A Declaration of Catholic Independence
by Christopher Shannon
10/30/31
www.crisismagazine.com/2012/a-declaration-of-catholic-independence

G. K. Chesterton once described America as a “nation with the soul of a church.” Many have wrongly interpreted this statement as Chesterton’s way of saying that America was a Christian nation, or that Americans were especially pious and devout people. Chesterton meant something rather different, and not especially complementary. America is like a church in the sense that it has often understood citizenship in terms of assent to a creed. One becomes an Englishman or Frenchman through history, through coming from a family that has lived in a particular place for generations. In contrast, one can theoretically become an American simply by assent to certain abstract principles, the American creed. Chesterton’s characterization of America as a creedal nation came to mind as I passed an election sign for the Romney-Ryan ticket that read, “Believe in America.” What could this possibly mean? Is America a god? What precisely are we supposed to believe in? In a word, liberty. And make no mistake about it, liberty is a god.
That, at least, is the argument that Christopher A. Ferrara makes in his important and timely new book, Liberty, the God that Failed: Policing the Sacred and Constructing the Myths of the Secular State, from Locke to Obama. The title references the 1949 work The God that Failed, a famous collection of essays by ex-communists describing their disillusion with the utopian ideology of communism. Liberal and conservative American political thinkers share a common characterization of communism and fascism as irrational, secular religions against which the American political tradition stands as a model of reason and moderation. It is just such a conceit that Ferrara sets out to expose as a delusion. At a time when the American bishops are calling on Catholics to defend the American tradition of religious liberty against state coercion, Ferrara argues that religious liberty itself has been the main ideology through which the modern state has sought to redefine and control religion. This is a difficult and challenging argument, one that goes against the common sense of American political thinking. It is an argument based on a very different kind of common sense that comes from traditional Catholic understandings of the public nature of Church authority.
For the last fifty or so years, liberal and conservative Catholics alike have interpreted Dignitatis Humanae as a baptism of the U.S. Constitution. Ferrara reminds his readers early on that even as the document affirmed the right to freedom from coercion in religious life, it also rejected the notion of a purely privatized religion and held up the traditional confessional state as an enduring political ideal. For Ferrara, the Constitution’s rejection of religious establishment reflects a broader Enlightenment desire to privatize religion in a way that goes counter to Catholic political traditions from the Middle Ages up to and including Dignitatis Humanae. In the wake of debates surrounding the HHS mandate, conservative Catholics have been falling all over themselves defending our “sacred” Founders from the charge of privatization.
Much of how you judge the Founders’ intentions and the historical record of religion and public life in American history depends upon what you mean by religion. Ferrara convincingly argues that the Founders were more or less Masonic deists to a man, with no desire to see anything like a robust, orthodox Christianity, even of the Protestant variety, shaping public life. They certainly believed that the health of the republic depended upon a disciplined, moral citizenry and believed that religion—at the very least, a belief in God and fear of damnation—was useful as a prop to support such a public morality. That the moral probity of eighteenth-century Masonic British gentry strikes many a conservative Catholic today as a rough approximation of a Catholic world view should be troubling to Catholics, whatever their politics. The only God that the Founders acknowledged as having public standing was, as Ferrara’s title suggests, the God of Liberty.
For Ferrara, Liberty is not a political ideal, but a rival faith, a false idol. His book is difficult reading for any Catholic, liberal or conservative, raised on the idea of the complete compatibility of Catholicism and the American Founding. His argument seeks to shatter this illusion on both the level of ideas and institutional practice. The early sections of this massive work deal with the development of modern social contract theory, particularly the work of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Ferrara shows that, with respect to religion, the attempt to present Locke as a kinder, gentler rationalist simply does not hold up. Locke may have had a more benign view of the state of nature than Hobbes’s vision of a life nasty, brutish and short, but he leaves no doubt that the peace man seeks by entering the social contract requires the subordination of religious authority to that of the secular sovereign or state.
Following the work of William Cavanaugh, Ferrara argues that the whole modern social contract tradition has been nothing less than an alternative foundational myth, a parody or perversion of the origins of human society found in the Book of Genesis. If traditional Christendom saw the purpose of political life to approximate, within the limits of our fallen nature, the City of God amidst the City of Man, the social contract tradition understands politics as a tool for protecting individual freedom, particularly through the instrument of rights. In public life, Catholics have been all too willing to accept this myth as a guide to political action—such as the grounding of pro-life politics in a “right to life.”
If Locke’s political philosophy is at fundamental odds with Catholicism in theory, it is at odds with itself in practice. The great philosopher of liberty significantly excluded Catholicism from his vision of religious tolerance, largely because, through the person of the pope, the Catholic Church still claimed to have some public authority over the rule of princes. The so-called “Glorious Revolution” that drove a legitimate Catholic king (James II) from the throne of England and secured Protestant rule was followed by a century long battle to bleed Catholicism from the people of Ireland through a series of draconian penal laws. The irony of coercion in the name of freedom was not limited to eighteenth-century Ireland or the French Revolution, but has characterized the reign of Lockean freedom in American history. Here Ferrara particularly targets the historical myths peddled by libertarians, Catholic and otherwise, who tell of a golden age of libertarian freedom in America corrupted by a fall from grace with the advance of statism under Lincoln during the Civil War (or the statism of the Progressive Era, New Deal, Great Society, etc.). For Ferrara, the Founders—that is, those who drafted and supported the Constitution—were statists from the start and would brook no opposition to (centralized) state authority.
A Case at Times Overstated
Here, I sometimes feel Ferrara overstates his case. He is certainly right to highlight the role of state violence in an era (the Founding and early republic) that patriotic Americans like to think of as somehow bloodless. He is also right to highlight the continuities between the American and French revolutions. Still, even a reader open to such a critical interpretation has a hard time accepting a moral equivalence between the suppression of Shay’s Rebellion and the Reign of Terror. Rightly calling attention to the Janus-faced character of American liberty, his exposé of coercive state power from the Founding to the Civil War would seem to draw its sense of moral outrage from the very concept of liberty he is critiquing. Modern nation-states, including the United States, have indeed exercised coercive powers beyond anything imagined by a medieval king or an early-modern absolute monarch, but pre-modern life was hardly “free” in the modern sense; rather, individual and family life were structured by complex system of local laws and customs that would strike a modern libertarian as just as restrictive as any power claimed by the modern nation state. I understand that it is just such libertarians that Ferrara is trying to outrage, but lacking an account of the local customs, laws and traditions that structured life in the early republic, his account threatens to keep the whole debate within the false libertarian dichotomy of individual freedom and state coercion.
So too, in an effort to demolish the libertarian myth, Ferrara often loses all sense of degree and proportion. He is right in seeing a consistently statist direction in American political history. That is, whenever the prerogatives of state or local government came into conflict with those of the federal government, the federal government won out, most spectacularly and violently in the Civil War. Still, at times he makes even the early republic sound like a Stalinist police state simply because the Founding generation quickly discovered that for all their talk of liberty, social order often requires the use of government power. Ferrara is on much firmer ground when dealing with the most overt forms of violence inextricably bound up with American freedom: slavery and the extermination of Native Americans. Patriotic Americans are too quick to judge that dwelling on these matters amounts to America bashing. It does not. It is the only way to understand the true historical meaning of liberty in America.
The products of slave labor—first tobacco, then cotton—were at the heart of American economic life from the colonial period through to the Civil War. No sooner did America correct the historic wrong of slavery through the Civil War (at the cost of some 600,000 American lives) then the country turned its energies to “winning” the West through a genocidal war against Native Americans. And let us not forget our own times. No sooner did the Civil Rights Movement complete the work of slave emancipation then the apostles of liberty found another threat to freedom in the unborn child. Abortion is not state mandated. Americans freely choose to offer up roughly a million children every year to the altar of liberty.
The history of liberty in America is more complex than Ferrara presents. He ignores many countervailing traditions that did, for a time, help to slow the “progress” of liberty. Still, his history is selective with a purpose, and a noble one. Any honest look at American history will show that negative liberty, “freedom from,” has consistently triumphed in its battle against positive conceptions of human flourishing and the common good. It will also show that there is nothing in our quasi-Masonic public religion, from Washington and Lincoln to Ronald Reagan, which could have prevented this development. Catholics can work with the American system, but they first must realize what it is. When the Church converted the Roman Empire, it knew that it was dealing with a pagan institution. American Catholics since John Courtney Murray have approached the U.S. Constitution, and the American ideal of liberty, as somehow crypto-Catholic and in need only of our full-throated assent. If Catholics are to be truly Catholic in America, and not just a branch office of the Church of Liberty, we need to first stand apart from a political tradition born in a revolt against the Catholic Church. Christopher Ferrara’s book is an essential starting point and a necessary declaration of Catholic independence.
Dr. Christopher Shannon is a member of the History Department at Christendom College, where he interprets the narrative of Christian history from its foundations in the Old Testament and its heroic beginnings in the Church of the Martyrs, down through the ages to the challenges of the post-modern world. His books include Conspicuous Criticism: Tradition, the Individual, and Culture in Modern American Social Thought (Johns Hopkins, 1996) and, most recently, Bowery to Broadway: The American Irish in Classic Hollywood Cinema (University of Scranton Press, 2010).

[Another view from a different perspective in more than one sense]
Religious Freedom: A View From Across the Pond
Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom is just as timely today as it was fifty years ago.
By Joanna Bogle
Monday, October 29, 2012
www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1703/religious_freedom_a_view_from_across_the_pond.aspx
Religious freedom is the issue of the hour: in America, in Europe, in what we (used to?) think of as “the West”. But what is particularly interesting is that this comes just as we are marking the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council – the Council in which the Church explored the whole question of religious freedom and gave the world a valuable document which established the Church’s approach to this subject for the new millennium.
The Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, emphasised that “all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it.” This duty is fundamental. Religious belief cannot be imposed by government edict, or by coercion using the authority of the State. “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.”
When this was all being debated at the Vatican Council, and in the years immediately following, attention focused essentially on the internal tensions within the Church on the subject. But now the fullness of the importance and value of Dignitatis Humanae is coming into its own, and in circumstances that would have been unimaginable to many of the Bishops gathered in Rome in the 1960s.
Critics of Dignitatis Humanae, and in particular those who support the line taken by the late Archbishop Lefevbre and his followers, claim that it dishonours God because it is necessary to insist the Church must be enshrined in the fabric of the State.
The reality of things, however, has proved the prophetic and powerful value of the Declaration on Religious Freedom: its true importance is perhaps only now emerging, as we see what it achieved in the 1970s and 80s, and what it means for us today, and tomorrow.
From Communism to Contemporary Crisis
For this writer, based in London, issues of freedom and human rights have taken a new turn in recent years. At one time, religious freedom was an issue that chiefly concerned people living in Eastern Europe or the old USSR – what we used to call the “Communist bloc”. We all knew the history: from 1917 onwards, Christians suffered under atheist regimes centred on a Marxist creed, and here were numbers of martyrs – bishops, priests, poets, academics, campaigners for workers’ rights, and ordinary faithful Christians who simply wanted to live out their faith and pass it on to their children. A Christian in the West could help only by prayer, expressions of solidarity, efforts with various underground support networks, and so on.
We could not foresee how God would work through his Church. The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council heard from bishops in Eastern Europe, notably the Cardinal Archbishop of Cracow, one Karol Woytila. There was a recognition that, in speaking about freedom, the Church needed to speak with integrity. She had to be true to the dignity of man – made in the image of God and capable of seeking truth and holding to it. She could not go halfway and simply insist on privileges for herself, as if nervous of her own position. The issue at stake was the reality of truth itself. Does truth have its own power?
Dignitatis Humanae gave to Christians in Eastern Europe a mighty spiritual weapon they could wield with integrity. They did not have to defend a Church seeking a specific role in the State, and did not have to spell out what that role might be or whether it had worked well in generations past. They could simply insist on their right to seek truth and to live by it. The language of rights and freedoms, of human dignity and human worth, of struggling to live by sincere beliefs, found its natural home in the place where it had actually originated – in the Church founded and established by Christ, “the Way the Truth and the Life”. It fell to the bureaucrats, the oligarchs, the rulers of brutal police states, to be the ones who could not provide answers and who resorted to trite slogans, clichés, tired excuses, and of course to violence and arbitrary arrests and imprisonments and torture.
And now we in the West are also coming to see the full value of Dignitatis Humanae. Our rulers, soaked in clichés, are insisting that their particular line on a range of issues – marriage, same-sex relationships, abortion, the distribution of contraceptives to young teenagers – is the only one which can be acceptably taught and upheld in public institutions. Their line of approach often tends towards bullying and is based on shallow thinking and often illogical arguments. Christians, in campaigning for freedom and the right to live with integrity, can look to Dignitatis Humanae, and we also have something that those campaigners in Eastern Europe didn’t have: we have their example.
As we mark the Golden Jubilee of the opening of Vatican II, we have just celebrated the Beatification of John Paul II, the Pope from Eastern Europe, the Pope who spoke so much about freedom, the Pope who told us “Do not be afraid!” When he was elected, the tremendous excitement of having a Pope from Poland was connected for many of us to a certain sense of having to discover “the other”. Poland was part of that whole territory behind the Iron Curtain of which we really knew very little. The people there were a “they” and the West was a “we”. We looked to this new Pope to bind us together, and just over a decade after his election he had done much more than that and together we had seen the collapse of the Communist system and the triumph of freedom in his homeland and across the other lands that had endured Marxist dictatorships for so long.
There was a rich hinterland that Karol Woytila represented – a philosophical and spiritual hinterland that many in the West had largely ignored. We ignored it because we didn’t think we needed it: issues of freedom and human dignity, of the struggle for truth and the inherent strength and beauty that truth holds, were secondary for us. We thought that what mattered was material prosperity, doing-your-own-thing, and having a sense of independence, and we assumed that this was all that Eastern Europeans wanted too. But in fact both we and they are going to be in a terrible mess unless we look to spiritual realities: the realities that Pope John Paul taught, the values that brought down Communism.
The Situation in England
Who would have thought, back in the 1960s, that Londoners like me would be looking to the Church to defend everyday freedoms? Back then, every Londoner was proud of what the city had given to the world in a previous generation as the heartland of freedom during World War II. We who were born after that war were encouraged to see ourselves as inheriting a tradition of freedom hallowed by the sacrifice of brave lives: freedom of religious belief, freedom to speak and write about religious and moral issues, freedom to debate such things and to organise our lives around our deepest convictions. We would have been astonished to be told that as adults we could face disciplinary action at work, or public ridicule — or both — for upholding the statement that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, or that the deliberate killing of an unborn child is a dreadful thing, or that young boys and girls should be strongly discouraged from engaging in sexual activities.
A housing manager, Adrian Smith, employed by the Trafford Housing Trust in Manchester, was charged with “gross misconduct” because he said, in private email correspondence to various friends, that obliging churches to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies would be “an equality too far”. During discussions with his bosses concerning the matter, he learned that he would have been fired, but they decided simply to slice his wages by 40 percent, because he had been an exemplary employee for many years. Although he was not writing on behalf of the Housing Trust when he wrote the private Facebook comments, his friends included some who were work colleagues, and it seems that this was enough for the Trust to start action against him.
A Christian family who ran a bed-and-breakfast business in their home were forced to pay compensation to a homosexual couple after they refused to give them a double room. Mrs Christine Wilkinson, owner of the bed-and-breakfast, said that she had only wanted to live by her own principles. ““We believe a person should be free to act upon their sincere beliefs about marriage under their own roof without living in fear of the law. Equality laws have gone too far when they start to intrude into a family home.
“People’s beliefs about marriage are coming under increasing attack, and I am concerned about people’s freedom to speak and act upon these beliefs. I am a Christian, not just on a Sunday in church, but in every area of my life – as Jesus expects from his followers. “
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, has admitted that churches may need special safeguards if the Government’s plans for same-sex unions go ahead. He said that the churches had “legitimate fears” and that they needed some protection. But it is by no means clear that any legal provision would safeguard churches because this could be overruled by the European Court.
Religious freedom: the issue of the hour. Dignitatis Humanae: “This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. It is in accordance with their dignity as persons — that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility — that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature…”
That is the voice of the Church, and the voice of the hour. It can inspire us as it inspired Blessed John Paul: ”Do not be afraid.”
Just a side note. I’ve met both Joanna and her husband. They are superb folks with massive intellects, spry humor and magnificently British to the core.
And they are exemplary explicators of the Faith, especially its history.
Only one problem: Joanna is vehemently anti-SSPX. I don’t know if her barrister husband shares that unfortunate view, however.
How would you know – he probably never had chance to get a word in!
(I don’t know if Jamie is anti-SSPX either, but I have exchanged correspondence with him previously and it wouldn’t surprise me if he was a little more sympathetic than her ladyship.)
Ha! Maybe!
His scholarly work on the English Deformation would very likely be a fine preparation for the long slog to Tradition. Even Mother Angelica got THAT right when she told her audience that Cramner’s Ungodly Order was being REPEATED in the Nervous Ordeal!
I have read a little of the work on the English Deformation but not any that called for the continuation of the Restoration, which is what objecting to the concept and practice of religious liberty seems to amount to–a restoration as in ‘restore all things in Christ.’ I had an exchange with Stephanie Mann, the author of Supremacy and Survival: How Catholics Endured the English Reformation” on my blog (‘Still a Little Whiggy’) in which I very awkwardly objected to the spirit that seemed content with simply winning religious liberty for Catholics there as opposed to the restoration. Stephanie objected. I don’t think I answered her very well, but I maintain that any compromise on this issue is cowardly and unworthy of Catholics, and heretical too. Someone who knows better than I, please go check it out and comment on my error. thewhitelilyblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/still-a-little-whiggy/#more-592