Category Archives: Religious Freedom

225 Years Ago Today…

30 Wednesday Apr 2014

Posted by in America's Christian Heritage, Christianity, Founding Fathers, Freedom, Religious Freedom, U S Constitution

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

George Washington

Today marks the 225th anniversary of our first president’s first inaugural.  And it therefore seems fitting to remark on the text of his inaugural address and the priorities with which he set about as our first federal head:

 

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their United Government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most Governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me I trust in thinking, that there are none under the influence of which, the proceedings of a new and free Government can more auspiciously commence.

 

Washington began his term with what is essentially a prayer.  His “fervent supplicatons to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe…” were bold and necessary, in his view, to ensure the “liberties and happiness of the People of the United States….”  Further, Washington was not renegade in his pronouncements.  He was merely confirming the general sentiment of those people who had elected him to govern.

And he ended his address with yeat another prayer.  A prayer that God and His blessing be “conspicuous” in the actions of the new government:

…I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign parent of the human race, in humble supplication that since he has been pleased to favour the American people, with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparellelled unanimity on a form of Government, for the security of their Union, and the advancement of their happiness; so his divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.

Washington began his address by acknowledging God in the establishment of this country and closed his speech with another “supplication” that He be readily apparent in the workings of this new government.

The success that our country experienced after its founding can surely be seen as an answer to Washington’s – and the peoples’ prayers.  And at a distance of 225 years, we would do well to emulate our first President.

Advertisement

A Dialogue with Dean Obeidallah – U S Laws are based on the Bible!

23 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by in Christianity, Founding Fathers, Religious Freedom, U S Constitution

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Image

I am delighted that Dean Obeidallah has graciously responded to my tweets about his recent article.

Dean is concerned that the rise of Mike Hucakbee and Rick Santorum may lead to what he calls a “Christian Sharia”.  And given Dean’s misunderstandings of the Bible, I can certainly see his point.  After all, if you think Deuteronomy 22:20-21 is representative of true Christianity then his fear may well be justrified.  But I think Dean has missed the point and I would like to set the record straight.  In his recent tweet to me he expressed two concerns: that our laws should not be based on the Bible.

First of all, America’s laws are already based on the Bible.  Nine of the thirteen colonies that came together to form the United States had established Christain religions.[i] The Founding Fathers were Christians and were committed to creating a new system based on Christian principles.   And that trend predated the Constitutional Convention by at least 150 years.

In 1636 the General Court of Massachusetts resolved to make a code of laws “agreeable to the word of God.”[ii]

At the time of the Convention, Delaware require the following oath of all people “appointed to any office or trust” including representatives to the Constitutional Convention:

” I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”[iii]

And Pennsylvania, likewise:

I do believe in one God, the Creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration. [iv]

And Massachusetts, likewise:

[All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _____, do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”[v]

And many more colonies had similar provisions but I hope the point has been made with these few.

So when the Founders came together in Philadelphia they were not acting contrary to the history of the colonies they there were there to represent.  In fact, the Christian foundation of the American culture was so established around the world that the famed German historian, Leopold von Ranke declared that John Calvin was the true founder of America! [vi]

Lastly, Dr. Eidsmoe documents how the Bible was the source most frequently cited by the Founders.  And that John Locke’s ideas of liberty and the “consent of the governed” are biblical concepts themselves:

The concept of “consent of the governed” has its roots in John Locke’s social compact, which is in turn rooted in the Calvinist concept of the covenant, by which men, in the presence of God, join themselves together into a body politic. And correctly understood, the concept is biblical.[vii]

In sum, when America’s Constitution – the “Supreme Law of the Land” – was contemplated and enacted it was done by professing Christians whose intent was to create a Christian nation.  The colonies that sent representatives to the Constitution had either established Christian religions supported by the taxpayer or had overwhelmingly Christian populations without an established church.  They only sent people to represent them at Philadelphia that could swear allegiance to a Trinitarian Christianity.

Were America’s laws based on the Bible?  How could they not be?

Thanks again, to Dean Obeidallah for this dialogue.

You can find Dean on Twitter here:  @Deanofcomedy

[i] Holmes, David L.  “The Faiths of the Founding Fathers”; Oxford University Press, 2006.  Kindle Location 191-192.  See also Eidsmoe, cited below, Kindle location 556-558

[ii] Eidsmoe, John.  “Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of our Founding Fathers”;  Baker Academic, 1995.  Kindle Location 239-240

[v] Skillman, Thomas T., “The Constitutions of All the United States According to the Latest Amendments” as quoted in Barton, David, “The Myth of Separation”, 5th ed., Wallbuilders Press, 1992.  P. 24

[vi] Eidsmoe, John.  Ibid.  Kindle location 68-70.

[vii] Eidsmoe, ibid.  Kindle location 4090-4092.

Christian Sharia? A Call for Dean Obeidallah to Apologize

20 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by in Christianity, Islam, Jihad, Religious Freedom

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

Dean Obeidallah is worried that the Christian influence on American law and politics will be the next sharia. (“The Conservative Crusade for Sharia Law”.)  But he so badly misunderstands American history and the Bible that he should immediately publish a retraction.

The most obvious criticism of his piece is that was written in a Christian country whose legal system and institutions are based on Christianity.  Mr. Obeidallah penned his article in a country whose foundations were laid on Christian principles.  Who can forget the “laws of nature and of nature’s God” made so famous by the American Founders?  Or George Washington’s admonition that “Religion and morality are indispensable supports…(for)political prosperity.”  Was George Washington seeking to implement sharia?  Hardly.  And if these Christian principles have been with us for more than two centuries, how is it that Mr. Obeidallah is so free to publicly criticize them?  Shouldn’t he have his typing fingers cut off, or something?

And Mr. Obeidallah is quick to cite Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists which contains the badly misused phrase, “separation of church and state.”    This author thinks that Jefferson means what Obeidallah thinks he means – and that is that Church and State should be totally separate.  The irony in this is that Jefferson, who at the time was the President of the United States, concludes his letter with a prayer!  No kidding.  A sitting President offered a prayer to the God of the Bible on official U.S. stationery as part of his official capacity as President.  Separation?  Really?  That is perhaps why historians refer to Jefferson’s comment as erecting a “one way wall” to keep the government out of religion while allowing the Christian religion in to the government.

And in what I find to be a truly humorous part of Obeidallah’s article, he turns his inestimable genius to the Bible.  Citing Deuteronomy 22:20-21 Obeidallah thinks that the coming Christian sharia will result in the stoning of women.  But what Obeidallah fails to realize by his cherry-picking is that Deuteronomy Chapter 22 is the foundation for the modern women’s movement.  No kidding  – and he thinks its sharia!  To understand this chapter you must first realize the historical context and that is that women in every other society not under the influence of the Book of Deuteronomy treated women as property.  Yet, in the very chapter Mr. Obeidallah cited the woman in question has a right to a trial, to have evidence presented in her defense (Deut. 22:15-17) and a fair chance at acquittal! (vs. 18)   In fact, her accuser is just as likely to be punished if he fails to prove his case to the tribunal.  And while the wording of the Old Testament prohibitions is sometimes harsh – you will look in vain for cases where these sentences were carried out.  The severity of the potential punishment worked to remind the people that God is not only loving but also just.  Obeidallah is entirely anachronistic in his analysis.

But a more general and more weighty  critique of this article is that Obeidallah’s Christianity is backwards.  What that means is that he intends to judge Christians by the Old Testament Law (Deuteronomy is know as the book of the Law) but Christ Himself claimed to be the fulfillment of that law.  And the entire New Testament is instruction to Christians to flee from the law.

Lastly, the fact that ultimately shows the foolishness of Obeidallah’s article is that Christ Himself was presented with an opportunity to enforce Deuteronomy 22:20-22 in the famous story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11).  If that story shows anything it is that Christ calls his people to a new way – a way so radical as to forgive sinners and love one’s enemies.

That is true Christian sharia.

In sum, Mr. Obeidallah’s piece reflects a total ignorance of historical context and therefore presents a sleight against Christianity.  He should apologize – but I suspect that concept is as foreign to Mr. Obeidallah as is true Christianity.

A Book Review: Why Catholicism Matters by William Donohue

07 Sunday Jul 2013

Posted by in Religious Freedom, Roman Catholicism, William Donohue

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Whenever you see Bill Donohue’s name you can be sure that whatever follows is a vigorous defense of Roman Catholicism –  and his new work, “Why Catholicism Matters” is true to form.   But Catholics would be ill-advised to use Donohue’s presentation as part of their own defense simply because it is so poor.  Donohue lets his Catholic friends down by engaging in what can only be described as intellectual sleight-of-hand and by misrepresenting the history and teachings of his denomination in ways that would make any honest scholar blush.

Donohue begins his work by crediting the Catholic Church with everything from creating the university, art, architecture and music.  He says that “were it not for several popes who intervened against those who sought to deny academic freedom, the course of learning in the time to come would have been stifled.” (Page 5)  But what he is apparently unaware of is that these universities effectively replaced the local bishops as the source of doctrine – and the concept of the bishop is central to Catholicism.    But a true scholar has this to say of the effect of the creation of the university upon society and the Church:

“In the thirteenth century the schoolman replaced the bishop and the abbot as the typical exponent of doctrine…What had happened was that the masters had emerged alongside the bishops and the abbots as formative influences in the life of the church.  As a source of doctrine, they had indeed superseded them.”  (Professor Colin Ferguson, “The Papal Monarchy:  The Western Church from 1050 to 1250”; Oxford, 1989.  p. 507)

So Donohue is unwilling or unable to interact with this fact – that the university whose creation he credits to the Church of Rome became an extra-ecclesial body which replaced the bishops as a source of doctrine.  Given Rome’s doctrine of the Magisterium this would seem then to be not such a good thing!

And what, exactly, was taught in these universities?  According to Donohue, “Students learned from Aristotle and Cicero, drawing on their philosophical genius as bedrock for Christian thought.” (p. 5).   So Donohue’s idea of the Catholic contribution to education is that Rome built the universities, not on Christian thinkers or the teachings of Christ, but on two pagans who never even heard of Jesus Christ.
Today’s leading scholar of the Reformation, Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch shows how deadly this conflation of paganism and Christianity actually is as it was applied as dogma by the Catholic Church:

“From the fourteenth century, most philosophers and theologians, particularly in Northern Europe, did not in fact believe this [i.e. the doctrine of transubstantiation]  They were nominalists who rejected Aristotle’s categories…it [transubstantiation] ought not be approached through the Thomist paths of reason, but most be accepted as  a matter of faith…Those who remained in the Roman obedience generally did this; but in sixteenth-century Europe, thousands of Protestants were burnt at the stake for denying an idea of Aristotle, who had never heard of Jesus Christ.”  (Diarmaid MacCulloch.  “The Reformation.”  Penguin Books, New York; 2003.  p. 26)

But Donohue’s admiration for both Aristotle and Aquinas puts him in a very difficult spot later in his book.  On page 84 he makes this unsupportable declaration: “The Catholic Church has never had to switch gears; it has never been anything but pro-life.”  (And by pro-life he means the belief that life begins at conception.)  But neither Aristotle nor Aquinas was pro-life in that sense.  Aristotle taught a doctrine of “delayed ensoulment” and Aquinas, because he was an Aristotelian, taught a similar doctrine.   Add to this the fact that as a “Doctor of the Church” the works of Aquinas have been declared free from defect or error by Rome.  Does Mr. Donohue have the gravitas to supplant those credentials or is he just wrong?

In addition to these rather egregious philosophical and theological errors, Mr. Donohue makes an excessive number of historical mistakes such that they cannot all be dealt with here.  The most offensive is his attempt to piggy-back Catholicism on the backs of America’s founding when this country was clearly an escape from the Catholic totalitarian states of Europe.  Where he does note that less than 1% of the colonists at the time of our founding were Roman Catholics he fails to deal with the fact that America’s Founders were opposed to Catholicism precisely because it historically led to despotism and not the republican principles the Founders espoused.

Dr. Brion McLanahan documents the sentiments of the Founders this way:

“Amos Singletary said in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention that he was troubled that “there was no provision that men in power should have any religion; and though he hoped to see Christians, yet by the Constitution, a Papist, or an Infidel, was as eligible as they . . . in this instance, we were giving great power to we know not whom.”  (The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution. Regnery Publishing, 2012.  Kindle Location 2700-2703)

The Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Calvinist so the idea that Roman Catholicism had a role in America’s founding is simply untenable.

But the error that is by far the most blatant and deserves to be discredited in the most forceful terms is Donohue’s treatment of Nazism.

Mr. Donohue takes credit for the Catholic Church in the verdicts rendered at the Nuremberg trial of the Nazis:  “Thus the Catholic natural law tradition was vindicated.” (p. 50).  What Donohue obfuscates or ignores was that the Nazis WERE Catholics.  Hitler himself came from Catholic parents and was baptized and confirmed in the Roman communion.  And, likewise his most influential lieutenants!  Later in the text, Donohue goes completely off the reservation when he describes Hitler as an “atheist”.  Apparently it’s an inconvenient truth that once someone is baptized into the Catholic faith, unless they make a specific request outlined in the Canon Law to be witnessed by two deacons, they are forever a Catholic.  Hitler was a Catholic – period.

But more damning for Mr. Donohue and his cause is the influence that Catholicism had on Hitler and the Nazis.  The question has to be asked, where did the Nazis get the idea to put Jews in “ghettos” and concentration camps?  And the only answer is that they got that idea from the Roman Catholic Church.  We now know with absolute certainty that the Church of Rome imprisoned Jews in ghettos throughout the Papal States for 700 years!  That is exactly where Hitler got the idea for the camps!  And the follow-on question, which is equally as tantalizing – is why were ALL the Nazi death camps in Poland the only European country not touched by the Reformation and whose population is entirely Catholic??

And Donohue’s abuse of the record with regard to Nazism leads inevitably to his errant, one-sided defense of Pius XII.  What must always be kept in mind in this discussion is that Pius XII (as Eugenio Pacelli) negotiated the Reichskonkordat with the Nazi’s that gave them their initial prestige.  This was a Catholic-to-Catholic negotiation because Pacelli conducted his negotiations with Franz von Papen who Hitler’s biographer, Ian Kershaw described as “an urbane and well­connected member of the Catholic nobility.” (Kershaw, Ian. Hitler: a biography. London:  W. W. Norton & Company, Ltd., 2008.  P. 230.  The effect of this concordat was to silence the German episcopacy and forbid it to publicly comment on politics.  So Pacelli (later Pius XII) was the one who lent the prestige of the Vatican to the young Nazis which propelled them to power. To suggest that as pope, Pius would go back on his previous commitments leads to the conclusion that he was not a man of his word, or worse.

A couple of the more humorous errors you can look for in this book are that Gregory of Nyssa was the pope (he was not) and that Galileo was an “astrologer”.   (That last one provided a much needed laugh for which I am grateful!)

If Catholicism needs a defense, this is not it.  And if Catholicism needs a defender Donohue is not him.  If you are interested in defending the Catholic Church, I beg you not to use any information in this book.  You will only serve to embarrass yourself and hurt the cause.

To God alone be the glory!

The Death of Roman Catholic Tradition

11 Saturday May 2013

Posted by in Charles Chaput, Garry Wills, Religious Freedom, Roman Catholicism

≈ 4 Comments

It is certainly no secret that that Catholic Church has taken it on the chin from Obamacare and the Health and Human Services Administration (HHS).  The HHS has mandated that Roman Catholic employers must provide insurance which pays for abortifacient drugs for the people they employ.  But the Roman Catholic Church is opposed to abortion, at least the modern Roman Catholic Church is.[i]  That has caused the RCC in the United States to complain that its religious liberty has been infringed.  And that infringement was the occasion for a recent address by the Most Reverend Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Philadelphia to a group in Greensburg, PA.  What I found fascinating about the Archbishop’s address is that he while he admonishes his audience to remain true to their Catholic heritage he does so on a Protestant foundation.  In other words, he had to abandon Catholic teaching and Tradition on the issue of religious liberty and build his case on the work of the Protestant Founders of America.

His Excellency encouraged his audience not to “dilute our zeal as Catholics” and reminded them that they cannot “achieve good ends with impure means”.[ii]   He reminded his hearers of his work on the United States Commission on International Freedom which taught him “importance of religious liberty both abroad and in our own country.”  The Archbishop then stated that the (charitable) work of the Catholic Church must be ordered by certain principles, the first of which is this:

First, all Catholic social work should be faithful to the mission and structures of the local diocese, with special respect for the role of the bishop. It should be true to Scripture, Church teaching and the Code of Canon Law.[iii]

And that this liberty to practice one’s own religion is one of the “cornerstones of the American experience.”  The Archbishop then cites “James Madison, John Adams, Charles Carroll, John Jay, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson” as examples of men who shared his view on religious liberty.  It is interesting to me that all of these men, with the exception of Charles Carroll were Protestants.

But if we are to take the Archbishop’s admonition to remain “true” to “Church teaching” we must ask what was the Catholic Church’s teaching during the period of America’s founding down to modern times.  And that is where things become very interesting because the Roman Church has historically been against the very same “religious liberty” that the Archbishop now sees as so important to his cause.

Official “Church Teaching” on Religious Liberty: 1776-1958

Because the Archbishop ties his understanding of religious liberty to America in the eighteenth century it seems only fair that we examine what the Roman Church taught during the period.  At the time of the American Revolution of 1776 and through the period where the U.S. Constitution was drafted, ratified and implemented, the pope of Rome was Pius VI.  Here is an example of Pius VI’s idea of “religious liberty” in the Papal States over which he presided:

…at the time of Pius VI came to St. Peter’s throne in 1775 and issued his order reinstating all the old restrictions, Jews lived in eight ghettoes, locked in each night behind high walls and heavy gates. Everyone was able to tell who was a Jew, because, in another sixteenth-century papal provision reiterated in the 1775 edict, Jews were required to wear a special badge on their clothes…Jews were not allowed to keep shops or warehouses outside the ghetto and their social isolation was to be strictly enforced.[iv]

If you were a Jew living in Rome at the time of the American Revolution, “religious liberty” meant being imprisoned, giving up your possessions and being harassed by the Catholic Church.

The pontificate of the next pope, Pius VII was marked by the struggle with Napoleon.  It is interesting that Napoleon freed the Jews imprisoned by the Catholic Church after he invaded Rome at the beginning of the 19th century.  Unfortunately the Jews were re-imprisoned by the next pope, Leo XII in 1826.  One notable Catholic historian describes Leo this way:

Leo XII’s pontificate was an extremely conservative one:  he condemned religious toleration, reinforced the Index of Forbidden Books and the Holy Office (formerly the Inquisition), reestablished the feudal aristocracy in the Papal States, and confined the Jews once again to ghettos.[v]

Leo was followed by Pius VIII who lasted only twenty months who was in turn followed by Gregory XVI.  And Gregory was no fan of “religious liberty”.  Fr. McBrien once again:

Gregory XVI was as rigid in dealing with theological issues as he was in dealing with political ones.   In his encyclical “Mirari vos” (August 15, 1832)…he denounced the concepts of freedom of conscience, freedom of the press, and separation of Church and state, particularly the liberal views associate with the French priest Félicité Robert de Lamennais…(Lamennais favored religious liberty and the separation of Church and state….[vi]

The last pope of the 19th century was Pius IX.  Pius was famous for, among other things, his Syllabus of Errors.  That document listed a variety of doctrines or viewpoints that, if applied to the Roman Catholic Church would be considered errors.  And religious liberty would be included in that list of errors.  Here is the way Pius IX phrased it:

That in the present day, it is no longer necessary that the Catholic Church be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other modes of worship: whence it has been wisely provided by the law, in some countries nominally Catholic, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the free exercise of their own worship…That the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself to, and agree with, progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.[vii]

The next pope was Leo XIII.  And the irony of Leo’s papacy in light of Archbishop Chaput’s presentation is that Leo disliked the American system so vehemently that he created the heresy of “Americanism”!  In his encyclical “Longiqua Oceani” the pope put the matter this way:

…it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced.[viii]

You see, according to the Pope, the type of system the Archbishop thinks is fundamental to defend the religious liberty of Catholics is actually heretical.  If the Archbishop were true to his own dictate to remain true to “Church teaching” he would give up this talk of liberty.

And the next pontiff – the “pastoral” Pius X – was no different.  It seems that this pope was so set against “religious liberty” that he refused to see the American President Teddy Roosevelt simply because the President was scheduled to speak at a Methodist Church in Rome.  I have a hard time finding the “liberty” in that story, don’t you?

Benedict XV’s pontificate seems to have been preoccupied with internecine quarrels as well as with the events of the First World War.   But his successor, Pius XI renewed Rome’s march against religious liberty with the encyclical “Martalium animos” which “forbade any Catholic involvement in ecumenical conferences.”[ix]

The last pope that I will mention brings us past the mid-point of the twentieth century; Pius XII.  And I have to note him with a truly great sense of irony.  You see, Pius XII instigated a “persecution” of leading Catholic scholars of the day including Henri de Lubac, who Archbishop Chaput quotes from to begin his speech!  And while it is true that John Paul II later raised de Lubac to the episcopate, the fact remains that he was first an example of the sort of religious intolerance which is the true legacy of Rome.

Conclusion:

The Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church is to deny religious liberty.  That case has been made by a review of centuries of official Catholic documents promulgated by every pope from America’s founding until the mid-twentieth century. It is beyond question that Rome’s official position is one in opposition to “liberty”.  And that the American system of which Archbishop Chaput thinks is so instructive has actually been declared a heresy by Rome.

In order for this not to be true, it will be necessary for Roman Catholics to show where, when and by whom these many papal pronouncements have been rescinded, reformed or replaced.  A feat that cannot be accomplished given the nature of papal writings.

Therefore we must conclude that either the Tradition of Rome is dead or that the venerable Archbishop of Philadelphia is a heretic.  As harsh as that may sound, what other choice is there?

Soli Deo Gloria.

[i] It is an interesting fact of history that the Roman Catholic Church has not been opposed to abortion until recent times.  You can read more about that here .

[ii] It seems to this writer that God Himself has achieved good ends almost entirely through “impure means” if the Scriptures are any testimony.  The only exception I can recall are the ends that God achieved through Christ who is, of course, pure.

[iv] Kertzer, David I.  The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican’s Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism.  New York:  Alfred A. Knopf, 2001.  Pgs. 28-29.

[v] McBrien, Richard P.  Lives of the Popes.  San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997.  Page 333.

[vi] Ibid. p. 338

[ix] McBrien, p. 360.

George Weigel – Lost in Time

08 Tuesday Jan 2013

Posted by in Abortion, George Weigel, Religious Freedom, Roman Catholicism

≈ Leave a comment

For those of you who may not be familiar, George Weigel is an uber-Catholic who writes regularly about all things pertaining to the Roman Catholic Church.  He has an engaging – if pointed – style and he intends to see to it that Catholics, by golly, get their religion right.  And it is apparent from his frequent offerings that George knows what is right!

In his most recent article, “Notre Dame Punts” , Weigel is alarmed that America’s leading Catholic university could have done something so heinous as to squander a free 30 second commercial at last night’s BCS championship game – a commercial that might have reached “the largest audience ever to watch a college football game.”  And what would Weigel have advised Notre Dame to promote in that illustrious half minute ad?  His answer,

one or another (or both) of the two causes that define serious, culture-forming Catholicism in 21st-century America: the pro-life cause and the cause of religious freedom.

(I don’t know about you, but I am certainly gratified to know that Catholicism is now defined by two causes in the 21st century because they were certainly defined by only one in the last part of the 20th!)

I find that admission to be quite staggering.  If we may recall of all the grandiose claims that Rome reserves for herself – i.e. she is the only church founded by Christ whose message comes to us today in “unbroken” succession from the Apostles; she has the only group on earth whose leadership is protected from error by the Holy Spirit; her CEO, the pope, has reserved the right to himself to make immaculate pronouncements – the only two that Weigel finds appropriate to bring to a large American audience are abortion and religious freedom.  Those are the defining issues this century.

But it is safe to say that those two issues are historical anomalies in the Roman communion.

The first issue is abortion.  Adman Weigel’s recommended copy for the ad Notre Dame “should have” used is thus: “We’re Notre Dame: We help women in crisis pregnancies and we defend the right to life for all, from conception until natural death.”  But that is not – I say again, not – the historic view of the Roman Catholic Church.  As we have noted here Pope Innocent III defended one of his priests who had caused his mistress to abort.  St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “We conclude therefore that the intellectual soul is created by God at the end of human generation….”  In other words man, the perfect union of body and soul, is not achieved at conception but “at the end of human generation”.  When we add to that Pope Leo XIII’s absolute endorsement of Thomism as official Catholic philosophy at the end of the 19th century, it is ever so clear that the Holy Spirit saved Msgr. Weigel from making an egregious and embarrassing historical mistake in his ad.  To sum the matter in a way reminiscent of recent U.S. political campaigns, Rome voted for abortion before it voted against it.

And Mr. Weigel suffers from a similar historical myopia with regard to the issue of religious freedom.  It must be remembered that Pope Boniface VIII in his infamous bull of 1312 (Unam Sanctam) declared that there is no salvation outside the Church of Rome.  Now that is hardly ecumenical language!  And it’s hard to describe the murder by Rome of the Waldensians and others as honoring their “religious freedom”.  And what of the seven hundred years where the Bishop of Rome oversaw the enslavement of the Jews in the ghettos throughout the Papal States?  Was that a concern for religious freedom?

Here is the official view of religious freedom as written by the same Leo XIII:

it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced.

According to Leo XIII, Weigel’s position is “erroneous”.  The State is to be either united with, or subservient to, the Roman Church and its pope.  Period.

Weigel tells the amusing story of an opposing team’s chaplain remarking, in a game against Notre Dame, the God doesn’t care who wins a football game.  The then-coach of Notre Dame, in his best Will Rogers persona, replied, “Yes, but his Mother does!”  Well, if last night’s 42-14 rout of Notre Dame by Alabama is any indication, she must not care anymore.  But maybe she cares enough to keep her university from making blatantly erroneous claims about the history of Catholic teaching.

Maybe their ad should have said, “We’re Notre Dame.  We have a history department.  George Weigel doesn’t.”

Soli Deo Gloria