On October 9, 2016, during the second of three presidential debates, the contrast between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was brought into sharper focus through the lens of abortion vis-à-vis the Supreme Court.
“I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose,” Clinton declared to the delight of those who favor laws sanctioning the extermination of human beings at the hands of their own mothers.
Donald Trump, for his part, galvanized the pro-life community by saying:
Justice Scalia, great judge, died recently, and we have a vacancy. I am looking to appoint judges very much in the mold of Justice Scalia.
To that end, then-candidate Trump produced a list of potential nominees for appointment to the high court; including the name of the man that is currently considered by many to be the front runner, Neil Gorsuch.
In the lead up to the election, Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network said that conservatives should be “very pleased” with Trump’s list, adding:
Donald Trump continues to take unprecedented steps to demonstrate that he intends to appoint justices like Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
All indications are that President Trump will announce his nominee sometime next week.
Democrats Hell bent (literally) on keeping the fetal genocide industry afloat are pledging a fight; their idea of a suitable nominee being one whose judicial philosophy is consistent with comments made by Hillary Clinton during the campaign:
“The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”
In response, Judicial Crisis Network is set to spend upwards of $10 million to fund a coalition of “conservative campaign professionals as well as some of the nation’s top conservative grassroots organizations” for the purpose of urging moderate Senate Democrats, in particular those up for re-election, to support Trump’s choice.
Among the organizations involved in the effort is the Susan B. Anthony List, which “exists to pass laws that protect unborn children and their mothers from abortion.”
Of Trump’s pledge to appoint a judge “very much in the mold of Justice Scalia,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of SBA List, said:
We will do everything in our power to support his fulfillment of that promise, including a digital campaign as well as on-the-ground mobilization to rally pro-life voters and lobby key Senators. The stakes are incredibly high.
Yes, the stakes are high indeed, and alleged front runner Neil Gorsuch has some pro-life activists nervous.
According to a recent report in the Washington Times:
Andrew Schlafly, a lawyer at the Legal Center for Defense of Life and son of the late conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, said Judge Gorsuch uses pro-choice terminology in his writings and may not be willing to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a national constitutional right to abortion.
Schlafly went on to say that picking Gorsuch would amount to Trump breaking his pledge.
Carrie Severino of Judicial Crisis Network suggested that those attacking Gorsuch’s record are off-base:
It’s important for the serious pro-life groups to make clear that they’re not looking at people who are supposed to be basically activists, bypassing the law on any issue.
She is reminding pro-lifers, in other words, that the promise is for a jurist “in the mold of Justice Scalia.”
The unfortunate truth that even some so-called “traditionalists” are unwilling to admit, however, is that the allegedly “devout, traditional Catholic” Antonin Scalia was so infected with Americanism that he espoused the very same judicial philosophy concerning the unborn as Hillary Clinton.
In a 2008 interview with 60 Minutes, Scalia said:
There are anti-abortion people who think that the Constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that’s wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons.
It also happens to be the case that Scalia was very much at peace with the idea that primacy in public policy rests not with Christ the King and the dictates of the Divine Law (you know, the “devout traditional Catholic” position) but rather with the majority.
At a conference several years ago, Scalia said:
I try mightily to prevent my religious views or my political views or my philosophical views from affecting my interpretation of the law. I don’t think any of my religious views have anything to do with how I do my job as a judge.
This particular approach to public service is precisely the one made famous by Mario Cuomo; namely, “I’m personally opposed, but…”
Having interviewed Scalia in 2014 for the Remnant, writer Vincent Chiarello summarized the late justice’s judicial philosophy as follows:
When he dons his robe as a Justice of the US Supreme Court, the basis of his decisions must be what the Constitution requires, and if abortion or the death penalty is permitted by the state under its law, then despite his Catholic belief it is the vox populi who are sovereign in these matters.
Yes, you read that correctly: The voice of the people is sovereign…
In other words, the voice of Our Blessed Lord speaking through His Holy Catholic Church carries no more weight than that of the godless throngs that were marching in cities around the globe this past weekend; thumbing their collective noses at Christ the King and telling Him what He can do with His Divine Law.
While “God Bless America” conservatives (and even some less-than-dependable “traditionalist” personalities) may consider it tantamount to blasphemy, it must be said:
The last thing this country needs is another Scalia.
The thing that bugs me most about Justice Scalia is that he actually had a firm grasp of traditional Catholic theology, yet still separated the eternal law from the positive law while on the bench.
As an Americanist first, Justice Scalia had no choice but to reject Christ as the highest authority and defend the State which replaced Him. He took an oath to defend a document above the Person of Jesus Christ. If he had not, he could never have been in any position of power.
A Scalia type is probably the best you can do. Maybe Gorsuch thinks the non-walking-around types deserve constitutional protection – we just don’t know. The solution ain’t with judges – it’s with the people of God realigning their constitution to the will of God. And I don’t think the Creator effects His will thru wild cards, judicial appointments, altar calls or clinic bombings. We need to be all in, all the time, everybody. m
I don’t know who the final pick will be by President Trump. I do know, however, that this choice will be far better than anyone Hillary would have chosen. Let’s count our blessings.
Louie; I agree with you so much on so many issues, it really pains me to disagree with you. Respectfully, however, I must on this one. While I am in total agreement with your “Catholic” and “moral” positions with respect to the role of every elected and appointed official (including, of course Supreme Court Justices), what I read as the basis for your objections to any prospective appointee from a “like-Scalia list” (including Gorsuch), is problematic.
First, I must preface my comments with this thought: at the very heart of this problem are the bishops of the Catholic Church. They have abandoned their sheep. But because we Catholics have lost our earthly shepherds, we vote for politicians (and support Justices) who we believe will rule or pass laws that “force” us not to sin. Many of us who may not need this “guidance” believe that creating governmental “overseers” for the purpose of compelling others to obey God’s laws in one way or another is the next best thing. I disagree.
The issue of abortion is essentially a moral issue––not simply a legal matter. But since 1973 the focus has been almost entirely on the horrors and the “legality” of abortion. The notion of it being an offense against God is either ignored or denied. But while I am not setting out to defend the record of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, I must point out that he was a jurist, not a bishop. Your criticize him and all Scalia-look-a-likes because of their unwillingness to stand up, first, for the law of God. But while you are absolutely correct on that point, it’s unclear to me as to where you go from there. The opposite of a “like-Scalia” candidate is a “not-like-Scalia” candidate. That may sound simplistic, but in fact, that is really the choice.
Now, as far as those like-Scalia candidates go, I have no idea what Schlafly’s issue is with Gorsuch (I suspect there’s more to it than simply because he “uses pro-choice terminology”), but if Gorsuch is actually “like Scalia” and is ultimately approved as a Justice, we could only hope that he votes like Scalia on abortion. Scalia voted at least a half dozen times or more to confirm his belief that there is “no right to abortion”. One may quibble or even reject some of the theories on which Scalia might have grounded his reasoning in opposing abortion, but suffice it to say, he voted the right way many times.
It is understandable that you have difficulty with Scalia’s interpretation of “person” as it relates to the states, but that issue has never come before the court––at least as it related to the authority of the various states to decide on the issue of abortion. I presume this was Scalia’s response to a hypothetical question relating to the possibility of SCOTUS repealing Roe v Wade. Such a ruling would then leave the question of the legality of abortion up to the individual states. Perhaps if such a matter ever would have come before the court during his tenure, after reading the submitted briefs, its entirely possible that Scalia might have ruled differently than the way he answered the question on 60 Minutes. But you seem to be concluding that since Scalia answered the hypothetical question the way that he did, a “like-Scalia” candidate would “rule” the same way on that issue if it ever came before the court. There is no justification for that conclusion.
The last objection you’ve listed regarding the “vox populi” is certainly troubling on its face.Also, I am sure we would both agree that he did not mean that he supported a “living Constitution”. Very likely, his intent was to say that the dictates of the Constitution duly adopted by “the people” should control. And, as between the “Will of God” and the “will of the people”, you are absolutely correct that any God-fearing (certainly traditional Catholic) elected or appointed official should always choose the Will of God. But you failed to cite any cases where Scalia was actually faced with that choice. So once again, who knows how he would have actually ruled if the issue came before him?
Nevertheless, the basic objection I have with your criticism of a “like-Scalia” appointment, is that you’ve failed to point to even one Scalia holding that you believe was either bad for this country or in violation of God’s law. Instead, you quote some extrajudicial comments (lacking in complete context) that he made during interviews. Opposing a Justice based on his off-the-bench comments when he has a record as a jurist for over 35 years is really a stretch; but to go even further by rejecting all other potential replacements who might be “like-Scalia”, really seems unwarranted.
Maybe Gorsuch isn’t the right guy; but if not, it’s not because he’s “Scalia-like”. Respectfully, I disagree with your analysis and your conclusion.
Mr. Verrecchio, I respect your position here, but I must disagree somewhat (by starting my comment that way, you knew there was a “but” coming, didn’t you?)
Some traditionalist Roman Catholics in America have hurt their cause, I believe, by condemning what you call Justice Scalia’s “Americanism.” I understand that Pope Leo XIII wrote an authoritative statement for the Church on what he considered to be the heresy of Americanism. The way at least some Catholics interpret that statement does seem to run counter to the American founding principles. And some prominent traditionalists such as Christopher Ferrara have clearly advocated monarchy over the American system as founded. When I used to haunt Michael Voris’s website, I noticed that many commenters there, along with Voris, also favored a Catholic-based monarchy over our founding system. Is it any wonder, then, that many conservative Americans would thus look upon traditionalist Catholics with suspicion?
Our Founders did not place government or nationhood above God. For example, George Washington, as president, stated that it was “the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor.” In his 1789 Inaugural Address, he said, “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States.” And, “the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”
Washington was consistent on these matters throughout his adult life. As commander of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, he ordered, “a day of fasting, prayer and humiliation, ‘to implore the Lord and Giver of all victory to pardon our manifold sins and wickedness, and that it would please Him to bless the Continental army with His divine favor and protection,’ all officers and soldiers are strictly enjoined to pay all due reverence on that day to the sacred duties of the Lord of hosts.” Presiding over the Constitutional Convention, he said, “Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God.” In his 1796 Farewell Address, he wrote, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness…. [R]eason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
Washington is just one example of a Founder who placed God’s authority above that of man. John Adams seems to have shared many of Washington’s views on this. He wrote, “”Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Other Founders had very similar views.
During the 1960 election, some American Protestants were concerned about the Roman Catholicism of candidate John F. Kennedy. Some thought that Kennedy would place the interests of another principality over those of the USA.
These concerns were dismissed by some as “bigotry.” Maybe, though, considering the position of some Roman Catholics regarding “Americanism,” the concerns had some merit.
It might be apparent that I am not a Roman Catholic, but I respect the positions of Catholic traditionalists. I enjoy visiting this site regularly and reading what people here have to say, and I have learned a lot here. I don’t mean to stir up a hornet’s nest, but I think it’s important that Catholics face these issues squarely.
This is precisely why true Catholics should not involve themselves in politics; ultimately there will be a conflict between your duty to your job and your duty to God. Lets not forget that the men who founded this country hated the Catholic Church.
I’m not sure you fully understand the heresy of Americanism. And that’s certainly understandable, as it is never discussed today in polite circles. But to fill it in the blanks just a bit more for you, the heresy of Americanism arose at the turn of the 19th century. It was coined by the Vatican to describe the failure of some American prelates to embrace the Catholic doctrine of Religious Liberty. That doctrine, by the way, was a very tough pill for Protestants, like yourself, to swallow. It has gotten no sweeter over the years, so I’d be surprised if it was your cup of tea today. Nevertheless, and like it or not, it is still with us. But to understand it. one must believe that the Catholic Church is the one and only true religion founded by Jesus Christ, and that all others are false.
In essence, the doctrine of Religious Liberty may be defined with the following three conditions; (1) since faith is formed in the individual’s conscience, no one may be required, either by the state or by the Church, to conform to any particular religion––including the Catholic religion (that was the easy one); (2) that an individual has no “right” to publicly practice any religion they might choose, but only the Catholic religion. This is because only the “good” has rights, and “evil” has no rights (that’s the tough one); and (3) that civil governments may “tolerate” the public practice of a false religion, with a view of obtaining a greater good or avoiding a greater evil; but that civil authority may also repress any false religion if it deems that to be necessary. (this one’s tough as well)
Quite obviously, the conditions of this doctrine are in absolute conflict with the “free exercise” clause, and probably the “establishment” clause of the first amendment as well. Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore decided that he wanted to “get along” with the Protestant leaders of America at the time, and was quite willing to ignore the doctrine of Religious Liberty and go along with the language of the 1st Amendment––drafted, of course, by Freemasons. Pope Leo XIII pushed back (calling it Americanism) but eventually rolled over. aHis successor, St Pope Pius X, had enough problems of his own with Modernism, so the issue never was re-visited––that is, until 1962, during the Second Vatican Council.
As part of their goal of adopting the heresy of “ecumenism”, the Modernist bishops thought it would please to the Protestants if the Catholic Church “changed” the immutable doctrine of Religious Liberty to conform to the 1st Amendment. They “changed” the doctrine without actually “changing” it, because as they acknowledged at the outset, doctrines cannot be changed, as they are immutable. Instead, they claimed to have “interpreted” the doctrine so that everyone was happy–-well not everyone. It seems that God and traditional Catholics still have problems with this idea.
Kennedy was wrong for saying what he said. It got him elected but Louie is right; our first allegiance must always be to the Bride of Christ––the Catholic Church. If we, as appointed or elected officials decide that constitutions or laws are equal to or above God, we make a serious mistake and will one day answer for it.
Thank you, rich and irishpol, for your replies. You’ve both given me some interesting ideas to “chew on” for a while. And I appreciate your civil replies.
I don’t want to steer the discussion in a Catholic vs. Protestant direction, but to explain myself a bit further, I’ll say this: in my very imperfect way, I strive to put God’s will and allegiance to God as my first priority. I recognize that this sounds very “Protestant,” and that it differs fundamentally, irishpol, from the way that you described how “our first allegiance must always be to the Bride of Christ.”
After allegiance to God, I place allegiance to the nation (as founded), and then after that, allegiance to the particular sect or church to which I belong (maybe I should say denomination). Obviously this is very different from how orthodox Roman Catholics will view things. I think, though, that it is close to how the Founders might have considered these issues. As a whole, they tolerated Roman Catholics (a few of whom, such as Charles Carroll of Carollton, played a prominent role in the Revolution), but they also needed to form a nation. Having a predominantly Protestant population in the 13 Colonies, with a predominantly English, Protestant cultural heritage, I think that they struck a pretty good, realistic balance with religious issues.
I fully recognize that, since the founding, many Roman Catholics have been loyal citizens and have contributed greatly to the nation. Yet that conflict which you mentioned between the “free exercise” and “establishment” clauses and the Catholic doctrine of religious liberty is a major sticking point, and I don’t know how it can best be resolved. How would you say that a Roman Catholic can claim to be a loyal citizen, and still insist on that particular doctrine of religious liberty? I won’t say that it can’t be done, but with traditionalist Catholics arguing on behalf of a Catholic monarchy, it’s hard for me to understand how.
Dear Rich: you are right. It would be far better to have an honest Evangelical with pro-life convictions in the post than another Catholic who clothes liberalism and Americanism with a “traditionalist” veneer. Justice Scalia may have meant well, but ultimately, his “vox populi” rhetoric plays into the hands of the Bergoglians who want the “vox populi” to override even Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
God’s law aligns itself perfectly with the natural law he designed them both…hard numbers don’t lie. Every time a new tax-paying citizen is destroyed in the womb our tax base shrinks, the natural resource of any community is children. It is bad business to murder the future that’s why Social Security is out of money because the pyramids gone upside down it’s supposed to be wider at its base. Politicians so steeped in stupidity of sin they can’t even add or subtract.
God’s law aligns itself perfectly with the natural law he designed them both…hard numbers don’t lie. Every time a new tax-paying citizen is destroyed in the womb our tax base shrinks, the natural resource of any community is children. It is bad business to murder the future that’s why Social Security is out of money because the pyramids gone upside down it’s supposed to be wider at its base. Politicians so steeped in stupidity of sin they can’t even add or subtract.
God’s law aligns itself perfectly with the natural law he designed them both…hard numbers don’t lie. Every time a new tax-paying citizen is destroyed in the womb our tax base shrinks, the natural resource of any community is children. It is bad business to murder the future that’s why Social Security is out of money because the pyramids gone upside down it’s supposed to be wider at its base. Politicians so steeped in stupidity of sin they can’t even add or subtract.
You sir, are correct. One can only truly convert to the Catholic Faith if such is done without coercion and freely.
Providence has placed us in our own historical times and it is unfortunate that so many Catholics misunderstand the 1st Amendment and idealize past hereditary monarchical regimes.
As for the so-called “Americanist” heresy, the vagueness of allegations about what this exactly is remains a problem for anyone who insists on using it as a hammer against everything pertaining to this republic.
Finally, the notion of a “confessional state” that imposed how the faith was to be understood and practiced was mainly favored by the reformers who broke from the Church.
Best regards.
A democratic or republican form of government can be in accord with Catholic teaching, as long as acceptance and practice of Catholic morals predominates in the country. In such a place, a practice such as divorce, usury, or public expression of a false religion, would rightly not be tolerated. The family, not the individual, is the basic unit of society.
Things get messy in a country of mixed populations, where individualism gets free reign. Increasingly, countries accept and even espouse moral relativism, at odds with their inherited culture of moral absolutes. Such countries will fall under the weight of internal contradictions, such as tolerating the intolerable in the name of tolerance. For example, general acceptance of sexual impurity prevents the formation of healthy families, which messes up the children who manage to get born, who then grow up to be socially dysfunctional adults. Without a moral people, not only do democratic and republican forms of government fail, you get a native born population implosion and a prison population explosion.
“Providence has placed us in our own historical times and it is unfortunate that so many Catholics misunderstand the 1st Amendment and idealize past hereditary monarchical regimes.”
Well said, imprimipotest. Thank you. Our republic worked well for a good, long time, until the Left consolidated its power in government and the culture, and consciously began to replace our population from ca. 1965 onwards. We have strayed from the system that was originally put in place in the 18th Century, yet we still have working remnants of that old system. Justice Scalia understood this, and I think he did an excellent job of balancing his duties as a judge and citizen with his duties as a Christian. President Trump understands this too.
While I advocate returning closer to our founding principles, I also appreciate the good qualities of Christian monarchies over the centuries. They helped achieve one of the pinnacles of civilization, which was medieval Christendom. But we live in a republic, and insisting on a monarchy the way some Catholic traditionalists do seems close to treason, as Communism certainly is.
I find it very difficult to believe the first purported quote of Scalia’s from some conference is even by him, as it is patently absurd. The second is a paraphrasing by another person – and it too is intellectually problematic for seeming to deny an objective moral law underpinning any valid fundamental laws to which persons are properly subject. I’m sure Mr Justice Scalia knew right well that a natural law philosophy or some false philosophy must ground fundamental laws such as a Constitution for a nation.
In any case, whatever about those attributed positions based on interviews or conferences, Scalia J generally produced sound judgments on the most fundamental issues concerning such as the inviolability of a human being’s life, though he may have often relied on the more proximate reasons within positive law rather than the ultimate truths that precede the positive law to ground that judgment.
Let us not forget the Catholic Roots Of The American Nation.
Even as no honest historian can deny that America was once not just partly Catholic but entirely so (the paganism/pantheism of the pre-converted savage natives notwithstanding, countless dishonest historians have nevertheless successfully white-washed this truth for more than two-hundred years…….what took place between 1492 when Columbus claimed the Americas for Christ the King and therefore as the exclusive moral and geographical domain of the holy Roman Catholic Church, and 1620 when the Protestant Pilgrims first landed at Plymouth Rock…..128 years later…..that is almost a century-and-a-half! As such viewers of all ages receive on the grossly misnamed History Channel.
Solange Hertz comments: “The inculturated Catholic has no past to sustain him. For him the Catholic history of this continent is irrelevant, because what little of it he is acquainted with occurred only after 1776, despite the fact that before the English settlements, colonial America was wholly Catholic and antedated the upstart republic by three centuries. How many schoolchildren have EVER heard of Father Margil, Apostle of Texas? Or that Spanish Jesuits were martyred in Virginia, French Jesuits in New York? That Long Island was once called the Isle of the Apostles, and the Mississippi River was the River of the Holy Spirit? Do they know that Our Lady of Guadalupe –NOT the Statue of Liberty’’- is Patroness of the Americas? That the Cherokee alphabet was probably the work of Belgian priest who was the great Chief Sequoia’s uncle? And how about Venerable Mary of Agreda, who not only wrote our Lady’s biography, but miraculously catechized the Indians of New Mexico?…..The history which was not taught, even in Catholic schools, would fill textbooks to overflowing.” (Utopia).
“Modern so-called history is largely a conspiracy against the truth.” (Fr. Edward Cahill).
Recommended reading: ‘The Cross in the Sand’ by former history professor Michael Gannon, an expert on Florida colonial history. He writes of such ‘politically incorrect’ facts as this nation’s real first Thanksgiving which took place not at Plymouth, Massachusetts with the Protestant Pilgrims but at St. Augustine, Florida, the nation’s eldest city, where some 800 Catholic settlers joined the city’s Catholic founder, Pedro Menendez de Aviles, in offering their heartfelt thanks to God by celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass – The Catholic worship with its origins in the Last Supper, Gethsemane, and Golgotha – followed by a communal meal at which the Seloy natives were cordially invited and graciously accepted. This truly momentous occasion took place in 1565 – 56 years before the widely celebrated though dishonestly accredited ‘first’ Thanksgiving in 1621.
Another book, “Discovering a Lost Heritage – The Catholic Origins of America,” by Adam S. Miller. Before America became a land of predominantly English Protestants, it was a land explored and settled by Irish, Scottish, Spanish and French Catholics….Of the 48 Continental States, Catholics settled first in thirty-three, while Protestants were first in only fifteen.
Fr. Alfonso Zaratti was another genuine historian; concerning those 128 years between the Catholic and Protestant landings and settlements, refers to them as a ‘regrettable gap’ in our nation’s history “bring to light the truth that THE STORY OF THE UNITED STATES IS ESSENTIALLY A CATHOLIC ONE” (The Work of the Catholic Church in the United States of America). He goes on to say: America may be considered a Catholic Land even in its pre-Columbian past,” and he proceeds to cite a number of facts, of how the Nordic seamen, the Vikings, brought Catholicism to America as early as the 8th and 10th centuries.
Here are the facts: In the year 1015, the martyr-saint King Olaf II of Norway, commissioned missionaries to preach the Catholic Faith from Norway to Greenland. According to Fr. Zaratti, historical records confirm that these missionaries landed on the northernmost part of the North American continent, eventually traveling southward.
The second fact (still before Columbus’s discovery), Fr. Zaratti writes: “A rare and tangible relic of one such expedition has come to light. On a wide, flat millstone found by a Swedish farmer between Alexandria and Kensington, Minnesota, is this Viking inscription; “HAIL VIRGIN MARY, SAVE US FROM HELL. YEAR: 1362.” The stone, now in the Alexandria Chamber of Commerce, bears the first Catholic prayer to be found in this region of the world, proves that these Vikings, who were Catholic and venerated the Mother of God, had brought the True Faith to America. It is also know that artifacts have been discovered proving that Irish Catholic missionaries arrived here even before these Catholic Vikings. G. J. Marcus, affirms this in his treatise, “The Conquest of the North Atlantic.”
No matter how we want to slice it, it’s very obvious that America’s earliest Christian history is exclusively a First Chapter in her Catholic History……There was truly a time when America was Catholic. Quite a revelation, wouldn’t you agree?
Trump should do what Pat Buchanan proposed during his great 1996 campaign: The president should declare Roe v. Wade null and void. That immediately would throw the issue back to the states, 2/3 of which would outlaw abortion immediately. Then we: (1) work on outlawing abortion in the 1/3 of the states where killing babies remained legal. (2) Work for a Constitutional amendment against all abortion. That would be a lot easier than now because, as noted in (1), abortion already would be illegal in 2/3 of the states. (3) Work for federal laws and Supreme Court decisions to uphold the 14th Amendment’s “right to life,” by banning abortion entirely.
To win the battle against abortion, we must take the ax to the root!
Something to ponder about….
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20020629_The_Problem_with_the_Prolife_Movement.html
I’m glad someone finally addressed this, FromPoland. Thank you.
I agree with you, Lynda. We know that the Church is a divine institution but that Her members are all erring humans, as someone recently posted. When reading some posts, though, I often wonder how the writer would criticize the actions and words of our Lord, Himself, were He to appear today disguised as a member of the clergy, Supreme Court justice, or politician.
http://catholicism.org/author/garypotter
Antonin Scalia Viewed as a Liberal
Yes, it seems as though the post-independence political power-holders and their history-writers adopted much of the Protestant mainstream of the British aristocracy and political rulers as the religious backdrop to their more on-the-surface deistic and somewhat rationalist Bill of Rights, etc. There was a deliberate adoption of a Protestant mindset and value system underpinning the more naturalistic formal founding documentation.
Roe v Wade, and the subsequent even more abortion-supporting judgments of the USSC are null and void as a matter of necessity for being irrational and inherently unjust based on objective falsehoods. Neither privacy nor medical treatment touch the issue of whether there exists some right to kill or have killed, one’s son or daughter from the first moment of their existence (conception) to their birth. There is no moral difference between a person prior to his birth and that person after his birth. His abilities or size or dependence on his mother cannot go to his fundamental right to life (not to be killed, but to be sustained) which inheres in his being a person (particular human being) simpliciter.
Let us remember, Americanism was condemned for the errors it contains, not for the virtues found therein; and that Pope Leo XIII for one made a point of distinguishing between the two. Americanism was condemned, Not America. America is a gift of God; Americanism the legacy of mostly godless men.
……excerpt from John Tracy Ellis’s ‘Documents of American Catholic History:’ “In this land of liberty the Catholic Church……has modeled her spirit on the very spirit of the nation. The Church is tolerant, she is democratic, she is, in fine American. She has known nothing but rapid development in the soil of the Union from the day when the hierarchy was founded, when she passed from the hands of missionaries dependent on Rome, to the hands of an autonomous clergy to the present when she has become one of the institutions of the country, one of the organs of national life…..She wishes to be called American; she has entered into the spirit of the nation…..She is sincerely searching for every means of Americanizing herself from top to bottom…..”
The Catholic Church is the oldest organization in the United States. Moreover, Roman Catholicism – or what remains of it in this age of widespread apostasy – is the nation’s highest ideal and noblest spirit. Yet, according to the author Theodore Maynard, “those who have considered the roots of American civilization worthy of attention have almost invariably believed those roots to lie in Puritanism, in spite of the fact that Puritanism had been in decline long before the American Revolution occurred.” Maynard concludes: “The discovery of America was made by Catholics, whether the credit is given to Christopher Columbus or Leif Ericsson (or some Irish missionary whose name we do not know but which is assuredly in the Book of Life). Despite the disappearance of many of the original place names, hundreds of these Catholic names still exist…..They are perpetual reminders of the Catholic piety that baptized the land.” (The Story of American Catholicism – the History of the Catholic Church in America).
Our ignorance on this vital subject constitutes a major obstruction in bringing America back to God, which also happens to be this nation’s last and only hope…..but as we are seeing, it was not always the unhappy pagan nation that it is today.
May God Bless America!
Jesse Romero, made a great point (on EWTN radio), about the Handbook of Christian Denominations in the United States by Frank Mead, revised by Samuel S. Hill, published by Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN. Under Roman Catholic Church, the Tenth Edition, which I have, says:
“When you go to section ‘R’ called Roman Catholicism it says the Roman Catholic Church existed for 1,500 years before any protestant church. It is the only church that goes back to the time of the Apostles…”.
“For the first 1.500 years of Christianity’s history, the Western world was almost solidly Roman Catholic . . .”. The Roman Catholic Church dates its beginnings from the moment of Christ’s selection of the apostle Peter as guardian of the keys of heaven and earth and chief of the apostles, and it claims the fisherman as its first pope.”
It lists the major American denominations, the date they were founded and by whom, and a summary of their major beliefs. It does not list every denomination in the U.S., however.You can order the 13th edition from Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss…mi%2Caps%2C460
Viva Cristo Rey!
Thank you for this post. I’ve visited St. Augustine – of course, at this point its Catholic history is not easy to find.
–
And, oh boy, is it ever just too stinkin’ hot.
Ah, Louie – of course you’re entirely right that judges, like everyone else – and like every state – have a duty to Christ the King, Ruler of Nations and Souls, and that Scalia’s judicial philosophy is a bunch of Protestant, modernist garbage. But, certainly, another Scalia is far from the *last* thing we need on the bench – *that* would be far closers to another RBG.
–
Despite the fact that his foundation was all wrong, in practice he was Catholic on the important issues of the day. Politics is the art of the possible (and the judicial branch is politics de jure).
There is a strong legend that St Brendan the Navigator was among the discoverers of America in the sixth century.
http://www.monasticireland.com/storiesofsaints/brendan.htm#columbanus6
Viva From Poland. Thanks for that able summary of things historical, note also the efforts of the French priests over the continental border and their sacrifices for American souls. Canadian Catholic history supports the deposit of faith south of the border too.
Perhaps the most authoritative source in proving that the U.S. was never a Christian country, is a government document that dates back to the end of the 18th century.
“The U.S. Treaty with Tripoli of 1796 plainly states in its Article XI: ‘The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
“The only great nation is the holy nation, rich in true obedience, and carried away by a divine passion for God and all holy things.” (National Greatness).