Spadaro-Figueroa's screed against US conservatives sure has generated a lot of fire for a 'straw man', but the strategy of the church of Bergoglio
appears to consist of the soft strawman approach that Bergoglians figure they can easily claim a 'victory' and Jorge Bergoglio's own relentless
wrecking ball... At CWR, Christopher Altieri devoted two articles to the strawmen of La Civilta Cattolica...
Ecumenism, religious liberty, and Spadaro’s straw man
The only thing that Christians – and not only Christians – in the United States ask,
is that their fellows in society and the government recognize that
the First Amendment to the Constitution says what it says, and means it.
by Christopher R. Altieri
August 4, 2017
Antonio Spadaro S.J. on Wednesday retweeted
The New York Times‘ article on the recent essay under his and Marcelo Figueroa’s by-line in La Civiltà Cattolica, quoting this line:
“The main point of the article was the pope’s argument that religion in the service of politics or power is ideology…”
Perhaps that was the main point of their piece. If it was, it is good to know: their essay was perplexing, to say the least, and that piece of clarification is most welcome.
That Spadaro did not merely retweet the NYT article, but also quoted that line, tells us that he did indeed purport to speak the Pope’s mind in his and Figueroa’s essay. This puzzle piece does move the story forward in significant ways, for whether – and if so, to what extent – Spadaro and Figueroa spoke for the Pope in their piece has been a question from the moment of their essay’s first appearance.
Does Pope Francis really believe that there is a powerful, nominally Christian but really Manichaean cabal calling the shots in the White House?
Does Pope Francis really believe that there is a large, organized, and powerful group of U.S. Catholic political conservatives committed to establishing theocratic government in the United States and spreading its sway by the sword over the whole world?
I find the notion that he does believe such nonsense a hard pill to swallow, but I do not have the Pope’s ear – and Spadaro does, to hear him tell it.
In any case, the cooperation between politically and socially conservative Catholics and evangelical fundamentalist Protestants in the public square is generally in defense of life, marriage and the family, and religious liberty – all causes in favor of which Pope Francis himself has called on Catholics to advocate tirelessly. Indeed, he has called on Christians to cross confessional lines in defense of them, precisely with a view to progress on the road to full, visible unity through effective public witness:
As we move towards full communion, we can already develop many forms of collaboration, to go together and collaborate in order to foster the spread of the Gospel. By walking and working together, we realize that we are already united in the name of the Lord. Unity is achieved on the journey. (Homily of Pope Francis at Vespers on the vigil of the Solemnity of the Conversion of St. Paul, 2016)
[Yes, well... The pope often makes such 'ecclesiastically expedient' pro forma statements, but either they are generic platitudes like the above, or a direct contradiction of his actions, as his statements on contraception and birth control are, in view of his unconditional endorsement of the UN's 'Sustainable Development Goals' of which population control is unabashedly a key element.]
Spadaro and Figueroa also decry American conservatives’ “condemn[ation of] traditional ecumenism…” Leave aside for the moment that the modern ecumenical movement began just over 100 years ago, and that the Catholic commitment to ecumenism is only a half-century old at best – a few minutes ago in ecclesiastical time – and consider what Pope Francis had to say about the ecumenical context in 2014:
In our day, ecumenism and relationships between Christians are changing significantly. This is due above all to the fact that we profess our faith within a society and a culture increasingly less concerned with God and all that involves the transcendental dimension of life. (Address to a Finnish ecumenical delegation on the Feast of St Henry, 2014)
Has the ecumenical landscape changed so radically in the past three and a half years, as to render his observations obsolete?
Spadaro and Figueroa acknowledge the threat to religious liberty, writing, “The erosion of religious liberty is clearly a grave threat within a spreading secularism.” Nevertheless, they declare, “we must avoid its defense coming in the fundamentalist terms of a ‘religion in total freedom,’ perceived as a direct virtual challenge to the secularity of the state.”
Here, please ignore for a moment the literary infelicity of the phrase, “direct virtual challenge,” and consider that they mean, in essence, a direct challenge to the “secularity of the state” that disguises itself as something else, or couches itself in ostensibly reasonable terms. Sadly, their breathless warning reads more like a straw man.
Religious liberty in America has never been absolute and unqualified, nor has it ever been construed to exempt churches from basic rules of participation in civil society. Church buildings – including worship venues, schools, hospitals, soup kitchens, orphanages, and hospices, inter alia, must be built to specific safety regulations such as occupancy ordinances, and fire codes apply to churches as much as they do to everyone else.
The only thing that Christians – and not only Christians – in the United States ask, is that their fellows in society and the government recognize that the First Amendment to the Constitution says what it says, and means it.
That Christians, together with other religiously committed fellows in citizenship and a not insignificant number of their fellow citizens of good faith but no religious conviction of which to speak, ask this - after the manner of people who are used to speaking in the language of truth, and divested of those expressions of servility which would persuade both their fellows and the guardians of their rights in government that they are asking favors, rather than rights - should not be surprising to anyone familiar with the American way of engaging in public controversy and addressing political leaders.
- Perhaps Spadaro and Figueroa are unaware of the nature and scope of the threat to religious liberty that comes from the radical secular left in the United States.
- Perhaps they missed the news that the Supreme Court of the United States truncated a vigorous national debate and imposed same-sex marriage on all fifty states in the union, and that two days did not pass from the time of their imposition before fresh calls for revocation of churches’ tax-exempt status began coming.
- Or that, as recently as last month – the same week in which their essay appeared – the fabulously wealthy, powerful, well-connected and motivated tech millionaire and LGBTQ activist, Tim Gill, enthusiastically proclaimed his intention,
“[To go] into the hardest states in the country,” and, “punish the wicked” who dare to assert their right not to be forced to participate in same-sex marriages, or seek other reasonable protections of their rights to order their own affairs according to their religious convictions.
Perhaps.
In any case, if Spadaro and Figueroa want a powerful, organized, motivated cabal, filled with all the zeal of perverted religion, and bent on imposing its worldview on the nation and using American power to spread its convictions throughout the globe, I know where they should look.
How Spadaro and Figueroa misunderstand
the motto “In God We Trust”
If the two writers were serious and in earnest, then they predicated their entire analysis
on a dichotomy that is not only inaccurate in the formulation of its parts, but false in its organic complex.
by Christopher R. Altieri
August 8, 2017
In my post last week, I focused on how Antonio Spadaro, S.J., and Marcelo Figueroa, in their much discussed essay “Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism,” misread and even misrepresent the matter of religious liberty in the United States. Here I want to focus on another misreading, this one set forth in their exordium:
'In God We Trust'. This phrase is printed on the banknotes of the United States of America and is the current national motto. It appeared for the first time on a coin in 1864 but did not become official until Congress passed a motion in 1956. A motto is important for a nation whose foundation was rooted in religious motivations. For many it is a simple declaration of faith. For others, it is the synthesis of a problematic fusion between religion and state, faith and politics, religious values and economy.
Stylistically, this hodge-podge of facts reads like the incipit of a middle schooler’s social studies essay, but no matter.
That phrase, 'In God We Trust', is indeed printed (or stamped) on all US coinage, and has been, since 1956. The founding of the United States is indeed rooted in religious motivations, and the motto of any nation, but especially one so conceived and so dedicated as the United States, will be telling.
While it is true that the motto will convey different ideas to different people, or excite different sentiments in different citizens, the inclusion of the expression on US currency has a definite scope and purpose, to which a young Congressman from Florida, Charles Edward Bennett gave the expression preserved in the legislative history of the Act that ordered the words to appear:
In these days when imperialistic and materialistic communism seeks to attack and destroy freedom, we should continuously look for ways to strengthen the foundations of our freedom. At the base of our freedom is our faith in God and the desire of Americans to live by His will and His guidance. As long as this country trusts in God, it will prevail. To serve as a constant reminder of this truth, it is highly desirable that our currency and coins should bear these inspiring words “In God We Trust.”
There is a powerful strain of thought, sometimes amounting to what the French call a
fil rouge, running through the history of America’s self-understanding, which does view America as the New Jerusalem.
Exploration of how that strain is currently at work in the soul of the nation is a question worth exploring, and
La Civiltà Cattolica is one of the venues eminently well placed to participate in such an exploration. This last consideration only adds to the bitterness of their failure to do so.
Whatever else one might say about the motto, Spadaro and Figueroa’s decision to use it as a foil for the exploration of a dichotomy of the type that begins with the construction, “For some…for others,” betrays not only the authors’ insufficient knowledge of their subject, but also, sadly, their lack of interest in really coming to understand it. Spadaro and Figueroa’s failure is not simply literary and journalistic.
It is genuinely a failure in the mission of
La Civiltà Cattolica, which is in essence to help men and women in the world of intellect and culture
to understand and to think with the mind of the Church. [Now that mission obviously has changed its last term, no longer 'to think with the mind of the Church', but rather with the mind of Bergoglio.] One further consideration will help bring this sad fact further and more clearly into view.
While it is doubtless true that the verb, “to prevail” is subject to equivocation, and could ring quite differently in different citizens’ ears - depending on how thoroughly the strain of thought that sees America as essentially an eschatological society has infected and progressed in the soul of a given citizen - the general sentiment Bennett expressed resonates deeply with the words Benedict XVI used to describe his understanding of and admiration for
the American experiment in ordered liberty, when he visited the United States in 2008:
From the dawn of the Republic, America’s quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator.
The framers of this nation’s founding documents drew upon this conviction when they proclaimed the “self-evident truth” that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights grounded in the laws of nature and of nature’s God.
The course of American history demonstrates the difficulties, the struggles, and the great intellectual and moral resolve which were demanded to shape a society which faithfully embodied these noble principles.
In that process, which forged the soul of the nation, religious beliefs were a constant inspiration and driving force, as for example in the struggle against slavery and in the civil rights movement. In our time too, particularly in moments of crisis, Americans continue to find their strength in a commitment to this patrimony of shared ideals and aspirations. (Address of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, South Lawn of the White House, Washington, D.C. Wednesday, 16 April 2008)
In other words, even if one rejects the second half of Spadaro and Figueroa’s dichotomy, which posits – not exactly wrongly, but with insufficient depth and precision – a group of people for whom the motto is an expression of “a problematic fusion between religion and state, faith and politics, religious values and economy,” the alternative is not that the motto should be read as, “a simple declaration of faith,” but that
America – i.e. the conceptual space that informs and animates the national life of the American people – is a complicated experiment in free social order, which seeks to manage the tensions inherent in any society that recognizes the constitutive presence of spiritual and temporal spheres that are distinct, but not separate.
If Spadaro and Figueroa were serious and in earnest, then
they predicated their entire analysis on a dichotomy that is not only inaccurate in the formulation of its parts, but false in its organic complex – and this fact so colors their subsequent analysis, as to render it useless for the purpose of critical discourse.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 09/08/2017 04:26]