Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
American Catholicism’s Pact With the Devil
You have to hand it to Barack Obama. He has unmasked in the most thoroughgoing way the despotic propensities of the administrative entitlements state and of the Democratic Party. And now he has done something similar to the hierarchy of the American Catholic Church. At the prospect that institutions associated with the Catholic Church would be required to offer to their employees health insurance covering contraception and abortifacients, the bishops, priests, and nuns scream bloody murder. But they raise no objection at all to the fact that Catholic employers and corporations, large and small, owned wholly or partially by Roman Catholics will be required to do the same. The freedom of the church as an institution to distance itself from that which its doctrines decry as morally wrong is considered sacrosanct. The liberty of its members – not to mention the liberty belonging to the adherents of other Christian sects, to Jews, Muslims, and non-believers – to do the same they are perfectly willing to sacrifice.
This inattention to the liberties of others is doubly scandalous (and I use this poignant term in full knowledge of its meaning within the Catholic tradition) – for there was a time when the Catholic hierarchy knew better. There was a time when Roman Catholicism was the great defender not only of its own liberty but of that of others. There was a time when the prelates recognized that the liberty of the church to govern itself in light of its guiding principles was inseparable from the liberty of other corporate bodies and institutions to do the same.
I do not mean to say that the Roman Catholic Church was in the more distant past a staunch defender of religious liberty. That it was not. Within its sphere, the Church demanded full authority. It is only in recent years that Rome has come to be fully appreciative of the larger principle.
I mean that, in the course of defending its autonomy against the secular power, the Roman Catholic Church asserted the liberty of other corporate bodies and even, in some measure, the liberty of individuals. To see what I have in mind one need only examine Magna Carta, which begins with King John’s pledge that
the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever.
Only after making this promise, does the King go on to say, “We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever.” It is in this context that he affirms that “no scutage nor aid shall be imposed on our kingdom, unless by common counsel of our kingdom, except for ransoming our person, for making our eldest son a knight, and for once marrying our eldest daughter; and for these there shall not be levied more than a reasonable aid.” It is in this context that he pledges that “the city of London shall have all it ancient liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water; furthermore, we decree and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs.” It is in this document that he promises that “no freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land” and that “to no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.”
One will not find such a document in eastern Christendom or in the sphere where Sunni Islam is prevalent. It is peculiar to Western Christendom – and it was made possible by the fact that, Christian West, church and state were not co-extensive and none of the various secular powers was able to exert its authority over the church. There was within each political community in the Christian West an imperium in imperio – a power independent of the state that had no desire to replace the state but was fiercely resistant to its own subordination and aware that it could not hope to retain its traditional liberties if it did not lend a hand in defending the traditional liberties of others.
I am not arguing that the Church fostered limited government in the Middle Ages and in the early modern period. In principle, the government that it fostered was unlimited in its scope. I am arguing, however, that the Church worked assiduously to hem in the authority of the Christian kings and that its success in this endeavor provided the foundation for the emergence of a parliamentary order. Indeed, I would go further. It was the Church that promoted the principles underpinning the emergence of parliaments. It did so by fostering the species of government that had emerged within the church itself. Given that the Church in the West made clerical celibacy one of its principal practices (whether it was honored in the breach or not), the hereditary principle could play no role in its governance. Inevitably, it resorted to elections. Monks elected abbots, the canons of cathedrals elected bishops, the college of cardinals elected the Pope.
The principle articulated in canon law — the only law common to all of Western Europe — to explain why these practices were proper was lifted from the Roman law dealing with the governance of waterways: “Quod omnes tangit,” it read, “ab omnibus tractari debeat: That which touches all should be dealt with by all.” In pagan antiquity, this meant that those upstream could not take all of the water and that those downstream had a say in its allocation. It was this principle that the clergymen who served as royal administrators insinuated into the laws of the kingdoms and petty republics of Europe. It was used to justify communal self-government. It was used to justify the calling of parliaments. And it was used to justify the provisions for self-governance contained within the corporate charters issued to cities, boroughs, and, in time, colonies. On the eve of the American Revolution, you will find it cited by John Dickinson in The Letters of a Pennsylvania Farmer.
The quod omnes tangit principle was not the foundation of modern liberty, but it was its antecedent. And had there been no such antecedent, had kings not been hemmed in by the Church and its allies in this fashion, I very much doubt that there ever would have been a regime of limited government. In fact, had there not been a distinction both in theory and in fact between the secular and the spiritual authority, limited government would have been inconceivable.
The Reformation weakened the Church. In Protestant lands, it tended to strengthen the secular power and to promote a monarchical absolutism unknown to the Middle Ages. Lutheranism and Anglicanism were, in effect, Caesaro-Papist. In Catholic lands, it caused the spiritual power to shelter itself behind the secular power and become, in many cases, an appendage of that power. But the Reformation and the religious strife to which it gave rise also posed to the secular power an almost insuperable problem – how to secure peace and domestic tranquility in a world marked by sectarian competition. Limited government – i. e., a government limited in its scope – was the solution ultimately found, and John Locke was its proponent.
In the nascent American republic, this principle was codified in its purest form in the First Amendment to the Constitution. But it had additional ramifications as well – for the government’s scope was limited also in other ways. There were other amendments that made up what we now call the Bill of Rights, and many of the states prefaced their constitutions with bills of rights or added them as appendices. These were all intended to limit the scope of the government. They were all designed to protect the right of individuals to life, liberty, the acquisition and possession of property, and the pursuit of happiness as these individuals understood happiness. Put simply, liberty of conscience was part of a larger package.
This is what the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church forgot. In the 1930s, the majority of the bishops, priests, and nuns sold their souls to the devil, and they did so with the best of intentions. In their concern for the suffering of those out of work and destitute, they wholeheartedly embraced the New Deal. They gloried in the fact that Franklin Delano Roosevelt made Frances Perkins – a devout Anglo-Catholic laywoman who belonged to the Episcopalian Church but retreated on occasion to a Catholic convent – Secretary of Labor and the first member of her sex to be awarded a cabinet post. And they welcomed Social Security – which was her handiwork. They did not stop to ponder whether public provision in this regard would subvert the moral principle that children are responsible for the well-being of their parents. They did not stop to consider whether this measure would reduce the incentives for procreation and nourish the temptation to think of sexual intercourse as an indoor sport. They did not stop to think.
In the process, the leaders of the American Catholic Church fell prey to a conceit that had long before ensnared a great many mainstream Protestants in the United States – the notion that public provision is somehow akin to charity – and so they fostered state paternalism and undermined what they professed to teach: that charity is an individual responsibility and that it is appropriate that the laity join together under the leadership of the Church to alleviate the suffering of the poor. In its place, they helped establish the Machiavellian principle that underpins modern liberalism – the notion that it is our Christian duty to confiscate other people’s money and redistribute it.
At every turn in American politics since that time, you will find the hierarchy assisting the Democratic Party and promoting the growth of the administrative entitlements state. At no point have its members evidenced any concern for sustaining limited government and protecting the rights of individuals. It did not cross the minds of these prelates that the liberty of conscience which they had grown to cherish is part of a larger package – that the paternalistic state, which recognizes no legitimate limits on its power and scope, that they had embraced would someday turn on the Church and seek to dictate whom it chose to teach its doctrines and how, more generally, it would conduct its affairs.
I would submit that the bishops, nuns, and priests now screaming bloody murder have gotten what they asked for. The weapon that Barack Obama has directed at the Church was fashioned to a considerable degree by Catholic churchmen. They welcomed Obamacare. They encouraged Senators and Congressmen who professed to be Catholics to vote for it.
I do not mean to say that I would prefer that the bishops, nuns, and priests sit down and shut up. Barack Obama has once again done the friends of liberty a favor by forcing the friends of the administrative entitlements state to contemplate what they have wrought. Whether those brought up on the heresy that public provision is akin to charity will prove capable of thinking through what they have done remains unclear. But there is now a chance that this will take place, and there was a time – long ago, to be sure, but for an institution with the longevity possessed by the Catholic Church long ago was just yesterday – when the Church played an honorable role in hemming in the authority of magistrates and in promoting not only its own liberty as an institution but that of others similarly intent on managing their own affairs as individuals and as members of subpolitical communities.
In my lifetime, to my increasing regret, the Roman Catholic Church in the United States has lost much of its moral authority. It has done so largely because it has subordinated its teaching of Catholic moral doctrine to its ambitions regarding an expansion of the administrative entitlements state. In 1973, when the Supreme Court made its decision in Roe v. Wade, had the bishops, priests, and nuns screamed bloody murder and declared war, as they have recently done, the decision would have been reversed. Instead, under the leadership of Joseph Bernardin, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago, they asserted that the social teaching of the Church was a “seamless garment,” and they treated abortion as one concern among many. Here is what Cardinal Bernardin said in the Gannon Lecture at Fordham University that he delivered in 1983:
Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.
Consistency means that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.
This statement, which came to be taken as authoritative throughout the American Church, proved, as Joseph Sobran observed seven years ago, “to be nothing but a loophole for hypocritical Catholic politicians. If anything,” he added, “it has actually made it easier for them than for non-Catholics to give their effective support to legalized abortion – that is, it has allowed them to be inconsistent and unprincipled about the very issues that Cardinal Bernardin said demand consistency and principle.” In practice, this meant that, insofar as anyone pressed the case against Roe v. Wade, it was the laity.
I was reared a Catholic, wandered out of the Church, and stumbled back in more than thirteen years ago. I have been a regular attendee at mass since that time. I travel a great deal and frequently find myself in a diocese not my own. In these years, I have heard sermons articulating the case against abortion thrice – once in Louisiana at a mass said by the retired Archbishop there; once at the cathedral in Tulsa, Oklahoma; and two weeks ago in our parish in Hillsdale, Michigan. The truth is that the priests in the United States are far more likely to push the “social justice” agenda of the Church from the pulpit than to instruct the faithful in the evils of abortion.
And there is more. I have not once in those years heard the argument against contraception articulated from the pulpit, and I have not once heard the argument for chastity articulated. In the face of the sexual revolution, the bishops priests, and nuns of the American Church have by and large fallen silent. In effect, they have abandoned the moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in order to articulate a defense of the administrative entitlements state and its progressive expansion.
There is another dimension to the failure of the American Church in the face of the sexual revolution. As, by now, everyone knows, in the 1980s, when Cardinal Bernardin was the chief leader of the American Church and the man most closely consulted when the Vatican selected its bishops, it became evident to the American prelates that they had a problem – that, in many a diocese, there were priests of a homoerotic orientation who were sexual predators – pederasts inclined to take advantage of young boys. They could have faced up to the problem at that time; they could have turned in the malefactors to the secular authorities; they could have prevented their further contact with the young. Instead, almost certainly at the instigation of Cardinal Bernardin, they opted for another policy. They hushed everything up, sent the priests off for psychological counseling, and reassigned them to other parishes or even dioceses – where they continued to prey on young boys. In the same period, a number of the seminaries in which young men were trained for the priesthood became, in effect, brothels – and nothing was done about any of this until the newspapers broke the story and the lawsuits began.
There is, I would suggest, a connection between the heretical doctrine propagated by Cardinal Bernardin in the Gannon Lecture and the difficulties that the American Church now faces. Those who seek to create heaven on earth and who, to this end, subvert the liberty of others and embrace the administrative entitlements state will sooner or later become its victims.
Earlier today, Barack Obama offered the hierarchy “a compromise.” Under its terms, insurance companies offering healthcare coverage will be required to provide contraception and abortifacients, but this will not be mentioned in the contracts signed by those who run Catholic institutions. This “compromise” is, of course, a farce. It embodies a distinction where there is, in fact, no difference. It is a snare and a delusion, and I am confident that the Catholic Left, which is still dominant within the Church, will embrace it – for it would allow the bishops, priests, and nuns to save face while, in fact, paying for the contraception and abortifacients that the insurance companies will be required to provide. As if on cue, Sister Carol Keehan, a prominent Obamacare supporter who heads the Catholic Health Association, immediately issued a statement in which she announced that she is “pleased and grateful that the religious liberty and conscience protection needs of so many ministries that serve our country were appreciated enough that an early resolution of this issue was accomplished.”
Perhaps, however, Barack Obama has shaken some members of the hierarchy from their dogmatic slumber. Perhaps, a few of them – or among younger priests some of their likely successors – have begun to recognize the logic inherent in the development of the administrative entitlements state. The proponents of Obamacare, with some consistency, pointed to Canada and to France as models. As anyone who has attended mass in Montreal or Paris can testify, the Church in both of these places is filled with empty pews. There is, in fact, not a single country in the social democratic sphere where either the Catholic Church or a Protestant Church is anything but moribund. This is by no means fortuitous. When entitlements stand in for charity and the Social Gospel is preached in place of the Word of God, heaven on earth becomes the end, and Christianity goes by the boards.
It took a terrible scandal and a host of lawsuits to get the American Church to rid itself of the pederast priests and clean up its seminaries. Perhaps the tyrannical ambitions of Barack Obama will occasion a rethinking of the social-justice agenda. The ball is now in the court of Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, who has welcomed the President’s gesture without indicating whether it is adequate. Upon reflection, he can accept the fig leaf that President Obama has offered him. Or he can put Sister Keehan and her supporters in their place and fight. If he wants to regain an iota of the moral authority that the Church possessed before 1973, he will do the latter. The hour is late. Next time, the masters of the administrative entitlements state won’t even bother to offer the hierarchy a fig leaf. They know servility when they see it.
UPDATE: Friday night, shortly after I posted this piece, as Anne Coletta pointed out in Comment 5 below, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a carefully worded statement critical of the fig leaf President Obama offered them. In the meantime, the Rev. John Jenkins, President of the University of Notre Dame, applauded “the willingness of the administration to work with religious organizations to find a solution acceptable to all parties.”
FURTHER UPDATE: Since posting this, I have also written American Catholicism: A Call to Arms and More Than a Touch of Malice on related subjects.
Published in General
They give homilies. The difference is that a homily is supposed to be grounded in the biblical readings of the day. When a priest gives his homily, it isn’t supposed to be an open-ended speech or lecture. He’s required to make specific points from the readings. He can connect his reflections to current affairs, but only to explain some point from the readings.
Excellent point KC. And this is what makes the reading of the Bishop’s letter the past two weeks so extraordinary. This kind of thing is rarely done. It is what indicated to me that the Bishops were serious.
Well, there I would agree with you. They have allowed it to continue, but mostly because American bishops are American … we don’t like to suppress speech. But I would also point out that the Vatican, especially under the last two popes, have strenuously opposed any strains of Marxism within “social justice” teaching. And I think quite a few of these same America bishops have taken on Marxist theologians and removed them from their teaching roles.
For one thing, most of the prominent liberation theologians have been restricted, from Leonardo Boff to Jon Sobrino. Personally, I’m a big fan of Sobrino (a Jesuit) and I disagree that he’s a Marxist. But that’s all the more evidence how strongly the hierarchy opposes that Marxism that we both find deplorable.
Thanks, Bill. Two questions: Did the bishops put up a fight when Obamacare opened the door to this? And did any of them fight the state laws that The New York Times claims do what Obama proposes doing?
Yes, and yes. But as Bill said, good luck getting the press to report it. Many of my colleagues at other state Catholic Conferences can tell war stories about fighting these state mandates. But, those mandates always allowed some way out, such as self-insurance. The federal mandate was designed to cover every single type of group health plan.
I don’t know about the New York law. The truth is that this isn’t based on anything. No state requires Catholic institutions to do what President Obama demands.
On Obamacare, they didn’t attack this provision; then again, nobody did, save for WSJ. The bishops were fighting for the Stupak amendment, which was a good fight to have, and resulted in the only bipartisan vote of the whole bill. If Bart Stupak hadn’t chickened out, if Fr. Hesburgh hadn’t called up the ND alum who represented Indiana at Nancy Pelosi’s behest, we might have won that and defeated Obamacare.
The point is that from the outset they were trying to argue this was more than a Catholic issue. In this they were frustrated by a press that preferred to call it a Catholic issue or issue about contraception. The bishops’ own man complained to me early on that this point had been lost in the media, and if you want comparisons, compare the bishops’ initial statement on this HHS mandate with, say, FAther Jenkins’. The latter is more in line with your complaint, which is a rightful complaint about much of the Catholic world.
All is not lost. The war can still be won, but it may take time. The new generation of seminarians and therefore priests and therefore bishops are not the squishes we have now. These new men are being formed in seminary as men, my son among them. The newer priests in my diocese do not shy away from preaching about abortion, contraception, or chastity. Some of these guys come from the hood, the barrio, the football field, and the military and aren’t afraid of a fist fight or two.
A lot of the college seminaries have cleared out the dead wood and have committed, orthodox formators leading them. The clergy will have more than a different look to it in ten years. Rather than use a blue collar euphemism for guts, well, it will be a clergy with guts.
Again, I have to point out that abortion funding was only one of USCCB’s objections to the final bill. Insufficient conscience protection was #2.
And McBlack, I totally agree with you. I spent some time in seminary a couple of years ago, and the current crop of seminarians is impressive indeed. Very solid young men.
Rush Limbaugh was just discussing this article on his show. The long reach of Rahe and Ricochet is becoming apparent. Congratulations on this piece, which I find very thought provoking. Sharing it with Catholic friends, as they came back with Blackstone and Matthew 7:3 at their presbyterian friend, I could only reply that many people had hoped that the Church would mount an offensive and be the spearpoint, and they appear to have failed.
I hope that the avalanche of readers looks at the comments, and now I wish that I had added an update citing Bill McGurn’s point above. I am working on one or two follow-ups.
The long and winding road by which the Church transformed the calling to Social Justice into a calling for “Just” Socialism is a disturbing one indeed. I am baffled at how a beloved institution that once fought to promote Social Justice through the creation of its own inexpensive schools that provided high quality education, and through the creation of hospitals that allowed even the poorest among us to receive quality care, slowly became an advocate for the government doing these things.
Is the pursuit Social Justice not possible through the act of Christian charity organized through the Church? Does it require the regulation and organization of an “atheist/agnostic” State?
If the pursuit isn’t possible through the teachings of the Church and the actions of its members…what purpose does the Church serve?
Note that I wrote pursuit and not achievement. We do after all live in the City of Man and cannot create the City of God here on Earth.
You might want to copy Rush Limbaugh on your update. He opened his show with your original, un-nuanced, post.
Isn’t the original Peter principle: “We ought to obey God rather than Men.”?
;-)
It’s not just the Catholics who are invested in the whole idea that public assistance creates absolution for a lack of private charity. As a member of a Presbyterian church (PCUSA), I’ve been struggling with their politics for a long time.
regarding deficits and taxes
politics & scripture
anti Tea Party confusion over Christ
the intellectual cowardice of my ‘thinking’ friends
There is a reason mainline denominations are losing members … they stand for everything instead of something.
Mr. Rahe,
I was made aware of your article because I heard Rush Limbaugh talking about it today.
The bishops do not equate government redistribution with charity,they (some of them) think that it is a matter of social justice. The Church has a social doctrine (see the encyclical Rerum Novarum and the other encyclicals on social justice,and the Catechism) which includes the doctrine of the universal destination of goods,which means that God intended created things for use by all people. This means that we are to share our property with the poor and needy. Individual ownership of property is not absolute,because our property is God’s property,and we are to be good stewards of what he gives us,which entails the willingness to give to others. This doctrine does not entail government redistribution and it does not abolish the right to individual ownership. But it does not exclude any kind of government redistribution either. The popes from the late 19th century onward rejected socialism and heavy-handed government control over property.
I agree with much of this article, but I believe that it misses two important issues upon which I would love to hear some comment. First, by even discussing an accomodation or an exemption, we concede that the government has the right and the power to impose its will on religion. That government does not have such power is the real issue here. Second, we seem to have devolved to identifying the “government” with the will of the President. It is the law itself which should be questioned not one person’s interpretation of that law.
Hope to hear from y’all on these issues.
Continued from my previous post.
Carnidal Bernadin was mistaken about the proper role of government in regard to social justice,but his opinion was not heretical. I don’t think he was actually a socialist in ideology,and I don’t think he was beyond persuasion that his opinion was mistaken. He became aware of the arguments against government-run health care when people were arguing against it around 1994. And he made it clear that his consistent ethic of life did not make moral equivalence between abortion and other life issues. See this article: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2010/0103/5.aspx
Paul,
Archbishop Charles Chaput, Philadelphia Archdiocese wrote an op-ed piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer yesterday commenting on this subject. I’m interested in your reaction to his opinions in lieu of the information concerning the Chicago Archbishop, Bernadin. Chaput concentrates on the loss of our freedoms, especially as spelled out in the First Amendment. Here’s a link to the Chaput article.
http://articles.philly.com/2012-02-12/news/31052361_1_human-services-social-service-public-funding
I apologize for all the advertising in this link. The Philly Inquirer has changed it’s policy for retrieving articles. They charge too much for their digital edition. It’s a personal thing re their attitude toward the Catholic Church, the Philadelphia Archdiocese in particular. I could go on but it’s a different subject.
Joan
Hope to hear from y’all on these issues. ·31 minutes ago
Great point Texas Rancher. I hope Christians don’t get sidetracked with this current strategy of the left. The entire premise is unconstitutional at best and at worst is diabolical.
The trouble is that Obamacare gives broad powers to the Department of HHS to write rules and regulations to implement the law, and the President appoints (and can fire) the Secretary of HHS. So a lot of the details can’t be found even in the thousands of pages of the law passed by Congress, but really are up to the will of the President. Nor is it merely his interpretation of the law, but rather that the law itself delegates to HHS to power to issue these kinds of mandates without further Congressional approval.
Perhaps that’s what Pelosi meant when she said we had to pass the bill to find out what’s in it, because until HHS actually implements it there’s no way to know the details.
No one may claim to know a thing or two about the Catholic Church and charity, and what she stands for without reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church section on Charity and the recent Encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI Caritas In Veritate, Charity in Truth. It is very misleading when “outsider” who does not know much about the church writes about the church.
Would anyone disagree that the Catholic Church despises Communism /Socialism. Pope John Paul II in a “team effort” with Reagan, Gorbachev and Thatcher in the 80s, fought Soviet Communism was he not? I am not sure how much Mr. Rahe knows of what the CC stands for regarding charity. However, the subject of charity is outlined clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, from the true definition of charity to the goal of the charity acts.
While I agree with some claims in this article such as regarding Roe v Wade lacked of reaction from church’s leaders at the time. I read this article with one thing in mind, that the author, like many others, misunderstood the Catholic Church, nonetheless, She is still remained the best alternative out there with regard to religious institution.
Institutions are not defined only by their official documents, but by the acts of their leadership and followers. This thread is more concerned with the later than the former.
Catholicism, like Protestantism is defined by it’s acts.
The Bishops have rejected “the accommodation” as offered by Pres Obama. It remains to be seen whether or not “Freedom of Conscience” will prevail in this conflict.The 1st Ammendment has already been ‘incorporated’ against the states (meaning they must abide by it as well) we need to affirm that the 1st Ammendment includes freedom of conscience.Gee, I wonder if the ACLU will work on our behalf?
Again, the problem isn’t the Church’s teaching per se. In fact, the idea that we don’t truly own property — rather we are stewards of God’s property — is Biblical and embraced by many Christians.
The problem is that the hierarchy has embraced the state with dubious discernment. They apparently ignored the danger of rejecting the ends of socialism, while endorsing many socialist means. A state powerful enough to force us to “share our [NOTE: not the institutional churches’s property which is tax exempt] property with the poor and needy” is a state powerful enough to threaten the Church.
If the Church’s official documents are not important, then are we accepting the message of say the Koran encouraging violence? We look at the church’ official documents to find out the true message of the church and her mission. Here are the Catholic Church’s “ACTION”
“Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students everyday, at a cost to the Church of 10 billion dollars, and a savings on the other hand to the American taxpayer of 18 billion dollars. There are 230 colleges and universities in the United States with an enrollment of 700,000 students”
“Catholic Church oversees non profit hospital system of 637 hospitals which account for hospital treatment of 1 out of every 5 people, not just Catholics in the United States today”
The church clothes and feeds and houses1 of 5 indigents in the United States, costing to the Church of 2.3 billion dollars a year …”
“The Catholic Church today has 64 million members in the United States and is the largest non-governmental agency in the country. It has 20,000 churches in this country alone. Every year they raise approximately $10 billion to help support these agencies.”
I rest my case!
I also saw the Archbishop Charles Chaput op ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer. He had some very good additional points. One in particular was his indirect reference to the Church’s strategy of accomodaton and dialogue with the current administration and how they were fooled into believing that they had a deal worked out. Hopefully this is a wakeup call for the Church leaders to realize that their attempt for dialogue and accommodation has not worked, and that it never will work, since in essence this all boils down to a clash of differing and irreconcilable compasses. A moral one based on God vs. a secular one based on government.
Mr. Rahe,
Absolutely brillant piece, but you skipped over one critical piece of history that really amped up the problems: The Second Vatican Council from 1962-1965. The Council unleashed an even bigger genie of liberalism into the church, especially here in America due to the liberal bishops taking the ambiguous documents that came from the Council, and interjecting more social justice into the church. If you would like to know more information, I would gladly contribute. (just to prevent you from having to pour through mountains of documents from the Council)
Again, the problem isn’t the Church’s teaching per se. In fact, the idea that we don’t truly own property — rather we are stewards of God’s property — is Biblical and embraced by many Christians.
The problem is that the hierarchy has embraced the state with dubious discernment. They apparently ignored the danger of rejecting the ends of socialism, while endorsing many socialist means. A state powerful enough to force us to “share our [NOTE: not the institutional churches’s property which is tax exempt] property with the poor and needy” is a state powerful enough to threaten the Church.
Yes,I agree. I pointed out in my post that the doctrine of the universal destination of goods neither entails nor excludes government redistribution,and that the popes have rejected socialism. The government is expected to promote the common good while respecting the principle of subsidiarity,and many bishops have not shown prudential judgement in regard to the proper responsibilities of government.
I am afraid that many conservatives,who should recognize the Church as the greatest promoter and protector of the rights and responsibilities of natural law,will regard it as an ally of socialism.
@X-Angel,
I don’t think you want us to bog down this already ample thread with talk of the Bugnini liturgical reforms and their disastrous implementation, the problematic parts of Gaudium et Spes and the differing interpretations of key passages by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the infamous Land o’ Lakes statement, the ill fated launch of Transcendental Thomism and its Kantian Chrysalis and the infection of therapeutic psychologism of CG Jung as it displaced the realist ascetic psychology in the seminaries.
But, then again…
I don’t think you want us to bog down this already ample thread with talk of the Bugnini liturgical reforms and their disastrous implementation, the problematic parts of Gaudium et Spes and the differing interpretations of key passages by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the infamous Land o’ Lakes statement, the ill fated launch of Transcendental Thomism and its Kantian Chrysalis and the infection of therapeutic psychologism of CG Jung as it displaced the realist ascetic psychology in the seminaries.
But, then again… ·12 hours ago
@Pseudodionysius: Well – I didn’t want to go through every single aspect, but I was hoping that Mr. Rahe would have at least mention something about that Council, because it was really was jet fuel of the fire of liberalism that led to the “smoke of Satan” (as Paul VI said) being injected into the Church.
I don’t think you want us to bog down this already ample thread with talk of the Bugnini liturgical reforms and their disastrous implementation
Please no.