Cardinal Ratzinger Discovers America

Cardinal Ratzinger has discovered America. Troubled by the total secularization of European life—reflected, most recently, in the battles over European unification and the continental chorus of criticism accompanying Professor Rocco Buttiglione’s reiteration of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality—the cardinal now suggests that the United States may perhaps offer the better model of Church-State relations for a desacralized world. According to a November 25, 2004, report on Zenit.com, the Cardinal, responding to the secularization of Europe, made the following comments on Vatican Radio:

I think that from many points of view the American model is the better one. Europe has remained bogged down. People who did not want to belong to a state church, went to the United States and intentionally constituted a state that does not impose a church and which simply is not perceived as religiously neutral, but as a space within which religions can move and also enjoy organizational freedom without being simply relegated to the private sphere… One can undoubtedly learn from the United States [and this] process by which the state makes room for religion, which is not imposed, but which, thanks to the state, lives, exists and has a public creative force. It certainly is a positive way.

This, of course, was the position of the Americanists of the 1890’s, who argued that things spiritual thrived in the United States to a degree that Europeans, passive and obedient to their manipulative governments, could never match. Cardinal Ratzinger has apparently arrived at a similar judgment in typical contemporary Catholic fashion: much later than everybody else, and naively uncritical.

It seems to be the fate of the post-conciliar Church to take up the banner of erroneous causes just as their poisons are beginning to become somewhat clearer to the rest of the outside world. I hope that His Eminence has been misquoted. If not, I pray that a deeper study of the system in the United States will reveal to him just how much the so-called religious character of America is, at best, heretical, and, at worst, a “spiritualized” secularism emerging from errors inherent in Protestant thought.

One still hears the argument that the threat of Americanism was exaggerated at the time of Leo XIII’s encyclicals against it, and that, in any case, it disappeared shortly thereafter. Certainly many people in Rome as well as the United States wanted to make believe this was the case, using the Modernist crisis, and undoubted American loyalty to the Papacy throughout it, as proof positive of the country’s orthodoxy. But the crises warned against by St. Pius X’s pontificate precisely involve the sort of philosophical, theological, and exegetical issues that Americanism sweeps aside as a horrendous waste of time and energy. Modernism’s intellectual character stood in the way of the Yankee pragmatism that simply wanted “to get the job done” without worrying about anything as fruitlessly divisive as unpaid thought. It was part and parcel of all that pretentious European cultural hoo-ha responsible for the Old World’s ideologies, revolutions, wars, and bad plumbing. Americans could recite the Creed and memorize catechisms better and in larger numbers than anywhere else. Confident in their orthodoxy and the Catholic-friendly character of their political and social system, they could “move on” to devote themselves to the practical realities of daily life. Criticisms of what the “practical life” might actually mean in the long run could be disregarded as unpatriotic, communist, and useless for short or long-term fund raising.

America, with Catholic Americans in lock-step, thus marched forward to nurture what St. Cyril of Alexandria called “dypsychia”: a two-spirited existence. On the one hand, it loudly proclaimed outward commitment to many traditional doctrines and “moral values” making it look spiritually healthy. On the other, it allowed “the practical life”, to which it was really devoted, to be defined by whatever the strongest and most successful men considered to be most important, silencing discussion of the gross contradiction by laughing such fruitless intellectual quibbles out of the parlors of a polite, common-sense guided society. It marched this approach into Europe in 1945, ironically linking up with one strain of Modernism that itself encouraged Catholic abandonment to the direction of anti-intellectual “vital energies” and “mystique”. Vitalism and Americanism in tandem then gave us Vatican II which, concerned only with “getting the practical pastoral job done”, has destroyed Catholic doctrine infinitely more effectively than any mere straightforward heretic like Arius could have done. Under the less parochial sounding name of Pluralism, it is the very force which Cardinal Ratzinger is criticizing inside the European Union, and which is now spreading high-minded “moral values”, “freedom”, and “democracy” around the globe through the work of well-paid mercenaries and five hundred pound bombs.

If, heaven forbid, Cardinal Ratzinger honestly believes that true religion prospers under our system better than under any other, he is urging upon Catholics that spiritual and intellectual euthanasia which Americanism-Vitalism-Pluralism infallibly guarantees. The fate of many conservative Catholic enthusiasts for this false God, in their response to the war in Iraq, should be one among an endless number of warnings to him. No one is more publicly committed to orthodoxy than they are. No one praises the name and authority of the Pope more than they do. And yet never have I heard so many sophistic arguments reducing to total emptiness both profound Catholic teachings regarding the innocence of human life, as well as the value of the intellect in understanding how to apply those teachings to practical circumstances, as I have heard coming from their circles.

May God save His Eminence from adulation of a system that waves the flag of moral righteousness and then tells us that we are simply not permitted to use our faith and reason to recognize a wicked, fraudulent war for the anti-Catholic disaster that it is; an evil that a number of Catholics are some day legitimately going to have to apologize for having helped to justify. May God save His Eminence from a religiosity which will eventually line “fundamentalist” Catholic “terrorists” against the wall along with other “divisive” enemies of the system who cannot live or die under a regime of dypsychia.

"forced imposition of democracy"??? Are you getting your talking points from International ANSWER? Democracy is precisely allowing the people of a nation to through elections determine their own government. It is not alwayss perfect, but I do think that over time, much bad is corrected by having a popular voice in government. Of course there also need to be agreed human rights protections for individuals against majority rule. As for South America, please name which democratic leaders were "imposed" by the United States and which have torture chambers? Pinochet was a dictator, but he was succeeded by a democratic regime, and it is not clear that the Communist Allende would have left Chile in a position to have a true democracy. And I suppose you think it is a pity that the Sandinistas were democratically ousted from office. And as for Iraq, there is no basis in fact to say that "half the country" has been killed. The groundwork is being laid for democratic elections in January. It is too early to say whether or not the liberation of Iraq will be successful, but the signs are promising.

Where did I say that I favor "anti-miscegenation" laws? (For the record, I do not, and I am certainly aware that the Catholic Church in Latin America had a better record on race relations than Anglo-Saxon Protestants.)

Islam is a religion, not a race. Therefore it cannot possibly be racist to oppose the mass immigration of Muslims to Europe. The growth of militant Islam in Europe is certainly not a good thing from a Catholic point of view, and those earlier Catholic regimes would not have allowed it.

As for immigration in general, the real root of the problem is that Europeans, having rejected Catholic morality, are not having enough children to replace themselves. Therefore their civilization is in danger of dying out. It can hardly be un-Catholic to oppose this.

If Europe's population becomes dominated by "Indians and Asians," whatever their religion, the continent and its culture will no longer be European or Western in any meaningful sense. It will simply be an extension of Asian civilization. I have nothing against Asian culture; I simply want European culture to survive too. What's wrong with that? There is nothing in Catholic doctrine that requires civilizations to dissolve themselves in the name of multiculturalism.

As a theoretical ideal, a confessional state in which the state truly did not interfere with the doctrine of the faith and in which the rights of individuals not to be coerced on matters of conscience would be best. Such a thing is not practical under modern conditions, given the left-wing currents of thought widespread in society,

Correct, so myself and the other monarchists here are trying to fight those currents - including its most widespread symptom - egalitarian democracy. But you want to classify us as leftists - completely bizarre. I have been called many things in my life, but never a freakin' liberal LOL (in less they meant a "classic liberal", i used to be one of those).

I can't believe I forgot to mention Tolkien! He is of course one of my primary ideological inspirations. I was actually planning to watch the supplements to the Two Towers DVD tonight before this thread got so active...getting ready for Tuesday's release of ROTK!

Yeah, that J.R.R. Tolkien sure was some leftist, all right...

Tolkien was, in modern jargon, 'right wing' in that he honoured his monarch and his country and did not believe in the rule of the people; but he opposed democracy simply because he believed that in the end his fellow men would not benefit from it. He once wrote: "I am not a 'democrat', if only because 'humility' and equality are spiritual principles corrupted by the attempt to mechanise and formalise them, with the result that we get not universal smallness and humility, but universal bigness and pride, till some Orc gets hold of a Ring of Power -- and then we get and are getting slavery".

"My political beliefs lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) – or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy ... Give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers." (1943)

I don't see democratic rights as evils, but as goods. They promote freedoms. I see nothing wrong as a matter of my Catholic faith in seeing value in popular government and human rights protections. An autocratic monarchy would not allow the voters to throw the bastards out if there is something seriously wrong, which does sometimes providentially happen in a democracy. A constitutional monarchy is of course a very different story, and not objectionable if it is consistent with a democratic regime and protection of human rights. I would concentrate on specific evils, like abortion. To jettison the entire US Constitution just because of specific evils would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and is the wrong diagnosis for the cause, in my opinion. And in any event, the deposit of faith does not require a specific form of government, and the Catholic Church can and has coexisted with a number of differing forms of governments down through the centuries. Christ himself acknowledged the separate spheres of Church and state by the rendering to Caesar and God statement.

The fact remains that Euro-monarchs had a long tradition of granting citizenship to subject peoples, long before any large scale immigration took place.

If Europeans go the way of the Hittites, Sumerians or the Wapanogs, so be it. Peoples and civilizations have disappeared before and will continue to do so.

In other words, as a staunch believer in American exceptionalism, I really don't give a damn if French/Japanese/Kurdish culture disappears. I am concerned, however, at the growing influence of Islam, which is a true threat to us here in the USA.

A serious inquiry into the history of the various countries south of the border will very clearly show gross meddling in their internal politics by the US over a period of over 150 years. For very selfish reasons.

Which leaders have the US imposed on those nations? There is a very long laundry list, covering both socialist and "democratic" leaders alike. We play both sides of the fence - and have for a long time. Its called the politics of destabilization. It is very painfully obvious, and cen be readily concluded from am objective reading of history - without prejudice or jingoism.

But I will drop one very not too subtle hint. Ever hear of Haiti? Oh.....of course, we have always operated in the best interest of the Haitian peoples..........with absolutely no concern for the sugar monopolies, and other agricultural, chemical, and other multinational mega-corporations. No.....not one bit(sarcasm intentional).

Or.....ummmm.....that little place called Mexico? Oh no - we never messed with their politics, or did anything at all to precipitate numerous revolutions and counter revolutions. Naturally it makes perfect sense that with their vast reserves of coal, oil, natural gas, uranium,gold, copper, silver, bauxite, tin, that they should be a dirt poor nation for generation after generation. We could not possibly have any hand in this.

Of course we must erase from our memories and books the fact that Mexico had a civilization, and level of lifestyle and wealth prior to 1845 that was becoming on par with European nations.That Mexico had great Cathedrals, libraries, universities, water/sewar works......while the US by contrast at that point was a third rate nation with nothing to compare with Mexico.

Dear royalcello,

"But if the bad monarchs of history constitute an argument against monarchy, than the bad democratically elected leaders of history constitute an argument against democracy."

But democracy has a few small advantages. First, it is hard to depose a monarch for merely being moderately bad. He's gotta be a real horror to get rid of him. But in a democracy, change is the name of the game. We only have presidents for eight years. Even FDR was president for only about 13 years. It's tough to stay near or at the top of the political heap for an extended period of time.

Second, well-built constitutional republics enshrine gridlock. The American system certainly did. Thus, it's hard to make change quickly (or at least, once was). Thus, as a result, folks have to "live with" the idea of the change for a long time before it happens. And a lot of bad ideas get tossed as a result.

Third, every form of government sucks to some significant degree, but a blessing of an elected government (especially one that has a strong two-party dominance, like the US) is that it is nearly self-legitimating. You don't like the prez? Vote him out! He got elected again? Well, heck, he got the most votes! So, he da' man! This tends to make most folks accept the legitimacy of the government.

It is the argument that says, "You have no one to blame but yourselves for the nincompoops and incompetents you've elected. So shut up, stop rioting, and get back to the grindstones."

My reaons for not getting rid of monarchy where it exists is not because I think it is preferable to constitutional republics. I am against getting rid of monarchy where it exists because it is to make a drastic change to a society that will have many unforeseen, and possibly evil consequences. Monarchies are not so awful, in concept, that it is worth the societally destabilizing effects of getting rid of them. There can be exceptions, but it's a good general rule, I think.

On the other hand, I think a lot of the European nations are too far-gone from monarchy to get it back. A returning monarchy, after nearly a century, or even more, without one, could also be de-stabilizing.

However, I will make an exception in the case of France. France needs all the de-stabilizing it can get.

I think, also, that Italy could be well-served by a return of the House of Savoy. But then, I read of Prince Vito, and I wonder whether he'd really make such a great king.

For much of the world, the problem is that there are whole parts of the world, like North and South America, that have never really had indigenous monarchs. Oh, the Canadians look to QEII as their head of state, but the connection is, by now, a bit tenuous. There was a bit of monarchy in Latin America, but nothing that really arose from the Western Hemispheric experience, or that really stuck.

And then, there are parts of the world with nation-states that never were really governed by a single monarch. And then, I think we were talking about CATHOLIC monarchs, weren't we? I don't think that we need be worried about Catholic monarchs in India, Vietnam, Cambodia, Japan, etc.

sitetest

That history of interference did not generally lead to democracy (although to the extent the US aided in Bolivarian revolutions, it encouraged at least the forms of democracy, if not the substance), so it is irrelevant to the discussion. The issue is that the South American nations have in the last 30 years basically left military dictatorships behind and adopted democratic constitutional forms of government. That has to be better for the people and the nations concerned, as well as for human rights. Certainly Mexico is better off now with a better functioning democracy than it was in the past. The position of the Church is also better than under the PRI. Haiti may now have a chance with Aristide gone, but it is a very tough case, one of the hardest.

To be a true American is to oppose monarchy and tyranny.

Oh dear; I've just had my citizenship revoked by the great Clemenza! Whatever will I do?

I guess all the Americans who eagerly watched the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953 or the wedding of Charles and Diana in 1981, or who have enthusiastically welcomed various monarchs on their visits to the U.S. are traitors. President Bush must not be a "true American" since he recently hosted the King and Queen of Spain at his ranch. I suppose you would have given them a lecture on the evils of monarchy and the virtues of republicanism?

The New York City mayor Fiorello La Guardia had the same views as you do; he was furious that New Yorkers were interested in the visits of Queen Marie of Romania and the exiled Romanovs in the 1920s. But neither then nor now have all Americans agreed that monarchy is tyranny, though I'll concede that few will identify themselves as monarchists as I do.

A Catholic analysis of America and her Constitution.

Variations on a Theme, Op 45 democratic rights as evils, but as goods

The Church has only very recently adopted the language of rights - She has always rather spoken of duties

An autocratic monarchy would not allow the voters to throw the bastards out if there is something seriously wrong, which does sometimes providentially happen in a democracy

Really? Remind me, when was the last President removed from office? Nixon resigned remember, it is doubtful he would have been convicted of anything. But even if he was that'd be one out of 46. We couldn't even get rid an admitted perjurer - why? Because he was too popular !! How quickly we forget. What was the argument Democrat (and some Republican!) senators use for giving Clinton a pass? Oh ya.. it was "twarting the will of the people".

"Your people sir, are a beast!"

Alexander Hamiliton (I think, might have been Madison)

and is the wrong diagnosis for the cause, in my opinion

And you are entitled to it, lets stop the allegations of disloyalty because our opinion differs.

And in any event, the deposit of faith does not require a specific form of government

A true statement, so shall we retract the statement about being "disloyal" to the Pope?

The fact is Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Washington were not Doctors of the Church or even saints and the US Constituion is not divinely inspired scripture. It is a flawed document based on the principles of Freemasonry.

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.