“”I do not believe the Roman Catholic Church has a problem with the U.S. Constitution. JMHO, FWIW. At least not from the standpoint of Christian orthodoxy issuing from Rome.”””
Actually,dear sister,the Church does have some problems with the constitution because of it’s too open ended and speaks of freedom and liberty with defining liberty and freedom in a complete Christian sense.
There are certain things in the constitution that have an outward Catholic shell which is ingrained in america’s founding fathers whether they realized it or not because even the forerunners of the reformation did not lose all Catholic tradition because it’s impassible to be a Christian and shed many of Catholic teaching.
Unfortunately, there was an inward rot that came from the enlightenment and the reformation that also had influence in the constitution that is rearing it’s ugly head of pragmatism and pluralism that lead to immorality being accepted as freedom and liberty
There are some good things in the constitution and there are some bad things which can be dangerous to a Christian as well
Pope Leo XIII wrote the following Encyclical on Americanism because he rightfully and correctly saw the dangers of this system
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L13TESTE.HTM
Here are some excerpts
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. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind. The Vatican Council says concerning this point: “For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.” —Constitutio de Fide Catholica, Chapter iv.
We cannot consider as altogether blameless the silence which purposely leads to the omission or neglect of some of the principles of Christian doctrine, for all the principles come from the same Author and Master, “the Only Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father.”—John i, 18. They are adapted to all times and all nations, as is clearly seen from the words of our Lord to His apostles: “Going, therefore, teach all nations; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and behold, I am with you all days, even to the end of the world.”—Matt. xxviii, 19. Concerning this point the Vatican Council says: “All those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.”—Const. de fide, Chapter iii.
Let it be far from anyone’s mind to suppress for any reason any doctrine that has been handed down. Such a policy would tend rather to separate Catholics from the Church than to bring in those who differ. There is nothing closer to our heart than to have those who are separated from the fold of Christ return to it, but in no other way than the way pointed out by Christ.
The rule of life laid down for Catholics is not of such a nature that it cannot accommodate itself to the exigencies of various times and places. (VOL. XXIV-13.) The Church has, guided by her Divine Master, a kind and merciful spirit, for which reason from the very beginning she has been what St. Paul said of himself: “I became all things to all men that I might save all.”
History proves clearly that the Apostolic See, to which has been entrusted the mission not only of teaching but of governing the whole Church, has continued “in one and the same doctrine, one and the same sense, and one and the same judgment,”—Const. de fide, Chapter iv.
But in regard to ways of living she has been accustomed to so yield that, the divine principle of morals being kept intact, she has never neglected to accommodate herself to the character and genius of the nations which she embraces.
Who can doubt that she will act in this same spirit again if the salvation of souls requires it? In this matter the Church must be the judge, not private men who are often deceived by the appearance of right. In this, all who wish to escape the blame of our predecessor, Pius the Sixth, must concur. He condemned as injurious to the Church and the spirit of God who guides her the doctrine contained in proposition lxxviii of the Synod of Pistoia, “that the discipline made and approved by the Church should be submitted to examination, as if the Church could frame a code of laws useless or heavier than human liberty can bear.”
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.
In the apostolic letters concerning the constitution of states, addressed by us to the bishops of the whole Church, we discussed this point at length; and there set forth the difference existing between the Church, which is a divine society, and all other social human organizations which depend simply on free will and choice of men.
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’s impassible= it’s impossible
... the Church does have some problems with the constitution because of it’s too open ended and speaks of freedom and liberty with defining liberty and freedom in a complete Christian sense.... There are certain things in the constitution that have an outward Catholic shell which is ingrained in america’s founding fathers whether they realized it or not because even the forerunners of the reformation did not lose all Catholic tradition because it’s impassible to be a Christian and shed many of Catholic teaching.Thank you for this insight. But what does this have to do with the U.S. Constitution?
Thank you for the magnificent meditation from Pope Leo XVIII — a world-class thinker in addition to his central importance as fearless defender of the Magisterium, a man of peerless impeccability in the transmission of the Holy Faith, a man deeply imbued in Truth in and by the Spirit of our Lord.
But Pope Leo didn't have a single word to say about the U.S. Constitution in these passages. Nor arguably, about anything having to do with specifically American culture....
Most Americans who know American history — Catholic or otherwise — know that the Constitution is not a prescription for how a man should live — in stark contradistinction to the moral law conveyed by the Magisterium of the Church.
The Constitution does not in any way establish the rights and duties of citizens. Rather, its sole purpose is to establish limits on the State, such that it cannot invade, violate, or abridge the God-given rights and duties of human individuals. The idea here is that it is not the State — the government, that is, at whatever level — that establishes what the revolutionary French (and later Karl Marx) declared to be "the rights of man." (We all know how that turned out.) Rather, the so-called "rights of man" are natural, innate liberties, preceding any form of government — because they are imbued in man by his Creator. That being so, no human institution can touch them. These unalienable rights are three in number: Life, Liberty, and the "pursuit of happiness" (e.g., private property sufficient to set a man free from basic want, so to pursue the "higher ends" of life in this world, presumably with a view to his life beyond it. At least I believe that is how the Framers of the Constitution looked at the problem.).
So since the Constitution is a negative constraint on overweening state power, and since it does not in any way suggest how an individual person ought to conduct his life, why blame the Constitution for the current moral degradation of modern American society? Pope Leo doesn't do that, in the admonition you quote, dear brother in Christ. Rather it seems to me, he is admonishing his bishops and the churches for their "compromise" with the Spirit of the Age, so to restock the church pews....
It is not a government's job to make people moral. That is the job of the churches. If the churches are failing in that duty, then we are stuck with a very ancient problem, IIRC first articulated by Plato: Any human society is only as good as the "human capital" (not his word) that composes it. If the people are disordered, then the State will be disordered. No positive law enacted by the State can cure that condition, nor make a society "good" in the absence of "good" people. Though an overweening State will always find a pretext to sell its plan to do just that. And any State is as it were "naturally" disposed to love Power more than Truth.
Which eternally threatens God-given human liberty, and even reason itself. God demands the essential condition of liberty for men, that they may freely choose Him. Or not as the case may be. No legitimate State can interfere with, constrain, or abridge this essential God–man relation, this ultimate choice that men make in their lives — a/k/a the right of exercise of free conscience.
Certainly I agree with you, dear stfassisi, that the American moral order has become quite degraded by now; and the "fruits" of the Enlightenment as they are now understood "by your average American" are probably partially to blame.
By that I mean the Enlightenment established the so-called "scientific method" as the sine qua non of human rationality. The only problem with the scientific method, it seems to me, is that it deals almost exclusively with direct observables. And yet, the things that are most important, most valuable, to humankind do not involve direct observables at all. Arguably, all such pertain to "unseen things"....
Today's verdict in the Casey Anthony trial illustrates the point I'm trying to make. I was quite surprised that Ms. Anthony had been exonerated by this jury of any category of homicide. Which I found puzzling; because IIRC, Judge Belvin Perry gave highly detailed jury instructions regarding the homicide charge: How the jury "justly" could find for first-degree murder "beyond a reasonable doubt"; or second-degree murder; or aggravated homicide involving a child, and one other I now forget. Judge "beautiful wine" further instructed the jury to find the "highest" offense proved by the State to either convict Ms. Anthony, or set her free.
My big surprise was not that, on the first count, the jury absolved Ms. Anthony of first-degree murder. What amazed me was their entire silence on the other three first-count potential charges. Didn't Judge Belvin Perry's jury instructrions require them to speak to these other potential charges? P-Marlowe, trusted counselor, what did I miss?
Anyhoot, the jury has spoken. Now I wonder what justice was served today — for either Casey Anthony, or for her dead child, Caylee — who assuredly did not murder herself?
But then again, reflecting on the poisonous state of American moral understanding these days, with a public that tolerates the wanton murder of a million American pre-borns a year, maybe what this case finally tells us is that the worth and natural rights of a pre-born child are not only null and void under American "jurisprudence"; but also that our society will not protect the the rights and life of an already-born child somewhere between the age of two and three....
Along this course of reasoning, it's not difficult to imagine that the unalienable right to life of any person of any age could be annulled by a contemporary American jury, if their "reasonable doubt" is sufficiently well-invoked. A most sickening thought....
What this case boiled down to was contending "expert evidence" that an uninformed and mildly educated jury was put into the position of having to evaluate. Reliable sources describe this jury — imported from Pinellas County — as "low-to-moderate" wage earners, mainly high school graduates, although one jury member didn't complete high school, and one other had a masters degree. My guess is these these jurors were so daunted by the expert evidence that there was absolutely no way they could have had anything but a "reasonable doubt" pertaining to it.
Which isn't to say that juries are stupid. It's just to say that the so-called "scientific method" has become such an idol in these days, that this jury ritually bowed their knee to it, suppressing absolutely everything they know from their own life experience and simple common sense.
My dear brother in Christ, this is not a "government problem." This is a cultural problem, finally a citizen problem.
Don't blame the U.S. Constitution for failings of the human spirit. Don't blame the courts for the peoples' ignorance.
If such exist, to me is seems the blame falls squarely on the institutions who are appointed by God to deal with issues of the human spirit and its Truth.
Thank you so very much for writing, my dear brother in Christ! I'm sorry my reply is so belated....