Surrender Not Unto Caesar--Resisting Catholic Liberalism
On a number of literally life and death issues, American conservatives and Catholics stand in a firm alliance. On other subjects, these groups pull in different directions—and this tension causes suspicion, irritation, even hostility on both sides. I’ve noticed among a number of immigration reformers a bubbling up of old, anti-Catholic sentiments—although this is nothing to match the easy scorn some Catholics feel for the Protestantism that founded their native country and guaranteed their liberty to follow their consciences.
To counter the tiresome smugness of some of my co-religionists, I’d like to point out to Catholics that Protestantism is not some alien religion, nor are Protestants in any sense unbelievers. Viewed technically, according to the strictest principles of traditional Catholic theology, “orthodox” Protestantism is simply a truncated form of Catholicism—a constellation of churches that hold to every line of the Nicene Creed, but fail to draw from them several important inferences regarding religious authority and sacraments. The distinctively Protestant theories of free will, grace, and salvation are somewhat unbalanced forms of Augustinianism—overly literal readings of the greatest Father of the Western Church. From a Catholic perspective, people validly baptized and reared as Protestants are not “heretics,” but poorly catechized Christians with mistaken religious opinions, whose souls may be judged only by God. And He is a merciful judge. We who have been given the fullness of the truth, and have done so little with it, should all be glad of that.
Back to politics.
The Catholic/conservative tension is fiercely destructive to both the Church’s mission and the common good. This split competes with the tragic, suicidal liberalism of American Jews for the booby prize as the single most destructive factor in postwar public life. The sundering of Catholics from the politics that naturally follow from their Faith empowers an intolerant secular State to creep into ever more corners of American life—hampering both our freedoms and our faith. This schism helps explain why on every “social issue” of importance both to Catholics and conservatives, we have made in the 25 years since Roe v. Wade not a millimeter’s progress. Indeed, we have slidden backwards. Without the emergence of the entirely Protestant Christian Right (now in retreat), American laws and mores would currently resemble those of Canada or England. For all the heroic activism of individual Catholics—who pioneered the pro-life movement back when the Southern Baptist Convention was pro-choice—the Catholic Church as an institution has made less political impact than the Church of Scientology.
And it’s mostly the bishops’ fault—because conservatism, rightly interpreted—in other words, a movement that took its bearings from the likes of Edmund Burke, Lord Acton, T.S. Eliot, Wilhelm Röpke and Russell Kirk—is more than the Church’s natural ally. As the great Erik von Kuenhelt-Leddihn used to say, conservatism is the political expression of Catholicism, and of all those articles of faith which orthodox Protestantism carried over after Wittenburg. Were men consistent thinkers, and bishops faithful teachers, they would have to see that there can be no truly Catholic Left, nor an American Leviathan baptized and catechized.
In America, by our Constitution as it has been authoritatively interpreted, the State is now relentlessly secular. In practice, it is rigorously relativistic. Altering either of these settled facts in American life would be unthinkably hard. Therefore, any Christian engaged in public life must seek to shrink the sphere of the State, and reduce its functions to their bare, libertarian minimum—in order to leave some room for the practice of Christian life. The bishops’ predecessors realized this, when they tapped the meager resources of impoverished immigrants to build an entire, nationwide system of alternative Catholic schools. Instead of trying vainly to Romanize the (then vigorously if vaguely Protestant) schools, they built their own. A very American response to such a problem—and also a deeply Catholic one. Homeschoolers today follow in the footsteps of Abp. “Dagger” John Hughes.
The Church is officially committed to localism, rather than centralism. Catholic teaching on subsidiarity asserts that no problem should be taken up by the State which can be resolved by private action, and that no local matter should be referred to central authorities unless local institutions are hopelessly inadequate—as they are, for instance, to guard the border against foreign invasion, or prosecute interstate crimes. Empower the federal government to control (as it now does, with bishops’ approval) education, social services, health care and retirement benefits, and you guarantee that each of these vital areas of life will be directed according to non-Christian or anti-Christian principles.
And that is what has happened. It’s no surprise that our public schools teach sex education to very young children and dumb classes down to produce the illusion of equal results; that our welfare programs encourage illegitimacy and multiple generations of dependence; that most leading medical organizations favor legal abortion and the cloning and killing of unborn children to serve as spare parts; that our Social Security system punishes large families and rewards double-income, no kids (DINK) married folks and homosexual couples. This kind of social atom-smashing is what the secular state since 1789 was designed to do, and what it does, when you give it the power. All the pious chatter about “social justice” engaged in by prominent churchmen amounts to a mantra to soothe their consciences.
Conversely, were the modern leaders of our dying conservative movement attuned to the specific nature of the fragile social goods they claim to be “conserving,” they would learn to reject as alien and evil ideas that are incompatible with preserving our Christian, European civilization, and our American liberties. This would rule out—for instance—both racialism and egalitarianism (our opinion leaders have the first part, the easy part, right). Adopting a civilization-friendly criterion would at once incline conservative leaders to look askance at neo-Darwinians and at dry-drunks who swore off Trotsky in favor of Thomas Paine as their apostle of world revolution. Such a return to roots would thin our ranks, of course—but it is our only chance at emerging from the justified public disgrace that Bush and company have brought on the whole conservative enterprise.
Of course, it’s hard to see this natural convergence of republican throne and Christian altar from the piled-up political effusions of America’s bishops over the past 25 years. I won’t drag the gentle reader through the turgid phonebooks worth of poorly informed, moralistic advice generated by the U.S. Catholic Conference and its large research staff of Irish-American Democrats. It’s enough to say that most of these clerics are deeply nostalgic for the days of FDR, when the president himself relied on the bishops to “deliver” a large segment of his political coalition—and consequently incorporated major elements of pro-family, even “maternalist” policy into his proto-socialist programs. Allan Carlson does a better job than I could at laying out how this alliance worked, and why it broke down in the 1960s. Still sunk in denial, too many bishops are vainly daydreaming of a Democratic party recaptured from the likes of Rahm Emmanuel and Barak Obama by a new incarnation of Robert Casey or Richard J. Daley. Beguiled by this mirage, they lurch progressively further leftward on every issue where infallible Church teaching does not specifically mandate otherwise—all in service of maintaining a bridge to nowhere.
There are indeed a few fundamental problems in squaring the heritage of Catholic political thought with the tolerant, “low church” Protestant culture that dominates the American Right. But each of these issues is so removed from political plausibility as to be moot. They all concern subjects like the following: Should a massively Catholic country like the Philippines adopt Catholicism as its tolerant state religion, or hew to American-style separation of Church and state? How do we reconcile the Aristotelian/ Thomistic notion of freedom as the liberty to choose the good with the Enlightenment view which pictures freedom as simply the absence of coercion? And so on…. All very interesting, and utterly irrelevant to current politics.
In fact, the Church is not so much the ally of the Right as its origin. When she forgets her prudence and principles she abandons her (fitfully loyal) son—and in his place, she harbors monsters. Such a forgetting took place at just the wrong moment for America—when the Protestant elites who’d misplaced their faith also lost their nerve, in the wake of World War II. That “Catholic moment” seemed so promising that even Old World curmudgeon Evelyn Waugh looked ahead with mixed feelings (including flickers of hope) to the “American Epoch in the Catholic Church.”
American Catholics had overcome through patriotic assimilation and loyal citizenship most of the natural suspicion their ancestors’ arrival had provoked in a country founded by the “reformers of the Reform.” In 1950, these Americans loyal also to Rome retained at once a faith as fervent as the fundamentalists’, and an intellectual culture which even highbrow Anglicans had to respect. Their universities and school systems clung to ancient languages, medieval formulas, and Renaissance humanism in the face of relentless Progressivism that was even then dumbing down and radicalizing other institutions.
This institutional excellence—one wit described the Catholic Church and the U.S. Navy as two institutions that had been built by geniuses so they could be operated even by idiots—seemed unsinkable as late as 1960. Of course there were icebergs below the water line, as there always are. Much of what outsiders might have attributed to fervent faith was traceable to simple inertia, or tribalist competition with secular and Protestant institutions.
Indeed, the psychological burden of maintaining a separate, Catholic identity in America must have been very heavy; when John F. Kennedy was elected, Catholics greeted it with hysterical excitement, as a sign they’d finally “arrived.” It was not long before they abandoned the effort of living “in” the U.S. but not “of” it, and remade their lives on the models of their non-Catholic neighbors. This happened most famously on the issue of birth control—a vital issue for Catholics living in a West where infant mortality had plummeted and the need for young, farm labor no longer could support large families for every Catholic couple in the country. As Anne Roche Muggeridge documents in The Desolate City, it took some 10 years for a dithering Vatican to make up its mind about the Pill, and several more for Catholic researchers to find an effective alternative that didn’t contravene 1900 years of authoritative teaching. In that turbulent, revolutionary decade, Catholics were told they could “follow their consciences.” They did, and developed intimate habits they weren’t ready to break in 1968—when Pope Paul VI reluctantly issued Humanae Vitae, a cogent condemnation of the chemical assault on fertility, which warned of its catastrophic potential for unleashing sex from marriage or even love. When the Prufrockian pope refused to enforce the document, and underlings at the Vatican backed dissenting theologians against their orthodox bishop, the moral authority of Church teaching suffered a blow from which it has not recovered. That process may take centuries.
In the absence of a strong and deeply trusted institutional culture—an asset squandered in all the squabbling—the Church in America has come to depend for what voice she has on the charisma of isolated individuals, such as Mother Angelica, Fr. Joseph Fessio, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus and Fr. George Rutler. The clearest spokesman in the hierarchy for traditional Catholicism during this dry spell was Cardinal John O’Connor of New York. With his death in 2000, the American Church lost its most recognizable civic advocate, and no one has filled his niche. Some dubious characters have tried, such as Chicago’s Joseph Bernadin—who nearly suffocated the pro-life cause beneath his “seamless garment” of sentimental liberalism, and that creepy enabler of clerical pedophiles Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles. But neither of those men was ever taken seriously by serious Catholics, and their legacy will be slight: Vandalized cathedrals, enormous class-action settlements, and long lists of men in collars who should never have been ordained.
Now there is another American bishop who seems to be presenting himself as the point-man for Catholic politics in a hostile public square: Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver. An American Indian—it’s easy to forget that the Church converted large numbers of Native Americans, like Canada’s Hurons, New Hampshire’s vanished Abnekis, and finally Sioux such as Sitting Bull—he is a smart and persuasive speaker. His diocese attracts large numbers of vocations, and he’s typically a voice of principle at meetings of fellow bishops. His recent book Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life has become an unexpected bestseller. It’s ringing reassertion of the traditional, loyal Catholic citizenship that characterized men like Founding Father Charles Carroll, political philosopher Orestes Brownson and Gov. Al Smith. Chaput holds up the American separation of politics from any institutional Church as a fine environment in which the Christian mission can thrive—provided that believers are willing to use their faith as a guiding compass in the practice of their citizenship, and insist on defending those goods which reason alone (the “natural law”) can demonstrate are essential to human thriving.
In a short review I wrote for InsideCatholic.com, I reflected that the archbishop might be engaging here in optimism rather than hope:
It’s telling enough that an important American archbishop has to cite the example of St. Thomas More, a martyr for papal authority, to coax practicing Catholic politicians into opposing the mass execution of unborn Americans. Perhaps a frank discussion of the natural law isn’t enough to win people over to respecting human life, at least not when it really endangers what we want. It may be that in the cold light of fallen reason, humanity doesn’t look so dignified after all.
There’s a deeper problem with Chaput’s well-meaning and calmly ordered brief for the reunification of faith and civic virtue, one which I didn’t spot when I first read the book. But I see it now.
A tendency thrives among earnest, kind-hearted Christians that easily moves them from the firm ground of charity down the road to sentimental liberalism, and it is the temptation to short-circuit justice in favor of mercy—when in fact, real mercy is only possible where justice has already been paid its due. This tendency drives bishops to support the massive redistribution of wealth by a self-aggrandizing State—instead of following the genuine Catholic tradition, found in the writings of Pius XI, Chesterton, Belloc, and Röpke, which favors small business, small farms, and decentralized government. (In other words, self-sufficiency instead of addiction to government handouts.) Such a sentimentality makes churchmen suspicious of business and profit-seeking, and unduly open to claims of grievance made by grasping activists. It leads bishops to issue ringing condemnations when our duly elected government enforces its just (nay, lax) immigration laws. It even, I would argue, explains most of the cases where bishops foolishly accepted the word of hack psychologists that abusive priests had been “rehabilitated.”
Mother Angelica, mentioned above, spoke wisely when she said that the vice of our time is “misguided compassion.” What creates this opening to modern liberalism—which destroys the soul by making of the responsible adult a perpetual child? It’s a complex question, but I think it starts with a one-sided view of the person, a pious construct intended to inspire kindly behavior on the part of serious Christians—which opens itself to abuse by the unscrupulous. As I wrote concerning Chaput’s book:
[T]he Other whom we face—who cuts us off in traffic, who’s rude to us across the conference table, who argues with us in bed—is in some real sense a “presence” of Christ…. When we fail to respond with proportionate reverence to this mysterious presence—the Church has a zippy shorthand for this: ‘human dignity’—we are committing a kind of sacrilege.
This is true, but is only half the picture. The Church, over the centuries, has seen things more fully—if it hadn’t, it would have vanished within a generation or two, and been forgotten. No Christian soldier, jailor, border guard, policemen or juror could borne doing his job—and no Christian ruler could have kept his throne.
Indeed, we see in the face of every person an image of God and in some sense a brother of the incarnate Christ. Do you know what else we see? A descendant of fallen Adam, with a heart not unlike Cain’s, capable of acting like Herod or Pilate or Judas. We see Barabbas. Both tendencies, grace and sin, coexist within the human heart—and the battle between them is never settled until we breathe our last and wake to judgment. That judgment is issued by Christ, and if it’s not up to us to convict a person, neither may we acquit him. By presuming to judge as innocent the apparently weaker party in every transaction—the worker against the employer, the immigrant against the border guard, the Third Worlder against the First—a Christian abandons the balanced view of man which made Christian civilization possible. He abandons both justice and mercy, and empowers society’s sociopaths, its manipulators, those who know how to milk the system—and he renders it powerless against outsiders who would conquer it. He cannot bear to deport the jihadist imam preaching in a London mosque, or to execute the mass murderer who has been conclusively proved guilty. He can’t leave in poverty those whose actions richly deserve it. He can’t offer elementary justice to the hard-working, the honest, and the honorable. That is the heart of sentimental liberalism, and there’s nothing sacred about it.
John Zmirak is author, most recently, of the graphic novel The Grand Inquisitor.
Comments
vatican 2 catholicism = universalism on steroids = liberalism
look at zmirak..he cannot go 10 minutes without slandering proud european americans (whites) as neonazis.
except for some people on the internet, every catholic i know is pro-immigration and pro-mestizo. on the internet, every catholic i know is pro-immigration and pro-mestizo.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
orthodox” Protestantism is simply a truncated form of Catholicism—a constellation of churches..
Other than The Orthodox, there are no other Churches. To be a Church, one has had to retain Apostolic Succession, Holy Orders, and The Eucharist; at a minimum.
There are, of course, many wonderful protestant communities who are in some way united to the Catholic Church via Baptism
(Sorry, Mr. Z. I don’t mean to pile-on but I haven’t read past your statement I cited)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
WOW!! That last paragraph is DYNAMITE. It is GOLD.
Kudos, brother. All readers ought to copy and past that and send it to their friends.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Non-Spartacus: I used churches with a small “c,” in the manner of Vatican documents referring to other Christian ecclesial communions. In the strict sense YOU mean, the Orthodox wouldn’t constitute a “Church” either. There is only one big-C Church. The presence of apostolic succession and valid sacraments doesn’t make the church in this sense. Jurisdiction does. That’s why to be schismatic, you have to claim jurisdiction....
Thanks for keeping me honest, though!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
1) Where did Zmirak call anyone, to his left or right, a neonazi? I see a passing reference in this column to “racialism,” itself something of an odd, confused term. I’m just not seeing support for cultural relativism or Noble Savagism here.
2) I believe Non-Spartacus is referring to last year’s CDW document indicating that the word “church” even with a small c should not be applied to Protestant denominations, but should instead be reserved for the various Catholic and Orthodox churches. Yes, it shows up in dicastery documents sometimes, but it is something of a misnomer (or mistranslation).
3) I question whether or not the sort of cohesive Catholic identity advocated here can exist alongside a kumbaya attitude towards Protestantism. That said, Mr. Zmirak’s comments are a) technically true and b) consistent with Christian charity and c) I may be exaggerating his approach.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
but where there are many words, there is oftentimes want…. and in many words shall be found folly Lady Wisdom
Mr. Zmirk your piece is a typical of those influenced by Edmund Burke, Lord Acton, and Russell Kirk. Stay the course…never working to Restore All Things in Christ because it would offend “sensible” Christians.
Render to God the things that are God’s does not mean promoting complacency amongst your fellow “christians” as you do and telling them that one religion is as good as another. Either there is No Salvation outside the Church or everyone one is saved. Which is it Doctor? The later is what conservatives espouse. Therefore the conservative movement of Edmund Burke, Lord Acton, and Russell Kirk is false and full of lying wonders. Fit for no man who wants to Restore All Things in Christ.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
PS—For something completely different, Mr. Zmirak, you might undertake a study of the social legislation of the Papal States. Under Bl. Pius IX, they maintained some laws that bear at least a facial resemblance to some modern leftist policies (like a law against evicting indigent tenants). On the other hand, the Papal States had effectively no economy, and all of the social welfare activities were run by religious orders, not by state institutions. But in terms of trying to consider what sort of laws should be enacted for the protection of the lower classes, the old Papal States at least provide food for thought.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Nice piece. Sadly, it won’t change the probability that a majority of Catholics will vote for a Harvey-Cox style “Christian” in November because he is...so compassionate! And the hits just keep on coming…
Click to flag this comment as abusive
This would have been a great article twenty years ago, Zmirak, but as a Catholic, I don’t feel the least bit bad about leaving what the “conservative” movement has become now.
P.S. America has never been a conservative country.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Z. I think the Church teaches what I claim it did.
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
DECLARATION:"DOMINUS IESUS”
ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH
...
IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH
16. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ’s salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),47 which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).48 And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”.49 This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).50
Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”.51 Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church’s integrity — will never be lacking.52
The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57
17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.6
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html#_ftn13
Brother, John. I suppose it is arguable the definition implied is elastic enough to cover your position, but, it is clear I am righter :)I
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Either there is No Salvation outside the Church or everyone one is saved.
Outside of full visible communion with the Church are those who can be saved.
Now, regarding the orthodox explication of EENS, I could cite The Universal Catechism, Johannes Paulus Magnus’ Crossing the Threshold of Faith” and Vatican Two’s Lumen Genitum and As Gentes but I suspect you are one who,in rejecting The Living Magisterium, has made a shipwreck of your faith.
And I could site the lengthy explanation given by the thoroughly orthodox Fr. William Most…
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/EXTRAECC.TXT
And Fr. Hardon, or the decision taken at Trent NOT to immediately Baptise adult converts because if they died as catechumens their desire would suffice unto righteousness or I could mention the Old Roman Missal, St Emerentiana, Jan 23, who died a Catechumen -and therefore not a formal member of the Church…
But after years of arguing this, I realise it makes no difference.
Fr. Fenney’s personal opinions and tapes by Charles Columbe trump The Living Magisterium.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Coming so soon after the feast of our Lady of Victory, commemorating what would have been a futile battle that was won by a diaspora of beads on strings more than the swords, I find this piece amusing.
And I do agree with it. I was cheering as I read and plan to steal paragraphs whole. There is a real Catholic Libertarianism. And there are many spokesmen usually coming from the Catholic side and watching Acton’s prophecy in progress. Then reading and rediscovering the answers are in those dusty old books.
It can only be Catholic because it requires the whole understanding including 2 millennia of mistakes to produce for the State what we have for the Church, or the Navy. The U.S. Constitution was a good prototype. A ship of state that could be run by fools. But not knaves.
The answers are there, but as much so in the lives and deaths of saints like Thomas More as in the writings of those like Thomas Aquinas.
I only think that a faithful Catholicism can restore the republic to the constitution because only they understand “man” enough to know how make it work, and understand “God” enough to realize it will take a miracle and know how to properly ask for one.
We are the salt of the earth. But that means when we defeat Carthage we must salt the fields.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It’s all fake. Stop arguing over ancient Jewish superstitions and start fighting for something that is real.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dr. Zmirak, please stop with your sycophancy towards Protestant “Americans.” America was discovered by Catholics. Anything good in English common law came from Catholic England and from Roman law. Your screed reminds me of how Belloc used to chide English Catholics for being so grateful to English Protestants for allowing them to live!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I have been itching to suggest this for some time but have wanted to put it all together better than it now seems that I will have time to do, so here goes in my quest for most unpopular Catholic of the year:
If the national polling data reliably show that in the general election a majority of US Catholics voted for the more pro-abortion candidate, the Holy See should place the United States under an interdict, for an appropriate period of time, say from and including Ash Wednesday of 2009 to the Easter Vigil Mass of that year.
The purpose of an interdict, like excommunication, is medicinal: to bring the erring party back to their senses and to conformance to the Faith. Thus the interdict would reinforce to all of us that we are collectively responsible (for collective guilt see the Old Testament, or the French Revolution, or the Russian [recall Solzhenitsyn’s account that the old folks told him: “This happended to us because we forgot God..."]) for the objectively grave disorder that occurred.
As I understand it, the terms of an interdict are that the interdicted party cannot partake of the sacraments unless in danger of impending death, so, ordinarily, there would be no Masses, no confessions, no baptisms, no marriages (not supposed to happen during Lent anyway). Instead the faithful would have to make do with the Divine Office, the Rosary, Stations of the Cross, etc. Perhaps the practice of lay confession (or confession to a priest without absolution) would be revived. This would also be a kind of foretaste (or threat, as it were) of priestless years to come.
The objections to this are many, and I cannot deal with all now, but for a few:
Obj. (1): Interdict is only for individuals under the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Answer: Yes, but the supreme legislator can prescribe otherwise.
Obj. (2): The devout will suffer more than the guilty. Ans.: Yes, but if truly devout, their faith will be strngthened. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. The point here is the solidarity of the Catholic community. For the lukewarm and the purely “cultural Catholic” of the Kennedy, Pelosi, Biden et al variety--well, either they will have a wake up call or not. So be it. Those of us who have served in the military will also recall the salutary effects of collective punishment, and indeed even the bonding that occurred, strange as it may seem.
Obj (3): This was tried in the Middle Ages and weakened the Church’s influence. Ans.: That was then, when the interdicts were typically longer. This is now, and it will be relatively short.
Obj (4): But people will not understand, and the Church will seem harsh. Ans.: I think that the extremity of the remedy will in fact cause it to better understood, as merited by the extremity of the offense, certainly by those to whom it will be helpful. Even the NYT would have to try to get it straight, as it would be so unusual a thing.
Obj (5): but the lukewarm will fall away. Ans.: So? No army tolerates stragglers.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Hey Joe: Mr Zmirak has the good sense and good will not to refight the 30 years War all over again. It is beyond tedious to argue over who was Catholic and who was Protestant in the founding generation, or which tradition did more good for humanity. The real issue is why both Catholics and Protestants today keep surrendering to leftist parties who hate their beliefs. Here’s some advice for both camps: stop voting for both parties, spoil your ballots. Let the Democrapublicans know that Christians are sick of them.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
This is frickin bizarro world.
Zmirak writes an excellent but incomplete piece (I’ll get to that later)and then gets assaulted for entirely incidental comments about racialism and Protestantism. Yeesh
But I think Zmirak kinda sorta forgot to tell us how Chaput’s book commits the mercy without justice error. I read the final few paragraphs a few times but didn’t see a connection. Does Chaput-style Catholicism lead to open borders and the welfare state?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Jones. Heh; no quibbling about the seriousness in performing your diagnosis and no laxity in your proscribed treatment.
Your proposal has the appeal of audacity, the sense of deadly seriousness with no tincture of timidity. In short, an impossibility inappropriate for our age.
There is a chastisement coming in the form of a tyrannical dictatorship which will succor the secular and extinguish public religion as much as possible (I think it likely the retreat will be self-imposed via self-censorship) and the last thing men will need is to be cut-off from Mass and Sacraments.
It is when institutions (even Divinely-Constituted ones)seem to be at their strongest that one can be sure a decline is imminent and it is when institutions (especially Divinely-Constituted ones)seem to be at their weakest that one can be assured that Jesus, who makes all things new, is raising-up a Faithful generation.
It is easy, looking back, to see just how fragile was our putative Catholic Moment in America. Some “Golden Age.” It lasted nine years.
It takes the eyes of Faith to see the new springtime of Faith flowering in many places in America.
It was ineluctable the Church in America would recapitulate Jesus’ Passion and walk to Calvary. The same goes for its Resurrection.
And he will make it new.
Our plans - especially yours, brother - are sure to fail.
All we are called to do is remain Faithful while realising the resolution of many of our current problems in the Church lies in The Funeral Rite.
One FANTASTIC feature of the reality of our current captious Church is it will show everyone who, ultimately, is in charge.
When the Church experiences a wondrous resurrection in America, it will be clear MAN had zip to do with it.
In the meantime, get a good charcoal grille and some nice cabernet. Who would not want to enjoy the battle (we already know who will win)we will live through in these times?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Non-spartacus, you give good advice as always. Now that I have got it off my chest (and now that we have power back here in Baghdad on the Bayou) I think I will take you up on your suggestion.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sitting Bull became Catholic? I know that Red Cloud did, but I was not aware of Sitting Bull. What’s the evidence?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
An excellent essay, Mr. Zmirak. You succintly identify the flaws that beset the thought of some of even the most outstanding of the clergy and laity in the Church today. The last paragraph, in particular, makes the point perfectly; avoiding judgement also entails not assuming the best about people.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Spartacus you told us all that “When the Church experiences a wondrous resurrection in America, it will be clear MAN had zip to do with it.”
Yikes! Man has nothing to do with Restoring all things in Christ? You are another throw-in-the towel Catholic. No need for you to arise and confront the enemies of Christ and His Church. No need for the like minded to change the current modern systems of government. Somehow it will magically change on its own!
And the Lord said to Josue: Arise, why liest thou flat on the ground?
Mr Spartacus, you, and the like minded can go ahead and remain lying flat on the ground, you will never be a part of the Restoration of All things in Christ. This Zmirak-style Catholicism influenced by 200 years of modern conservative thought, appeals to you. Do nothing Catholicism wins the current day.
There is a confrontation coming between the corrupted ideas of modern Man and against the Mystical Body of Christ. The Holy Right Arm of the Church –The Holy Roman Emperor will lead the attack. Once the Holy Right Arm of the Church is elected by the behest of faithful Roman Catholics, then this Divinely Ordained Government will once again defend Holy Mother Church and crush all of God’s enemies.
Arise, arise, put on strength, O thou Holy Right arm of the Lord, arise as in the days of old, in the ancient generations. Hast not thou struck the proud one, and wounded the dragon?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
John “Dances With Wolves” Zmirak would sooner side with Catholic Indians than his fellow European Americans.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Spartacus you told us all that “When the Church experiences a wondrous resurrection in America, it will be clear MAN had zip to do with it.”
I admit I was right.
Yikes! Man has nothing to do with Restoring all things in Christ?
Not in the manner suggested by our Bayou Brother.
You are another throw-in-the towel Catholic.
Ain’t. I have been Ora et Laboring for years and my longanimity, and others, is being rewarded. Our Liberal Diocese has sent two Priests to be trained by St, John Cantius’ Canons and the EF Mass is coming to our Diocese.
No need for you to arise and confront the enemies of Christ and His Church.
Ain’t my position. The world the flesh and the devil is confronted many ways and quietly, persistently, and faithfully is, in the long-run, the successful way.
I ‘spose I could have run oft with the Schismatic Society of Prideful Xanthippes (SSPX) but a schism succors Satan whereas militantly exercising the virtue of longanimity is the silent subterfuge we sappers use to undermine and unseat Satan. (and the militancy is a war against our own egos.</I>
No need for the like minded to change the current modern systems of government. Somehow it will magically change on its own!
Your influence on politics is nil. If you haven’t figured-out that yet then the republicans and democrats will he happy to manipulate your credulity as they extinguish your liberty.
Mr Spartacus, you, and the like minded can go ahead and remain lying flat on the ground, you will never be a part of the Restoration of All things in Christ.
Brave talk. Pray, like I do, that when your time comes to walk towards Calvary, you’ll have as much courage as did these lovers.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0704tbt.asp
This Zmirak-style Catholicism influenced by 200 years of modern conservative thought, appeals to you.
Yes. It absolutely does. Mr. Zimarak is a most admirable man and one of my heroes.
Do nothing Catholicism wins the current day.
Mr. Z. is a do-everything Catholic.
There is a confrontation coming between the corrupted ideas of modern Man and against the Mystical Body of Christ. The Holy Right Arm of the Church –The Holy Roman Emperor will lead the attack. Once the Holy Right Arm of the Church is elected by the behest of faithful Roman Catholics, then this Divinely Ordained Government will once again defend Holy Mother Church and crush all of God’s enemies.
Yeah, but the King will likely come from France not America. (That is if the prophecies of Blessed Anna Maria Taghi come to fruition)
Real Catholic masculinity consists in maintaining the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority. All else is man-made materialism destined unto desolation.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Spartacus you wrote: “Your influence on politics is nil. If you haven’t figured-out that yet then the republicans and democrats will he happy to manipulate your credulity as they extinguish your liberty.”
I certainly have no intent in influencing the current political climate. I will go another route. The modern man-made democratic form of government is at an end. The 200 year old man-made godless political experiment has failed. So I will follow in the footsteps of Dante Alighieri and take the advice of Virgil to take another path to leave this savage wilderness, to leave the godless democratic beast.
It is another path that you must take,
he answered when he saw my tearfulness,
if you would leave this savage wilderness;
the beast that is the cause of your outcry
allows no man to pass along her track, but
blocks him even to the point of death;
her nature is so squalid, so malicious
that she can never sate her greedy will;
when she has fed, she’s hungrier than ever.
She mates with many living souls and shall
yet mate with many more, until the Greyhound
arrives, inflicting painful death on her.
That Hound will never feed on land or pewter,
but find his fare in wisdom, love, and virtue; his
place of birth shall be between two felts.
He will restore low-lying Italy for which
the maid Camilla died of wounds, and
Nisus, Turnus, and Euryalus.
And he will hunt that beast through every city
until he thrusts her back again to Hell from
which she was first sent above by envy.
Therefore, I think and judge it best for you
to follow me, and I shall guide you, taking
you from this place through an eternal place,
The other path is the restoration of the Holy Right Arm of the Church-The Holy Roman Emperor. This is the correct path for men to take to bring unity and order to the World. I have no influence on current politics you say? neither does Dante Alighieri nor does Virgil. Both men are the correct influences for any Political man. Not Edmund Burke, Lord Acton, and Russell Kirk.
By the way any “French King” will receive his authority and crown only from the hands of The Holy Roman Emperor.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
By the way any “French King” will receive his authority and crown only from the hands of The Holy Roman Emperor.
Read Desmond A. Birch’s great book on Catholic Prophecy; Trial, Tribulation & Triumph
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Both men are the correct influences for any Political man. Not Edmund Burke, Lord Acton, and Russell Kirk.”
How delightfully Puritan.
Yes, Virgil, whose classic *Aeneid* is an indisputable masterpiece of straight down-the-stovepipe Catholic social teaching....
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Name one “work” on the Roman Catholic faith written by Edmund Burke? Yeah you can not. Was Edmund Burke even Catholic? Yeah you will never know. Burke never defended the One True Faith. .As for Lord Acton wasn’t he friends with Döllinger who rejected papal infallibility and founded the sect Old Catholics? Yeah some Faithful group of Catholics all right.
As for the Pagan Poet Virgil even on a purely natural level well before the advent of Christ foretold the coming of Christ in his fourth Eclogue:
.
Now the last age by Cumae’s Sibyl sung
Has come and gone, and the majestic roll
Of circling centuries begins anew:
Justice returns, returns old Saturn’s reign,
With a new breed of men sent down from heaven.
Only do thou, at the boy’s birth in whom
The iron shall cease, the golden race arise,
Befriend him, chaste Lucina; ‘tis thine own
Apollo reigns. And in thy consulate,
This glorious age, O Pollio, shall begin,
And the months enter on their mighty march.
Under thy guidance, whatso tracks remain
Of our old wickedness, once done away,
Shall free the earth from never-ceasing fear.
He shall receive the life of gods, and see
Heroes with gods commingling, and himself
Be seen of them, and with his father’s worth
Reign o’er a world at peace. For thee, O boy,
First shall the earth, untilled, pour freely forth
So let’s see.. those modern men such as Burke & Acton who were lukewarm to the Faith of Christ are to influence the conservative movement? Or better a Pagan Virgil who foresaw the coming of Christ?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Right-O.
Having sketchy friends invalidates everything you’ve ever written.
Meanwhile, partaking of a religion which includes in its rites numerous sacrifices to a saucy immortal sexpot vixen named Venus, vs.—oh, heck, let’s say, going to Mass on Sunday .... is simply a case of “you say po-tay-toh, I say po-tah-toe”.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Edmund Burke came from a Catholic family and received some schooling in a Catholic “hedge school” in Ireland, under conditions of persecution. His father had been a Catholic, but had left the Church… however, the senior Burke spent much of his life as a lawyer even thereafter defending the scant legal rights of Catholics under persecution. Burke made similar arguments throughout his life. When you, Michael, live in a country where Catholics are persecuted as they were in Ireland, you are free to make judgments about other people. Acton was a friend of Dollinger. And that proves...? Take your wanker fantasies about restoring the Holy Roman Empire where they belong--to some World of Warcraft fansite, wouldya?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Rough day Doctor? No offense taken. I will however remind you that the Holy Roman Empire is Roman Catholic. Whereas the American Republic is not. Soon you will write a piece defending the restoration of the authority of The Holy Roman Emperor.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
To Mr JD Slayer
The top 3 of Lord Acton’s 100 Best Books are:
1. Plato’s Laws.
2. Aristotle’s Politics
3. Epictetus’ Encheiridion.
Pagans! All three of them!
And Dante Alighieri(defender of the Pagan and Catholic Roman Empire) made Lord Acton’s top 10 Best Books
9. Dante—Divina Commedia
Looking at the list I see a quite few heretics as well. Burke made 58th on the list.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“[A]lthough this is nothing to match the easy scorn some Catholics feel for the Protestantism that founded their native country and guaranteed their liberty to follow their consciences.”
Uh, weren’t those protestants Masons? And weren’t the lodge brothers incensed and ultimately motivated to break from the crown because She allowed some gaulic geeks(sorry to mother-in-law)to the north practice their faith?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I am shocked, shocked to learn that some so-called quote unquote “Catholic” writers claim to find merit in the writings of non-Catholics.
As you realized with your razor-keen and level-headed mastery of logic, the reason I brought up Virgil is because I detest him—detest all pagans, for that matter. Which is precisely why I spent 2 years of graduate school studying pagan poets and philosophers, and also why I have a well-thumbed copy of The Aeneid on my bookshelf.
Some may try to trick us here, by pointing out that St. Thomas, who learned from and drew upon Aristotle, also criticized those “who vainly endeavor to prove that Aristotle said nothing against the Faith”.
See, in St. Thomas’ time, apparently there were these nutjobs who became so infatuated with the admirable qualities of pagan culture, that they lost the ability to distinguish between pagan and Christian visions of life and society.
Hence they insisted that Aristotle was an 100% apologist for Catholic Christendom.
Now, some today might claim that the lesson we should draw from this is that we should be a little less quick to damn or worship any individual writer, be he pagan or be he heretic. Some might claim that the key here is to be open to insights, whatever the source, while also being wary of error.
Some might say we should treat neither Burke nor Virgil— nor Dante, for that matter—as if he is the end-all be-all of human thought; and that nor should we look to purge them, either, as part of a Great Leap Forward.
Such claims are, of course, the wiles of Anglicans who seek to contaminate our precious, vital, bodily fluids. We must fortify our minds against them, allowing nothing to get through.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.