Posted on 03/02/2010 7:50:40 AM PST by NYer
In 1960, he theorized the most rigid separation between Church and state, in order to be acceptable as president. Half a century later, Archbishop Chaput is accusing him of causing serious damage. An essay by Professor Diotallevi on the limits and shortcomings of secularism.
ROME, March 2, 2010 – Precisely fifty years after the memorable speech, preserved in the anthologies, that John F. Kennedy gave to the Protestant pastors of Houston in order to convince them and the entire nation that as a Catholic he could be a good president (see photo), the archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput, has returned to the scene of the crime, in Houston, for a Baptist conference on the role of Christians in public life.
The "crime" was precisely the one committed by Kennedy with that speech, Chaput maintained in his talk, given yesterday evening at Houston Baptist University and reproduced in its entirety further below.
"Today, half a century later, we’re paying for the damage," said Chaput, who of all the bishops of the United States is the one most active in the area of relations between the Church and political leadership. He has also written a book on this topic, "Render Unto Caesar," the central thesis of which is that Caesar must be given his due, but that a Christian serves his nation by living his faith in political life in complete consistency and visibility, without hiding or diluting it.
In Chaput's view, the rigid separation between Church and state exalted by Kennedy has nothing to do with the origin and history of the United States. It is a concept introduced only in the middle of the twentieth century by a secularist current. Kennedy submitted to this current, opening the way to the privatization of religious belief in the individual conscience and to its definitive collapse, even among Catholics.
Today the paradox of these Catholics in love with secularism in the United States and elsewhere is that they espouse and exalt this paradigm in an uncritical fashion, even applying it to the Church, precisely when it appears to be increasingly in crisis everywhere.
In contemporary culture, the word "secularism" can be traced back to the "laicité" typical of France, highly aggressive toward religion and determined to exclude it from the public sphere or in any case subject it to its own command.
But this concept is under revision in France itself, and elsewhere it has been duplicated in significantly different versions, all of them rather unstable.
Not only that. In Europe itself, as well as in North America, "laicité" has always had to face a very different model of relations between Church and state, the "religious freedom" of Anglo-Saxon origin that has thrived most in the United States.
Both of these models were born within Christianity, but they have produced different forms of the Church's role in society.
The United States is the nation where today the confrontation between "laicité" and "religious freedom" is most vigorous and decisive. And the Catholic Church is part of it.
In Italy, the scholar who is most insistently calling attention to this confrontation is Luca Diotallevi, professor of sociology at the Università di Roma Tre, vice president of the scientific committee of the "Social Weeks" for Italian Catholics, and an expert in high demand among the leadership of the bishops' conference.
Diotallevi has entitled his latest essay, published by Rubbettino and in bookstores for a month, "Una alternativa alla laicità."
He published an enlightening preview of his essay, with references to Europe and America, in the magazine of the Catholic University of Milan, "Vita e Pensiero":
> Se possiamo non dirci laici
Just like the protestant witch hangings in Salem.
Wow. You must be important. My familiy only qualifies for a gun toting extraordinary minister.
Only if you managed to turn back the clock to 1450. Suprisingly, Catholic theology has not stood still in the intervening 500 years.
For starters, you might try reading Dignitatis Humanae, the Vatican II declaration on, uh, religious liberty. (No, it does not suggest burning heretics.)
You might also stop to reflect that the first community to practice freedom of religion on these shores was founded by ... wait for it ... Catholics. (St. Mary's Towne, Maryland)
But it's kind of rich of you to plea for "freedom of religion" while denouncing people who dare to express opinions different from yours as "Papist tyrants". "Freedom of religion" under the Puritans existed only for the Puritans. Is that the kind of "freedom of religion" you support?
Are you a fan of Martin Luther who caused 100,000 people to be killed after he nailed the famous 95 on the church doors and aligned himself with the crooks of the Diet of Worms. Yes they killed people in the Churches. There’s a real Saint Martin. He said you could murder a hundred times and hundred thefts while still a christian. Meanwhile as you read the other writings of Paul talking about __Burning if you did lustful things. Yeah once saved always saved. Stop reading the that stupid Book of Martyrs which has a little bit of truth mixed with fabrication that certain Christian bookstores sell to naive people. Certain people on both sides did horrendous things. Get a complete history.
There's a niche for everyone on the Religion Forum.
"Open" RF threads are a town square format. Posters may argue for or against beliefs. They may ridicule beliefs, deities, religious authorites. Thick skin is required.
No debate of any kind is allowed on "prayer" or "devotional" threads.
Only members of the caucus are allowed to post on threads labeled that way, e.g. "Catholic Caucus" or "LDS Caucus."
And no antagonism is allowed on threads labeled "ecumenical."
Thank you for explaining this policy.
They are mostly bigoted trolls. They will post multipage cut n paste junk, or big blue screaming zonkers all over any thread they get on. Best thing is to ignore them, if possible.
They really think they know it all. And yet, can’t even agree among themselves. The only points of agreement are that Catholics worship idols and are pedophiles, and Mormons aren’t Christian they’re polygamous. Other than that, it’s pretty much a bunch of very strange, very bizarre people, some of whom believe that the grays are gonna usher in the second coming.
They justify their rude behavior by saying they’re only concerned about our immortal souls. What a laugh!
Again, it’s probably best to ignore them, if at all possible. They love to bait people into responding to their swill. It makes them feel all gooshy and elect.
Thanks for the advice, Judith Anne. I generally avoid the Religion Forum, except for Catholic caucus threads.
I am still stunned that this blatant bigotry against two of the largest conservative groups (Catholics and Mormons) in America is allowed to go on unabated on FR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.