An ignorant, intemperate Vatican assault on American conservatism

With a harsh denunciation of American conservatism, published in the semi-official Jesuit journal Civilta Cattolica, the Vatican has plunged headlong into a partisan debate in a society that it clearly does not understand, potentially alienating (or should I say, further alienating) the Americans most inclined to favor the influence of the Church.

Why? Why this bitter attack on the natural allies of traditional Catholic teachings? Is it because the most influential figures at the Vatican today actually want to move away from those traditional teachings, and form a new alliance with modernity?

The authors of the essay claim to embrace ecumenism, but they have nothing but disdain for the coalition formed by Catholics and Evangelical Protestants in the United States. They scold American conservatives for seeing world events as a struggle of good against evil, yet they clearly convey the impression that they see American conservativism as an evil influence that must be defeated.

While they are quick to pronounce judgment on American politicians, the two authors betray an appalling ignorance of the American scene. The authors toss Presidents Nixon (a Quaker), Reagan, Bush, and Trump into the same religious classification, suggesting that they were all motivated by “fundamentalist” principles. An ordinary American, reading this account, would be surprised to see the authors’ preoccupation with the late Rev. Rousas Rushdoony and the Church Militant web site: hardly major figures in the formation of American public opinion. The essay is written from the perspective of people who draw their information about America from left-wing journals rather than from practical experience.

The central thesis of the Civilta Cattolica essay is that American conservatives have developed an ideology, based on fundamentalist Protestant beliefs, that sees the US as morally righteous, with other people as enemies and thus justifies conflict and exploitation. Again and again the authors describe this attitude as “Manichean;” they insist on the need to “fight against” it. They insist on tolerance, but they have no tolerance for this attitude. Nowhere in the essay does one find a suggestion of the attitude, made popular by Pope Francis, that the Church should “accompany” sinners. No; the sins of American conservatism are unforgivable.

“Triumphalist, arrogant and vindictive ethnicism is actually the opposite of Christianity,” the authors tell us. So this is a heresy, then—the “Manichean” references were purposeful—and it must be condemned? The Vatican today lauds Martin Luther for his desire to reform the faith, but denounces Evangelical Protestants for—for what, exactly? The Civilta Cattolica essay speaks—in typically incendiary terms—of an “ecumenism of hate.” But it is not obvious, frankly, who hates whom.

As the authors round to their conclusion, they tell us that Pope Francis “wants to break the organic link between culture, politics, institution, and Church.” So the Pontiff intends to detach the Church entirely from public issues, even when moral principles are involved? Yes, the authors reply; in the realm of political affairs, “the Pope does not want to say who is right or who is wrong for he knows that at the root of conflicts there is always a fight for power.” So, for fear of becoming mired in a power struggle, should the Church step aside, eschewing involvement in moral debates—and, more than that, condemn those who do frame public issues in moral terms?

The ignorance and intemperance of the Civilta Cattolica essay are doubly troublesome because the authors are so close to Pope Francis. Journalists often overstate the influence of Vatican officials, identifying mid-level staff members as “key advisers” to the Roman Pontiff. Unfortunately the two authors of this essay really are among the closest advisers to Pope Francis. Father Antonio Spadaro, the editor of Civilta Cattolica, is a regular visitor to the Pope’s office in the St. Martha residence, described by one seasoned Vatican-watcher as the “mouthpiece of Pope Francis.” Marcelo Figueroa, a Presbyterian minister who was friendly with then-Cardinal Bergoglio in Argentina, was hand-picked by the Pontiff to launch a new Argentinean edition of the official Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano. And speaking of official publications, the Spadaro-Figueroa essay appeared in Civilta Cattolica, whose contents are cleared before publication by the Vatican Secretariat of State. It is not unreasonable, then, to assume that this essay reflects the Pope’s own thinking. That is frightening.

Ignorance of America's founding ideas abounds in places around the world and, sadly, in America as well.

The recent outgoing Administration, its supporters, and the Clintons were so out of touch with our Constitution's own formula for freedom they viewed those who advocated a return to the idea of Creator-endowed liberty to be "regressive." That's the "progressive" wisdom. Now, let's examine that view.

Then, there is the "media" strategy which presents "regressive" as "progressive," "backward" as "forward," and "down" as "up." On and on it goes.

It's a strategy which goes deep into the decades-long effort to "fundamentally change" America from its 1776 new and revolutionary foundations in Creator-endowed liberty backward into the Old World and later Marxian and "Progressive" ideas of control and redistribution by imaginary human grantors and protectors.

Perhaps an answer to the once-asked question here on FR: "Why does Christianity 'scare' . . . ?" may lie in the degree to which the foundation ideas upon which America's Declaration of Independence were laid and from which the concept of Creator-endowed individual liberty and the Source from which that liberty is derived have been removed from "the American mind" (Jefferson).

Perhaps the so-called "progressive" enemies of freedom understand better than those who fancy themselves as "conservatives" that in order to reverse the Founders' ideas of "People over government," and institute "government over People," they must first marginalize and destroy the ideas from which liberty is derived.

The writings of America's Founders are replete with references which rebuke would-be tyrants and cite a Higher Source for life, liberty and rights. Early histories confirm those facts.

As so-called "progressives" have led a movement in forsaking the Founders' "reliance on Divine Providence," and belief that individuals are "endowed by their Creator," they also have forsaken the principles underlying America's Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and are systematically dismantling the greatest protections for liberty ever established for a people.

"Ideas have consequences"(Weaver).

The ideas of 1776 came out of a set of ideas consistent with liberty.

We tend to forget, or have never considered, that other world views existed then, as now.

Unless today's citizens rediscover the ideas of liberty existing in what Jefferson called "the American mind" of 1776, we risk going back to the "Old World" ideas which preceded the "Miracle of America."

There are those who call themselves "progressives," when, in fact, their ideas are regressive and enslaving, and as old as the history of civilization.

Would suggest to any who wish an authentic history of the ideas underlying American's founding a visit to this web site, at which Richard Frothingham's outstanding 1872 "History of the Rise of the Republic of the United States" can be read on line.

This 600+-page history traces the ideas which gave birth to the American founding. Throughout, Richard Frothingham, the historian, develops the idea that it is "the Christian idea of man" which allowed the philosophy underlying the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to become a reality--an idea which recognizes the individual and the Source of his/her "Creator"-endowed life, liberty and law.

Is there any wonder that the enemies of freedom, the so-called "progressives," do not promote such authentic histories of America? Their philosophy puts something called "the state," or "global interests" as being superior to individuals and requires a political elitist group to decide what role individuals are to play.

In other words, they must turn the Founders' ideas upside-down in order to achieve a common mediocrity for individuals and power for themselves.

As a result, the still-revolutionary idea claimed by both Ryan and Romney in the 2012 campaign, and by the current President now, about the Source of our rights became fodder for the other candidate and then-President's disdain, when he declared that the ideas they were espousing were "reruns" from the 20th Century and better suited for "black and white" television. (Actually, Mr. Obama, those enduring ideas were from a time much earlier than that.)

As Jefferson wisely observed:

"History, by apprising the people of the past, will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views."

All of which reinforces our conviction that the ideas of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are as revolutionary and objectionable to tyrants as they were in 1776 and 1787!

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.