchical social order, with the Pope of Rome at the head of that order wielding absolute spiritual and temporal power while all other temporal and ecclesiastical authorities ruled as his deputies, he was also a realist who could strategically adapt his ideology to contemporary exigencies. He was the first conservative thinker to develop an alternative theory that posited a different model of régime calculated to achieve the restoration and maintenance of the authority and hierarchical order that all conservatives saw as the foundation of civilization. This was his theory on dictatorship. Even though Donoso was always an ardent monarchist, like his precursor de Maistre, he was also enough of a political realist to know that the ultimate goal of a stable social order based on obedience to infallible authority and adherence to a rigid hierarchy of rank and privilege could be achieved by other means, if necessary.
      …..
      Like de Maistre, Donoso viewed human beings as essentially and naturally depraved and irrational. To Donoso, human beings are so irredeemably corrupt in moral capacity and intellectually drawn to absurdity that they must be ruled with an iron fist. All social and religious order depends upon the will of those who rule to demand and impose obedience to their dictates and belief in their teachings as well as upon the willingness of subjects to obey and believe their rulers, both secular and religious. Civilization, according to Donoso, can only be preserved through the imposition and acceptance of political and religious commands and dogmas. These commands and dogmas are the repressive mechanisms Donoso held as essential to the survival and preservation of civilization, especially that mode of civilization which Donoso called “Catholic.” Repression, said Donoso, is one of the most essential elements of civilization. For Donoso, no amount of free and open discussion could ever arrive at any modicum of truth. He saw truth as revealed by God and mediated through God’s chosen instrument, the Catholic Church and it’s Supreme Pontiff. Discussion only opens the door to doubt, confusion, and discord thus preparing the ground for socialism. Discussion, which Donoso held as the cornerstone of liberalism, creates a belief vacuum that can only be filled by Christ or Antichrist, by Catholicism or socialism.
      ….
      In his Speech on Dictatorship, Donoso described two different types of repression which he saw as necessary for the survival and maintenance of civilization-political and religious. These two forms of repression must exist in an equilibrium in order to be effective. With a decline in religious repression must come a corresponding and proportional rise in political repression, and vice versa. As the “thermometer” of religious repression falls, the “thermometer” of political repression must rise; and as the “thermometer” of political repression falls, so the “thermometer” of religious repression must rise. All political and religious régimes must be repressive if political and religious order are to endure. Donoso emphasized that the legitimacy of a régime is not based upon heredity, but upon the capacity of a régime to be repressive. This constituted a major shift in conservative thinking. Concern was not focused as much on who should rule, but on how rule is to be exercised. While authority and hierarchical order remained the conservative ideal, Donoso introduced a degree of realistic pragmatism to how this ideal could be achieved and preserved. This shift had ominous consequences in the twentieth century since the door was opened to more radical and ruthless forms of political and religious control.
      ….
      Donoso’s view of history reflect the influence of St. Augustine, Vico, and Hegel. It combines the eschatological perspective of Augustine with the historical cycles of Vico and the dialectical process of Hegel. History is a process of the unfolding of a divine plan guided by Providence toward a specific end, which is the triumph of good over evil, of Catholic civilization over philosophical civilization. The process advances in cycles wherein the recurrent theme of good against evil is played out in a dialectical manner until the end is reached. Each cycle in the dialectical process ends with what Donoso called the “supernatural triumph of good over evil.” The action of divine Providence is essential in this process. Just as the executioner turns an evil into a good by replacing criminal violence with just violence, so Providence turns the natural triumph of evil into the supernatural triumph of the good. Donoso saw the natural triumph of evil in Jesus’ death as a supernatural triumph at the same time. The evil of the crucifixion accomplished the good of human redemption. The evil that afflicts can also be a good that strengthens and saves. The evil of sin allows God to display the good that is manifested in his justice and his mercy. History is the playing out of this drama in a cyclic and dialectically structured process guided by divine Providence toward a definite conclusion-the ultimate triumph of good over evil. Catholic civilization, which Donoso depicted as totally good, will ultimately crush and triumph over that evil he called philosophical civilization.

      Donoso can also be seen as a modern-day Cassandra uttering prophecies of apocalyptic doom. He saw the development of modern technology, symbolized by the telegraph for him, and the establishment of mass permanent armies and police forces as potential instruments in the hands of a future godless and socialistic tyranny. All of his efforts in the arenas of politics, philosophy, and religion were aimed at preventing the rise of such an evil. Revolution had to be met with counterrevolution, anarchy with dictatorship, freethinking with dogma, doubt with certainty, and discussion with decree. The ultimate battle for Donoso was to be a quasi-Manichæan struggle between Catholicism and socialism, or Catholic civilization and philosophical civilization, two systems of belief in a combat to the death for the control of societies and souls.

      Nu impartasesc deloc ideile lui, insa le recunosc importanta. O sa caut cartea de care ai pomenit. Una peste alta, am aflat ceva nou cu ocazia asta.

    2. emil, in primul rand vreau sa-ti multumesc pentru ajutorul de la editare, pentru plusul de claritate obtinut la ultimele articole.

      In legatura cu Donoso Cortes, suntem pe aceeasi pozitie. Interesant in constructie, cu formulari formidabile uneori, este considerat un personaj profetic al perioadei in care a trait. A vazut ca pericolul major pentru societate, pentru umanitate venea din partea evolutiilor din tabara socialista. Catolic fervent, nu a fost pe placul tuturor catolicilor din epoca, unii evoluind catre ceea ce s-a numit in secolul XX miscarea crestin-democrata.

      Critic acerb al liberalismului si socialismelor epocii, i se datoreaza radiografierea din perspectiva traditional-catolica a ideilor lui L. Proudhon, cel mai de seama reprezentant al curentului progresist. Inaintea lui Marx care l-a criticat pe Proudhon din perspectiva comunista, Cortes isi da seama de inconsistenta teoriilor socialistului care a enuntat sloganul: “Property is theft!”. Eseul lui Cortes a aparut in 1851, cu un an inaintea mortii timpurii a autorului si la trei ani de la aparitia Manifestului Comunist.

      Trebuia sa dea de gandit lumii si faptul ca Proudhon a evoluat catre anarhism, unul din ismele nesanatoase ale lumii.

    3. Fara legat ura directa cu postul: Jack de la DPRK Forum are un podcast care cred ca intereseaza pe taota lumea de aici:
      The podcast will cover these main points:

      1. The minor background of Ceausescu’s Romania and his rise to power.

      2. The Ceausescu couple’s myth making and the reality.

      3. The myth making of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il and a defector’s tale of the Propaganda and Agitation Department.

      4. How they compare.

      si nu stiu daca nu cumva este cumva dedicat si celor de la patrupedpun 🙂

      http://dprkforum.com/2008/05/05/the-myth-making-of-kim-il-sung-and-kim-jong-il-a-comparison/

    5. Hello costin,

      Thank you for the linkage. As for the link and the podcast, it is not all that great, but I would like to get more insight from those that have been there. I am in the process of studying the former communist regime of Romania, and until I read Pacepa’s book, I will only have a limited understanding.

      Also, I am very surprised less information about former communist Romania is available than North Korea. Perhaps because the former regime is gone. I am not sure.

      At any rate, thank you once again. 🙂

    LĂSAȚI UN MESAJ

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here