The American Churchman

“That religion can inspire, encourage, and inspire . . . has to be a cause of optimism.”
~@CardinalDolan @IRFSummit #IRFSummit #IRFSummit2021 pic.twitter.com/qCgHUylq4M

— EWTN News (@EWTNews) July 16, 2021

Do all religions participate equally in the Logos? Are they equally "spiritual" or "satisfying"? Why do ROman Catholics need to participate in events like this?

He's Wrong

The great problem the continent has been facing for half a millenium is statism or tyranny. And the Roman Catholic Church is ill-equipped to deal with it because of its own institutional problems arising from the question of ecclesial authority or power, and the resulting clericalism.

A leading European cardinal has said that the great problem the continent will face in the future is attacks against religious freedom. https://t.co/qK3GadS0LI

— Catholic News Agency (@cnalive) June 16, 2021

The Wrong Narrative to Promote

"Catholics should ready ourselves for the battle to preserve the rich tradition of religious pluralism in the United States. It’s going to be an uphill one." My latest #ReligiousFreedom column in @NCRegister https://t.co/C9p7kNTFDu

— Andrea Picciotti-Bayer (@BayerPicciotti) May 25, 2021

Especially when religious pluralism is used by the revolutionaries to undermine the Christian culture of the historic American peoples.

A New Book on Religious Liberty

In Andrew Walker’s new book, religious liberty is presented less as a political doctrine than as a description of reality itself. https://t.co/ql2o5wETJ2

— Public Discourse (@PublicDiscourse) May 23, 2021

The State Accepts No Competitors

The Vatican body, in a message approved by Pope Francis, said that religious freedom is compromised by an “ideology of neutrality which, in fact, imposes the exclusion of religious expression from the public sphere.” 🎯🎯🎯
https://t.co/nQY9vZPRTS

— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) April 29, 2019

Fr. Romanus Cessario, OP Reviews Kidnapped by the Vatican?

Non Possumus by Romanus Cessario, O.P.

MOJ: The Mortara Case, Pio Nono, Statism, Parents, etc.

Dreher has been writing a lot about this incident lately, but at this point I am not interested in examining it, though there are a lot of interesting issues at stake: religious freedom, the rights of Pharisees in Christian societies, the rights/powers of a Christian government, the intersection between the political community and Church...

Rod Dreher, from Crunchy Con

to cuckservative? He's wrong on the Constitution, religious freedom, immigration, and on conservatism: Trump Trashes Religious Freedom - His proposal to ban all Muslims entering US is appalling. Even though he criticizes SJWs, so far as I've read his writing, he's always tried to pass himself off as a "moderate."

A man with apparently a weak (or no) grounding in the science in politics and the Natural Law shouldn't be writing about politics.

George Weigel Reviews Russell Shaw

U.S. Catholics: Overly Assimilated?

And seems to give the nationalist, neo-Yankee proposition-nation view as the basis of his critique (which would not be surprising given his reputation as a theo-con):

To read the history of the Catholic Church in the United States as a centuries-long struggle for assimilation and acceptance certainly sheds light on one dynamic in the development of the Church in America. Yet too close a focus on the question, “Is it possible to be a good Catholic and a good American?” is to argue the question of Catholicism and America on the other guy’s turf. Once, the “other guy” challenging Catholics’ patriotic credentials was militant Protestantism; now, the other guy is militant secularism. To play on the other guy’s turf, however, is to concede at the outset that the other guy sets the terms of debate: “We (militant Protestants/militant secularists) know what it means to be a good American; you (Catholics) have to prove yourselves to us.”

That’s not the game, however. It wasn’t really the game from 1776 through the 1960 presidential campaign—when militant Protestantism was the aggressor—and it isn’t the game today. The real game involves different, deeper questions: “Who best understands the nature of the American experiment in ordered liberty, and who can best give a persuasive defense of the first liberty, which is religious freedom?”

The nineteenth-century U.S. bishops and intellectuals whose enthusiasm for American democracy Russell Shaw now views skeptically (and, yes, they did go over the top on occasion) did get one crucial point right: the American founders “built better than they knew,” i.e., the founders designed a democratic republic for which they couldn’t provide a durable moral and philosophical defense. But the long-despised (and now despised-again) Catholics could: Catholics could (and can) give a robust, compelling account of American democracy and its commitments to ordered liberty.

Mid–twentieth-century Catholic scholars like historian Theodore Maynard and theologian John Courtney Murray picked up this theme and made it central to their reading of U.S. Catholic history. Murray presciently warned that, if Catholicism didn’t fill the cultural vacuum being created by a dying mainline Protestantism, the “noble, many-storied mansion of democracy [may] be dismantled, leveled to the dimensions of a flat majoritarianism, which is no mansion but a barn, perhaps even a tool shed in which the weapons of tyranny may be forged.”

Related:
Religious freedom and the need to wake up by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

Liberalism and Eudaimonia

Liberalism and the Absence of Purpose by Thomas Storck

Is freedom really the ultimate good of liberals? Or is it necessary for an end? I think liberals would concede that freedom is ordered to individual happiness; this is combined with an agnosticism about what happiness entails, and for them, it is not the function of the state to bring it about, nor to "impose" one view on all. Proponents of the New Natural Law Theory recognize a social good, or the good of friendship/associations/community. Liberals probably recognize friendship as a good, but do they understand the civic community to be an instantiation of friendship on a wide scale? Most Uhmericans cannot, because the form of community is absent - what holds is an aggregate of isolate individuals who associate with one another from time to time.

Is it proper to point to Jefferson's modification of Locke in the Declaration of Independence as the guiding ideology of the United States, as Mr. Storck does?

"The United States is firmly committed to the liberal theory. Governments derive “their just Powers from the consent of the Governed” and the purpose of government is simply to “secure” the rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Indeed, it would seem to follow from the argument in the Declaration of Independence that if any people did not think a government was necessary in order to safeguard those rights, then it would be perfectly just for it to have no government whatsoever. This seems to fit in very well with the logic of those libertarians who maintain that in actual fact government is not needed to procure the goods usually associated with it."

I am skeptical of the use of the Declaration of Independence as a proof text and unsure of the claim that the United States is firmly committed to the liberal theory. On the part of the elites? Maybe. On the part of average people? When it comes to justifying their moral stances - but the living arrangements in which they find themselves? It's "normal." Liberalism probably has become more and more the dominant ideology, but I do not think that people consciously adhere to it as the theory behind their own code of life. Do they support liberalism because it justifies and enables their own choices in life, and protects that "freedom"? I doubt we can make such a generalization covering all of the United States, though it may be more applicable to those living in a megapolis than older Americans living in small towns.

I am reminded of Jerry Salyer's Freedom is Not the Good and his comment on the Catholic confessional community.

If we were more willing to share land, would we have as much a problem with groups separating or secession? Is Christianity more "successful" in intact communities or in mass urban areas, where political community is no longer possible? What of the difficulty of converting the American aborigines (the story of the French Jesuits and the North American Martyrs)? It may be attributable to ingrained vice, but what about the factor of social cohesion and a strong group identity? And what of the tribes in South America - were the Jesuit reductions, and the American missions in general, a necessary tool of missionary effort and evangelization? How many hunter-gatherer groups have converted and yet remained hunter-gatherers?

The early Christian kingdoms (Armenia, Georgia) might be a sort of counter-example. I don't think conversions happened by force in those areas, unlike what happened with some of the Germanic tribes.

Humans are inclined to live with others, but that does not mean that there is a social good (or, good of community) that can be abstracted from how it is lived out (especially with respect to "higher" goods, like friendship with God). Those who lived together and enjoy debauching themselves - we would not say that this was a healthy community or "good friendship" even though they were enjoying each other's company and pursuing the same pleasures. If the pursuit of hedonism is a part of their group identity, how can they not feel estranged from those who do not participate, or see them as outsiders?

That hedonism may not be "required" by law but it is part of the culture that makes the community what it is, nonetheless.

Another Skirmish in the Culture War?

Mike Huckabee has called for a buycott of Chick-Fil-A tomorrow. If there were any stores around here, would I go? I've been to one in Phoenix, and I wasn't impressed, despite supporters claiming that it was "healthier" than other fast food options.

It is almost as if Christians have to participate on 8.1.12 in order to show the opposition that their threats of boycotting Chick-Fil-A will not harm the business. Have we been reduced to showing supporting corporations in order to make a statement about what believe or where we stand on certain issues, to posturing through token actions?

It may be a corporation that is run by a "true-believing" Christian but it is a corporation and chain nonetheless, with its own interest. Does it rely on local suppliers or corporate supply chains for its chickens? It is said that it donates some of its profits back to the communities in which stores are located. How much? And for what causes or groups?

So what if they lose business? It's not as if they hire only Christians to work at their stores. One could argue that we should at least patronize businesses started and run by Christians or help them out when others threaten to put them out of a job. But a corporation?

Should Christians be working for alternate economic structures? What was the economy that made the growth of the early Church possible, despite occasional persecution? Did the early Christians possess sufficient economic freedom? (How about the ownership of homes in the early Roman Empire?) Do our property laws and the burden of usury limit us in our goals of building a community of authentic witness to the Gospel?

Should we be thinking about unified action on a nation-wide level in this manner? And what about the oppositional mindset? Are we headed towards a flashpoint for greater conflict, maybe even violence? Mark Mitchell's essay, Culture War No More is apropros. Is Mr. Mitchell correct about the use of war as a metaphor to describe the conflict in beliefs? It goes beyond mere intellectual opposition. While "anticulture" may be a clever rhetoric, it won't be accepted to those who believe that they are working in favor of "love" and "community."

Are we who uphold traditional morality right to feel besieged? And if that is the case, should our response be that of a "siege mentality," withstanding and buffering the attacks of our opponents and planning some sort of counter-attack? Many envision the culture war as being a struggle to impose their values on the other, who are wrong. But this is not about "winning" or showing who is right through coercion and the power of the state. The young believe they are right in their understanding of love and equality. This is a struggle for hearts and minds, but if we cannot persuade people, should make a statement about morality through the power of the national government? Would it not be better to let them go their own way, if possible? But the problem is that those who hold power would never allow this sort of tolerance through separation to occur. The so-called Democratic Party is drafting a pro-SSM plank for their platform. What can we do but struggle to resist this at all levels? At the same time, we should recognize that the outcome may turn out to be in their favor. Many in the urban areas are already convinced of the novel definition of marriage, and the great social reset may not happen until after the rejection of traditional mores has become a legislated fact. The mass media is against traditional morality, and do what they can to replace it through propaganda.

Even if something like the Exodus movement seems too extreme an option, why shouldn't Christians consider living with other like-minded folk? There may be the option of strengthening communal witness where one lives presently, but that requires even greater heroism and may come to naught with respect to success as the world understands it. But until the Church gets serious about revitalizing parish life and finding ways to counter the economic pressures associated with wage slavery, Christian communities will remain in danger of fading away.


Building a Culture of Religious Freedom by Charles J. Chaput

Related:
James Antle, Bullying Chick-fil-A
Chicken Gate – An Exercise in Media Induced Hysteria and Fascism…
Paul Gottfried, Chick-fil-A Eats Crow
Tim Stanley, Chick-fil-A vs gay marriage: how a chicken restaurant became a culture war battleground
Eat more hyperbole…on Chick-fil-a
Rod Dreher, Bonfire of the Chick-fil-A and Christians, These Cities Don’t Want You