Lex Anteinternet: Blog Mirror: Opinion Harrison Butker doesn’t only...

Lex Anteinternet: Blog Mirror: Opinion Harrison Butker doesn’t only...:   Opinion     Harrison Butker doesn’t only kick footballs The NFL should have defended the Kansas City kicker’s right to speak his mind.

Lex Anteinternet: A Protestant Country. It's history, and what it means.

Lex Anteinternet: A Protestant Country. It's history, and what it me...: 

A Protestant Country. It's history, and what it means.

Puritans on their way to church.

One of the blogs that's linked into the right on this site recently had this item:

The Declaration of Independence Founded a Theistic Republic

I should note, if you look at the items linked in on this site, over on the right, in the general interest category, there are things from the right and the left.  If you only looked at some of my posts,  you would assume that I'm a flaming liberal, maybe even a progressive.  If you look at others, you'd assume I'm a conservative (you wouldn't assume I'm a populist, and I'm not).  That probably means that I'm something else entirely, and indeed my views span right and left.  

A full reader of this blog would know that I'm a Catholic, however.

One thing that I think is obvious to serious observant Catholics, and likely observant Orthodox, is that this is a Protestant Country.  It really is. That's different from a "Christian Country".  It's Protestant. Even people who like to spout off that this country doesn't have a religious founding of some sort are, actually, some sort of cultural Protestant, by and large.  It's pretty obvious if you are a dedicated member of one of the minority religions, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, etc.  As Protestants live in a Protestant culture, they don't realize that the culture is Protestant.  Indeed, one of the charming things about Americans in general is the belief that everyone all over the globe thinks just like we do.

To take it a step further, quite a few sort of adherent members of other faiths, or maybe just not really well-informed members of other faiths, are heavily Protestantized.  So you'll find Catholics that have heavily Protestant views, for example.

The deeply Protestant culture of the country impacts almost everything about it, from our economics to our foreign policy.  It may not be at all evident to average people, but an example of that can be found in the country's overall reaction to the two major ongoing wars being fought right now.

I've supported, as people here would note, the Israeli war against Hamas, which Hamas started.  But to be brutally honest, a lot of American support for Israel comes from two sources.  One is the country's Jewish population, which is actually quite small, but which has been historically influential since some point in the mid 20th Century. The other is due to Evangelical Christians who see the creation of the Jewish state in 1948 as a fulfillment of a promise in the book of Revelation, although they aren't the only Christian's, or perhaps individual Christians, to see that, that way.  Evangelical Christians, however, tend to see Israel in absolutist terms and many see supporting Israel as a way to directly bring about the Second Coming.  For its part, the Israeli government, which actually tends to be highly secular, has worked that pretty heavily over the years.

Catholics and the Orthodox have a much more nuanced view of this topic, however, as their relationship with the region goes all the way back.  Apostolic Christians were present in the region since day one.  Early on, Apostolic Christianity won many converts of the Jews in the region, but also of Arabs and other regional populations.  Christianity, and by that we mean Apostolic Christianity, largely converted the entire region before the Arab conquests of the 5th and 6th Century brought in Islam, but even then huge populations of Christians, and again we mean Apostolic Christians, as that is all that there were, remained.  What Protestants, not Apostolic Christians, termed the Crusade when they began to falsify history came about originally to try to protect the pilgrimage routes to the very region that is now being fought over.  At least up until fairly recently, 10% of the Palestinian population remained Catholic, and to the north, Lebanon was, up until fairly recently, predominately so.  Large populations of Orthodox Christians were also to be found.  Israel, in its relationship with out of the region Christians, however, reaches out mostly to Evangelical Christians who are pretty much completely foreign to the region.

The English Colonies were of course colonized by residents of Great Britain, who were, at the time they began to do that, Protestants.  They were not all members of the Church of England or the Church of Scotland, however, and that very much has its ongoing impact today.  Dissenters from the Protestant state churches, such as the "Pilgrims", took refuge in North America from whichever Protestant church was in control at the time, which was usually the Anglican Church in England, and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland in Scotland.  Immigrants from minority Protestant faiths didn't tend to have a concept of extending religious liberty in the New World, but rather escaping oppression for their minority views in the Old.  Once in North America, they tended to be just as intolerant as the established churches they had escaped from.  The one thing they could all agree on, however, is that they hated Catholics.

That was in large part because the English Protestant churches of all types had to rely on myths to justify their existence. The Church of England hadn't even really intended to separate long from the Catholic Church at first, but once things got rolling, it was hard to go back.  This was for a variety of reasons, and to at least some degree the Church of England remains uncomfortable with its separation.  It's made several attempts towards reversing it, and some significant sections of it basically pretend it didn't occur to a certain degree.  But an early feature of it was an attempt to justify what it had done, which it never really came up with a good thesis for.  Part of that simply devolved to creating a mythical history of Medieval Catholicism, a different approach than that taken by the norther European principalities that followed Luther, who also didn't mean to really separate at first.

Over time, the mythical history of the Medieval Church that the English created passed away in the UK itself.  Brave Catholic remnants hung on, and the fact that Ireland was part of the United Kingdom always meant that the fables had objections to them.  But in the English colonial experiments in North America, this was largely untrue.  Immigrants to the colonies were overwhelmingly Protestant, if in some areas not overwhelmingly Anglican.  Fables developed during the Reformation were carried over and instituted into the telling of American history and into American culture, which is why even now students at higher levels will hear stories of bloody Inquisitions and naked aggression in the Middle East that are simply untrue.

Part of the fable is that the country has always been supportive of "freedom of religion" and even that this is enshrined in the Constitution.  It isn't, and it hasn't been.  

At the time of the Revolution, almost all American colonist were Protestants.  Certainly exceptions existed, but Catholics were a distinct minority and members of other religions, such as Judaism, were nearly non-existent.  A significant exception had been Africans brought over as slaves prior to the 1700s, but during the 1700s they largely converted to Protestant faiths, reflecting the religion of where they were held, although often not the same varieties, exactly, of Protestantism of those who held them in bondage.  Certainly slaves when first brought over, which was still occurring at the time of the Revolution irrespective of its illegality, were members of African animist religions by and large. About 1/3d were Muslim, however, and a few were Catholic.  In terms of cultural myth, this is interesting in that it's commonly forgotten that most African slaves were animists at the time of their enslavement and also that the common excuse at the time that they would be introduced to Christianity actually wasn't true for all of them, some already being Christians.  Be all of that as it may, the legacy of pre enslavement religions dissipated relatively rapidly, although some remnant of it remains even today in terms of folk beliefs.¹ 

In 1776 when the nation rebelled against its Anglican monarch, King George III, most of the rebellious leaders in the Continental Congress were solidly Protestant.  Indeed, one of the Intolerable Acts they passed as causi belli was the Quebec Act, which allowed the Québécois to remain Catholic, which says volumes about just how anti-Catholic the country was.  A popular myth had developed that the founders of the republic and its constitution were largely non-Christian theists, but it's largely baloney.   The article linked in above sort of adopts that view, without really fully expressing it, in order to avoid, most likely, that the Founders founded a Christian nation, or a Protestant one.

That aside, they certainly did found a theistic republic, and their early thoughts and documents are shot through with it.  Nearly all of them, if not in fact all of them, believed in "natural law" which, as the article notes shows up in the Declaration of Independence, which states:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

And it goes on from there.

Okay, well so what?

Part of this is just historical.  It's important to be accurate about a nation's history, and frankly the country was founded as a Protestant republic in which everyone, almost, was a Protestant.  That was its culture, and to an enormous degree, it remains its culture today.  Countries always have a culture, and beyond that, they deserve one.

But (and there's always a but), this also raises some important cultural, let alone, religious topics.

As to Protestants, one thing to keep in mind that while various Protestant denominations made up the majority of practice for Americans, there was not one single Protestant church and as the nation grew, this very much became the case. At the time of the  Revolution, it would have been highly likely that almost everyone in a community in which any one person lived was the same type of Protestant.  In Appalachians regions, for example, most were some type of Protestant.  In New England, most were (although not all0 were likely Anglicans.  There were Quakers and other sects of course, but people largely lived in a community in which everyone was a member of that sect, unless you were of a distinct minority community like Catholics and Jews.

As the country expanded, however, this began to change, a fact aided by the separation from the United Kingdom which now meant that immigrants from Norther Europe in general, rather than Great Britain in particular, were widely accepted..  European Protestant faiths that had not been in the country in large numbers began to come in, with no real opposition to that.  Lutherans became very common in areas with large communities of Germans.  Various Anabaptist groups, always present, likewise expanded and became very influential in some regions of the country, particularly the American South.

And into this distinctly American brands of Protestantism developed, something that Americans seem particularly ignorant of today.  The "village preacher" or the church that was only loosely affiliated with a denomination became common.

Gather at the River in eight different John Ford films.  Ford was a devout Catholic, and obviously saw this song as emblematic of American, and Protestant, Christianity.  I've heard it in a Catholic Mass exactly once, in Pennsylvania.

This in fact became a feature of American life.  Well into the 1980s, of course, most American towns were heavily represented by a wide variety of American Protestant churches, but almost all of them had what is now called  "non-denominational" church headed up by a pastor who likely also worked five days out of seven in something else.  That figure became such an iconic American that such pastors are portrayed again and again in American films, such as those noted above, but even in much more recent ones.

The fact that American Christianity became sufficiently separate from European Christianity mean that a sort of do it yourself Christianity took particularly strong root in the US, and also in Canada, in a way that it didn't elsewhere.  Those who separated, for example, from the Russian Orthodox Church in Imperial Russia tended to become Old Believers, or even Catholics, although populations of refugee Anabaptists came into the country as well.  You don't find big populations of minority in Protestant religions anywhere else, however, in North America, save for areas that American Protestants have sought to proselytize in, some of which are areas that are already heavily Catholic or Orthodox.  Unique nearly wholly American strains of Protestantism, or religions that came out of Christianity, developed.

As this occured, it had an impact on the culture noted above, and still very much does.  Demographers have wondered about the rise of the "nones", but in fact they've always been there.  Rank and file Protestants have often not worried much about pew hopping.  People baptized in a Baptist Church will go to an Assemblies of God Church, and not think much about it.  Beyond that, a fairly large group of Americans feels that they are really God-fearing Christians, even though they very rarely go to Church.  I've heard people who never darken the door of a church save for a funeral or wedding discuss in earnest terms how the country needs to turn back to its Christian values, and in fairness, some do in fact practice Christian virtues fairly notably.

As the same time, however, people who claim this sort of loose ill-defined American Christianity often have completely jettisoned huge tenants of actual Christianity.  People will live together without being married or otherwise engage in conduct that any conventional strain of Christianity regards as gravely sinful.  Divorce, specifically prohibited by Christ, is widely practiced by American Protestants who don't give it a second thought.  In some ways, the easy practice of the very loose American Protestantism ranges from religion made very, very easy, to those denominations which have very strict rules that never actually appear in the New Testament, or Old, at all.

The Pine Tree Flag, one of the flags used by American revolutionaries during the war for independence.  People can say what they like, but a rebel army flying a flag like this is not battling for a secular republic.  Currently, this flag is associated with a group of far right wing Evangelicals of the New Apostolic Reformation who are inaccurately defined as Christian Nationalist, but who do share significant amounts of their goals including the restoration or imposition of a Christian, by which they really mean Evangelical Protestant superstructure on the country. 

Into this mix, however, we now have the New Apostolic Reformation, a Protestant movement that is confused by commentators with Christian Nationalism and even sometimes confused at to its American Protestant status.

The New Apostolic Reformation comes out of that branch of American Protestantism that has the concept that the United States itself has a particular Devine mission.  This sort of thinking has roots in American Protestantism that go fairly far back in the 19th Century, and it still is particularly strong in some branches of non-mainline, if that is a word, Protestantism, and also in Great Awakening religions that came out of Protestantism.  The followers of such thoughts tend to believe, for example, that certain figures (often George Washington) were charged by a Devine mission at the time of the Revolution, and also tend to believe that the U.S. Constitution was divinely inspired.  You can find such thoughts today amongst various American Protestant religions outside of those which have retained strongly European roots, and also, as noted, as offshoots from Christianity.  For example, you will sometimes hear the words common to the belief quoted by some Mormons, although it is not a tenant of the Mormon faith itself.

It was partially this line of thought that gave rise to the Manifest Destiny belief that many Americans held in the 19th Century, but it carried on until the 20th Century. Consider, for example, this 1900 statement after the US had taken the Philippines during the Spanish American War:

Mr. President, the times call for candor. The Philippines are ours forever, "territory belonging to the United States," as the Constitrltion calls them. And just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. We will not repudiate our duty in the archipelago. We will not abandon our opportunity in the Orient. We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world. And we will move forward to our work, not howling out regrets like slaves whipped to their burdens, but with gratitude for a task worthy of our strength, and thanksgiving to Almighty God that He has marked us as His chosen people, henceforth to lead in the regeneration of the world.

* * *

Mr. President, this question is deeper than any question of party politics: deeper than any question of the isolated policy of our country even; deeper even than any question of constitutional power. It is elemental. It is racial. God has not been preparing the English-speaking and Teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing hut vain and idle self-contemplation and self-admiration. No! He has made us the master organizers of the world to establish system where chaos reigns. He has given its the spirit of progress to overwhelm the forces of reaction throughout the earth. He has made us adepts in government that we may administer government among savage and senile peoples. Were it not for such a force as this the world would relapse into barbarism and night. And of all our race He has marked the American people as His chosen nation to finally lead in the regeneration of the world. This is the divine mission of America, and it holds for us all the profit, all the glory, all the happiness possible to man. We are trustees of the world's progress, guardians of its righteous peace. The judgment of the Master is upon us: "Ye have been faithful over a few things; I will make you ruler over many thing."

From Congressional Record(56th Cong., 1st Session) Vol XXXIII, pp.705, 711.

The concept of the US as a New Testament "chosen people" remains surprisingly strong in some quarters of American Protestantism.

The New Apostolic Reformation, faced with a United States of the early 21st Century in which the openly strong Protestant connections are now highly muted in many places, have taken this one step further than most did in the past and openly seek to establish a new wing of Protestantism which advocates for the "restoration" of perceived "lost offices" of what they conceive to have been, inaccurately, in the early Church, such as prophet and apostle. There were indeed, of course, prophets in Judaism.  And there were apostles during the Apostolic Age.  Indeed, as a distinctly Protestant movement, it ironically fails to grasp that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are true Apostolic Churches, and they were founded by the apostles.  Restoring the "office" of apostle is not possible, as the Apostolic Age is over and Apostolic revelation fixed, something acknowledged not only by the Apostolic Churches, but also those churches of the Protestant Reformation which arose during the Reformation, the latter of which differ on that point from the Apostolic Churches only in regard to their relationship to the Apostles.

The NAR has been particularly associated with current strains of Trumpist populism, and in a vague sort of way helps to explain what is going on.  As American Protestantism outside the mainline Protestant churches has always had sort of a "do it yourself" aspect to it, it's free to conceive of a mission like the NAR's while also free to ignore vast tracks of actual Christian doctrine.  Looked at that way, the NAR doesn't, at least for the time being, need to worry itself about divorce and remarriage as antithetical to Christianity, or even the requirement that Christians be their brother's keeper.  Rather, the thought is, that is, by some, that political success can be achieved, after which a society modeled in their view of Christianity can be imposed from the top down.

In this fashion, the life of a figure like Donald Trump can be flat out ignored in pursuit of what is imagined to be a greater goal, which is distinctly different from the view of some other Christians that they must vote for Trump as they have no other moral choice.  Looked at this way, Trump becomes some sort of latter day Cyrus the Great, a non congregant being used by God to achieve a greater goal.  It's a radical belief, but it is out there.

Speaker of the House Johnson flies the Pine Tree flag outside of his Congressional office.

The flag of Vatican City.  This flag can occasionally be found in Catholic Churches.  I can recall at one time a point at which American flags, which also occasionally could be found in Catholic Churches in the US, were removed.

An oddity in the US is that the largest single religion in the United States is a minority religion, that being Catholicism.  Most Americans are Protestants, but the single biggest faith is the Catholic faith.  And contrary to what some like to suggest, not only are Catholic numbers holding their own, but they're growing.  At the same time this is occurring, moreover, the second "lung" of the Church, Orthodoxy, is expanding as well.  

Because this is such a Protestant country in culture and outlook, one of the things about at least a lot of Catholics in the US is that they were heavily Protestantized, something that really took off once JFK told the country he could be a Catholic on Sundays, but the country didn't really need to worry about that for the rest of the week. A disaster for Catholics, Catholics rushed to acclimate and went from being seen as vaguely strange and threatening to the rest of the country to being just one denomination. At the same time that this occured, actual reforms in the Church, combined with the "Spirit of Vatican Two" in fact made Catholics seem that way to many "main line" Protestants and also to many rank and file Catholics.  Many distinctly Catholic practices that had deeply inserted themselves into Catholic culture disappeared.  Catholics Masses were now in English (most places) or Spanish in some.  Catholics no longer were bound to eating fish as a penitential observance on Fridays outside of Lent.  Distinctive female head coverings started to disappear (prior to Vatican II, we'd note).  Unique accordance of respect in a formal way towards Priests ended.  A fairly uniform Catholic education ended (one that I hadn't participated in, nor had my father).  A weak 1970 Catechetical set of instruction came in, leading to an entire generation, of which I am part, hardly knowing the ins and outs of their Faith by the time they passed through it.

By the 80s and 90s, members of the Church who would never have thought of marrying in a Protestant Church or church shopping were doing so. Divorce and remarriage, something long common in the Protestant churches, also came in.

In some ways, it's now easy, retrospectively, to see how this came about.  A lot of this was due to what might be regarded as cultural shell shock, or as one sociologist put it in a different context, "future shock".  A generally disdained people for the most part, in much of the country Catholics kept to themselves and lived in "Catholic Ghettos" where their cultural uniqueness wasn't open to the rest of the world up through the middle of the 20th Century. This was never wholly the case, of course, and there were always notable converts to Catholics who were out in the world.  In the West, which always tended to break down distinctions, this was much less the case once people were outside of big cities, like Denver and Salt Lake.  

Still, in that time period, most Catholics were also blue collar workers and very few, save for some in certain professional occupations, had attended university.  Those that did often tried to attend a Catholic university, which in those days were really Catholic.  So, in much of the country they worked blue collar jobs, if they were professional their clientele was Catholic as a rule, and they tended to live in Catholic Communities. This was true for the Orthodox as well.  And it was also true for Jews.  Indeed, in some ways, the overall situation of these communities resembled that of African Americans, all of whom were disdained by the Ku Klux Klan and other nativists. 

World War Two started to massively erode this.  For the first time large numbers of Catholics attended university and after the war, for the same reason, this continued on due to the GI Bill.  The walls of the Catholic (and Orthodox) Ghettos began to come down.  Vatican II came along and made institutional changes in the church. Separately, the Vatican change the liturgy to its current form, a definite improvement, and provided that it could be said in the vernacular.  Bishops and Priests who assumed a certain directly from this began to expand on it, and a Catholic President came in and told Americans that Catholics were just like everyone else, something a lot of Americans rapidly embraced. Similar developments happened north of the border where the Church itself started the process of dismantling institutional control of large areas of Quebec society, which in turn developed into the Quiet Revolution.

Looking back now, lots of younger Catholics wonder why their grandparents allowed so much to erode.  Why did they allow the incidents of Catholic culture to fade? Why did they put up with taking out the altar rails?  Why wasn't some Latin retained?  Why did the parishioners not balk when the Bishops lift year around penitential meatless Fridays?  The shock of it all seems like a likely answer.  Having gone from heavily Irish, or German, or Italian communities and practicing a religion that practically had its own language, and that meaning that your future in the larger, Protestant, American society was at least partially laid out for you, and limited, to one in which they were told that they were fully part of the larger consumerist limitless American society where the rules only loosely applied, and then having part of the old culture simply destroyed, they were shell shocked.

But, in application of Yeoman's First Law of Behavior and Third Law of History, they've gotten over it now.

We've discussed this a lot recently, but at this point, it seems pretty clear that something is going on, and maybe even clear what it is.  One big thing is that we Catholics are different after all.

Try as the American Church of hte 70s might, the fact of the matter is that CAtholic's remain stubbornly subject to the letter to Diogentus:

Christians are indistinguishable from other men either by nationality, language or customs. They do not inhabit separate cities of their own, or speak a strange dialect, or follow some outlandish way of life. Their teaching is not based upon reveries inspired by the curiosity of men. Unlike some other people, they champion no purely human doctrine. With regard to dress, food and manner of life in general, they follow the customs of whatever city they happen to be living in, whether it is Greek or foreign. 

And yet there is something extraordinary about their lives. They live in their own countries as though they were only passing through. They play their full role as citizens, but labor under all the disabilities of aliens. Any country can be their homeland, but for them their homeland, wherever it may be, is a foreign country. Like others, they marry and have children, but they do not expose them. They share their meals, but not their wives.  

They live in the flesh, but they are not governed by the desires of the flesh. They pass their days upon earth, but they are citizens of heaven. Obedient to the laws, they yet live on a level that transcends the law. Christians love all men, but all men persecute them. Condemned because they are not understood, they are put to death, but raised to life again. They live in poverty, but enrich many; they are totally destitute, but possess an abundance of everything. They suffer dishonor, but that is their glory. They are defamed, but vindicated. A blessing is their answer to abuse, deference their response to insult. For the good they do they receive the punishment of malefactors, but even then they, rejoice, as though receiving the gift of life. They are attacked by the Jews as aliens, they are persecuted by the Greeks, yet no one can explain the reason for this hatred. 

To speak in general terms, we may say that the Christian is to the world what the soul is to the body. As the soul is present in every part of the body, while remaining distinct from it, so Christians are found in all the cities of the world, but cannot be identified with the world. As the visible body contains the invisible soul, so Christians are seen living in the world, but their religious life remains unseen. The body hates the soul and wars against it, not because of any injury the soul has done it, but because of the restriction the soul places on its pleasures. Similarly, the world hates the Christians, not because they have done it any wrong, but because they are opposed to its enjoyments. 

Christians love those who hate them just as the soul loves the body and all its members despite the body's hatred. It is by the soul, enclosed within the body, that the body is held together, and similarly, it is by the Christians, detained in the world as in a prison, that the world is held together. The soul, though immortal, has a mortal dwelling place; and Christians also live for a time amidst perishable things, while awaiting the freedom from change and decay that will be theirs in heaven. As the soul benefits from the deprivation of food and drink, so Christians flourish under persecution. Such is the Christian’s lofty and divinely appointed function, from which he is not permitted to excuse himself.  

In other words, Catholics that came up after the 80s looked at what the World had given to accommodating Catholics of the late 60s, 70s, and 80s, and found it wholly wanting.  Like topics, we're otherwise writing on in slow motion, tradition, which turns out to be grounded in something real, and there's an effort to take it back. As that's being done, it's the case that the reforms that came in are being rejected, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.

Trad girls in conservative skirts and wearing chapel veils, young men fairly conservatively dressed, parishioners attempting to secure Latin Masses, or going to Easter Rite Devine Liturgy, aren't seeking to reform the reform, which up until recently was the vanguard of a return to tradition. They're seeking to wholesale bring the incidents of Catholicism back in.  In doing that, they're making it plain that they're not just another denomination, and they don't want to really be part of the American religious scene.  Whether they're applying the Benedict Option or the Constantine one, they're not only not melting in, they're returning to wholesale different.  And that different doesn't look back to 1776, it looks all the way back.

So why does any of this matter?

Cyrus the Great.  Some far right Evangelicals tend to see Trump as a sort of Cyrus figure.  Cyrus was not Jewish, but his proclimations favored the Jewish faith in an existential sense.

Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying: 'Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia: All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD, the God of heaven, given me; and He hath charged me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whosoever there is among you of all His people—his God be with him—let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the LORD, the God of Israel, He is the God who is in Jerusalem. And whosoever is left, in any place where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, beside the freewill-offering for the house of God which is in Jerusalem.'

 Ezra 1:1–4

Well, it does, for a variety of reasons, some mild, and some a bit scary.

One thing is this.  It used to be particularly noted by some that the English-speaking world was particularly given to democracy, which it was.  Those with a limited horizon tended to associate this solely with the United States, but that was in fact extremely inaccurate.  The United Kingdom had a functioning parliament in 1776 when we abandoned the UK's overlordship, and in fact that is part of the reason that we did that. They had a Parliament, and they weren't letting us in.

A person can say what they want about that and try to disassociate it somehow from something particularly English, but it is there.  France, in 1776, wasn't democratic. Spain wasn't either.  You can't really find another major power that was.  And all of England's progeny took this path for a long time.  Canada never had a non-democratic moment.  Nor did New Zealand, or Australia.

Now, English democracy was not perfect, and the franchise was not even particularly large.  Major classes were completely excluded based on economic, and also in the case of Catholics, religion.  But it was there and that heritage was conveyed.  Moreover, when it took root in North America, it expanded beyond what it had been in the UK pretty rapidly.

Which leads us to a more radical proposition.

What was also conveyed early on was a certain culture, and part of that was a political culture. The overall culture, however, was Protestant.  And it remains so.  It's so Protestant that even the atheists are culturally Protestant.

An essential element of that American Protestantism is the concept of "I can make up my mind for myself and nobody can tell me what to do".  Lots of religious "reformers" in the US have done that, but that's a Protestant thing.  To Protestants, it's not strange to hop from one Protestant denomination to another, and to even include denominations that claim to have no denomination, even though the they do.  Catholics and Jews, on the other hand, are part of one, big, global, faith.  Moving from parish to parish, for Catholics, is no big deal, as Catholicism is the Church.  But going to another denomination is an extraordinarily radical move and an act of rebellion.

Democracy, of course, as a movement has spread well beyond the English-speaking world and indeed, there were democracies that spring up in various places in the non Protestant world, as for in example Italian city states.  Antiquarians will point out the example of ancient Athens, or even Germanic and Nordic raiding bands.  On the last item, all people are democratic at the tribal level, pretty much.  None of this really counters the point, however.

This brings us to the next reason this is important.  The most recent movement, which is threading through American Evangelicalism, is radically exclusionary in a way, and this too is part of the North American religious heritage.

It wasn't until after the Civil War that American society really started to view Catholics as suitable citizens,a and then only reluctantly. The huge Irish and German immigrant populations that fought in the war made Catholics impossible to really ignore.  Jewish Americans were really small in number, but they started to be accepted, very reluctantly, about the same time.  As this occured the word "Judeo-Christian" was invented to include everyone then in the country in a singular larger American Christian sort of world.  But the fact remains that hostility towards both religions, and more recently Islam, has been an ongoing feature of American life.

Catholics, and if there are any, Jews and Muslims (the latter two unlikely in any numbers) flirting with the new concepts of Christian Nationalism and National Conservatism really need to do so at their caution.  The New Apostolic Reformation forces may have a similar view on moral matters as mainstream and conservative Catholics do, but the NAR is definitely not Catholic.  And the history for Americans of general of politics and religion being welded together, and indeed coopting each other, is not a comfortable one at all.  Put another way, Donald Trump is not a deeply religious, or even moral, man, and there's no real reason to believe that he's some sort of Cyrus the Great.

But some clearly see him that way, explaining their actions, and even some of the odd propoganda in the Trumpist camp.

None of this is to say that faith shouldn't inform a person's politics.  It should.  But they are not the same thing.

Footnotes:

1. Native Americans of course had their own religions, but what was different about their history, up until the early 20th Century, is that unless highly assimilated, they weren't "Americans" at all.  It wasn't until 1924, a date which our 100 year retrospective posts haven't even yet reached, that all Native Americans were granted U.S. citizenship.

Related Threads:

Christian Nationalism, National Conservatism and Southern Populism. Eh?

Churches of the West: Squaring off. Five Cardinals, the Pope, and the Synod on Synodality

Churches of the West: Squaring off. Five Cardinals, the Pope, and the S...: 

Squaring off. Five Cardinals, the Pope, and the Synod on Synodality.

Synod on Synodality retreat looks to ‘transcend all our disagreements

So read a headline from the Catholic News Agency, regarding a pre Synod retreat.

That might be the intent, but right now, the Synod is amplifying them and leading a lot of traditional, conservative and I dare say run-of-the-mill Catholics to really suffer anxiety from what's occurring while their view of Pope Francis declines.

I'm in that camp.

I don't worry that the Pope is going to change doctrine, or that the Synod will, but I do worry that the result of this will be an effort to water it down by doing end runs around its application, thereby creating confusion.  That's already occurring, which is evident by Catholics who have determined that dedicated personal attractions to sin are not sinful, and that the Pope is set to take the torch to St. Paul and ratify their non-sinful status.¹   This in turn is likely to result in massive dissention within the Church, resisting the days of the Arian heresy and events of such nature.  Francis is not likely to go down, long term, as a Pope who is fondly remembered by future orthodox Catholics.  He's a strain on them now.

This week this came to a head with the publication of Dubia by its authors and a direct letter by those authors to the faithful. Cardinals Walter Cardinal Brandmüller, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, Juan Cardinal Sandoval Íñiguez, Robert Cardinal Sarah and Joseph Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun have written to the faithful regarding their correspondence with the Pope. The letter comes in the form, essentially, of both notifying the faithful of what was said, but also in the form of a sort of warning that in their view the Pope's action stand to create confusion.

It was a bold thing to do.

Let's take a look at the correspondence.  First, their letter of October 2, 2023.

Notification to Christ’s Faithful (can. 212 § 3)

Regarding Dubia Submitted to Pope Francis

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

We, members of the Sacred College of Cardinals, in accord with the duty of all the faithful “to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church” (can. 212 § 3) and, above all, in accord with the responsibility of Cardinals “to assist the Roman Pontiff … individually … especially in the daily care of the universal Church” (can. 349), in view of various declarations of highly-placed Prelates, pertaining to the celebration of the next Synod of Bishops, that are openly contrary to the constant doctrine and discipline of the Church, and that have generated and continue to generate great confusion and the falling into error among the faithful and other persons of good will, have manifested our deepest concern to the Roman Pontiff. By our letter of July 10, 2023, employing the proven practice of the submission of dubia [questions] to a superior to provide the superior the occasion to make clear, by his responsa [responses], the doctrine and discipline of the Church, we have submitted five dubia to Pope Francis, a copy of which is attached. By his letter of July 11, 2023, Pope Francis responded to our letter.

Having studied his letter which did not follow the practice of responsa ad dubia [responses to questions], we reformulated the dubia to elicit a clear response based on the perennial doctrine and discipline of the Church. By our letter of August 21, 2023, we submitted the reformulated dubia, a copy of which is attached, to the Roman Pontiff. Up to the present, we have not received a response to the reformulated dubia.

Given the gravity of the matter of the dubia, especially in view of the imminent session of the Synod of Bishops, we judge it our duty to inform you, the faithful (can. 212 § 3), so that you may not be subject to confusion, error, and discouragement but rather may pray for the universal Church and, in particular, the Roman Pontiff, that the Gospel may be taught ever more clearly and followed ever more faithfully.

                                   Yours in Christ,

           Walter Cardinal Brandmüller

           Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke

           Juan Cardinal Sandoval Íñiguez

           Robert Cardinal Sarah

           Joseph Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun

Rome, 2 October 2023

 The Dubia to which this refers, followed by the Pope's reply, is set out below.:

DUBIA

(Submitted July 10, 2023)

1 Dubium about the claim that we should reinterpret Divine Revelation according to the cultural and anthropological changes in vogue.

After the statements of some Bishops, which have been neither corrected nor retracted, it is asked whether in the Church Divine Revelation should be reinterpreted according to the cultural changes of our time and according to the new anthropological vision that these changes promote; or whether Divine Revelation is binding forever, immutable and therefore not to be contradicted, according to the dictum of the Second Vatican Council, that to God who reveals is due “the obedience of faith”(Dei Verbum 5); that what is revealed for the salvation of all must remain “in their entirety, throughout the ages” and alive, and be “transmitted to all generations” (7); and that the progress of understanding does not imply any change in the truth of things and words, because faith has been “handed on … once and for all” (8), and the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but teaches only what has been handed on (10).

2 Dubium about the claim that the widespread practice of the blessing of same-sex unions would be in accord with Revelation and the Magisterium (CCC 2357).

According to Divine Revelation, confirmed in Sacred Scripture, which the Church “at the divine command with the help of the Holy Spirit, … listens to devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully ” (Dei Verbum 10): “In the beginning” God created man in his own image, male and female he created them and blessed them, that they might be fruitful (cf. Gen. 1, 27-28), whereby the Apostle Paul teaches that to deny sexual difference is the consequence of the denial of the Creator (Rom 1, 24-32). It is asked: Can the Church derogate from this “principle,” considering it, contrary to what Veritatis Splendor 103 taught, as a mere ideal, and accepting as a “possible good” objectively sinful situations, such as same-sex unions, without betraying revealed doctrine?

3 Dubium about the assertion that synodality is a “constitutive element of the Church” (Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio 6), so that the Church would, by its very nature, be synodal.

Given that the Synod of Bishops does not represent the College of Bishops but is merely a consultative organ of the Pope, since the Bishops, as witnesses of the faith, cannot delegate their confession of the truth, it is asked whether synodality can be the supreme regulative criterion of the permanent government of the Church without distorting her constitutive order willed by her Founder, whereby the supreme and full authority of the Church is exercised both by the Pope by virtue of his office and by the College of Bishops together with its head the Roman Pontiff (Lumen Gentium 22). 

4 Dubium about pastors’ and theologians’ support for the theory that “the theology of the Church has changed” and therefore that priestly ordination can be conferred on women.

After the statements of some prelates, which have been neither corrected nor retracted, according to which, with Vatican II, the theology of the Church and the meaning of the Mass has changed, it is asked whether the dictum of the Second Vatican Council is still valid, that “[the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood] differ essentially and not only in degree” (Lumen Gentium 10) and that presbyters by virtue of the “sacred power of Order, that of offering sacrifice and forgiving sins” (Presbyterorum Ordinis 2), act in the name and in the person of Christ the Mediator, through Whom the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is made perfect. It is furthermore asked whether the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which teaches as a truth to be definitively held the impossibility of conferring priestly ordination on women, is still valid, so that this teaching is no longer subject to change nor to the free discussion of pastors or theologians.

5 Dubium about the statement “forgiveness is a human right” and the Holy Father’s insistence on the duty to absolve everyone and always, so that repentance would not be a necessary condition for sacramental absolution.

It is asked whether the teaching of the Council of Trent, according to which the contrition of the penitent, which consists in detesting the sin committed with the intention of sinning no more (Session XIV, Chapter IV: DH 1676), is necessary for the validity of sacramental confession, is still in force, so that the priest must postpone absolution when it is clear that this condition is not fulfilled.

Vatican City, 10 July 2023

Walter Card. Brandmüller

Raymond Leo Card. Burke

Juan Card. Sandoval Íñiguez

Robert Card. Sarah

Joseph Card. Zen Ze-Kiun, S.D.B.

The Reply:

Dear Brothers,

While I do not always find it prudent to answer questions addressed directly to me, and it would be impossible to answer them all, in this case I thought it appropriate to do so because of the proximity of the Synod.

Question 1

a) The answer depends on the meaning you give to the word “reinterpret”. If it is understood as “to interpret better” the expression is valid. In this sense, the Second Vatican Council affirms that it is necessary that with the work of exegetes – I would add of theologians – the Church’s judgment should mature” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 12).

b) Therefore, while it is true that divine Revelation is immutable and always binding, the Church must be humble and recognize that she never exhausts its unfathomable richness and needs to grow in her understanding.

c) Consequently, she also matures in her understanding of what she herself has affirmed in her Magisterium.

d) Cultural changes and the new challenges of history do not modify Revelation, but they can stimulate us to make more explicit some aspects of its overflowing richness, which always offers more.

e) It is inevitable that this can lead to a better expression of some past statements of the Magisterium, and in fact this has been the case throughout history.

f) On the other hand, it is true that the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but it is also true that both the texts of Scripture and the testimonies of Tradition need an interpretation that makes it possible to distinguish their perennial substance from cultural conditioning. It is evident, for example, in the biblical texts (such as Ex 21:20-21) and in certain magisterial interventions that tolerated slavery (cf. Nicholas V, Bull Dum Diversas, 1452). This is not a minor issue given its intimate connection with the perennial truth of the inalienable dignity of the human person. These texts are in need of interpretation. The same is true for some New Testament considerations on women (1 Cor 11:3-10; 1 Tim 2:11-14) and for other texts of Scripture and testimonies of Tradition that today cannot be materially repeated.

g) It is important to emphasize that what cannot change is what has been revealed “for the salvation of all” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 7). For this reason the Church must constantly discern between what is essential for salvation and what is secondary or less directly connected with this goal. In this regard, I would like to recall what St. Thomas Aquinas said:

“the more one descends to 10 particulars, the more indeterminacy increases” (Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 94, art. 4).

h) Finally, a single formulation of a truth can never be adequately understood if it is presented in isolation, isolated from the rich and harmonious context of the whole of Revelation. The “hierarchy of truths” also implies situating each of them in adequate connection with the more central truths and with the totality of the Church’s teaching. This can finally give rise to different ways of expounding the same doctrine, even though “to those who are satisfied with a monolithic doctrine defended by all without nuance, this may seem an imperfect dispersion.

But the reality is that this variety helps to better manifest and develop the various aspects of the inexhaustible richness of the Gospel” (Evangelii Gaudium, 49). Each theological line has its risks but also its opportunities.

Question 2

a) The Church has a very clear conception of marriage: an exclusive, stable and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the begetting of children. Only this union is called “marriage”. Other forms of union are realized only “in a partial and analogous way” (Amoris laetitia 292), which is why they cannot strictly be called “marriage”.² 

b) It is not a mere question of names, but the reality that we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that demands an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal”.

c) For this reason the Church avoids any kind of rite or sacramental that could contradict this conviction and give the impression that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.

d) In dealing with people, however, pastoral charity, which must permeate all our decisions and attitudes, must not be lost. The defense of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity, which is also made up of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot become judges who only deny, reject, exclude.³ 

e) For this reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not transmit a mistaken conception of marriage. Because when a blessing is requested, one is expressing a request for help from God, a plea to be able to Live better, a trust in a Father who can help us to Live better.

f) On the other hand, although there are situations that from the objective point of view are not morally acceptable, pastoral charity itself requires us not to treat as “sinners” other people whose guilt or responsibility may be attenuated by various factors that influence subjective imputability (cf. St. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).

g) Decisions which, in certain circumstances, can form part of pastoral prudence, should not necessarily become a norm. That is to say, it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops’ Conference or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and in an official way enable procedures or rites for all kinds of matters, since everything “that which is part of a practical discernment in a particular situation cannot be elevated to the category of a norm”, because this “would give rise to an unbearable casuistry” (Amoris laetitia 304). Canon Law should not and cannot cover everything, nor should the Episcopal Conferences claim to do so with their various documents and protocols, because the life of the Church runs through many channels in addition to the normative ones.

Question 3

a) Although you recognize that the supreme and full authority of the Church is exercised either by the Pope because of his office or by the college of bishops together with its head, the Roman Pontiff (cf. Conc. Ecumen. Vat. II, Const. dogm. Lumen gentium, 22), nevertheless with these dubia you yourselves manifest your need to participate, to give your opinion freely and to collaborate, and thus you are claiming some form of “synodality” in the exercise of my ministry.

b) The Church is “mystery of missionary communion”, but this communion is not only affective or ethereal, but necessarily implies real participation: that not only the hierarchy but all the People of God in different ways and at different levels can make their voices heard and feel part of the Church’s journey.

In this sense we can say that synodality, as a style and dynamism, is an essential dimension of the life of the Church. On this point St. John Paul II has said very beautiful things in Novo Millennio Ineunte.

c) It is quite another thing to sacralize or impose a particular synodal methodology that pleases one group, to make it the norm and obligatory channel for all, because this would only lead to “freezing” the synodal journey, ignoring the diverse characteristics of the different particular Churches and the varied richness of the universal Church.

Question 4

a) “The common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood differ essentially” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 10). It is not convenient to maintain a difference of degree that implies considering the common priesthood of the faithful as something of “second category” or of lesser value (“a lower degree”). Both forms of priesthood enlighten and sustain each other.

b) When St. John Paul II taught that the impossibility of conferring priestly ordination on women must be affirmed “definitively,” he was in no way disparaging women and giving supreme power to men. St. John Paul II also affirmed other things. For example, that when we speak of priestly power “we are in the realm of function, not dignity or holiness” (St. John Paul II, Christifideles Laici, 51). These are words that we have not sufficiently embraced. He also clearly maintained that while the priest alone presides at the Eucharist, the tasks “do not give rise to superiority of one over the other” (St. John Paul II, Christifideles laici, note 190; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration inter /risi9n/ores, VI). He also affirmed that if the priestly function is “hierarchical,” it should not be understood as a form of domination, but “is totally ordered to the holiness of the members of Christ” (St. John Paul II, Mulieris dignitatem, 27). If this is not understood and the practical consequences of these distinctions are not drawn, it will be difficult to accept that the priesthood is reserved only to men and we will not be able to recognize the rights of women or the need for them to participate, in various ways, in the leadership of the Church.

c) On the other hand, to be rigorous, let us recognize that a clear and authoritative doctrine about the exact nature of a “definitive statement” has not yet been exhaustively developed. It is not a dogmatic definition, and yet it must be adhered to by all. No one can publicly contradict it and yet it can be the subject of study, as is the case with the validity of ordinations in the Anglican Communion.

Question 5

a) Repentance is necessary for the validity of sacramental absolution, and implies the intention not to sin. But there is no mathematics here and once again I must remind you that the confessional is not a customs house. We are not owners, but humble stewards of the Sacraments that nourish the faithful, because these gifts of the Lord, more than relics to be guarded, are aids of the Holy Spirit for people’s lives.

b) There are many ways of expressing repentance. Often, in people who have a very wounded self-esteem, to plead guilty is a cruel torture, but the mere fact of approaching confession is a symbolic expression of repentance and of seeking divine help.

c) I would also like to recall that “sometimes it is very difficult for us to make room in pastoral ministry for the unconditional love of God” (Amoris laetitia 311), but we must learn to do so. Following St. John Paul II, I maintain that we should not demand from the faithful too precise and sure resolutions of amendment, which in the end can end up being abstract or even egotistical, but that even the foreseeability of a new fall “does not prejudge the authenticity of the resolution” (St. John Paul II, Letter to Card. William W. Baum and the participants of the annual course of the Apostolic Penitentiary, March 22, 1996, 5).

d) Finally, it should be clear that all the conditions that are usually placed on confession are generally not applicable when the person is in a situation of agony, or with very limited mental and psychic capacities.

This seems a full reply to me, but not a comforting one.  The Pope is bad about "the other hand" formulation on very serious matters, which interjects doubt by is very nature.  If things are muddled, and we know the rule, but "on the other hand", we invite first individual clerics and then individual laymen to assume that they fit into the "the other hand" and are exempt from the moral rule.

The Pope here, I suspect, is showing the sort of flexibility that is common, on an informal basis, in some parts of the world, but which will be poorly situated to apply here.  For example, it was common in some parts of the world for couples that intended to marry to basically contract a marriage independently and then wait for a traveling priest to later bless the union.  That certainly would not be tolerated as valid in North America, but it was in Central and South America at one time, for practical reasons.  At least in the 1970s (I don't know about now) books that instructed confessors on certain sins took a relaxed view based upon circumstances of a similar nature that I'm not going to get into, and this continues to be the case in other areas that are related.

Confusion over transubstantiation in at least Germany have lead to a practice in which in some areas Lutherans who are part of a marriage with a Catholic are allowed to receive Communion on the basis that they're beliefs, in some instances, are so close that it would be almost impossible for them to grasp that there is a difference.

I suspect that this is the area that Pope Francis is suggesting be explored.  Indeed, none other than the very orthodox Fr. Hugh Barbour has ventured the opinion that female same gender households that do not incorporate the element of sex may be fairly natural and not to be condemned, with the sexual element forced upon such individuals by the modern world.  Pope Francis may have something very similar to this in mind.

The problem, however, is that the Church never endorsed any of these things in a formal fashion. Recognizing mental state of mind for purposes of Confession, or for other purposes, is one thing.  Benedictions are another. 

Whether a person accepts Pope Francis' reply as correct, in part or in whole, is, of course, another matter from replying.  He did reply.  Frankly, given this reply, the Cardinal correspondents would have real reason to be concerned about the direction the Pope seems headed in, as do I.  Hence, they sent out a followup "Dubia", which is below:

REFORMULATED DUBIA

(Submitted August 21, 2023)

To His Holiness

FRANCIS

Supreme Pontiff

Most Holy Father,

We are very grateful for the answers which You have kindly wished to offer us. We would first like to clarify that, if we have asked You these questions, it is not out of fear of dialogue with the people of our time, nor of the questions they could ask us about the Gospel of Christ. In fact, we, like Your Holiness, are convinced that the Gospel brings fullness to human life and responds to our every question. The concern that moves us is another: we are concerned to see that there are pastors who doubt the ability of the Gospel to transform the hearts of men and end up proposing to them no longer sound doctrine but “teachings according to their own likings” (cf. 2 Tim 4, 3).  We are also concerned that it be understood that God’s mercy does not consist in covering our sins, but is much greater, in that it enables us to respond to His love by keeping His commandments, that is, to convert and believe in the Gospel (cf. Mk 1, 15).

With the same sincerity with which You have answered us, we must add that Your answers have not resolved the doubts we had raised, but have, if anything, deepened them. We therefore feel obliged to re-propose, reformulating them, these questions to Your Holiness, who as the successor of Peter is charged by the Lord to confirm Your brethren in the faith. This is all the more urgent in view of the upcoming Synod, which many want to use to deny Catholic doctrine on the very issues which our dubia concern. We therefore re-propose our questions to You, so that they can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.”

Your Holiness insists that the Church can deepen its understanding of the deposit of faith. This is indeed what Dei Verbum 8 teaches and belongs to Catholic doctrine. Your response, however, does not capture our concern. Many Christians, including pastors and theologians, argue today that the cultural and anthropological changes of our time should push the Church to teach the opposite of what it has always taught. This concerns essential, not secondary, questions for our salvation, like the confession of faith, subjective conditions for access to the sacraments, and observance of the moral law. So we want to rephrase our dubium: is it possible for the Church today to teach doctrines contrary to those she has previously taught in matters of faith and morals, whether by the Pope ex cathedra, or in the definitions of an Ecumenical Council, or in the ordinary universal magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world (cf. Lumen Gentium 25)?

Your Holiness has insisted on the fact that there can be no confusion between marriage and other types of unions of a sexual nature and that, therefore, any rite or sacramental blessing of same-sex couples, which would give rise to such confusion, should be avoided. Our concern, however, is a different one: we are concerned that the blessing of same-sex couples might create confusion in any case, not only in that it might make them seem analogous to marriage, but also in that homosexual acts would be presented practically as a good, or at least as the possible good that God asks of people in their journey toward Him. So let us rephrase our dubium: Is it possible that in some circumstances a pastor could bless unions between homosexual persons, thus suggesting that homosexual behavior as such would not be contrary to God’s law and the person’s journey toward God? Linked to this dubium is the need to raise another: does the teaching upheld by the universal ordinary magisterium, that every sexual act outside of marriage, and in particular homosexual acts, constitutes an objectively grave sin against God’s law, regardless of the circumstances in which it takes place and the intention with which it is carried out, continue to be valid?

You have insisted that there is a synodal dimension to the Church, in that all, including the lay faithful, are called to participate and make their voices heard. Our difficulty, however, is another: today the future Synod on “synodality” is being presented as if, in communion with the Pope, it represents the Supreme Authority of the Church. However, the Synod of Bishops is a consultative body of the Pope; it does not represent the College of Bishops and cannot settle the issues dealt with in it nor issue decrees on them, unless, in certain cases, the Roman Pontiff, whose duty it is to ratify the decisions of the Synod, has expressly granted it deliberative power (cf. can. 343 C.I.C.). This is a decisive point inasmuchas not involving the College of Bishops in matters such as those that the next Synod intends to raise, which touch on the very constitution of the Church, would go precisely against the root of that synodality, which it claims to want to promote. Let us therefore rephrase our dubium: will the Synod of Bishops to be held in Rome, and which includes only a chosen representation of pastors and faithful, exercise, in the doctrinal or pastoral matters on which it will be called to express itself, the Supreme Authority of the Church, which belongs exclusively to the Roman Pontiff and, una cum capite suo, to the College of Bishops (cf. can. 336 C.I.C.)?

In Your reply Your Holiness made it clear that the decision of St. John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is to be held definitively, and rightly added that it is necessary to understand the priesthood, not in terms of power, but in terms of service, in order to understand correctly our Lord’s decision to reserve Holy Orders to men only. On the other hand, in the last point of Your response You added that the question can still be further explored. We are concerned that some may interpret this statement to mean that the matter has not yet been decided in a definitive manner. In fact, St. John Paul II affirms in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that this doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium, and therefore that it belongs to the deposit of faith. This was the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium raised about the apostolic letter, and this response was approved by John Paul II himself. We therefore must reformulate our dubium: could the Church in the future have the faculty to confer priestly ordination on women, thus contradicting that the exclusive reservation of this sacrament to baptized males belongs to the very substance of the Sacrament of Orders, which the Church cannot change?

Finally, Your Holiness confirmed the teaching of the Council of Trent according to which the validity of sacramental absolution requires the sinner’s repentance, which includes the resolve not to sin again. And You invited us not to doubt God’s infinite mercy. We would like to reiterate that our question does not arise from doubting the greatness of God’s mercy, but, on the contrary, it arises from our awareness that this mercy is so great that we are able to convert to Him, to confess our guilt, and to live as He has taught us. In turn, some might interpret Your answer as meaning that merely approaching confession is a sufficient condition for receiving absolution, inasmuch as it could implicitly include confession of sins and repentance. We would therefore like to rephrase our dubium: Can a penitent who, while admitting a sin, refuses to make, in any way, the intention not to commit it again, validly receive sacramental absolution?

Vatican City, August 21, 2023

Walter Card. Brandmüller                     

Raymond Leo Card. Burke

Juan Card. Sandoval Íñiguez

Robert Card. Sarah

Joseph Card. Zen Ze-kiun

 cc: His Eminence Rev. Luis Francisco Card. LADARIA FERRER, S.I.

They did not receive a reply to this Dubia.

There may be reasons for that.  One may be that Pope Francis intends to answer these questions through the Synod itself, and come down squarely on the side of orthodoxy in a clear way.  There is, in my view, reason to believe that.  He may, accordingly, have felt that he didn't want to jump the gun.

Or he may be wanting to explore this topic in the fashion I noted above, although that would presumably end up in some document regarding pastoral care, rather than one that goes much further than that.

Whatever the case, damage has been done.  A group of "liberal" left wing Catholics that would convert crosses into personal set asides is already assuming the Pope is endorsing their views.  The press is assuming this to be the case.  Thousands of orthodox Catholics are also assuming this to be the case.

If, therefore, after a years long process the result is to reaffirm the historic understanding of the Church in a clear and definitive way, which I think is likely, those parties will howl with protest and rage and feel that they were betrayed.  If the result isn't clear, and with Pope Francis they tend not to be, the deep distrust of the current Papacy, together with the current College of Cardinals, will deepen and a rift that's been developing will be worse.  If a middle ground is developed, it'd have to be very truly middle ground not to spark discontent on both sides.

Catholics should, of course, pray for the Synod and have Faith.  But that doesn't mean that they have to accept this course of action in holding it as a good idea until the fruits are seen.  There's reason to be distressed, and that's a reason for prayer.

Finally, I'd note that when Pope Francis came into his office, he spoke of only occupying it briefly before retiring.  He's now 86 years old and just commencing a process that will only conclude in 2024 and then take some time for results to be issued.  We seem to live in an age when octogenarians simply assume continued life and health. Pope John XXIII was an old 81 years old when he died in June 1963 (when I was just a few days old).  He'd convened Vatican II the year prior, and while faithful Catholics do not have the leeway to condemn Vatican II the way that some Rad Trads do, it's always been a question of whether Vatican II would have looked a bit different, and whether that would have been good or bad, had he lived.

No reigning Pope since that time has lived to this age.

Footnotes:

1. Most of the attention has been on homosexual attraction, but an open question is that if a deep-seated inclination in that direction lessens, in some fashion, its sinfulness such that the practitioners of it, in some fashion, can receive a benediction, why wouldn't it be true of other sexual sins?  I.e, can somebody excuse their adultery, or whatever this way?

The answer is of course going to be no, and that excusing sin is not the intent at all, but it will be taken that way.  In the Church of England (Episcopal Church) there's never been an endorsement of divorce or same gender marriage, but the door was cracked open and its not questioned now.

2.  Pope Francis has a habit of citing himself, which is what he's done here.  While not technically improper, and other authors do it, it is a bit confusing and a cite to yourself is not necessarily as convincing as one to another source.

On this comment, the concept that other forms of marriage, when discussed here, are analogous to marriage but cannot "strictly" be called marriages, implies that they can loosely be regarded as marriages.  This is the very sort of thing which causes orthodox Catholic concern.

3. This is undeniably somewhat true, but a really slippery slope.  

And its not completely true.  Denial and rejection of sin would seem to be absolutes.  Of course, that isn't what the Pope means, but rather he means to suggest we need to be careful with the origins of sin, or so that is what he seems to be meaning.

Lex Anteinternet: Can't win for losing. Supreme Court Strikes Down Affirmative Action.

Lex Anteinternet: Can't win for losing. Supreme Court Strikes Down A...: 

Can't win for losing. Supreme Court Strikes Down Affirmative Action.

For the reasons provided above, the Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today.

At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. See, e.g., 4 App. in No. 21–707, at 1725– 1726, 1741; Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 20–1199, at 10. But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. (A dissenting opinion is generally not the best source of legal advice on how to comply with the majority opinion.) “[W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows,” and the prohibition against racial discrimination is “levelled at the thing,not the name.” Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 325 (1867). A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.

Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.

The judgments of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and of the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina are reversed.

It is so ordered.

After a series of decisions on cases which liberal pundits were in self afflicted angst about in which the Court didn't realize their fears, the Court finally did realize one and struck down affirmative action admission into universities, something it warned it would do 25 years ago.

The reason is simple. Race based admission is clearly violative of US law and the equal protection clause. That was always known, with the Court allowing this exception in order to attempt to redress prior racism.  As noted, it had already stated there was a day when this would end.  The Court had been signalling that it would do this for years.

Indeed, while not the main point in this entry, it can't help be noted that when the Court preserves a policy like this one, which it did last week with the also race based Indian Child Welfare Act, liberals are pretty much mute on it.  There are no howls of protest from anyone, but no accolades either.  Political liberals received two (expected, in reality) victories from the Court in two weeks that they'd been all in a lather regarding. They seemed almost disappointed to have nothing to complain about, until this case, which gave them one.

Predictably, the left/Democrats reacted as if this is a disaster.  It isn't.  Joe Biden instantly reacted.  Michele Obama, who has a much better basis to react, also made a statement, pointing out that she was a beneficiary of the policy, which she was.  That's fine, but that doesn't mean that the policy needed to be preserved in perpetuity.

At some point, it's worth noting, these policies become unfair in and of themselves.  Not instantly, but over time, when they've redressed what they were designed to.  The question is when, and where.  A good argument could be made, for example, that as for the nation's traditionally largest minority, African Americans, this policy had run its course.  In regard to Native Americans?  Not so much.

Critics will point out that poverty and all the ills that accompany it still afflict African Americans at disproportionate levels, and that's true. The question then becomes why these policies, which have helped, don't seem to be able to bridge the final gap.  A whole series of uncomfortable issues are then raised, which the right and the left will turn a blind eye to. For one thing, immigration disproportionately hurts African Americans, which they are well aware of.  Social programs that accidentally encouraged the break-up of families and single parenthood hit blacks first, and then spread to whites, helping to accidentally severely damage American family structures and cause poverty.  Due to the Civil Rights movement, African Americans became a Democratic base, which was in turn abandoned by the Democrats much like Hard Hat Democrats were, leaving them politically disenfranchised.  Black membership in the GOP has only recently increased (although it notably has), as the black middle class and traditionally socially conservative black community has migrated towards it, but that migration was severely hindered by the legacy of Reagan's Southern Strategy, which brought Southern (and Rust Belt) Democrats into the party and with it populism and closeted racism.

While the left will howl in agony on this decision, it won't really do anything that isn't solidly grounded in the 1960s, and 70s, and for that matter probably moribund, about the ongoing systemic problems.  Pundits who are in favor of institutionalizing every child during the day will come out mad, but they won't dare suggest that immigrants take African American entry level jobs.  Nobody is going to suggest taking a second look at social programs that encourage women of all races to marry the government and fathers to abandon their offspring, something that Tip O'Neill, a Democrat, noted in regard to the African American family before it spread to the white family.  The usual suspects will have the usual solutions and the usual complaints, all of which aren't working to push a determinative solution to this set of problems.

Hardly noted, yet, we should note here, is that this decision, just like Obergefell and Heller, will have a longer reach than people now seem to note.  If college affirmative action is illegal, then similar race based programs (save for ones involving Native Americans, who are subject to the Indian Commerce Clause) are as well. And maybe so are gender based ones, including ones that take into account the ever expanding phony categories of genders that progressive add to every day.  In other words, if programs that favor minority admission into university are invalid, probably Federal Government policies that favor women owned companies over others are as well.

Indeed, they should be.

Societies have an obligation to work towards equality before the law, and before society, for all.  But the essence of working on a problem is solving it.  The subject policy was successful for a long time, but this institutionalized favoritism was no longer working to a large degree, and for that matter, in some instances, impacting others simply because of their race.  It's not 1963, 1973, or 1983 any longer.  New thoughts on old problems should be applied.

Some of those new thoughts, frankly, should be to what extent must we continue to have a 1883 view of the country as if it has vast unpopulated domains to settle that it needs to import to fill.  Another might be, however, that American society really has fundamentally changed on race even within the last 20 years.  While racism remains, and the Obama and Trump eras seem to have boiled it back up, for different reasons, a lot of street level racism really is gone.  For one thing, seeing multiracial couples with multiracial children no longer causes anyone to bat an eye anymore, and that wasn't true as recently as 20 years ago.  We may be a lot further down this road than anyone suspects.