From the Inside or the Outside? [Is Attempting to Convert by Political Means Advisable?]

Going through some of the religious website that I look at once in a while, I occasionally find interesting reflections on Religioscope run by Dr Jean-François Mayer of the University of Fribourg. There are articles in English and French on this site. The tone is quiet and non-polemical, which makes me think that some of the reflections will be all the more credible for it. Now, I will touch on a real hot potato. That is the issue of trying to convert the world to Christianity by political means. I’ll point my finger to the Americans and the French, but there are culprits for other places too.

The particular article I find of interest is United States: sociologist finds Christian activism and politics ineffective and damaging. In other words, does throwing a hand grenade into an abortion clinic do something to promote the Gospel, any more than Guy Fawkes’ intention to destroy the English King and Government by blowing them up? Do violence and bitterness witness to the love of Christ?

I don’t know anything about the ideas or beliefs of this sociologist by the name of James Davison Hunter, but the article rings a bell in my mind. Pope Leo XIII saw problems in American religion and came up with the concept of Americanism, denounced by Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae of 1898. Ironically, Americanism began, not in the United States, but in France when Leo XIII asked Catholics to accept the Republic and not to make too much use of activism and politics. We find something in common between France and the USA to explain the extreme polarisation and dialectic way of looking at things.

I have observed many fine ideas among intellectuals in both France and America promoting action in the cultural dimension and in politics. We often feel that we need to resort to such activism to combat the increasing secularism in issues like abortion, feminism and the gay agenda. However, the more Catholics and other Christians fight and show hostility, the more anti-clericalism grows among ordinary and otherwise fair-minded people.

As activists, we will certainly have less and less influence. When I saw the photo of a Catholic priest being dragged away from an American University, because President Obama had been invited to give a speech, it rather turned my stomach. The priest was looking for some kind of “martyrdom”, but did that piece of witness convert anyone to Christianity?

Something that has caught my attention here in France, a country where parish life in most places is nearly dead, is the fact that contemplative monasteries are full. And, not only the traditionalist communities using the Latin liturgy, but many other communities giving priority to contemplation and the other-worldly life. France is a country where there have been many innovations in religious life.

Some of us know the story of Blessed Charles de Foucauld, the French convert soldier who took to the most austere possible monastic life in the Sahara Desert. In those days (1907), he had to have permission from the Holy See to say Mass alone. Before obtaining this permission, he had gone for years without Mass and the Sacraments! His life was incredibly harsh, even for a former soldier, but his message was clear – his vocation was one of intercession and obtaining for others the grace of conversion by means of prayer and self-sacrifice. In 1916, he was assassinated by fanatical Muslims at the door of his hermitage! In the whole of his time in the desert as a priest and a monk, he made not one single convert, and not one single person came to join him in the monastic life.

The apostolate of Blessed Charles was unique and prophetic. He refused to preach the Gospel to a population who would have only a superficial interest in the Holy Scriptures. His way was a silent and hidden presence in infidel lands. “My life is not that of a missionary, but that of a hermit“. Further on, he said: “I am a monk, not a missionary, made for silence and not for words“. One might be tempted to think he was selfish and unconcerned for the people around him. Not at all. He gave everything for his dear nomads, without asking for anything in return, not even conversion to Christianity. He knew the limits of proselytism. He lived in a country of Islamic people, learned their language, made himself loved.

That priest lived his contemplative life in an absolutely hostile environment. What we need to live in our hostile environment (whether we are attacked or ignored) is a new form of contemplative life, open not only to monks and nuns, but also to secular priests and lay people. Of course, there have always been Third Orders in most religious communities for centuries. There used to be confraternities of penitents and all sorts of ways to help people structure a disciplined religious life. In some places these confraternities still exist and their members are very serious in their commitment.

In terms of what we today can discover in this message, attacks against the Pope or the Church do not only come from outside; rather the sufferings of the Church come from within, from the sins that exist in the Church. This too has always been known, but today we see it in a really terrifying way: the greatest persecution of the Church does not come from enemies on the outside, but is born from the sin within the church, the Church therefore has a deep need to re-learn penance, to accept purification, to learn on one hand forgiveness but also the need for justice. Forgiveness is not a substitute for justice. In one word we have to re-learn these essentials: conversion, prayer, penance, and the theological virtues. That is how we respond, and we need to be realistic in expecting that evil will always attack, from within and from outside, but the forces of good are also always present, and finally the Lord is stronger than evil and the Virgin Mary is for us the visible maternal guarantee that the will of God is always the last word in history.

I am brought to think of the great Saint Benedict who civilised the world through monasteries and the contemplative life. We can retreat to the desert, the mountains or the sea – or we can go into the cities and identify with the poor, living according to the way of St Francis of Assisi. In all things, we need to rediscover simplicity and prayer.

Perhaps hard-selling as a method of evangelisation works in some places, but not here in Europe. People are cynical and case hardened. The more we push, the more they will kick against the pricks to coin the expression of Acts ix.5.

I would say we Christians would have a greater chance of doing good through our “faithful presence” like Fr Charles of the Desert and seek the commons good through our respective vocations. Sometimes, circumstances will allow us to establish schools, hospitals and businesses that put people and jobs before wealth. That is something contemplative Christians have always done when they got half a chance. The liturgy, a prayerful life and self-effacing service to humanity do more than anything else to propagate the Gospel and make Christ credible.

Alex, I don't know about the Wikipedia article, but I can stand foursquare with the following from Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae:

The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. (i.e., don't water down the Faith to make it more palatable to non-Catholics)
But, beloved son, in this present matter of which we are speaking, there is even a greater danger and a more manifest opposition to Catholic doctrine and discipline in that opinion of the lovers of novelty, according to which they hold such liberty should be allowed in the Church, that her supervision and watchfulness being in some sense lessened, allowance be granted the faithful, each one to follow out more freely the leading of his own mind and the trend of his own proper activity. They are of opinion that such liberty has its counterpart in the newly given civil freedom which is now the right and the foundation of almost every secular state. (i.e., it is not OK for American Catholics to hold their own opinions about matters of faith and morals. They are to think with the mind of the Church on those matters)
From this disregard of the - angelical virtues, erroneously styled passive, the step was a short one to a contempt of the religious life which has in some degree taken hold of minds. That such a value is generally held by the upholders of new views, we infer from certain statements concerning the vows which religious orders take. They say vows are alien to the spirit of our times, in that they limit the bounds of human liberty; that they are more suitable to weak than ›o strong minds; that so far from making for human perfection and the good of human organization, they are hurtful to both; but that this is as false as possible from the practice and the doctrine of the Church is clear, since she has always given the very highest approval to the religious method of life; nor without good cause, for those who under the divine call have freely embraced that state of life did not content themselves with the observance of precepts, but, going forward to the evangelical counsels, showed themselves ready and valiant soldiers of Christ. Shall we judge this to be a characteristic of weak minds, or shall we say that it is useless or hurtful to a more perfect state of life? (religious vows are not a thing of the past -- remember, this was written in 1899, not 1999 -- and religious life is a good thing)

And, as always, you can read the whole thing for yourself, but I see that he is calling on the American Church to maintain orthodoxy and not to embrace heterodox attitudes just so that they can be "modern," "progressive," and make the Faith more "palatable."

Sorry, Alex, but it appears that, once again, Wiki has got it just a bit wrong.

If we do want to know what Pope Leo XIII intended to say on this issue, we certainly don't go to Wikipedia for its interpretation. We go to the original encyclical Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae .

Leo XIII addressed the encyclical to James Cardinal Gibbons, archbishop of Baltimore, and it was intended “to suppress certain contentions” that had arisen in America “to the detriment of the peace of many souls.” In essence, Leo feared that some American Catholic intellectuals, including a number of bishops, were finding canonical and theological lessons for the Church where they should not be looking for them: in the American cultural and political experience of democracy and individualism. IOW Leo XIII was not decrying freedom of the press or the American model of government. He was saying that those principles do not apply to the Catholic Church.

Americanism combines a collective sense of Christian exceptionalism (America as the “Shining City on a Hill”) with the conviction that America can draw up her own moral code—or, rather, a limitless number of moral codes, arising from each individual’s conscience.

Leo XIII was right!!

Acknowledging this heresy and its internal contradictions helps us understand why Americans today can insist that we are a Christian nation while indulging in all manner of public and private behavior that is decidedly not Christian, from delighting in degenerate diversions, to sanctioning the murder of children, to supporting homosexual "marriage". Although the heresy began as a Catholic controversy, it is hardly less manifest in American Protestant denominations where far too many are eager to cooperate with the “spirit of the age,” using “freedom of conscience” as an excuse to relax some of their own severity.

Here is what the actual encyclical says:

It is well, then, to particularly direct attention to the opinion which serves as the argument in behalf of this greater liberty sought for and recommended to Catholics.

It is alleged that now the Vatican decree concerning the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff having been proclaimed that nothing further on that score can give any solicitude, and accordingly, since that has been safeguarded and put beyond question a wider and freer field both for thought and action lies open to each one. But such reasoning is evidently faulty, since, if we are to come to any conclusion from the infallible teaching authority of the Church, it should rather be that no one should wish to depart from it, and moreover that the minds of all being leavened and directed thereby, greater security from private error would be enjoyed by all. And further, those who avail themselves of such a way of reasoning seem to depart seriously from the over-ruling wisdom of the Most High-which wisdom, since it was pleased to set forth by most solemn decision the authority and supreme teaching rights of this Apostolic See-willed that decision precisely in order to safeguard the minds of the Church's children from the dangers of these present times.

These dangers, viz., the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church's teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty.

We, indeed, have no thought of rejecting everything that modern industry and study has produced; so far from it that we welcome to the patrimony of truth and to an ever-widening scope of public well-being whatsoever helps toward the progress of learning and virtue. Yet all this, to be of any solid benefit, nay, to have a real existence and growth, can only be on the condition of recognizing the wisdom and authority of the Church.

Coming now to speak of the conclusions which have been deduced from the above opinions, and for them, we readily believe there was no thought of wrong or guile, yet the things themselves certainly merit some degree of suspicion. First, all external guidance is set aside for those souls who are striving after Christian perfection as being superfluous or indeed, not useful in any sense -the contention being that the Holy Spirit pours richer and more abundant graces than formerly upon the souls of the faithful, so that without human intervention He teaches and guides them by some hidden instinct of His own. Yet it is the sign of no small over-confidence to desire to measure and determine the mode of the Divine communication to mankind, since it wholly depends upon His own good pleasure, and He is a most generous dispenser 'of his own gifts. "The Spirit breatheth whereso He listeth." -- John iii, 8.

Lest perhaps you think that the Catholic Church and Leo XIII consider that there is something in the American way of life which is inherently opposed to Catholicism, Leo XIII also wrote in Longinqua in 1895:

Precisely at the epoch when the American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic the ecclesiastical hierarchy was happily established amongst you; and at the very time when the popular suffrage placed the great Washington at the helm of the Republic, the first bishop was set by apostolic authority over the American Church. The well-known friendship and familiar intercourse which subsisted between these two men seems to be an evidence that the United States ought to be conjoined in concord and amity with the Catholic Church.

Expounding on the subsequent development of the American Church, Leo writes,

That your Republic is progressing and developing by giant strides is patent to all; and this holds good in religious matters also. For even as your cities, in the course of one century, have made a marvellous increase in wealth and power, so do we behold the Church, from scant and slender beginnings, grown with rapidity to be great and exceedingly flourishing.

Alex,

That's why I quoted so extensively from the Encyclical itself. The encyclical does not discuss freedom of the secular press; the encyclical does not discuss individualism in a secular sense; the encyclical does not discuss separation of church and state.

Do I think that publications that are dissenting but which purport to be Catholic should be published? No...at least not by so-called Catholic publishing houses.

Do I support "Cafeteria Catholicism" (which is what individualism is, after all)? No.

As for separation of Church and State, that topic is really not discussed in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae. It is discussed in another Leoine encyclical: Immortale Dei. And in that document, he shows no objection to secular governments. In fact, in that document, he says, Therefore, when it is said that the Church is hostile to modern political regimes and that she repudiates the discoveries of modern research, the charge is a ridiculous and groundless calumny.

One thing he does lament is an abandonment of Christian virtues and philosophy in how modern (late 19th C) governments were being run:

27. Now, when the State rests on foundations like those just named -- and for the time being they are greatly in favor -- it readily appears into what and how unrightful a position the Church is driven. For, when the management of public business is in harmony with doctrines of such a kind, the Catholic religion is allowed a standing in civil society equal only, or inferior, to societies alien from it; no regard is paid to the laws of the Church, and she who, by the order and commission of Jesus Christ, has the duty of teaching all nations, finds herself forbidden to take any part in the instruction of the people. With reference to matters that are of twofold jurisdiction, they who administer the civil power lay down the law at their own will, and in matters that appertain to religion defiantly put aside the most sacred decrees of the Church. They claim jurisdiction over the marriages of Catholics, even over the bond as well as the unity and the indissolubility of matrimony. They lay hands on the goods of the clergy, contending that the Church cannot possess property. Lastly, they treat the Church with such arrogance that, rejecting entirely her title to the nature and rights of a perfect society, they hold that she differs in no respect from other societies in the State, and for this reason possesses no right nor any legal power of action, save that which she holds by the concession and favor of the government. If in any State the Church retains her own agreement publicly entered into by the two powers, men forthwith begin to cry out that matters affecting the Church must be separated from those of the State. 28. Their object in uttering this cry is to be able to violate unpunished their plighted faith, and in all things to have unchecked control. And as the Church, unable to abandon her chiefest and most sacred duties, cannot patiently put up with this, and asks that the pledge given to her be fully and scrupulously acted up to, contentions frequently arise between the ecclesiastical and the civil power, of which the issue commonly is that the weaker power yields to the one which is stronger in human resources.

...

... Therefore, when it is said that the Church is hostile to modern political regimes and that she repudiates the discoveries of modern research, the charge is a ridiculous and groundless calumny. Wild opinions she does repudiate, wicked and seditious projects she does condemn, together with that attitude of mind which points to the beginning of a willful departure from God. But, as all truth must necessarily proceed from God, the Church recognizes in all truth that is reached by research a trace of the divine intelligence. And as all truth in the natural order is powerless to destroy belief in the teachings of revelation, but can do much to confirm it, and as every newly discovered truth may serve to further the knowledge or the praise of God, it follows that whatsoever spreads the range of knowledge will always be willingly and even joyfully welcomed by the Church. She will always encourage and promote, as she does in other branches of knowledge, all study occupied with the investigation of nature. In these pursuits, should the human intellect discover anything not known before, the Church makes no opposition. She never objects to search being made for things that minister to the refinements and comforts of life. So far, indeed, from opposing these she is now, as she ever has been, hostile alone to indolence and sloth, and earnestly wishes that the talents of men may bear more and more abundant fruit by cultivation and exercise. Moreover, she gives encouragement to every kind of art and handicraft, and through her influence, directing all strivings after progress toward virtue and salvation, she labors to prevent man's intellect and industry from turning him away from God and from heavenly things.

40. All this, though so reasonable and full of counsel, finds little favor nowadays when States not only refuse to conform to the rules of Christian wisdom, but seem even anxious to recede from them further and further on each successive day. Nevertheless, since truth when brought to light is wont, of its own nature, to spread itself far and wide, and gradually take possession of the minds of men, We, moved by the great and holy duty of Our apostolic mission to all nations, speak, as We are bound to do, with freedom. Our eyes are not closed to the spirit of the times. We repudiate not the assured and useful improvements of our age, but devoutly wish affairs of State to take a safer course than they are now taking, and to rest on a more firm foundation without injury to the true freedom of the people; for the best parent and guardian of liberty amongst men is truth. "The truth shall make you free."[25]

So do I support separation of Church and State? Sort of, but not all the way: While I don't think that men in chasubles should be running the government, I think that we are making a grave mistake disregarding Christian values in our lawmaking. And I think, along with Leo XIII, that the banishment of God from the public square is a move that will end up in our destruction.

No, as a matter of fact, he was stone-dead wrong - as is any politician wrested away from what he figures is "his rightful power".

In fact, it can be readily defended that the "Enlightenment" was a direct result and action against the failed model of Roman Catholic excesses tied to European Feudalism.

Herein begins the intellectually draped hissy fit:

But such reasoning is evidently faulty, since, if we are to come to any conclusion from the infallible teaching authority of the Church, it should rather be that no one should wish to depart from it, and moreover that the minds of all being leavened and directed thereby, greater security from private error would be enjoyed by all.

To wit: "All of this new stuff would be fine, providing WE (that would be an imperial "we"), were permitted to assume our rightful place of governance above it all"

NOTHING could be further from the truth. Indeed, the largely Protestant values with which we were blessed at the beginnings of this great nation, were an undeniable reaction to the precise impetus caused by the very fallible and wrong minded authority of the Roman Church, with nigh on an aeon of proofs against her, and more immediately, those same excesses being lately imitated within the governing structures of Protestant nations.

In fact, it can be readily defended that the "Enlightenment" was a direct result and action against the failed model of Roman Catholic excesses tied to European Feudalism.

You and I will likely have to disagree on this subject. I would, frankly, submit that what we see to this day is the direct result of the "enlightenment" (which was a direct result of the "reformation"). I will concede that we are better off now measured on a technological basis. But I cannot fathom that anybody could objectively look and claim that the world, particularly the developed west, is better off on a spiritual basis than we were prior to the so-called "enlightenment."

You do realize that Leo XIII was the pope who made the strongest and most impassioned pleas against both socialism and liberalism, right? And you do understand the historical context within which he wrote, right? In opposing Leo XIII do you support liberalism? Do you support socialism? Does your hatred for the Catholic Church make you that blind?

Herein begins the intellectually draped hissy fit:

But such reasoning is evidently faulty, since, if we are to come to any conclusion from the infallible teaching authority of the Church, it should rather be that no one should wish to depart from it, and moreover that the minds of all being leavened and directed thereby, greater security from private error would be enjoyed by all.

To wit: "All of this new stuff would be fine, providing WE (that would be an imperial "we"), were permitted to assume our rightful place of governance above it all"

Uh, no. That is an extraordinarily tortured conclusion that, frankly, I don't comprehend how a reasonable individual could reach.

Herein is where the rant begins in actuality:

It is well, then, to particularly direct attention to the opinion which serves as the argument in behalf of this greater liberty sought for and recommended to Catholics.

It is alleged that now the Vatican decree concerning the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff having been proclaimed that nothing further on that score can give any solicitude, and accordingly, since that has been safeguarded and put beyond question a wider and freer field both for thought and action lies open to each one. But such reasoning is evidently faulty, since, if we are to come to any conclusion from the infallible teaching authority of the Church, it should rather be that no one should wish to depart from it, and moreover that the minds of all being leavened and directed thereby, greater security from private error would be enjoyed by all.

So in other words, he was stressing that the obedience of Catholics to the doctrine of papal infallibility would protect the Catholic faithful from straying into private error (in matters of doctrine). There is no reference whatsoever to the relationship of the Church to the State in this, as you allege.

Now, as to your post #15, you cite a reference from a document written to the Church as a whole, Immortale Dei, as if it was written to the American Church alone. It was not. I suggest you re-read the context and keep in mind many of the anti-clerical revolutions that had occurred in France, Italy, Portugal, Mexico, and elsewhere.

And bear in mind that Leo XIII had written scathing criticisms of both liberalism and socialism, including his seminal document, Quod Apostolici Muneris (On Socialism). Just a little sample to counter your ludicrous statement that Leo XIII somehow was an advocate of "the pernicious infection of European socialism"

You understand, venerable brethren, that We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning -- the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever.
Surely these are they (the socialists) who, as the sacred Scriptures testify, "Defile the flesh, despise dominion and blaspheme majesty."[2] They leave nothing untouched or whole which by both human and divine laws has been wisely decreed for the health and beauty of life. They (the socialists) refuse obedience to the higher powers, to whom, according to the admonition of the Apostle, every soul ought to be subject, and who derive the right of governing from God; and they proclaim the absolute equality of all men in rights and duties. They (the socialists) debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, by which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken, or even deliver up to lust. Lured, in fine, by the greed of present goods, which is "the root of all evils which some coveting have erred from the faith,"[3] they (the socialists) assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in one's mode of life. These are the startling theories they (the socialists) utter in their meetings, set forth in their pamphlets, and scatter abroad in a cloud of journals and tracts. Wherefore, the revered majesty and power of kings has won such fierce hatred from their seditious people that disloyal traitors, impatient of all restraint, have more than once within a short period raised their (the socialists') arms in impious attempt against the lives of their own sovereigns.
2. But the boldness of these bad men (the socialists), which day by day more and more threatens civil society with destruction, and strikes the souls of all with anxiety and fear, finds its cause and origin in those poisonous doctrines which, spread abroad in former times among the people, like evil seed bore in due time such fatal fruit. For you know, venerable brethren, that that most deadly war which from the sixteenth century down has been waged by innovators against the Catholic faith, and which has grown in intensity up to today, had for its object to subvert all revelation, and overthrow the supernatural order, that thus the way might be opened for the discoveries, or rather the hallucinations, of reason alone. This kind of error, which falsely usurps to itself the name of reason, as it lures and whets the natural appetite that is in man of excelling, and gives loose rein to unlawful desires of every kind, has easily penetrated not only the minds of a great multitude of men but to a wide extent civil society, also. Hence, by a new species of impiety, unheard of even among the heathen nations, states have been constituted without any count at all of God or of the order established by him; it has been given out that public authority neither derives its principles, nor its majesty, nor its power of governing from God, but rather from the multitude, which, thinking itself absolved from all divine sanction, bows only to such laws as it shall have made at its own will. The supernatural truths of faith having been assailed and cast out as though hostile to reason, the very Author and Redeemer of the human race has been slowly and little by little banished from the universities, the Iyceums and gymnasia -- in a word, from every public institution. In fine, the rewards and punishments of a future and eternal life having been handed over to oblivion, the ardent desire of happiness has been limited to the bounds of the present. Such doctrines as these having been scattered far and wide, so great a license of thought and action having sprung up on all sides, it is no matter for surprise that men of the lowest class, weary of their wretched home or workshop, are eager to attack the homes and fortunes of the rich; it is no matter for surprise that already there exists no sense of security either in public or private life, and that the human race should have advanced to the very verge of final dissolution.

(It gets better later on in the encyclical) Can you really say that the above is written by somebody who is an advocate of socialism? Really?

What you suggest is true in one part - It is a pity that one cannot discern the difference between that part and it's counterpart:

I would submit, for the purpose of defining "enlightenment," that it's culmination resulted in two doctrines being held up to the world at large: One, "The Declaration of Independence of The United States of America", and the other, nearly in the same breath of time, "The Declaration of the Rights of Man" which followed on the end of the French Revolution.

I would accept broadly the idea that both of these left the Roman church out of her accustomed place (and rightly so), which is probably the source of RC ire, but only the "Declaration of the Rights of Man" sought to bring down God, religion in general, and sovereignty in general.

The American standard did none of these things, and is the natural antithesis to both the French/European standard, and the proven malfeasance of the Roman church and the presumed authority imposed upon all men within her reach... And as duplicated in large part by Protestant nations, albeit without such ancient credentials in these practices.

It is the American standard which is the proper form, assuming the consent of the governed, and the duty to rise up against tyrannical rulers of any stripe. Yet she is lumped in with the genesis of socialism/communism every time enlightenment is discussed.

I will concede that we are better off now measured on a technological basis. [...]

I would not concede that point, nor endorse it. I find technology to be largely unhelpful, compared to what I would consider the template. that being the agrarian model... That which, while perfected in the United States (IMO), has it's roots in all of history. Civility/civilization is fine and a gift of God - Sophistry is the tool of a banal mind. Too often, technology has enabled sophistry more than civility.

[...] But I cannot fathom that anybody could objectively look and claim that the world, particularly the developed west, is better off on a spiritual basis than we were prior to the so-called "enlightenment."

We are certainly *not* better off spiritually than we were, but that is in large part due, again, to the infection of our normal government and culture by the non-native doctrine of socialism (the French/European sense of "enlightenment," which you would be right to disparage).

But I would find it likewise unfathomable to return to the crushing weight of the Roman church, which for fifteen hundred years (alright, 1260 yrs really), used her power and assumed authority to slaughter and torture millions in the European crusades and inquisitions, threatening death and worse to those who did not bow to the Nicaean creed.

Christ never meant for people to be won to Him in such an incorrigible, unconscionable manner. And it is *not* the true Church, which would stoop to such means - not only for a moment or two in some mistaken tryst with evil, but indeed, for nearly it's entire lifetime. Those who would return to that are either ignorant of the times, or approve of that means. Which is worse, I cannot determine.

"You will know them by their fruits."

Sure. But Rome often speaks out of both sides of her mouth.

In opposing Leo XIII do you support liberalism?

That depends. Classic liberalism is quite akin to what we know today as Conservatism. Both Conservatism and Civil-Libertarianism find a great part of their roots in classic liberalism. At the time, his words could just as easily be pointed at either.

Do you support socialism?

Of course not.

Does your hatred for the Catholic Church make you that blind?

It seems that personal affront has replaced conversation. But, while the temptation is great, I will not venture forward to reply in kind. May the Father bless you with patience, and a thirst for truth.

However, to the degree that your statement is true, I will remain particularly in opposition to the Roman church, as is my duty, not only to God, but as an American citizen.

More to come later - this post would be over-long, and over-late, were I to continue unabridged. But the thoughts I have laid out until now are needful of consideration before continuing.

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.