Is the Roman Catholic Church a bulwark of democracy?

Updated with new Response from Dr Art Kyriazis


Salve readers,

Quod Scripsit is very interested in the critique of our Western Civilization/Culture and the direction(s) it is taking. The basic premise is "Resolve, Western Civilization” is a product of Christianity and the Roman Catholic and Protestant riff in particular which ushered in the Enlightenment and made the "horrors" of the French Revolution possible.


Art Kyriazis Harvard Class 80/81 comments below.
Eques’ response follows Art's argument on the resolution. This exchange is going on the "Harvard Alumni Association Discussion Groups" website as well.


Dear Eques

Hi, Art Kyriazis 80/81' writing here.

I'm a molecular biologist now but an old social studies major so I can't resist taking a chop at your comment on the list serve here.

(1) I just watched the movie " Elizabeth : the Golden Age" with Cate Blanchett, Clive Owen etc. The central thesis of this movie, which centers on the defeat of the Spanish armada by the English, is that the defeat of catholic Spain by Protestant England was something quite important for the development of trade and freedom in the world. as with the defeat of the Persians at marathon and salamis by the ancient Greeks, one can surely argue that the English protestants carried with them traditions of freedom, law and liberty (and parliamentary rule) that later took root in the new world (not to mention Canada, India and many commonwealth nations); not to mention that many historians and social theorists suggest that the Spanish economy was largely feudal and mercantile (as Commodore Perry our old professor at Harvard was wont to
argue) due to its catholic nature hoarding gold and exploiting the new world for the state instead of allowing numerous private companies as did the Dutch and English (Weber's notion of the protestant ethic and capitalism).

(2) corollary to this is the notion that England enjoyed a better nationalism due to the union of their church with the king
(Cesaro-Papism) while the laws resided with parliament, while the catholic powers of the continent were weakened by the church authority residing in Rome while the secular power resided with each king. This weakened Spain , France and the holy roman empire in turn, and was not fully resolved until the French revolution and the Napoleonic conquests which drove the inquisition from Spain and disenfranchised catholic property and dominion in France , leaving in place strong nationalist states in France and finally allowing Germany to unify.

(3) the ottoman empire was very powerful during this entire time, and they certainly enjoyed a union of state and church, in that the sultan was both the secular and spiritual leader of all Islam as well as of the continuing jihad from 1453 until the end of the sultanate in 1922. In addition, he was also after the fall of the roman empire with the taking of Constantinople in 1453, the roman emperor as well as the ruler of the Rumi-Orthodox--the roman christian subjects of his land, who of 12 millions who lived in the ottoman lands, fully 4 million at any one time, Romanian, Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian, etc. all answered to one orthodox christian patriarch ensconced in Constantinople, loyal not to the pope, but to the sultan. While modern nationalist histories portray the sultan and the ottomans in a bad light, the truth is that the Greeks, Armenians and Jews who had no religious liberty in the catholic states prospered in the ottoman empire as bankers, traders, seamen etc, building up large trading cities in Smyrna, Skopje etc. and living in large mansions. The economic contributions of non-Muslims to the Muslim empire were not inconsiderable, and many of these peoples were driven to live in ottoman countries due to the fact that all of the Sephardi Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492; the Greeks (Rumi) felt more welcome in ottoman rumeli and Asia minor to practice their religion as orthodox than they did in Italy, which had but one Greek church in Venice; and the Armenians certainly were tolerated until very late in ottoman history.

(4) The Chinese and Mogul empires in China and India were powerful during the 16th and 17th centuries, as were the Japanese feudal warlords who were quickly assimilating western ways and weapons before they shut the country off from the west.

(5) It is difficult to say what propelled the west to the top of the heap civilization wise. The fall of Constantinople was certainly critical, as it sent a number of Greek and Latin scholars of Greek ancestry to Italy, along with their books, to disseminate original Greek and Latin knowledge to the humanists.
This has been the thesis of Burckhardt in his work on the renaissance and of jb bury for many years. more recently works on George of Trebizond have also cited the critical role of Greek scholars in the revival of Greek study. Certainly the establishment of a chair in Greek studies in England in the early 1500s was a turning point in English science and literary affairs, and led directly to Newton, Shakespeare, Marlowe, and the king James bible as we now know them all. From Newton, all else follows, including Maxwell, Einstein and the atomic bomb.

(6) it's hard to say that the humanists were devoutly catholic.
Galileo was at odds with the Jesuits; Copernicus was afraid to publish his findings; in many ways, the inquisition and the Jesuits were opponents of humanism and of scientific progress. In time, the English developed the faster, lighter ships with more cannon and better engineering because they had freedom of thought and freedom of scientific inquiry--Bacon, Raleigh, drake--all were encouraged to think, to travel until England had reached every corner of the globe with mercantile trade by the time of Elizabeth.
They feared nothing and least of all their own inquisition or Jesuits, because the catholic faith had been suppressed in England.

(7) Two of the greatest crimes in history in the middle ages have to be ascribed to the catholic church, the sack of Constantinople in 1204 by the 4th crusade, and the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathari of Southern France (Provencal France) in 1209). These were not isolated events. Throw in the crusade less than a hundred years later against the knights Templar sanctioned by the pope and you have a picture of what the inquisition was really all about.
In Constantinople, they burned 2/3 of the classical works that had been preserved in the library and melted down the original ancient sculptures, preserved for centuries unharmed, for bronze; and they took all of the holy relics of Christ, which had been carefully collected by the roman emperors over the years, including the crown of thorns and holy lance, and used them as collateral for loans from Italian bankers, and when the Latin emperors defaulted on the loans, the relics were sold and dispersed to the various emperors of the west, included the holy grail itself, which was lost. The Cathari, who had developed Provencal literature and the cult of the troubadours, were silenced forever, and a literary and cultural tradition was forever lost.

(8) On the plus side, the Vatican has managed to keep a large number of items in its own library intact.

(9) The current pope seems anxious to effect another union (more permanent than the councils of Lyon or
Florence) with the eastern church, which now boasts 500 million strong. However the eastern church only recognizes the seven ecumenical councils through the 8th century ad; the western church lists all of the Lateran and Vatican councils, as well as papal encyclicals, as being of importance somehow. Moreover, Vatican II, which the western church ratified and announced, which revoked much of the bad and harmful intolerance that had characterized Catholicism for centuries, is seemingly now being chipped away at by neo-conservatives in the Vatican. It would seem that one pre-requisite for there to be union between the Vatican and eastern church, is strict adherence to Vatican II.

these are just a few points.

--Art Kyriazis ab 80/81
Eques Responds

Salve Art,
Well reasoned response, which I do not have the necessary time to respond to, this being holy Week. I would like to comment in the near future on:
1. That "protestant England at first was not Protestant but schismatic. One could argue that until the 19th century with the exception of the "puritan revolt" the Anglican Church considered itself catholic. Cardinal Newman attempted to prove such, but much to his surprise found that over time, the "Catholic Faith" in England had been corrupted by Protestantism, but he claims it did not begin that way. Therefore, the growth of the British Commercial Empire early still found its roots in what they themselves believed was Catholic but not Papists."
2. I believe that the worse thing to happen in Western and European history was the French Revolution, as Edmund Burke and Dickens (neither Catholic) would agree. It brought to the world the first Modern Totalitarian State , guillotine, secret police, state religion, (as opposed to a nationalized version of Catholicism as in the East and England) and global war, the real First World War being the Napoleonic Wars.
3. No Conservative, Republican, or Roman Catholic philosophically or theologically could rightly support a totalitarian state. Also the international character of Roman Catholicism makes it the only Church capable of resisting oppression form such states globally, in such places as Philippines, East Timor, Sudan, Central America, Poland, Hungary, and many more places in many other times, including the French Revolution and its after math.
4. I do believe that the lingering feudalism in Spain, with its protection of the aristocracy and hence the lack of industrial development, was in part a by product of conservative Catholicism that was leery of democracy, as were all the crown heads of Europe until it was thrust upon them by the debacle of the "First World War." I would also have to attribute this at least in Spain to other cultural factors, which were I admit, rooted in Catholicism.
5. I believe you err in your characterization of the "Two of the greatest crimes in history in the Middle Ages have to be ascribed to the catholic church, the sack of Constantinople in 1204 by the 4th crusade, and the Albigensian Crusade against the Cithara of Southern France (Provencal France) in 1209). These were not isolated events. Throw in the crusade less than a hundred years later against the knight's Templar sanctioned by the pope and you have a picture of what the inquisition was really all about."
a. The "Sack of Constantinople" was a horror to the Pope. It was never contemplated by the church; it was the direct result of Crusader kings and Barons looking for a quick buck.
b. The Albigensian or Cithara heresy was seen as a direct threat on the political stability of medieval Europe. Catholic princes, though they may have cared little for their Catholic Faith believed as Constantine did that there could be a unified state only with a unified religion. Heresy of all kind was not only an attack on the faith but also on the state, moderns have difficulty grasping this aspect of the medieval mindset; it was true then of Orthodox, Muslim, and later Protestant States, and princes.
Remember England is one of the few nation states today that still has an established church, and it was not until the early nineteenth century that the penal laws were relaxed against Catholics and The Catholic hierarchy restored. This was also in part due to the continued Anglican Bishops claim that they were the Catholic Bishops in England right up to the Mid-nineteenth century.
c. The suppression of the Order of the Poor Knights of St John of the Temple of Jerusalem, the Knights Templar was first in no way a crusade. It was the direct result of the greed and debts of King Philip IV of France, who had acquired an enormous debt to the Templars. He eyed their international treasury housed in guess where? The Bastille, as the solution to his problem, therefore he had the usual charges of various heresies, sins drown up against the Templars, and pressured the Pope to allow the arrest and trail, wherever in his realm they could be found, while encouraging the other kings to do the same with the aid of the Bishops he controlled. He was able to do this because he also controlled the Clement V, who was a Frenchman that Philip IV whose election as pope was manipulated by Philip IV. Clement V was the first of the Avignon Popes, and thus at the mercy of Philip IV.
Therefore, what you characterize as a crusade by the power of Catholic Church was an example of what happens when the Church was not independent or sovereign. The suppression of the Templars was the direct outcome of a Pope and Catholic Church that was controlled by a powerful king. The Church would fight this, I believe rightly so by insisting on an Independent and Sovereign Papal State, so that the church could not be manipulated so easily by powerful kings, emperors, or dictators in the future. The Popes fought this battle right up to 1870 when Rome was illegitimately seized by the newly created Italian Monarchy under Victor Emanuel II. The Popes remained “prisoners of the Vatican ” until the Lateran Council of 1927 negotiated by Mussolini for the King of Italy and the House of Savoy. This concordat recognized the sovereignty of “yle="">Stato Della Citta Del Vaticano,” and various other extraterritorial possessions of the Holy See and paid reparations to the Holy See for the seizure of Rome and the Papal States in the previous century, hence in effect legitimizing the Pontifical claims of 1870 to its sovereign status.
d. Therefore, I believe it erroneous to say that any of the events were the result of Church authority but rather the lack of and examples rather of what continues today attempts at the powerful of the world to manipulate the Church for its own purposes.
e. As along as the church does not have the coercive power of the state, that is the power to punish with incarceration, or death, rights it actually only exercised in the Papal States themselves (a necessary embarrassment for a Church, that was also a state with a population, that was in need of all the laws and order of any other state at that time) I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the greatest institutional and moral guardian against the rise of the totalitarian super state.
Art, thank you for your thoughts, I await your retort.
Vale et Pax
Eques

Dr Art Kyriazis answers

(Dr Art does not use upper case letters, it is as he wrote it unedited.)

will state here that I am of the orthodox faith, so my holy week is deferred this year, but I understand there are ecumenical discussions and negotiations underway to at least unite the Easters of the Western and Eastern Churches, which would be a wonderful thing indeed.

I would start with common ground. I believe the passion of the christ and the mysteries of easter and the resurrection of the christ is for me, and for billions of people in the world, one of the most important touchstones of faith in their devotion to god. There is little question that this is my favorite service of the year and of course, our theological calendar begins and ends at easter and the pentecost and the ascent.

I find myself agreeing with the fine points you make. England was indeed quite schismatic; as I point out in my other response, they had a tendency to export dissent to the new world rather than simply supress it. This does not encompass fully the irish question, which is a shameful episode in their history.

The horrors of the french revolution i fully share revulsion for. As I am fundamentally a conservative, Burke has always been one of my touchstones. While I don't agree with all of the points you make extending from the french revolution, I agree it was a horrible event. I would add that it lit the fuse for all of the nationalist uprisings of the 19th and 20th century, starting with the Greek Revolution of 1821-1830, to the bosnian nationalist who shot the archduke of austria and started world war I, to the disintegration of the ottoman empire along nationalist lines and the eastern problem. even the russian revolution.

plus my personal favorite word, "the thermidorean reaction".

I certainly agree that modernly catholicism, especially since vatican II, has been a liberating force against totalitarianism, especially in places like poland behind the iron curtain. however there remains the problem of the concordat of 1938 with hitler, and the complicity of the church with the croats against the serbs in wwII, and other similar scenarios which played out, along with their role vis a via Mussolini.

we agree about spain.

On the 4th crusade and albigensian crusade, your arguments have been made by certain historians, and are well-supported, but so have been mine, and we will agree to disagree. There are a plethora of recent studies on the subject, plus of course the original sources such as Villardhouin, which I have read and re-read. There are both crusader and greek accounts.

On the knights templar, let's leave that one alone. it's been overdone with movies etc.

the pope for many years had a secular state and an army==the papal states. for much of history the pope had coercive means at his disposal and the ability to ally with military forces. there are many works and sources on this point. Obviously france and the holy roman empire have intervened on numerous occasions either to interfere with the pope's secular power or at the pope's invitation; also spain for many years was involved in the affairs of italy. before the arrival of the normans, the byzantines were rulers of southern italy and sicily. Many powers have been involved in italy. If you re-read your machiavelli and other italian writers, you will see the secular role the pope played for many centuries.

i agree modernly the pope, and especially recent popes, have been champions of freedom. i think the recent pope who died should be beatified.

--dr arthur kyriazis

Homeschooling and Parental Rights Under Attack in California

The following article was first published by the Acton Institute. It is so important to Catholic Citizens we post it here at Quod Scripsit. You are encouraged to visit the Acton Institute site.

By Chris Banescu

Declaring that “parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children,” the Second District Court of Appeal for the state of California recently issued a ruling that effectively bans families from homeschooling their children and threatens parents with criminal penalties for daring to do so. According to the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) this court decision has made “almost all forms of homeschooling in California” a violation of state law. Once again, our judicial system moves to restrict religious and personal liberties, severely limit parental rights, and significantly increase the power, scope, and control of the state over our lives.

There are approximately 166,000 homeschooled children in California. With the stroke of a pen, the appellate court criminalized the lawful educational choices of tens of thousands of innocent families across the state, subjected them to possible fines, and labeled their children as potential truants. This activist court chose to bypass the will of the people and legislated from the bench based on anecdotal evidence and its own clearly biased and subjective opinions about the constitutionality of parental rights and the quality of a homeschooled education. This decision attacks the freedom of parents to decide on the best educational environment for their children, restricts their religious rights to practice their faith without governmental interference, and violates their freedom to raise their offspring as they see fit without the ideological pollution and atheistic/leftist indoctrination so prevalent in our public school system.

In a state that allows minors to have abortions without parental notification and consent, having the court complain about the welfare and safety of children who are homeschooled is laughable. The court also conveniently turned a blind eye to the increasing levels of violence and murder in many California public schools, as well as the abysmal quality of education in those very same schools. With California ranking near the bottom in the quality of its public education system, a state-wide illiteracy rate of approximately 24 percent, and drop-out rates hovering around 30 percent, the California public education system is not the shining example and standard the courts should be applying and measuring against.

Case history

The appellate court reviewed the decision reached by a juvenile court regarding the quality of education provided to homeschooled children of the Phillip and Mary Long family. The children were homeschooled by Mrs. Long with assistance from the Sunland Christian School (SCS), a private religious academy in the Los Angeles area. According to its website, SCS “is a private school in the State of California and is an accredited home school program offering independent home schooling study, correspondence home schooling, and online home school.” The Long children were enrolled in the independent study program at SCS. While the lower court had concerns about the quality of the education received by two of the eight children, the trial court did not order the parents to enroll their children into a private or public school, and stated in its opinion that “parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home.”

Rather than confine its ruling to the specifics of the Long case, the court of appeals instead chose to considerably broaden the scope of its decision, further strengthen state power over individuals, and deny California parents the right to homeschool their children. In his written opinion, filed on February 28, 2008, Justice H. Walter Croskey, joined by the other two members of the appellate panel, categorically asserted that: “parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children.” Furthermore, in the section ominously named “Consequences of Parental Denial of a Legal Education” the judge states:

Because parents have a legal duty to see to their children’s schooling within the provisions of these laws, parents who fail to do so may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction, and subject to imposition of fines... Additionally, the parents are subject to being ordered to enroll their children in an appropriate school or education program and provide proof of enrollment to the court, and willful failure to comply with such an order may be punished by a fine for civil contempt.

“Breathtaking” judicial activism

The totalitarian impulses of the court were further evidenced by the arguments it used to justify its decision: “A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism, and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.” As someone who has lived and suffered under a communist regime (I grew up in Romania), the “good citizenship,” “patriotism,” and “loyalty to the state” justifications have struck a little too close to home. These were precisely the kinds of arguments the communist party used to broaden the power of the state, increase the leadership’s iron grip on the people, and justify just about every conceivable violation of human rights, restrictions on individual liberties, and abuses perpetrated by government officials.

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, got it right when he said that the “scope of this decision by the appellate court is breathtaking. It not only attacks traditional home schooling, but also calls into question home schooling through charter schools and teaching children at home via independent study through public and private schools.” The sentiment was echoed by Michael Smith, president of HSLDA: “California is now on the path to being the only state to deny the vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach their own children at home,” he said. This is exactly what the judges have done and the precedent they have set for California and possibly for the rest of the country.

Homeschooling effective

The appellate court also chose to ignore the many studies and solid research data showing that homeschooling is a well-established and exceptional method of education that overwhelmingly produces superior academic results and well-adjusted individuals. According to David Barfield’s review of the available data on home education, “dozens of studies have yielded the consistent result showing home educated students average 15-30 percentile points above the national average. Research demonstrates that, unlike their public school counterparts, the performance of home educated students bears little correlation to family income, the degree of state regulation of homeschooling, teacher certification, the educational level achieved by parents, sex, or race.” In another study by Dr. Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI) he shows that “home educated students excelled on nationally-normed standardized achievement exams. On average, home schoolers outperformed their public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects.”

Similar studies documented by the HSLDA also confirm that the poor “socialization” objection by the court is a red herring. Numerous studies have shown that homeschooled youngsters have excellent social skills, are active in groups and community activities outside the home, engage in many extracurricular activities and sports, are exceptionally prepared to deal with the real world, interact better with adults and a variety of age-groups, and take their civic duties more seriously than their public school counterparts.

Pushing back

Fortunately the people of California and homeschooling associations across the country, outraged by these latest developments, are taking steps to proactively deal with and redress the situation. Many homeschooling families are determined to fight for their parental rights and countermand the court’s decision. The HSLDA has followed a two-prong approach to help. It has advised the Long family to appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court and it will file “an amicus brief on behalf of our 13,500 member families in California” arguing that the proper interpretation of California statutes allow parents to teach their own children under the private-school exemption. The HSLDA will also seek to have this decision “depublished,” which can only be done by the California Supreme Court. According to them, depublishing the case “would mean that the case is not binding precedent in California and has no effect on any other family.”

Even Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has issued a statement in full support of homeschooling families. "Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children's education. This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts and if the courts don't protect parents' rights then, as elected officials, we will," he said.

It remains to be seen if reason and common sense will prevail in this latest battle for the individual God-given liberties and freedoms of American families. The relentless march towards full government control of all areas of our lives must be halted. The people must push back. Our children’s lives and their future are too precious to surrender to government bureaucrats and teacher’s unions. For their sake and ours, freedom must prevail.

Chris Banescu is an attorney, entrepreneur, and university professor. He is an ethics and business management specialist, and manages the conservative Web site and blog at OrthodoxNet.com.

Religion in 2008 Campaigns

Recently Michael from NYU had the following to say about the role of Religion in the 2008 presidential campaigns. I concur with his analysis and add a perspective of my own below.

As an aside if you are a young man I would encourage you to check out the post just prior to this entitled Notes on becoming a young Catholic gentleman, It may prove helpful to you. Your comments as usual are always welcome and read.

Dear Eques,
I find it so fascinating how religion comes up in some form or another in each election, but this year, the manner in which the topic has been approached is so different from other years. This year, barely any emphasis was put on Clinton or McCain's religion, while Romney and Obama's religion has received full press coverage.
Romney is a Mormon and it is interesting how some people feel that his Mormonism would have a dire effect on his presidency. I felt bad for him because his religion does not comprise his entire character or completely control his policy decisions. The voters who looked at his religion as the only factor in voting for him were wrong I believe. They were being prejudiced and hateful. Who are they to say that Mormonism is a bad or wrong religion. After all, everyone remembers, just as the article mentions, that Kennedy was a Catholic, and at the time, many in the country were against having a Catholic as president. From history, we now know that a president is not going to make every decision based on religious affiliation.Religion plays a part in the decision making obviously because for most people, religion plays a very important part in their character. In no way though should a person be judged solely on their religion.
In a recent conversation I had on the topic of Obama, religion came up. Two things shocked me. The first is that this person I was having this conversation with believed 100% that Obama was a Muslim. I couldn't believe how someone could get their facts so wrong. Obama has said time and time again that he is not a Muslim and is in fact a member of the United Church of Christ. Why has Obama's religion been reported so wrongly? I am not sure I will ever understand this completely. This is one of those things that shocks me today. In the modern age, religion, whether it is Romney's or Obama's or anyone else's, should not be a reason to hold a prejudice against that person. religious intolerance seems to be the new racism, and it is only growing, not receding.
The second thing in this conversation that shocked me was that this person said they would never vote for Obama because he is a Muslim. This is not just this person's view though, many in the country hold this view, just as on the Republican side, voters used the same rationale to vote against Romney. Why would someone not vote for a person based solely on the fact that they are Muslim. This idea completely baffles me. Why does Islam have such a stigma attached to it in some people's minds?

On another note, I voted for Clinton in the primary. If you don't mind me asking, who did you vote for?


Michael

Eques Responds

Dear Michael,

I agree with your analysis completely. I also had a rather heated exchange with of all people Mr Grace who insisted that Obama was a Muslim. I could not convince him other wise. I believe that this information or disinformation actually originates form the blogosphere. The recent studies of media coverage show that the major networks had reported overwhelmingly favorable regarding Barrack Obama. NBC is reported to have covered Obama in a positive light 90% of the time. The other networks CBS and ABC were in the neighbor hood of 75-80% favorable reporting. The reporting regarding Mrs Clinton was just the opposite.

They have not reported him to be a Muslim but that “disinformation” has been all over the blogosphere and has come up on talk radio. Even though no news agency says said it is so, and have reported that he is a Christian, people still assume by his name that he is a Muslim. His middle name is Hussein, a Muslim name. His father was a Muslim. His mother was not. He was raised by his mom. He did attend, some report, a Muslim “hadras,” or school. However, he has claimed Christianity as his religion and he and his wife have belonged to the same church for many years.

One thing that hurts him still is that his pastor. He is known to have preached that America itself was at fault for the 9/11 attacks. The pastor has also given some kind of an award to Louis Farrakhan [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Farrakhan] the head of the Nation of Islam, whose rhetoric has been extremely anti-American foreign policy. Obama is very close to his pastor. He is part of Mr. & Mrs Obama spiritual life as a pastor should be.

These men of course have a right to their opinion but some have used the relationship of Obama with his pastor to cast a negative light on him and claim him as some kind of closet Muslim. He is not a Muslim, nor is he in any way anti-American. He is just more liberal than Mrs. Clinton is in her foreign policy. I do not believe for a minute despite the oratory that any of the current presidential candidates would deliberately place our nation in security jeopardy. They see different ways of achieving security. I do believe that Mrs. Clinton would be better for national security than Mr. Obama would. McCain would be better than either in this regard.

I however, voted for Romney in the Massachusetts primary. I thought he was the Republican with the best chance to win the White House. I have always been a registered Republican since I was old enough to register and vote. I also voted for him because he was a Mormon. He was our governor in Massachusetts. He was not great but he was good. As a Catholic, I have a lot more in common with him than Mrs. Clinton.

Like you, I was upset because people did say they would not vote for him because he was a Mormon. In the early 1970’s I meet Mormon young men in Kentucky at Fort Knox during basic training as an Army Reserve Officer Candidate. They were very moral young men. Although university students as me, all but one was already married and that young man told me, how sad he was because he was not yet married. Most Mormons are expected to marry young. It is their way of curtailing sexual promiscuity so common among college men then and now. This was very important to their religious fidelity. They were very patriotic; this was significant because it was during the Viet Nam war. There were more Mormons in my company than any other religion. I was a faithful Catholic as a boy and college student when it was not fashionable to be so. My Catholicism and their Mormonism on many moral issues fit.

The best friend I made at the time however, who remains a friend to this day, was a Methodist form Alabama. He was a student at the Alabama University Law School. He like the Mormons was already married. I was committed in my heart to be a priest at the time, although I was attending Northeastern University and studying Criminal Justice. He was a Christian and Republican. In addition, he was a conservative thinker like me. We met over a copy of National Review magazine as we rode the bus from the Louisville, Kentucky airport to Fort Knox. National Review is conservative journal founded by William F. Buckley Jr. who has just passed on to his eternal reward. Buckley was a faithful Catholic and the founder of the modern conservative movement. He was an inspiration to me for some time and gave me the intelligent conservative thought that allowed me to pass through NU when drugs and sexual acting out was as common as candy at the corner store. My Alabama seat mate could not believe a Bostonian could be reading National Review. I explained that it was very natural for me because my grandfather and father were Republicans and Catholics, just as Buckley was. It all made sense to me. From that, moment on, to name drop, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III and I were conservative Republican allies and friends. You may know that Jeff is one of two Republican U S Senators from Alabama. (A bit of vanity on part there, with apologies.)

The point is this Catholic (me) found alliances with a Southern Methodist, and Mormons at a time when the other Catholics in our company barracks were vocally hostile to their own faith and church. Therefore, I see no reason not to vote for or vote against any candidate based on his religion alone, unless that religion is openly hostile to my or my nation’s existence, and the candidate embraces that openly hostile religion. Given that proviso, even though the religion of the candidate informs every decision he/she makes whenever his conscience is involved, by definition a religiously informed conscience, I would rather vote for such a person. I would expect he/she would more likely implement consistently the policy and platform articulated during the campaign. This candidate would have meant what said and said what meant. Romney was for the most part like this. He did shade himself on the moderate side becoming elect-able as governor of ultra liberal Massachusetts. He did shade himself more conservative to run for the Republican nomination, but essentially, he was consistent with his stated beliefs. He sincerely labored to fulfill his campaign promises once elected Governor.

I remember first hand the Kennedy Vs Nixon election, my mom voted for Nixon, because she thought he was better qualified. Religion played no part in her decision. I was in 7^th or 8^th grade and did not think politically at the time, I wanted her to vote for Kennedy so that we could have our first Catholic President. In hindsight, Kennedy was not very Catholic, and although he had loads of charisma and was very intelligent, we really do not know if he was a great president. Mythology grew so rapidly around him post his assassination that the judgment of history is still not clear. Nixon was a competent president but a much-disliked even despised human being; this clouds our vision of him as well. However, my mother provided an important decision-making lesson. Religion is only one factor in judging suitability of a candidate for office. It is certainly not a reason for automatic dismissal that would contradict our great American tradition of religious liberty and tolerance. An ideal that even found its way into the declaration on religious liberty DIGNITATIS HUMANAE approved by the Bishops and Pope Paul VI during the Second Vatican Council. < http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html>

Sincerlry

Eques

The Church can not be an instrument of the State. The Conversation Continues

Tim Responds,

Thanks for your note. While I appreciate your discussion, I remain unconvinced by the points you raise. So, I would like to address them in turn.

You write, "The Congress and by virtue of the 14th amendment the States can make no law that requires the Church to do anything that violates its own well established constitution and Code of Cannon Law, including who to hire or fire." This is not the legal meaning of separation of church and state. The establishment clause does not make the church outside the state's juristidiction or immune to the laws it passes through legitimate democratic means. Instead, the establishment clause prevents the state from forming an official religion, from endorsing or denying religious doctrines.

Consider the following scenario. Imagine a morally perverse form of religion deeply rooted in racism, a neo-Nazi church, if you will, came into prominence in this country. Things grow worse as the clergy of this church, in conformity with their well-established canon law, support the murders of people of color by participating in the murders, arming the murders, hiding them from police, and bribing corrupt jurors or other members of the court so as to prevent a meaningful public trial of captured church members. Are you still willing in this case to say that the Congress, and by virtue of the 14 amendment the States, can make no law requiring the church to do anything that violates its own well established constitution and code of canon law? Indeed, the state has both the right and the duty to regulate the actions of religious institutions so as to bring them into conformity with publicly recognizable, liberal standards of justice.

Moreover, you contend, "In as much as the State does not intend in any way to subsume the Church as an organ or instrument of the state what you wrote above cannot be true. If this where [sic] true then the State would have to desist from giving any aid whatsoever to any church organization." This is, I believe, incorrect.

I wrote, "in so far as religious institutions receive state financial support, they become an extension of state policy and action..." I did not claim that the Church, by receiving state financial support, the Church is wholly subsumed by the state and no longer an independent institution of its own.

For example, if I do a favor for you, then I become an extension of your will and your wishes for the purposes of that favor -- that doesn't make me your slave or nothing more than the executor of all of your commands! Similarly, if the church receives state funds or special powers from the state, such as when schools receive subsideies or other state monies, or when the Church arranges the adoption of children, it acts as a proxy for the state. Any proxy of the state, however, is subject to the same legal restrictions and liberal principles as the state itself. Thus, if a religious organization desires public funding or special powers -- public funding or powers which comes from citizenry who may themselves not adhere to the doctrines of that religious institution -- it must conform to the liberal principles which govern public institutions and their proxies.

Yours in Christ,

Timothy

Eques Replies

Dear Timothy,

Thank you for challenging me intellectually. I admire your ability to reason and argue clearly, even when I disagree with you.

You raise excellent points. The problem that I see with the hypothetical racist or Nazi type church is that this in fact has already occurred. The states did not compel southern churches to integrate racially their Congregations. They may have integrated on their own but the state did not attempt to force them to do so. They had no legal way to do so. As late as 1994, I witnessed very clear white and black congregations in Alabama among some Baptists.

Secondly, this may sound like special pleading, which actually it is, the Catholic Church is in fact a unique institution in the history of the West. The very “classical liberal” rights you rely on have their origins in the Roman Catholic Church, the Enlightenment not withstanding. You might want to see How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Ph.D. or What’s So Great about Christianity by Dinesh D’Souza, or We Hold These Truths by John Courtney Murray, S.J.

This unique Church has in fact for two millennium fought for the rights it now claims. Being beyond the reach of governmental interference in the way it governs itself is one of them. Compelling the church to violate its own Cannon Law has been tried through out history. Repeatedly the Church has refused to do so. One example from history concerns Henry II and St Thomas Beckett. Henry wanted Thomas to hand over two priests charged with murder, for trail by the crown; Thomas absolutely refused to do so. The priests would be tried according Cannon Law in church courts. Thomas gave his life defending this principal, as Henry sent four knights to murder Thomas in his own Cathedral. This controversy has been renewed in our day.

In Dallas, in 2002 the American Bishops agreed to become mandatory reporters of their own priests in regards possible criminal behavior. This has the effect of making the Bishops Assistant Attorneys General. The Vatican vigorously objected to the agreement.

“Vatican insisted on major revisions. Vatican officials complain that this contradicts the statute of limitations provided for in canon law, and we concede that it raises enormously difficult questions. The statute of limitations aside, zero tolerance also challenges the church's belief in recovery and redemption.”

”http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E7DE123CF937A15753C1A9649C8B63

The Vatican informed the Bishops that they erred regarding Cannon Law by establishing lay review boards that would sit in judgment of clergy and that the Bishops themselves violate the canonical relation between their priests and themselves by becoming mandatory reporters.

The point being that the Catholic Church qua Catholic Church still maintains the rights long established by Cannon Law, International Law, treaties, and concordats. The Catholic Church among all churches alone has long established rights in law. The USA or any other Country is not free to violate them, as it presently argues in Colorado. For this reason, established law is in fact on the side of the Catholic Church. Archbishop Chaput stands firmly on internationally recognized and established jurisprudence.

The United States is not allowed to violate international law without an argument for other sovereign nations, which is why there has been international objection and controversy concerning the violation of the principal of Habeas Corpus at Guantanamo Bay, not to mention the question of torture. The Holy See is among those sovereign nations who have objected to the violation of human rights and dignity of detainees there.

On an historical basis, no other church can claim the international status or the legitimate sovereignty that The Holy See enjoys, which also makes the question of the hypothetical churches spurious. These would be new phenomenon and enjoy no historical claims. The Catholic Church is exactly what the lawyers for the State of Colorado will argue it is not, an exceptional institution not subject to State or Federal Laws that attempt to interfere with its own Cannon Laws or ecclesial nature, which is unique in the world.

The Church does recognize the states right to regulate those things that do not touch on its law or nature. Let the renovation and expansion of St Catherine of Alexandria church in Westford (St CA), which you witnessed, stand as an example. In the process of construction, the town of Westford attempted to interfere in a number of ways with the project, telling St CA what it could do or not do with the building or property. Our lawyers and I had to remind them that they had no authority over church property. They could not require us to build or not build anything on the property that belonged to the Archbishop of Boston, because of the rights and privileges it enjoyed under cannon and state law. The town of Westford could only expect us to adhere to the laws that pertained to safety and conservation. Needless, to say the planning board did not appreciate the reminder that they had no jurisdiction over Church property.

Another example, the state could require that St CA comply with all the employment laws that pertain to taxes and social security, but it could not govern whom St CA would hire or fire, if the person in question did not represent essential church teachings. Even, Universities have the right to hire or fire professors (whom they have not already granted tenure) based on their particular philosophy, we place this under the rubric of Academic Freedom, a right, which finds its origins in the Catholic Church and the universities it was the first to create.

The essence of my argument is that the Roman Catholic Church is a unique church with a body of laws and a nature well established in jurisprudence and international agreements that predate the United States and its Constitution by nearly 1500 years. "Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Sincerely Your In Christ

Eques


A friend of Quod Scripist "Behind Enemy Lines" joins the conversation
http://thisoldchurch.blogspot.com/


The framers of our Constitution had no concept of the Separation of Church and State as it is understood today; infact as a side note, it's such a permeating ideology that the majority of Americans think it's some statute or Amendment. However, on the contrary, the Government has no right whatsoever to infringe on the just practice of religion. The First Amendment to the Constitution clearly states that Congress shall make no law which establishes a religion, either from scratch, or as being higher than another, and that the Government shall not make any law abridging the free exercise of any religion.

If this is not enough, any corporation could not and would not hire an employee which shared the values, ideals and goals of the company itself. If an employee were to be hired and then, whether by action or omission of action, to undermine the mission of a corporation and to bring about the failure, humiliation, and destruction thereof, that would be grounds for termination. If this were known before the hire occurred, why would the applicant even be hired? As long as a Corporation does not infringe on the rights of others (please see Tim's argument on murder, evasion, bribery and aiding and abetting known fugitives, which are all against various other laws and statutes of long-established jurisprudence) while protecting it's own viability and interests, this corporation is free to continue to operate as such. As a person does not have the intrinsic right to work in a particular institution (as opposed to a person's rights to life, liberty, speedy trial-by-jury and basic human Justice), and that core-beliefs can be valid reasons for incompatibility in a workplace, the hiring and firing based upon ideologies can not be prohibited.

Now, on the question of the Church becoming an arm of the State...
Simply because a laboratory receives Government funding, does not make it a Government laboratory, simply that the Government acknowledges that it's intended research is worthy. The same could be true of the Church's charities. It is when the Government begins to regulate these Churches and charities, restricting how they can operate that the relationship becomes perverse; this is painfully evident in the forced-closure of the Archdiocese of Boston's Adoption Services when it was mandated to allow non-traditional (read: homosexual) couples to adopt. This went firmly against the history, Teachings and Traditions of the Catholic Church as a faith-system and as a charitable organization. The State does not have the mandate, nor the authority to contravene the just-exercise of Religion wherein the rights and privileges of individuals are not violated.

A married couple nor a homosexual couple has the right to adopt, no more than do they have the right to stand in my living-room uninvited (baring some dire need superseding my right to personal property). The adoption process is to benefit the child more than the adopting couple; this couple having gone through rigorous screening processes to determine whether or not is it a suitable match, based upon the understandings and prejudices of the adoption agency. To enforce particular standard of suitability is socialist at best, tyrannical at worst. Getting married within a Catholic Church, you publicly vow that you will be open to children, and you will bring them up Catholic. Why would you get married in a Catholic Church if you didn't feel that you could uphold this standard of behaviour? By the same token, insofar as the Catholic Church believes that homosexual action is a moral evil, and that homosexual unions are a perversion of traditional family values, why would the Church be forced to perform ceremonies, "marriages" if it were against the grained teaching of the Church? Therefore, why would the Church be forced to condone such "behaviour/lifestyle choice/orientation et al." by granting adoption privileges to such a couple?

Moving on. The Boy Scouts of America is a non-governmental organization which receives Government funding. The mission is wholesome and "American." However, the BSA forbid homosexuals from being in leadership positions, and infact from being even in the ranks of its members. The mission of the BSA is a worthy mission, one which the Government finds appropriate and deserving of financial assistance.
Ought the Government pull funding, or demand "equal rights" for membership applications? But I digress... Eagle Scouts of the BSA are mandated-reporters in the same respect as priests/bishops/doctors/teachers. While this is a noble title, endeavouring to protect the youth, for a religious institution which founds itself on forgiveness and recovery such as the Church, this is a dangerous concept. The requisite reporting of any allegation or even slight issue would render these two essential, core beliefs null, as modern society does not act within "innocent until proven guilty," no it acts more on "guilty even if proven innocent."

There are flaws in our Government. There are flaws in our Church members and leaders. Let's not multiply these flaws by combining them.

Behind Enemy Lines
http://thisoldchurch.blogspot.com/

The Church can not be an instrument of the State

Joseph Kosten of the Acton Institute: for the study of religion and liberty recently has commented on the current legal arguments between the Archdiocese of Denver, Colorado (ADC) in the person of its Archbishop Charles J. Chaput and the State Legislature. The proposed laws the ADC maintains would interfere with vital rights of the Church and require the Church to higher those who disagreed with the teachings and policies of the Church.

You will want to read the commentary of Mr. Kosten before proceeding, after which return to Quod Scrpsit site for some debate of the issue. http://www.acton.org/commentary/427_
religious_liberty_anti_discrimination.php

First Comment:

I will summarize my position by stating that unless I read incorrectly, the proposed legislation does not force you to hire someone but it does prevent you from rejecting someone from employment based on discriminatory grounds. I believe that regardless of belief, or faith religious institutions are led by human beings that have proven to have faulty characteristics.

JOSE

Second Comment:

It looks like Mr. Kosten distorts the proposal of the Colorado House Bill. He writes, correctly, that, "The freedom to hire without government interference is vital to the survival of religious institutions. In order to effectively promote the message of the organization, both the individual and the message must be in harmony." However, the Colorado House Bill will only, as Mr. Kosten acknowledges, "limit the applicability of the exception from compliance with employment nondiscrimination laws... that are funded with government funds" (my emphasis). In so far as religious institutions receive state financial support, they become an extension of state policy and action, and the (classical) liberal principles on which this nation is founded require that instruments of state policy not restrict free speech. Accordingly, if a religious institution desires public funding -- funding which comes from taxpayers who may themselves not adhere to the doctrines of that religious institution -- it must meet the participatory standards of the public at large.


TIM



Eques Responds:

Given your observations, we may conclude that this is the reason that the Archdiocese of Boston has already opted out of the adoption business, thus avoiding state interference in Church polity.The Archdiocese of Boston chose not to argue the point. The ADC has risen to the challenge. Siding with the ADC I do believe that the states interpretation of this ecclesial and governmental relationship is unconstitutional. Strict constructionists might opine that when the Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”; that it means just that. The Congress and by virtue of the 14^th amendment the States can make no law that requires the Church to do anything that violates its own well established constitution and Code of Cannon Law, including who to hire or fire. The Church can never become an instrument of the State.

It seems some folks want a high wall of separation between Church and State permitting the State alone to reach over adjusting the polity of the Church to correspond with its notion of justice. The wall of separation should separate each from each equally. If anything, given the first amendment, the Church has presumptive rights from governmental interference. The State of Colorado et alii presumes it can legislate for the church unless prevented by subsequent court reversals.

“In so far as religious institutions receive state financial support, they become an extension of state policy and action, and the (classical) liberal principles on which this nation is founded require that instruments of state policy not restrict free speech. Accordingly, if a religious institution desires public funding -- funding which comes from taxpayers who may themselves not adhere to the doctrines of that religious institution -- it must meet the participatory standards of the public at large.”

I disagree with the above statement. If this is true than the Church becomes an instrument of the State and the wall of separation is most definitely breached. In as much as the State does not intend in any way to subsume the Church as an organ or instrument of the state what you wrote above cannot to be true. If this where true then the State would have to desists from giving any aide whatsoever to any church organization. It would be a “prima face” violation of the Constitution. What the state is claiming is the authority to dictate policy to church organizations because they receive state aide. This violates Cannon Law.

The Church cannot be by its ecclesiological nature “an instrument of state policy.” The Church has fought this battle many times through the centuries under the heading of “lay investiture,” in which kings, emperors, and princes of all kinds attempted to control church policy by claiming the right to appoint bishops and approve lower clergy. This battle is still being fought in the Peoples Republic of China, and other totalitarian regimes.

Today it seems that several states are attempting to do the same by placing conditions on monies given for social services, this would make the church an instrument of state policy. This would violate Cannon Law and the Church would have to forgo many of its social services, which would then fall back on the states, something the states do not want. I believe that Archbishop Chaput will win this legal battle, historical precedent being on the side of the Church. Otherwise, the relationship and cooperation between the Church and the State will be seriously altered. the first stress fractures have already appeared in Boston over the “adoption rights” issue.

Eques

The Joy of Forgiveness

Have you ever seen or experienced real “joy” that great spiritual reality that is much deeper and last much longer than momentary pleasure or even happiness. “Joy” reaches to your soul and fills you with a great peace and sense of security in the “knowledge” and love of God. Last Thursday I experienced that “joy” vicariously. A young man in his twenties who I had not seen in several years paid me the honor of a visit. Divine providence had unexpectedly brought us together in the dentist waiting room. H accepted an invitation to meet later on in the week, for a conversation. It was my hope that I might hear his story, what he was studying, how life at home and school was proceeding for him and how or if he was practicing his faith.

He arrived punctually, always a good sign. The conversation was very fruitful and quickly became spiritual direction. He went on to make an honest, complete, and worthy confession after having stayed away from the Sacrament of Reconciliation and the Eucharist for a considerable length of time.

After his confession, he was so full of joy he virtually glowed. Words failed him in his efforts to describe how wonderful he felt. His “joy” was diffusive. When he departed, he was full of God’s grace, joy, and true spiritual peace.

A “you have gotten to be kidding me” moments followed, as an affirmation of what he had courageously chosen to do, God spoke to him through the last Chinese fortune cookie left over after a family dinner. When he opened it he read, well we will allow him to tell the tale in his own words:

“Friday night my mother got us all Chinese food for dinner. I came back… late that night and saw that there was one fortune cookie left on the table so I decided, "Hey why not see what my fortune is!" I had a weird feeling in my gut it was going to say something important. "You achieve great peace of mind when you talk with an old friend." That was my fortune! Once I read this I was like, "I can’t wait to tell Father!” I think that was the Holy Spirit letting me know I made the right decision to come and see you, and old friend. Just wanted to tell you that! Keep in touch Father.”

I have heard many confessions during my 26 years of priesthood, but I have seldom seen a more powerful and obvious out pouring of God’s grace on a penitent. This young man received these awesome graces because he opened his heart to God’s healing touch. He did not hold back he humbly and truthfully confessed his sins. God greatly rewarded him with forgiveness and “great peace of mind.” Do I believe God speaks through fortune cookies? Well, He certainly did this time. God of course can use any means He wishes to communicate with us. This time it was through a left over fortune cookie, God certainly does work in strange and marvelous ways.

One of the things that helped this joyful young man to make such an effective confession was the meditative examine of conscience that we shared prior to his confession of sins. Below, I have attempted to recreate this examination of conscience based on a reflection of the seven deadly sins. It is not by any means an extensive or thorough exposition of the seven deadly sins, but it will provide at least a framework or starting point for each of us to examine our own conscience and prepare our souls for an honest, complete, and worthy confession. It will assist us in opening our hearts to the forgiving and healing touch of Our Lord, who washes away our sins in His blood. Perhaps He will also fill our hearts with the “great peace of mind” and joy that he filled the heart of young man in question.

I am ever more convinced in the enormous power of the Sacraments especially the Sacrament of Reconciliation coupled with the worthy reception of the Holy Eucharist. These are the most powerful weapons against the darkness in our lives and in the world, which He has overcome.

“Induamur arma lucis” Rom 13:12,

“Let us put on the armor of light”

Eques

(for a more detailed explanation of the Seven Capital Sins and their opposite virtues you might want to see the June 5 2007 post on this blog site. The reflection below is proposed as a means of examining ones conscience as a preparation to receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation.)

The Seven Capital Sins

1. Pride: We sin by pride when we think that somehow we are superior to others, because of our own gifts, talents, or estimation of ourselves. Conceit, is a manifestation of Pride. Putting others down, ridicule, and disrespect for others is also a manifestation of this Sin. Pride is actually at the root of all sins, because ultimately we put our judgments and will before the law and will of God for us. E.g., refusing to obey our parents or legitimate authority, putting our will before God’s, being disrespectful to others, are examples of sins of pride that violate the First and Fourth Commandments.

2. Anger: We sin by anger not by feeling anger but by acting out that anger in inappropriate ways, we may do so verbally, physically, and by other actions or omissions intended to hurt the other with whom we are angry. E.g., Acting out verbally or physically toward others because of ones wrathful feelings is an example of the sin of anger, it can also lead to the violation of the Second, Fourth, and, Fifth Commandments.

3. Envy: We sin by envy when we harbor jealous feelings in our heart and wish we had what others had and want to deny them what they may have. We sin by envy when we wish sadness or disappointment on others. E.g., Jealousy acted or spoken out are the most common manifestations of the sin of Envy, the Ninth and Tenth Commandments are often broken by this sin.

4. Greed: We sin by greed when we refuse to share the good things, gifts, and talents God has bestowed on us. When we hoard things for our own selfish satisfaction, selfishness and self-centeredness are manifestations of Greed. E.g., a refusal to share our good fortune, or putting money or possessions ahead of God and everyone else in our lives is a typical sin of Greed. It can violate the First, Third, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth commandments. It can all so be found in the violation of the other commandments because it can motivate a host of other sins, such as lying, and stealing, and jealousy.

5. Gluttony: We sin by gluttony when we eat more than is healthy for us, when we abuse alcohol, or drugs, or put anything in our bodies that harms rather than nourishes us. E.g., obviously overeating, “pigging out,” intoxication, by drugs or alcohol are typical examples of this sin. It violates the First, Fourth, and Fifth Commandments and can lead to the breaking of all Ten Commandments.

6. Sloth: We sin by sloth or laziness when we fail from inertia to fulfill our duties and obligations, to God, to our families, our friends our studies, our work, or to any other entity to which or for which we are responsible. E.g., refusing to get out of bed in the morning when we have obligations to God or others, not doing assigned homework, or lack of responsibility at home or work, not taking care of our health or hygiene, can be manifestations of this sin. Sloth or Laziness can also lead to the violation of several of the Ten Commandments such as the Third, Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, and perhaps the Sixth as well.

7. Lust: We sin by lust when we use our sexuality for pleasure in a way other than how God intended it, for the transmission of life and love in marriage. E.g., this sin manifests itself in the use of vulgar and sexualized conversations, jokes, or comments, the use of pornography, masturbation, premarital sexual relations, and extra-marital sexual relations, and all deliberately non-procreative sexual relations. The Sixth Commandment is broken by any of these sins. This deadly sin is among the most deadly because it often involves other deadly sins such as Gluttony, Sloth, Pride, and leads to the violation of other commandments, or directly violates other commandments such as the Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth.

Synopsis: examples of deadly sins

Pride:

Boasting,

Bragging,

Ridicule,

Belittling others accomplishments

Anger:

Cursing

Swearing

Fighting

Destructive behavior

Self-destructive behavior

Lack of self-control

Envy:

Jealousy harbored or expressed

Resentment of others success

Spiteful speech or actions

Greed:

Refusing to share

Lack of Generosity

Inability to give

Hoarding material things

Inordinate focus on money and things

Gluttony:

Over eating

Abuse of alcohol

Abuse of Drugs

Wasting food or drink

Abuse of food or drink

Sloth:

Laziness

Over sleeping (more than our body needs)

Neglect of Health and Hygiene

Not fulfilling responsibilities or duties

Lust:

Sexualized conversation, jokes or comments

Use of another for sexual gratification in fantasy or fact

“Objectifying” a “subject”

Use of Pornography

Masturbation

Pre-marital or extra-marital sexual relations

Fundamentalism and Islam

Michael has written his paper "Fundamentalism" and asked for comments. What follow are my observations on “Fundamentalism,” especially as it is applied or misapplied to Islam, as in “Islamic Fundamentalists.” (awaiting permission to post Michael's paper)

Westerners in general, our State Department and perhaps your sources or professors have difficulty getting their minds around “ISLAM.” There is the natural attempt to understand it according to western categories. In the West even in the height of the middle ages when the Roman Catholic Church was at its apex of political influence, it did not govern nation states. Spain, England, or Germany, were Monarchies or Principalities with an established that is an official church that being the Roman Catholic Church, but with rear exceptions where some Bishops were actually princes, the Bishops did not rule, govern the nation state. The king and his court did, these states were not Theocracies. They were not governed by religious laws and clergy. The only true Theocracy in the West was the Papal States the remnant of which today is Vatican City State. The pope is the sovereign of this tiny city-state.

This is not true with Islam; Islam is a Religio-Political system and ideology... IRAN is de facto (in fact) and de jure (in law) a Theocracy. It is governed by Sharia, Islamic religious law, and its sovereign is a Muslim religious leader, the President of Iran Ahmadinejad is elected but he is not the supreme authority of Iran.

Islam which means, “submit” was founded by Allah through his Apostle Mohamed (according to the Qu’ran) to subdue the world, to bring all people to the true faith in Allah. It is the divine mission of Islam to bring the entire world to “submit’ to Allah under Sharia, Islamic Law. This is the only road to salvation. Jihad, war against infidels, is considered a manifestation of the mercy of Allah, because it provides them the opportunity to embrace Islam and save their souls. This is the mission of Islam as revealed to the Prophet Mohamed, practiced and taught by him, and continued after his death. Within a generation of Mohamed’s death, Islam had subdued everything from Persia, (IRAN) through the middles east, along the north cost of Africa, up to northern Spain. These were not “fundamentalists” these were the practitioners of Islam. These were the Jihadist, the Mujahedeen. They are the early heroes of Islam. The Qu’ran proclaims in:

Sura 9:5. “Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But, if they repent {accept Islam} and perform As-Salta {the Islamic ritual prayers} and give Zakat {alms} then leave them their way free.”

Non-believers have these choices, fight, convert, die, or pay the jizya, which is a heavy tax up to 50% of all earnings of non-Islamic peoples within the territories conquered by Islam and under Islamic Law, Sharia. These peoples were to feel subdued. Those Christians and Jews (people of the book) who wish not to convert, or leave Islamic territory, may live as second-class citizens, with very limited rights and pay the jizya. Pagans, atheists, secularists have only two choices, convert (submit, Islam) or die. That is why there are absolutely no Christian Churches, or Synagogues in Saudi Arabia. Catholic Military Chaplains in Saudi Arabia must celebrate mass for the troops in secret, they are officially forbidden to do so under Sharia in Saudi Arabia. They and the troops are not permitted to wear crosses or any Christian symbols.

The war to spread Islam in the seventh and eight centuries, in the twelfth to the seventh-tenth centuries, ending at the gates of Vienna (please notice the date) SEPTEMBER 11^th, 1683, and its modern manifestations in terrorism “officially” commenced by Osama Ben Laden on SEPTEMBER 11^th, 2001, is called Jihad, literally “struggle.” It is the responsibility of every Muslim to engage in Jihad, to struggle to bring their communities, nations, states, under Sharia. The participation of some in violent Jihad can excuse others, but all are expected to support Jihad in some way. Therefore, there is plenty of financial support for Jihad, in its modern terrorist manifestation. This is why there is virtually no end to the supply of suicide bombers.

Westerners would like to argue that all this is simply a manifestation of “fundamentalists” Muslims. It is very difficult for westerners to believe that other human beings could actually behave this way. What westerners, even secular westerners, do not understand is that they are thinking like Christians, and more specifically Catholics. Nothing in the Gospels or in the example of Jesus justifies the killing of innocent, men, women, or children, or blowing oneself up to spread Christianity. Therefore, anyone who does this by definition must be some type of fanatic fundamentalist.

A Christian Martyr is one who imitates Jesus. He lays down his life for his faith, not in combat, but in personal sacrifice. History is full of these saints and they exist today, in China, North Korea, and Cuba. They died in Nazi concentration camps and Communist gulags. A Martyr for Islam is one who dies in combat for Islam and Allah. This is sanctioned and approved by the Qu’ran and Mohamed’s life and teaching. Mohamed is considered the ideal man who is to be imitated to achieve holiness, he waged Jihad, and a Muslim must do the same. You perhaps have noticed how appealing Islam is to young men. It is a very macho religion. It encourages behaviors in young men that are forbidden to young Christians. It is truly impressive to see so many men young and old praying in the videos of Mosques. Catholic Churches are certainly not filled daily with men as mosques regularly are. This degree of fidelity among men is very attractive to other young men.

None of this relies on a “fundamentalist” reading of the Qu’ran. It is not based on some perverse translation of the Qu’ran, because Muslims are forbidden to read the Qu’ran or pray in any language except the original Arabic, in which the Qu’ran was written. The Qu’ran was dictated by Gabriel to Mohamed in Arabic, therefore Allah chose Arabic to communicate with Mohamed therefore that is the only language allowed in which to read what Allah communicated and to worship Allah.

Now this may seem very bizarre to westerners. The evidence leads inevitably to the conclusion that Islam is essentially “Fundamentalist.” That is Islam is not a religion of Faith and Reason, but only of Faith. Islam clearly teaches submission to Allah not theological study of him, which is a rational endeavor. Allah has spoken; he has given his Law, he has made his will known to mankind through his Apostle Mohamed, therefore, it is up to each man and woman to embrace Islam, to SUBMIT to Allah.

If you wish to read more on this subject and these assertions, you may want to consult:

Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is and Islam Isn’t by Robert Spencer

Religion of Peace? Islam’s War against the world by Gregory M. Davis

America Alone, by Mark Steyn

God’s Continent by Philip Jenkins

Pax Tecum

Eques