I wrote a few weeks ago that the unforeseen outcome of the "separation" clause is that in the absence of a State Church, the State itself has become the Church. Mark Steyn points out how.
And from what I've read, the Obama administration intends to back down not at all about the contraception issue with Catholic and other religious objectors. At a meeting with the White House staff, the US Catholic Bishops were apparently lectured on theology. As in the other Henry VIII's time, many parts of the Church have long ago rolled over.
And from what I've read, the Obama administration intends to back down not at all about the contraception issue with Catholic and other religious objectors. At a meeting with the White House staff, the US Catholic Bishops were apparently lectured on theology. As in the other Henry VIII's time, many parts of the Church have long ago rolled over.
2 comments:
When the Bishop of Rome first disobeyed the Emperor of Rome, the division of church and state was born.
You guys started it.
- P(d)X, in which sign I conquer.
Yes, "roll'd over" indeed! ... If this Prot may say so, the president did well to lecture on Catholic theology since the bishops really haven't been doing so since the Council.
Or what the "heralds of the truth" have been teaching is the easy part of the Gospel as they see it, namely "social justice" or the obligation of the rich and the state et al to give -- if not up to the level of equalness as social justice demands then at least basic stuff for everyone, always and everywhere (definition of "Catholic" by Vincent of Lérins, as you know).
The bishops wanted Catholic authority to have a beau rôle in the post-WW2 era (heroic rescuers of Jews from the Nazis, heroic revolutionaries in eastern Europe vs Communist corrupters of equalness, heroic prophets against the capitalists and for the downtrodden). Accordingly, the bishops sidelined every jot and tittle that conflicted with this beau rôle -- the brave priest who stands with the unionizing workers in "On the Waterfront" and the burnt-out compassionate (palpably nekkhama-ing) Father Mulcahey on M*A*S*H. They wanted all praise and no blame from Catholicism as spirituality that endorses social justice.
The president's mandate provided Bishop Dolan with a free wake-up call he could use to say that the no-heavy-lifting dispensation was a huge mistake. But instead, he maintains only the Victim theme: the Church is deny'd sufficient "accommodation" by cruel, cruel Mr State.
That is, the Church of Gregory 9 and Leo the Great wishes no more than to have its own bishops' consciences accommodated. The Church has given up on authority to inform the consciences of actual mass-goers.
The establishment Protestant churches' clergy also aren't using the Gospel of Jesus Christ: that would be an unconscionable violation of religious freedom, except for the same requirement of proclaiming the duty of 'social justice' (regardless whether equality let alone freedom from destitution results).
I can't see, however, that the separation clause, has been the cause. Liberation theology dictating to the state somehow wasn't a violation of religious freedom, even when the courts began seeing in the public Christianity praised by John Jay and Tocqueville a violation of religious free exercise. ... The non-establishment of any Church become a duty of non-establishment of Christianity, for the sake of the establishment of "secularized" "Christianity" that is the Good Samaritan parable as foundation for taxation.
It is comprehensible that the bishops didn't want a reputation as "haters." Machiavelli reminds us never to be hated. But they also wish'd only to be loved -- as champions of givingness, social spending etc. Machiavelli teaches that being loved isn't sufficient for power in religion or in politics. One must be fear'd. The bishops aren't fear'd.
An example: certain European politicians and journalists have recommended accommodating the wishes and traditions of Muslims in order that maybe Muslim rulers will be gentle to the indigenous Europeans when Islam gains control of Europe. No diversity superintendant complains against the Islamophobia implicit in this recommendation, I guess because the scenario of an Islamic future for the West is accepted, rather than "hated" (though hating Islam seems to occur only in neo-Spenglerian futility and declinist scenarios, which have a strong libidinous content).
That is, Islamic authority is already sort-of fear'd. Islam isn't loved, admittedly; but being fear'd is quite sufficient for attaining religio-political domination, when the dominated assume that they will be treated basically rationally. ... I think really if Islam were hated in the West, it could not prevail. But we are assured that it is only "secularized" "Christianity" or social justice in beards and burkas.
Post a Comment