Friday, April 15, 2005

various definitions of neocon

the Web

Urban Dictionary

The Neoconservative Persuasion by Irving Kristol

Are you a Neocon?

What the heck is a Neocon?

The Definition of Paleoconservative

The New Conservative Divide: Paleocons versus Neocons

For me, I am Catholic.(period) The important question to ask a fellow Catholic is "Are you faithful to the teachings of the Magisterium?" It's not about being put in a box either as a conservative, liberal, neocon or paleocon. Was PJII a liberal, a conservative, what? The important thing to consider is do you believe what he taught about Christ? Do you believe what he taught about sexual morality? Do you believe... I refer you to my earlier post "Paleo-con? Neo-con?… None of the above!"

It's important to note that little o-orthodox Catholics can disagree about prudential matters, not in regards to matters of faith or doctrine. When lines are drawn in the sand between these orthodox Catholic camps, one can side with either side for a variety of good reasons. One can choose to set on the fence as well, which Dr. Lowery chose to do in his analysis in Communio. One can take a "middle road or path." I refer to you to an earlier post "Slave Wages Condemned by Pope John Paul II". More to follow in future posts.

3 comments:

Samuel J. Howard said...

I would suggest that, given the history of the term, a via media, middle path, or third way, suggests something more than being in between. It more implies a synthesis or an integration, even a position that one has found the essence of both views and can show that they are compatible and lead from that center, even a quasi-Solomonic division.

Fr. D.L. Jones said...

Very, very good point. The Augustinian Thomists would argue though that they are the true and/or correct position, ontologically speaking. They argue that Whig Thomists error in their thinking on a number of fronts. This due to a number of factors including the influence of non-Catholic secular thought, which lacks in truth.

Unknown said...

I tend to agree with David; I think with the Augustinian Thomists (ATs) that there is an erroneous onto-logic at the heart of Whig Thomism, which is sufficiently subtle that its ramifications are not immediately apparent. This dichotomy makes it difficult (if not impossible) to conceive of a third way.