Church and Nation: America’s Original Sin
Can a faithful Catholic be a good American? Can a good American be a faithful Catholic? While these questions may seem relics of the era of the Know-Nothings and "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion," they are still around today. And, as some comments on recent posts on this website have shown, an increasing number of people—both non-Catholic and Catholic—are beginning to have doubts that either question can be answered with a Yes.
To open a reasonable debate on these questions, I've decided to take up Dr. Fleming's call to discuss ecclesiastical issues by inaugurating an occasional series on "Church and Nation." I have chosen the series title carefully, because it is not my intent to discuss questions of religious freedom or establishment of religion. While certain (indeed, perhaps all) installments of this series will touch on matters of policy and the role of Catholics in the public square, the point is not to begin, as Rousseau would, by setting the facts aside, but to take as a given the American constitutional system, both historically and in its attenuated condition today.
To that end, this first post will not dive directly into such current political matters as immigration, the Church's opposition to the war in Iraq, abortion, and embryonic stem-cell research, but address a fundamental matter at the heart of many debates between Catholics and Protestants in the United States: namely (to state it from the Catholic side), whether the Protestant nature of the American founding represents a fundamental flaw at the heart of the American nation—one which prevents Catholics from being true Americans.
Catholic writers such as David Schindler and John Rao have been discussing this notion for years, and I would encourage both Catholic and Protestant readers to take a look at their works. Ultimately, the question they raise is one that we have addressed here at Chronicles in recent years (albeit from a different, more historical and philosophical angle): not whether the United States is fundamentally flawed, but whether the entire modern world has gone wrong in rejecting tradition, hierarchy, and religion and embracing abstraction, egalitarian individualism, and skepticism.
It's an interesting and important question, and coming to grips with it can help us figure out how to begin to return to life the way it was meant to be lived. But bringing the question up every time someone addresses, say, immigration policy is, at best, not particularly useful—and may be downright destructive. In the context of policy discussions or questions involving American national sovereignty, the mention of what some Catholic traditionalists and even conservative Novus Ordo Catholics call "America's Original Sin" becomes simply a convenient way of not discussing the issue at hand.
Some Catholics who favor massive Mexican immigration use this idea to dismiss any concerns over national sovereignty: The United States was illegitimate from the beginning; Catholic Mexicans are just righting that wrong. The Constitution, too, is blithely dismissed: It doesn't matter that abortion was historically a matter for the states; if the Constitution stands in the way of imposing a national ban on abortion, then to hell with the Constitution.
The response of some Protestants is hardly better. Starting from the fact that the United States was overwhelmingly Protestant at its founding, the more extreme among them declare that the Founding Fathers would have been horrified by the participation of Catholics in public debates. (Apparently, the papists somehow managed to destroy that section of Madison's notes on the Philadelphia convention in which Daniel Carroll of Catholic Maryland was summarily ejected.)
The problem for extremists on both sides is that the Catholic Church does not declare a government illegitimate simply because it is not Catholic, nor condemn a nation for not converting en masse to the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Faith. In fact, as Catholics, we are to find truth wherever it resides, and that includes especially the history and traditions of our nation and native land. As Pope John Paul II wrote in his final book, Memory and Identity:
The term "nation" designates a community based in a given territory and distinguished by its culture. Catholic social doctrine holds that the family and the nation are both natural societies, not the product of mere convention.
The mention of doctrine is important here. We cannot simply say, "Well, the nation into which I was born is overwhelmingly Protestant, with traditions that are alien to me as a Catholic. Therefore, in the name of Catholic doctrine, I simply do not regard myself as an American—at least not until America becomes a Catholic nation, by hook or by crook." To do so is to reject the natural society into which we were born, and thus to undermine the very doctrine that we claim to be upholding.
Patriotism, writes Pope John Paul II in the same book,
is a love for everything to do with our native land: its history, its traditions, its language, its natural features. It is a love which extends also to the works of our compatriots and the fruits of their genius.
Here in the United States, simply by the facts of demographics, that history, those traditions, our compatriots, and the fruits of their genius are primarily Protestant. As faithful Catholics, we have to embrace what is good and true in all of those--and, as we know, the Church does teach that truth, even if sometimes only partial, can be found outside of Rome.
Of course, as faithful Catholics, we are also called to provide witness to the fullness of the truth, but that's a discussion for another post (or posts). What we are not allowed to do, however, is to reject out of hand that which is good because it is not, somehow, fully ours.
84 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture | Your Home for Traditional Conservatism » Church and Nation: A Credal Nation, Part I
- Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture | Your Home for Traditional Conservatism » Church and Nation: A Credal Nation, Part 3
Entries(RSS)
"What we are not allowed to do, however, is to reject out of hand that which is good because it is not, somehow, fully ours."
Yes, such as most English and American literature and poetry, most english history, the yeomen and agrarian traditions of the American south, and The American Revolution. It is silly for Catholics to ignore this.
Ivanhoe is, I think, a good and classic example of an excellent novel that is at the same time arguably anti- jewish and anti-catholic and damn good. I am glad you are attempting to do this conversation, Scott. But, may God Help you.
Mr. Richert, excellent post!
Judge, I'm not sure I understand your point.
Thanks Aaron. I know he is old school and has numerous faults but I always drove my sons to West Texas so they could learn from the legend. ( there Mother apprecitiated the old coach because he always made the campers do their own laundry before leaving for home.)Just as I love to stop in at Rockford and meet those " legends " when I am in the area.
Who particularly annoys me is the neoconservative that believes that somehow mestizo Catholics are going to save European Americans from self-destruction, when, in fact, many of the problems allegedly endemic in the U.S. (abortion, illegitimacy, et al.) are just as rife, if not rifer, among Mexican immigrants.
Thanks to Robert Reavis and M.A. Roberts for the kind words. As for the question of Mexican immigration and moral issues, I plan to take them up in a future installment. For now, I thought it important to lay the groundwork for future discussion by dispensing with the dismissal of history that all too often dominates such comment threads.
Terrific topic!
Question 1: Does the need to ask this question have anything to do with Kennedy's speech to the Baptists? Because, politically speaking, the ideas in that speech are the go-to cop out for liberal Catholics in this country (personally opposed but...).
Question 2: Chesterton said that America has the soul of a church because it is the only nation founded upon a creed. If, therefore, being a 'patriotic' American entails subscribing to a specific ideology and not just loving the land on which you live, then does that, ipso facto, create a conflict between being a Catholic and an American?
It seems to me that we must ask some essential questions:
1. What, in the context of traditional Catholic teaching, does "religious liberty" mean?
2. Did the Church change (and if so, to what extent and in what context) its teaching regarding religious liberty in the post-conciliar period?
3. In Catholic teaching, what are the obligations (negative and positive) of the state with respect to the practice of the faith?
These are sensitive topics. I don't claim to have comprehensive answers to them...
Phil Earvolino (@8):
It seems to me that we must ask some essential questions . . .
It seems to me that the questions you raise are, in fact, not essential to the discussion at hand, which is why I wrote:
Unless you're prepared to contend that, pre-Vatican II, the Catholic Church declared all governments illegitimate that were not explicitly Catholic, and condemned all nations that did not convert en masse to the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Faith, the question of the Church's teaching on religious liberty (and any possible change in the teaching) is irrelevant.
That's not to say that it's uninteresting, and, in fact, F.J. Sarto had commissioned a piece from me for Takimag before he handed over the editorial reins. The new editor was uninterested in the topic, however, so I never wrote the piece. One day, though not as a part of this series, I'll write it for ChroniclesMagazine.org.
If you are born into an extremely disfunctional family or even criminal family such as the mafia, you owe them a certain amount of loyalty however disgusted you may be with their crimes and vices. You certainly don't owe them the loyalty of participating in or even applauding those crimes and vices and this applies whether you are Catholic or Protestant or of any faith. Love of country requires correcting the folly of your countrymen.
Of course, there is the issue of your country's folly possibly bringing ruin upon you or your country's popular culture being a proximate occasion of sin for you or your children. In some cases emigration may be the solution. In more case, an internal emigration may be more practical - consciously separating yourself to a great extent from your country's institutions and culture and engaging these only when there seems a chance of making a change for the better.
This is a problem which Catholics and other Christians face not only in the US but probably now in most of the modern world. But it was always thus. This world is not our permanent home; we're just passing through.
Good topic!
Question 2: Chesterton said that America has the soul of a church because it is the only nation founded upon a creed. If, therefore, being a ‘patriotic’ American entails subscribing to a specific ideology and not just loving the land on which you live, then does that, ipso facto, create a conflict between being a Catholic and an American?
Edward, what did Chesterton mean by that?
As for your question--I would think that most of the people here would dispute the assertion that the United States is a "proposition nation."
Mr. Richert writes:
As faithful Catholics, we have to embrace what is good and true in all of those–and, as we know, the Church does teach that truth, even if sometimes only partial, can be found outside of Rome.
Is it not easier to find truth and goodness in some areas than others?
If we ask the question, "Can a faithful Catholic be a good American?" do we cede too much to the nationalist conception of the United States? Maybe that is a done deal, but if Catholics are to fight to preserve what is true and good, should they not also be fighting to preserve local culture and community, and hence identity?
I don't think you would disagree with this, Mr. Richert. It seems to me that some of the Catholics you mentioned, as well as those who blog on the Internet, who attempt a critique of the present situation do so from premises that are possibly wrong:
(1) They assume the nationalist conception of the United States is the only one.
(2) Or they accept an understanding of the Founding that leans more towards Enlightenment sources than the Anglo-American political tradition. (I myself have not made up my mind on this question, though I have become more open to the latter being more influential.)
Other Catholics make the same assumptions in framing a "solution." (They reject the Founding or the Constitution because it is tainted, or they accept that the nation-state is the most effective means of getting things done.)
Hence I suspect their answer to the question, "How much of the Anglo-American political tradition (or the Southern political tradition) is reconcilable with Catholic political theology or Catholic social teaching?" would be different from the Catholics who post here.
Should not Catholics prefer a 'localalist' understanding and solution?
There are many aspects of fundamentalist protestant tradition and Roman Catholic tradition that both can champion. Fundamentally, the 4,000 year old definition of "family", the duty of the Constitution to protect all life (abortion), and the lawful application of the government's limited role in the doctrine of parens patriae are those areas of private life that all believer's in Christ can agree must be reordered, for the sake of civilization and our nation. Civil society and our nation are in peril for having dissolved the institution of family government, failing to use it's civil government to protect life, and protecting the private sphere of worship to further the individual's relationship with Jesus Christ within each denominational's domain, "church government". Though I am not Roman Catholic, I would fight to the death to preserve their religious freedom to worship God in free assembly. My belief in Christ, and the liberty he ordains compells me to, even if I find aspects of protestant and Roman Catholic teaching peculiar to my own faith as I find in the good Book.
Luther and the Catholic church differed little on divorce. Luther insisted on giving the power to dissolve marriages to "civil authorities" (gasp!) and remove that power from the Church. This was not universally shared by many in Rome or in Switzerland. Luther leaped from a doctrinal battle to a wedded one, and his transition was not without faults. Early protestant traditions in colonial America rejected Luther's underdeveloped legalisms of divorce, where the local congregation performed the divorce. In early America, divorce was only obtained from the legislature, and in many if not most court rooms that centered squarely in the township they resided, the Judge sent the warring couple to the minister or priest who married them for their approval before taking "jurisdiction" of the petition before him.
Massive immigration from Europe, was exploited in the heights of the industrial revolution by industrialists, bankers and social do-gooders. Massive numbers of Irish Catholic fathers were blamed for their children's condition when the "monopolists" suppressed the wages of these fathers and forced their wives and children to work, under slave labor conditions in "sweat shops". A great fire in a sweat shop in the 1880s in NYC killing 200 women and children led the industrialists to shift the blame from themselves to those "drunken" irish fathers. Thus was born the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, from the first eco-terrorist organization of like name, NYSP of Cruelty to Animals". The society was financed by the industrialists, and the New York elitists blamed the Irish Catholic father. This "welfare society" rounded up hundreds, if not thousands of children from the streets and shipped them by train to the midwest to be used as farm laborers, and "good christians" who adopted them. The Texas FLDS case is merely another chapter in "do-gooderism" and the reflective nature of tryannical fanatical government, wherein Christian adoption agencies were forewarned of a massive influx of children by DHS in Texas prior to the raid on their religious sect. By undermining the "living wage" of the head of household, the industrialists were more than happy to finance the destruction of family and exand the labour force. The banks and industrialists embraced the concept of "women's rights" and family destruction. It profited them.
Adult single females were treated like dirt by so-called "traditional" christian leaders in the community (bankers and employers) who despised unmarried women in public life. There was a good reason that Susan B. Anthony wanted to champion women's rights without destroying the institution of marriage. Stanton, her arch rival at Seneca Falls had only one desire, destroy patriarchal marriage. Her radical camp of feminism won out.
The banks and lawyers embraced the concept of family destruction, by "doubling" the number of persons capable of "contract" within each household. Women were granted the power to contract in marriage. With two world wars in the near future, women could be drivin from the home to the factory, and compete for post war jobs and wages to keep the monopolists' edge in lower production costs. A labor war was born in the 20s and 30s, and unions were the natural ally of anyone capable of work, but unwilling to die working uncivilized hours for survival wages.
While men were concripted and sent to die in Viet Nam, and the streets in riot over civil rights and the war, feminist-neofascists lawyers were working hard through the NCCUSL to wed wives to the Social Security Act, by creating a quasi-legal system of "no-fault" dissolution. It walks and talks like a divorce, but it isn't. The concept of walk away civil contract dissolution is not unconstitutional per se, it's perversion of law is the concept that children and property can be redistributed merely by her commencement of a civil action to dissolve her marital contract. Women have, since Mt Sinai, the lawful right to abandon their family, if necessary, to protect herself from a brute. Fathers have never had that right to "walk" and abandon their fundamental duty to provide for the care and custody of their children or wife outside a finding of fact and conclusion of law that the wife or the husband breached the marital contract. Feminist jurispudence insist that courts have "subject matter jurisdiction" over the care and custody of children by Statute, without a shred of "due process" of law, substantive or procedural. The egaltarinist, socio-fascist feel that "equality" in marital child custody gives extra-constitutional rights of one party to transfer the jurisdiction of child custody from the sanctity of a home to the arms of an unloving judge, over the objection of a party who may or may not have breached the terms of the "civil contract", or who may have breached the terms of the civil contract of "marriage", did nothing to abandon, abuse or neglect the children within that private, civil contract. Our nations family law policy is tyranny, absent any concept of law or a Constitution designed to protect liberty from government tyranny. No amount of immigration can stave off the financial disaster of matriarchal government, though they shall try.
Family destruction is public policy, and the bankers, industrialists and "service economy" (ABA) are it's benefactors.
This public policy is something that must unite both protestant and Roman Catholic if we are to survive as a democratic republic, a beacon of liberty and most importantly, restore the integrity of the "rule of law" to our nation. No body of law strikes directly to the attack against civil government than "family law" inflicts at the county level.
We have a short window in which to unite Jewish, Protestant and Roman Catholic leadership to restore liberty and rule of law. We must, I think work together, or perish.
To preserve family government, all believers, black and white, protestant and Catholic, must stand in the breach where the thin veil of light shines forth, or the door of darkness shall slam shut.
The World Congress of Families, the Howard Center is the only organization on the planet and in this nation that understands family, and what it's demise portends for civilization.
For that, I thank God and his everlasting mercy.
Wow. Great topic. First a simple answer. A Catholic can certainly be a good and loyal American, but they can't be an Americanist. But neither can a right thinking Protestant, IMO.
I am one of those paleos who doesn't believe that the American Founding was irredeemably tainted, although there was much too much Enlightenment liberal idiom, sources, language, etc. I lean toward the Anglo-American political tradition that T. Chan cites.
I have noted, however, that a large percentage of those who do feel that way are traditionalist Catholics since you don't run into a lot of monarchist Anglophiles these days.
But a good Protestant should equally recognize the problem with Americanism, even if they are glad America is not a predominantly Catholic nation. I like John Rao's writings. I recently recommended him to Matthew. Just where he says Catholic, I think Christian.
The problem with Americanism comes up all the time. Modern "conservatives" and Christians don't have a clue. They assume that pluralism, religious liberty, SOCAS, etc. are all there in so many word in the plain text of the Bible. As Americans who have never been taught otherwise, they can't not think that way.
When I was recently taking up much internet bandwidth in an effort to deny Alan Keyes the Constitution Party nomination, one thing I objected to was his "Declarationism." People were flabbergasted that anyone could possibly object to Declarationism. When I would point out that it is factually incorrect, fundamentally liberal, and bad theology it was like I was speaking heresy. Like questioning the DoI was like questioning the Virgin Birth. We have much work to do in this area.
"Can a faithful Catholic be a good American? Can a good American be a faithful Catholic? "
These are questions which any follower of the Christ should be raising. I raised them in in 1978 at a European Baptist Retreat in Bechtesgaden, Germany, in the General Walker Hotel, located at the heart of and once part of Hitler's Aplenfestung. Most of the participants were officers and senior NCO's along their families. A minority of us were civilians. I placed my concerns in the context that my Christian ancestors and I had made a unique sojourn as Christians and Americans and that America had enjoyed the fruits of having had Christians sojourning with her; yet, I concluded, from my perspective in 1978, that America no longer wanted or needed us. I said then, with the words of Joshuah in the back of my mind, that we would soon have to choose which "god" we would serve. I would say that the time of which I spoke might even now be at hand. There was among the faithful there assembled no cry of treason put against me. In fact, there was expressed and tacit consensus that what I had expressed was likely true.
Scott, you have brought to our attention something very thought-provoking and essential, something that has been hovering around these website discussions for some time. I offer a few eccentric observations that may be of some use. I would be more willing to listen to the traditionalist Catholic rejection of America if I saw any evidence that traditional Catholicism has retarded modernism in the Catholic countries of Europe. I see no such evidence. And always, I am reminded that there are two Americas. The Puritan/ideological which is the source of the Americanist religion, and the tolerant, believing Protestant Christianity of the traditional South where Catholicism flourished before the great immigration of the late 19th centuries made it powerful in the North. I have observed that many Catholics, perhaps a majority, have pretty well been absorbed into the religion of Americanism as readily as Protestants. Is America properly understood incompatible with Catholicism? No. But America as religion is repulsive to all Christians. Traditional Catholics have a key role, perhaps the most important role, in
combatting the Americanist heresy, but as far as I am able to observe, traditional Catholics are a beleagured minority of their own communion.
Dr. Wilson,
In 1978, I had not become aware of the two Americas. My words of 1978, were, with hindsight, addressed to the Puritan ideological. It was not until the early 1990's that I began to see this dichotomy. I must say, with regret, that we Southern Baptist have fallen under the thrall of the Puritan heresy.
Dr. Wilson, oddly enough, Puritanism was illiberal and hence "un-American," by modern reckoning. But it was certainly ideological. The more "tolerant" South was in some respects more liberal (in a sense) but not ideological. We of course know how it all worked out.
This dichotomy and seeming paradox has always intrigued me. The explanations I have seen for why Puritanism so quickly morphed into social gospel Unitarianism have never quite satisfied me. As it morphed it became more tolerant on matters of religion, but lost none of its dogmatic universalism and intolerance of difference.
A great post, puncuated by some great quotes from John Paul's final book, a book that contains much of interest to paleoconservatives.
Mr. Phillips @ 17
I hold that Puritanism, particularly the New England strain, retained its dogmatic worldview even as it morphed into social gospel Unitarianism for two reasons: it had already crossed into error if not heresy by seeking to impose a theocracy and ignoring that the kingdom of the Christ is not of this world; and it had "dethroned" the Christ as God and had reduced Him to a created being, a demi-god. Thus, Puritans, again particularly of the mutant New England variety, as a consequence held that they did not needed the transforming Christ as the Author of the transformation of the hearts and minds of men but that they themselves through law and good intentions, i.e. the noble cause, could bring about such transformations; and this they held and hold today in their most secular state quite dogmatically.
Edward (@7):
Regarding Question 1 (Kennedy's speech to the Baptists), you're right that he perfectly encapsulates the "personally opposed but" attitude that political liberals who are nominally Catholic always trot out. But those liberal Catholics only relate to the questions that I raised in the sense that they provide the evidence that some non-Catholics present to "prove" that you can't be a faithful Catholic and a good American. Of course, they ignore the fact that these folks are liberals first and Catholics a distant second.
Question 2 is quite interesting, and T. Chan, Red Phillips, Clyde Wilson, and Robert M. Peters have all addressed it quite well. I would only add that, despite all that is perceptive in the work of David Schindler and John Rao, both, I think, make a fundamental error that is echoed in your question:
When phrased that way, the answer is obviously yes. But should the question be phrased that way? After all, patriotism is not ideological; nationalism is. Frankly, I'm not concerned with being a faithful Catholic and a nationalist, but being a faithful Catholic and a patriot. And that is where I think that the quotations from John Paul II are relevant.
More after supper.
Scott's post raises the possibility that religion and nation can be in conflict - itself a symptom of our modern predicament. While nations and religious institutions have historically butted heads from time to time, never before were Western governments so ideologically predisposed, as they are today, against any form of Christianity. If Catholics reject the U.S. today, they certainly are not rejecting a Protestant government, but a secular, globalist empire. Nevertheless, as Scott points out, patriotism runs much deeper than this. A nation is more than a government. A nation, in the classical sense, is a tribe. It is local, consanguineous, and ancestrally aware. So, whether a conflict exists depends on how one construes 'nation'. If one means nation in the modern propositional sense of Americanism, as Red points out, then, I'd say, there is a conflict. But if one implies nation in a more traditional sense, perhaps as an extension of the classical meaning, which itself runs contrary to empire, then no.
Mr. Roberts @ 21,
From sometime well before that event which we have come to call the American War for Independence, there had emerged colonial republics on the North American Continent, republics which declared their independence from the Crown to which they individually had held allegiance and which then entered into unions with one another, first under the Articles and then under the current Constitution. That accommodation of republics was not a nation. That myth, although nurtured from the very beginning of the union, was not to be claimed as "truth" until Lincoln and his Republicans came on the scene. This "nation" is morphing or has already morphed into a global empire. As a Christian and as an American, I take my stand against both the empire and the nation which was is mythical predecessor.
CLyde Wilson @15
Dr. Wilson your posts of more than a line or two are almost scary in their fullness of truth. Reading you and Mr. Peters is living proof that the promise of peace is now, as always, with men of "good will " -- in all that those simple two words entail. As for Europe, it all depends on France. If she rights herself and returns home after experimenting with living off "the husks that the swine did eat," there may be hope . If not, then the death rattle will become more pronounced.
In America it is more hopeful because as Kirkpatrick Sale wrote in the November 2005 issue of Chronicles, "as gasoline supplies diminish and become prohibitively expensive and the dollar becomes increasingly irrelevant as a measure of worth, ... we will be required to re-scale virtually everything we do and how we do it from the kind of communities we inhabit to the way we grow our food, the way we work and trade. " Southern culture will understand this change best because for her," Small has always been beautiful " from politics to neighborhoods and churches.
I'm afraid the further comments that I promised to deliver after supper will have to wait for the morning, since the cold I've been fighting for three days has finally got the best of me.
Can a devout Catholic remain a "good American"?
Well, the answer is: depends on what you call a "good American", and what you call a "devout Catholic".
The problems with [some] definitions of "good American" are that they conflict DIRECTLY with definitions of "devout Catholic" directly. For example, considering aborting babies as MURDER, as a DEVOUT Catholic is in direct confrontation with being a "good American", who is instructed, by their faith, that abortion is NOT murder. Whether you want to believe it or not, the US Federal Government considers the murder of a baby, "abortion", to be a perfectly legal medical procedure. Accepting the American government is paramount to accepting their ruling on abortion, and THERE ARE NO TWO WAYS ABOUT IT.
As Our Lord tells us, "you will know them by their fruits", and the "fruit" of the American government is, among other things, the murder of infants. If that's not the "fruit" of Satanism, then what is?
Mr. Richert
Thank you for getting to the heart of the matter, in doing so you have chosen your words with more care and restraint than I did in my previous posts.
Catholics would be assumed loyal to America if their bishops were loyal to the Faith. These bishops direct the education of many voters in heavily Catholic states, who knowingly elect immoral men who invite an invasion. As such the real root of anger at the church is the infidelity of its bishops to the Bible.
Were it not for this immorality you wouldn't be asking these questions.
One of the problems I'm having with this discussion is Scott's use of the term "faithful Catholics". I'm not sure, especially in postmodern America what this term means?
If I were to "not set the facts aside" I would begin by saying that with rare exceptions baptised Catholics in North America , faithful and awake to the Incarnation and Christ's precense are few and far between. The Catholic Church in North America is failing. Its once great educational structure, its priesthoods and monastic orders are a ghost of what they once were. To blame this failure on the American Protestant founding is an excuse or a diversion from this failing. That is not to say that the particular nature of the founding of the US, with its Puritan, Constitutional, Anglo, captitalist basis did not , atleast initially, keep the Catholics on the outside of the establishment. But to be Christian is by nature to be on the outside and for the "faithful Catholic' this was not an excuse to build a true Church in America.
Here in Canada, the Catholic Church is also failing or in many cases dying. Yet, in Canada there was no Puritan, Protestant founding that threatened the Church. In fact , atleast in the
20th C., in spite of the strong Anglo heritage and economic dominance (Canada is officially a constitutional monarchy), the country had a majority of Catholics (French, highland Scotts, Irish and Anglo Catholics) and the majority of its 20thC
Prime Ministers have been "Catholic". Yet the Church in Canada is failing and dying. Scott's second option of "the entire world gone wrong" is the place to start here and the "faithless" Catholic response would be where I would begin to point the finger.
The Kennedy's were/are a ruthless Irish gangster family that killed, bribed and fornicated their way into power. Any living soul awake in Christ could gather this evidence and conclude that these are bad characters and in no way Christians. Yet, great numbers of American "Catholics" indentified with and voted for these scoundrels. Why, we have to ask, can a gatahering of the Christian faithful, as the Church claims to be, not rid themselves of those who serve the master of hell? Certainly in St. Ignatius' day the Church would have done so.
North American Catholics have been their own worst enemies. Their failure to become true Catholics in this land discovered for the faithful by Columbus lies squarely on their own shoulders, not those of my Protestant ancestors.
“The problem for extremists on both sides is that the Catholic Church does not declare a government illegitimate simply because it is not Catholic, nor condemn a nation for not converting en masse to the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Faith.”
From the decretals: “Outside the Church there is no empire” 24,q.I.para Sed illud
It is not that clear.
"Chesterton said that America has the soul of a church because it is the only nation founded upon a creed."
I think that Chesterton was right. The statement is descriptive, not prescriptive. The neocons wish to make it prescriptive. That is their mistake. The paleocons reject it as both descriptive and prescriptive. That is their mistake. It is not a coincident that the independence of America and the formulation of its political system came at the same time, which in the case of Europe was not the norm (England existed before Magna Carta, etc.). America has not *officially, openly* abandoned its constitutional framework. If ever we do that, and the nation survives, we will see whether America really is more than its political/ideological formulation. France and Rome both have been kingdoms, republics, and dictatorships. Whatever you have to say about Lincoln, we have never *officially, explicitly* chucked federal and republican constitutionalism.
Mr. Peters, I don't think that the Puritans ever officially adopted a lesser view of Christ. The Unitarians sure did. What I think you could argue is that extreme Calvinism in some ways takes Christ out of the equation. As the state of your immortal soul becomes a sort of cosmic lottery. As I read somewhere but can't remember now where, it is really hard for people to live like that. So they are more inclined to strive to do right as partial proof to themselves that they are in fact one of the chosen ones. But Calvinists like Dabney and Jackson avoided this trap. I think the Heaven on Earth part is probably more of the issue. It is a misapplication of Scripture, ahistorical, and unattainable, but it is apparently appealing and easy to articulate (like all ideologies). As they slipped into heresy on matters overtly Christian, they retained the extra-Christian concept of ushering in Heaven on Earth.
But the fact remains that the Puritans were illiberal on matters of religious freedom and would not be good Americanist Creedalists by today's standards. By today's standards they are the archetypal enemy. This is the reason I am more inclined to view the modern day Puritans as partial illiberal allies than are some.
I feel a little bit like an adolescent attending his first party with adults, trying to "impress" the adults by adding something worthwhile to the discussion. Still, here goes.
My answer to Mr. Richert's first two questions would be a resounding "No!" to each one. I then would propose the question: Why would one desire the other? To attempt to find any relevant common ground between the two seems about as hopeless as a dog chasing his tail.
I am puzzled as to why these questions are deemed relevant (no disrespect intended), since there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to bring about a culture that could ever approximate a culture that Chronicles readers yearn for. It makes for great discussion, but that's about it.
A faithful Catholic's only real option is to withdraw from actively and directly supporting his government and get his spiritual and family lives in the best possible shape. Pay your taxes, obey the laws (well, most of them), but do not vote or otherwise involve yourself in a government that you cannot change and which will corrupt you the longer you remain engaged in a fantasy.
What a fine and thoughtful piece from my pal, Scott.
I've contemplated this very question over the past few years.
Our Catholic faith requires us to be patriots, which does not mean, however, "my country right or wrong."
As Chesterton taught us, that is "something no patriot would say," for the same reason he wouldn't say, "my mother drunk or sober."
And, if you're mother were driving a car off of a cliff, you would certainly be obliged to stop her. Again, from Chesterton.
So it is with Catholic Americans like us, who see our country going off a cliff. As patriots, we have an obligation to stop that, and as well to witness truth and to offer the fraternal correction and spiritual guidance necessary to bring our friends and good Christians such as Red Phillips to the Faith.
Yes, a Catholic can be a good American, and the same holds for Protestants, Jews, Pagans, and Atheists, as long as we remember that the America isn't a government, it's a country.
A Catholic can certinely be a good American if he is respectful of his fellow Americans, productive, educated, and acts with dignity. So can an Atheist.
I think the issue here is whether or not a person can be a good Catholic and have a slavering devotion to Federal policy. I would vote no, because the Federal government is clearly hostile to religion, as it sees religion as a competitor in its quest for world domination.
I would even say that the government is hostile to Protestantism. Even though George W. is supposed to be a Protestant, he doesn't act like one.
"Can a faithful Catholic be a good American? Can a good American be a faithful Catholic?"
I think "yes" would be my answer. A faithful Catholic for one thing would mean that you practice your faith in the most elemental way starting with your self and your homes. If America is indeed the land of the free then we (as faithful Catholics) have a choice when we leave home and head of to work. Do we follow the lost or do we strive for the "eye of the needle"? The gov't will do as it will in what ever country we live in. Just because we are a minority does not make us any less citizens. And yes we are a minority. When the secular world approves a law contrary to Gods law we as Roman Catholics are obligated to appose the law with a resounding no, thus participating as a legal citizen. If we do not appose such laws are we not also saying I forfeit my right as a citizen. I say "run the good race" and not only will you be a good Catholic but also a good citizen.
One of the problems with Catholicism in this country has been that many or most Catholics have acted more like immigrants than like Catholics. As immigrants they have tended toward leftwing causes, and in search of respectability have often sought to be identified with the Puritan strain that they thought was the essential American character. Is there any difference to be found in the political positions of Massachusetts Catholics and Massachusetts Protestants? Not much, I suspect. Much as I would like to see the Church as a force for Christian civilisation in America, I have doubted the possibility ever since I saw "freedom-riding" nuns invading the South in the 1960s. By the way, growing up in an overshelmingly (Southern) Methodist background, the only time I ever heard an anti-Catholic comment was from a visiting preacher from New York.
"By the way, growing up in an overshelmingly (Southern) Methodist background, the only time I ever heard an anti-Catholic comment was from a visiting preacher from New York."
Figures.
"I saw “freedom-riding” nuns invading the South in the 1960s."
Does this really show that the Church cannot be a civilizing force here? Well, that really goes to the question of whether civilized people think blacks should be systematically excluded from their businesses and political systems simply because their black. That may well be something constititutionally protected, but it definitely seems to be, from the Church's perspective, to be a wrong decision. "Break bread with blacks at church on Sunday, but feel free to shut them out on principle the other six days of the week," doesn't sound like a principle of Catholic civilization. Here Southern culture could have used some civilizing. Would that it had come through peaceful religious prompting instead of through compulsory governmental reform.
"their black"
ERR, I hate homophones. "they're" I also wrote "to be" twice in the next sentence.
Here Southern culture could have used some civilizing. Would that it had come through peaceful religious prompting instead of through compulsory governmental reform.
I think the objection is: do "we" need outsiders, even if they are religious, to do this prompting? (I am understanding Dr. Wilson to mean that the nuns did not live in the South.) Or was integration and the conversion of hearts slowly being accomplished from those who actually lived in the region and were members of the community? It's one thing for Christian 'missionaries' to go to the South, settle there, and form relationships with the people there. (Even this might be objectionable to Southerners.) It's another for non-Southern Christians to travel to the South to make a political statement and then leave. (Whether such acts did anything to help integration, I will leave that to those who actually live in the South to answer. But I doubt that it did much besides cause disruption and ill-feeling.)
T.P and I seem to have different concepts of what constitutes civilisation. Despite what most Catholics today believe, the Church in 19th century America NEVER opposed slavery, regarding it as a paternal institution. Neither egalitarianism nor outside coercion of settled Christian societies are compatible with Christian civilisation. That the Church now lends itself to such (including immigration advocacy) indicates not its devotion to charity but the degree to which it has been absorbed into and politicised by the Americanist religion.
Richert's question is completely disingenuous. He is asking whether a so-called "traditional" Catholic can be a good American, since Richert and his ideological fellow travellers seem to believe that the only legitimate Catholic is one who shares their views. This is no different from "progressive" Catholics defining Catholicism according to their own ideological agenda; in either case, it's narcissistic.
Instead of asking this question, Scott, perhaps you should ask whether the Catholic Church is truly Christian and whether Catholics of all stripes can change the situation? I mean, after all, with the clerical sex-abuse crisis, with corruption entrenched in the ecclesiastical bureaucracy for centuries, with bishops blissfully ignoring canon law, with Rome failing or refusing to discipline malfeasant bishops and with many "devout" Catholics in blissful denial of the whole thing, wouldn't that question be more germain?
#41 "Instead of asking this question, Scott, perhaps you should ask whether the Catholic Church is truly Christian ...."
Perhaps an even better question is" Can any Christians living in America today be saved ? Can they vote without sinning ? Should they vote at all ? Can they survive without sinning? Are Christians today any different from the new post christian, pagan, Americans ? How are they different ?Should we give America back to the native americans ? Should we take America back from the current crop of destroyers who took it away it from Christians ? Who are the destroyers ? Why were our ancestors so Un -- Christian , ignorant, hardworking, but stupid and opposed to the government helping them and others so much ? Where was Mr. Obama when we needed him ? Who says today what a Christian is ? Are there any Christians today ? Does McCain care about them ? Have there ever been any real Christians after the death of the last Apostle ? Did they always try to correct all the worlds wrongs ? Did they ever do anything that was helpful ? Why isn't the world perfect after all these years of Christianity ?
Did Socrates really say a fool can ask more questions in a few minutes than a wise man can answer in a lifetime ? Am I a fool ?
Who is wise ?
Can a traditional Catholic be a good American? I don't see how. Given the horrific nature of the egalitarian regime, and the absolute despising of all things Christian...I think a better question would be "why would any traditional Catholic want to be a good American"?
Outside of loving our place, land and people, how far can we go with giving adulations to a country that has systematically neutered the Christian faith to the point that putting a manger seen in the town square is considered a greater sin than infanticide? Indeed, patriotism is a virtue...until it becomes a vice.
I think all traditionally minded people are at some point going to have to give up all false pretenses of "loving our country"... as it has evolved into an effeminate "proposition" state that has no use for any silly notions such as "culture" and "tradition". Alas, I thank God for homemade wine and our Lord on the altar...otherwise I might get cranky.
"Richert’s question is completely disingenuous. He is asking whether a so-called “traditional” Catholic can be a good American, since Richert and his ideological fellow travellers seem to believe that the only legitimate Catholic is one who shares their views. This is no different from “progressive” Catholics defining Catholicism according to their own ideological agenda; in either case, it’s narcissistic."
Absolutely ridiculous. Your faulty premise is that the word 'traditional' is describing some sort of theological flavor rather than unbridled loyalty to the Church. A 'traditional' Catholic is one who defers to Church Tradition and Church teaching, a 'progressive' is something else entirely. Whatever it is, though, it cannot properly be called Catholic because the Church's nature is unchanging. Therefore, the phrase 'traditional' Catholic should, in fact, be a redundancy, but it is because of people who shirk Church teaching yet nevertheless call themselves Catholic that men like Mr. Richert feel the need to openly identify themselves as Catholics who actually follow the Catholic faith. Hardly ideological.
Very well, Edward, if you're one of those who defer to Church "tradition," then what do you think of JPII's de facto theological revisionism considering capital punishment, a revisionism that bespeaks of abolitionism? Consider the following:
-- During his 1999 trip to the United States, the late pope successfully convinced Missouri Gov. Mel Carnahan to commute the death sentence issued to Darrell Mease, who was convicted of murdering three people – including a disabled 19-year old.
-- In 2000, John Paul asked Rome’s city officials to let the Colisseum’s lights shine continuously in memory of those who received death sentences.
-- In 2001, the late pope wrote a personal request to President George W. Bush for clemency for Timothy McVeigh, who murdered 168 people in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
--John Paul revealed his true opinion about capital punishment at a large Mass in St. Louis on January 29, 1999, two days after Carnahan commuted Mease’s sentence:
“The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”
-- Cdl. Renato Martino, speaking as the Holy See’s permanent observer at the United Nations, admitted that the Catholic Church seeks to abolish capital punishment worldwide:
“Abolition of the death penalty … is only one step towards creating a deeper respect for human life. If millions of budding lives are eliminated at their very roots, and if the family of nations can take for granted such crimes without a disturbed conscience, the argument for the abolition of capital punishment will become less credible. Will the international community be prepared to condemn such a culture of death and advocate a culture of life?”
-- The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops followed Martino’s lead in March 2005 by announcing its own comprehensive abolitionist campaign, complete with political lobbying, judicial intervention and educational efforts in every parish.
Now consider the following:
-- Genesis 9:5-6 describes God as ordering Noah and his descendents to execute murderers: “Murder is forbidden….Any person who murders must be killed. Yes, you must execute anyone who murders another person, for to kill a person is to kill a living being made in God’s image (New Living Translation).”
That command, according to Genesis, came after a flood that destroyed a morally chaotic world – and is repeated in the every book of the Torah, the first five books that form the Bible’s foundation.
The command implies three theological principles. First, if God is the author of life, then God retains the prerogative to define the circumstances under which life can be taken. Second, God demands that humanity create just societies to protect the innocent. Third, murder is such a heinous violation of the divine image in humanity that execution is the only appropriate punishment.
-- Exodus 20-23 elaborates on these principles in what scholars call the lex talonis, which advocates punishment proportional to the offense – the original meaning of “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.” Instead of encouraging vengeance, as Martino maintains, the lex talonis discourages ad hoc vigilantism – the ultimate form of vindictiveness – in favor of due process.
-- In the New Testament, St. Paul reinforces the idea in his letter to the Romans. In Chapter 12, he discourages his readers from avenging themselves by quoting Deuteronomy 32:35 (“Vengeance is mine, says the Lord. I will repay!”). In the next chapter, St. Paul encourages them to rely on due process through legitimate authorities “because they do not bear the sword in vain (verse 4).”
-- In The City of God, St. Augustine states:"The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ for the representative of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to the Law or the rule of rational justice.”
-- St. Thomas Aquinas, in his masterpiece Summa Theologica, argues against the idea that incarceration alone is enough to protect the community: “If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgment. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted.”
-- In Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas even argues that impending execution can stimulate repentance: “The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgment that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.”
--In 1952, when Pope Pius XII said:“When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.”
--Not even Sister Helen Prejean, one of the most popular opponents of capital punishment, contends that the abolitionist position has biblical roots, as she admitted in her book, Dead Man Walking:“It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a capital crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one is hard pressed to find a biblical ‘proof text’ in either the Hebrew Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this. Even Jesus’ admonition ‘Let him without sin cast the first stone,’ when He was asked the appropriate punishment for an adulteress (John 8:7) – the Mosaic Law prescribed death – should be read in its proper context. This passage is an ‘entrapment’ story, which sought to show Jesus’ wisdom in besting His adversaries. It is not an ethical pronouncement about capital punishment.”
You have amassed quite a bit of information. The problem, however, is that Pope John Paul II did not reverse the Catholic Church's position on the death penalty. The Church sides with Scripture, Augustine, and Aquinas on this issue and always will. Pope John Paul II, whatever his personal opinions and hopes were, did not infallibly alter Church teaching. Every item you list is an example of him being prudentially opposed to the death penalty, not principally opposed. This is to say that, as a Catholic (even the Pope), one can freely decide whether the death penalty is just or unjust in a given and particular situation. What a Catholic (even the Pope) cannot do is say that the death penalty is an intrinsic evil and therefore wrong always, like abortion. While the Pope does seem strongly to oppose the death penalty in most instances, ultimately, none of these collected statements amounts to a reversal of traditional Church teaching.
T.P., do you mind showing me the Bible verse that condemns segregation or that requires an egalitarian ordering of society?
Thanks.
Mr. Richert, the question posed is a great one, given the many posts one has seen over the years on Chronicles.
It would appear that the nub of the problem is contained in the definition you quoted by John Paul II: The term “nation” designates a community based in a given territory and distinguished by its culture. Catholic social doctrine holds that the family and the nation are both natural societies, not the product of mere convention. [While Patriotism] is a love for everything to do with our native land: its history, its traditions, its language, its natural features. It is a love which extends also to the works of our compatriots and the fruits of their genius.
All "traditional" Catholics should agree that we should love our mother land, for like our natural mother, it has given us many benefits. And like our natural mothers, we must look for the good and honor and love those qualities and traits in our country. But Catholics are also admonished to have true love, Caritas, for the other, in this case our Country. Caritas is willing the highest (true) good of the other.
So the task, as you have ably pointed out is to accept and even embrace the good that is in our country, while, if not outright rejection of the bad, at least not be accepting of those areas which are not in line with the true good. And as admonished, we must restrict ourselves to what is actually before us, and not what we wish it to be. As these are the issues, it would be easy to accept many aspects of the nation as it existed and as it exists: the Natural beauty, the genius of the inventors of this land (the use of the inventions can be argued), the ability of local groups of individuals to carry out real works of mercy in a crisis, the traditions and music of local community or region, etc.
But turning from the 'country' (which all patriots can love) to the governmental institutions, can a Catholic "love" a system of government that at its founding, and shortly thereafter, was greatly influenced by Enlightenment ideas, especially that of radical egalitarianism. And as those Enlightenment ideas became deeply embedded into the "culture" of the USofA, especially after the Civil War, can one embrace that culture? Dr. Rao has commented on the conflict with many of the founding principles in the governmental system and traditional Catholic teaching. The Southern culture, as Dr. Wilson and others have pointed out numerous times, (certainly ante-bellum) does seem to have retained a culture, and institutions, that resisted some of the more radical ideas of the rest of the country.
And is these conflicts would seem to not be exclusively Catholic ones, as based on my admittedly limited knowledge of the more traditional Protestant denominations, they may also have issues with the more radical jurisprudential/philosophical underpinnings of our Nation, at least as understood by some of the Northern founders.
Is there also another issue in the question- one that existed at the time of the founding, and highlighted by Dr. Wilson and others, that the shear size of the USA, then and now, means that while the USA was and is juridically one nation, there actually existed (and to a lesser extent today exists) many "cultures" and modes of being. And while the North may have been more infused by Enlightenment philosophies, the South maintained a more traditional understanding of the nature of man, and thus viewed the founding institutions differently. It was Pope Pius IX that recognized the Confederacy, and it has been inferred from some of the correspondence that part of the reasoning of the support of the Catholic Sovereign for the South was because of the upholding of a traditional concept of the state and the better understanding of the nature of man and government than that of the northern view of government.
While I suppose that there may be no Great conflict with the ante-bellum, Southern understanding of the instutions of Government (broadly understood) and traditional Catholicism, what is one to do with TODAY'S Country and TODAY'S Nation. If we must take them as they are, it would seem that NO Christian of any traditional stripe, let alone Catholic, could accept much of our current institutions and mass culture. See Red Phillips above. Whatever the merits of the philosophical/jurisprudential arguments of the 19th century, except for the relatively small number of paleo-conservatives, it seems like a "lost cause". And may this not be what one sees in the reactions of many traditional Christians? A reaction to the culture and institutions as they exist now, and have existed for over 50 years? While we may all come to an agreement on this site that at its founding, the USA was a nation and therefore a natural society, not the product of mere convention, the actual USA as it exists today seems to be a product of mere convention. Given the mass culture (dispensed through the idiot box), and the high mobility of people and families, and the radical individualism of many in our society, all that seems to hold us together is a proposition, a mere convention. And if this is true, then is the rejection of most of what the USA has become, de jure, not in line with Catholic teaching?
An amendment to my post- the last line should read- And if this is true, then is the rejection of most of what the USA has become, de facto if not de jure, not in line with Catholic teaching?
Prior to Vatican II the Church condemned religious liberty as indifferentism, and tolerated it only as a necessary evil. As with so much else, the current teaching is far more ambiguous.
For orthodox Catholic doctrine, I suggest sspx.org, or the web page of The Remnant. At least those are my favorites.
Incidentally, the Pope has now vindicated those who claimed that the Old Mass was never abrogated. The next step is for him to say it himself.
I doubt he ever would or could admit that Vatican II and the New Mass were catastrophic mistakes. He had too great a hand in promoting both of them.