Metastatic Politics

     "Deriving pretentiously its name from Reason, this false doctrine [of socialism], by flattering and stimulating the eagerness to outstrip others which is interwoven with man's nature, and giving the rein to every kind of unlawful desire, has taken willing possession of the minds of great numbers, and has even pervaded the whole of civiilzed society.  Hence by a fresh act of impiety, unknown even to the very pagans, governments have been organized without God and the order established by Him being taken at all into account.  It has even been contended that public authority, with its dignity and power of ruling, originates not from God but from the mass of the people, which, considering itself unfettered by all divine sanction, refuses to submit to any laws that it has not itself passed of its own free will.  Next, after having attacked and cast away the supernatural truths of faith as being contrary to reason, the very Author and Redeemer of mankind has been forced slowly and gradually to withdraw from the scheme of studies at universities, colleges, and high schools, as well as from all the practical working of public life.  In fine, after having consigned to oblivion the rewards and punishements of a future and never-ending existence, the keen longing after happiness has been narrowed down to the range of the present life . . . "  (Pope Leo XIII, Quod apostolici muneris, Dec. 28, 1878).

     To which the committed secularist, and many an incautious Christian, might cheer.  But perhaps it's time we considered the salutary curb that the Christian faith places upon the political itch.  If this world and its paltry bowls of filmy water and meat by-product are all there is, then who should be surprised if the dogs snarl and go for the throat?   For a once-Christian state to reject the guidance of the faith is not to reject discussion of (and battle over) ultimate goods.  It is to relocate those ultimate goods much lower down, and within reach of the people themselves, who will fight for them with all the greater fervor because they promise much and deliver so little.  In a truly Christian state, we know that whatever battles we may wage over where the sewer goes, the true battle is elsewhere, and against powers and principalities.  The prospect of that battle places our politics here in a long perspective.  Can you imagine a two-year-long campaign, wasting billions of dollars, on who should be the most exalted Dog Catcher in a Christian land, as important a post as that may be?  Well, given man's taste for strife, I suppose I can imagine even that; but the combatants will still have somewhere to turn for unity and forgiveness, if they could be prevailed upon for a moment or two to sit still and be quiet.

     The faith keeps politics in its place, and if that is healthy for the faith, it is absolutely essential for politics, which otherwise will assume the altar.  It is the great revelation of Christ, only sporadically understood by Christians themselves, that politics does have a place of its own, and that we should render to Caesar what is Caesar's.  But that verse says nothing about the banishment of the faith, or of the laws of God written on the human heart, from the public sphere.  When that happens -- when we fail to render to God what is God's -- then either the state itself becomes the object of worship, or, if it is not a cultic god, it still crawls into areas where it has no business, because nothing is holy, and all rests in the apparent will of the rulers or the people.  The apparent will -- because, with natural law overthrown, the people as a group are united by no God, no transcendent ideal, no sense of the right that is independent of their own appetites.

     "The personal is the political," academic feminists used to say, and "Teaching is a political act," said one of them at my school, and she did not mean that teaching was a part of a vibrant civic life, subsidiary to eternal laws that should guide what is taught and how.  She meant that teaching was part of the current struggle, a partisan political struggle.  A moment's consideration of these dictums should be enough to show that when once that wall is breached, when, because nothing is holy, politics itself is "holy," then politics becomes a Moloch, devouring every innocent babe in sight.  If you cannot forge a friendship without an eye for gain in the political battle, then it is no rich friendship you forge, but an alliance.  That explains why apostates from the hard left lose all their friends: think of the arid lanscape of the heart for which there is nothing greater than the electoral college, and no consciousness of grave personal sin, a consciousness that can awake us to the need for forgiveness.

     Because I do not want politics to be my nation's god, I want my nation to think of itself as being "under God," specifically the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Because He made man in His image and likeness, there are many things that no just state may do to someone simply because he is poor or powerless or old or unwanted.  There is a holiness to that ragged-looking person over there, not because he possesses "rights" (which the secular left has multiplied while ceasing to define what the idea of a "right" even is and whence it derives), but because he is going somewhere -- and far beyond the soup kitchen around the corner.  His is an eternal destiny; therefore we had better approach him with some reverence.  Politics, in a Christian state, is neither a first nor an ultimate thing, but something in the middle and temporary, subordinate to both our ends and the dignity of our created beings; it is the art of governing wayfarers in a land they will soon leave, and many are the things of God (the family, for instance) which it dare not touch.  Restrained to its proper sphere, forced to be itself, politics may get a few useful things done.  Out of that sphere, it grows with wondrous speed.  So do tumors.

Comments

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"The personal is the political," <<<

Once you acccept that, you automatically buy into the corollary, "The political is personal", which explains the destructive nature of the politics of the left.

[coco]

What is the content of the term "Christian state"? We have believing Christians and the Church. Is a Christian state confessional? To what confession does it adhere? Does it pare down the truth (or rather, the Truth) to a minimum acceptable standard among competing confessions?

I wouldn't mind living in a Christian state. I'm just not sure what it entails. The ancient Greeks had the idea (if not the practice) of democracy. Certainly, the idea of man as having an eternal destiny is the Christian innovation par excellence, the Good News that provides the ultimate corrective to the overweening state. but doesn't the term "Christian state" carry the danger of confusing secular and eternal absolutes?

"My kingdom is not of this world"...

[Stuart Koehl]

A "Christian state" is not necessarily one with an established Church, but one founded on Christian ethics and morality, which sets for itself the ideal of a Christian society, even if it does not always live up to that ideal. There is, therefore, no need to get tied in knots over what brand of Christianity will dominate, since it is the merest of Christiantiy that is needed to build a Christian state.

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

As I believe Dr. Esolen posits it, a "Christian state" is one illumened by the truths of the faith, in which politics is seen as contingent, not ultimate. It would not necessarily be composed entirely of Christians, have Christian leaders or a "state church." All that would be required is that the transcendent is taken into account in decision-making, and that the proper role of the state is, as C.S. Lewis noted, making it possible for you to sit and read a book by the fire in peace. That is the purpose of the state. One can see that contemporary U.S. society is not one.

[DGP]

All that would be required is that the transcendent is taken into account in decision-making, and that the proper role of the state is, as C.S. Lewis noted, making it possible for you to sit and read a book by the fire in peace.

As John Courtney Murray observed, there could also be such a thing as a Christian republic, in which the power to govern is derived from the governed because it was first delegated to every man. Each Adam assumes responsibility for and therefore the right of governing the earth, and -- recognizing the divinely given freedom and reason of his fellow man -- determines to cooperate with him in government under the form of a republic. The older notions of a divinely established monarchy or aristocracy, favored even in recent centuries by Catholic leaders, needn't be considered the only Christian approach to government. In structure, a Christian republic might look very much like the American republic, so long as it allowed for the "transcendent."

This may or may not lead to a minimal view of government, as Dcn. Harmon suggests. The greater the measure of political agreement among the men of a state, the greater the potential role for the state in the culture. However, respect for one's fellow's conscience precludes totalitarianism and preserves the rights of dissenters.

Sadly, whatever one makes of the odd mix of Baptist and Anglican and Deist and other Founding Fathers, the U.S. has been steadily losing even the appearance of a Christian republic. The role of conscience was replaced by the will. (And will, deprived of conscience, is dominated by passion and appetite.)

As the NY Supreme Court declared in 1972, "It is not true that the legal order necessarily corresponds to the natural order," by which they meant to say that some true human beings -- in this case, unborn children -- nevertheless need not be afforded the protection of the law. Thus, in the absence of transcendent duty, the will of the legally empowered triumphs even over the lives of the disempowered.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>...doesn't the term "Christian state" carry the danger of confusing secular and eternal absolutes?<<

You're right, Coco, and it's into this trap that Jim Wallis and his company tend to fall. They've understood that Christianity places demands on politics, but have gotten caught up in this-worldly objectives to the point of blindness to the teleological vision.

DGP, I like your idea of a "Christian republic." Being a confessed fan of monarchy myself, it's nice to see a suggestion more in keeping with my country's traditions (I'm an American). The founders all realized -- even Jefferson -- that any democracy requires an ethical populace. And good ethics ultimately requires a consciousness of one's neighbor's immortality.

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

I don't believe I said that a Christian (focused) state would lead to a minimalist government. I do believe, as Lewis did, that the purpose of government is to enable citizens to live their own lives peaceably and without undue state interference. When, for example, you are fighting a worldwide war against militaristic empires on two fronts, as we did in World War II, that objective may require you to put 10 percent of your citizens in uniform, hardly a "minimalist" outcome. Circumstances alter cases.

[DGP]

I do believe, as Lewis did, that the purpose of government is to enable citizens to live their own lives peaceably and without undue state interference.... Circumstances alter cases.

Granted, but some reasonable Christians believe that the state should be more actively involved in the economic and cultural affairs of their citizens, and I do not think this position can be ruled out as a matter of Christian principle.

[Judy Warner]

>>>Sadly, whatever one makes of the odd mix of Baptist and Anglican and Deist and other Founding Fathers, the U.S. has been steadily losing even the appearance of a Christian republic. <<<

Some of this change was gradual as a result of cultural changes. But it was given a big boost by court cases brought by Madeline Murray and others intent on destroying any connection between the government and religion. They understood that banning prayer in the schools was the quickest way to undermine this connection. It was a victory for the secularists that still infuriates many people old enough to remember when it happened. Over the years I have read a number of letters to my local paper connecting today's immoral society with the removal of prayer from the schools.

[Joe Long]

"If this world and its paltry bowls of filmy water and meat by-product are all there is, then who should be surprised if the dogs snarl and go for the throat?"

National Review sells T-shirts with great and/or characteristic quotes by its authors; John Derbyshire's grinning mug and "I do hold some opinions which aren't very respectable" graces a shirt of mine. (My wife forbids me to wear it to any church function.) Dr. Esolen, that was one of your marketable ones, as well as an excellent summary of politics...and perhaps as the election season heats up, I will occasionally stop and say to myself, "This is just a bowl of meat by-product I'm fighting over - down, boy! Down!"

On the idea of the Christian Republic: it looks wonderful, and yet...I don't think any theoretical form of government "could be". Only the ones we've already seen are possible alternatives - and not even all of those, I fear. If a superficially different form of misrule does arrive, it will not be based on any theory but on happenstance. The last really good chances to deliberately start something brand-new came with European colonization...and unless we live to load great-grandkids onto an interstellar Mayflower, the governments we SEE are the ones we get. At best.

[GL]

>>>Sadly, whatever one makes of the odd mix of Baptist and Anglican and Deist and other Founding Fathers, the U.S. has been steadily losing even the appearance of a Christian republic. <<<

And, of course, we were never actually the shining example of a "Christian nation" which latter day evangelists would have us believe. Read the sermons from the great preachers of the 18th and 19th century. They were not exactly heaping praise on a righteous people; they were calling a very corrupt people to repentance.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And, of course, we were never actually the shining example of a "Christian nation" which latter day evangelists would have us believe. Read the sermons from the great preachers of the 18th and 19th century. They were not exactly heaping praise on a righteous people; they were calling a very corrupt people to repentance.<<<

So? We will never live up to the promise. Nobody ever will. At best, we can be witnesses of the Kingdom, which is here in the Church, but not here in its fullness. Just as the liturgy of the Church is but a sign, a pale reflection of the eternal liturgy of the angelic hosts, so the best any nation can be is a sign, a relfection, of the Kingdom that is yet to come. Awareness of one's role as a witness, and of the nation as a sign, provides encouragement to people to live up to the expectation, to live righteously and to do the right thing. It is certainly better to have pretensions to being a Christian nation, than to reject Christianity outright, as our avowedly secularist French friends have done. Once you go down that road, the naked power of the state knows no constraints whatsoever.

[DGP]

I don't think any theoretical form of government "could be". Only the ones we've already seen are possible alternatives - and not even all of those, I fear. If a superficially different form of misrule does arrive, it will not be based on any theory but on happenstance.

Ideas do matter. This notion of a Christian republic was very much a practical reality for many people in the middle of the 19th century, and led to some remarkable political insights. Some Christians, for example, were able to apply a reasoned, sacramental notion of Christian eschatology to the abolitionist movement without waxing excessively apocalyptic or inclining themselves to totalitarian-style reforms. Even more dubious religious types such as Abraham Lincoln evidenced a fairly creditable understanding of the relationship between divine Judgment and human conflict.

No, of course, it wasn't perfect, nor perhaps even a dominant feature of the U.S. But it was real, and it did us some good.

[dilys]

"...because nothing is holy, politics itself is 'holy,' " in fact, when nothing is holy everything sequentially and at random takes on a holy-war intensity, often with the cry "it's for the children!"

As to active involvement of the government in the economic and cultural affairs of their citizens, in theory it could be Christian but in practice, without re-instituting Christian boundaries in the public soul, it generally entails self-serving corruption, or a faux-holy busybody critical-path-failure phenomenon.

Close attention to the amalgamation of African Christian elements into evanglical American Anglicanism, with "an emphasis on social justice, an openness to state intervention in markets, and a suspicion of American economic and military power," will provide an interesting experiment regarding these very questions.

My own view runs with Lewis, to work out salvation in God's world. Justice on every scale (as one of the virtues) is not optional for Christians, but once any kind of honey-pot (including self-congratulation for being virtuous) is leveraged by the machinery of government and the personalities with a taste to wield bureaucracy, the Devil seizes the details and the effective outcomes.

[coco]

It's very desirable to have a Christian culture. As for a state, well, my musings are based on a practical example:

The Irish constitution (Bunreacht na h-Eireann, 1937) is the most Christian I'm aware of. It's confessedly Christian, at least in terms the preamble (it didn't establish the RC, a mistaken assumption I saw elsewhere). However, it has not stopped Ireland's slide into the prevailing EU culture.

It does have a wonderful article affording protection to the unborn, but judicial activists have been chipping away at that since the early 90s. I fear for its future in this regard: I know one political party at least wants to throw out the whole document.

I summarise this as a fear that the half-life of a Chritian state absent a Christian culture is limited indeed.

[Joe Long]

Yes, ideas matter...I just think our time and energy are better spent examining our Christian roles within the existing order, than postulating a superior form of government. The example of our American Christian forebears in the middle of the nineteenth century is an excellent one...although I cannot help but note that "without waxing apocalyptic", they nevertheless helped bring about about quite an apocalypse.

The Christian's duties with a republic ("if we can keep it", I hear Ben Franklin dourly remark - or is that a faint "if only you had kept it!" I hear?) require serious attention; the idea of a "Christian republic", not so much, I think -particulary since a realistic goal in America today is to be a pivotal, active minority in our politics while struggling to regain cultural influence.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It's very desirable to have a Christian culture.<<<

You can't have a Christian culture devoid of Christian belief.

>>>However, it has not stopped Ireland's slide into the prevailing EU culture.<<<

QED. Actually, I believe a large part of that was a reaction against the stifling influence of the Church on Irish life (Jansenism may have been a heresy, but it was alive and well in the Irish Church until the middle of the last century) exacerbated by the sudden influx of wealth from the emergence of the Celtic Tiger (when the Irish were poor, they had to keep their sins on a modest scale). After the Irish Church scandals, there appears to have been something of a retrenchment, a more introspective and more humble attitude on the part of Irish Church leaders, which has served to bring an increasing number of young people back into the Church.

[gsk]

Idealism aside, it seems self-defeating. Those devoted to Mammon will always be more vigourous in their pursuit of making straight their depraved path, while those who put Mammon in a Godly perspective will be diligent and yet constrained by well-rounded and ordered lives. Thus, methinks, in our milieu, the "bad guys" always win by their lack of constraints and distractions. "Good guys" can only survive through compromise and cutting deals with the devil. Is this too dark an understanding?

[DGP]

Thus, methinks, in our milieu, the "bad guys" always win by their lack of constraints and distractions. "Good guys" can only survive through compromise and cutting deals with the devil. Is this too dark an understanding?

Yes, much too dark. From one angle, Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings was meant to address precisely this kind of despair, leading to the false choice between surrender to and imitation of evil.

It's confessedly Christian,

Let's not confuse a Christian confession with a Christian political philosophy.

they nevertheless helped bring about about quite an apocalypse.

Yes and no. The war and occupation were ugly, but the abolitionists did not endorse the wholesale slaughter of their enemies, nor their exile, nor even their permanent subjugation. They did not generally imagine that theirs was the "last battle" to be fought on the earth, nor that their sometimes desperate circumstances justified any and all means. In these senses, they were remarkably non-apocalyptic, and they have a lot to teach some contemporary Christian conservatives.

[Joe Long]

"Thus, methinks, in our milieu, the 'bad guys' always win by their lack of constraints and distractions. 'Good guys' can only survive through compromise and cutting deals with the devil. Is this too dark an understanding?"

I hope so. The Founding Fathers shrewdly allowed for human nature, which most of them had an appropriately sardonic view of, and there are natural consequences to "bad guy" and "good guy" behavior which tend to catch up to each (even in this life) and level the playing field. A nice feature of economic freedom is that mammon does accumulate to hard workers and good businessmen, the just and unjust alike...and a wise man who doesn't hold mammon too tightly can find helpful places to direct his excess.

Another feature of our system is that politically, Bad Guys too can only survice through compromise and...cutting deals with the angels, once in a while. And the Bad Guys (consider "guys" to be inclusive language, btw!) certainly seem constrained and distracted to me.

[The Spirit of Pope Julius II]

To Coco:

Your opinion is brilliance.

It was a pleasure to read. You are truly blessed.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The war and occupation were ugly, but the abolitionists did not endorse the wholesale slaughter of their enemies, nor their exile, nor even their permanent subjugation.<<<

Actually, more than a few did. Lincoln would have had a devil of a time dealing with the Radical Republicans, who did not at all agree with Lincoln's advice to Grant, "Let them up easy". Most of their argument with Andrew Johnson (Tenure of Office Act notwithstanding) derived from the Radicals' desire to punish the South for its sins.

[The Spirit of Pope Julius II]

and GSK, I don't want to leave you out. Your opinion is brilliant as well.

[coco]

>>>It's very desirable to have a Christian culture.<<<

You can't have a Christian culture devoid of Christian belief.

Absolutely. My point is that you can't hope to legislate belief into existence. The struggle to maintain Christian values is always going to be at the level of culture.

[DGP]

the Radicals' desire to punish the South for its sins.

Yes, they did want to punish.

[GL]

The founders had a realistic view of human nature, which is reflected in the restraints the put in the constitution. Many of them despised each other and had absolutely no trust in many of their fellow founders (which is obvious if one reads their letters). This distrust turned out to be a good thing for the republic. Too bad the continuing distrust of one's political opponents has not resulted in our keeping the restraints the founders believed were necessay.

[Joe Long]

"The war and occupation were ugly, but the abolitionists did not endorse the wholesale slaughter of their enemies, nor their exile, nor even their permanent subjugation. They did not generally imagine that theirs was the 'last battle' to be fought on the earth, nor that their sometimes desperate circumstances justified any and all means. In these senses, they were remarkably non-apocalyptic, and they have a lot to teach some contemporary Christian conservatives."

Julia Ward Howe's "Battle Hymn of the Republic" portrayed the War as the penultimate struggle, actually, and though calling her a "Christian" abolitionist would be pretty inaccurate, many Christian abolitionists heartily sang along. Nor do contemporary Christian conservatives to my knowledge endorse or employ tactics anywhere approaching those of the Union army, during the war or the occupation. The dead of Elmira, Camp Chase or Point Lookout would have most instructive comments on the conditions at Guantanamo Bay, for instance. And if Thaddeus Stevens or Charles Sumner were reconstructing Iraq...well.

If you are instead comparing the most reasonable of the abolitionists, to intemperate comments by "nuke 'em" conservatives who are far from the levers of power...then you are merely saying that the reasonable have things to teach the unreasonable. But if anything, the slaughter-and-subjugation crowd had a good deal more "say" then, than they do now.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Absolutely. My point is that you can't hope to legislate belief into existence. The struggle to maintain Christian values is always going to be at the level of culture.<<<

In Ireland, I believe a big part of the problem was the Church's too close identification with Irish nationalism and ultimately with the Irish state. This was something pretty alien to Ireland before independence; de Valera deliberately fostered the notion of "Catholic Ireland" as a way of forging a national identity, ignoring the fact that the Irish were never that devout (and much more evenly divided between Catholic and Protestant) than a devotee of Pat O'Brien movies would believe. As the Church became more closely associated with the political and economic establishment, it came to be seen by many as just another institution--and an oppressive one at that. But so long as the Irish were mired in poverty, a sort of codependency with the Church existed--people needed the Church for support, the Church needed the people for its influence. The day the people woke up and found they had two coins in their pocket to rub together was the day the Church lost its stranglehold over the Irish mind. It took a while for the Irish Church to come to grips with the new reality. Having adopted a new model for its ministry, the Irish Church is now positioned to win back some of the ground it lost (but which it was occupying under somewhat artificial circumstances in any case).

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Great Article Professor Esolen! What do you think of Marie Cocco's opinion below of the intersection between faithful Catholics and politics?

Where abortion, hypocrisy mingle

By Marie Cocco -
Wednesday, May 16, 2007

At least you can tell Rudy Giuliani was raised a Catholic. "I don't get into debates with the pope," he says.

Poor Rudy. He's been hog-tied lately by the unfortunate intertwining of his pro-choice record on abortion, his quest for the presidential nomination of the anti-choice Republican Party, and the trip of Pope Benedict XVI to Latin America -- where the pope, predictably enough, created a commotion by raising the specter of ex-communication for Catholic politicians who support legal abortion.

I am increasingly irritated with the debate over religious tolerance in American politics. I wish, in particular, that the whole matter of Mitt Romney's Mormon faith would disappear from discussion, much as I know it will not.

Notwithstanding Al Sharpton's awkward and offensive comments about Mormons, there is one overriding reason that our politics often degenerate into a contemporary inquisition: Those who care most deeply about a politician's religious beliefs are religious people who fervently wish to impose their own religious litmus tests on public policies that affect everyone.

For at least the past two decades, they have sought to imprint their own faith on public policy -- on abortion, stem cell research, condom use, civil rights for gays, sex education, even the dispensing of birth control pills to adult women who arrive at the pharmacy with a doctor's prescription. The political apparatus they've used to achieve their goals is the Republican Party.

During the presidency of George W. Bush, the GOP has rarely strayed from their orthodoxy.

Romney's task is to convince those evangelical Christians who suspect Mormonism is heresy that he is just as Christian as they.

Note that he had little trouble getting elected governor in heavily Catholic Massachusetts, where voters didn't give a hoot about Romney's Mormonism, any more than they do about a divorce in the Kennedy family.

Which is why Giuliani's candidacy may be the more intriguing case study.

He is the first Catholic, pro-choice Republican to become a leading presidential contender. So here is a question: Will the right-wing Catholic laity attack him with the ferocity it's shown toward pro-choice Democrats? Will conservative bishops seek to deny Giuliani communion, as about a dozen did in 2004 when John Kerry -- who attends Mass regularly and even courted his wife by inviting her to Mass -- was the Democratic presidential nominee? Or will Giuliani's candidacy at last expose the right wing of the American Catholic Church for what it is: a minority that has captured a media megaphone and is in political league with right-wing Protestant evangelicals, philosophical descendants of those who once whipped up public animosity toward "papists"?

Each frenzy over Catholic politicians, abortion and the church is cause for amazement. The argument is conducted in a fact-free zone, where those braying loudest have the weakest grasp on reality.

American Catholics long ago abandoned church teaching about birth control and divorce. The bishops have learned to live with this. They had to, or the pews would be even emptier. Abortion seems to be moving into the same category. In a 2005 survey of Catholics conducted by the National Catholic Reporter, 58 percent agreed that you could be a "good Catholic" without obeying the church hierarchy's teaching on abortion, up from 39 percent in 1987.

For all the drama over Kerry and communion that played out in 2004 -- some bishops even said they would seek to deny the Eucharist to parishioners who voted for the Democratic standard-bearer -- the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops refused to endorse an outright ban on communion for pro-choice politicians. They left it to individual bishops to decide.

Among American Catholics, it is ever more true that you can love the church and respect the pope -- and ignore him just the same. For this, the right-wing lobby coined the effective epithet "cafeteria Catholic." That it could be applied to their own selected adherence to church teaching -- conservatives who favor the death penalty come first to mind -- never has stopped them from depicting the majority of their fellow Catholics as sinners.

Now the thrice-married, pro-choice and pro-gay rights Giuliani tests the tolerance of Republican primary voters, a group not known for its embrace of diversity on matters of faith and morality.

Those conservative Catholics who have made a cottage industry out of attacking pro-choice Catholic Democrats now face their own test of conscience. Is Giuliani a worthy target of their public outrage? Or will they keep an uncharacteristic silence, their hypocrisy a stain they do not see as sin?

[Stuart Koehl]

Just to point out that Christians aren't the only Americans who can take a jihad approach to war, remember that FDR's Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, was tasked to develop a plan for post-War German reconstruction. A non-observant Jew more goyish than the goyim, Morgenthau was deeply traumatized by images of the Holocaust (survivor's guilt?) and devised a plan that would ensure that Germany could never again be a threat to anybody. He called for the wholesale deindustrialization of Germany, a massive deportation of the urban population to the countryside, and the breakup of the country into several smaller states. Essentially, all of Germany would be converted to a huge cow pasture (something my mother, who was all of twleve at the time, thinks would have been a good idea). Morgenthau quite openly spoke of Germans as a plague upon mankind whose extermination would be a blessing. That being impossible, Morgenthau thought his plan the next best thing. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Among American Catholics, it is ever more true that you can love the church and respect the pope -- and ignore him just the same. <<<

Actually, that's the most authentic aspect of American Catholic culture. Go to Italy, go to Spain, go to any of the traditionally "Catholic" countries of Europe (with the noteworthy exceptions of Ireland and Poland), and you will find this attitude in spades. Moreover, it has been this way there for at least a couple of centuries now, so America is just beginning to catch up. The docility and obedience of American Catholics in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century was the exception, not the rule, and it came about as the deliberate policy of a group of Irish Catholic bishops who were determined to make the Irish Catholics full-fledged Americans while retaining their distinctive Catholic identity. They were able to succeed only because the Irish Catholics (and later, the Italians and Hispanics) were an oppressed minority within American society, and the Church provided them with a source of social cohesion. After World War II, with the process of assimilation complete and the old ethnic neighborhoods breaking up under the pressure of suburbanization, the hold of the Church over American Catholics weakened significantly.

[Ethan Cordray]

I find the Cocco article pretty funny. I particularly like being numbered among the "philosophical descendants of those who once whipped up public animosity toward 'papists'".

By all means, shut the minority up!

But she does have a point that Giuliani ought to be in for the same treatment Kerry received over his abortion views. The difference is that his general election opponent is unlikely to be someone with opinions similar to those of George W. Bush. If he wins the nomination, he may become the lesser of two evils.

[gsk]

"I hope so. The Founding Fathers shrewdly allowed for human nature, which most of them had an appropriately sardonic view of, and there are natural consequences to "bad guy" and "good guy" behavior which tend to catch up to each (even in this life) and level the playing field. "

But this republic can only succeed when people are decently educated and have some desire to be good, no? I'm no constitutional scholar, but it would appear that if the majority wanted to legislate all sorts of vice and license, they could (in deed they have). That's why the coopting of the educational system was such a priority for those who needed to undermine society/families. It's been said above that we cannot legislate belief, but if legislators want to legislate against belief, there's nothing to be done (except pray).

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Each frenzy over Catholic politicians, abortion and the church is cause for amazement. The argument is conducted in a fact-free zone, where those braying loudest have the weakest grasp on reality."

Marie Cocco is pandering shamelessly to the political left. I don't know why her Washington Post editors don't take her to task for her ad hominem attacks. "Fact-free"? "Braying loudest"? "Weakest grasp of reality"?

I'm not Catholic, but *I'm* insulted by this inflammatory rhetoric.

"American Catholics long ago abandoned church teaching about birth control and divorce. The bishops have learned to live with this. They had to, or the pews would be even emptier. Abortion seems to be moving into the same category. In a 2005 survey of Catholics conducted by the National Catholic Reporter, 58 percent agreed that you could be a "good Catholic" without obeying the church hierarchy's teaching on abortion, up from 39 percent in 1987."

Yikes! Is that true? If so, that is not good.

[Bill R]

I wish Dr. Esolen's post could be made required reading for all Presidents before they take the oath of office!

[GL]

For at least the past two decades, they have sought to imprint their own faith on public policy -- on abortion, stem cell research, condom use, civil rights for gays, sex education, even the dispensing of birth control pills to adult women who arrive at the pharmacy with a doctor's prescription.

What an intriguing sentence. Admittedly, in the cases of "abortion [and] stem cell research" folks like me want to use government to prevent someone from doing something he or she wants to do (i.e., kill her baby or kill a human being at the embryonic stage of life). In the case of "condom use" and "civil rights for gays," folks like me oppose government support (i.e., no government funding for condom use or education about how to use condoms and no government recognition of "gay marriage"). Even so, for argument sake, I will permit Ms. Cocco to call that "imprint[ing my] own faith on public policy," though I think that it is she who is doing this.

In the case of "the dispensing of birth control pills to adult women who arrive at the pharmacy with a doctor's prescription," there can be no doubt about it being her and her ilk who are seeking "to imprint their own faith on public policy." All pharmacists want is the right to say, "No. I won't fill that prescription." Few, if any, such pharmacists are seeking to deny woman the right to have their Plan-B prescriptions filled by a pharmacist who is willing to do so. Folks like Ms. Cocco want to force those who do not want to do so to fill such prescriptions as well. It is she who wants to use government to prevent someone from doing something he or she wants to do, that is, to refuse to fill the prescription. That is, in this instance, she is seeking to do the same thing she accuses me of doing as to abortion and embryonic stem cell research. My guess is that she is too blinded by her faith to see this, however.

[GL]

Each frenzy over Catholic politicians, abortion and the church is cause for amazement. The argument is conducted in a fact-free zone, where those braying loudest have the weakest grasp on reality.

American Catholics long ago abandoned church teaching about birth control and divorce. The bishops have learned to live with this. They had to, or the pews would be even emptier. Abortion seems to be moving into the same category. In a 2005 survey of Catholics conducted by the National Catholic Reporter, 58 percent agreed that you could be a "good Catholic" without obeying the church hierarchy's teaching on abortion, up from 39 percent in 1987.

So, apparently Ms. Cocco bases reality on the polls. If a large enough segment of a group deemed relevant by her have a certain belief, that is reality. If a majority of Catholics accept birth control, divorce and abortion, then birth control, divorce and abortion are acceptable. Based on Ms. Cocco's logic, I suppose if a majority of Americans accepted slavery and misogyny, then slavery and misogyny would be acceptable. Just who has "the weakest grasp on reality." Her failure to recognize objective truth could have consequences which she never intended.

[Tony Esolen]

Veritas Unificat:

To call Mrs. Cocco's article dumb is an insult to the speech-impaired. She slings a lot of mud, but it all comes to this: "I'm an aggressive secularist, I like what the sexual revolution has produced, so there!" The article evinces not the slightest concern for Catholic or Christian doctrine, not the slightest knowledge of history, not the slightest sense that the relationship of political action to moral law or to the faith of a people is something to think about for more than a minute, and not the slightest sense of urgency regarding the collapse of the family (just to name one institution in our land that is sick).

Our colleges graduate Mrs. Coccos by the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions. They have a neat way with words, if your standard is USA Today, but they have been so coddled by being on the "good" political side that they have never been compelled even to consider opposing arguments, let alone to take people in the past on their own terms and try to learn what they have to teach us. Make Carry Nation an advocate for hygienic depravity and multiply her by a million -- or take the worst of William Lloyd Garrison and Alfred Kinsey, lower the IQ by 30 points, and put him in charge of a chain of newspapers.....

[JRM]

"It has even been contended that public authority, with its dignity and power of ruling, originates not from God but from the mass of the people"

The Pope was right. It was so contended--in the United States Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown

[DGP]

"It has even been contended that public authority, with its dignity and power of ruling, originates not from God but from the mass of the people"

The Pope was right. It was so contended--in the United States Declaration of Independence:

No, the DoI was agnostic on this point. Note the difference between "derived from" and "originates from."

[Joe Long]

"Make Carry Nation an advocate for hygienic depravity and multiply her by a million -- or take the worst of William Lloyd Garrison and Alfred Kinsey, lower the IQ by 30 points, and put him in charge of a chain of newspapers...."

Yes, yes, we have. Not only that, but our colleges graduate tens of thousands of liberal arts majors who would only recognize the name Kinsey in that sentence, anyway. What amazes me, frankly, is how well the Founders' framework HAS withstood such an onslaught so far. And I personally think it did so by aiming not at Christian government, but at government suitable for fallen man as Christian doctrine (and ordinary experience) understands him. A fine line, perhaps, but one which has helped our nation bend rather than break with cultural decline - again, so far.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Our colleges graduate Mrs. Coccos by the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions." - Tony Esolen.

That is one of the most depressing sentences I've read all year. Prayer and action is needed to reverse or at least neutralize this immoral tsunami of Mr./Ms. Coccos from crashing our culture into the rocks.

I don't think of myself as old, but I'm willing to count myself as an old, angry geezer. Because I remember when I was young, I used to hear this expression "This country is going to hell in a handbasket."

Now I feel like saying it. Dang!

[DGP]

I don't think of myself as old, but I'm willing to count myself as an old, angry geezer. Because I remember when I was young, I used to hear this expression "This country is going to hell in a handbasket."

Archie Bunker's looking better and better as the years go by.

Boy, the way Glen Miller played,
songs that made the Hit Parade!
Guys like us we had it made.
Those were the days!

And you knew who you were then.
Girls were girls and men were men.
Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.

Didn't need no welfare state;
Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee, our old LaSalle ran great.
Those were the days!

But of course, every generation could make the same complaint. That's why the geneology of Jesus in the Gospels is so moving for me -- generation after generation, and then the Christ. You can kvetch, but despair is no longer allowed.

[Ethan Cordray]

One doesn't have to be old to be appalled. It's worse for us youngsters, who must contemplate seeing 40 or 50 more years of continued "progress." It's good to be able to employ humor when possible, though.

My brother and I (we're 25 and 23, respectively) were sitting in a pub at lunch today, and on the TV Headline News announced that Congress was holding hearings on gasoline prices. Our response: Great! That takes care of that! It's good to know that our best and brightest are on the job.

[Judy Warner]

On the other hand, Ethan, it does the hearts of us old folks good to know that you and a few other young people like you exist.

[Michael]

>>On the other hand, Ethan, it does the hearts of us old folks good to know that you and a few other young people like you exist.<<

Young people like Ethan, and myself for that matter, are not getting elected to office. We have much too firm a grasp on reality to play in that fantasy world. Maybe you shouldn't find it so encouraging, because the people who are "saving us" in 40 or 50 more years are our peers.

Ethan and I know them well enough to find that maddeningly disheartening.

[Ethan Cordray]

Welcome to the Young Pessimists' Club, Michael.

The major political question for me is when to stop pumping and start deploying the lifeboats. I think we'll know the trend in the next five years at latest.

[Michael]

>>Welcome to the Young Pessimists' Club, Michael.<<

I've always preferred the term "realist." Unbridled optimism is nothing more than convenient self-delusion. And our "individualist" society suffers from it in droves.

You say you're a monarchist because of the unfortunate consequences of rule by mob, namely the uneducated few who equate political action with civic duty. But political action without education isn't fulfilling a duty--it's adding to the infection. That's why I'm an political Platonist. Oligarchial rule by the Philosopher-Kings for me, pretty much the only Platonic theory that can be practically applied rather than purely in the abstract.

[Stuart Koehl]

It has always seemed to me that the Shire had the most perfect form of government ever known to man--or hobbit.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Politics is Applied Theology" - Some unknown wag.

When I first read that, it made me think really hard, especially about the nature and theology of the church-state relationship.

At this point in time, I believe Jesus is Lord of All. So by that reasoning, I say it's perfectly permissible, and even good that faithful Christians of all stripes be involved in civic duty. Doesn't He call us to be His Salt and Light?

As GL says, "That is, in this instance, she is seeking to do the same thing she accuses me of doing as to abortion and embryonic stem cell research. My guess is that she is too blinded by *her faith* to see this, however."

GL is exactly right. Secular liberals and the Religious Left decry the political involvement of the "Religious Right", but they do exactly the same thing! ... to influence the politics and governmental policies of this country with their (bad) theology. Freakin' hypocrites.

For me, my identity, first and foremost, is in Christ. Hence I'm theologically conservative. And my theology informs my political views. Therefore I'm politically conservative.

I have long suspected that the Religious Left are primarily liberal politically. And their leftist political views inform their theological views.

However, I have met some theological liberals who are political conservatives.

Still, I believe that in general my thesis is correct. I would love to collaborate with someone to publish a paper on my thesis. Find some way to get data to either reject or accept the null hypothesis.

Thoughts anyone?

[The Spirit of Pope Julius II]

With All do respect to the esteemed gentleman 'Michael', Plato was a drug addict and if you choose this path for spiritual nourishment you would be equally served by volunteering at a nearby Drug Rehabilitation clinic and seeking your fulfillment there.

Am I the crazy one?

[Michael]

Pope Julius--

Perhaps you read too much into what I said. For starters, I did not claim in the least that Platonism was the ideal philosophy to buy into. I said, rather, that his idealized political system exhaustively detailed and allegorized in The Republic was, to my understanding, the best possible political system and, moreover, that it was attainable, unlike the purely abstract World of Forms philosophy for which he is known.

That said, however, perhaps, you ought to channel the church fathers as much as you do the spirit of an indiividual pontiff. The neo-Platonic philosophical foundation of Western theology was exhaustively discussed, dissected and debated on this thread. Whether you approve of this philosophical methodology, it seems apparent that the church has implemented it to some degree. More importantly, calling Plato a drug addict is an attack against the man, not his philosophy or the rationality behind it. It is an ad hominem fallacy. Why don't we reject the esteemed G. K. Chesterton because he could not take his own advice on moderation and hovered around 300 pounds for most of his adult life?

I am not seeking fulfillment in the philosophy of Plato. That is to be found in Christ alone. I am saying that his political system, as much as monarchy, representative republicanism, parliamentism (is that the proper word for the political philosophy behind parliamentary governments?) or a host of others, is viable and could be readily applied under a Christian ethic.

Truth--

I have many a politically liberal friend. They're political views are, to say the least, errant and vapid, but those among them who claim the title Christian seem to be theologically conservative. I suspect anecdotal evidence would not help. But you have educed my interest. Perhaps I shall draft a survey and distribute it.

[Ethan Cordray]

Michael,

Do not feed the trolls. Look up Julius II sometime, if you wonder about your interlocutor's seriousness. Your post itself is pretty good, though.

While Plato was on to something with his conception of the philosopher king (surely the second best type of king, after the saintly king!), I do take issue with how bloodless and inorganic the system of The Republic is, disposing of the family and promulgating an intentional lie to keep the lower classes in line. I prefer my politics Aristotelian.

Truth,

I don't really think any sort of exhaustive study is needed to prove that most theological liberals are political liberals, as many get that way by tailoring their theology to their political opinions. Of course, depending on where you draw the line between liberal and conservative theology, the survey results will differ.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>While Plato was on to something with his conception of the philosopher king (surely the second best type of king, after the saintly king!)<<<

I prefer a slightly barmy king, myself, one with harmless passtimes such as butterfly collecting or lockmaking.

[Michael]

Stuart,

Humor appreciated, but a serious response:

if the king is a philosopher king, I should hope that "philosophy" was of his essence, not of his habit (a hobby). The same for a saintly king (though I find it unlikely, given how we are fallen, that sainthood could be sustained essence). As for the lepidopterist king...I'd have visions of Silence of the Lambs on a grand scale. I shudder at the thought. Your lockmaking king, however, ahoy.

[DGP]

the philosopher king (surely the second best type of king, after the saintly king!),

St. Teresa of Avila, "doctor of the Church," famously recommended that given a choice between a holy spiritual director and a wise one, one should choose the wise. The same reasoning might well apply to kings.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>St. Teresa of Avila, "doctor of the Church," famously recommended that given a choice between a holy spiritual director and a wise one, one should choose the wise. The same reasoning might well apply to kings.<<<

In the Eastern Churches, holiness and wisdom are one in the same. If one is truly wise, one will be holy; if one is truly holy, one will be wise, though one's wisdom may not be noted or appreciated by the world. Hence the concept of the "Holy Fool", who through his apparent simplicity and even mental impairment, illuminates the Gospel and reveals the foibles of the rich and powerful.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The same for a saintly king (though I find it unlikely, given how we are fallen, that sainthood could be sustained essence).<<<

Saintly kings (martyrs aside) don't have a good track record, truth be told. Look at Aethelred Unraed (not the "Unready" but the "Ill-Counseled"), Edward the Confessor, St. Louis, or Henry VI. All were utter catastrophes as kings, too consumed with their own spiritual interests to look after the national interests (St. Louis was the best of a bad lot, but he bankrupted France with his crusades, and did not succeed in attaining any of his military objectives, but merely caused a lot of Christian soldiers to die of disease, wounds or privation in captivity). Contrast with Frederick II Hoehstauffen, "Stupor Mundi", who was a very bad Christian (if he was in fact Christian at all), but who, unlike St. Louis, did manage to win access to Jerusalem for Christian pilgrims. Of course, he did it through negotiation, rather than by wholesale slaughter of the Paynim, so the Church (and he wasn't very nice to Gregory VII), so the Church has damned him as an impious heretic. But I do think I would rather be ruled by him than by someone like St. Louis, let alone mystical defectives like Aethelred, Edward or Henry VI.

[JRM]

"No, the DoI was agnostic on this point. Note the difference between "derived from" and "originates from."

Not a differnce worth a distiction to the Pope...that was the point of his later condemnation of the heresy of Americanism.

If you really prefer the govermentof the shire to that of the United States you cannot possibly be charged with the heresy of Americanism.

[Kamilla]

"Welcome to the Young Pessimists' Club, Michael"

How about the approaching middle age pessimists club? I, too, prefer realist to pessimist, perhaps even cynic. Which reminds me of a favorite quote of mine. Uttered by the character Diana Trent in the Britcom, "Waiting for God":

"Cynicism is merely the Romantic's condom"

Brilliant! I want to be Diana Trent when I grow old.

Kamilla

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"So, apparently Ms. Cocco bases reality on the polls. If a large enough segment of a group deemed relevant by her have a certain belief, that is reality. If a majority of Catholics accept birth control, divorce and abortion, then birth control, divorce and abortion are acceptable. Based on Ms. Cocco's logic, I suppose if a majority of Americans accepted slavery and misogyny, then slavery and misogyny would be acceptable." - GL

Agreed. Jesus and Paul did not take polling data to issue a commandment.

However, the major insight of the statistics, if true and not skewed, is that a majority of Catholics are not obeying the RCC's teaching on a number of issues. That is not good... from a faithful RCC point of view.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

It seems like the Pope, Catholics, and the Abortion Issue are in the news a lot lately. See Below.

House Dems Excommunicate the Pope
By Maggie Gallagher

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

May Catholic clergy refuse communion to politicians who publicly support abortion rights? Who gets the right to choose in that case?

This deeply theological question has lately assumed an odd prominence in American political life.

Pope Benedict XVI blesses the crowd as he arrives for the opening mass of the V Latin American Episcopal Council in Aparecida, Brazil, Sunday, May 13, 2007.

This week, for example, according to news accounts, 18 Catholic House Democrats, including Reps. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), Patrick J. Kennedy (R.I.) and Carolyn McCarthy (N.Y.) publicly rebuked Pope Benedict XVI for reaffirming during a recent Mexico City trip that legislators who vote to permit the killing of the unborn have excommunicated themselves and may be refused communion during Mass.

"Do you agree with the excommunications given to legislators in Mexico City on the question?" a reporter asked the Holy Father. "Yes," Benedict replied. "The excommunication was not something arbitrary. It is part of the (canon law) code. It is based simply on the principle that the killing of an innocent human child is incompatible with going in communion with the body of Christ."

(In fact, the Mexican bishop in question did not issue any formal excommunication, but merely noted that support for abortion is incompatible with receiving communion, and politicians who have done so should not attempt to receive it.)

Back in D.C., the gang of 18 went apoplectic. Catholic popes, bishops or clergy who withhold communion to politicians, they said, are engaging in essentially un-American activities: "Religious sanction in the political arena directly conflicts with our fundamental beliefs about the role of democratic representatives in a pluralistic America -- it clashes with freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. Such notions offend the very nature of the American experiment and do a great disservice to the centuries of good work the church has done."

"Offend the very nature of the American experiment"? Funny, it used to be Protestants who circulated the smear that Catholicism is somehow incompatible with America political life.

"Clashes with freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution"? Where exactly in the Constitution does it say that Washington politicians are to be exempt from moral or religious requirements or judgments of their faiths?

With Congress' approval ratings tanking almost into Bush territory, you'd think these powerful Washington pols newly in the majority would have their hands full doing their own job -- balancing the budget, preventing the collapse of Medicare and Social Security, staving off disaster in Iraq -- without trying to do the pope's as well.

Even Rudy Giuliani, no slouch in the pugnacity department, and who (according to New York media stories) is himself facing the very real likelihood of being refused communion at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City, had the good sense and the grace to say, when asked to comment, "I do not get into debates with the pope. That is not a good idea."

The truth is these amateur Washington theologians have it exactly backward. Separation of church and state does not mean elected officials get to tell religious leaders to whom they must give religious sacraments, on pain of public excommunication from "the American experiment."

You want to know what "separation of church and state" means on this issue? Consult a Mormon venture capitalist. At the first GOP debate earlier this month, Chris Matthews asked former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney what he says to Roman Catholic bishops who withhold communion from Catholic politicians, and whether they are "interfering with public life?"

Romney shot back: "I don't say anything to Roman Catholic bishops. They can do whatever the heck they want. Roman Catholic bishops are in a private institution, a religion ... I can't imagine a government telling a church who can have communion in their church. We have separation of church and state, and it's served us well."

Amen to that.

[labrialumn]

JRM,
However, the preamble to the US Constitution - the Declaration of Independence, makes it clear that those powers are delegated from God, our Creator.

Plato's Republic does not describe anything we would consider the ideal State, but the most utter, horrific, totatlitarian system ever devised. Complete with evolutionary doctrine so thorough-going that children were not to know that they -had- parents other than the State. T"he Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father"

A good question was asked, though,and the Founding Father's answer is the 2nd Amendment: Quis custodes ipsos custodiet?

Stuart, you aer very nearly uoting Tolkien there, in your idea of the ideal monarch. I believe he also specified butterfly collecting. Or perhaps it was stamp collecting.

JRM, but the Shite -is- Americanism! Jefferson's Yeoman Farmers. And that goes back through the Bill of Rights of 1688 through the Magna Carta to the ancient Anglo-Saxon folk-gerihten, washed with the Bible.

Kamilla, I am much more likely to be the (not as dotty as he seems) old man. And I'm glad.

In the American paradigm, it is in fact the pastors, the preachers, who hold the prophetic role to the kingly role of the civil government, to rebuke it, to teach it the difference between right and wrong. It is the Gang of 18 who oppose the 1st Amendment, the American system of civil government and society as a whole, and who wish to profane the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The fact is, they -are- latae sententiae (sp?) excommunicated of their own choice.

[Francesca]

GL writes: >>If a majority of Catholics accept birth control, divorce and abortion, then birth control, divorce and abortion are acceptable. Based on Ms. Cocco's logic, I suppose if a majority of Americans accepted slavery and misogyny, then slavery and misogyny would be acceptable. Just who has "the weakest grasp on reality." Her failure to recognize objective truth could have consequences which she never intended.<<

Ms. Cocco wasn't making a personal statement about birth control, divorce or abortion so much as she was indicating that the majority of American Catholic simply don't feel obligated to follow Church teachings. The example of slavery is an interesting one since it illustrates how majority opinion *has* in fact influenced RCC teaching. As recently as 1866, the Holy Office issued an instruction affirming that slavery is not contrary to "natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery ... It is not contrary to the divine law for a slave to be bought, sold, or given, provided that ... due conditions are observed." This erroneous doctrine was implicitly corrected by Pope Leo XIII in 1891. The evolution of the RCC's teachings on slavery sets a precedent for doctrinal development in other areas. It also suggests that teachings sanctioned by Church authority are not necessarily "objective truth" and that discernment of "truth" is culturally conditioned.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Francesca writes: "It also suggests that teachings sanctioned by Church authority are not necessarily "objective truth" and that discernment of "truth" is culturally conditioned."

Francesca, do you believe objective truth exists?

[Tony Esolen]

The movement from tolerating slavery to forbidding it entirely was consistent with the Church's general tenor towards the whole issue, from ancient times on. It was also in keeping with the Lord's consistent raising of the moral bar -- see his explanation for why Moses allowed divorce. What Mrs. Cocco wants -- and one would have to be stopping up one's ears with beeswax not to hear the personal vitriol she is leveling at Catholics who do feel obligated to practice their faith -- is not a development of doctrine but a devolution, a slackening. The example of slavery is instructive, but not as Francesca would have it -- please see Professor George's article on the subject in one of the recent issues. What the apologists for slavery wanted was, in effect, a "liberal" reading of Scripture; they wanted to enjoy the widest leeway that Scripture would allow. Of course, Scripture never actually comes out in explicit condemnation of slavery, as it does explicitly condemn just about everything the sexual revolution stands for. In this sense the pro-slavery theologians of the American south actually had less torturing of Scripture to do than have the pro-sexual revolution theologians nowadays.

[JRM]

"However, the preamble to the US Constitution - the Declaration of Independence, makes it clear that those powers are delegated from God, our Creator."

The Constitution, our founding document does no such thing. As Alexander Hamilton put it during the drafting, he saw no need to "call in foreign aid."

The Costitution bases its power on "We the People." The Decalaration of independence points our that governments derive theeir power fromthe consent of the governed, not fromthe almighty-- adefintive and revolutionary rejection of any notion of divine right of kings, or any other form of government.

"The fact is, they -are- latae sententiae (sp?) excommunicated of their own choice."

Not unless they performed or porcured an abortion.

"Canon 1398: A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication."

[DGP]

"The fact is, they -are- latae sententiae (sp?) excommunicated of their own choice." Not unless they performed or porcured an abortion. "Canon 1398: A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication."

Don't mislead those here who may not have any education in canon law. I don't know who you are, but if you quote canon law you should know that simply because one is not under a latae sententiae excommunication, that does not mean one is not excommunicated, nor that one may receive Communion.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Don't mislead those here who may not have any education in canon law. I don't know who you are, but if you quote canon law you should know that simply because one is not under a latae sententiae excommunication, that does not mean one is not excommunicated, nor that one may receive Communion.<<<

In fact, as a constantly remind people, excommunication is something which an individual brings upon himself. Ultimately, the individual is responsible for being properly disposed to receive the Eucharist, "not for judgment or condemnation, but for life everlasting". If, therefore, one knowingly presents oneself before the Chalice in an unworthy state due an act, statement or belief, one has in fact already broken communion with the Church, whether or not the Church has formally declared the person excommunicated or his deeds, beliefs and words to be exxcommunicable offenses. All the Church does, through its power of excommunication, is make formal recognition of a situation which already exists in fact due to acts of the individual or individuals in question. Viewed from that perspective, excommunication is not punishment, but an act of mercy, since to receive unworthily is to become liable to "judgment and condemnation" (by God, not the Church), and barring a person formally from receiving is intended to prevent him from harming himself as well as giving him a wakeup call regarding his perilous situation.

[James A. Altena]

"Francesca, do you believe objective truth exists?"

I suspect she will say "yes", but in fact the answer is "no." If you care to look up a previous post (obut a month ago), in which she and I squared off over the RCC Catechism's teaching on personal moral responsibility, she claims that it endorses the notion that every indvidiual "creates one's own value system", and that an RC does so only "with reference to the Church" rather than in obedience and conformity to the Church. Which is simply a convoluted endorsement of moral relativism.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Ethan,

We haven't gotten back for some time to fighting for the title of resident King Pessimist of MC. Herewith my latest entry:

Q: What's the difference between an optimist and a pessimist?
A: The optimist says, "Things can't get any worse than they are now.' The pessimist says, "Oh, yes they can!"

[Joe Long]

I think I actually prefer "pessimist" to "realist", because some liberals DO attempt to lay claim to the title of "realist", and I wouldn't want anyone to get confused.

James, I would contend for the King Pessimist title, but I'd doubtless lose, and probably do myself permanent harm in the attempt. Or win, and find out it was worse than I'd ever imagined.

[DGP]

James, I would contend for the King Pessimist title, but I'd doubtless lose, and probably do myself permanent harm in the attempt. Or win, and find out it was worse than I'd ever imagined.

Now that's clever. :-) Can anyone beat that pessimism?

[Ethan Cordray]

James,

From the Demotivator poster:

"It's always darkest just before it goes pitch black."

Labrialumn,

You're right that the Shire is American. It can be found most easily out here in the Midwest.

However, I'm also inclined to agree with your slip, that the Shite is also American.

Odd that Jefferson, the liberal optimist, espoused a political philosophy that is now quite popular among traditionalist conservatives -- like me.

[GL]

First, let me second everything Tony wrote and particularly the recommendation of Professor George's article.

Second, Francesca, I think you missed the point entirely. Ms. Cuckoo (I hope I got the spelling of her name correct ;- )), believes that the Catholic Church should take its lead on matters of morality from the attitudes and practices of its members rather than from Scripture and the natural law. That works fine for her at present, as the majority attitude and practice favors the sexual license she desires. That approach would not work fine in other places and time. Only adherence to eternal, unchanging objective truths can protect individuals and a society.

Truth understood precisely what I was saying about Ms. Cocco. She is guilty of the same thing of which she accuses orthodox Christians, seeking to imprint her faith on public policy. Since her faith is not in God and His ordinances, she fails to see that her policy objectives are based on faith, but they most certainly are.

Strangely, the policies she advocates line up rather nicely with the practices of the pagan world in which our Lord was born and lived and which St. Paul and the other apostles evangelized. I assume that Ms. Cocco's ignorance of history and of the philosophical underpinnings for her policy positions prevent her from recognzing that they are just as faith based as our orthodox Christian's policy positions.

[JRM]

"but if you quote canon law you should know that simply because one is not under a latae sententiae excommunication, that does not mean one is not excommunicated, nor that one may receive Communion."

Peope who are either denied communion or who are not eligible for communion are not excommunicated.

The distiction is explained here:

http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2006/11/excommunication.html

[Gene Godbold]

When one claims to be a "realist" one is doing nothing more than boasting.

[dilys]

Dr. Esolen 12:04 -- "the personal vitriol she is leveling at Catholics who do feel obligated to practice their faith...": Neuhaus / Law / Orthodoxy / Optional / Proscribed.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>When one claims to be a "realist" one is doing nothing more than boasting.<<

Gene, I agree, which is why I openly declare my bias.

[Michael]

>>When one claims to be a "realist" one is doing nothing more than boasting.<<

If one claims to be a "realist" one is doing nothing more than declaring the conditions of this world naturally elicit negativity. We are fallen, and to that extent, I find no practical reason to put any hope in the schemes of man or in the general direction we are constrained to follow. Theologically, that's realistic.

I don't deny the negativity, I just think pessimism carries with it a connotation that it is without merit. If we chucked the connotation associated with the word, I would be happily discontent to assume the title.

[James A. Altena]

">>James, I would contend for the King Pessimist title, but I'd doubtless lose, and probably do myself permanent harm in the attempt. Or win, and find out it was worse than I'd ever imagined.<<"

"Now that's clever. :-) Can anyone beat that pessimism?"

I certainly can. Joe could win, and find out that it means him becoming *me*. :-)

Ethan --

"The light at the end of the tunnel is the headlamp of the oncoming train."

[Michael]

James, Ethan--

If the glass ain't half-empty, it's broken and leaking what little water we have left.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

DGP writes: "You can kvetch, but despair is no longer allowed."

I don't think folks are listening to you, DGP.

[Stuart Koehl]

"Things could be worse, but I doubt it."---Eeyore

[Tony Esolen]

The glass is not half empty. It is also not half full. It is brimming over -- with nitroglycerine --

Some priest friends of mine have gotten together an informal group called The Society for Ecclesiastical Pessimism. The biggest wag among their dozen or so members says that if he's ever elected pope he will take his inspiration from John Paul II, but with a slight alteration. His motto: "BE AFRAID!"

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Tony, you started this whole descent into pessimism-realism with your statement: ""Our colleges graduate Mrs. Coccos by the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions."

If there wasn't such a large element of truth to your assertion, we wouldn't be in line to join The Society for Ecclesiastical Pessimism.

Oh well, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, let's faithfully transform one person at a time with the gospel of Jesus and then trust God for the rest.

Pax in Christ alone.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Hillary the Catholic…or Is That Methodist?

Confused yet? Make no mistake. Hillary is a sly one. She must be sly because she caters to whomever she needs to cater to. This is what is known as People Pleasing and is a close kin to Codependency. What most do not realize or, do realize but will not accept, such mental deficiencies result in alienating themselves from everyone they try to appease…except for others like her.

It is said that her earliest religious and political mentor was a Methodist minister, Reverend Don Jones, now 75 years of age. I have found no references as to her change of denominational ties but I have found her venues of political slants, firmly based in socialistic tendencies. Those tendencies have developed into full-bore socialism mantras.

Then why are Catholic leaders angry with Hillary? Has she not made steps to attract them to her in droves? “A Catholic advocacy group is urging Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign to remove an image of Mother Teresa from a campaign video narrated by former President Bill Clinton.” Why is this? One should ask what is meant by: Catholics to Hillary: Stop Using Mother Teresa in Ad. Is it because Bill the Apostate is narrating? Is it because Hillary is a Methodist?

Hat Tip to Miss Beth for her analysis:

“It is wholly inappropriate, disrespectful and disturbing that Hillary Clinton is using an image of Blessed Mother Teresa as a political tool, especially given their radically different views on abortion,” said Fidelis President Joseph Cella.

He noted that Mother Teresa fought to protect unborn children, while Hillary Clinton “staunchly supports abortion on demand in all nine months of pregnancy, including partial birth abortion and taxpayer funding of abortion.

“Out of respect to Mother Teresa, and the Missionaries of Charity strict guidelines for the use of Mother’s image, we call on the Hillary Clinton campaign to immediately remove her image from their campaign video,” Cella said in a news release.

I saved the last comment here for a reason. It actually started Miss Beth’s post but I have placed it here because it signifies the growing sentiment that millions are beginning to see and feel:

“Just when you think this wretched piece of female hatefulness couldn’t stoop any lower:“

And there you have it. Hillary will stoop as low as she needs to stoop in order to win. It is all about the Almighty Power and Control. It isn’t about “We The People”. For Hillary, it is all about “Me The Hillary”.

from: http://stophernow.wordpress.com/2007/05/17/hillary-the-catholicor-is-that-methodist/

[labrialumn]

Ethan, I grew up on a farm in the midwest, and I wish I was still there, and that the half of the population that were cleared out since 1980, were back, farming. No doubt it is more accurate to say that this part of America resembles the Shire, since it was mostly in the Third Age, and I think we are in the Sixth Age.

Still boggled that people think that they can cherry-pick the Declaration to make it seem as if it denies that rights and lawful power are from God, not the people ab initio, when we all have the ability to read the document.

Pessimism:
I would beat it, but, what's the point?

[Michael]

>>Hillary the Catholic…or Is That Methodist?

Confused yet? Make no mistake. Hillary is a sly one. She must be sly because she caters to whomever she needs to cater to. This is what is known as People Pleasing and is a close kin to Codependency. What most do not realize or, do realize but will not accept, such mental deficiencies result in alienating themselves from everyone they try to appease…except for others like her.<<

This is what's so scary. She appeals to others like her, in other words, a significant swath of the American population. Codependency is our disease; politics is our addiction.

Make no mistake, an addiction to anything of this world will lead the nation to Hell in a handbasket.

"Raise a glass for ignorance, drink a toast to fear
The beginning of the end has come; that's why we all are here
Strike up the band to play a song and try hard not to cry
And fake a smile as we all say goodbye"

[Judy Warner]

>>>I grew up on a farm in the midwest, and I wish I was still there, and that the half of the population that were cleared out since 1980, were back, farming. No doubt it is more accurate to say that this part of America resembles the Shire, <<<

I don't think the farmers of the Shire relied on government subsidies.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I don't think the farmers of the Shire relied on government subsidies.<<<

They were also able to grow tobacco in a place that resembled the English midlands.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>They were also able to grow tobacco in a place that resembled the English midlands.<<

Maybe climate scientists need to start investigating the Third Age Warm Period!

Somebody ought to write one of those "Science of Middle Earth" books, like they've done for Star Trek and Star Wars. :-)

Speaking of pessimism, my brother and I were discussing the possibility of industrial collapse last night, and we started debating whether it would be better to be a lowland farmer of a highland survivalist. I pointed out that highlanders are likely to starve in harsh winters. He pointed out that farmers are likely to be killed by raiding highlanders in harsh winters. Then we said good night and went to bed.

[Judy Warner]

Got your gun, your iron plow, your ox, your axe and your seed corn, Ethan?

[Ethan Cordray]

>>I don't think the farmers of the Shire relied on government subsidies.<<

No doubt the first act of the Eldarion administration (Aragorn's son) was to subsidize Shire pipeweed production, transforming it into an export-oriented monoculture region. When new conquests in the East opened up better pipeweed production areas, the Hobbits lobbied Minas Tirith to raise the subsidies to keep them competitive. The expanding Gondorian budget, already stretched by entitlements to the descendants of War of the Ring veterans, led to massive deficits funded by sales of bonds to Rohan and the remaining Elven kingdoms of Mirkwood.

Speculators invested in a risky scheme to terraform the former Mordor into a mixed agricultural-industrial region, and when the project failed due to cost overruns, the Minas Tirith stock market collapsed and the monarchy defaulted on its bond obligations.

The Southrons, still resentful over their defeat in the war, resumed military aggression. With no cash reserves to fund an expeditionary force, and with its allies suspicious of throwing good money after bad, Gondor agreed to a treaty ceding Harondor and South Ithilien. Meanwhile, in the north, Hobbit unrest and general dissatisfaction led to the eventual secession or Arnor. By the end of Eldarion's 200 year reign, Gondor was considered a second-rate world power and an economic backwater.

The Shire, meanwhile, having lost its major pipeweed export market, descended into a crippling recession until the Gamgee family seized power, restoring a rational agricultural policy of diversified subsistence farming and limited exports.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The Shire, meanwhile, having lost its major pipeweed export market, descended into a crippling recession until the Gamgee family seized power, restoring a rational agricultural policy of diversified subsistence farming and limited exports.<<<

Entirely plausible, though as an alternative future, the Shire invested heavily in hops and barley, and became the ale brewing center of Western Eriador, providing most of the brew for the Dwarf Kingdoms of the Ered Luin, the regions down the Baranduin, and Breeland. This they traded for iron implements forged by the Dwarves, diversified agrigultural products from the south, and gaudy fabrics from Bree.

Or you can go with "Bored of the Rings", and have them "raising yaws and goiters for the river trade".

[Judy Warner]

Thanks, guys. You made my day with that.

[Ethan Cordray]

I don't think Tolkien ever explored the agricultural dependencies of the Dwarven kingdoms, though they obviously produced a good amount of trade goods.

Incidentally, the Dwarves did not play a significant role in the Gondorian collapse, preferring localized craft-based trade to large-scale foreign investment. For this they were criticized by officials of the Rhovanion Monetary Fund and denied Most Favored Trading status by Arnor and Gondor, but their policy proved more stable in the long run.

[DGP]

Entirely plausible, though as an alternative future, the Shire invested heavily in hops and barley.... Or you can go with "Bored of the Rings", and have them "raising yaws and goiters for the river trade".

Actually, if you go with Bored of the Rings, it's more likely that during its recession and consequent depressed property values, the Shire became a regional haven for undesirable and especially sexually oriented commerce. Other regions of the West scorned the seedy lifestyle of the Shire, but that didn't stop them from patronizing the brothels and opium dens. The marketers played off an old saw from the days when hobbits were in the business of hiding rings of power: "What happens in the Shire, stays in the Shire."

[Ethan Cordray]

For a more "serious" take on Middle Earth economics, I've found the following article:

The Merchants of Middle Earth.

What was this thread about again?

[Judy Warner]

The thread, ahem, metastasized.