Monthly Archives: June 2017

American Christianity today is beset by political gloom. This gloominess is certainly evident in this years best seller on faith and politics: Rod Drehers The Benedict Option, which David Brooks hails as the most important religious book of the decade.

Inspired by the philosophy of Alasdair MacIntyre, Dreher argues that the modern West is living under [the] barbarism of moral permissiveness, secularism and individualism. In this new Dark Age, public morality is all about individualistic relativism and moral choices are nothing more than expressions of what the choosing individual feels is right. Gone are the traditional virtue communities of yesteryear. Faith is in decline. In its place barbarians with designer suits and smart phones dominate democracies in the name of a hostile secular nihilism.

Dreher believes that Christians have been slow to recognize this fait accompli. What it demands of them is forming local communities of committed believers who preserve virtue for a future flowering of civilization. Failure to do so will doom our children and our childrens children to assimilation.

Given Drehers alarming call to do battle in the modern world, Julin Carrns new book, Disarming Beauty, which asks Christians to lay down their arms and enter the public square with joy and confidence, may seem wildly nave. Yet Carrns argument deserves careful consideration by Christians attracted to the Benedict Option.

Carrn is a Catholic theologian, priest and leader of the movement Communion and Liberation (in which, full disclosure, I participate). Carrn shares similar anxieties about the modern spiritual crisis of nihilism (anxieties that I, incidentally, think are overblown). But, in sharp contrast to Dreher, Carrn does not think Christians should disown contemporary society as a new Dark Age.

This is because todays secular democracies were partly built by Christians (in collaboration with others) and reflect a deep affirmation of their faith. Indeed, Carrn notes, the church in the first centuries was founded on the revolutionary distinction between the two cities, between God and Caesar. Similarly, a secular society maintains a clear and crucial distinction between the church and stately power. A genuinely open, secular public space is thus not a disadvantage to Christianity but rather an assurance against the perennial temptation to use power instead of love to spread faithwhat Carrn calls the temptation of hegemony. This temptation, as Carrn relates, is, unfortunately, something to which Christians frequently succumb. Thus, despite real tensions and disagreements, there remains a profound harmony between Christianity and [the] Enlightenment.

Secularism is not the enemy of Christianity but a historic opportunity for the church to live its witness authentically and unarmed. But Carrn also makes clear that the individual freedom defended by secular democracies is not simply an inconvenience necessary for avoiding the temptation of hegemony. Rather, from the Christian perspective, freedom is the most precious gift heaven gave to humanity. Indeed, there is no real faith without freedom to reject that faith.

When scandalized by others freedom, Carrn insists that Christians should return to the model of Jesus who never forced or coerced conversion. Instead, Jesus always began from the heart or desires of the individual in front of him.

For this reason, Carrn stresses Jesus famous parable of the prodigal son whose father gives him his inheritance early so he may fully pursue his freedom and desires even to the point of complete moral dissipation. Why does the father not intervene by the use of force? Why is he not scandalized by the muck of his sons desires?

Central to the Christian claim is that every human heart has a desire for the infinite, such that every other desire remains restlessly unsatisfied until a relationship with God is formed. Jesus recognized that real faith must always pass through the free desire of the human heart. Instead of coercion, Jesus approach was to offer people a bigger, more engaging love.

Carrn insists that this is why the earliest Christians did not focus on saving civilization but instead desired intensely to mix with Jew or Greek, to present to everyone a truly desirable humanity. This means that Christians, above all people, should affirm individual freedomallowing others to test out their desires and see if anything else will satisfy them. Indeed, Christians should even love this journey, this dramatic destiny of all Gods prodigal sons, who demand their inheritances and test their desires.

By contrast, Drehers book is filled with a deep ambivalence about individual freedom. Although he insists that Christians need the freedoms of the modern state to carry out their Benedict Options, he at the same time wants to denounce this state for its inadequate goal of facilitating and expanding human choice. Drehers project both denounces and requires the secular spaces of freedom he so distrusts.

This is very different from Carrns insistence that Christians should embrace the drama of freedom. According to Carrn, it is clear that returning to a society based on Christian laws is against the very nature of Christianity. Instead, Christians should seek to affirm and revitalize a space of freedom in which nothing is imposed by anyone and a society forms in which each person can freely contribute to its construction, offering his own witness.

It is difficult to imagine a position more diametrically opposed to Drehers belief that following your own heart, no matter what society says, or the church...is devastating to every kind of social stability. Thus, although Dreher at one point hints that Carrns Communion and Liberation is possibly in the spirit of the Benedict Option, he is clearly wrong.

Ultimately, Carrn believes Christians should come to the modern space of freedom armed with nothing but the beauty and attractiveness of their lives. The authentic Christian is not afraid of having to live in todays cultural pluralism without special legal privileges.

In spaces of individual freedom, Christians do not evangelize by withdrawing but by forming friendships. In chapter after chapter, Carrn insists that Christianity did not begin with a moral system or assent to dogmatic claims but with Jesus, who offered his companionship. Faith, in other words, begins as a relationshipas a willingness to fall in love with and accompany others. Far from embattled retraction, Christians today should see their politics as one of friendship: of being able to embrace and stay with the Other. And not because the Other is a burdensome duty but because the Other is a good.

Once again the model is Christ. Carrn recounts how in the Gospels the Pharisees thought Zacchaeus needed moral correction. But Jesus instead puts his trust in a real relationship. To the great chagrin and scandal of the Pharisees, Jesus asks to eat at Zacchaeuss house. In other words, Jesus sees Zacchaeus with all his imperfections and confusions and still loves him.

Carrn believes the great danger for Christians today lies in reducing their faith to a new Pelagianism, or the erroneous doctrine that the faithful save themselves through their efforts. In this light, Drehers call for civilizational action and virtuous withdrawal does not place sufficient trust in the essence of Christianitynamely, relationships with others.

Over and over again, Carrn seems to ask: If Christianity is true, what do Christians really have to fear?

See more here:

The book Christians should read instead of 'The Benedict Option' - America Magazine

Student Edge

Movie Review: Rough Night Student Edge Rough Night, to its credit but also maybe to its detriment, walks back the from the brink of total nihilism by retroactively justifying the accidental murder, which will at least make the movie more palatable for any reasonable person who draws the ... and more »

Read more here:

Movie Review: Rough Night - Student Edge

By Gustavo Solimeo, February 24, 2010 |

Anyone who examines the ideology of socialism will see the contrast between the socialist doctrine and the doctrine of the Church.All the same, it is not out of place to review the condemnation of the popes starting with Pius IX and ending with Benedict XVI. Thus, we present what the popes have to say about socialism as they condemn the socialist doctrine thoroughly and entirely. This is not a comprehensive compilation, but just some samples.

Blessed Pope Pius IX (1846-1878):

Overthrow [of] the entire order of human affairs

You are aware indeed, that the goal of this most iniquitous plot is to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism, by confusing them with perverted teachings. (Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, December 8, 1849)

Pope Leo XIII, Annum Ingressi, Apostolic Letter twenty-fifth year of our Apostolic Ministry

Leo XIII (1877-1903): Socialists assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law.

LEO XIII (1878-1903):

Hideous monster

communism, socialism, nihilism, hideous deformities of the civil society of men and almost its ruin. (Encyclical Diuturnum, June 29, 1881)Ruin of all institutions

For, the fear of God and reverence for divine laws being taken away, the authority of rulers despised, sedition permitted and approved, and the popular passions urged on to lawlessness, with no restraint save that of punishment, a change and overthrow of all things will necessarily follow. Yea, this change and overthrow is deliberately planned and put forward by many associations of communists and socialists (Encyclical Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, n. 27).

A sect that threatens civil society with destruction

We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever. Surely, these are they who, as the sacred Scriptures testify, Defile the flesh, despise dominion and blaspheme majesty. (Jud. 8). (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)

Socialists debase the natural union of man and woman and assail the right of property

They [socialists, communists, or nihilists] debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, by which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken, or even deliver up to lust. Lured, in fine, by the greed of present goods, which is the root of all evils, which some coveting have erred from the faith (1 Tim. 6:10.3), they assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in ones mode of life. (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)

Destructive sect

socialists and members of other seditious societies, who labor unceasingly to destroy the State even to its foundations. (Encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888)

Enemy of society and of Religion

there is need for a union of brave minds with all the resources they can command. The harvest of misery is before our eyes, and the dreadful projects of the most disastrous national upheavals are threatening us from the growing power of the socialistic movement. They have insidiously worked their way into the very heart of the community, and in the darkness of their secret gatherings, and in the open light of day, in their writings and their harangues, they are urging the masses onward to sedition; they fling aside religious discipline; they scorn duties; they clamor only for rights; they are working incessantly on the multitudes of the needy which daily grow greater, and which, because of their poverty are easily deluded and led into error. It is equally the concern of the State and of religion, and all good men should deem it a sacred duty to preserve and guard both in the honor which is their due. (Encyclical Graves de Communi Re, January 18, 1901, n. 21)

Saint Pius X (1903-1914)

Saint Pius X (1903-1914)

SAINT PIUS X (1903-1914):

The dream of re-shaping society will bring socialism

But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, the reign of love and justice What are they going to produce? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train. (Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique [Our Apostolic Mandate] to the French Bishops, August 25, 1910, condemning the movement Le Sillon)

Pope Benedict XV

Benedict XV

BENEDICT XV (1914-1922):

The condemnation of socialism should never be forgotten

It is not our intention here to repeat the arguments which clearly expose the errors of Socialism and of similar doctrines. Our predecessor, Leo XIII, most wisely did so in truly memorable Encyclicals; and you, Venerable Brethren, will take the greatest care that those grave precepts are never forgotten, but that whenever circumstances call for it, they should be clearly expounded and inculcated in Catholic associations and congresses, in sermons and in the Catholic press. (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914, n. 13)

Pius XI (1922-1939): Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.

Pius XI (1922-1939): No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.

PIUS XI (1922-1939):

Socialism, fundamentally contrary to Christian truth

For Socialism, which could then be termed almost a single system and which maintained definite teachings reduced into one body of doctrine, has since then split chiefly into two

sections, often opposing each other and even bitterly hostile, without either one however abandoning a position fundamentally contrary to Christian truth that was characteristic of Socialism. (Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, n. 111)

Socialism cannot be reconciled with Catholic Doctrine

But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? This is the question that holds many minds in suspense. And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized.

That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth. (Ibid. n. 117)

Catholic Socialism, a contradiction

[Socialism] is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist. (Ibid. n. 120)

Pope Pius XII sedia gestatoria

Pius XII

PIUS XII (1939-1958):

The Church will fight to the end, in defense of supreme values threatened by socialism

[The Church undertook] the protection of the individual and the family against a current threatening to bring about a total socialization which in the end would make the specter of the Leviathan become a shocking reality. The Church will fight this battle to the end, for it is a question of supreme values: the dignity of man and the salvation of souls. (Radio message to the Katholikentag of Vienna, September 14, 1952 in Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, vol. XIV, p. 314)The state can not be regarded as being above all

To consider the State as something ultimate to which everything else should be subordinated and directed, cannot fail to harm the true and lasting prosperity of nations. (Encyclical Summi Pontificatus, October 20, 1939, n. 60)

Pope John XXIII

John XXIII

JOHN XXIII (1958-1963):

No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism

Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority. (Encyclical Mater et Magistra, May 15, 1961, n. 34)

Pope Paul VI

Paul VI

PAUL VI (1963-1978):

Too often Christians tend to idealize socialism

Too often Christians attracted by socialism tend to idealize it in terms which, apart from anything else, are very general: a will for justice, solidarity and equality. They refuse to recognize the limitations of the historical socialist movements, which remain conditioned by the ideologies from which they originated. (Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens, May 14, 1971, n. 31)

Pope John Paul II

John Paul II (1978-2005)

JOHN PAUL II (1978-2005):

Socialism: Danger of a simple and radical solution

It may seem surprising that socialism appeared at the beginning of the Popes critique of solutions to the question of the working class at a time when socialism was not yet in the form of a strong and powerful State, with all the resources which that implies, as was later to happen. However, he correctly judged the danger posed to the masses by the attractive presentation of this simple and radical solution to the question of the working class. (Encyclical Centesimus Annus On the 100th anniversary of Pope Leo XIIIs Rerum Novarum, May 1, 1991, n. 12)Fundamental error of socialism: A mistaken conception of the person

Continuing our reflections, we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property. (Ibid, n. 13)

BENEDICT XVI (2005 present):

We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything

Pope Benedict XVI, WDC

Benedict XVI

The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person every person needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live by bread alone (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human. (Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, December 25, 2005, n. 28)

What the Popes Have to Say About Socialism

See the article here:

What the Popes Have to Say About Socialism - Catholic Citizens of Illinois (press release)