Category Archives: American Founding

Following the Science of Roe v Wade

October 20, 2021Abortion, American Founding, Bioethics, Catholic Social Teaching, Church and StateAbortion on Demand, Aristotle, Roe v Wade, SCOTUS, St. Thomas Aquinastwowingstogod@gmail.com

In a previous post, it was mentioned that emerging tyrants greatly rely upon sophistry in order to manipulate people into giving away their freedom. That particular post was focused on pointing out the manner in which “experts” use science to serve their own tyrannical aspirations. It is tempting to think that this is the first time that science has been abused on such a massive scale in our country, but we would be wrong. Before there was Covid, there was Roe v. Wade.

We have all heard the arguments for abortion from the Pro-Choice peanut gallery. Some are better than others, but all of them have been refuted. That is why it is surprising that the Supreme Court so readily caved in allowing abortion on demand. Surprising, that is, until you realize that it was the Supreme Court itself (or at least 7 of the justices) that decided they would pull the “follow the science” card and tyrannically impose their will, condemning 60 million (and counting) children to death.

The Summary of the Argument

Somehow the Justices were able to find a right to privacy implicitly within the Constitution, but no “prenatal protection” of personhood to the fetus. They decided to arbitrarily draw a line between postnatal persons and prenatal. Without first defining personhood, there is no way other than arbitrarily to decide whether the location and level of development of the child has any bearing on their rights. They simply declared that “we need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins” despite the fact that “(If the) suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.” It would seem that no decision could be made until that question was answered.

It is instructive then to see how they arrived at such radical skepticism regarding the personhood of the unborn. Justice Blackmum took his readers on a historical review of the examination of personhood through philosophy, theology and empirical science. His analysis goes on for 18 pages but can be summarized (like most of modern philosophy) by examining the parts with Aristotle and St. Thomas. Blackmum began with Aristotle and his theory of delayed hominization. This theory essentially says that the conceptus went through three changes before finally becoming a person with a rational soul around day 40 (or 80 for females). St. Thomas Aquinas picked up on this theory and expounded upon it by saying that the body that was first formed was vegetative in nature and later underwent a substantial change with a new body in which it was animated by an animal soul. Then another substantial change occurred, and the now-human body was infused with an intellectual soul.

Note that both supported the idea that once a human body was present, the rational soul was also present. They simply did not have the embryological knowledge of the 18^th, 19^th and 20^th Centuries which concluded that human life began at conception because a human body was present at Conception. Science discovered three things:

the conceptus is biologically distinct from either parent. Sperm and Egg (2 things) come together and make a single biological entity that is:
a unified self-integrating human organism with its own DNA such that
nothing is added to the organism from the outside such that the only thing necessary for growth and development is the same thing we all need—water, food, oxygen and a healthy interaction with its natural environment

The Science of the Court

The Court was well aware of these “well-known facts of fetal development” but instead chose to treat them as a “theory” of an otherwise open question. The question was still open because of the science of Galen (200 AD) and “new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a ‘process’ over time.” In other words, the “substantial problems for the precise definition of when life begins” are based upon the work of a third century biologist and the “science” of 5 law review articles and 2 “scientists” (see footnote 62).

Even the “process” argument is specious. The term is extremely vague and makes it seem like we can never be sure. But in truth when sperm and egg meet, a zygote is formed that is neither sperm nor egg. It is a new thing. Does this happen instantaneously or through some process? Yes to both. The moment of conception is when during the process of the sperm penetrating the egg a new thing is formed. There is most certainly a single instant when this happens (or else it would never actually happen) even if we cannot say precisely when that instant is. Even if you accept that it is a process, then that is not an argument for abortion on demand; only for abortion during the “process”.

As an aside, this would still be wrong as it would constitute a contraceptive act, although the moral gravity would be lessened. The point in mentioning it though is that it is really just a smokescreen for sneaking in abortion on demand. Exceptions only apply to the exceptions and can never be the basis for the rule.

The point is that the Court completely glossed over the established science and instead feigned a skeptical view in order to impose abortion upon America. But there can be no skeptical view—to allow abortion is to take the position that the child is not a person. There can be no neutrality on this question and the fact that they are “following the science” should alert us to the fact that they desire to set up a tyranny in which the unborn are only persons if someone says so.

On Politicians and Receiving Communion

May 26, 2021Abortion, American Founding, Bioethics, Catholic Social Teaching, Church, Church and State, Church Authority, EucharistAmericanism, Arian Heresy, Arianism, Art of the Possible, Catholic Church in America, Catholic Politicians, Heresy, NARAL, Senator Tim Kaine, Separation of Church and Statetwowingstogod@gmail.com

Last week, Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia wrote an Opinion piece in the National Catholic Reporter weighing in on the debate over Catholic politicians who openly support abortion and the reception of Holy Communion. The Senator clearly articulates the challenges faced by politicians who attempt to adhere to the Catholic faith when Christendom has eroded. Although he does not frame it using the same terms, he speaks of applying the principle of the Art of the Possible when fighting against the Culture of Death. Despite the good beginning, ultimately Senator Kaine’s opinion reveals him not to be Catholic, but an Americanist.

Americanism was first condemned as a heresy in the Church by Pope Leo XIII in a letter to the American Bishops in 1899. The Pope condemned the infection of Catholicism by the American “spirit of independence which passed too easily from the political to the religious sphere.” It attempts to replace the Holy Spirit with the Spirit of `76 and to focus only on areas of agreement with other Americans.

Revealing the Americanist Heresy

Only an Americanist would say that “bishops demanding that Catholics in public life not only live according to church doctrine but additionally shape the law, even to include the threat of criminal prosecution and punishment, to enshrine church doctrine on sexuality as mandatory for all Americans is contrary to our basic liberty.” And only an Americanist would ask, “Why would government require that Catholic sexuality doctrine, or Sharia law, or Orthodox Jewish rules about Sabbath observance, be followed by all?”

A Catholic would never need to ask that question because the answer is simple: Catholicism is true and the others are false. At the very least we can say that “Catholic sexuality doctrine” is binding upon all because it is based on the natural law. He has committed the fallacy of equivocation. As a Catholic he should know and believe that the only protection of our “basic liberty” comes through following the truth, both as revealed in nature and directly by God.

The law most certainly should be shaped according to the truth and not according to the whims of the masses. His job is not “representing a pluralistic society” but of representing God (Romans 13:1) from whom his authority comes. The Americanist always believes there is a separation in Church and State, but the Catholic knows that just as separation of body and soul leads to death, so too a “wall of separation” between Church and State leads to death of a society (and its members).

Americanism Leads to Arianism

Furthermore, the Senator attempts to put up a wall of separation between the man Jesus and the Word adding Arianism to his list of heresies. He says that “a decision by U.S. bishops to elevate issues of human sexuality, however important, above all others seems contrary to the Gospel. No reading of the life of Jesus would suggest these issues as his primary, or even secondary, concern. His towering message is about love of neighbor as oneself with a special focus on the poor, sick, hungry, marginalized.”

First of all, there is a reading “of the life of Jesus” that suggests these issues are of significant concern. That reading would include three mentions of human sexuality in the Sermon on the Mount regarding purity (5:8), lust (5:27) and divorce (5:31-32). Likewise in Chapter 19 of Matthew he speaks of marriage being restored to how is was in the beginning. Given how deeply sexuality concerns human beings, we would be surprised to find the Word becoming Flesh and ignoring those things as the Senator suggests.

Senator Kaine also makes the Arian mistake of not grasping that the Word of God as revealed throughout Scripture is the same Word of God Who took flesh. This is why we must look upon the Scriptures as a whole and not just focus on the “life of Jesus”.

The Senator also treats abortion as an “issue of human sexuality.” Certainly, the child being conceived has something to do with human sexuality, but the fact that they are legally killed is a matter of social justice. His rhetorical bait and switch allows him to speak of Jesus’ “towering message about love of neighbor…with a special focus on the poor…marginalized” and then support legislation that takes the most vulnerable, the most marginalized in the womb and sentences them to death.

Americanism and the Reception of Communion

Animated by the Americanist spirit, we should not be surprised to find the Senator taking exception to the practice withholding Communion from Catholic politicians who obstinately remain in support of grave sins such as abortion and gay marriage. The “wall of separation” between Church and State likewise divides the Americanist’s heart from his political action. It is impossible, according to the Senator, that a bishop or a priest should judge the heart of politician by his action.

A moment’s reflection upon this position shows its absurdity. Saying you are “personally opposed” to something while simultaneously supporting it by voting for and enacting legislation that leads to its spread is a lie. Personal opposition always manifests itself through public opposition. For a politician like Senator Kaine to have a 100% NARAL rating and to claim personal opposition is impossible.

The point is that someone may be in favor of abortion, but not let anyone else know. That is, in a certain sense, a “private” sin and nearly impossible for a bishop or a priest to judge. Therefore, you would not expect them to withhold Communion from that person. However once someone’s view has become public, that is, once they have made their will known, their sin likewise becomes public. Now, there is no longer a question of judging the interior disposition, but the exterior revelation of the interior disposition. In that case, the bishop or priest has an obligation to withhold Communion for the good of the person’s soul (more on this in a moment). Likewise, the bishop or priest would be contributing to the scandal attached to the public sin by not publicly correcting it. Notice that this would apply not just to politicians but to anyone and any public sin.

It might be contended that the politician might be in a state of ignorance regarding the seriousness of their sin. This of course allows for a private discussion in which the bishop or priest lets the person know that they are in an objective state of grave sin so as to remove any ignorance that might be present. This would give the person the opportunity to repent publicly without the appearance of having been chastised.

The Eucharist should be withheld for the person’s own good because to receive unworthily, that is, in a state of mortal sin, is to draw condemnation upon oneself (1 Cor 11:29). That is, they sin further by desecrating the Eucharist and do further harm to themselves. It is analogous to cutting a drug addict off from access to more drugs so they do no further harm to themselves. This is not being “judgmental” but instead is a pastoral act of love.

Before closing, it is worth responding to the concluding statement by Senator Kaine because it is a popular “go to” for people in his situation. “The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.” Medicine is not for the dead, but for those who are sick and weak. Those in a state of mortal sin are spiritually dead and incapable of eating—it is St Thomas who says a dead man cannot consume food; he first needs to be spiritually resurrected from the dead through Confession. Instead, the nourishment is for those who are in a state of grace but battling the weakness of concupiscence. The Church has always taught that the Eucharist is a Sacrament of the living and cannot be given to those who are spiritually dead without first going to Confession. Senator Kaine seems to be omitting this important detail from his argument.

Consequentialism and the Dropping of the Bomb

October 10, 2020Abortion, American Founding, Catholic Social Teaching, Church and State, Just War, Moralilty, Natural LawAtomic Bomb, Consequentialism, Evil, Good, Intrinsic Evil, John Paul II, Providence, World War IItwowingstogod@gmail.com

The Venerable Bishop Fulton Sheen thought that the demise of Western Culture, specifically American culture, began on the morning of August 6,^,1945. That was when the United States dropped the first of two nuclear bombs on Japan at Hiroshima. It was the moment that “blotted out boundaries. There was no longer a boundary between the military and the civilian, between the helper and the helped, between the wounded and the nurse and the doctor, and the living and the dead. For even the living who escaped the bomb were already half dead. So, we broke down boundaries and limits and from that time on the world has said we want no one limiting me! We want no limits, no boundaries.” As usual, the first televangelist was also a prophet. Since that fateful day, the boundaries between right and wrong, natural and unnatural, good and evil have all broken down. This is because, lost amidst the rubble of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was traditional morality and a firm belief in God’s Providence.

By all accounts even down to our own day, dropping the atomic bomb was the only viable option. Continuing to fire-bomb cities like Tokyo was going to kill far more Japanese citizens than the Bomb would ever do and, even more likely, would harden Japanese resolve, leading to a long drawn out war. A full ground assault would lead to thousands, if not millions, of deaths on both sides. In order to save American lives then it was necessary to drop the Bomb as both a show of force and a deterrence to any further Japanese aggression. Many Americans, including the one writing this article would likely never have been born had the Bomb not been dropped. Thousands of men were headed to Japan with the sure knowledge that they would not return. To most of them, Harry Truman is a hero who made the best possible decision.

Another man whose existence is linked to “Truman’s Terrible Choice” is George Weigel. In a web article for First Things last week, he defended Truman saying that he “it was the correct choice” given the options. Weigel’s logic is paradigmatic for many Catholics and follows from the loss of a traditional morality in favor of, what St. John Paul II condemned in Veritas Splendor –Consequentialism. In Weigel’s defense, he mentions that consequentialism is wrong in the article, but he still goes on to employ its logic. Nevertheless, he is defending the indefensible.

The Two Moral Camps

The tradition understanding of morality has always included the notion that there are intrinsically evil acts. These acts, no matter the circumstances or the intention of the person, can never be ordered towards the good. Some examples would be the deliberate killing of an innocent person, lying, and adultery. Among these acts would be the direct targeting and indiscriminate bombing of civilians during a war. This would include the aforementioned “fire-bombing” of German and Japanese cities as well as the dropping of the Bomb on the two Japanese cities. When no distinction is made between military and civilian targets then the dropping of any powerful bomb, atomic or otherwise, is always an intrinsically evil act and is akin to mass murder or terrorism. One can clearly see under this moral paradigm that there could never be any justification for dropping the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Consequentialism, on the other hand, evaluates all moral actions based upon the consequences. It requires a form a moral calculus in which you decide that if there is more good than evil in the consequences of an act then the act is morally permissible. Consequentialism, as St. John Paul II puts it, “draw[s] the criteria of the rightness of a given way of acting solely from a calculation of foreseeable consequences deriving from a given choice…[and] maintain[s] that it is never possible to formulate an absolute prohibition of particular kinds of behavior” (Veritatis Splendor, 75). It is, in essence a form of moral relativism, in that leaves all our actions relative to circumstances and the moral calculations of the individual. With Consequentialism as the guide, the decision to drop the Bomb would depend upon a moral calculation in which the good of American and Japanese lives are weighed against the loss of innocent Japanese lives.

Consequentialism and Providence

Embedded within Consequentialism is a rejection of Providence. Not only does the person assume divine status in thinking they can foresee the actual consequences of their actions, but it also assumes that God could ever leave us in a situation when the Good could not be done. This is the flaw in Weigel’s logic when he says that Truman chose the best option. No situation falls outside of God’s Providence and therefore no situation leaves us without an option to choose good. Truman could have chosen otherwise, and his choice could have been in accord with the good. Perhaps the decision would have been to send the troops in on the ground and allow the men to courageously fight for goodness and truth even to the giving up of their lives. Giving your life in noble defense of other people is always a good. Or perhaps it was to accept the non-absolute terms for Japanese surrender. The point though is that God had allowed the circumstances to be as they were and, incapable of causing us to sin, would always include a way to choose the Good.

Bishop Sheen thought August 6,1945 was the turning point for America because it created a new moral environment. Large swaths of the population owe their existence to the consequentialist logic of Truman and others. America herself, in order to avoid facing the music for such a heinous action, adopted Consequentialism as the new moral order. Gone, thanks to the Freemasonic court-packing of Roosevelt and Truman, was legal reasoning based on natural law. Gone too is the idea of intrinsically evil acts. Try explaining to someone about abortion being intrinsically evil and they will get caught up in the consequences of brining an unwanted child into the world. Or, relevant to today’s political climate, tell them why they cannot support a candidate who promotes and defends intrinsically evil actions. You will instead get some moral ledger that pits immigration against abortion.

When Truman decided to drop the Bomb he opened a moral Pandora’s Box in which true moral reasoning was shed in favor of Consequentialism. Now people with no sense of morality are the ones performing the moral calculus leading to all kinds of evils that have put our society in jeopardy of collapse. The only way forward is to reconnect Americans to the moral tradition of the Founders.

War and Peace

August 5, 2020American Founding, Catholic Social Teaching, Church and State, Crusades, Culture of Life, MoraliltyForce, Just War, Letter to the Romans, Non-violence, Pacifism, Pearl Harbor, St. Augustine, St. Paul, St. Thomas, United States History, Violence, World War IItwowingstogod@gmail.com

There are certain oxymorons in life that are almost universally dismissed. One such example is “war is an instrument of peace.” Even Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying “War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.” He may have believed that until it came time to address the great evils being committed upon Americans by the Barbary Pirates when he declared war for the first time in United States history. It seems that when push comes to shove, even the most ardent Pacifist must lay down his intellectual arms and pick up his physical ones and admit that the oxymoron is perhaps true.

In order to see how the oxymoron that war can be an instrument of peace could be true, we must first ask exactly what we mean by peace. Peace, according to St. Augustine, is the “tranquility of order.” He goes further and says that “order is the distribution which allots things equal and unequal, each to its own place” (City of God, Book XIX, Ch. 13). In short, peace is a side effect, or a consequence of the just ordering of relations between people and nations. It is not, as many pacifists would maintain, a lack of conflict but a byproduct of justice. War then can only be an instrument of peace when it is entered into for just reasons and fought in a just manner. The Church has always been so insistent upon maintaining its Just War Doctrine for this reason.

War as an Instrument of Justice

War, if it is to be an instrument of peace then, can only do so when it is an instrument of justice. Some would argue however that the use of violence is never a just response. But, to characterize war as violence stacks the deck against it and is a subtle form of question begging. In We Hold These Truths, Fr. John Courtney Murray makes a useful distinction between force and violence that enables us to avoid being trapped by a mere turn of phrase. “Force,” he says, “is the measure of power necessary and sufficient to uphold…law and politics…As an instrument force is morally neutral in itself.” Force can be applied in a violent manner that is intended to hurt, maim or kill. But force can also be justified (e.g. applied justly), mainly of four principal grounds: (1) to protect the innocent (2) to recover something unjustly taken (3) to defend against a wrongful attack and (4) to punish evil. A moral obligation exists then to use force only to the extent necessary to accomplish these four aims. Not to act against the will of an evildoer is to “nourish and strengthen them” according to Augustine. History bears out far too many examples of the traps of appeasement to ignore the fact that force is sometimes necessary to avoid the multiplication of evils and injustices.

All of what has been said seems to coincide with reality as we experience it. Doing the good for a person or persons means that you must stop those who intend harm to those persons, even to the point of using physical force against the aggressor. There can be no doubt that in a world of fallen men and women, force is necessary to redress wrongs. Pacifism then can only be based on some utopic vision of reality in which evils do not really happen. This utopia usually finds it supposed justification in the teachings of Jesus so that no discussion of pacifism would be complete without examining the teachings of Our Lord.

Christian Pacifism

The Christian Pacifist usually turns to the Sermon on the Mount to justify their position. Our Lord famously told His disciples, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on [your] right cheek, turn the other one to him as well” (Mt 5:38-39). The pacifist would have us believe that this call to non-violence is absolute and applies to all men in all circumstances. The problem with this stance however is that when Our Lord Himself was struck on the cheek, rather than turning the other cheek, questioned why He was struck (c.f. John 18:22).

Our Lord’s response does not include physical force and so we must also examine His insistence that “All that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matthew 26:52). To “take the sword,” according to the Angelic Doctor is “to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority.’ On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to ‘take the sword,’ but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment” (ST II-II, q.40 a.1 ad.1).

To grasp the full meaning of Our Lord’s words we can turn to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans where he says:

“Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ Rather, ‘if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.’ Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good. Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil.Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.”
Romans 12:19-13:3

The Apostle to the Gentiles is showing exactly how Our Lord’s words are to be applied. Individuals have no authority to use the sword as an instrument of justice (except in self-defense). The Civil Authority, as God’s instrument (c.f. John 19:11), however, is tasked with maintaining justice, even by the sword “for it does not bear the sword without purpose.” The Lord then counsels us not to respond with force when the injustice is committed against ourselves (and only ourselves), but by no means lifts the obligation to forcefully oppose aggressors when the injustice involves others.

Pacifism then finds no justification either in the moral sense or the evangelical counsels. Civil authority must act against aggressors and evildoers both at home and abroad even to the point of using force. Pacifists rarely, if ever, oppose the application of police force. Because of this contradiction, CS Lewis in his essay Why I am Not a Pacifist called into question whether the motivations of the Pacifist might be due “to the secret influence of any passion.” Not that he thinks Pacifists cowards but that he thinks they are blinded by fear.

For let us make no mistake. All that we fear from all the kinds of adversity, severally, is collected together in the life of a soldier on active service. Like sickness, it threatens pain and death. Like poverty, it threatens ill lodging, cold, heat, thirst, and hunger. Like slavery, it threatens toil, humiliation, injustice, and arbitrary rule. Like exile, it separates you from all you love. Like the gallies, it imprisons you at close quarters with uncongenial companions. It threatens every temporal evil—every evil except dishonor and final perdition, and those who bear it like it no better than you would like it. On the other side, though it may not be your fault, it is certainly a fact that Pacifism threatens you with almost nothing.

The Church and Democracy

July 4, 2020American Founding, PoliticsAquinas, Augustine, Democracy, Mob Rule, Monarchy, Pius XIItwowingstogod@gmail.com

When Woodrow Wilson lead America into World War I, his battle cry was that America needed to “make the world safe for democracy.” Resting upon the unquestionable assumption that democracy is not only the best, but ultimately the only form of government, democratic principles have come to animate the Western mind. It has a habit of doing that because it seeks to impose equality by force of the mob. In a previous post we discussed why this might be not only unjust, but ultimately dangerous. In this post we would like to pick up on that theme by examining the Church’s teaching on democracy, a teaching that like all things Catholic, takes a “both/and” nuanced approach that also keeps the world safe from democracy, or at least safe from the threat of absolutism that looms over it.

The Church’s political philosophy rests not only upon the teaching of St. Augustine in The City of God, but also St. Thomas Aquinas in his De Regno as well as his Commentary on Aristotle’s Politics. St. Thomas, despite favoring monarchy was not opposed to democracy because he thought that “all should take some share in the government: for this form of constitution ensures peace among the people, commends itself to all, and is most enduring.” Nevertheless the “best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy, i.e. government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers” (ST I-II q.105, a.1).

Democracy in the Ideal Government

This ideal, mixed regime that included democracy was based upon a vastly different conception of democracy than we are used to. “Government by the people” in St. Thomas’ mind is based on how leaders are chosen and not on how they govern. Once chosen, the leaders are not representatives of the people but instead real leaders. A leader assumes responsibility and it not a mere spokesman of the people or a party.

Modern sensibilities reject all other forms of government for two reasons. First, because each man is “equal”, each must have an equal say in governing and selecting representatives. Secondly, because authority comes from below, from the individual himself, and not from God, each man can only cede his authority over to some chosen representative. When these two things are accepted as “givens” then democracy becomes the only just form of government. Thus, the mission to “make the world safe for democracy” becomes a demand of social justice.

The Church on the other hand, because she views authority as coming from above, thinks any of the three regimes mentioned by St. Thomas is acceptable if justice is maintained. As St. Pius X said, “Justice being preserved, it is not forbidden to the people to choose for themselves the form of government which best corresponds with their character or with the institutions and customs handed down by their forefathers….Therefore, when he said that justice could be found in any of the three aforesaid forms of government, he was teaching that in this respect Democracy does not enjoy a special privilege” (Our Apostolic Mandate).

The Demon Hidden in Democracy

Francis Fukuyama thought that the rise of democracy marked the “end of history”. Democracy, viewed as the end of history, is really the beginning of absolutism. When democracy takes upon itself the mantle of only legitimate regime, it becomes susceptible to becoming tyrannical. Nearly all of the totalitarian regimes of the 20^th Century had democratic roots and this is because it has no mechanism that checks the will of the people. A system of “horizontal pressure” develops in which the majority drowns out the minority. Unless one is conditioned to self-government, that is virtuous, he can become irrational and passion-driven. Through appeals to the passions and through propaganda, the people become easily manipulated by those in power, all while maintaining the guise of freedom and equality.

The key then becomes checking democracy against the moral law. Absent appeals to the natural law, a corrupted democracy becomes the worst of all regimes. A tyranny of 1 or of few is far better than a tyranny of many. It was in this spirit that Pope Pius XII examined Democracy as a means of lasting peace.

In his Christmas message of 1944, Pope Pius XII cautioned against blind acceptance of democracy as the only acceptable form of government. He pointed out that it is only a cause of peace when it is well-ordered to justice. This ordering to justice can only happen in what he calls “a sound Democracy” which is “ based on the immutable principles of the natural law and revealed truth, will resolutely turn its back on such corruption as gives to the state legislature in unchecked and unlimited power, and moreover, makes of the democratic regime, notwithstanding an outward show to the contrary, purely and simply a form of absolutism.”

The susceptibility of democracy to descend into Ochlocracy is also hastened when it tries to enforce political equality. Because of the natural inequality in mankind, not everyone should be involved in the political process. Extending the right to vote based solely upon citizenship is a dangerous proposition. Most people are not politically engaged enough to make educated votes and thus they are more likely to become a mob rather than an electorate. Late night TV hosts may find it funny to ask the average Joe questions about various candidates and laugh at their answers, but these people are also the same ones whose votes count as much as the person who learns of different candidates and seeks the common good. This is one reason among many why a democracy is not the best means for protecting freedom and maintaining natural equality.

Eliminating the Other Police Force

June 10, 2020American Founding, Church and State, Church Authority, Culture, Culture of Life, Defending the Faith, Ecumenism, FreedomFirst Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Libertytwowingstogod@gmail.com

While we are about the project of reforming the civil police force, we are allowing the Thought Police to run amok. The Thinkpol are slowly rendering certain ideas unutterable simply because they do not conform to the Ochlocratic Orthodoxy. Not only do they have ritual humiliation at hand, they have co-opted corporations so that private views now have become fireable offenses. The mob silences dissenters by threatening livelihood and so most people simply conform. Free speech has come under attack in America in ways that would make even Woodrow Wilson blush. Like the previously discussed freedom of conscience, freedom of speech also needs defending. And like freedom of conscience, only Catholics who have a proper understanding of it, are in a position to lead the charge.

On the one hand, it is not wholly unexpected that free speech in our country has taken such a sharp left turn into a ditch. The Founders had an absolute faith in the power of the popular mind. Individuals might err, but the entire society could not. Free speech, coupled with democracy, serves as a recipe for finding the truth. All debate, they thought, would eventually lead to the truth. All ideas, even bad ones, then must be protected in order to keep the debate moving. In Gertz vs Welch, the Supreme Court declared that “”Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea … (it) requires that we protect some falsehood in order to protect speech that matters.”

Captivity to the Mob

Any freedom that is directly linked to democracy is always susceptible to becoming captive to the mob. If debate over an issue ceases then it is assumed that the truth has been reached. Now those who do not accept the orthodoxy become a threat to the well-being of society and need to be shut up. Thus we have things such as “hate speech” becoming punishable offenses.

A vicious circle is formed so that truth as a democratic matter always ends in an assault upon true liberty including free speech. It is as if they must saw off the limb they are sitting on. Liberty can only be connected to purpose and the purpose of speech is to utter truth. Therefore, there is such thing as liberty to speak falsehood. Freedom of speech is not unlimited but instead is not then a justification to say anything.

Truth is not democratic but is strictly governed by the dictatorship of reality. Truth, that is, the accordance of mind with reality, is necessary for liberty. Summarizing, Leo XIII says that the right to free speech “is a moral power which – as We have before said and must again and again repeat – it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State” (Libertas, 23).

This abuse of free speech eventually leads to its destruction as ironic as that seems. The problem is that there is no set of public truths that are immune to criticism, no intellectual foundation upon which debate may be carried out. Leaving everything open to debate actually closes it, a situation that Leo XIII anticipated when he said “The excesses of an unbridled intellect, which unfailingly end in the oppression of the untutored multitude, are no less rightly controlled by the authority of the law than are the injuries inflicted by violence upon the weak. And this all the more surely, because by far the greater part of the community is either absolutely unable, or able only with great difficulty, to escape from illusions and deceitful subtleties, especially such as flatter the passions” (ibid).

Americanism and the Fallout

Eventually, “nothing will remain sacred and inviolate; even the highest and truest mandates of natures, justly held to be the common and noblest heritage of the human race, will not be spared. Thus, truth being gradually obscured by darkness, pernicious and manifold error, as too often happens, will easily prevail. Thus, too, license will gain what liberty loses; for liberty will ever be more free and secure in proportion as license is kept in fuller restraint” (ibid). This is exactly where we find ourselves.

Because many prelates in the Church in the United States are infected with the Americanist heresy, they often confuse the authentic Catholic (i.e. true) understanding of free speech with the American model. The former leads to peace and justice while the latter leads to further division. One prelate recently said that our religious principles demand that we “defend the rights of all people even those with whom we might disagree.” Such a statement is misleading at best. What we are disagreeing about absolutely matters. Some topics are still open to debate, or as Leo XIII said, “In regard, however, to all matter of opinion which God leaves to man’s free discussion, full liberty of thought and of speech is naturally within the right of everyone; for such liberty never leads men to suppress the truth, but often to discover it and make it known” (ibid). Others, such as the right to religious liberty and the immorality of racism God has not “left to man’s free discussion”. Both sins against God cry out for justice. Therefore, it is neither “baffling nor reprehensible” that a Catholic institution, faced with playing a role in rectifying either, would seize the opportunity; unless, that is, you think the Thinkpol, rather than God, has closed the discussion.

On Liberty of Conscience

May 23, 2020American Founding, Church and State, Church Authority, Faith and Reason, God's Will, Magisterium, Martyrdom, Politics, SaintsApostles, Blood of Martyrs is the Seed of the Church, Conscience, John Henry Newman, Leo XIII, Liberty, Liberty of Conscience, Religious Libertytwowingstogod@gmail.com

The character of evil, in imitation of its greatest champion, is such that it is ever on the prowl looking to devour the freedom of each man. One of the means by which such freedom is protected is liberty of conscience. This natural right of conscience protects each man from having to act in such a way that he is forced to participate in something that he knows to be evil. As the prevailing culture moves further and further from its Christian roots, the protection by law of the rights of conscience becomes increasingly important. Therefore, it is worth examining more thoroughly in order bring into relief why it is so vital.

The Character of Conscience

First, we must clear up some of the popular misconceptions about conscience. It is not a thing like the proverbial angel on the shoulder, but a mode of judgement. More specifically it is a judgment of practical reason that is linked to the power of man to do what is right and shun what is evil within the concrete circumstances of human life. Since it is a power of practical reason, it depends upon a knowledge of the principles that lead to genuine human thriving even if it is only concerned with applying those principles. It is then the power of man to link truth with goodness.

Conscience, even if it issues commands to the will, is not an act of the will. Therefore, we must always keep conscience from becoming synonymous with self-will. Most people treat conscience as if it were freedom to do whatever they want rather than being beholden to the truth. It carries about with it a certain obstinacy of “sticking to your guns” no matter what. Therefore, authority is quick to use its power to command actions in conformity with cultural norms. This is nothing more than Power attempting to replace conscience.

Conscience protection is the Catholic’s last line of defense against the growing power of the State. The next step is to cross over into the field of martyrdom. So we must fight vehemently to keep it in place. The necessary principles for this defense were laid out quite articulately over a century ago by St. John Henry Newman. In a letter to the Duke of Norfolk, the saint gives us a defense of the Supremacy of Conscience that fits with a true and Catholic understanding of conscience and its inviolability.

Conscience and Character

Newman notes that all men are by nature bound to observe the natural law. Our apprehension of this Divine Law occurs within the realm of conscience. Even “though it may suffer refraction in passing into the intellectual medium of each, it is not therefore so affected as to lose its character of being the Divine Law, but still has, as such, the prerogative of commanding obedience.” Steeped within Catholic tradition, Newman views conscience as the voice of God and not merely the creation of man. It may be more or less heard correctly by each man, but it still remains what he calls the “aboriginal Vicar of Christ.”

Based upon the fact that conscience is properly viewed as the voice of God, the Fourth Lateran Council said: “He who acts against his conscience loses his soul.” To act against conscience is to act against God. Despite the fact that God has implanted this voice of conscience commanding us to do good and avoid evil, the ear of the intellect needs to be trained and given its “due formation.” This formation must come through reason enlightened by Divine Faith because the latter was given to purify the former. To fail to form the conscience properly constitutes a great evil, perhaps one of the greatest because it chooses to deny conscience its rightful dignity.

A man has a right to something because he has a corresponding duty. The right of conscience flows from his obligation to obey it. But this obligation does not flow from a need to be true to oneself, but to obey God. As Newman puts it, if conscience is the voice of the Moral Governor then the rights of conscience are really the rights of the Creator and the duties toward Him. “Conscience,” Newman says, “has rights because it has duties”. This ultimately is what makes freedom of conscience so important and why we must protect it at all costs. St. Thomas More is the model in this regard. He was a martyr because he obeyed the dictates of God mediated through His conscience.

As religious liberty goes into decline, conscience protection becomes more and more important. Pope Leo XIII called it true liberty, the liberty of the sons of God that shows that “the dignity of man and is stronger than all violence or wrong.” (Libertas, 30). When all the power of the State bears down upon a single man and he still refuses to join in evil, it shows that man is bigger than the State and shows that he is made for God. Leo XIII calls it “the kind of liberty the Apostles claimed for themselves with intrepid constancy, which the apologists of Christianity confirmed by their writings, and which the martyrs in vast numbers consecrated by their blood. And deservedly so; for this Christian liberty bears witness to the absolute and most just dominion of God over man, and to the chief and supreme duty of man toward God” (Libertas, 30).

Embracing Inequality

April 25, 2020American Founding, Catholic Social Teaching, Church and State, Culture of LifeEquality, Justice, Leo XIII, Lord Acton, Pius XII, Politics, Tocquevilletwowingstogod@gmail.com

Among all of the social phenomena that Alexis de Tocqueville noted during his stay in America, he found what he called “equality of conditions” to be the most striking. Everywhere he looked he found Americans who were literally obsessed with equality, fueled by the sacred truth that “all men are created equal.” Tocqueville was removed enough from American society however to see how dangerous an exaggerated insistence on equality could be. In fact, he thought that this insistence was really rooted not in justice, but in envy, explicitly saying so in a letter to a friend: “equality is a slogan based on envy. It signifies in the heart of every Republican ‘Nobody is going to occupy a place higher than I.’”

A simple glance at those around us will be sufficient for us to recognize that the tent of equality can only be stretched so far. So vastly different are the members of humanity in looks, physical prowess, intellectual skills, material wealth, personal character, spiritual gifts to name just a few, making only the most incredulous question whether personal equality is a real thing. That is because man is both naturally equal and naturally unequal. All men and women have a natural equality regarding their origin and destination. Having come from the hand of the Creator, made in His image, men and women are equal in their destiny to share in His likeness forever. It is from this natural equality that they derive their right to life and the liberty to pursue of happiness.

Natural Inequality

Equally each man will stand before God and be judged. But He will be judged according to how he used his talents (c.f. Matthew 25:14–30). This implies that man is not only naturally equal, but also naturally unequal. Echoing the sentiments of Our Lord, the Church has repeatedly affirmed this natural inequality. In his Encyclical Humanum Genus, Pope Leo XIII reminded the Faithful that inequality is natural and willed by God:

In like manner, no one doubts that all men are equal one to another, so far as regards their common origin and nature, or the last end which each one has to attain, or the rights and duties which are thence derived. But, as the abilities of all are not equal, as one differs from another in the powers of mind or body, and as there are very many dissimilarities of manner, disposition, and character, it is most repugnant to reason to endeavor to confine all within the same measure, and to extend complete equality to the institutions of civic life. Just as a perfect condition of the body results from the conjunction and composition of its various members, which, though differing in form and purpose, make, by their union and the distribution of each one to its proper place, a combination beautiful to behold, firm in strength, and necessary for use; so, in the commonwealth, there is an almost infinite dissimilarity of men, as parts of the whole. If they are to be all equal, and each is to follow his own will, the State will appear most deformed; but if, with a distinction of degrees of dignity, of pursuits and employments, all aptly conspire for the common good, they will present the image of a State both well constituted and conformable to nature.
Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, 26

The analogy (as opposed to a metaphor) of the body is particularly appropriate because it does away with Tocqueville’s concern of envy. Parts of the body always have a complementarity. It is only when the body is riddled with disease that they become competitive. This struggle between complementarity and competition is the battle that goes straight through the heart of each man’s fallen social nature. The devil, the diabolical one (literal meaning is the one who tears apart), wants to split mankind through envy. God is the Symbolon, the One Who Brings Mankind together in Christ. It is in this spirit that the Church has always sought to lead men and women to find their vocation and fulfillment through their station in life.

We call it the body politic then because it is like a living organism with a hierarchical nature. But this carries with it a serious temptation—to use politics to create equality where there naturally isn’t any. Democracy is the tool of choice for doing this because it rests upon an assumption of political equality among the citizenry. Whether or not this is a reasonable assumption we can visit another time, but that it is used to enforce equality where there is inequality is a great threat to freedom. This was the great flaw in the French Revolution as Lord Acton pointed out in his lectures on the French Revolution: “[T]he deepest cause which made the French Revolution so disastrous to liberty was its theory of equality. Liberty was the watchword of the middle class, equality of the lower.”

Equality as a Threat to Liberty

When we attempt to manufacture equality it is always at the cost of liberty. Recall that liberty an external condition by which we are unhampered in our use of our internal freedom. Equality can only be created from the crumbling fragments of liberty. In order to keep inequality in check the higher privileged must have their liberty taken away. Unable to raise the underprivileged up to the level of the privileged, the privileged must be taken down a few notches. It is animated by a mob mentality that is only possible from within a democratic mindset.

Some might object to the use of the term “privileged” to describe those who occupy the higher rungs of the social hierarchy. That is because of the poisoning of our minds through a democratic paradigm causes us to recoil at even the faintest whiff inequality. But there is such thing as just privilege that comes from natural inequality. All unjust privilege should be rooted out, but not all privilege is unjust.

Indiscriminately attacking inequality is harmful to the common good because, in leveling society out, it leads to a form of stagnation in which the mob exerts a gravitational force that orbits the lowest common denominator. But is also does great harm to the underprivileged, possibly more than the privileged, in that by bestowing certain rights on them, it demands responsibilities that are above the abilities. The democratic planners then must readjust not just the responsibilities of the underprivileged but lower those of the privileged as well.

This is not a condemnation of democracy per se, but instead a refusal to allow it to be exploited as a tool of creating equality. Instead, the Church looks to the protection of a “sound democracy” that is “based on the immutable principles of the natural law and revealed truth, will resolutely turn its back on such corruption as gives to the state legislature in unchecked and unlimited power, and moreover, makes of the democratic regime, notwithstanding an outward show to the contrary, purely and simply a form of absolutism” (Pope Pius XII, Democracy and a Lasting Peace).

Protecting Liberty

April 22, 2020American Founding, Catholic Social Teaching, Church and State, Faith and Reason, MoraliltyFreedom, Freedom of Conscience, Freedom of Speech, Leo XIII, Liberty, Morality, Natural Lawtwowingstogod@gmail.com

America, GK Chesterton once said, is the only country that was founded upon a creed. This founding creed, while uniquely American in its articulation, was based, not on anything unique about America, but on what was common to all mankind. Jefferson captured this creed succinctly when he demanded of King George III that he recognize certain self-evident truths, namely, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Ever since then liberty has become an American buzzword, often cited but hardly ever defined and so making it prone to abuse. Such a foundation must be firm however or else the house that has been built upon it will collapse under its own weight. The Church has long recognized that a proper understanding of liberty was vital for the life of any society. It was in this spirit that Pope Leo XIII devoted an entire Encyclical, aptly entitled Libertas to explaining it.

In order to properly grasp the notion of liberty we must first discuss some related terms, the first of which is freedom. The modern idea of freedom is that it means a man can do what he wants. This makes freedom into an end rather than a means since the emphasis is merely on willing and not on the thing that is willed. So, while we may have the physical power to choose what we want, freedom is only truly itself when it is treated as the means of choosing what is good. Freedom is therefore a moral power.

Liberty and Ought

As soon as we enter the moral realm, we enter the world of ought. Freedom is related then to responsibility. This is a second important factor, especially in an age cluttered by rights language. We only have rights because we have responsibilities. We only have responsibilities because we have freedom that is oriented towards choosing those responsibilities. And we only have responsibilities because there are objectively good things that we must choose. Freedom is necessarily wedded to law as well.

Leo XIII summarizes the connection between freedom, responsibility and law in the already mentioned encyclical, Libertas (7)

“In man’s free will, therefore, or in the moral necessity of our voluntary acts being in accordance with reason, lies the very root of the necessity of law. Nothing more foolish can be uttered or conceived than the notion that, because man is free by nature, he is therefore exempt from law. Were this the case, it would follow that to become free we must be deprived of reason; whereas the truth is that we are bound to submit to law precisely because we are free by our very nature. For, law is the guide of man’s actions; it turns him toward good by its rewards, and deters him from evil by its punishments.”

Summarizing we can say that although a man is master of his own actions because he has the power to choose between many alternatives, he is only free when he chooses what is good. If freedom has to do with our internal power, then liberty has to do with the external conditions related to the exercise of that internal power. Liberty clears the way for each man to fulfill his responsibility. Because liberty is connected to freedom which is connected to responsibility which is connected to what is truly good, “liberty is to be regarded as legitimate in so far only as it affords a greater facility for doing good, but no farther” (Leo XIII, Libertas 42).

Liberty should be limited only to that which is necessary for one to fulfill his responsibility. To go any further than that cause liberty to evolve into license. Those who go beyond responsibility “substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license” and therefore “follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry: ‘I will not serve’.” The devil is the author of license and he uses it to drag people into hell.

A Few Examples

A couple of examples that Leo XIII uses will help illustrate the point. Liberty of conscience must always be protected and promoted because each man has a responsibility to follow the will of God. He must have every obstacle removed from his path in fulfilling this duty. A man can never be forced to do what is evil. Liberty of conscience then must always and everywhere be protected to the point where it is treated as the supreme individual liberty. This liberty becomes especially important in our own day and age when there is a progressive movement towards State absolutism. Man must always have the liberty to disobey evil precepts. This liberty is usually the first one that is removed in the progression towards a regime that suppresses all true liberty.

A second liberty that he discusses is free speech. Although often treated in an absolute manner, it cannot be indifferent to truth and falsehood. Man has a responsibility to both know the truth and communicate only what is true. Therefore there must a liberty that protects this responsibility. As Leo puts it, “Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State” (Libertas, 23). There is no right to speak falsehood nor to speak (or display) that which corrupts morals. If this were better understood then we would not have the pornography problem that is protected by free speech.

The Security Exchange

April 18, 2020American Founding, Catholic Social Teaching, Church and State, Church Authority, Culture, Freedom, Moralilty, SinSecuritytwowingstogod@gmail.com

As has been written here on many occasions, Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America remains a vital resource for understanding the American mindset. What makes Tocqueville so valuable is that he was not necessarily an advocate of democracy. He saw in it great possibilities, but also was very much aware of the dangerous pitfalls that loomed in the background especially as the society around it rejected both religion and morality. In that way it has an almost prophetic quality about it, especially when it comes to the despotic and totalitarian temptations that all members of a democratic society ought to fear. Particularly prescient and especially relevant to today is a passage in which he cautions against totalitarianism that is smuggled in through a Nanny State:

“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?”
Democracy in America Vol. II, Sect IV Ch. VI

Although this ought to be obvious, Tocqueville’s criticism rests upon an abuse of authority. What makes this type of abuse so pernicious is that it is so subtle that it is easy to miss at first because it is smuggled in as a form of paternal authority. As the name suggests, paternal authority serves a legitimate and vital function because it secures the survival and development of an immature person. But this type of authority has a pedagogical aim such that it assures its own disappearance. The goal is to discipline the person such that self-discipline comes about; govern them so that self-government is easy. Only when that happens can the person truly be free. Paternal authority then provides security so that freedom develops. Once the full flourishing occurs, this authority has outlived its usefulness and fades away.

Freedom and Security

The subtlety then comes in the relationship between security and freedom. The proper use of paternal authority is that it is ordered towards freedom while providing security. In its proper form there is no tradeoff between the two. Once the person has reached maturity and able to properly govern their own freedom, paternal security is no longer necessary. Able to properly discipline themselves the children have the liberty to secure for themselves what they need to thrive. In having true freedom, they have security, a security that minimally depends upon others. This is not to advocate for a rugged individualism, but to see security in its proper light. There are still aspects such as policing and military protection for example that will require society, but belonging to the common good, they never take away liberty but expand it.

Tocqueville’s point is that one of the sure signs that authority has outlived its usefulness, or has become an outright abuse, is that it takes away freedom. And in so doing it creates and encourages a “perpetual childhood.” Authority becomes “absolute and minute” because it becomes a form of control. It does all of this in the name of security and the people willingly trade their freedom, because, lacking the necessary virtue to govern themselves, they must have security.

If you wanted to create a populace that willingly made this tradeoff, you would start by attacking the legitimate exercise of paternal authority. Paint the paterfamilias as a dufus and ensure that he acts irresponsibly. Break up the school of freedom the family by making divorce easy. Separate children from their parents as much as and as early as possible. Teach them “values”, mostly economic and political, and not virtues. Mock virtue as repression and substitute license for true liberty. Once license replaces liberty, there appears to be no tradeoff between security and liberty (which is really license) because those in power still, to use Tocqueville’s terms, “facilitate their pleasures.”

All of this might have a libertarian ring to it, but that it to miss the fact that freedom is wedded to virtue. Libertarians tend to treat freedom as an end rather than a means. They demand liberty to do what pleases them provided they do not infringe upon others. This too becomes license and the trap is laid in reverse. Lacking the virtue necessary for self-control, they must look elsewhere for security. We cannot turn a blind eye to vice nor can we enthrone it as a “right”. There may be times when we tolerate it, but it can never seen as a true exercise of freedom.

Tocqueville the Prophet

Tocqueville’s words are particularly relevant today because they illumine the path we are currently on towards totalitarianism. In the midst of a plague, the government has taken away the natural rights of its citizens all in the name of security. Notice that the “liberties of vice” are still available as “essential businesses”, a literal bread and ciruses approach in which Liquor stores, recreational marijuana dispensaries, unlimited and free access to Pornhub, and so forth. Heck, even the occasional encounter facilitated by Tinder is, according to Health Czar Anthony Fauci, an option “if you want to take the risk.” But you can’t take the risk to go to Mass, the one place where both security and freedom grow.

By creating an atmosphere of fear, we have been sold the bill of security. We are living on the cusp of tyranny, even if we believe it to be a “benevolent” tyranny. Those are the worst kind because they admit of no limits. As CS Lewis put it, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

We would be wise to listen to both Lewis’ words and Tocqueville’s. Trading freedom for security is the surest path to tyranny and results in the loss of both freedom and security.

Religious Liberty and the Coronavirus Quarantine

April 15, 2020American Founding, Church and State, Church Authority, Vatican IIAmerica, Dignitatis Humanae, Leo XIII, Religious Freedom, Religious Liberty, Separation of Church and State, Thomas Aquinastwowingstogod@gmail.com

One of the more closely related issues to the Coronavirus Quarantine is Religious Liberty. Some have argued that the State demanding the shutdown of Church’s infringes upon the right to religious freedom. Arguments have but put forth, at least from a Constitutional perspective, that in general the demand that churches be shut down is not unconstitutional. We will set the constitutional question aside for the time being and examine it from the Church’s traditional teaching on religious freedom.

From the outset it must be admitted that examining religious freedom from the standpoint of traditional teaching is not without controversy. Ever since the Second Vatican Council this teaching has been contested thanks to what amounts to a document plagued by ambiguity. This despite the fact that the Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, makes it clear that “it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ” (DH 1). This “traditional Catholic doctrine” can be summarized as follows.

The Traditional Teaching on Religious Liberty

Man has an obligation to worship God, not just in any manner that he wishes, but according to the religion that God has revealed. More to the point, man has an obligation to be a member of the Catholic Church. This membership however must be voluntary. No one can be forced to embrace the True Faith against his will. Two corollaries follow from this. First, no one may be forced from acting against his religious conviction in private or in public. Vatican II affirms this teaching when it says that religious “freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.”

In a discourse in 1953, Pope Pius XII said ‘That which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality has objectively no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated.” Because “error has no rights”, the public exercise of religion is another issue. Only the true religion has a right public expression and thus a person may be kept from publicly acting upon their religious convictions. To summarize, a man can’t be forced to act against his conscience but can be kept from acting on it. The second corollary then is that the State, because it is the custodian of the Common Good may prohibit public expression of false religions.

In Catholic countries the State may tolerate some public expression of false religions only for proportionate reasons in order to protect the Common Good. St. Thomas gives two reasons in general—to avoid civil unrest or avoid prejudicing non-Catholics toward the Church. What is clear is that this must be viewed merely as tolerance and not a right. No one has right to be tolerated. Either way a non-Catholic religion must not be given the space to flourish and propagate itself.

In non-Catholic States the obligation to protect and promote the true religion still remains in place, but the level of tolerance of false religions obviously increases because of the Common Good and the threat of civil unrest. This is where Dignitatis Humanae seems to veer from the traditional teaching of the Church saying both that “religious communities…have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word”(DH 4). It seems to confuse true rights from mere tolerance. How this can be reconciled with the traditional teaching remains to be seen.

The traditional understanding then differs from the American Model. The American Model treats all religions as equal. This is contrary to justice however. As Leo XIII put it:

“Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engravers upon it.”
Pope Leo XIII, Libertas 21

This also means that the Church cannot be treated as merely one other social organization. This means that the constitutionality defense, namely that religious congregations have not been singled out, of the religious quarantine does not fly. The Church not only should be treated differently than other religious groups, but also from all social groups. Lumping it in with other “large gatherings” is unjust and does great harm to the Common Good.

Religious Liberty and the Power of the Church

The confusion regarding religious liberty has led to a grave misstep when it comes to the quarantining of the Church’s public worship and Sacraments. To be clear, the issue isn’t about whether Bishops should comply with the order of the State regarding not gathering. That question is best left up to the prudential judgment of the Bishops and their charism as Shepherds. But any compliance must be shown to be voluntary. It must be “we will comply” and not “we must comply”. Very few Bishops (if any) have made it clear that this is a voluntary cooperation, “signal proof of her motherly love by showing the greatest possible kindliness and indulgence” (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei 15) in cooperating with the State.

The Church has an obligation to repeatedly tell the State to stay in its lane and this situation is no different. Leo XIII, always aware of State encroachment upon the Church, said “Whatever, therefore in things human is of a sacred character, whatever belongs either of its own nature or by reason of the end to which it is referred, to the salvation of souls, or to the worship of God, is subject to the power and judgment of the Church. Whatever is to be ranged under the civil and political order is rightly subject to the civil authority” (ibid). This is because the spiritual common good always has precedent over the temporal common good.

When the transition back to normal life happens, the question is who decides when the Church may resume Masses? Is it the State or is it the Church? The way this has played out so far it appears that it will be the State which sets a dangerous precedent and gives the Church’s enemies great leeway in performing a “soft persecution” in the name of public health. The Shepherds of the Church must defend religious freedom and not cede any power over to the State.

God’s Authority and the Modern State

March 28, 2020American Founding, Church and State, ProtestantismAuthority, Heresy, Leo XIII, Locke, Martin Luther, Marx, Pius X, Rousseau, Separation of Church and Statetwowingstogod@gmail.com

Pope St. Pius X once said that all errors in the practical and social realm were founded upon theological errors. The Saintly Pontiff’s maxim seems almost common-sensical, so much so that, we can easily overlook it. Ideas have consequences and bad ideas, especially bad ideas about Who God is and who man is, have bad consequences. As a corollary then we might say that it is impossible to fix the bad consequences without rectifying the bad thinking. One such bad idea, namely that all authority in the political realm comes from the people, has had the devastating consequence of erecting a “wall of separation between Church and State” leading to the loss of many souls.

The Source of Secular Authority

The properly Christian understanding about the source of secular authority is that it comes from God Himself. This is made clear by Our Lord during His trial in which He tells Pilate that “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above” (John 19:11). In his usually blunt manner, St. Paul echoes the same principle when he reminds the Christians in Rome to “Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God” (Romans 13:1). God as Creator and Sustainer of all Creation is also its supreme authority. All authority is exercised in His name and flows from Him. Kings, emperors and presidents all derive their power to rule from Him and it is only for that reason that they also have the power to bind consciences for just laws.

Summarizing the Church’s understanding of secular authority, Pope Leo XIII instructs the faithful that “all public power must proceed from God. For God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the world. Everything, without exception, must be subject to Him, and must serve him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the sovereign Ruler of all. ‘There is no power but from God’” (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 3).

This view of authority flies in the face of countries such as the United States. Rather than authority from above, it is based on authority from below. Known as popular sovereignty, this founding principle is first articulated in the Declaration of Independence where Jefferson told the King that legitimate governments are those ‘‘deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.’’

Luther’s Error and Its Modern Consequences

So ingrained in the modern mind, we might not even realize that it is opposed to the correct understanding of the source of secular authority. It would be easy to blame this on the Enlightenment, but the error pre-dates even the Enlightenment and Social Contract Theory. Instead the error is rooted in Luther’s revolution in which he rejected the authority of the Church. Leo XIII points this out in his encyclical Diuturnum by drawing a line from the so-called Reformation to Communism and nihilism: “…sudden uprisings and the boldest rebellions immediately followed in Germany the so-called Reformation, the authors and leaders of which, by their new doctrines, attacked at the very foundation religious and civil authority; and this with so fearful an outburst of civil war and with such slaughter that there was scarcely any place free from tumult and bloodshed. From this heresy there arose in the last century a false philosophy – a new right as it is called, and a popular authority, together with an unbridled license which many regard as the only true liberty. Hence we have reached the limit of horrors, to wit, communism, socialism, nihilism, hideous deformities of the civil society of men and almost its ruin” (Leo XIII, Diuturnum, 23).

If we follow the logic we will see why this is a necessary consequence. Animated by a Protestant mentality, each person treats directly with God without any intermediary. Each person becomes an authority in himself and therefore any authority that is to found in a social body is by his consent. In essence then it eliminates the Kingship of Christ in the temporal realm and completely privatizes religion.

This helps to explain why most Protestants see no problem in the current belief in a “Wall of Separation” between Church and State. It was Luther himself that was the intellectual predecessor: “[B]etween the Christian and the ruler, a profound separation must be made. Assuredly, a prince can be a Christian, but it is not as a Christian that he ought to govern. As a ruler, he is not called a Christian but a prince. The man is a Christian, but his function does not concern his religion. Though they are found in the same man, the two states or functions are perfectly marked off one from the other, and really opposed.” Both the Christian Prince and the Christian citizen were to live their lives in two separate realms and, ironically enough, not submitting to God in either since they also rejected His Kingship in the Catholic Church. Once the divorce is complete, all types of political errors begin to take hold. Luther’s insistence on individual and private judgement leads directly to Locke, Rousseau, and Marx. One theological error leads to many political errors.

The Church then will always find conflict with the modern state until this error is corrected. The modern State hates the Catholic Church because it is an existential threat because it seeks, or at least ought to seek, to acknowledge God’s authority in the temporal realm. It is also the reason that Catholics ought to make the best citizens. They see no conflict between Church and State because both have their authority rooted in God Himself and to obey either is to obey God.

On the Necessity of Government

February 1, 2020American Founding, Angels, Anthropology, Church and State, Culture, Moralilty, Natural LawAquinas, Government, James Madison, Leo XIII, Locke, Politicstwowingstogod@gmail.com

Our country was founded upon a rather strange amalgamation of principles. A perusal of the writings of the Founders will uncover both references to Catholic Natural Law and principles of the Enlightenments. One can imagine that there are some pretty stark contradictions. One such contradiction is found in the question of why we need government at all. In the midst of defending the need for a government that includes checks and balances in Federalist Paper no. 51, James Madison makes what seems like at first to be a very Catholic statement saying that government is “the greatest of all reflections on human nature.” Rather than remaining on that train of thought, Madison diverts to another track claiming that “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Understanding both of his statements will help us go a long way in understanding why our country seems to be plagued by moral decay.

If Men Were Angels…

Obviously one of the important questions that the Founders sought to address was how authority was to be exercised by the State. Trying to emerge from the shadow of Divine Right Theory, the Founders thought authority came from the individual. Men would form a society like the State by bartering freedom for security. The individuals would bestow authority upon a Governor in order to ensure that his rights would be secured against encroachments from other men who had all entered the society via a social contract.

When Madison says that government is the “greatest reflection upon human nature”, he has this view of human nature in mind—man as the individual who enters society via the social contract. This principle of the Enlightenment treats government then as a necessary evil that must be tolerated because man is fallen. In his own words, “anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger.” If men were not fallen, like the angels, then government would not be necessary. So commonplace is this idea today, that hardly anyone questions whether Madison has greatly misunderstood human nature.

Madison’s anthropological error comes into relief if we challenge his theological assertion that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Angels do, in fact, live within a hierarchy, a hierarchical structure that includes authority. Scripture provides us with an example in Chapter 10 of the Book of Daniel. Daniel calls upon the help of Gabriel, but the angel does not immediately respond because the Guardian Angel of the Kingdom of Persia would not allow him to act. After Michael intervenes, the lower angel is allowed to help Daniel (Dn 10:11-21). What this reveals is that angels, even unfallen ones, do have a government, one that is based upon a clear authoritative structure.

The Greatest of All Reflections on Human Nature

So, if men were angels then government might be necessary rather than being a necessary evil. Contra Locke, Rousseau and their intellectual progeny, including the Founders, man is not a solitary being, but is naturally a social creature. In order to fulfill his nature, man has need of other men. This is not just a matter of convenience but part of his natural instinct. There are two natural societies in which man’s needs are supplied, the Family and the State.

Because men naturally form these two societies, they must have an authoritative structure. As Pope Leo XIII put it, “no society can hold together unless some one be over all, directing all to strive earnestly for the common good, every body politic must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its Author. Hence, it follows that all public power must proceed from God. For God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the world. Everything, without exception, must be subject to Him, and must serve him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the sovereign Ruler of all. ‘There is no power but from God.’” (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 3).

St. Thomas says that the act of authority would be applied in four ways. First, the ruler must direct the members of society towards what they should do to contribute to and achieve the common good. Second, the ruler should supply for difficulties such as protection against an enemy. Third, the ruler should correct morals via punishment and (four) he should coerce the members to virtuous acts.

Now it becomes obvious that the first two would apply whether or not men were fallen or not. Virtuous men might agree about some common good, but because it is possible to achieve a good in multiple ways, they disagree as to means. Without a ruler, that is one without authority, there would be no one to make the final decision. Because men, even in a state of innocence would not be equal with respect to virtue, it is the most virtuous who would govern.

St. Thomas describes this virtuous ruler in the Summa:

“But a man is the master of a free subject, by directing him either towards his proper welfare, or to the common good. Such a kind of mastership would have existed in the state of innocence between man and man, for two reasons. First, because man is naturally a social being, and so in the state of innocence he would have led a social life. Now a social life cannot exist among a number of people unless under the presidency of one to look after the common good; for many, as such, seek many things, whereas one attends only to one…Secondly, if one man surpassed another in knowledge and virtue, this would not have been fitting unless these gifts conduced to the benefit of others…Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 14): ‘Just men command not by the love of domineering, but by the service of counsel”: and (De Civ. Dei xix, 15): ‘The natural order of things requires this; and thus did God make man.’”
(ST I q.96, a.4)

Madison, because he thinks government a necessary evil, would have us tolerate evil in our rulers. But when we see the State as something natural, we begin to identify its purpose of making men better. It is necessary for men to fulfill their nature by becoming more virtuous. The virtuous ruler will create virtuous subjects. St. Thomas thinks we can, and must, do better. The transition may be rocky, but if our society is to turn around and become morally sound, we must not settle for moral degenerates in our leaders. With Primary Season upon us, especially with a total lack of emphasis on the character of our leaders, this is an important message.

Human Rights and Abortion

November 27, 2019Abortion, American Founding, Bioethics, Catholic Social Teaching, Church and StateDemocratic Party, Election, Natural Law, Natural Rights, Supreme Courttwowingstogod@gmail.com

During the Democratic Presidential Debate last week, the country was treated to a reminder of just how hell-bent the Democratic elite are to make abortion an unlimited foundation of their party platform. I say “elite” because, for the most part, the party’s extreme position on abortion is far ahead of their constituency. A majority of Democrats are in favor of the otherwise outdated “safe, legal, and rare” approach to abortion and favor restrictions on abortion. This doesn’t mean the rank and file are right, but that an ideological mandate is being passed down from above that, once adopted, could make abortion nearly impossible to eradicate.

The mandate is being slipped in under the cover of rights. In particular, there is a growing insistence that abortion is a human right. Take as an example, the words of Senator Elizabeth Warren who insisted “I believe that abortion rights are human rights. I believe that they are also economic rights. And protecting the right of a woman to be able to make decisions about her own body is fundamentally what we do and what we stand for as a Democratic Party.” Those of us who see abortion for what it really is must be prepared to confront this cooption of human rights head on.

Drowning in a flood of rights, we fail to make key distinctions between “rights” so that it becomes a jumbled mess. But not all rights are right (which means it is not a right) and not all rights that are right are equal. The adjective that is attached to the right matters. That is why designating abortion as a human right can act as an ideological trump card rendering the rights of the unborn irrelevant. We must then be prepared to challenge this designation and oppose the typical approach of framing the issue as a collision between the right to choose and the right to life.

Rights Language

We speak of justice as rendering to each man what is due. Rights are the content or the thing that is due. There are two ways of determining what someone is due. The first would be because some authority says so. We call these rights positive rights. Included in these rights would be civil rights, that is, rights like the right to vote, that belong to citizens by virtue of the fact that they are citizens. Because these rights are based upon some authoritative fiat, they must be checked both against the common good and human rights.

Human rights on the other hand are those things that are due to a person simply due to the fact that they are human. Also referred to as natural rights, these rights are attached specifically to those things that naturally lead to human flourishing. Put another way, natural rights are those things that all human beings need in order to complete their nature. Because they are natural, they recognize things that all human need by virtue of the fact that they are human. To label abortion as a human right is to say that all women, by their nature as women, need abortion in order to truly fulfill their nature.

Some might challenge what has been said so far and insist that some women need access to abortion in order to flourish. But that is to misunderstand what is meant by flourishing. Flourishing only occurs when we act in accord with our nature. Abortion in that regard is totally unnatural in that it willfully acts against the nature of woman to fulfill herself through motherhood. This does not mean all women must be mothers, but that motherhood is the means by which women naturally grow in the virtues that lead to their flourishing. It can happen other ways, but it is the ordinary means by which that occurs.

While an exhaustive list of human rights is not necessarily possible, there are certain rights that are self-evident. Pope St. John XXIII in his encyclical Pacem in Terris listed the rights as “(M)an has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of ill-health…”

Conspicuously absent from the list is abortion because it is currently a positive right. Through mere judicial fiat, the Supreme Court ignored both the common good and human rights and gave women the right to choose. While it remains upon this level of positive right, legislation may challenge it and seek to overturn it because of its blatant disregard for the human rights of the unborn and its harm to the common good. But once it is declared a human right, it becomes something that is due to a woman simply because she is a woman. This is why this movement from a positive right to a human right, at least in the court of public opinion and jurisprudence, is very important and must be stopped.

Rights and Duties

In addition to challenging the assumption that abortion leads to genuine human thriving that undergirds the human rights theory of abortion, there is another important connection that can be helpful in seeing the truth. When we speak of rights, especially human rights, there is a connection to a corresponding duty. A person has a natural right to some thing because it is essential in fulfilling some obligation. Related to the question of abortion, there is much traction that can be gained by framing the discussion not in terms of rights, but of duties. Specifically, what are the duties that a mother has towards her child? When do those duties begin? If it as birth, then why the plethora of pre-natal interventions? If it is prior to birth, then when does a woman “officially” become a mother? If the woman is not a mother, then exactly what is the relationship between the her and the biologically distinct entity that is growing inside of her? Is it a relationship of dependency only if willed or does the woman naturally have an obligation to care for it?

The point is that rather than challenging the status quo with the biologically certain question of when life begins, it can be helpful to restate the problem as asking when motherhood begins. By emphasizing motherhood there can be an awakening of the awesome reality of what the woman has already become and not only what her obligations are, but that the presence of the young life growing within her will ultimately lead to her personal fulfillment.

Two Wings to God

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth"Pope St. John Paul II

Category Archives: American Founding