The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Freedom and Catholicism
A 19th-century cardinal’s defense of America
Jun. 25, 2009
Fireworks explode over the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington (CNS file photo)
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionFourth of July essay
Someday I should like to celebrate the Fourth of July by going to Mass at Santa Maria in Trastevere. This ancient basilica in the heart of one of Rome’s oldest neighborhoods was originally built in the fourth century during the reign of Pope Julius I on the spot of an even earlier Christian house founded by Pope Calixtus I in 224.
In the consistory of 1887, this venerable church was assigned to the newly created Cardinal James Gibbons, archbishop of Baltimore. Gibbons was only the second American to be raised to the purple and he took possession of his titular church on March 25, the feast of the Annunciation. As the date approached, Msgr. Denis O’Connell, rector of the Pontifical North American College in Rome, suggested that the occasion called for more than mere formalities.
Gibbons took the suggestion and delivered a powerful sermon defending the American constitutional model of church-state relations. “For myself, as a citizen of the United States, without closing my eyes to our defects as a nation, I proclaim, with a deep sense of pride and gratitude, and in this great capital of Christendom, that I belong to a country where the civil government holds over us the aegis of its protection without interfering in the legitimate exercise of our sublime mission as ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” the cardinal said. “But while we are acknowledged to have a free government, we do not perhaps receive due credit for possessing also a strong government. Yes, our nation is strong, and her strength lies, under Providence, in the majesty and supremacy of the law, in the loyalty of her citizens to that law, and in the affection of our people for their free institutions.”
In 1887 in Rome, those were fighting words. His biographer, Msgr. John Tracy Ellis, wrote, “Gibbons’ address, with its strong emphasis upon the liberty of the church in the United States, had an importance and significance quite beyond the ordinary sermon of this kind.”
In late 19th-century Rome, virtually all politics was seen through the lens of the pope’s loss of his temporal sovereignty over the Papal States. With the memory of Pius VI and Pius VII imprisoned by Napoleon, the spiritual independence of the papacy was thought to be bound up with its temporal independence. Both were threatened by the rise of liberal democratic regimes in Europe, most especially in Italy, which had annexed most of the Papal States in 1860 and took over Rome itself in 1870. Camillo Benso di Cavour, the leader of the Risorgimento, had suppressed almost all the monasteries and convents in Piedmont and seemed bent on doing the same throughout a united Italy. Liberalism, for all its protestations of guaranteeing freedom, was decidedly anticlerical in Europe.
Pope Pius IX’s 1864 encyclical Quanta Cura, which included the promulgation of the Syllabus of Errors, began as a reply to a speech by Charles de Montalembert calling for the reconciliation of the church with democracy. Montalembert titled his speech “A Free Church in a Free State.” None could question the religious devotion of this noble Frenchman, but the pope saw nothing but ruin coming from the French Revolution and its progeny. Pope Leo XIII declared in his 1885 encyclical Immortale Dei that the church was not committed to any particular form of government and that she could work with all, but he also went on to condemn freedom of religion and freedom of the press as threats to civil society and true religion.
This, then, was the context for Gibbons’ heroic address at Santa Maria in Trastevere. Despite the condemnations found in papal teaching, he held that the constitutional arrangements in America, specifically the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment, were a blessing to the Catholic church in the United States. In America, liberalism was not anti-clerical, as attested to by the many letters of congratulations Gibbons had received upon his elevation to the Sacred College from non-Catholics. The president of the United States, Grover Cleveland, had received Gibbons at the White House immediately before his departure for Rome.
As Gibbons descended the pulpit in Santa Maria he had set down a marker. “Here was the gauntlet of the benefit of American religious liberty thrown down by the new world to the old, which could not understand it until the Second Vatican Council,” writes Jesuit Fr. Gerald Fogarty.
Of course, Rome is far away and hot during the summer. So, perhaps for July 4, I will head out to the Job Corps Center outside Baltimore. A Job Corps Center? The building was formerly Woodstock College where Jesuit Fr. John Courtney Murray taught for most of his career. He was the theologian at Vatican II who, more than any other, helped the Old World understand the New on the subject of religious liberty. Murray had been silenced in the 1950s on orders from the Holy Office. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani upheld the traditional teaching that the Catholic faith should be established by law whenever Catholics were in the majority and that it should receive complete liberty when Catholics were in the minority. When confronted with the manifest double standard of this proposition, he thundered, “Error has no rights.”
Anti-Catholic zealots like Paul Blanshard had thrown Ottaviani’s position in the face of American Catholics: Did they truly support the First Amendment or were they bound by their religion to try to establish the Catholic church should they become the majority of the population? Murray argued that rights inhere in persons, not propositions, and that the religious liberty provisions of the First Amendment were “articles of peace” not “articles of truth.” The American bishops wanted to support him but they were wary of offending Vatican officials like Ottaviani.
The issue of religious liberty became the principal concern of the American bishops as John F. Kennedy’s campaign of 1960 witnessed an airing of anti-Catholic prejudices. The changed atmosphere in Rome after the election of Pope John XXIII gave Murray the confidence to bring forth his magnum opus, We Hold These Truths, defending what he termed “the American proposition.” As the U.S. bishops gathered for Vatican II, religious liberty became their chief doctrinal concern and Murray became one of the principal authors of the conciliar “Decree on Religious Liberty,” Dignitatis Humanae.
I have come to realize that Murray’s “American proposition” is more complicated than I had first thought and that Gibbons’ embrace of Americanism could become, in less critical hands, a reduction of Christian faith to a prop for Americanism. I love the First Amendment, don’t get me wrong. But I see that Catholic anthropology can never neatly coexist with what Sir Isaiah Berlin called “negative liberty,” which is how the Founding Fathers conceived of liberty, as a series of immunities, as “freedom from” coercion or government interference. I find that I disagree with Murray’s contention, “These constitutional clauses have no religious content. They answer none of the eternal human questions with regard to the nature of truth and freedom or the manner in which the spiritual order of man’s life is to be organized or not organized.” These clauses, in fact, prioritize freedom over truth, and a Christian theologian must be wary of admitting even a theoretical distinction between the two. I am especially distressed by Murray’s claim that “the dualism of mankind’s two hierarchically ordered forms of social life [the spiritual and temporal] has been Christianity’s cardinal contribution to the Western political tradition,” a claim that misconstrues the relationship of grace and nature in important ways.
So, perhaps this July 4, I will just head out to the backyard and cook a barbecue. My “pursuit of happiness” may take the form of some dry-rubbed ribs and margaritas. But I will think of Gibbons and Murray and be grateful for their attempt to do what I attempt to do, to be an American Catholic, loving my country and my church.
Michael Sean Winters is the author of Left at the Altar: How the Democrats Lost the Catholics and How the Catholics Can Save the Democrats.
The official position of the
The official position of the pre-Vatican II RC church on freedom of worship and the press, and the liberties Americans take for granted, is well known to any student of history (though likely not to your average John & Mary Catholic). It certainly puts a different face on the revisionist propaganda of professors/historians teaching "ethnic" studies at some Catholic universities, wherein students are encouraged to view 19th and early 20th century Protestant Americans alarm at RC church teachings as chauvinist nativist bigotry.
Painting, for example, the great political cartoonist Thomas Nast as an unregenerate anti-Catholic bigot, is simplistic. Who wouldn't be concerned by waves of immigrants adhering to a church whose leader proclaimed his contempt for everything in our Bill of Rights, while at the same time enjoying the freedoms our Constitution granted. By the way, if you think Cardinal Ottaviani's views are in the dustbin of history, read some "traditionalist" Catholic blogs, as well as the rantings of the usual suspects, like the SSPX. Thankfully the world and the church have changed to such degree that such voices will never regain power.
Unfortunately, you are wrong
Unfortunately, you are wrong about "the church have changed to such degree that such voiceswill never regain power". All it takes is a pope who wants a more "traditional" structure of church, with the clergy being more "correct" than those faithful who ask questions trying to more fully understand their faith. I read an article several months ago about a study that said 85% of American Catholics wanted more transparency and Lay involvement in running their parishes and the Church in general BUT 94% of current seminarians/future prie sts and church leaders said they wanted to go back to a time when priests ran things without being questioned. Sadly, I think this will cause a weaker Church with fewer and a more hard-line membership. Too many priests now fail to understand their job is to save souls by explaining what our faith can and should be about,it is not to dictate and run our lives. As someone whose spouse works for the Church (44 years), I've seen way too many vile and manipulative actions by church leaders that drive faithfilled people away because they can't stomach the leaders actions.
I'm not so sure about the
I'm not so sure about the comment that such "supremists" will "never regain power in the world or the church ever again"...
What is the basic goal of theocratic fundamentalists in any religion???
Christian, Hindu or Islamic fundamentalists all have the same goal -- "My way or no way" for any questionners...
To "from another Christian
To "from another Christian viewpoint." Thanks for your comments, much appreciated. However the RCC is taking a dreadful turn under the last two popes, both JPII and BXVI, and turning more to ultra-conservatism and SSPX type groups and that product of the embezzler and pedophile leader, Father Maciel Dellagado, Legion of Christ. These popes reject "modernism" and progressive theologians and Catholics. The Incredible Shrinking Church.
These popes are rejecting Vatican II and going back to Latin masses and repressing theologians. Ratzinger now Pope was silencing, repressing thinking theologians and clergy and Catholics in his previous role as Prefect of Doctrine Congregation, formerly known as the Inquistion. He continues to inflict great harm on the church.
Then I guess that means the
Then I guess that means the Holy Spirit is inflicting great harm on the church, for the College of Cardinals chose Joseph Ratzinger under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Now before everyone jumps all over me, I am not saying that the cardinals are infallible in choosing the sucessor to St. Peter. But as Catholics we must believe that God providentially guides the cardinals in their choice. Whoever they choose--and there have been some 'bad' popes in history--was chosen for a reason. The one chosen was whoever the church truly needed at that point in history. Even Pope Julius II was needed for something; perhaps to get the church in the 16th century to wake-up and face the need for reform (of course, the Church did not heed this call until Pope Paul III called the Council of Trent).
I think John Paul II and Benedict XVI were chosen precisely because of Vatican II. In the church of the 1970's there emerged a tendency to misinterpret the council, viewing it as a license for theological deviancy and liturgical abuse. John Paul and Benedict have recovered and implemented the authentic teaching of Vatican II, correctly understood as a continuation of the tradition of the Church, not a departure therefrom.
Thank you, Holy Spirit, for JPII and BXVI!!!!
"Whoever they choose--and
"Whoever they choose--and there have been some 'bad' popes in history--was chosen for a reason."
And the worst popes of modern history -- JPII and BXVI-- were chosen, not by the Holy Spirit, but by human guys of the purple. They had a very good reason: they wanted to preserve their power base and avoid anything that disturbed the status quo. BXVI did more than his share of political lobbying and, with his condemnation of every other Vatican II theologian except himself, was a shoe-in because many of those of the purple have never bothered to invest their time and intellectual effort into really getting to know the theology of a Kung, Curran, Schillebeeckx, Rahner, Congar, or Chenu. The purple guys find in Phan, Haight, and Cozzens challenges to their power. It's not the theology, it's the power that drives the papacy and those who aspire to the tiara. And it's shameful to blame the Holy Spirit for the stupidity of the hierarchy.
And it is theologians like
And it is theologians like Curran,Kung, Phan, Haight, and Cozzens that represent a radical departure from the faith that comes down to us from the Apostles. JPII and BXVI was/are responsibly and prayerfully using their authority to repudiate the misdirection of minds such as these. I am not aware of JPII or Benedict XVI ever condemning the writings of Congar or Chenu. Can you furnish proof of this?? And your rhetoric of "power" and "the stupidity of the hierarchy" is divisive. Please, tone it down for the sake of civility.
Some years before he became
Some years before he became Benedict, Ratzinger stated that the Holy Spirit does not always prevail at papal conclaves.
John XXIII did an end run around the Curia but the documents of Vat II contain enough weasel-words to be second-guessed. The Church is the oldest standing bureacracy and and is an ace a weasel-words.
Yes, and I suppose the German
Yes, and I suppose the German people were guided by the Holy Spirit in electing Hitler in 1933. Whether one is guided by the Holy Spirit rather than human ignorance is a matter of fact, not magic. It depends upon inner spiritual development and realization. Presumably the cardinals who elected JPII and BXVI were more attuned to the Holy Spirit than the German people in 1933 but I seriously doubt more than one or two had realized union with God per Catholic tradition.
This really seems like voodoo
This really seems like voodoo theology or a kind of theological rationalism---there's a reason for every Pope and every Pope has a reason. Thus no matter what the College of Cardinals does it does without error;
Tell me Paulette what is so
Tell me Paulette what is so dreadful about the Church reclaiming her tradtions which was suppressed by people like you. People who attempt replace the Cross of Christ with that of tolerance and diversity, thereby rejecting Truth. I cannot wait until every last progressive leaves, yes the Church may shrink for a time, but prune it and it grows again. It will be a great day when every last liberal Catholic is thrown out or leaves the Church. Run off to the liberal Protestants where notion of sin is irrelevant
I am trying mightily to
I am trying mightily to reconcile your notion of a church that should be conducting a purge with the Christ of the Gospels who went to great pains, literally, to draw people in.
Dear Anonymous, you cannot
Dear Anonymous, you cannot wait until every progressive Catholic leaves the Church or is thrown out. You will be waiting for a long time even if you live to age 965 like Methusaleh. I suggest you best love those who disagree with you rather than seeking their elimination (quite murderous actually and not very Christian -- to say the least).
Anonymous' post, particularly
Anonymous' post, particularly stating "It will be a great day when the last liberal Catholic is thrown out or leaves the Church" is exactly why I can't follow the Traditionalists who love Latin and Pre-Vatican II practices.
What a hate-filled statement.
How in the world can the love of Jesus Christ the Gospel, be preached with such an attitude?
I'm a convert (1995) and had no idea of the liturgical war I had walked into. If it makes me weep and wonder if I'm in the right place, what does it do to our Lord Jesus Christ?
I'm not far over on the "liberal" side either, and, I can see where some people took liberties they shouldn't have, but, is "seizing power" and flaunting it any better? It would seem to me that if the "traditional ways" of doing things were Holy Spirit inspired, there would be a loving attitude, a gentle attitude that would draw people, not what is frequently written or what I have personally heard/been told in the Diocese where I live.
Or, at the very least, why isn't there an acknowledgement that we are all sinners struggling to find a way to be Church together?
Oh my, Paulette! What love!
Oh my, Paulette! What love!
Didn't Christ choose his disciples from from both the right and the left? Are we not called to be One in the Spirit? Jesus did not invent the phrase, "My way or the high way". The first and second great commandments from him both started "Love..."
You seem to have the notion
You seem to have the notion of grace as irrelevant, as your comment so arrogantly, narcissistically and aggressively lacks it and negates grace at the same time. As well, one has to seriously doubt as Truth that "people who attempt replace the Cross of Christ with that of tolerance and diversity" has anything to do with Truth. Your comment is a stretch of the imagination to justify your hatred, grow your hatred, and nurture your hatred for "progressives" whom you have pruned and condemned in your mind and has nothing to do with the Truth.
Yours is ultimately a heretical view of Christianity in which the Truth has become anything but a reflection of Jesus Christ and His teachings of the Truth.
Could too much pruning kill
Could too much pruning kill the organism or create a Masterrace of SuperCatholics?
Personally, I celebrate the
Personally, I celebrate the dualistic view that Murray offers us. It allows for the development of religious thought that is unencumbered by state politics. When efforts are made to intertwine the two, there emerges "the murky merger of the spiritual and temporal." I am distressed when I hear well meaning politicians make reference to "God" in a cavalier way. When I lift my thoughts to God I enter the realm of the totally "Other" where my complex thoughts are simplified and I experience peace. Such an excursion comforts and encourages me. The freedom to do this is what I will celebrate this
Independence Day.
Dear Anonymous, At the risk
Dear Anonymous, At the risk of you trying to excommunicate me,I proudly proclaim myself to be a somewhat left of center Catholic,Obama supporter, who loves his country and indeed loves his church enough to be one of her priest. Before you acuse me of not having enough intellectual rigor, be aware that I take the teachings of the church (not just the ones that I personaly like) very seriously. Yes I can be anti abortion and left of center.The teachings of the church are not, and have never been, idiological. Pastoraly speaking, the rigidity of people on the extreem left or right (like you) have always been much more problematic in the proclaimation of the gospel truth which sets us free. Kudus to Mr. Winters on a well thought out opinion piece
Oh, the Holy Spirit gave us
Oh, the Holy Spirit gave us the last two popes as well as John XXIII, but she didn't say we had to like any one of them. What I cannot see, is how we have misinterpreted VATICAN II. A church of Christo-centered people is much more traditional and liberating than the pontificating, suffocating hierarchical structure that evolved after the Reformation.
How silly of me to read the
How silly of me to read the title/subtitle of this article...
"Freedom and Catholicism
A 19th-century cardinal’s defense of America"
...and think that it may be about Cardinal John Henry Newman. After all, he was a 19th-century cardinal, who defended America, and whose society still defends American Catholicism today, and he was beatified today by Pope Benedict XVI. This is not to take anything away from either the author, MSW, who is certainly free to write about anyone he wishes, or to his subject, Cardinal Gibbons. It is just to point out how foolish I am to even think that NCR would write an honest, complimentary article about Cardinal John Henry Newman.
Thank you, Michael, for your
Thank you, Michael, for your great review of history, and the important and brave contribution of Cardinal Gibbons.
Somewhere, perhaps one of NCR's writers will address the thorny issue of the place and authority of the Syllabus of Errors in the modern Church.
Another topic for another day.
Again, thanks for your writing.
Vincent
Boy! Down and dirty
Boy! Down and dirty PDQ.
Several years ago, I crossed the North Pacific on a troop ship. It was 12 days from Seattle to Yokohama. I was one of the few who managed not to be seasick. Under the calmest of conditions, the No. Pacific was always moving. Even though we were on a pretty big ship, the Pacific moved us to and fro, seemingly with ease. I think the Popes are like the waters of the Pacific. They come and go, and they move us to and fro, but in spite of all that energy the ship continued on course. Each of us has a course to travel which we do with a Free Consicience. How we travel that course, and where we dock is still up to us.
One asks is God present in the Sistene Chapel when the Cardinals vote? Of course. Do the Cardinals listen? I think they do, but each one of them is a product of their environment. What do you think will happen at the next election?
I read in this article
I read in this article "raised to the purple". Should this be "scarlet"?
I am interested to read this article by Michael Sean Winters.
However at present the American Catholic Church is split.
In another forum I wrote:
"I read http://www.slate.com/id/2220217/. Is this considered fair comment?"
It seems strange to me that Christopher West and Michael Sean Winters, both presumably good Catholics, differ so much, even though the letters WEST appear in their names."
Would anyone like to confirm for me that both Michael Sean and Christopher are Catholics? Does this say anything about unity in the Church?
I wish Michael Sean a
I wish Michael Sean a refreshing and meaningful Fourth, with friends and especially with elders who know in our bones how our theological search for truth can be furthered especially in a political society of freedom. My argument for reconciling truth and freedom is similar to that for the reconciliation of scripture and evolution. We are dealing with two planes of thought. The "new nation" in which we live was founded on political principles and upon a philosophy in reaction to the desire of most Christians in positions of power to impose their truth on others.
I well remember the lectures on freedom in the church given in this country by Hans Kung in the 1960s, reprinted unabridged in the Catholic press. He took what for many was an contradiction in terms and sought to find creative ground in it. Those of us who heard him speak still seek this. And "everyone who is of the truth", however great or humble, will keep on teasing that elusive goal out of the texture of creation and the church's interaction with it. Truth is not contained in books; it has to be gained and regained at great cost but also for greater benefit of those who live it.
I couldn't agree more with
I couldn't agree more with the last comment. Smaller Church, better Church. Either believe what the Church teaches.... or leave.
This is a naive and very
This is a naive and very secular assessment of very nuanced Church history. Yet again the author consistent with prevailing NCR Editorial Policy manages to kick the Church in the teeth with respect to this very unscholarly summation of the Church's official documents written in the late 19th century vis a vis assessment of prevailing democracy. History 101 tells us that when assessing historical events a true scholar is obliged to explain the decision in the at the time context. Not just cite selected documents like the Syllabus of Errors without context. In my opinion, this is a very weak article on an important subject, unworthy of a publication of NCR's stature in American Catholicism today..
To the taliban catholics who
To the taliban catholics who welcome a shrinking church:
Not only is the union of church and state not efficacious, the union of church and state is an ongoing evil .Since Constantine! Note the newer example of the evil produced in Ireland by the 1920s union of church and state; it gave them the horror of institutionalized corruption of the poor youngsters. The decline of Irish Catholisim will surpass even the bad results of the French Revolution had on Catholicism in France. We need an encyclical on the evils of the union of church and state, now that it's been exposed for all to see.
Happy July 4th for all!
I read here "Gibbons was only
I read here
"Gibbons was only the second American to be raised to the purple".
Is "scarlet" meant rather than "purple"?
Paragraph 12 is very
Paragraph 12 is very confusing. Who wrote the part enclosed in the speech marks? Why not use references in the usual way an essay would? Don't take advantage of your readership or presume everyone can automatically follow the threads you're putting together.
And I totally object to being told by an automated computer that the captcha addition of 2+2 does not equal 4 !!!!!!!!
Ottaviani has alot to answer
Ottaviani has alot to answer for!
Anon, you claim I suppressed
Anon, you claim I suppressed Catholic traditions. Hmmm, are you saying I have been the Pope for the last forty years??? I was born in the 1980's so how did I manage that??? You rail at "tolerance and diversity" how odd is that? Jesus was quite tolerant and upheld diversity in his time and for all time. Jesus made lots of women his apostles, the Ethopian eunach is welcomed into the church of Jesus, Jesus made good works being done on the Sabbath, changed dietary laws, ate with "sinners" , cured the blind and lame, Jesus was mighty Tolerant and respected Diversity.
You wish to drive every Catholic you disagree with out of the church when Jesus told us to "drive no one away."( Mark, NT). Why are you so divisive and destructive to others when it is the command to love God with all your mind, heart and soul and to love your neighbour, not hate, condemn and drive away your neighbour.
Tolerance and diversity is
Tolerance and diversity is Truth. It is the message of the Gospel, to love the other, to embrace the other, to feed, clothe, help the other and not judge and condemn or reject them.
I have noticed some people here talk about throwing Catholics out of the church and rejoicing in that, or glad that Catholics are leaving the church.
I think protestants know what sin is . That is crazy talk to say they have no religion or morals. It is sinful hate, intolerance and meaness of the people who try to eject other Catholics from the Catholic church.
Why do some Catholic people think like that as it certainly is not the way of our church. Is this the Catholic church, to hate other Catholics? How widespread is this hatred and intolerance for other Catholics by some Catholics? Has this allways been going on or is it new?
I am young and was considering becoming a nun yet there is so much hatred to Catholics from other Catholics, I have serious misgivings about Catholicism. Is this hatred to other Catholics coming from SSPX people? Does SSPX teach its group that all other Catholics are to be ejected from the church and to be hated? Where does this hatred and condemnation for Catholics by some Catholics come from? How can this dangerous toxicity be fixed? Sandra
Anonymous, you already have
Anonymous, you already have your wish, which I wrote about in "Catholics: Impact of Change" - there are 2 sides to that coin... http://momshugs.blogspot.com/2009/05/catholics-impact-of-change.html
I truly believe had Pope John XXIII lived, the doctrinal stance of the Vatican would have been vastly improved. Would there have been infighting within the Vatican & College of Cardinals? Of course - has been since James & Peter opposed Paul.
"...was only the second
"...was only the second American to be raised to the purple ..." Elevated to the scarlet, surely?
MSW-- I do hope i was a great
MSW-- I do hope i was a great 4th for you and your family.
Nice article.
BTW - I am impressed whenever I divert from the interstate and drive up the hill to the Job Corps Center in Woodstock . I stop and think of the great Jesuits who taught and studied in these impressive buildings in "the middle of nowhere"-- some of whom were mentors to me in my eight year Jesuit education.
Recommend if you make the trip - hang a left at the bottom of the hill on the way out and be sure to go to a mass at St Alphonsus Rodriguez a few hundred yards away. A parish still run to this day by the Jesuits and currently led by one of my heros in the order-- the quiet and holy Father Joe Lacey, SJ.
Post new comment