Replies

The Americanist belief system is defined in Testem benevolentiae nostrae as the minimization of spiritual development in favor of interior initiative, the minimization of Doctrine, and the minimization of the religious life. In short, the shearing religion from public society -- the separation of Church and state.

All of these have born bitter fruit in America and elsewhere -- how many Catholics vote for pro-abortion/pro-faggotry/pro-socialism candidates, because they think they can ignore Doctrine in favor of musings of their own minds? Why are there so few men and women choosing to becoming priests, monks, and nuns? The beliefs contained with Americanism have lead directly to modern liberalism.

So, without further ado, I join Pope Leo XIII in condemning the separation of Church and state -- a system that is NOT contained in the constitution, a system neither foreseen nor practiced by the Founding Fathers, a system that divorces God from the public life of a nation.

If you enjoy having a country that holds gay marriage as a constitutional right, that punishes Christians for refusing to violate their consciences by servicing gay weddings, that removes the Ten Commandments from public view, that considers the prayers of a wiccan devil-worshiper just as valid as those of a Christian, well, continue championing the things that Pope Leo XIII condemned. I sincerely hope that it wasn't his condemnation socialism that has angered you.

"Yes, that's right: the Church of Rome regards representative government [that does not answer to Rome] and the separation of church and state as wrong."

Rather than accuse you of lying, as you did to someone else, I will give the benefit of the doubt and presume that you are colossally ignorant.

Neither the Church nor Pope Leo condemns or condemned any form of government except communism/socialism. Pope Leo XIII himself stated in Au Mileu Des Sollicitudes,

"Various political governments have succeeded one another in France during the last century, each having its own distinctive form: the Empire, the Monarchy, and the Republic. By giving one's self up to abstractions, one could at length conclude which is the best of these forms, considered in themselves; and in all truth it may be affirmed that each of them is good, provided it lead straight to its end—that is to say, to the common good for which social authority is constituted."

He goes on,

21. But a difficulty presents itself. "This Republic," it is said, "is animated by such anti-Christian sentiments that honest men, Catholics particularly, could not conscientiously accept it." This, more than anything else, has given rise to dissensions, and in fact aggravated them.... These regrettable differences would have been avoided if the very considerable distinction between constituted power and legislation had been carefully kept in view. In so much does legislation differ from political power and its form, that under a system of government most excellent in form legislation could be detestable; while quite the opposite under a regime most imperfect in form, might be found excellent legislation. It were an easy task to prove this truth, history in hand, but what would be the use? All are convinced of it. And who, better than the Church, is in position to know it—she who has striven to maintain habitual relations with all political governments? Assuredly she, better than any other power, could tell the consolation or sorrow occasioned her by the laws of the various governments by which nations have been ruled from the Roman Empire down to the present. 22. If the distinction just established has its major importance, it is likewise manifestly reasonable: Legislation is the work of men invested with power, and who, in fact, govern the nation; therefore it follows that, practically, the quality of the laws depends more upon the quality of these men than upon the power. The laws will be good or bad accordingly as the minds of the legislators are imbued with good or bad principles, and as they allow themselves to be guided by political prudence or by passion. 23. That several years ago different important acts of legislation in France proceeded from a tendency hostile to religion, and therefore to the interests of the nation, is admitted by all, and unfortunately confirmed by the evidence of facts. We Ourselves, in obedience to a sacred duty, made earnest appeals to him who was then at the head of the republic, but these tendencies continued to exist; the evil grew, and it was not surprising that the members of the French Episcopate chosen by the Holy Ghost to rule over their respective illustrious churches should even quite recently have considered it an obligation publicly to express their grief concerning the condition of affairs in France in regard to the Catholic religion. Poor France! God alone can measure the abyss of evil into which she will sink if this legislation, instead of improving, will stubbornly continue in a course which must end in plucking from the minds and hearts of Frenchmen the religion which has made them so great. 24. And here is precisely the ground on which, political dissensions aside, upright men should unite as one to combat, by all lawful and honest means, these progressive abuses of legislation. The respect due to constituted power cannot prohibit this: unlimited respect and obedience cannot be yielded to all legislative measures, of no matter what kind, enacted by this same power. Let it not be forgotten that law is a precept ordained according to reason and promulgated for the good of the community by those who, for this end, have been entrusted with power. . . Accordingly, such points in legislation as are hostile to religion and to God should never be approved; to the contrary, it is a duty to disapprove them.