Showing posts with label Americanism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Americanism. Show all posts

Saturday, July 15, 2023

Notes: Wednesday, October 5, 2022-Saturday, July 15, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

1: "That the principles of America opened the Bastile is not to be doubted"

That quotation comes from the digitised letter "To George Washington from Thomas Paine, 1 May 1790" at the U.S. National Archives Founders Online website:


(It came to my attention via the article "Strict rules on gifts date back to the birth of US" by Troy Lennon on p. 80 of the Sydney Daily Telegraph, June 13, 2014, available through the N.S.W. State Library eresources Gale OneFile: News (itself available in Gale Research Complete), ProQuest Central, and NewsBank.) Paine seems to have sent that letter to Washington with a key—supposedly the main key to the Bastille—which he had received from Lafayette; see footnote 18 of chapter VIII ("The French Revolution in America") of The Age of Federalism, by Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick, published by Oxford University Press, March 2, 1995:


See also, at the George Washington's Mount Vernon website, the pages "Bastille Key" (in The Digital Encyclopedia of George Washington) and "Key to the Bastille":



Labels: Americanism, Democratism, France, liberalism, U.S.A.

2: According to The Pope, the death penalty "is always inadmissible since it attacks the inviolability and the dignity of the person", and it "cannot be employed for a purported State justice, since it does not constitute a deterrent nor render justice to victims, but only fuels the thirst for vengeance"

Those quotations come from The Holy See Press Office's bulletin item "Udienza al Corpo Diplomatico accreditato presso la Santa Sede per la presentazione degli auguri per il nuovo anno, 09.01.2023"; they translate parts of this paragraph in the original Italian of the Address in question:
Il diritto alla vita è minacciato anche laddove si continua a praticare la pena di morte, come sta accadendo in questi giorni in Iran, in seguito alle recenti manifestazioni, che chiedono maggiore rispetto per la dignità delle donne. La pena di morte non può essere utilizzata per una presunta giustizia di Stato, poiché essa non costituisce un deterrente, né offre giustizia alle vittime, ma alimenta solamente la sete di vendetta. Faccio, perciò, appello perché la pena di morte, che è sempre inammissibile poiché attenta all’inviolabilità e alla dignità della persona, sia abolita nelle legislazioni di tutti i Paesi del mondo. Non possiamo dimenticare che fino all’ultimo momento, una persona può convertirsi e può cambiare.
[https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2023/01/09/0020/00038.html]
A stand-alone English translation of that bulletin item is also available, titled "Audience with the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See for the presentation of wishes for the New Year, 09.01.2023", and so are the English translation and original Italian of that Address:




Labels: death penalty, Francis Bergoglio, morals

3: The Pope on the difference between cause and condition in the formation of a society: "“What God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mt 19:6). “God himself is the author of matrimony”, as Vatican Council II affirms (cf. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 48), and this can be understood as referring to every single conjugal union. Indeed, spouses give life to their union, with free consent, but only the Holy Spirit has the power to make a man and woman a sole existence."

That quotation comes from the Papal "Audience with the Tribunal of the Roman Rota on the occasion of the Inauguration of the Judicial Year, 27.01.2023", which is a translation of the original Italian given in The Holy See Press Office's bulletin item "Udienza al Tribunale della Rota Romana in occasione dell’inaugurazione dell’Anno Giudiziario, 27.01.2023" (also available in the Vatican's "Speeches 2023 January"/"Discorsi 2023 Gennaio" webpages):





Labels: marriage, morals, politics, society

4: "the only two special religious instruction providers still operating in [Victorian ]state schools say there are now about 750 students" enrolled (actively?) with those providers; that is down from "nearly 93,000 Victorian students" enrolled with those or other providers in 2013

Those two quotations, excluding my square-bracketed interpolation, come from the news report "Religion class enrolments slump in state schools in decade since program changes", by Madeleine Heffernan, dateline: "February 26, 2023 — 3.47pm", downloaded from The Age's website:


(It was also interesting to read, in the final paragraph, that Special Religious Instruction "program materials" "must comply with minimum standards regarding human rights and anti-discrimination laws." For more on those standards, click the "Policy" tab on the "School operations": "Special Religious Instruction" page in the schools "Policy and Advisory Library" at Victoria's Department of Education and Training beta website:


Above all, s.v. "Program and materials", "Freedom of religion", and "General religious education".) For background to that article, see item 3.1 of the Tuesday, August 11-Tuesday, September 29, 2015 issue of my "Notes":


Labels: education, Victoria

5: Mr. Wesselinoff on the demography of (at least) nominally Catholic Australians in 2021

See the news report "New stats show Catholics have smaller families, more education, are older and more diverse", by Adam Wesselinoff, April 20, 2023, at the Sydney Catholic Weekly's website:


Mr. Wesselinoff based his report on the 2021 "Social Profile of the Catholic Community in Australia", from the National Centre for Pastoral Research:



Labels: demography

6: "Just 11 minutes [after David Ben-Gurion supposedly asserted Israeli independence], President Truman announced that the United States would be the first nation to recognize the government of Israel."

That quotation, excluding my parenthesis replacing the word "later", comes from the April 25, 2023 "Statement from President Joe Biden on the Occasion of Israel’s 75th Independence Day":


Labels: State of Israel, U.S.A.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Henry, Emperor and Confessor, A.D. 2023
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, March 25, 2022

Notes: Tuesday, March 2, 2021-Friday, March 25, 2022

 1. Suarez on political authority before and after the Fall

See the "Scholia" item "What Kind of Corporeal or Political Life Men Would Have Professed in the State of Innocence" (the translated title of Ch. 7 of Book 5 of On the Work of the Six Days), by Francisco Suarez, translated and introduced by Assistant Prof. Matthew T. Gaetano, Journal of Markets & Morality, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Fall 2012), pp. 527–563:


Labels: Adam (Patriarch), morals, politics

2. Prof. Sommerville's comparison of Catholic and Anglican political theory in the Jacobean age

See the article "FROM SUAREZ TO FILMER: A REAPPRAISAL", by J. P. Sommerville, The Historical Journal, Vol. 25, No. 3 (September 1982), pp. 525-540:



Labels: morals, politics, regalism, St. Robert Bellarmine

3. "The Declaration of Independence: Annotated"

That quotation is the title of an article of December 9, 2021 by Liz Tracey in the JSTOR Daily "Annotations" series:


Labels: Americanism, Democratism, history, liberalism, morals, politics, U.S.A.

4. Recent additions to, and losses from, The Order of the Garter

My last blog post about The Most Noble Order of the Garter was "Notes: Tuesday, February 5-Monday, July 22, 2019 (part 1 of 3)" (item 3):


Since then, that Order has lost no Ladies, no Stranger Knights, one British Royal Knight (namely, The (1.) Duke of Edinburgh, who died on April 9, 2021 and whose Funeral occurred on the 17. following), and five other Knights:

1. Lord Bramall, who died on November 12, 2019

2. Lord Ashburton, who died on October 6, 2020, the Memorial Service for whom occurred on October 15, 2021, and whose Garter Insignia were delivered up on December 1, 2021

3. Sir Antony Acland, who died on September 8, 2021, according to "Sir Antony Acland Obituary", dated September 16, 2021, available at Eton College's website:


and the Service of Thanksgiving for the Life of whom occurred on February 4, 2022

4. Sir Timothy Colman, who died the day after Sir Antony, according to "Sir Timothy Colman, record-breaking sailor, naturalist, long-serving lord lieutenant and well-liked figure in Norfolk life – obituary", dated September 15, 2021, available at the London Daily Telegraph's website:


and the Service of Thanksgiving to Celebrate the Life of whom occurred on January 20, 2022

5. Lord Sainsbury, who died on January 14, 2022, according to "Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover obituary", by Stephen Bates, dated Monday, January 17, 2022, available at The Guardian's website:


Over the same period, no new British Royal Knights, no new Stranger Knights nor Ladies, one de-facto British Royal Lady (namely, the de-facto Duchess of Cornwall), one other Lady (Lady Amos), and one other Knight (Sir Tony Blair) have joined the Order, with those three new appointments effective January 1, 2022. See

1. The Press Release "New appointments to the Order of the Garter announced", dated December 31, 2021, available at the official website of the British Royal Family:


It lists the three new appointees in the sequence in which I happen to have listed them, and says that Lady Amos
(born 13th March 1954) has previously been Chief Executive, Equal Opportunities Commission (1989-1994), Secretary of State for International Development, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords (2003-2007), Undersecretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Co-ordinator, UN (2010-2015) and is currently Master, University College Oxford.
while Sir Tony
was Prime Minister from 1997-2007. He is now Executive Chairman of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, a not-for-profit organisation which works around the world.
2. Notice No. 3963431, January 7, 2022 (but to be dated the previous 1.), Notice Type "State", Sub-Type "Honours and Awards" (Notice Code: 1105), The London Gazette, Issue No. 63581, (printed on January 10, 2022, containing all notices published online between January 7 and 9, 2022), p. 214:


(delete "/page/214" for the full issue, with p. 214 being p. 2 in my document reader)

3. The B.B.C. News report "Blair becomes 'Sir Tony' and joins top royal order", by Sean Coughlan, dated January 1, 2022:


according to which Sir Tony "says he will be "Sir Tony" rather than Sir Anthony"

Consequently, the current Knights Companions and Ladies Companions of The Order of the Garter are:

British Royal Knights and Ladies, at least in fact*:
1. H.M. The Queen (who joined the Order on November 11, 1947 and became Sovereign thereof upon becoming Queen, February 6, 1952)
2. H.R.H. The Prince of Wales (1958) K.G. (July 26, 1958**) K.T. G.C.B. O.M. A.K. Q.S.O. C.C. P.C. A.D.C.
3. H.R.H. The (2.) Duke of Kent (1934, 1942) K.G. (October 9, 1985) G.C.M.G. G.C.V.O. C.D. A.D.C.
4. H.R.H. The Princess Royal (1987) K.G. (1994***) K.T. G.C.V.O. Q.S.O. C.D. A.D.C.
5. H.R.H. The (2.) Duke of Gloucester (1928, 1974) K.G. (1997) G.C.V.O.
6. H.R.H. Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Lady Ogilvy K.G. (2003) G.C.V.O. C.D.
7. H.R.H. The (1.) Duke of York (1986) K.G. (2006) G.C.V.O. C.D. A.D.C.
8. H.R.H. The (1.) Earl of Wessex (1999) and Forfar (2019) K.G. (2006) G.C.V.O. C.D. A.D.C.
9. H.R.H. The (1.) Duke of Cambridge (2011) K.G. (2008) K.T. P.C. A.D.C.
10. The de-facto Duchess of Cornwall K.G. (January 1, 2022) G.C.V.O. P.C.
*unless otherwise indicated, the year given after a title is the year of the creation of that title, and where another year is given after that one, that title is hereditary (and so is a title preceded by an ordinal number), and the latter year is that of the succession to that title; the date after the post-nominal letters K.G. is—again, unless otherwise indicated—the date of the appointment to the Order, and where only a year, not a full date, is given, the appointment is to be dated April 23 of that year
**my presumption, in item 7.2.1 of this issue of "Notes", was correct, judging by the page "Titles and Heraldry" (scroll down and click the tile "Titles"at the left-hand side) at His Royal Highness's website, according to which "The Prince of Wales automatically became a KG when he became Prince of Wales in 1958" (although His Royal Highness "was not installed until 17th June 1968, at Windsor Castle"):


***though the exact date thereof seems disputed—either April 23 or June 13. And it was interesting to read, in the "Feature" article "The Princess Royal – 70 facts at 70", that "The Princess Royal requested to be installed as Royal Knight of the Order, and not a Lady":


Stranger Knights and Ladies*:
1. H.M. The Queen of Denmark (May 16, 1979)
2. H.M. The King of Sweden (May 25, 1983)
3. H.M. King John Charles I. (the abdicated Spanish king) (October 17, 1988)
4. H.R.H. Princess Beatrice (the abdicated Dutch queen) (June 28, 1989)
5. H.M. The (Japanese) Emperor Emeritus (May 26, 1998)
6. H.M. The King of Norway (May 30, 2001)
7. H.M. The King of Spain (July 12, 2017)
8. H.M. The King of The Netherlands (October 23, 2018)
*see the appendix to this blog post for the evidence for these dates

Other Knights and Ladies*:
1. His Grace The Most Hon. The (5.) Duke of Abercorn (1868, 1979) Bt. K.G. (1999)
2. The Rt. Hon. Field Marshal The Baron Inge (1997) K.G. (2001) G.C.B. P.C. D.L.
3. The Rt. Hon. The Baron Butler of Brockwell (1998) K.G. (2003) G.C.B. C.V.O. P.C.
4. The Rt. Hon. The Baron Morris of Aberavon (2001) K.G. (2003) P.C. Q.C.
5. The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major K.G. (2005) C.H. P.C.
6. The Rt. Hon. The Baron Luce (2000) K.G. (2008) G.C.V.O. P.C. D.L.
7. Sir Thomas Dunne K.G. (2008) K.C.V.O. J.P.
8. The Rt. Hon. Admiral of the Fleet The Baron Boyce (2003) K.G. (2011) G.C.B. O.B.E. D.L.
9. The Rt. Hon. The Baron Phillips of Worth Matravers (1999) K.G. (2011) P.C.
10. The Rt. Hon. Marshal of The Royal Air Force The Baron Stirrup (2011) K.G. (2013) G.C.B. A.F.C. A.D.C.
11. The Rt. Hon. The Baroness Manningham-Buller (2008) L.G. (2014) D.C.B.
12. The Rt. Hon. Prof. The Baron King of Lothbury (2013) K.G. (2014) G.B.E. D.L.
13. The Rt. Hon. The (5.) Baron Shuttleworth (1902, 1975) Bt. K.G. (2016) K.C.V.O. J.P.
14. Sir David Brewer K.G. (2016) C.M.G. C.V.O. J.P.
15. Lady Mary Fagan L.G. (2018) D.C.V.O. J.P.
16. The Rt. Hon. The (3.) Viscount Brookeborough (1952, 1987) Bt. K.G. (2018)
17. Lady Mary Peters L.G. (February 27, 2019) C.H. D.B.E.
18. The Most Hon. The (7.) Marquess of Salisbury (1789, 2003) K.G. (February 27, 2019) K.C.V.O. P.C. D.L.
19. The Rt. Hon. The Baroness Amos (1997) L.G. (January 1, 2022) C.H. P.C.
20. The Rt. Hon. Sir Tony Blair K.G. (January 1, 2022) P.C.
*I have applied to this list the rules stated in the first note to my list of British Royal Knights and Ladies, and the sequence in which I have listed these other Garter Knights and Ladies is that of the relevant Press Releases or Gazette notices. The sequence in each of the pairs for 2011, ’18, and ’19 is, however, reversed in the previously-cited Garter banner list; the Court Circular, too, reverses the sequence of the 2011 pair when mentioned in that year through 2019 (except 2017, when Garter Day activities were cancelled, and 2012), and does likewise for the 2018 pair when mentioned in 2019.

Sources: In addition to the resources available through the links in this blog's sidebar (above all, the Court Circular (plus the rest of its host website), Who's Who, and Wikipedia) and in this and other "Notes" items, I have also used

1. The page "ADDRESSING THE ROYAL FAMILY" at the Debrett's website:


2. The page "Privy Council members" at the British Privy Council's website:


3. The page "THE ROYAL FAMILY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND", sub-heading "HOUSE OF WINDSOR", by Mr. William Bortrick, at Burke's Peerage's website:


4. p. 112 (132 in the document reader) in "Appendix Six" ("Royal and Vice-Regal Recipients of the Canadian Forces’ Decoration") of The Canadian Forces’ Decoration, by Mr. Christopher McCreery M.V.O., available at the "Canadian Forces' Decoration (CD)" page at H.M. Canadian Government's website:


or go straight hither:


or hither:


P.S. The usually-annual Garter service did not occur in 2020 nor ’21, according to, respectively, the Press Releases "An announcement regarding Royal events in June" and "Trooping the Colour will not go ahead in its traditional form in 2021", dated April 22, 2020 and March 19, 2021, respectively, and both available at the official website of the British Royal Family:



Labels: Camilla Parker Bowles, Order of the Garter, Tony Blair, Valerie Amos

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Lady Day, A.D. 2022

Appendix: Garter appointment dates for the current Stranger Knights and Ladies

The names of at least some of the current Stranger Knights Companions and Stranger Ladies Companions of The Order of the Garter are in the Wikipedia pages "List of current Knights and Ladies of the Garter" (see my "Miscellaneous links") and "Talk:Order of the Garter" (s.v. "Holy Roman garter?"), the London Times article "Order of the Garter" "full list" (Monday, June 16, 2008), and the page "Garter Banner List" at the website of St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle:




(or go straight hither:


"Holy Roman garter?" gives this U.R.L. as the source for its list, but, as you'll see, the link is dead:


I think that I remember that webpage, and I'm inclined to think that the list has been copied and pasted without more than negligible change. Whatever the case, it can serve as a starting point for further investigation.

An alternative starting point is to remember that, at least recently, Stranger appointments occur during State Visits. The official website of the British Royal Family has a "Feature" article titled "State Visits"; click "List of State Visits" on the left-hand side of the page in order to download a list of "Inward State Visits since 1952" and a list of "Outbound State Visits since 1952":




1. H.M. The Queen appointed Her Majesty's Danish counterpart to the Order in 1979, and the only relevant State Visit that year was the outbound one of Wednesday, May 16-Saturday 19 (p. 2), which The Danish Royal House's official website corroborates on the "State Visits" page (s.v. "List of State Visits") there:


According to the news report "THE QUEEN TAKES A TRIP IN THE TUNNEL OF LOVE", by Ann Morrow (in Copenhagen), on p. 19 of The Daily Telegraph (London) of Friday, May 18, 1979 (Issue No. 38552), "Queen Margarethe[ recte Margrethe] was given the Order of the Garter and an English gilt carriage clock by the Queen and Prince Philip" (my interpolation), presumably respectively, at the State banquet aboard H.M. Yacht Britannia the previous night. I presume that "given the Order of the Garter" means 'presented with the Garter Insignia', so The Queen of Denmark must have joined the Order on or before Thursday, May 17, 1979; I think that it's safe to say that May 16, 1979 was the exact date of the appointment.

2. Her Majesty appointed H.M. The King of Sweden to the Order in 1983, and the only relevant State Visit that year was the outbound one of May 25-28 (p. 2), and The Swedish Royal Court's official website corroborates that on the page "State visits 1980-1989" there:


According to the news report "The Queen goes ashore in gondola", by Jenny Shields (in Stockholm), The Daily Telegraph (London), Thursday, May 26, 1983, Issue No. 39793, p. 19, "at a ceremony in the Palace, the Queen presented 37-year-old King Carl Gustav with the Order of the Garter" on Wednesday, May 25, 1983. More accurately, 'presented The King with the Garter Insignia', I presume, so His Majesty must have joined the Order on or before that date, presumably the former.

3. The Queen appointed H.M. King John Charles I. (at the time of the appointment, the reigning King of Spain) a Stranger Knight of the Garter on October 17, 1988, according to Notice No. 21 SI, Notice Type "State Intelligence", Sub-Type "HONOURS AND AWARDS", The London Gazette, Issue No. 51806, Tuesday, July 11, 1989, p. 8095:

(delete "/page/8095" from this and the next U.R.L. for the full issue)


See also the news reports
  • "Sun, smiles and a Latin greeting for the Queen", by Richard Kay in Madrid, Tuesday, October 18, 1988, in The Daily Mail, London, Issue No. 28715, p. 5, which says that, on the 17., "The Queen conferred the Order of the Garter on Juan Carlos"
  • "Affectionate welcome for royal cousins", by Alan Hamilton, reporting from Madrid, Tuesday, October 18, 1988, in The Times, London, Issue No. 63215, p. 7, which says that, on the 17., "The Queen created King Juan Carlos an Extra Knight of the Garter"
October 17, 1988 was first day of the only relevant State Visit by The Queen that year (p. 2); the visit ended on the 21.

4. Her Majesty appointed H.R.H. Princess Beatrice (at the time of the appointment, the reigning Queen of The Netherlands) a Stranger Lady of the Garter on June 28, 1989, according to the same Gazette notice as that for King John Charles I.'s appointment. And on the same day, "The Queen invested The Queen of the Netherlands with the Insignia of an Extra Lady of the Most Noble Order of the Garter", according to the issue of the Court Circular printed on p. 18 of The Times (London), Thursday, June 29, 1989, Issue No. 63433. (Neither the official website of The Royal House of The Netherlands nor that of the British Royal Family give the dates for the State Visit of Her Royal Highness to Her Majesty, though that issue of the Court Circular says that "The Queen of the Netherlands and Prince Claus of the Netherlands arrived at Buckingham Palace this afternoon", and the previous day's issue seems not to mention that royal couple, so June 28 must have been the first day, and according to the news report "Queen's honour for Beatrix", p. 20, South China Morning Post, Friday, June 30, 1989, Vol. XLV, No. 179, Princess Beatrice was "on a three-day visit to Brit-ain" (the last word spanned two lines).)

5. The Queen appointed H.M. The (Japanese) Emperor Emeritus (at the time of the appointment, the reigning Emperor of Japan) to the Order in 1998, and the only relevant State Visit that year was the incoming one of May 26-29 (p. 2), on the first day whereof Her Majesty presented His Majesty with the Garter Insignia. Of the numerous Gale Primary Sources and ProQuest (via the N.S.W. State Library's website (see sidebar)) articles about the State Visit, the most informative for present purposes were the news reports "Thunder of guns met by imperial blaze of modesty THE EMPEROR'S VISIT: [D Edition 1]" (sic), by Valentine Low, Evening Standard, West End final ed., London, May 26, 1998, according to which, on May 26, 1998,
after a lunch in the Bow Room of Buckingham Palace, the emperor was presented with the Order of the Garter. There was no formal conferring upon the emperor of the Order which was simply laid out on a table with the other gifts from the Queen. However, no snub was intended - this, said the Palace, was the norm in such circumstances.
and "A day of protest and reconciliation", by Alan Hamilton, p. 1, The Times (London), Wednesday, May 27, 1998, Issue No. 66212, which put it this way:
On arriving at the Palace, the visitors were entertained to lunch of asparagus mousse, roast chicken and rhubarb parfait. The Queen then took the Emperor into the adjoin-ing Carnarvon Room and, without ceremony, presented him with the Order of the Garter, its star insignia lying in an open box among other gifts.
(The word 'adjoining' spanned two lines.)
Therefore, His Majesty must have joined the Order on or before May 26, 1998, presumably the former.

6. Her Majesty appointed H.M. The King of Norway to the Order in 2001, and the only relevant State Visit that year was that of The Queen to His Majesty from May 30-June 1 (see p. 3), and The Royal House of Norway's website corroborates that on its "State visits during the reign of King Harald" page (s.v. "State visits to Norway"):


According to the Court Circular, "The Queen presented The King of Norway with the Insignia of an Extra Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter" on May 30 at The Royal Palace, Oslo, so His Majesty must have joined the order on or before that date, presumably the former.

7. and 8. Her Majesty appointed H.M. The King of Spain and H.M. The King of The Netherlands to the Order on July 12, 2017 and October 23, 2018, respectively. See item 7.2.1 of "Notes: Tuesday, April 24, 2018-Monday, February 4, 2019 (part 2 of 2)" and item 3 of "Notes: Tuesday, February 5-Monday, July 22, 2019 (part 1 of 3)", to which, for convenience, I link here, along with links to their respective sources:








And for the sake of completeness, see the news item "King and Queen to visit Windsor", dated "07-06-2019", at the official website of The Royal House of The Netherlands, according to which H.M. The (Dutch) "King was appointed a Supernumerary Knight of the Garter during the State Visit to the United Kingdom on 23 and 24 October 2018", and "His Majesty King Felipe VI of Spain" was "appointed as such during a state visit in 2017":

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, November 30, 2020

Notes: Tuesday, July 23, 2019-Monday, November 30, 2020 (part 2 of 2)

4. Prof. Brungardt on recent online discussion about Catholic integralism

See the blog post "The Question of Catholic Integralism: An Internet Genealogy", by Assistant Prof. John G. Brungardt, dated May 22, 2020, available at the author's eponymous blog:


(That post came to my attention via the blog post "The links you’ve been longing for" by Prof. Edward Feser, dated Saturday, August 8, 2020, at that author's eponymous blog:


which (blog post) links to a cross posting, by J AUGUSTINE on May 29, 2020 at The Josias, of Prof. Brungardt's blog post under its original title:


Labels: Americanism, Church and State, Confessional State, Dignitatis Humanæ, law, liberalism, morals, politics, religious liberty, secularism, Social Reign of Christ

5. Some recent culture-shaping activity by H.M.A. Government

5.1 Mr. Tudge on Australian values again, this time with a stronger-than-usual emphasis on Secularism (in particular, error no. forty-two of the Syllabus)

(Error no. forty-two of the Syllabus of Pius IX. is the proposition that "In a conflict between the laws of both powers, the civil law prevails" (the other power in question is, of course, the ecclesial power):


The original Latin of that error is "In conflictu legum utriusque potestatis, ius civile praevalet." and is available by clicking the little "LATIN" thumbnail at the lower right-hand-side corner of that error's section or by going hither:


See the media release "Focus on values in updated Australian Citizenship Test" and the transcripts "Interview with Ross Stevenson and Russel Howcroft, 3AW Breakfast", "Interview with Basil Zempilas and Steve Mills, 6PR Breakfast", "Interview with Leon Byner, 5AA Mornings", "Door stop, Australian Citizenship Test", "Interview with Deb Knight, 2GB", "Multicultural press conference, 17 September 2020", and "Interview with Patricia Karvelas, ABC Afternoon Briefing":









(All those documents were dated Thursday, September 17, 2020 and issued by The Hon. Alan Tudge M.P. (at the time, Federal Acting Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services, and Multicultural Affairs).) Mr. Tudge's list of Australian values was much the same as his previous one(s), but what seems remarkable to me this time around is his emphasis on his principle that parliamentary enactments override religious ones; in every one of those transcripts except "Door stop, Australian Citizenship Test", he highlights that principle, and of the transcripts in which that principle is raised, only in "Interview with Ross Stevenson and Russel Howcroft, 3AW Breakfast" is Mr. Tudge not the one who raises it first. Presumably most members of Mr. Tudge's intended audience would connect that principle firstly to the relationship between Australian laws and the Islamic Shariah, but it is also relevant to enactments introduced or being introduced by Australian jurisdictions against the Seal of Confession.

In those texts, Mr. Tudge also referred to
  • the Australian citizenship test resource booklet Australian Citizenship: Our Common Bond, available here:


    (Go straight hither for the testable section:


    Its p. 19 (21 in my document reader) is about "Our freedoms", and the last sentence—under the sub-heading "Freedom of religion"—on that page expresses Mr. Tudge's principle, with much the same diction and syntax as in the translated error at the beginning of this item: "Where there is a conflict between an Australian law and a religious practice, Australian law prevails." Again, on p. 35 (37 in my document reader), under the same sub-heading (this time in the context of, as the previous page indicates, "Our values"), the second sentence of the penultimate paragraph is "Australian law must be followed by everyone in Australia, including where it is different from religious laws." (And on the next page, in the same context but under the sub-heading "Equality of all people under the law", the booklet is also noteworthy for its promotion of Gay Marriage with the last sentence of the second paragraph: "Under our laws, two people can marry each other, including marriage between two men or two women.")
  • the Australian Values Statement, both the versions for temporary and provisional visa applicants and for permanent visa applicants whereof express the principle, among other "values", of "parliamentary democracy whereby our laws are determined by parliaments elected by the people, those laws being paramount and overriding any other inconsistent religious or secular “laws”" and require each of those applicants to make this engagement: "I undertake to conduct myself in accordance with these values of Australian society during my stay in Australia and to obey the laws of Australia." (See the webpage "Meeting our requirements[: ]Australian values":


    The parliamentary democracy quotation is also on the "Australian values" page:


    And at the "Australian citizenship[: ]Learn about being an Australian citizen" page, the "Our freedoms" section has, under the sub-heading "Freedom of religion", this for its penultimate sentence: "You are free to follow any religion you choose, as long as your religious practices do not break Australian laws.":

Labels: Church and State, Confessional State, G.L.B.T., law, liberalism, marriage, morals, politics, secularism

5.2 H.M.A. Government plans to give "$3.0 million over four years from 2020-21 to the Anti-Defamation Commission to create a Holocaust education platform" plus the same sum over the same period "to the Islamic Museum of Australia to develop educational resources and online learning platforms", both as part of the Students Support Package in the Education, Skills, and Employment component of the 2020-2021 Federal Budget.

Those quotations and other information come from p. 82 (100 in my document reader) of Budget Paper No. 2, Budget Measures 2020-21, circulated by The Hon. Josh Frydenberg M.P. (at the time, de facto Federal Treasurer) and The Hon. Mathias Cormann (at the time, a Senator and the Federal Minister for Finance), dated October 6, 2020, available at the official Federal Budget website:


or go straight hither:


(It seems that another Federal grant of three million dollars (over four years from 2019-20) for the Anti-Defamation Commission (in this instance, for the expansion of its "Click Against Hate" programme) had already been announced; see p. 237 (255 in my document reader) in the "Education, Skills and Employment" section of Budget Measures 2020-21's "Appendix A: Policy decisions published in the July 2020 Economic and Fiscal Update" (both sets of italics in the original).) The same information is given in the October 6, 2020 Media Release "Budget 2020-21: Investing in Education and Research", issued by The Hon. Dan Tehan M.P. (at the time, Federal Minister for Education), available at the Ministers' Media Centre at the official website of the Federal Department of Education, Skills, and Employment:


Similar information is given in the last bullet point under the sub-heading "Schools" at the latter website's "Budget 2020-21" page:


and further information is given on the "Support for Social Cohesion" page of the former Federal Department of Education website:


Labels: Freemasons, Islam, Jews

5.3 The new Adelaide Holocaust Museum—located at Church-owned Fennescey House, and said to be "the latest addition to a national network of Holocaust museums"—will get two-and-a-half million dollars of Federal funding.

The information, including the quotation, in that headline comes from the news report "Boost for new Holocaust museum", by Jenny Brinkworth, dated Friday, October 16, 2020, downloaded from The Southern Cross's website:


See also the transcripts "Interview with Ditts and Roo, Triple M Adelaide", "Interview with Leon Byner, 5AA Adelaide", and "Doorstop interview, Norwood, Adelaide", all dated October 15, 2020, and issued by The Hon. Josh Frydenberg M.P. (at the time, de facto Federal Treasurer):




As for the rest of that network, Ms Brinkworth wrote that
With well-established Jewish museums in Melbourne and Sydney, the Federal Government has also provided $3.5m for a Holocaust museum in Brisbane while Perth’s Jewish Community Centre received funding for a major redevelopment last year.
Labels: Adelaide, Jews

Reginaldvs Cantvar
St. Andrew's Day, A.D. 2020
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Notes: Tuesday, January 1-Tuesday, February 12, 2013 (part 1 of 2)

1. "With developments in philosophical thought and in ways of understanding the modern State, the doctrine of tolerance, as worked out in detail by Pius XII, no longer seemed sufficient."

The quotation, including its hyperlink, in that headline comes from ""It was a splendid day" - Reflections of His Holiness Benedict XVI, published for the first time on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council", from "Castel Gandolfo, on the Feast of Saint Eusebius, Bishop of Vercelli, 2 August 2012", appearing in L'Osservatore Romano on October 11, 2012. (I found that web-page at the Vatican website's page for the Year of Faith, which (Year) began on the same day (October 11, 2012, the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the II. Vatican Council).) The Catholic World Report said that that L'Osservatore Romano essay/article "is the introduction to a collection of [H]is[ Holiness's] writings on the Council, to be published in German next month[, i.e., November 2012]". Vatican Radio said that
Penned this past summer in Castel Gandolfo, the article is in fact the preface to a collection of writings by the young Prof. Joseph Ratzinger at the time of the Council, which, however, have never been published. Edited by Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, [current Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – ed], the complete collection is due to be published in Germany , by Herder.
[square-bracketed interpolation in the original,
"Pope pens rare article on his inside view of Vatican II", Vatican Radio, October 10, 2012]
And judging by that Vatican Radio article, the Holy Father's article was published not on Thursday, October 11, 2012, but on Wednesday, October 10, 2012, in "a special edition[ of L'Osservatore Romano] dedicated to Vatican II", though L'Osservatore Romano's website has a version of the article dated October 11, 2012, with the body of the article under the headline "It was a splendid day, Benedict XVI recalls".

For discussion of that article, see AQ, Ignis Ardens, or Rorate Cæli (which gives the date of the relevant issue of L'Osservatore Romano as October 10-11, 2012).

(It was a splendid day came to my attention via the printing of excerpts from it in the "THE CHURCH AROUND THE WORLD" item "Pope Benedict XVI recalls Vatican II" on p. 4 in AD 2000, Vol. 25, No. 11, December 2012-January 2013, published by Peter Westmore for the Thomas More Centre in Balwyn, Victoria, Australia; the item's stated source was L'Osservatore Romano. That "CHURCH AROUND THE WORLD" report is available online at the AD 2000 website here.)

Labels: Americanism, Benedict XVI. Ratzinger, Dignitatis Humanæ, religious liberty, Vatican II

2. "The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour."

The quotation in that headline is the body of a notice (Notice Code: 1108) in The London Gazette, Issue No. 60384, p. 213, Tuesday, January 8, 2013. (One can also find the text of the notice by going to the "Advanced Search" page of The London Gazette website and entering part of the quotation in the "With the exact phrase:" field.)

(That notice came to my attention via the article "If it's a girl, Kate's baby to be a princess", no byline, on p. 24 of the Sydney Daily Telegraph, Friday, January 11, 2013, Vol. 1, No. 2743, ISSN 1038-8745, published by Nationwide News Pty. Ltd., apparently not available online.)

Labels: styles and titles

3. "As far as I[, Michael Costigan,] know there is no special significance in the fact that some of the [Vatican II ]documents are introduced in this publication [, namely, THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II: With Notes and Index ("Vatican Translation"), 2009 edition, St Pauls Publications ]as “solemnly promulgated”, others as “promulgated” and several as “proclaimed”."

The quotation in that headline comes from the book review "Up-to-date collection of Vatican II documents", by Michael Costigan, dated January 13, 2013, downloaded from the Sydney Catholic Weekly's website:

http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=3&subclassID=20&articleID=11537&class=Features&subclass=Books

(That book review came to my attention via the version printed with the same headline and the same byline on p. 14 (the "Books" page) of the Sydney Catholic Weekly, January 13, 2013, Vol. 72, No. 4655, published by The Catholic Press Newspaper Company Pty. Ltd. The quoted portion of the online version is the same as the corresponding part of the print version except that the latter has a dash after the "u" in "documents".)

Labels: Vatican II

4. "In 1985 when the Australian Human Rights Commission bill passed the House of Representatives, it was intended to be the enforcement mechanism for cognate legislation, the Australian Bill of Rights Bill."

The quotation in that headline comes from a letter by Peter Breen to The Sydney Morning Herald, dated January 15, 2013, downloaded from the Herald's website where it is available with other letters under the headline "Distorted analysis adds fuel to the racial hatred fire":

http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/distorted-analysis-adds-fuel-to-the-racial-hatred-fire-20130114-2cppf.html?skin=text-only

Labels: A.H.R.C.

5. "There were about 29,000 Medicare-supported terminations in 2009 in NSW/ACT."

The quotation in that headline comes from the article "Using science to give birth to a better world", by Nicky Phillips , dated January 19, 2013, downloaded from The Sydney Morning Herald's website:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/using-science-to-give-birth-to-a-better-world-20130118-2cykz.html?skin=text-only

That article also reports that "The highest proportion of women who terminate a pregnancy are at either end of their reproductive life - in their teens or above 40." The second part of that disjunction came as a surprise to me, for the reason given at the beginning of the article:
Most women think their fertility slowly declines with age.

''But it's actually a precipitous cliff from about age 34,'' reproductive biologist John Aitken says …
(That article came to my attention via the version printed under the same headline (as part of the "LUNCH WITH" series of profiles) and with the same byline on p. 10 of the "News Review" supplement of The Sydney Morning Herald, Weekend Edition, January 19-20, 2013, No. 54690 (presumably, though the front cover said "54,69"), ISSN 0312-6315.)

(While searching unsuccessfully on Google for the ultimate source for the quotation in the headline of this item (item 5), I found a document whose publication details I wish to record for possible future reference to it; it is Briefing Paper No. 9/05 ("Abortion and the law in New South Wales"), by Talina Drabsch (from, and written for, the New South Wales Parliamentary Library Research Service), August 2005, © 2005, ISSN 1325-4456, ISBN 0 7313 1784 X:

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/4b0ec8db3b4a730dca2570610021aa58/$FILE/Abortion%20&%20index.pdf

Labels: abortion, Medicare

6. "It's also about[, i.e., "special rights being claimed by religious groups" are "also about"] the ongoing push by the religious right to define homosexuality as behaviour and to prevent it being protected as an innate part of a person's identity, as is gender and colour."

The quotation in that headline comes from the opinion piece "Exemptions for religious groups keep fears alive", by Brian Greig, dated January 22, 2013, downloaded from The Sydney Morning Herald's website:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/exemptions-for-religious-groups-keep-fears-alive-20130121-2d2f8.html?skin=text-only

Labels: Dennis Altman, G.L.B.T.

7. "Worldwide, according to the World Health Organisation, the abortion rate has dropped from 50-60 million a year to an estimated 46 million a year, a figure that includes 20 million illegal abortions."

The quotation in that headline comes from the opinion piece "A woman's right to choose still a public battlefield", by Miriam Claire, dated January 22, 2013, downloaded from The Sydney Morning Herald's website:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-womans-right-to-choose-still-a-public-battlefield-20130121-2d31w.html?skin=text-only

Labels: abortion

8. Mr. Nicholls on Mr. O'Farrell's motive for calling "an inquiry into how the state's racial vilification laws are operating in NSW"

See the article "Look behind Premier's motive", by Sean Nicholls, on p. 11 of the "News Review" supplement of The Sydney Morning Herald, Weekend Edition, January 26-27, 2013, No. 54696 (presumably, though the front cover said "64,696"), ISSN 0312-6315, available online under the same headline and with the same byline, dated January 26, 2013, at the Herald's website:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/look-behind-premiers-motive-20130125-2dbz9.html?skin=text-only

See also the follow-up article "Failure to prosecute rioters means laws need closer look - O'Farrell", by Sean Nicholls, dated January 28, 2013, downloaded from the Herald's website:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/failure-to-prosecute-rioters-means-laws-need-closer-look--ofarrell-20130127-2dey4.html?skin=text-only

That follow-up article reported that Mr. O'Farrell "nominated the Muslim riot in central Sydney last year as one reason why an inquiry is needed into whether the state's racial vilification laws need strengthening." But the author of the Middle East Reality Check blog says that
… Sydney's so-called Muslim riot* occurred on September 15 last year. [Mr. O'Farrell], however, first announced his inquiry months before at an "Israel Independence Day cocktail event" in May. …
[asterisk, bold type, and italics in the original,
"Not So Fast, Baruch O'Farrell", no author credited, Tuesday, January 29, 2013,
http://middleeastrealitycheck.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/not-so-fast-baruch-ofarrell.html]
Labels: Barry O'Farrell, racism, State of Israel

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of the Seven Holy Founders of the Servite Order, Confessors, A.D. 2013
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, May 28, 2010

Notes: Friday, May 28, 2010

Unrest among the Nationals over Mr. Abbott's paid parental leave policy

http://www.smh.com.au/national/nats-keeping-mum-on-parental-leave-20100527-whuo.html?skin=text-only

Here're some excerpts from the article in today's Herald:

The policy is unpopular throughout the junior Coalition party for a variety of reasons but nobody wants to cause a split so close to an election.

One Nationals MP, Darren Chester, has gone public, telling Parliament yesterday that providing paid parental leave with nothing for stay-at-home mothers was discriminatory.

''It sends a message to the community that the government places more value on the offspring of working mothers than on the offspring of stay-at-home mothers,'' he said.

Mr Chester advocated a scheme in which mothers would be paid to stay at home until the child was ready for school. ''Returning to work and putting children into childcare often creates a giant money-go-round where no one is happy,'' he said.

[...] Several sources told the Herald the Nationals do not like the concept because it breaches the pledge to not increase taxes as well as offering nothing for stay-at-home mothers. There are a lot more stay-at-home mothers in the country where more families get by on single incomes.

''It's not the flavour of the month with us,'' said a senior National yesterday. Another said the party disliked the concept but considered the Rudd government a greater problem. To split publicly over the policy would hinder its goal of defeating the government, he said.

Views on paid parental leave are being vented internally as Parliament debates the Rudd government's $263 million taxpayer funded scheme. It will pay carers the minium wage of $453 a week for 18 weeks.

[...] Two National Party MPs, Kay Hull and Mr Chester, complained about the Coalition policy during Tuesday's party-room meeting, prompting Mr Abbott to declare the party had to move on from the Howard government view that mothers should stay at home with their children.

At the same meeting, Mr Abbott stressed the need for unity. In addition, the Nationals have already threatened a split on amendments to renewable energy target legislation.

In Parliament yesterday, Mr Abbott said women should not be forced to choose between career and family.

Mr Abbott had wanted to announce payments for stay-at-home mothers as part of his budget address-in-reply but was overruled by the shadow cabinet.

Discussion at CathPews on the increased frequency of late-term abortions in Victoria

http://members7.boardhost.com/CathPews/thread/1274929592.html

National Observer: Article on John F. Kennedy

The National Observer ("Australia's leading current affairs quarterly specialising in domestic and international politics, security-related challenges and issues of national cohesion") has been brought to my attention, and I thought I'd bring it to your attention too. It looks like a good publication. The latest issue has a review by Mr. R. J. Stove (an Australian Traditional Catholic and occasional commenter at this blog) of the book The Making of a Catholic President: Kennedy vs. Nixon 1960. Here's an excerpt:

At least Ku Kluxers avoided the responsibilities of cognitive stature. More subtle and equally obstreperous was the Protestant intellectual establishment of 1960, for which Kennedy’s presidential hopes meant a flagrant attack on the so-called "separation of church and state". Never mind that the US Constitution’s First Amendment, ostensibly guaranteeing this separation, guarantees no such thing. Never mind that outside America, Protestantism usually scorned church-state rifts (as the histories of Edinburgh, Geneva and Pretoria show). Never mind that Jefferson — usually credited with demanding "a wall of [church-state] separation" — was no Christian at all, but a crypto-Jacobin, Bible-doctoring Deist. Jefferson’s views have no more relevance to any Christian nation’s beliefs than do those of the nearest imam, bonze or lama (who, unlike Jefferson, does not claim Christological expertise). These uncomfortable data mattered nought. JFK called himself a Catholic; Catholics owed their first allegiance to a foreign power; ergo, JFK owed his first allegiance to a foreign power. On this syllogistic theme, America’s Protestant press devised seemingly inexhaustible variations, many of which displayed an obsessive terror that Kennedy, if elected, would prohibit contraceptives. (The press either did not know or did not care that every Protestant church in the world prohibited contraceptives until 1930.)
[italics in the original]


From yesterday's issue of the daily CathNews e-mail bulletin:

West Australian Premier Colin Barnett does not support a Liberal backbencher's call to make women seeking abortions first undergo 3-D colour ultrasound imaging and view the foetus.

Mr Peter Abetz, who made the proposal at an anti-abortion rally at Parliament House in Perth on Tuesday, said a study in the US had shown that 89 percent of women committed to having abortions had not gone ahead with the procedure when shown 3-D colour ultrasounds of the foetuses they were carrying, according to an AAP report in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Mr Abetz also would like to see a 48-hour 'cooling off period' after women have applied for an abortion, the report said.

But Mr Barnett told Fairfax Radio on Wednesday that he did not support mandatory ultrasounds.

"I understand what Peter is saying, but I think that would put a huge amount of personal pressure on someone who is already going through somewhat of a personal crisis, so I don't support that." [...]

On the Novus Ordo Missæ and one of the anathematisms of the Council of Trent

The following comment was made at Fr. Zuhlsdorf's blog:

@MichaelJ: I would certainly say that the translation is defective and expresses a falsehood.

I did not say that the translation was free of defects of accuracy but meant that the resultant text is free of intrinsic defects, meaning defects of faith, and that anyone who says otherwise is anathematized by decree of the 7th Session of the Council of Trent:

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned…let him be anathema.

Comment by C. — 27 May 2010 @ 6:06 am
[italics in the original,
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/05/uk-bishop-with-priests-using-new-translation-wordy-but-a-huge-improvement/#comment-206816]

Note the wording, though: Not just "approved", but "received and approved", which was also the teaching of an earlier Council (I can't remember which one). A recent issue of The Fatima Crusader dealt with this in one of its articles. The N.O.M. might have been approved (though even on that point doubts have been raised--see the S.S.P.X.'s American District website and Iota Unum, especially the translator's footnote in the Sarto House English translation), but its staunchest defenders could not say that it is a received rite--as everyone knows, it was cobbled together by a committee. Hence that anathematism does not apply to the N.O.M.

Joshua on the Carthusian Rite

http://psallitesapienter.blogspot.com/2010/05/placeat-sancta-trinitas.html

This post of his contains some interesting information about that Rite. Joshua mentions parenthetically that
It is a little-known fact that the wise Carthusians retain their own proper form of the Roman Rite, having reformed it in 1981, to produce a new edition of the Missale Cartusiense. Amongst many other appealing features, it contains:

•no penitential rite other than the Carthusian Confiteor;
•substantially the traditional one-year lectionary (with Epistle, Gradual, Alleluia or Tract, and Gospel);
•no modern Offertory prayers;
•none of those modern Memorial Acclamations;
•a rubric specifying that the Eucharistic Prayer is normally said secretly, others ordering it be said with hands extended in the form of the cross;
•no response "For the kingdom..." after the Embolism;
•and finally the Placeat.
and the whole post is worth reading.

Here's a comment I've left there:
Cardinal Pole said...

Thank you for this information about the Carthusian Rite, about which I have wondered.

"Well may we pray that this fine prayer is re-inserted into the Ordinary Form of the Mass!"

Indeed.

Friday, 28 May, 2010
Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.
Reginaldvs Cantvar
Friday in the Octave of Pentecost, A.D. 2010
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, August 25, 2008

How long till the C.D.F. issues a Notification on neo-Americanism?

Also in yesterday’s Catholic Weekly were some extracts from the ‘Acton Lecture’ delivered by Rev. Fr. Robert A. Sirico at the Centre for Independent Studies. The report is not online yet, so I direct you to the speech itself:
http://www.cis.org.au/events/cis_lectures/acton_2008_sirico.pdf

Fr. Sirico is from the dreadful Acton Institute; I will not post a link here but you can find one at Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s blog. This Institute appears to advocate what I would call neo-Americanism, an updated form of Americanism that extends beyond the religious libertarianism of the original and attempts to incorporate economic libertarianism into Church social teaching.

The lecture begins fairly inoffensively, with “an assertion of two distinct realms: the temporal and the ecclesiastical. In this concept, both the law and the civil magistrate are to be respected, even prayed for.” ‘Distinct’ is the key word, and perfectly appropriate, though of course we must not go as far as to advocate the desirability of their separation as a principle:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error.
(St. Pius X, Vehementer Nos)
That is, the ideal is that the State as a person confesses Christ, and every person under the State confesses Christ, and therefore, since the two ‘perfect societies’ of Church and State overlap in their membership, they ought to be united in mutual concord and unanimity of action.

Fr. Sirico notes perceptively that “[w]hat is really at issue here is the problem of authority”, and identifies that “Christianity did not, however, see the origin of authority as lying in the state, and it did not see the state as the source of law, much less of morality”. Clearly God is the origin of authority and of law, and the State must acknowledge this authority, do God the homage that He is owed for delegating His authority, and makes its civil laws correspond to the Divine Law.

Indeed, the reliable Rev. Fr. Francis J. Connell C.SS.R. makes very clear that Church-State relations are actually a secondary issue:

In other words, the real point at issue is not the relation between the State and the Catholic Church but rather the relation between the State and Christ the King.
That is, union of Church and State follows from submission of State to its King, Christ.

So far, so good. And one could forgive Father’s rather strange, utilitarian notion of a Christian vision of

a society in which people leave old professions and adopt new ones,take on vocations as priests or nuns, become educated and advance within the culture, become merchants and capitalists who produce wealth
(my emphasis)

or his fanciful depiction of the Dark Ages as a some kind of proto-capitalist utopia:

The so-called Dark Ages saw the origins of the water mill and the windmill, used for capitalistic production. Monastic estates were used for the domestication and production of fish, and for cloth-making. Monasteries were the first modern institutions of complex capitalistic production.
But eventually he makes his errors quite plain:

[Constantine] and his successors certainly went too far in making the Christian faith the official religion and using public resources for the construction of churches. But when one looks at this history, we need to carefully distinguish between unjust practices of the present day and the roots of what would eventually lead to what we now know as modern-day freedom. It was Christianity itself, and not atheism, secularism or materialism, that first advanced the idea that the state and the Church were distinct and separate entities. The concept that institutions could flourish in the absence of civic approval is what led to the creation of the university, the monastery, the hospital, the rule of law in courts, and the flourishing of science and institutional and international charity.
(my emphasis)
So Fr. Sirico is really just offering what I call crypto-secularism: he turns his back on 1 500 years of Church practice and 150 years of permanently-valid doctrine (which only needed to be written down in response to challenges from the revolutionaries of 1789 and 1848). Preposterously, he argues that

Indeed, it is Christianity that lies at the root of the body of ideas we know today as classical liberalism, which can be summed up in four essential claims: all people have rights that cannot be abrogated; society flourishes most when the state is a resource of last resort; economic advance is desirable and made possible through free exchange; and the social peace is best maintained when religion and the state are separated.
Let’s take a closer look at these ‘four claims’:

1) “all people have rights that cannot be abrogated”: yes, but the object of any right can only ever be what is true and good.

2) “society flourishes most when the state is a resource of last resort”: this is just one of the assumptions of economic rationalism; it has no place in Christian doctrine.

3) “economic advance is desirable”: not in itself.

4) “the social peace is best maintained when religion and the state are separated”: false in principle, possibly true in certain circumstances.

When Fr. Sirico speaks of “the authentic Christian liberalism of the nineteenth century, which in turn connects backwards in time to the Middle Ages, to Augustine, to the Church Fathers, and finally to the words of Jesus”, one wonders whether the Anglicans are the only ones prone to ‘ecclesial amnesia’: does he not know that the ‘Liberal Catholic’ political movement was condemned unequivocally by the Popes of the time? Indeed, Fr. Sirico analysis of currents in nineteenth-century Catholic political thought is far too simplistic: he says that

In the mid- to late nineteenth century, at a time when democracy was rising, the Papal States were under serious strain, and radical political movements were on the move, two general camps emerged within the Catholic Church. On one side, there were the ultramontanists, who favoured the temporal power and regarded the idea of religious liberty as a fateful surrender to secularism and modernism. On the other side were the liberals, who embraced religious liberty and argued that papal infallibility should be embraced only in the strictly defined terms related to its own competency of faith and morals, but not to politics or economics.
Concessions to false religions can only ever be a toleration based on circumstances, and a concession in principle is indeed a “fateful surrender to secularism and modernism”. And his reading of the Syllabus of Errors is simply not supported by the text:

Even Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors could be read as compatible with an embrace of liberty if we recognise that while it condemned the view that the Church must be universally separated from the state (understood as the state confining religion to the purely private sphere—the goal of today’s radical secularists), it tolerated the view that the Church can be made prudently and advantageously distinct from the state.
Here we see confusion in his argument: that “the view that the Church can be made prudently and advantageously distinct from the state” is tolerable is not in question (and ‘distinct’ is the wrong word anyway, since Church and State are distinct), while in fact it is Fr. Sirico’s views on Church-States relations at the level of principles that Bl. Pius IX was condemning.

When Fr. Sirico describes ‘liberation theology’ as “essentially a baptised form of Marxism” it is hard to ignore the savage irony that what he and the Acton Institute advocate is really just a ‘baptised form’ of libertarianism and economic rationalism. How can they not see this? Indeed, Marxism and economic rationalism aren’t fundamentally all that different: they share the same foundation, namely materialistic determinism, though while Marxism focuses on the social level, at which circumstances in the factors of production determine the course of history (historical materialism), economic rationalism focuses on the individual, with man conceived of as homo economicus, with a utility function into which ones plugs the numbers and determines his behaviour.

We see this materialism crop up again when Fr. Sirico writes off the era of Christendom as being one in which the fact that

the tyrant professed Christianity was an incidental fact: he was merely using the culturally dominant religion as a cover for his true ambition
and it is an insult to the likes of Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, St. Edward the Confessor and St. Louis IX.



What is it with people trying to graft onto Tradition that which can never organically be a part of it? Why the constant conformity to the spirit of the age? Why can they not be content simply ‘to hand on what they have received’?

What is perhaps most telling about Fr. Sirico’s position is the complete absence of any reference in this lecture to one of the fundamental principles of Catholic social teaching, namely the common good. Search for keywords like ‘common good’ or ‘public good’ or public welfare or common welfare and you will find nothing. Indeed, one must ask of Fr. Sirico: does he agree that the common good is the proper end of the State? Does he agree that the common good is the relevant criterion for determining when to restrict liberty (an important question given that his lecture was, after all, on the topic of ‘Must Religion be a Threat to Liberty?’)? Does he agree that the State is a juridical and moral person that is capable of acknowledging God as the source of its authority, of the blessings that it enjoys and of its very existence, i.e., that the State really can be confessional? Just what is this man’s theory of the State?

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)