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

Recently the following question was put to me by a bright college freshman at NYU. Michael is a former Altar Server of mine. He presently is working on a paper concerning Fundamentalism in the USA and abroad. His questions are below and my replies follow.

What are your thoughts on fundamentalism and how do you think it shapes society in the United States and how the United States deals and should deal with it in other countries?

-Michael

Dear Michael,

My definition of FUNDAMENTALISM can be briefly stated as Faith without Reason. This means that Fundamentalism is actually NOT CHRISTIAN and certainly not CATHOLIC. Catholicism always contains a very important little word “and,” Faith and Reason, Word and Sacrament, private devotions (such as the Rosary) and public worship (Liturgy, mass).

This is not true with Islam, Islam is fundamentally “fundamental.” That is to say, ISLAM is not a religion of Faith and Reason but Faith Alone; this has been true from its inception. Unlike Christianity there is no ISLAMIC THEOLOGY, there is no development of dogma, there are schools in which to study the Qur’an and Sharia, but the highest scholarship for Islam is the memorization of the Qur’an, and the discussion on how best to practice the Islamic law. It was actually to this characteristic of Islam that Pope Benedict was directing his remarks at Regensburg University. You might want see these links [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_Islam_controversy]; [http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={9592215A-31CD-4548-879D-1C8F8A29FA81}]

"Islam" is a religion of 'submission" to Sharia, God’s Law! It is for this reason that Muslims desire the state they inhabit to be ISLAMIC. There is only one way to live Islam that is by following the Law. It is in the nature of Islam to be Fundamentalist and to insist on the Theocratic State. In the Middle East, one sees that there are generally two kinds of Islamic states. Those that are Theocratic like Iran is and Afghanistan was, or like Pakistan were certain Pakistani and Taliban elements are already fighting to transform Pakistan into an Islamic Theocracy. Secondly, there are those, which are Authoritarian, such as Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and as Iraq was, which has been so far the only alternative to the Islamic Theocratic state. Democracy in a state with an Islamic majority is likely to devolve rapidly into a Theocratic state.

What we are seeing in Pakistan is the struggle between the governing Military junta that is trying to prevent Islam from becoming the state, which is complicated by a third minority trying to resurrect a democratic state. If you note Pakistan’s neighbor India, the largest democracy in the world, is inching its way towards modernity. It is not Islamic, it has an element of Hindi fundamentalism, but there is no serious threat of India becoming a Hindu Theocracy. While in Pakistan, where there was once also a democratic government, Islamic militants created so much chaos and violence that, the military was forced to size control to bring about some semblance of law and order, when the democratic government failed.

Terrorism is the method now used by Islamic militants to create such chaos in a particular nation to allow an Islamic Theocracy to arise as the solution to the problems that Islamic militants have created in the first place. In large measure, this is what is happening in Iraq, and why the USA has a difficult road ahead. In Iraq, the so called "insurgency" is really Al Qaeda which is not only killing Americans as a part of their global war of terrorism against the west, but it is also an attempt to destabilize and prevent the elected government from consolidating its legitimate authority over the nation. It is their hope that an Islamic government will emerge from the chaos they create. Recently there has been significant progress by American forces in suppressing this violence and restoring some semblance of order. Presently some Iraqi refugees are returning from Syria. The Shiite and Sunni elements are not only settling old and new scores but they are also have been battling to be the Islamic government. Iran is a Shiite state, Iraq has elements of both, but all other Islamic nations are overwhelmingly Sunni. Iran wants Iraq to be Shiite.

I will attempt some kind of summation to answer your questions.

What are your thoughts on fundamentalism? I believe that my definition of Fundamentalism above covers all types. It is faith in a set of beliefs that are not open to rational investigation, philosophical or theological and secondarily historical and scientific. For Christian Fundamentalists, God created the world in six 24-hour days and rested on the seventh day, no discussion, end of story. For Catholics, theology allows for a nuanced understanding of these days as symbolic numbers for the perfect amount of time and method God used. Catholics see evolution as the way God created the universe. Evolution does not contradict Catholic belief that God is Creator. Fundamentalists cannot make these distinctions.

"How to you think it shapes society in the United States?"

I believe that it brings with it good and not so good elements to the culture and political process. Fundamentalists can be allies in the anti-abortion efforts of the Catholic Church. However, they would be less helpful to the efforts of the Catholic Church to provide social services to the poor. Also, they have a tendency to can get involved in controversies in ways that are more harmful and helpful. They are capable of violent attacks on Abortion Clinics and vicious attacks on Gays that the Catholic Church would never condone, and which do nothing to promote pro-life issues or traditional Christian morality.

The present controversy over the teaching of Evolution and Creationism is a needless and confusing battle. There is no real contradiction between the two. Perhaps the best solution is to allow teachers to explain that evolution itself is strong evidence of an intelligent designer. Rather that require them to claim unscientifically that the universe and we are just accidents of evolution, which is as much as SOME scientist will say about the how and why we are here.

I do not see Christian Fundamentalism as a threat to the Republic, but they worrisome. Contrary to the conviction of some the Oklahoma City bombing, was not an act of a Christian fundamentalist. Timothy McViegh claimed that his religion was "Science," which actually would make him an Evolutionary Terrorist. I do fear the volatile combination of Christian Fundamentalism and neo-Nazi, Aryan race type movements that can increase the likelihood of violence. They are capable of death and destruction, but are not anywhere strong enough (at this time) to pose a security threat to the nation. It seems that US Law Enforcement is able to handle these criminals before they become revolutionary threats.

"How does the United States and how should it deal with it (fundamentalism) in other countries?"

This is a more difficult question. Presently the USA is making enormous sacrifices in men, capital, and material attempting to promote democracy in the Middle East. Democracy is the natural enemy of fundamentalism. Islam is fundamentally Fundamentalists. Can the USA succeed? The odds are against it. Is it possible to convince the majority of Muslims that democracy does not threaten their religion? If this is possible, it does not guarantee success on at least two fronts. It does not prevent the less malleable and accommodating Muslims from organizing a Fundamentalists party that will push on the political front for the adoption of Sharia and attempt to turn a developing democracy into a Islamic theocracy. Nor does it prevent the militant elements from using terrorist tactics to destabilize and topple the incipient democratic government. This process is already at work in Iraq, though millions of people voted for the new democratic constitution and for a representative government. This process has also been at work in Pakistan.

The greatest threat to American and western security is Militant Islam, which is fundamentalist in nature. In countries such as France there have already been wide spread riots, with putative causes, with the actual causes being the cultural clashes between the secular French government and Islam, which seeks “sacred” law and government of their own definition. Soon France will be 20% Muslim, this will only heighten the possibilities of cultural conflicts, greater violence and more demands for Islamic law to govern Muslims in France, thus creating a state within a state.

Pope Benedict XVI has his own solution to this problem, the re-evangelization of Europe. If Europe where to reaffirm its Catholic/Christian identity, it may actually help to lessen the pressure from Islam for theocracy. Islam is more adverse to SECULARISM than Christianity. Historically Christians have been allowed some degree of religious tolerance in Islamic countries. They become objects of violence when Islam feels threatened by outside forces. Iraq had a very ancient, small, robust community of Chaldean Catholics since the time of the Apostles. This community has suffered enormously since the commencement of Iraq War II. Many have been kidnapped, murdered, suffered terrorists attacks on their churches and been driven out of their country. Presently, there are Catholic Iraqi refugees in Rome, the USA and other countries. http://www.christiansofiraq.com/homelandJne186.html .

It is the hope of Pope Benedict XVI that a Catholic Europe would be far better able to resist “Islamification” by providing an alternative to the purely secularized culture that Islam detests. His Holiness is not looking to establish Catholic governments again in Europe. He is aware that Jihad is aimed primarily at the decadent west; perhaps a re-Christianized west would be more tolerable to Islamic immigrants.

What the USA can and must do is vigilantly keep the scourge of terrorism form our shores. We were caught off guard by 9/11/01, since then so far so good. Unfortunately, we have had to fight two wars to keep terrorists over there. Afghanistan was just and necessary. Iraq War II perhaps was not necessary. It is a gamble, an attempt, by those who believe that a democratic Iraq would change the balance of power in the Middle East acting as a bulwark against terrorism. This is still a question unanswered. Will we ever succeed in Iraq? We live in hope.

As long as Islam is Islam, I see no long-term solution to this problem. Islam is acting as Islam was designed to act to bring the infidels of the world to Islam by the sword. Financial, diplomatic, and strategic pressure must be kept on all nations that harbor and support terrorists, which is nearly every Islamic nation in the Middle East and in the world. Countries such as the Philippines have fought militant Islam for many years within its borders. The Catholic majority has been able to keep them at bay and support a democratic reform of the once Marcos Dictatorship, which arose in response to the communist and Islamic threats. The regime abused its power. It was eventually forced to abdicate by Catholic non-violent resistance. Islam will resist democracy and any other form of government that does not implement Sharia. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia survives because it governs by Sharia. Democratic reform is just not a viable probability. The USA then accepts a less than perfect situation, and supports the Saudi Princess. Who are suspected of supporting Islamic terrorists, in hopes of self preservation. The Alternative of another Islamic Theocracy with a knife in one hand to throat of the USA and its other hand on the oil spigot is unthinkable.

As you can surmise these are very difficult realities that we here at home in the USA and other nations have to deal with, without a great deal of hope that anything will change soon. The world is a dangerous place and we do well to remember that, when considering national and local elections, in the development of foreign policy, and military strength and capability. Fundamentalism in its Islamic incarnation is the single most serious threat to western civilization since the nuclear standoff between the USA and the former USSR. Let us pray and work to keep nuclear arms out of the hands of terrorists and out of the hands of Islam Theocracies. While we do all we can to prevent Islamic Theocracies from developing. This is my best guess as to how the USA should handle fundamentalism home and abroad.

Eques

In Conclusion

Dear Dr. Lavin,

I will end with this, Charles S. Maier writes in Among Empires- American ascendancy and its Predecessors, “…according to John L. O’Sullivan, the Jacksonian editor who coined the phrase manifest destiny a half century later: ’The far-reaching, the boundless future will be the era of American greatness. In the magnificent domain of space and time, the nation of many nations is destined to manifest to mankind the excellence of divine principles.’” (Emphasis mine) If we forget the ideals on which and for which we were founded, we will not find greater freedom and liberty, but tyranny and slavery to the darker elements of our nature. As a nation we will be a force for good or evil in the world, this seems unavoidable. Many in the world of Islam, not just radicals and terrorists, see us as a force for evil, as the decadence of our culture spreads around the world. Others perhaps see us as a beacon of hope this was at least partially true among some of the peoples of the former Soviet empire. I hope that our real manifest destiny is to be a source of good and hope for the world. If we choose not “to manifest to mankind the excellence of divine principles” the alternative is not to manifest moral indifferentism, but moral decadence. We will be light or the absence thereof, but we are too powerful already to be just another dim bulb.

The founding fathers believed they were founding what Jefferson referred to as an Empire of Liberty. “From the outset, however, it was to be different from other imperial states: wiser, freer, benevolent, and peaceful…America, in short, would both expand and act as a force for good.” (Maier pp.1&2) Not moral relativism, but “for good,” the founding fathers were not ambivalent about this word. They new exactly what the “good” was because they all shared the same moral framework, which whether they acknowledged it or were even aware of it was unquestionably rooted in Judeo-Christian virtues; After Virtue by MacIntyre, I believe would support this “self evident truth.”

Pax Tecum

Eques

Dear Eques

Nice ending.

I suppose our difference really has to do with just exactly who should run this country. Not really whether it should be good, or whether its citizens ought to be religious or belong to this Church, or that Synagogue, or that Mosque.

And so my ending is that the American experiment, despite all the countless references to God, Divinity, Morality, and Good, at its deepest root, is a trial to see if a large nation can be ruled without God or King in charge, but with the people in charge. I see no other way to define it really. The proof is that at the moment, at least, we have no King, and no Priest, Rabbi, or Imam who represents God has any special say or power over the nation. This is the first nation in the history of humanity of any power or size to be in this situation, and it is this difference that defines what America is all about. You call for us to be a Christian Nation, but that is nothing new. How many Christian Nations have had a chance to rule their societies? Many. Most were ruled by Kings and Priests, and none seemed to have a history that distinguished them from the course of human history. At times they were great, at times magnanimous. Many of their citizens were extraordinary people. But at times they were cruel and at times brutal, many of their citizens were arch-villains. In short, just like all other human societies.

So it is not an argument about moral relativism, or whether the US should be good. It is rather an argument about a rather more mundane quantity- political power. Who shall own that? A hereditary elite? A King? An institution representing God? I actually favor having the people hold that power. We shall see if that is doable.

In the meantime, I will resist efforts to return political power to where it tends to reside- in Kings and with God.

Your vision is more likely to prevail, since that is how humanity has yearned to be ruled for most of its existence, but I still hold out hope that this American difference will continue to let the great potential of humanity to bloom, prosper, and help each other.

Pace,

Arthur

Christianity/Catholicism guarantor of our "inalienable rights" Continued

Dear Eques and the C&S Group,

I think my main concern with your line of argument is a Copernican one. That is, people have argued for many thousands of years just where the center of things is.

Is the Earth the center around which the Sun revolves? Or is the Sun the center around which the Earth revolves?

In social realms, every entity of humanity from the 150-person tribe, to the 1 billion person state of China, has believed that they are the Center of the Universe.

Jerusalem is referred to as the Umbilicus Mundi, as is Rome.

How does one choose just who is the Center? Is it Rome, or is it Jerusalem, or is it Shiprock New Mexico, or a Buddhist shrine in Thailand, or even Fenway Park.

One philosopher captured the argument by stating that the fallacy of there being a Center is captured by the following statement:

"There are universal values. They just happen to be mine."

Perhaps we can blame Copernicus, and certainly Newton for bolstering this way of thinking. Newton's main contribution to human thought was coming close to proving that there is an absolute frame of reference. The universe, in other words, has a cosmic x, y, and z axis, and everything can be located on this one universal framework.

Galileo first proposed that there was no such frame of reference in space, so that if someone is moving at a constant speed, and everything around them moves at the same speed they cannot tell they are moving. This is familiar to all of us on Earth which is moving at 25,000 miles per hour, but since everything is it seems when we lie down in our back yard we are not moving.

Einstein added the observation that there is no fixed framework for time either, no universal clock.

So today's science has rejected the notion of a fixed framework, and with it the notion of a fixed Center of the Universe. There is no physical Umbilical Mundi.

And I believe the same is true in religion and other matters human. I consider the whole question of a Center in human groupings to be a deeply flawed, old habit of human mind that has caused nothing but trouble, war, and needless death and oppression.

Yet I do believe that the various, and quite abundant events of human grouping have created much of what is valuable in life. It is only when a group ascribes to itself a sense of unique value, that I find things go sour.

In fact, I can think of no example of a nation, religion, or ethnicity grabbing at a claim of exclusive value without suffering or causing some grave harm to itself and/or others.

And so I would state that your characterization of Catholicism as somehow uniquely central to Western Civilization fits squarely into this dangerous habit of mind. Who is really to say that the Catholic Church's contribution to human progress weighs more than other religion's, philosophy's, and/or polities? Again, no argument with the vast value the Church has given to humanity and the world, but that in no way protects it from the dangers inherent in claiming unique supremacy.

With respect to America, the central core of what America did differently was to say there is no Center, there is no group, religion, identity valued over another. All groups weigh the same here, or will try to. Jefferson's mention of the creator was simply a nod to the religious sensibilities of his time. His statement in the Declaration of Independence created a society that could release humanity from the shackles of groups that would claim domination over others. Each person became equally powerful and equally valuable in his formulation. God was not part of that valuing or formulation, except perhaps as the Power that got the whole process started, hence reference as creator. No particular religion is mentioned in our Declaration of Independence and God is not mentioned whatsoever in the Constitution. These are the first state papers in the history of humanity to not mention the state religion or God, and people noticed. The Constitution was criticized at the time for that omission, and the Founding Fathers made it clear it was not an omission, but an innovation. They clearly were trying to fashion a society in which neither God nor King was in charge, but rather the people.

Your call to make America a Christian nation, which it decidedly is not, but clearly could be, would essentially destroy nearly every initiative the Founding Fathers and Lincoln worked to achieve. It would make Christianity the nation's religion, establishing a State preference for singling out one approach, one group, as Central. The fallacy of one such group so much superior to all others would invite tyranny, it always has in history and always will.

I do not fault you for trying to push for the shift back to the way nations always have operated. After all, most innovations fail, and most long-lasting traditions succeed.

In this one instance, however, I do pray that the still novel concept of a government for the people, of the people, and by the people will prove in time to be a viable innovation, and that humanity can at last find its release from the forms of government headed by God or King that nearly always devolve into one form or tyranny or another.

Pace,

Arthur Lavin

Dear Dr Lavin and C&R group

As you requested I have posted your replies and our entire dialogue on HAA “Conservative and Republican” discussion group.

I believe we are beginning to talk past one another. I do not wish for the USA to be Christian Nation in any established sense. I wish to preserve the representative form of government we enjoy by virtue of arguably the noblest Constitution in the history of mankind. To do so I maintain we must rediscover the moral consensus that once existed in our nation, which most Americans took for granted for most of our history.

Alasdair MacIntyre, in After Virtue exquisitely observed that our culture has suffered at cataclysmic moral event that we somehow missed. We can see its effects in our loss of moral consensus. I am certain that some would see this as a desirable thing. However, I would argue that it is a disaster for our nation and our culture. We are now a nation that turns to our legislatures and courts to tell us what is right or wrong, no longer malum in se but rather malum prohibitum.<;/i>

The result is that we are reduced to the lowest common denominator. Our morality is reduced to, “as long as I do not get caught I can do whatever feels good or benefits me.” We have become moral monads. The moral chaos is not a recipe for the building, but for the deconstruction of our culture and civilization.

It is incumbent upon us as a people to rediscover our cultural roots, which again are a mixture, of Greek, Judeo, Christian, and western “pagan” elements, historically mediated and integrated by Catholicism, which of course means, “universalism.” There is a reason that oaths of office and in courts are taken in the name of God on the Bible. A ritual acknowledging that our entire governmental and legal system is biblically based. As you are aware as you enter the Supreme Court building above your head on the façade of the portico you are confronted with Moses and the Ten Commandments. It is possible to argue that this is purely a secularist nod to the historical importance of the Ten Commandments to the history of law. However, when these rituals and buildings were designed and constructed secularism was not yet on the horizon. These were traditional allusions and recognitions of our biblical heritage.

I do not desire a Catholic US of A. I do wish to renew our culture and this is only possible by returning to its roots, which is exactly what MacIntyre proposes. Although he is a bit more pessimistic than I. He suggests that the only thing we can do is to return to our faith communities and wait for a new St. Benedict, the father of western monasticism, who he credits with preserving the remnants of culture and civilization after the dissolution of the Roman Empire.

Allow me to repeat, I do not propose or support a Christian/Catholic US of A. It is necessary, however, that we rediscover the moral consensus, which makes government for and by the people possible. In addition, a moral consensus would act as a break on tyranny by the majority, or worse tyranny by an oligarchy such as the Supreme Court, which is now free to ignore the Ten Commandments, legal precedent, and the legislative process.

I anticipate the retort that this is just another form of Axis Mundi of moral and religious type. Yes it is. Just as the Sun is necessary for the survival not only of our world and life, as we know it, but for the very existence of OUR SOLAR SYSTEM, not every solar system but ours, Western Civilization will not survive without its particular Axis Mundi. Perhaps we are witnessing the decline and dissolution of Western Civilization and perhaps this is what most people actually desire. It follows that representative government is not likely to survive the end of the Civilization that produced it. No other culture had the ‘raw materials” that could or did produce it. Perhaps the noble experiment is ending; perhaps we are on the brink of a truly Imperial Presidency. Rome moved from city-state, to kingdom, to an oligarchic republic, to empire. Perhaps we are in a transitional historical phase that requires this moral shift in order to move to the Imperial phase our national history.

I am not a historical fatalist. I do believe it is possible to slow or even reverse this historical trajectory. However, a moral renaissance is essential in order to save what you and I both hold dear, our representative form of government.

Pax Tecum

Eques