Have at it.
As a sideline, I offer the observation that Jacques Maritain embraces a sort of "civil religion" ideal in his book, Man and the State,
which makes me uncomfortable despite the rubric of "natural law" under which he attempts to develop it. I also see that the September issue of the Knights of Columbus' magazine, Columbia contains an article by Joshua Mercer, entitled "America's Catholic Founder," meaning Charles Carroll (1737-1832), the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence, which I have not read yet. It will be interesting to see how his role in the American experiment is cast by Mercer. Finally, our post, "Anti-Catholicism and the American Revolution" (August 10, 2004), reviews the vociferous American reaction to the "Quebec Act of June 1774" in which the British crown granted Catholics freedom of worship in French Canada. In fact, Cardinal Gasquet, a Benedictine historian, declares that "the American Revolution was not a movement for civil and religious liberty; its principal cause was the bigoted rage of the American Puritan and Presbyterian ministers at the concession of full religious liberty and equality to Catholics of French Canada."
9 comments:
With all the possible problems associated with Beck's (a Mormon) fascination with the religious beliefs of the Founders (Masonic), it is still worthwhile to consider the import of what he's doing.
At the very least he is causing Americans to focus on something we haven't in a very, very long time; the foundational principles that this country was built upon.
I agree that in the details many of the statements Beck makes are at odds with Catholic teaching and thus the truth. But hey, nobody's perfect.
The important thing is that in the areas that he stresses most forcefully, primarily that there is a God and our rights come from Him and that our entire system of government hinges on these two points, he is correct.
Someone has to get the American people thinking about this bedrock set of principles because without them we'll fall and if we fall there is nowhere of consequence left in the world for man to be free.
So if it takes a Mormon infatuated with Masonic beliefs to at least break down the door, I guess I'll take it.
Now, what is the Church to do? With the door opening will the Church pick up where Beck and the Evangelicals leave off, explaining the whole truth and proclaiming the complete Gospel to the world in a way that lights the fires of faith and freedom? Or will it cower in the bushes, fearful of angering it's friends in the Progressive community, the ones it supports here in America through the USCCB and its pet program at CCHD?
Only the Catholic Church has the tradition, strength and the power of God to destroy the evils we battle today. Will it rise to the occasion?
America has always had a civil religion. Its public face is one of platitudes – mostly empty ones now. The muscle beneath the skin has always been the majority consensus that the Christian spirit and the democratic spirit were bound together inextricably, and politicians ought not forget it. That old gray mare of a “consensus” plainly ain’t what it used to be, and the fact of its demise – indeed of its very existence – can be explained largely by the facts that, in America, the adjectives “Christian” and “protestant” are virtually synonymous, (a) with one another, and (b) with a third adjective, “utilitarian.”
That’s the rub, I’m afraid. The bond of “Christianity” and “democracy” is only imaginable because of the essentially protestant and utilitarian nature of Christianity in America. Protestant utilitarian Christianity (PUC, to be brief) made that bond possible, and is also largely responsible for its dissolution.
Utilitarianism is the belief that, in the words of Helvetius (quoted in Halevy, The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism), “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.” Helvetius was himself an atheist, but there have been many attempts at Christian utilitarianism over the years. Capitalism is inconceivable without an utilitarian foundation, and Pat Robertson’s enthusiasm for Wall Street at times eclipses his enthusiasm for dimestore expressions of Christian fervor . Unfortunately for Parson Robertson, however, God (much less Christ) is a dispensible concept within the basic utilitarian framework -- and protestantism, as well as uniquely American aberrations such as mormonism -- can be thought of, from one point of view – as a convenient, handy-dandy, and ultimately futile attempt to deny all that.
Protestantism is “feel good” Christianity. It is rooted in a superficial concept of freedom: freedom to derive from scripture whatever one wishes; freedom to “vote with your feet” by moving from one denomination to another as one moves from one store to another in a shopping mall; freedom to participate in “services” on a Sunday, or to sleep off one’s hangover with a clear conscience; freedom to let one’s sins go on one’s own authority, because of a self-induced “feeling” of renewal, or because faith has rendered sin an empty concept to begin with.
PUC is religion that falls in naturally with capitalism, commerce, and individualism. It is as American as apple pie.
As a matter of fact, PUC fits in so well that, when the cultural climate grows hostile to Christianity, when the abovementioned “bond” between Christianity and American democracy begins to dissolve, it obligingly denies itself, falls on whatever doctrinal sword it as, and defers to the utilitarian priority. The shame of American Catholicism is that it has in most respects aped PUC. It was an American hand that was largely responsible for the American idolatry at the core of Dignitatis Humanae. And the mindless ecumenism of V2 threatens to finish the job of transforming the Catholic Church in America into yet another PUC denomination.
"...Freedom to participate in “services” on a Sunday, or to sleep off one’s hangover with a clear conscience; freedom to let one’s sins go on one’s own authority, because of a self-induced “feeling” of renewal, or because faith has rendered sin an empty concept to begin with...
Plain bull, Ralph. Try befriending a sane Protestant to discern where you are off. As an Evangelical I never remotely thought I let my sins go on my own authority. And as a Catholic, I don't get my sin's let go on the priest's authority either. It is always Christ's authority, whether mediated through the priest or through words of Scripture.
Your comments here are more tin-eared than Scott Hahn's worst puns. So take that! I curse thee with the refrains of some really bad praise music and Joel Osteen's smiling countenance.
How is that ecumenism thing workin out? I don't care if you're Protestant or Catholic if you lack charity you are just plain lacking the Christian message. Any discussion should be charitable and reasoned and not hiding behind insults.
"As an Evangelical I never remotely thought I let my sins go on my own authority"
But who cares what YOU thought? It is through the instrument of His priest that Christ forgives your sins. Subtract that conduit, and your conviction of forgiveness is entirely self-induced.
Of course, as an Evangelical, YOU believed Christ had forgiven you your sins -- if you did not believe that, you would have to be an idiot to persist in your ways as long as you did. But your willful self-delusions were contrary to Christ's own assurances to His apostles, and, as a former Evangelical and current Catholic, you still seem to be a bit foggy on that point.
JM,
"Scott Hahn's worst puns"
Has he any other kind? I just wish that Scott Hahn's worst problem was his ineptness at coining puns.
Willful delusions... fogginess... certainly a possibility, esp. on the latter. But my understanding is auricular confession is a 'bonus' of sorts, not a necessity. Can you recommend a book read on the subject. If confession is a 'must,' I think most of the people we encounter are headed straight for Hell, I will say that.
On the "necessity of confession," see
http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2006/03/necessity-of-confession.html
"Necessity" needs to be properly understood here. In one sense (as Catholics like to stress today) God is "not bound" by the Sacraments He has given the Church. All the graces available through the Sacraments can be communicated independently of them, if He so wills. (That's the kicker -- "IF He so wills" -- an unknown quantity).
Thus, it is said, a couple who committed themselves to one another in marriage were considered married in the early years of the Church even if their vows were not witnessed. Likewise, a catechumen who died of a heart attack before being baptized and without benefit of Last Rites, wasn't necessarily viewed as consigned to Hell, since he was positively disposed to reception of the Sacrament.
Yet our own contemporary society has invested more hope than anyone in his right mind has a right to expect in these loopholes of possible extra-sacramental graces of God. Objectively, baptism is necessary. If the sacrament is available and one refuses it, he is culpable. But you knew that.
To shrug off the sacrement of confession as an unnecessary "bonus" is an astounding thing for a Catholic to do. An astoundingly protestant thing, in fact. You are indeed in darkness, if such is your belief.
That said, I marvel each Saturday afternoon that only a handful of people avail themselves of the sacrament. Even our wondrously pious EMHCs -- they who consider themselves worthy of handling the body of Christ -- I have never seen one of them enter the confessional. These people are amazing, truly Novus Ordo Catholics -- no lack of self-esteem among them.
Despite the best efforts of V2 fashionistas, we ought to face the fact that ours is a church of sinners, not of saints. We are in constant need of forgiveness, and we ought not hesitate to seek it out as Christ intended that we do it, rather than egotistically presuming, in accordance with the dysfunctional protestant mentality, that all we need to do is dial up Jesus at our convenience, as if He were our concierge, and ask Him to fix things.
Post a Comment