Skip to comments.American Catholicismís Pact With the Devil
Posted on 02/13/2012 11:48:10 AM PST by Petrosius
You have to hand it to Barack Obama. He has unmasked in the most thoroughgoing way the despotic propensities of the administrative entitlements state and of the Democratic Party. And now he has done something similar to the hierarchy of the American Catholic Church. At the prospect that institutions associated with the Catholic Church would be required to offer to their employees health insurance covering contraception and abortifacients, the bishops, priests, and nuns scream bloody murder. But they raise no objection at all to the fact that Catholic employers and corporations, large and small, owned wholly or partially by Roman Catholics will be required to do the same. The freedom of the church as an institution to distance itself from that which its doctrines decry as morally wrong is considered sacrosanct. The liberty of its members not to mention the liberty belonging to the adherents of other Christian sects, to Jews, Muslims, and non-believers to do the same they are perfectly willing to sacrifice.
This inattention to the liberties of others is doubly scandalous (and I use this poignant term in full knowledge of its meaning within the Catholic tradition) for there was a time when the Catholic hierarchy knew better. There was a time when Roman Catholicism was the great defender not only of its own liberty but of that of others. There was a time when the prelates recognized that the liberty of the church to govern itself in light of its guiding principles was inseparable from the liberty of other corporate bodies and institutions to do the same.
I do not mean to say that the Roman Catholic Church was in the more distant past a staunch defender of religious liberty. That it was not. Within its sphere, the Church demanded full authority. It is only in recent years that Rome has come to be fully appreciative of the larger principle.
I mean that, in the course of defending its autonomy against the secular power, the Roman Catholic Church asserted the liberty of other corporate bodies and even, in some measure, the liberty of individuals. To see what I have in mind one need only examine Magna Carta, which begins with King Johns pledge that
the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever.
Only after making this promise, does the King go on to say, We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever. It is in this context that he affirms that no scutage nor aid shall be imposed on our kingdom, unless by common counsel of our kingdom, except for ransoming our person, for making our eldest son a knight, and for once marrying our eldest daughter; and for these there shall not be levied more than a reasonable aid. It is in this context that he pledges that the city of London shall have all it ancient liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water; furthermore, we decree and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs. It is in this document that he promises that no freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land and that to no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.
One will not find such a document in eastern Christendom or in the sphere where Sunni Islam is prevalent. It is peculiar to Western Christendom and it was made possible by the fact that, Christian West, church and state were not co-extensive and none of the various secular powers was able to exert its authority over the church. There was within each political community in the Christian West an imperium in imperio a power independent of the state that had no desire to replace the state but was fiercely resistant to its own subordination and aware that it could not hope to retain its traditional liberties if it did not lend a hand in defending the traditional liberties of others.
I am not arguing that the Church fostered limited government in the Middle Ages and in the early modern period. In principle, the government that it fostered was unlimited in its scope. I am arguing, however, that the Church worked assiduously to hem in the authority of the Christian kings and that its success in this endeavor provided the foundation for the emergence of a parliamentary order. Indeed, I would go further. It was the Church that promoted the principles underpinning the emergence of parliaments. It did so by fostering the species of government that had emerged within the church itself. Given that the Church in the West made clerical celibacy one of its principal practices (whether it was honored in the breach or not), the hereditary principle could play no role in its governance. Inevitably, it resorted to elections. Monks elected abbots, the canons of cathedrals elected bishops, the college of cardinals elected the Pope.
The principle articulated in canon law the only law common to all of Western Europe to explain why these practices were proper was lifted from the Roman law dealing with the governance of waterways: Quod omnes tangit, it read, ab omnibus tractari debeat: That which touches all should be dealt with by all. In pagan antiquity, this meant that those upstream could not take all of the water and that those downstream had a say in its allocation. It was this principle that the clergymen who served as royal administrators insinuated into the laws of the kingdoms and petty republics of Europe. It was used to justify communal self-government. It was used to justify the calling of parliaments. And it was used to justify the provisions for self-governance contained within the corporate charters issued to cities, boroughs, and, in time, colonies. On the eve of the American Revolution, you will find it cited by John Dickinson in The Letters of a Pennsylvania Farmer.
The quod omnes tangit principle was not the foundation of modern liberty, but it was its antecedent. And had there been no such antecedent, had kings not been hemmed in by the Church and its allies in this fashion, I very much doubt that there ever would have been a regime of limited government. In fact, had there not been a distinction both in theory and in fact between the secular and the spiritual authority, limited government would have been inconceivable.
The Reformation weakened the Church. In Protestant lands, it tended to strengthen the secular power and to promote a monarchical absolutism unknown to the Middle Ages. Lutheranism and Anglicanism were, in effect, Caesaro-Papist. In Catholic lands, it caused the spiritual power to shelter itself behind the secular power and become, in many cases, an appendage of that power. But the Reformation and the religious strife to which it gave rise also posed to the secular power an almost insuperable problem how to secure peace and domestic tranquility in a world marked by sectarian competition. Limited government i. e., a government limited in its scope was the solution ultimately found, and John Locke was its proponent.
In the nascent American republic, this principle was codified in its purest form in the First Amendment to the Constitution. But it had additional ramifications as well for the governments scope was limited also in other ways. There were other amendments that made up what we now call the Bill of Rights, and many of the states prefaced their constitutions with bills of rights or added them as appendices. These were all intended to limit the scope of the government. They were all designed to protect the right of individuals to life, liberty, the acquisition and possession of property, and the pursuit of happiness as these individuals understood happiness. Put simply, liberty of conscience was part of a larger package.
This is what the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church forgot. In the 1930s, the majority of the bishops, priests, and nuns sold their souls to the devil, and they did so with the best of intentions. In their concern for the suffering of those out of work and destitute, they wholeheartedly embraced the New Deal. They gloried in the fact that Franklin Delano Roosevelt made Frances Perkins a devout Anglo-Catholic laywoman who belonged to the Episcopalian Church but retreated on occasion to a Catholic convent Secretary of Labor and the first member of her sex to be awarded a cabinet post. And they welcomed Social Security which was her handiwork. They did not stop to ponder whether public provision in this regard would subvert the moral principle that children are responsible for the well-being of their parents. They did not stop to consider whether this measure would reduce the incentives for procreation and nourish the temptation to think of sexual intercourse as an indoor sport. They did not stop to think.
In the process, the leaders of the American Catholic Church fell prey to a conceit that had long before ensnared a great many mainstream Protestants in the United States the notion that public provision is somehow akin to charity and so they fostered state paternalism and undermined what they professed to teach: that charity is an individual responsibility and that it is appropriate that the laity join together under the leadership of the Church to alleviate the suffering of the poor. In its place, they helped establish the Machiavellian principle that underpins modern liberalism the notion that it is our Christian duty to confiscate other peoples money and redistribute it.
At every turn in American politics since that time, you will find the hierarchy assisting the Democratic Party and promoting the growth of the administrative entitlements state. At no point have its members evidenced any concern for sustaining limited government and protecting the rights of individuals. It did not cross the minds of these prelates that the liberty of conscience which they had grown to cherish is part of a larger package that the paternalistic state, which recognizes no legitimate limits on its power and scope, that they had embraced would someday turn on the Church and seek to dictate whom it chose to teach its doctrines and how, more generally, it would conduct its affairs.
I would submit that the bishops, nuns, and priests now screaming bloody murder have gotten what they asked for. The weapon that Barack Obama has directed at the Church was fashioned to a considerable degree by Catholic churchmen. They welcomed Obamacare. They encouraged Senators and Congressmen who professed to be Catholics to vote for it.
I do not mean to say that I would prefer that the bishops, nuns, and priests sit down and shut up. Barack Obama has once again done the friends of liberty a favor by forcing the friends of the administrative entitlements state to contemplate what they have wrought. Whether those brought up on the heresy that public provision is akin to charity will prove capable of thinking through what they have done remains unclear. But there is now a chance that this will take place, and there was a time long ago, to be sure, but for an institution with the longevity possessed by the Catholic Church long ago was just yesterday when the Church played an honorable role in hemming in the authority of magistrates and in promoting not only its own liberty as an institution but that of others similarly intent on managing their own affairs as individuals and as members of subpolitical communities.
In my lifetime, to my increasing regret, the Roman Catholic Church in the United States has lost much of its moral authority. It has done so largely because it has subordinated its teaching of Catholic moral doctrine to its ambitions regarding an expansion of the administrative entitlements state. In 1973, when the Supreme Court made its decision in Roe v. Wade, had the bishops, priests, and nuns screamed bloody murder and declared war, as they have recently done, the decision would have been reversed. Instead, under the leadership of Joseph Bernadin, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago, they asserted that the social teaching of the Church was a seamless garment, and they treated abortion as one concern among many. Here is what Cardinal Bernadin said in the Gannon Lecture at Fordham University that he delivered in 1983:
Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.
Consistency means that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.
This statement, which came to be taken as authoritative throughout the American Church, proved, as Joseph Sobran observed seven years ago, to be nothing but a loophole for hypocritical Catholic politicians. If anything, he added, "it has actually made it easier for them than for non-Catholics to give their effective support to legalized abortion that is, it has allowed them to be inconsistent and unprincipled about the very issues that Cardinal Bernardin said demand consistency and principle. In practice, this meant that, insofar as anyone pressed the case against Roe v. Wade, it was the laity.
I was reared a Catholic, wandered out of the Church, and stumbled back in more than thirteen years ago. I have been a regular attendee at mass since that time. I travel a great deal and frequently find myself in a diocese not my own. In these years, I have heard sermons articulating the case against abortion thrice once in Louisiana at a mass said by the retired Archbishop there; once at the cathedral in Tulsa, Oklahoma; and two weeks ago in our parish in Hillsdale, Michigan. The truth is that the priests in the United States are far more likely to push the social justice agenda of the Church from the pulpit than to instruct the faithful in the evils of abortion.
And there is more. I have not once in those years heard the argument against contraception articulated from the pulpit, and I have not once heard the argument for chastity articulated. In the face of the sexual revolution, the bishops priests, and nuns of the American Church have by and large fallen silent. In effect, they have abandoned the moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in order to articulate a defense of the administrative entitlements state and its progressive expansion.
There is another dimension to the failure of the American Church in the face of the sexual revolution. As, by now, everyone knows, in the 1980s, when Cardinal Bernadin was the chief leader of the American Church and the man most closely consulted when the Vatican selected its bishops, it became evident to the American prelates that they had a problem that, in many a diocese, there were priests of a homoerotic orientation who were sexual predators pederasts inclined to take advantage of young boys. They could have faced up to the problem at that time; they could have turned in the malefactors to the secular authorities; they could have prevented their further contact with the young. Instead, almost certainly at the instigation of Cardinal Bernadin, they opted for another policy. They hushed everything up, sent the priests off for psychological counseling, and reassigned them to other parishes or even dioceses where they continued to prey on young boys. In the same period, a number of the seminaries in which young men were trained for the priesthood became, in effect, brothels and nothing was done about any of this until the newspapers broke the story and the lawsuits began.
There is, I would suggest, a connection between the heretical doctrine propagated by Cardinal Bernadin in the Gannon Lecture and the difficulties that the American Church now faces. Those who seek to create heaven on earth and who, to this end, subvert the liberty of others and embrace the administrative entitlements state will sooner or later become its victims.
Earlier today, Barack Obama offered the hierarchy a compromise. Under its terms, insurance companies offering healthcare coverage will be required to provide contraception and abortifacients, but this will not be mentioned in the contracts signed by those who run Catholic institutions. This compromise is, of course, a farce. It embodies a distinction where there is, in fact, no difference. It is a snare and a delusion, and I am confident that the Catholic Left, which is still dominant within the Church, will embrace it for it would allow the bishops, priests, and nuns to save face while, in fact, paying for the contraception and abortifacients that the insurance companies will be required to provide. As if on cue, Sister Carol Keehan, a prominent Obamacare supporter who heads the Catholic Health Association, immediately issued a statement in which she announced that she is pleased and grateful that the religious liberty and conscience protection needs of so many ministries that serve our country were appreciated enough that an early resolution of this issue was accomplished.
Perhaps, however, Barack Obama has shaken some members of the hierarchy from their dogmatic slumber. Perhaps, a few of them or among younger priests some of their likely successors have begun to recognize the logic inherent in the development of the administrative entitlements state. The proponents of Obamacare, with some consistency, pointed to Canada and to France as models. As anyone who has attended mass in Montreal or Paris can testify, the Church in both of these places is filled with empty pews. There is, in fact, not a single country in the social democratic sphere where either the Catholic Church or a Protestant Church is anything but moribund. This is by no means fortuitous. When entitlements stand in for charity and the Social Gospel is preached in place of the Word of God, heaven on earth becomes the end, and Christianity goes by the boards.
It took a terrible scandal and a host of lawsuits to get the American Church to rid itself of the pederast priests and clean up its seminaries. Perhaps the tyrannical ambitions of Barack Obama will occasion a rethinking of the social-justice agenda. The ball is now in the court of Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, who has welcomed the President's gesture without indicating whether it is adequate. Upon reflection, he can accept the fig leaf that President Obama has offered him. Or he can put Sister Keehan and her supporters in their place and fight. If he wants to regain an iota of the moral authority that the Church possessed before 1973, he will do the latter. The hour is late. Next time, the masters of the administrative entitlements state wont even bother to offer the hierarchy a fig leaf. They know servility when they see it.
UPDATE: Friday night, shortly after I posted this piece, as Anne Coletta pointed out in Comment 5 below, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a carefully worded statement critical of the fig leaf President Obama offered them. In the meantime, the Rev. John Jenkins, President of the University of Notre Dame, applauded "the willingness of the administration to work with religious organizations to find a solution acceptable to all parties."
Thank you for this post—I’ve tried to access it from the link and cannot.
Wonder if someone’s trying to block this....hmmmmm.
I never thought that you would be bamboozled into the old media trick of shifting blame, but oh how you have! So, its the Catholic Churchs fault that the Obama administration is compelling forced abortion/concentration on the nation? Thats rich!
Have many U.S. bishops fallen prey to liberalism in the last 50 or so years? Unfortunately, they have, as have too many Americans. Yet to posit that the Church is in bed with the modern Democrat party is a joke. The Church is the only worldwide entity that stands athwart their main pillars: abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia.
By the way, the Churchs main goal is not, as you have claimed, charity. It is the saving of souls...you can look it up.
As far as Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, etc., it is also the job of the Church to call sinners back to the Faith, not to drive them away. Do I wish the aforementioned politicians were publicly excommunicated? Sure, but according to Canon Law, they have already incurred what is called latae sententiae excommunicatio, which is the same sentence, but self-imposed. It doesnt matter where they sit in Church or even at a Papal audience; their reception of the Sacraments is illicit and can only lead them into further sin.
The author of the piece you are reading should try and find a devout Catholic parish if he wishes to hear the Faith taught in the proper way; there are many, many in this country; even right here in the liberal Northeast. Unfortunately, it doesnt seem he has tried too hard.
Rush, the new leadership of the USCCB is very much anti-socialist, as has been the Universal Church worldwide. Before you read out an indictment against a fading breed of 1960s American bishops as representative of the Church, do some research please!
There are very many conservative Catholics in this country: just look to the SCOTUS or to the many recent converts to the faith among the conservative punditry or to two of the four remaining presidential candidates.
Please, dont fall prey to the liberal media tactic of blaming the victims. The Church, going forward, may indeed lose many, many members who wear their Catholicism like a piece of clothing to be changed and discarded at a whim, but those of the true Faith will continue to uphold and defend it, come what may.
Great article. Thanks for posting
Then explain this:
If you take the time to read the WHOLE statement you will notice how very much it sounds like a socialist manifesto.
bump for later
They had to find some way to get the employees on ObamaCare without these dumb people catching on.
What better way?
Another thing... whole incident changed the national conversation for one or two days from economy/jobs to healthcare for the religious.
NOW, the Dems are trotting out vacuous Jackie Kennedy's papers ... like anyone cares about her anymore except the moonbats of Massachusetts.
(posted May 12, 2009!!!)
I have a question. When the Catholic Church and Archbishop Dolan had their original negotiations with the dems and then supported obamacare, did they ONLY negotiate for themselves to the exclusion of all the rest of us who vehemently disagree with ALL of it?
And now it’s only Catholics who they think were betrayed? Didn’t they recognize the devil when they agreed to cover the Crucifix for obama to speak at Notre Dame?
All modern popes have condemned socialism (as well as capitalism without conscience).
Pope Benedict has written:
The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person - every person - needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live by bread alone (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) - a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human. (Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, December 25, 2005, n. 28)
It is such positions that caused Kicanas NOT to be elected head of the USCCB. As vice chairman, he was in line to be given the chairman seat. However, for the first time in many years, if at all, his position was not elevated. Dolan was made Chairman. The USCCB finally is in the hands of traditional Catholic Bishops such as Dolan of NY and Chaput of Philadelphia and quite a few others. Hopefully, it will stay in their control and continue moving back to supporting traditional Catholic positions.
He is my bishop and I can’t stand him. He is right out of the Bernadin school of thought. last year I stood up in church and asked him wha the hospitals would do if they forced abortions on the catholic churches and he was mealy mouth and gave me a non-answer. Thank God Dolan was elected head of the USCCB and not him, talk about the right man at the right time. Catholics in Tucson do not like our bishop. We spend a lot of Sunday masses praying the “Migrant Prayer”. His just releasing his statement this Sunday at our Masses tells you how wishy washy he is.
Not quite as wordy but the same point.
Rush cited this article on his show today. Good job Rush!
We need to make a distinction between the Catholic Church and the individual bishops who hold office from time to time. What the author is positing — and I support him — is that for the past 50 years the Catholic bishops in the U.S. have departed from true Catholic teaching to find a quick fix in Democrat politics. The body of the bishops, however, has a constantly changing membership. Today’s bishops are a different body than those of years past. It is to be hoped that today’s bishops wake up and reject the accommodation of their recent predecessors and return to the strong and vocal body that is their historical character.
I am a staunch Catholic and a defender of my faith. But there is so much I agree with in this article. I love my Church, and I believe it is the one true Church. But the Church is made up of mortal people who are corrupt. The Church as was founded by Jesus Christ is a strong entity that has survived centuries of many heresies, trials and tribulations. But the people who make up the Church are corrupting it. I have been very distressed how only one month a year is put aside for the murder of babies. Calendars are sold, bumper stickers are handed out. And look where it’s gotten us today. Abortion is so ingrained in our culture, that even Rush Limbaugh continues to use the term “pro-choice” on his radio show. Babies are still being slaughtered by the millions 39 years after the Roe v Wade ruling. Catholic politicians openly flaunt their debauchery by going to Holy Communion and the Church says nothing.
My husband used to run a crisis pregnancy clinic next door to a notorious abortion clinic. We had problems getting volunteers to work at the clinic. Access Pregnancy, which is the official pro-life clinic of the Archdiocese (supposedly) was only a few blocks away. We asked if we could send some of the women who we could talk away from the abortion clinic to them for counselling because we were short-handed. They said no. Our clinic, because of its proximity to the abortion clinic, was the target of much harrassment by the clinic “deathscorts” that were hired by the abortionist who owned the clinic. We were told that we would get no help from any of the Right to Life counselers because they didn’t want to risk being sued. So much for caring about the killing of babies and wanting to stop it.
I agree with your distinction. But from what I have seen from the current crop of bishops, I don’t hold out much hope for too many changes. When I see excommunications of pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Catholic in Name Only politicians, then I will hold out hope for a brighter tomorrow from the Church.
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.