Europe Returning to Pagan Roots

NewsMax ^ | May 30, 2003 | Fr. Mike Reilly

[Hugenot]

NewsMax.com's religion editor, Fr. Mike Reilly, sees a disturbing trend in the latest news from the European Union.

Zenit News is reporting on the new Constitution for the European Union and the news is not good.

"Drawing inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, which, nourished first by the civilizations of Greece and Rome, characterized by spiritual impulse always present in its heritage and later by the philosophical currents of the Enlightenment, has embedded within the life of society its perception of the central role of the human person and his inviolable and inalienable rights, and of respect for law. ..."

Do you get the sense that there's something missing from the preamble? What "spiritual impulse" are they referring to? Could it be the Irish druids, who worshipped trees? Or perhaps the Norse gods like Thor and Loki? Maybe they mean ancient German legends about Siegfried coming from Valhalla.

Are these the "spiritual impulses" that united Europe, or rather was it something called Christendom?

"It borders on the ridiculous that the Preamble should make nominal reference to the Hellenistic and Roman component and jump directly to the 'philosophers of the Enlightenment,' omitting the Christian reference without which the Enlightenment is incomprehensible," Josep Miro i Ardevol, president of the Convention of Christians for Europe, said in a statement.

In an interview on Vatican Radio, Cardinal Roberto Tucci, a member of the executive council of the radio, said that "It was not a question of adherence [to Christianity], but of recognizing the historical fact of the enormous influence that Christian culture has had on European culture."

"The most unifying factor of Europe, which has been Christian culture, is missing" in the Preamble, he said.

The draft continues, "Conscious that Europe is a continent that has brought forth civilization; that its inhabitants, arriving in successive waves since the first ages of mankind, have gradually developed the values underlying humanism: equality of persons, freedom, respect for reason. ..."

Where do they think these values come from? What other civilizations espouse these values? The fact is that it was Christian culture which civilized and united tribal barbarians into what was left of the declining Roman Empire, which would eventually become modern Europe. That is why every modern tyrant has seen the need to attack and suppress Christianity.

This does not bode well for Europeans who treasure freedom. If our rights come from men, then men can take them away. Our founding fathers were wise enough to acknowledge that "man was endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights. ..."

Sadly, the leaders of Europe lack that insight.

[ffusco]

Roman virtues:
Auctoritas: "Spiritual Authority" The sense of one's social standing, built up through experience, Pietas, and Industria.

Comitas: "Humor" Ease of manner, courtesy, openness, and friendliness.

Clementia: "Mercy" Mildness and gentleness.

Dignitas: "Dignity" A sense of self-worth, personal pride.

Firmitas: "Tenacity" Strength of mind, the ability to stick to one's purpose.

Frugalitas: "Frugalness" Economy and simplicity of style, without being miserly.

Gravitas: "Gravity" A sense of the importance of the matter at hand, responsibility and earnestness.  

Honestas: "Respectibility" The image that one presents as a respectable member of society.

Humanitas: "Humanity" Refinement, civilization, learning, and being cultured.

Industria: "Industriousness" Hard work.

Pietas: "Dutifulness" More than religious piety; a respect for the natural order socially, politically, and religiously. Includes the ideas of patriotism and devotion to others.

Prudentia: "Prudence" Foresight, wisdom, and personal discretion.

Salubritas: "Wholesomeness" Health and cleanliness.

Severitas: "Sternness" Gravity, self-control.

Veritas: "Truthfulness" Honesty in dealing with others.

[Antoninus]

Compare this to the preservation of works from the archaic period of Greece (600-500 BC) well into the Empire. Rome once again triumphs over anything that the Christians could accomplish.

Ok, it's clear that you've got some sort of romantic attachment to the ancients which I can understand to a certain extent. I have a similar attachment, although I recognize the deficiencies of ancient civilization--in particular, the absurdities of the various pagan religions. However, it's also clear that you have a visceral prejudice against "Christians" that I do not share.

It's pretty clear I'm a Catholic. Care to state for the record what faith you belong to?

[jscd3]

It was only through turning to the traditions of pagan Rome

Civilization in western Europe was largely saved by Irish Catholic priests and nuns, who kept whatever light of learning, history and Christianity not extinguished during the dark ages burning mostly my the luck of the fact that Ireland was pretty much the end of the world. If it had been any easier to get to, these good folks would have suffered the fate of those on the continent.

These priests, nuns, and monks converted the Germanic tribes to Christianity, recreated the first centers of learning, and basically saved Europe from paganism. If it weren't for them, we would never have had a "Western Civilization" that looks anything like it did or does.

The roots of our Republican (at least in theory) form of government are largely rooted in a melange of Christianity, Celtic emphasis on local control and value of the individual citizen, remnants of Roman law, and Anglo Saxon culture that were uniquely found in England. Medieval society was just a little bit different their than in the rest of Europe. Moreover, because of the English Channel, the Rennassaince took longer to find it's way their, and all of the Medieval emphasis on local government (relatively speaking) and a multiplicity of centers of authority lasted in England longer than in the rest of Europe (many of whose princes absolutely adored the Roman Imperial emphasis on centralized government.)

[jscd3]

Wll, I can certainly name one thing for The AngryClan that Christianity accomplished that the Roman Empire didn't - it survived into the 21th century, converting it's enemies along the way.

Also, unlike the Roman Empire, which experianced esentially a single period of expansion, and then contraction, and then extinction, the Church has managed to survive a number of seamingly near-death experiances, always coming back stronger than before.

By the way, I'm Catholic myself. For what it's worth, it looks like we may be heading for one of those periodic historical dark times again.

[Antoninus]

Not the high point of their civilization, but not the genocide that some would believe.

Well, what would you call it when the death penalty is levied against someone for holding tenaciously to a particular religious belief? Imagine, for instance, if a European country today effectively outlawed Judaism and declared that anyone who admitted to being a Jew was subject to the death penalty. I don't think even Nazi Germany went that far.

And the early Christians weren't saints either- Many burned temples, upset graves, vandalized public works, disrupted government functions, incited violence, failed to pay taxes, Were unpatriotic and opennly hostile to Roman Laws. Today we call them martyrs.

Are you sure you're a Catholic? Sure, there were odd occasions when Christians were excessive in seeking retribution against pagans who had persecuted them. But to paint all the early Christians with such a broad brush is simply ridiculous. And to confound such vengeful individuals with the actual martyrs who went to innocent and saintly deaths, is beyond simply incorrect. It's intellectually dishonest.

As for the claim that early Christians were "unpatriotic," that is unfounded. Even before the days of Constantine, there is evidence that there were many Christians in the Roman army. I'm not even sure what you mean by "unpatriotic" in terms of the Empire. Did they worship the cult of the Emperor? No. But would you in their position?

Furthermore, I'm not sure where you get the notion that they didn't pay taxes, considering that Christ himself urged them to, "Render unto Caesar..."

They were the anti-war protesters, ACLU, Greenpeace and PETA of their day.

Somehow, I don't think it's the Holy Spirit that motivates those groups. And I sincerely doubt they'll be around 2000 years hence. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit motivated the early Christians?

[Antoninus]

Christianity is a wonderful thing but as far as science, medicine and technology goes, a bunch of Gothic Churches simply doesn't compare- And that's the way they wanted it. Christianity is about working toward a serene afterlife and being a good neighbor.

You've got, seemingly, an overly simplistic understanding of Christianity and Christendom. To be honest, there was a time when I felt the same way in terms of viewing everything classical as infinitely superior to all things Medieval. But here's the nub: If you were a commander in the field, would you prefer to be a Roman general facing medieval heavy cavalry, or a Norman general facing a Roman legion?

The Greeks invented the modern mind- everthing after that - even how we "Know" God is thanks to them. Otherwise we would live in a world of random events without connection.

Given this statement, I'd have to ask you who had the greater impact on the Western world: Plato or Jesus?

[Antoninus]

The idea that God didn't interfere with his divine creation was neccessary for men of science to do their work, but it was antithetical to The Church- that's why Galileo needed to recant!

Actually, it was my understanding that Galileo simply refused to admit that his ideas were theories and that's what got him into trouble with the Church. You'll note that Copernicus, who held many of the same views, had no problems with the Church.

[Antoninus]

By canon I mean the official party line of the Church- that The Earth is the center of the solar system.

Why, then, didn't Copernicus have the same problem as the G-man?

[TheAngryClam]

753 BCE to 1453 CE is 2100 years.

Rome still is ahead of Christianity for longevity.

And I'm not even cheating and counting the popes.

[Antoninus]

By the way, I'm Catholic myself. For what it's worth, it looks like we may be heading for one of those periodic historical dark times again.

Great post. I only disagree slightly with this comment. We've been in a dark time for 30 years now, I'd reckon. I think we hit bottom last year. It's always darkest before the dawn....

[Antoninus]

753 BCE to 1453 CE is 2100 years.

Sorry, but you don't get to count the 1250 odd years from Constantine on as it was corrupted by those awful Christians 306-1453. Your timeline ends at the Milvian Bridge, I'm afraid...

Alright, if you want the two years of Julian the Apostate, I'll throw those in too.

[jscd3]

If you read what I posted, I said survived into the 21st century.

Moreover, the only thing that the Roman Empire has conquered in the last 1000 years has been the imagination of kings, dictators, Fascists, and more than a few historians.

Strictly speaking, though, the Roman empire was dead long before 1453 - Mohammed II might have been proud of conquering the scarecrow remains of Constantinople, but I doubt that he considered himself finishing off the Roman Empire. After all, the Roman empire without Rome (or even any part of the west) would be, like, well Christianity without the Pope...;>)

[Antoninus]

Strictly speaking, though, the Roman empire was dead long before 1453 - Mohammed II might have been proud of conquering the scarecrow remains of Constantinople, but I doubt that he considered himself finishing off the Roman Empire.

Considering the animus this fellow has toward Christianity, I don't understand how he counts ANY of the years following the advent of the Christian emperors in his reckoning. It's especially odd in that the last defenders of Constantinople--Venetians, Genoese, and Spaniards for the most part--were there in defense of Christianity, not some long-dead ideal of pagan Roman glory.

[ffusco]

Christainity was one new reilgeon among dozens practiced throughout the Empire and for the most part thet were all tolerated. Mithraism from Persia, the olympian gods, Isis from Egypt, Sol Invicta (early monotheism) Sibylline oracles. Rome was a cosmopolitan place like America is today, with many different peoples and beliefs.

Augustus Ceasar decreed that Synogogues were invioble and Jews were exempt from appearing in court on the Sabbeth.

Romans persecuted Christains because they felt that they alone possessed the truth ( which at that time was hardly self-evident) and that All other religeons, even state ones were false. ( Christian intolerance) They refused to observe ritual acts (think Pledge of Allegiance)

This all changed by the 3-4th centuries when Roman Christain writers claimed that Rome had been divinely ordained, only the name of the divinity changed.

You are welcome to think what you want about me and question my faith but its rather un-Christain of you.

[ffusco]

Nothing odd at all, by then The former Romans were all Christian. Even the Pope is refered to as the Pontiff Maximus as had been the Emperors as protectors of the faith in pagan times.

[Green Knight]

As for the claim that early Christians were "unpatriotic," that is unfounded. Even before the days of Constantine, there is evidence that there were many Christians in the Roman army. I'm not even sure what you mean by "unpatriotic" in terms of the Empire. Did they worship the cult of the Emperor? No. But would you in their position?

I watched a program on the History Channel or the Discovery Channel a while back about the Spear of Destiny/Longinus/etc. In it, they told the story of Saint Morris, a Roman soldier who faithfully served the empire, commanding a legion of Christians. He and his men served the empire loyally, but that apparently wasn't good enough for the emperor, who wanted them to worship him. Saint Morris made a vow that, while he can't worship a false god, he will serve the empire loyally. Wasn't good enough for the emperor, apparently, as Morris and many of his men were put to death (Or were they all executed? I can't remember).

Point is, you're right. Not all Christians were patriotic of, course, but not all were unpatriotic, either. Morris is a prime example of a Christian who faithfully served the empire, and even went to his death without a fight. All he asked of the Roman Empire in return for his loyalty was that he be free to worship as he so choosed. To much to ask of the "enlightened" Roman Empire, apparently.

[ffusco]

That's a loaded question.

[ffusco]

Why, then, didn't Copernicus have the same problem as the G-man?

Maybe it was his self-effacing attitude.

[Hunble]

DUCKING...

I am the "token Pagan" on this website. Long history, but I do not force my views upon others.

So far, both sides have given decent arguments.

[Fiddlstix]

Bump