Moses and the Gipper and the End of America
November 13, 2012
Elizabeth Scalia
I am relieved.
Now that a week has passed, and people have processed things a little, I can admit publicly what I have to date only said to a few close friends.
I am relieved at the outcome of the election.
This is not to say I am pleased. Regardless of what he said while addressing the University of Notre Dame, Barack Obama has amply demonstrated his willingness to ignore the rights of religious entities to exist and to operate—in ways that go well beyond formal acts of worship—according to their founding precepts. His administration has demonstrated its continued intention to “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” as he put it on November 1, by expanding the reach of government.
As the president might say, “make no mistake”: We do not come back from this election, and by “we” I mean America as we have known it; not with the present culture.
At National Review Online, Charles C. W. Cooke writes eloquently of this truth, but where he feels despair, I feel set free. This election has shattered, finally the illusion that if “good conservatives just keep fighting,” somehow “another Reagan” was going to come along and restore the “shining city on a hill”. For too long I have watched friends remain enthralled to the notion that a single man or woman equipped with rhetorical skills, a bit of spine, and right-thinking would be able to resurrect what is remembered by some modern conservatives as a golden age.
It’s not coming back because half the country didn’t want it, or didn’t even recognize what it had and therefore won’t miss it, and because for young adults and the generations coming up the backbone of conservative theory—rugged individualism, privacy, minimal government—is a complete non-sequitur; it does not compute. Their parents hovered and arranged play-dates and videotaped their every move; they went through public schools working on group projects rather than writing individual reports; they are less acquainted with an omniscient God than previous generations, and comfortable instead with the omnipresent camera and interfaces—the strange god of All Media, Interactive.
Quite unlike their parents, in other words, this is a generation less interested in their personal consciences; one tailor-made for living under authority, and with built-in limits to their liberties.
Is it a tragic thing that what we had is gone and won’t be coming back? Well, yes, because while it lasted it was the most remarkable engine for human freedom, ingenuity, and opportunity the modern world had ever known. But along with all of the goods we manufactured and skyscrapers we erected, we cultivated immense pride—a pride that overfocused us on the material rather than the spiritual aspects of prosperity (to do for others) and freedom (to live for others) and military might (to defend ourselves and others). When we overtipped the scales and became weighed down with McMansions we neither needed (with our 2.5 children) nor could really afford, when we began to manipulate the stock market, when we began to make war with drones and shrug off human life as “collateral damage” we justified it by saying we were the greatest nation the world had ever seen; exceptional and indispensible.
Like Moses, we let pride overcome our mission. The conservatives—obsessing on greatness—refused to acknowledge any weakness. But there is always weakness; not admitting mistakes is the greatest of them. By refusing to cede error or suggest moderation, the right allowed the left to grab on to moral arguments so few were making—about greed, and selfishness, and triumphalism—and to pervert them through the filter of secular statism, until limited taxation, individual accomplishment, and strategic military defense became caricatured as great moral evils, and most other matters became relative. In a great irony, the secularists who warned of encroaching theocracy just a few years ago claimed that the government’s way was the godly way and golly, the people were all right with that, because theological nuance just complicates things, anyway.
And that is how the GOP lost and the Democrats won; through pride and error. Our job at this point is not to save the nation. The nation is tumbling precisely the way the philosophers said it would when it became over-reliant on government. Our job, now is to save each other; to help spiritually strengthen each other for all that is yet to come.
Earlier in the week, I had an exchange with an overwrought woman who declared herself “done with God” because she had prayed for a GOP victory and felt abandoned. It became clear that the “shining city on the hill” meant everything to her; “America is not supposed to end,” she said. When I suggested that such pride might have played a part in this defeat—that Moses was not permitted to enter the Promised Land because of pride, and the GOP is no Moses—she railed again. When I asked her what she could worship in the nation’s stead, she replied, “nothing.”
That sort of immature faith will not sustain us through the difficult times ahead.
Believers who feel defeated by this election have actually been given a great gift; they’ve been given the opportunity to divest themselves of the sin of idolatry and pride. The battle is not between parties; it is between things seen and unseen. It is between light and dark. The stuff before our eyes, all these earthly concerns, earthly governance—it plays out ultimately for the profit of our souls, not our retirement accounts. If we are professing Christians then we understand the narrative is moving forward to a certain conclusion; the pageant of salvation leads, always, to a complete divesting of everything that has come before. The only way to victory, now is to put the Gipper to rest, and play strictly for God. And God’s ways are not our ways, his thoughts not our thoughts, his “shining city on a hill” like nothing in our imagining.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
Charles C.W. Cooke, “Why I Despair”
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
11.13.2012 | 9:06am
harry says:
The heart of the problem is that we have not sufficiently resisted the modern, atheistic, radically secularized state's insistence on the Church's idolatrous compliance with state sanctioned killing of innocent human beings. We have rendered unto Caesar authority over innocent human life that belongs to God alone. Our God is a jealous God. We see in the Old Testament that He hands His people over to slavery or oppression by the nation whose false god they worshiped. The God of the Old Testament is still God. Anyone familiar with the Scriptures will not be surprised at all that we are being handed over to oppression by the state's godless social engineers whose god (themselves) we burn incense to by our complacency.
We know also from the Old Testament that He will happily restore our freedom when we resolve to render unto Him all that is His, and render unto to Caesar only what is his – and no more – and render nothing at all unto false gods. At this point our doing so will draw down hatred and persecution upon ourselves, yet whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life will find it. In other words, if we continue to avoid doing the right thing for fear of losing that in which we find worldly security, we will surely lose all that anyway and our souls as well. If instead we seek first God's kingdom and His righteousness, our Heavenly Father will see that we are provided with what He knows we really need in this life and eternal life as well.
We know also from the Old Testament that He will happily restore our freedom when we resolve to render unto Him all that is His, and render unto to Caesar only what is his – and no more – and render nothing at all unto false gods. At this point our doing so will draw down hatred and persecution upon ourselves, yet whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life will find it. In other words, if we continue to avoid doing the right thing for fear of losing that in which we find worldly security, we will surely lose all that anyway and our souls as well. If instead we seek first God's kingdom and His righteousness, our Heavenly Father will see that we are provided with what He knows we really need in this life and eternal life as well.
11.13.2012 | 9:37am
JERD says:
Pride makes us believe that our advocacy is received in the same spirit in which we present it. For example, we heard a great deal from the Republicans that there were too many people on food stamps. For the conservative faithful that meant "We will create more jobs, and fewer people will need food stamps!" To the people who know, or have known unemployment it meant "You won't help me feed my children when I am desperate for work?"
Humility provides the advocate with the disposition to see the world through the eyes of their neighbor, and to then engage their neighbor in the art of persuasion.
Humility also teaches that all earthly victories and defeats are as nothing compared to the victory won for us by Christ. There will be other elections and other candidates. Let's be more humble next time and see what happens!
Humility provides the advocate with the disposition to see the world through the eyes of their neighbor, and to then engage their neighbor in the art of persuasion.
Humility also teaches that all earthly victories and defeats are as nothing compared to the victory won for us by Christ. There will be other elections and other candidates. Let's be more humble next time and see what happens!
11.13.2012 | 10:23am
Doug Walter says:
Many thanks for the reminder. Others had so spoken before the election via the internet, saying, "No matter who wins the election, Jesus is still King."
But, Idolatry is still Legion. Blessings, Doug
But, Idolatry is still Legion. Blessings, Doug
11.13.2012 | 10:45am
Daniel Ritchie says:
Very well said, Ms. Scalia. One consequence of your analysis is that some of the ways Christians have interacted with culture -- including many who read "First Things" -- must now take a different direction. We must recognize that we are not in the position to influence, let alone "transform" very much. If we've reached the historical point you've indicated, we'll be, at most, a "faithful presence" (to use James Davison Hunter's phrase) -- or perhaps merely a counter-culture.
11.13.2012 | 10:47am
Sally Rogers says:
Pope Benedict has been saying for quite some time that Christians need to become accustomed to being non-conformists and "outsiders" in their home cultures. The reality is that our social and political life is not completely conformed to our faith, if it ever was in the past. And the degree of conformity is likely to lessen as time goes by. For many Americans that is going to be a painful transition.
American Catholics, in particular, spent generations trying to demonstrate that good Catholics were good Americans. The idea that being a good Catholic might not mean being a "good American" (in terms of conforming to the culture) is disconcerting for many. But as the culture and Christianity continue to diverge, it's likely that people are going to be brought to ask over and over "Which side are you on?" God grant us the grace to answer that question courageously.
American Catholics, in particular, spent generations trying to demonstrate that good Catholics were good Americans. The idea that being a good Catholic might not mean being a "good American" (in terms of conforming to the culture) is disconcerting for many. But as the culture and Christianity continue to diverge, it's likely that people are going to be brought to ask over and over "Which side are you on?" God grant us the grace to answer that question courageously.
11.13.2012 | 11:49am
Griff says:
My dear Anchoress, you wrote "Our job, now is to save each other; to help spiritually strengthen each other for all that is yet to come." Could you take a moment to write a few lines on what you believe is "yet to come?"
11.13.2012 | 12:37pm
stefanie says:
Well said, Elizabeth -- it must be why I feel as though I am waking up after a long nightmare and realizing-- refreshed-- I'm still alive and there is much work to do in love -- not for country, but to bright light to the darkness.
How often we are told in Scripture not to trust in kings and horses. Yet time and again we do. Believing in God should not be a nation's mandatory religion...but belief in God has lifted up nations throughout the history of mankind.
Our eyes should ever be on the Lord and from Him, we receive our nourishment and our 'orders of the day.' To love our enemies, to do good to those who hate us. It will confound them...although we may not be able to witness on earth how exposure to this Christian love has changed them.
As Cardinal Dolan said yesterday at the USCCB annual meeting, Catholics need to get back to basics -- penance, prayer, praise. Have no fear.
How often we are told in Scripture not to trust in kings and horses. Yet time and again we do. Believing in God should not be a nation's mandatory religion...but belief in God has lifted up nations throughout the history of mankind.
Our eyes should ever be on the Lord and from Him, we receive our nourishment and our 'orders of the day.' To love our enemies, to do good to those who hate us. It will confound them...although we may not be able to witness on earth how exposure to this Christian love has changed them.
As Cardinal Dolan said yesterday at the USCCB annual meeting, Catholics need to get back to basics -- penance, prayer, praise. Have no fear.
11.13.2012 | 12:39pm
Ted Seeber says:
I'll say the same thing I said over on Patheos: The solution to the end of individualism and the return of authority, Catholicism has had for more than 1600 years now.
Community. Charity. Caritas. Love.
It is time to build a civilization of love, in the words of Supreme Knight Carl Anderson.
We need to separate ourselves from the materialism of the world, sure, but we also need to create a new spiritual materialism- one based on love, not greed.
Community. Charity. Caritas. Love.
It is time to build a civilization of love, in the words of Supreme Knight Carl Anderson.
We need to separate ourselves from the materialism of the world, sure, but we also need to create a new spiritual materialism- one based on love, not greed.
11.13.2012 | 12:39pm
Michael PS says:
Sally Rogers
What you say is very true. At the same time, I do hope that American Catholics do not rush to the opposite extreme. In France, the spiritual mission of the Church was gravely hampered, during the period from 1870 to 1959, by the open hostility of most Catholics to the Republic; an hostility which neatly matched the anti-clericalism of the bouffeurs de curé. Leo XIII had exhorted Catholics to "rally to the Republic," explaining that a distinction must be drawn between the form of government, which ought to be accepted, and its laws which ought to be improved, only to be accused by the Catholic press of "kissing the feet of their executioners." In 1940, alas, too many Catholics rallied, not to the Republic, but to Vichy. The state of the Church in France today owes much to this bitter legacy of turning faith into faction.
What you say is very true. At the same time, I do hope that American Catholics do not rush to the opposite extreme. In France, the spiritual mission of the Church was gravely hampered, during the period from 1870 to 1959, by the open hostility of most Catholics to the Republic; an hostility which neatly matched the anti-clericalism of the bouffeurs de curé. Leo XIII had exhorted Catholics to "rally to the Republic," explaining that a distinction must be drawn between the form of government, which ought to be accepted, and its laws which ought to be improved, only to be accused by the Catholic press of "kissing the feet of their executioners." In 1940, alas, too many Catholics rallied, not to the Republic, but to Vichy. The state of the Church in France today owes much to this bitter legacy of turning faith into faction.
11.13.2012 | 1:42pm
Rhinestone Suderman says:
Anchoress, I think you're being rather unfair to average Catholics, and average Americans.
Only a very few Americans were able to indulge in McMansions, or had the money to concentrate solely on materialism; you talk as if the entire country were as wealthy, and self-indulgent, as Orange County, California/Beverly Hills/Manhattan, etc. *That simply isn't the case. A lot of people were hurting before the election, and now they will hurt even more. God may bring something good out of this, yes, but it's nothing to rejoice, over.
And I've known many conservatives, and none of them "Idolized" certain politicians, or thought America was flawless, and were unwilling to try and improve her; I'm sorry about some of the angry emails you've gotten, but I think you're letting them skew your impression of conservatives in general. (I do realize Catholic conservatives can be a cranky lot, which is one of the reasons I became orthodox.)
If America falls, the rest of the world is going to suffer, too. Syria has already begun shelling Sderot, in Israel.
I'm sorry, but I see nothing of spiritual renewl in this, or anything to rejoice about.
(*And many of these highly self-indulgent, wealthy enclaves, are, of course, extremely progressive in outlook, and certainly didn't place any faith in the Gipper---far from it!)
Only a very few Americans were able to indulge in McMansions, or had the money to concentrate solely on materialism; you talk as if the entire country were as wealthy, and self-indulgent, as Orange County, California/Beverly Hills/Manhattan, etc. *That simply isn't the case. A lot of people were hurting before the election, and now they will hurt even more. God may bring something good out of this, yes, but it's nothing to rejoice, over.
And I've known many conservatives, and none of them "Idolized" certain politicians, or thought America was flawless, and were unwilling to try and improve her; I'm sorry about some of the angry emails you've gotten, but I think you're letting them skew your impression of conservatives in general. (I do realize Catholic conservatives can be a cranky lot, which is one of the reasons I became orthodox.)
If America falls, the rest of the world is going to suffer, too. Syria has already begun shelling Sderot, in Israel.
I'm sorry, but I see nothing of spiritual renewl in this, or anything to rejoice about.
(*And many of these highly self-indulgent, wealthy enclaves, are, of course, extremely progressive in outlook, and certainly didn't place any faith in the Gipper---far from it!)
11.13.2012 | 1:54pm
Jennifer Olson says:
I'm with you Elizabeth. Had these kind of thoughts floating around in my head but was unable to articulate it as well as you have here. Thank you for that. Let's roll up our sleeves and get busy about the work of God.
11.13.2012 | 2:12pm
sally rogers says:
Michael -
I am sure there are many pitfalls involved as American Catholics find their way forward, so I thank you for your reminder. However, I do think that the issues and complications that will likely be confronted here in the US are not very similar to those you mention in France.
First, we have no tradition of an established church or monarchy, so I find it difficult to believe that American Catholics are going to be tempted in those directions.
We rather have a history of being "outsiders" who were not initially welcomed here. My own great-aunt who lived in Indiana was very frightened of the Ku Klux Klan in that state, and my mother tells me that they once found a cross burning in front of their house as an act of intimidation. There was an entire political party known as the Know-Nothings who were organized around the goal of keeping Catholics out of the United States and denying them civil rights.
Catholics therefore built their own institutions that were very separate and self-supported. Indeed, many states adopted laws forbidding any state assistance to "sectarian schools" (sectarian at the time really meant Catholic, as there were no others building such schools). Catholics also built hospitals, universities, charitable institutions and many more, all on the dime of a very poor immigrant group of people. They were built and run mainly by nuns, priests and brothers, most of whom were also immigrants at the beginning.
US Catholics built and funded an incredibly large and successful school system without a single penny coming from the government - thousands of schools that educated millions of Catholic children. The tuition at these schools was paid for by parents or by charity within the parishes.
Within all these institutions, there was a lot of effort put into building a Catholic culture that was not threatening to other Americans, while still being true to the faith. The reality is that over time many of the institutions became more "American" than "Catholic" - such as our universities that are mainly indistinguishable from non-Catholic institutions. That makes the widening divergence between our faith and our culture all the more painful.
It is very ironic that is it now these institutions that are threatened with state-enforced measures to accommodate and cooperate with actions that our faith tells us are sinful and not conducive to the common good. It is not clear whether fully Catholic institutions will be able to operate in conformity with US law. That is the dilemma we are faced with, and I am not sure how much the European examples of dealing with this problem will be of assistance. However, we are going to need all the advice we can get.
I am sure there are many pitfalls involved as American Catholics find their way forward, so I thank you for your reminder. However, I do think that the issues and complications that will likely be confronted here in the US are not very similar to those you mention in France.
First, we have no tradition of an established church or monarchy, so I find it difficult to believe that American Catholics are going to be tempted in those directions.
We rather have a history of being "outsiders" who were not initially welcomed here. My own great-aunt who lived in Indiana was very frightened of the Ku Klux Klan in that state, and my mother tells me that they once found a cross burning in front of their house as an act of intimidation. There was an entire political party known as the Know-Nothings who were organized around the goal of keeping Catholics out of the United States and denying them civil rights.
Catholics therefore built their own institutions that were very separate and self-supported. Indeed, many states adopted laws forbidding any state assistance to "sectarian schools" (sectarian at the time really meant Catholic, as there were no others building such schools). Catholics also built hospitals, universities, charitable institutions and many more, all on the dime of a very poor immigrant group of people. They were built and run mainly by nuns, priests and brothers, most of whom were also immigrants at the beginning.
US Catholics built and funded an incredibly large and successful school system without a single penny coming from the government - thousands of schools that educated millions of Catholic children. The tuition at these schools was paid for by parents or by charity within the parishes.
Within all these institutions, there was a lot of effort put into building a Catholic culture that was not threatening to other Americans, while still being true to the faith. The reality is that over time many of the institutions became more "American" than "Catholic" - such as our universities that are mainly indistinguishable from non-Catholic institutions. That makes the widening divergence between our faith and our culture all the more painful.
It is very ironic that is it now these institutions that are threatened with state-enforced measures to accommodate and cooperate with actions that our faith tells us are sinful and not conducive to the common good. It is not clear whether fully Catholic institutions will be able to operate in conformity with US law. That is the dilemma we are faced with, and I am not sure how much the European examples of dealing with this problem will be of assistance. However, we are going to need all the advice we can get.
11.13.2012 | 2:20pm
harry says:
Sally Rogers, you are quite right.
Michael PS, Leo XIII acknowledges in his 1881 encyclical, *On the Origin of Civil Power*, that there is a time when Christians must resist civil authority:
"The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. If, therefore, it should happen to any one to be compelled to prefer one or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those of rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ, who commands us to 'give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's,' (Mt 22:21) and must reply courageously after the example of the Apostles: 'We ought to obey God rather than men.' (Act 5:29) And yet there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null."
There is no doubt that when Christians "obey God rather than men," and refuse to render unto Caesar that which belongs only to God, they will be accused of becoming a "faction" that has rushed to the "opposite extreme."
Michael PS, Leo XIII acknowledges in his 1881 encyclical, *On the Origin of Civil Power*, that there is a time when Christians must resist civil authority:
"The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. If, therefore, it should happen to any one to be compelled to prefer one or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those of rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ, who commands us to 'give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's,' (Mt 22:21) and must reply courageously after the example of the Apostles: 'We ought to obey God rather than men.' (Act 5:29) And yet there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null."
There is no doubt that when Christians "obey God rather than men," and refuse to render unto Caesar that which belongs only to God, they will be accused of becoming a "faction" that has rushed to the "opposite extreme."
11.13.2012 | 2:24pm
Adam Baum says:
"When we overtipped the scales and became weighed down with McMansions we neither needed (with our 2.5 children) nor could really afford..."
There is no doubt there is a gathering storm, but I'm not participating in the coronation of the new order.
The problem with this essay is that it so poorly diagnoses the problems it cites and misses the point entirely.
"McMansions" aren't symptoms of greed, they are symptoms of distortive government intervention in the housing market. It was government (both parties, for different reasons) that insisted that the home ownership rate was something that could be directed upward by the government, through implicit and explicit subsidies. What you have to understand is that when you subsidize something, there are income and substitution effects. Some people buy a house, some a bigger house, some buy a new house.
Unfortunately, the real calculus of this election lies with the disordering notion some people should pay for others' bread and circuses and that in a country dedicated to the premise of "equal treatment" under the law, your taxes will be wildly different than your neighbor's, often for arbitrary and capricious reasons.
There's a lot of religious folks who've contributed to the present situation. When prudent and rational people said it is not wise or possible to grow the government without limit, and that purported efforts to "help" the poor were not only ineffective, but counterproductive (except to the politicians who knew that they could comprise the electoral process by buying votes) especially through debt-the religious left arched it's collective back and declared those concerns "selfish" and developed a rich vocabulary of vacant euphemisms "aka seamless garments" to support their funhouse mirror view of economics.
No matter what the leviathan did, they supported it and demanded more. When it encouraged illegitimacy, they didn't care-when there was a mass slaughter of the unborn, they pulled out their seemless garment. Fiscal responsibility? No way, that would be "on the backs of the poor" (remember welfare reform?). Everything was to be measured by emotion and intent, rather than actual results.
For decades the leviathan has been enculturating dependency on the low end of the economic scale and intellectual servility on the other end. We very well may be slipping into the dystopian hells predicted by the likes of Orwell and Huxley and if we do, it will be because there's a certain part of the religious left that bought into the notion that "Render unto Caeser" (minus the rest of that injunction) is the 11th commandment.
There is no doubt there is a gathering storm, but I'm not participating in the coronation of the new order.
The problem with this essay is that it so poorly diagnoses the problems it cites and misses the point entirely.
"McMansions" aren't symptoms of greed, they are symptoms of distortive government intervention in the housing market. It was government (both parties, for different reasons) that insisted that the home ownership rate was something that could be directed upward by the government, through implicit and explicit subsidies. What you have to understand is that when you subsidize something, there are income and substitution effects. Some people buy a house, some a bigger house, some buy a new house.
Unfortunately, the real calculus of this election lies with the disordering notion some people should pay for others' bread and circuses and that in a country dedicated to the premise of "equal treatment" under the law, your taxes will be wildly different than your neighbor's, often for arbitrary and capricious reasons.
There's a lot of religious folks who've contributed to the present situation. When prudent and rational people said it is not wise or possible to grow the government without limit, and that purported efforts to "help" the poor were not only ineffective, but counterproductive (except to the politicians who knew that they could comprise the electoral process by buying votes) especially through debt-the religious left arched it's collective back and declared those concerns "selfish" and developed a rich vocabulary of vacant euphemisms "aka seamless garments" to support their funhouse mirror view of economics.
No matter what the leviathan did, they supported it and demanded more. When it encouraged illegitimacy, they didn't care-when there was a mass slaughter of the unborn, they pulled out their seemless garment. Fiscal responsibility? No way, that would be "on the backs of the poor" (remember welfare reform?). Everything was to be measured by emotion and intent, rather than actual results.
For decades the leviathan has been enculturating dependency on the low end of the economic scale and intellectual servility on the other end. We very well may be slipping into the dystopian hells predicted by the likes of Orwell and Huxley and if we do, it will be because there's a certain part of the religious left that bought into the notion that "Render unto Caeser" (minus the rest of that injunction) is the 11th commandment.
11.13.2012 | 2:26pm
Dierdra says:
Your article overwhelmed me. Everything you said is true, and I'm so very, very sad. I have loved America. I have loved Ronald Reagan. I have loved the military that my husbands serves in as a chaplain. I have loved it all, deeply, and have lost it. But you're completely right; I have not and will never lose what matters most. It feels like a consolation prize right now, because it's so hard to just let go of this beautiful nation. But there, at the bottom, it the pearl beyond price. My savior. Thank you for the reminder.
11.13.2012 | 2:29pm
OnTheMarch says:
"American Catholics, in particular, spent generations trying to demonstrate that good Catholics were good Americans." Guess we failed in that attempt. Time for all Catholic churches and schools to bring down the Stars and Stripes and haul up the flag of the Vatican. The secularists have declared war against us, time to show our true colors and our defiance.
11.13.2012 | 2:51pm
Mary Cracraft says:
Yes.
I would simply add, however, that we should not therefore give up fighting for truth and good in the political arena any more than in the so-secular or the Christian or the religious arenas.
Now we have a chance to beg for the ability to receive--receive---more of the grace God is pouring out to trust in Him--more than ever, more than in government, more than in our nation's stability or strength.
Side note: use comma clause, editor. :)
I would simply add, however, that we should not therefore give up fighting for truth and good in the political arena any more than in the so-secular or the Christian or the religious arenas.
Now we have a chance to beg for the ability to receive--receive---more of the grace God is pouring out to trust in Him--more than ever, more than in government, more than in our nation's stability or strength.
Side note: use comma clause, editor. :)
11.13.2012 | 2:52pm
Don Roberto says:
Clearly, our alternatives were limited, but it's hard to imagine how anyone could feel relief when we are faced with four more years under leaders who teach that evil (e.g., freedom to abort) is good; under an administration that will not enforce laws against pornography, will be able to place high court justices into positions to harm our fellows and lead our children astray, and persecute those who adhere to their Faith (e.g., by penalizing—er, taxing—those who resist the HHS Mandate).
The people, including many who apparently consider themselves Christian, voted with atheists, deciding that their safety nets were more important than the lives of the unborn; that the public schools aren't REALLY going to teach 12-year-olds how to "safely" undertake degenerate acts (are they?); that our military will be able to recruit 18-year-old boys when sergeants and officers are openly "gay"; that "religious freedom" isn't being "significantly" infringed upon (those darn Catholics are analogous to the folks who had their peyote taken away—aren't they just as unreasonable?); that more "gay" marriage will not harm society or lead to ever more bizarre corruptions of traditional values; etc.
Jesus will win in the end, but victory will come without the help of most Americans. This is nothing to feel relieved about.
The people, including many who apparently consider themselves Christian, voted with atheists, deciding that their safety nets were more important than the lives of the unborn; that the public schools aren't REALLY going to teach 12-year-olds how to "safely" undertake degenerate acts (are they?); that our military will be able to recruit 18-year-old boys when sergeants and officers are openly "gay"; that "religious freedom" isn't being "significantly" infringed upon (those darn Catholics are analogous to the folks who had their peyote taken away—aren't they just as unreasonable?); that more "gay" marriage will not harm society or lead to ever more bizarre corruptions of traditional values; etc.
Jesus will win in the end, but victory will come without the help of most Americans. This is nothing to feel relieved about.
11.13.2012 | 2:57pm
Fr. J says:
I think it is appropriate to mourn the loss of the Republic. There was so much good in it. We will never see the like again. Those of us who were patriots did have a lot to be proud of, in the good sense of pride. We are now entering a dark age and things are not going to get better. Look to your faith and family.
11.13.2012 | 3:05pm
John Hinshaw says:
The overwrought woman will, of course, not believe in "nothing". She'll move on to "Long Island Psychic" or some such.
11.13.2012 | 3:36pm
Terrie Lynn Bittner says:
It bothers me that the author is perpetuating the stereotype that teens today are all shallow and uncaring. You see what you want to see, but people have made this claim about every generation since antiquity. Every day I read stories about teens who are volunteering, making hard and wise choices, and demonstrating a Christ-like life. I see them in my own Church and in the stories I write or share about them. I do not believe the majority of teens are not interested in morality. It's just that the moral ones don't make the news.
11.13.2012 | 3:46pm
Patti says:
One of the best things I've read so far. I agree completely. I have had the same thoughts. Thank you for writing this. I think this election has clarified quite a lot and in a way, perhaps, the election was providential as the choices are much more clear. Time for prayer and rethinking everything.
11.13.2012 | 4:01pm
Frank Gibbons says:
What you say about conservatives putting their faith in princes is absolutely true. But while the renewal of the Church and the culture will not come from a conservative champion on a white horse, it also will not come from putting our faith blindly in the secular solutions of the left. It seems to me that the Catholic liberals as represented by America, Commonweal, NCR and the overwhelming majority of Catholic academics rely even more on material and political solutions to realize the mandates of the Gospel than conservatives do. I understand that they are incapable of self-criticism in this matter; but it is a mystery to me why others do not hold them to the same scrutiny to which so-called conservative Christians are held.
11.13.2012 | 5:08pm
Andy Catsimanes says:
I'm more and more reminded of MacIntyre's conclusion to After Virtue:
"If my account of our moral condition – one characterized by moral incoherence and unsettlable moral disputes in the modern world – is correct, we ought to conclude that for some time now we too have reached that same turning point (when men and women of good will turned aside from the task of shoring up the Roman imperium and ceased to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of that imperium).
"What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages which are already upon us.
"And if the tradition of the virtues was able to survive the horrors of the last dark ages, we are not entirely without grounds for hope. This time however the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time. And it is our lack of consciousness of this that constitutes part of our predicament.
"We are waiting not for a Godot, but for another—doubtless very different—St. Benedict.”
"If my account of our moral condition – one characterized by moral incoherence and unsettlable moral disputes in the modern world – is correct, we ought to conclude that for some time now we too have reached that same turning point (when men and women of good will turned aside from the task of shoring up the Roman imperium and ceased to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of that imperium).
"What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages which are already upon us.
"And if the tradition of the virtues was able to survive the horrors of the last dark ages, we are not entirely without grounds for hope. This time however the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time. And it is our lack of consciousness of this that constitutes part of our predicament.
"We are waiting not for a Godot, but for another—doubtless very different—St. Benedict.”
11.13.2012 | 5:17pm
swisswiss says:
"The conservatives--obsessing on greatness--refused to acknowledge any weakness." Poppycock. After Dole, two Bushes, McCain, now Romney, any thoughtful conservative new darn well no one was going to come close to filling the Gipper's boots or the idyl of "Sunrise in America." And even the Gipper presided over huge (for the time) deficits. We put the Great Society, and building the Babylon of the bureaucracy on a big credit card. Reagan articulated the need for courage and creativity and temperance -- but too few exercised it. The result was a slow motion socio-cultural train wreck you could see coming for decades.
11.13.2012 | 5:45pm
tioedong says:
A lot of folks stayed home because they don't trust government, and believed the negative campaign ads against the Republicans. And the Reagan Democrats stayed home too.
But the dirty little secret is that Romney, at least for Catholic moral issues, was Obama lite: Not only did "romneycare" require me as a doc and Catholic hospitals to give out morning after pills, and pay for contraception, but Romney did not help grass roots folks fight the gay marriage mandated by judges including a lesbian in their ranks.
So if we were ignorant, we stayed home. But if we were knowledgable, we were cynical that we were being made fools of.
But the dirty little secret is that Romney, at least for Catholic moral issues, was Obama lite: Not only did "romneycare" require me as a doc and Catholic hospitals to give out morning after pills, and pay for contraception, but Romney did not help grass roots folks fight the gay marriage mandated by judges including a lesbian in their ranks.
So if we were ignorant, we stayed home. But if we were knowledgable, we were cynical that we were being made fools of.
11.13.2012 | 6:11pm
David WL says:
Continuing with the thought of Frank Gibbons
I think we conservatives have been--what's the right analogy?--suckerpunched, I think.
I belong to a small Protestant sect that for most of its history has been separatist: the world was the world and the church was the church. Then a little more than a generation we were told: engage the world, be prophetic, don't just save peoples' souls, but minister to their bodies, their physical needs.
So we did so: we engaged in debates about abortion, homosexuality, marriage. Lo, we discovered the need to be political. Alas, it was not the exact politics the leftists wanted. So they said: stopbeing political.
It is time--as Christians, as conservatives, as Christian conservatives, as conservative Christians--to determine our own ground rules for participation in the public realm. Confessional Protestants, fundamentalist-evangelicals, Catholic, Orthodox will have all their distinct strategies and dogmatic-ethical justifications. What we can agree on is: we serve a Lord who kingdom is not of this world.
I think we conservatives have been--what's the right analogy?--suckerpunched, I think.
I belong to a small Protestant sect that for most of its history has been separatist: the world was the world and the church was the church. Then a little more than a generation we were told: engage the world, be prophetic, don't just save peoples' souls, but minister to their bodies, their physical needs.
So we did so: we engaged in debates about abortion, homosexuality, marriage. Lo, we discovered the need to be political. Alas, it was not the exact politics the leftists wanted. So they said: stopbeing political.
It is time--as Christians, as conservatives, as Christian conservatives, as conservative Christians--to determine our own ground rules for participation in the public realm. Confessional Protestants, fundamentalist-evangelicals, Catholic, Orthodox will have all their distinct strategies and dogmatic-ethical justifications. What we can agree on is: we serve a Lord who kingdom is not of this world.
11.13.2012 | 6:31pm
Gregory K Laughlin says:
I'm a lifelong Republicans. My parents were lifelong Republicans. Both of my grandfathers were lifelong Republicans, as were their fathers, and their grandfathers served in the Union army. The one who survived, also was a Republican. The Republican party lost primarily because the American people have once again come to see the Republican party as favoring the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. The party fed that view by nominating as its standard bearer a man of immense wealth who made much of that wealth engaging in enterprise which involved buying distressed enterprises and either liquidating them or moving many jobs overseas. The Republican party that appealed to the middle class under Eisenhower and Reagan now repels the middle class. Unless and until that problem is resolved, the Republicans will continue to lose elections.
Unfortunately, the American people were given a choice between "the unfettered power of concentrated wealth" and "the unbridled power of statism". What the American people have not been give for a very long time is a third option, which seeks to avoid either extreme. I'm convinced that if they were, many would vote for this third option. Since I don't expect the Democratic party to abandon"the unbridled power of statism", the question is whether the Republican party will once again offer them something other than "the unfettered power of concentrated wealth".* If they don't, they will continue to lose.
America needs and deserves a party which offers a redistribution of power both from Washington and Wall Street, where it is now concentrated, to communities around the nation, which does not favor multi-national corporations with no allegiance other than to make its shareholders wealthier while increasing their own concentration of power and while shipping more and more jobs overseas, but instead which favors entrepreneurs who create jobs here in America and keeps them here, and which does not pander to excessive individualism in sexual or economic morality, but which promotes the best of interest of families and communities.
What we have today is two parties which each promote excessive individualism, one in sexual morality and the other in economic morality, and which both promote concentration of power, one in bureaucracies in Washington and the other in boardrooms in New York. A pox on both their houses.
* See Dwight D. Eisenhower's Labor Day Speech to the American Bar Association, delivered on September 5, 1949, in which he declared, "The straight path to America’s future . . . lies down the middle of the road between the unfettered power of concentrated wealth on one flank, and the unbridled power of statism . . . on the other. "
Unfortunately, the American people were given a choice between "the unfettered power of concentrated wealth" and "the unbridled power of statism". What the American people have not been give for a very long time is a third option, which seeks to avoid either extreme. I'm convinced that if they were, many would vote for this third option. Since I don't expect the Democratic party to abandon"the unbridled power of statism", the question is whether the Republican party will once again offer them something other than "the unfettered power of concentrated wealth".* If they don't, they will continue to lose.
America needs and deserves a party which offers a redistribution of power both from Washington and Wall Street, where it is now concentrated, to communities around the nation, which does not favor multi-national corporations with no allegiance other than to make its shareholders wealthier while increasing their own concentration of power and while shipping more and more jobs overseas, but instead which favors entrepreneurs who create jobs here in America and keeps them here, and which does not pander to excessive individualism in sexual or economic morality, but which promotes the best of interest of families and communities.
What we have today is two parties which each promote excessive individualism, one in sexual morality and the other in economic morality, and which both promote concentration of power, one in bureaucracies in Washington and the other in boardrooms in New York. A pox on both their houses.
* See Dwight D. Eisenhower's Labor Day Speech to the American Bar Association, delivered on September 5, 1949, in which he declared, "The straight path to America’s future . . . lies down the middle of the road between the unfettered power of concentrated wealth on one flank, and the unbridled power of statism . . . on the other. "
11.13.2012 | 8:09pm
Ann says:
For the most part, this article spoke a lot of truth, and echoed much of what I've thought after this election. Well articulated, Anchoress! A couple of reservations: Along with Father J., it is appropriate to mourn a great Republic, and this will happen as small, homey things we've taken for granted disappear.
My heart goes out most of all to my children, though, and it's for them I grieve. They're dedicated to God, always swam against the prevailing cultural tide, and have the capacity to think for themselves. They're in their early 20's, and their heritage (of which they're very aware, and very appreciative) has been stolen. What is ahead for them? I almost wonder if I did them a diservice for not allowing them to become like the rest of their peers. May God give them much grace, courage, and deep abiding fellowship with both the Trinity and other true Christians. There are probably other young people like them in this country; may they find and support one another.
My heart goes out most of all to my children, though, and it's for them I grieve. They're dedicated to God, always swam against the prevailing cultural tide, and have the capacity to think for themselves. They're in their early 20's, and their heritage (of which they're very aware, and very appreciative) has been stolen. What is ahead for them? I almost wonder if I did them a diservice for not allowing them to become like the rest of their peers. May God give them much grace, courage, and deep abiding fellowship with both the Trinity and other true Christians. There are probably other young people like them in this country; may they find and support one another.
11.13.2012 | 9:07pm
Blake Helgoth says:
I think that the sentiment you expressed is one I share, mourning and a refocusing on what is most important, the interior life and evangelization. This year I come to understand that the pro-life political movement was only being used as a pawn. We have been duped. I feel that as well. I also think we all sense that there is a strom a brewing and that we need to prepare. Imagine if all the energy that was put into 'pro-life' politics had been spent on the interior life and evangelization? Would we be a more pro-life country today?
11.14.2012 | 2:51am
Rick says:
Good grief! Some of the commentators above are already carving the inscription on America's tombstone! They really take Obama's reelection as being that portentious. A veritable thunderclap of doom. May I point out that the reports of America's death have been greatly exaggerated, to paraphrase Mark Twain.
Elizabeth, you come very close to the truth in this piece. You just need to nudge it a bit more until you come to the obvious conclusion that the Republican Party is no more holy than the Democratic Party.
About our youth and their education, again, beware of the old oaken bucket syndrome. There never were any "good old days." I grew up in them, and I know. My rural Texas high school was distinguished by the sheer incompetence of many of the teachers. The Kentucky school my boys have been going to is light years ahead. There are some group projects, to be sure. (And we should resist the notion that encouraging kids to learn to work on a team is a form of communist brainwashing.) But most of their work is still individual. And they are not being brainwashed with secular materialism. The football team ends each game in a big circle, holding hands, as the coach leads them in prayer.
My older son has just started college at Holy Cross and is in the ROTC because he wants to be an army officer. He is learning teamwork and submitting himself to the imperatives of a group and its leaders. As General Patton said (at least in the movie), "You can forget all that crap you read about individualism in the Saturday Evening Post."
When I touted the superior, and moral, qualities of our school system here in a comment to a recent FT article, one fellow responded by saying that my boys are probably just too embarrassed to tell me about the hours they spend in class putting condoms on cucumbers. (I was tempted to respond by telling him that our school system uses zuchinni, but thought better of it.) I bounced his comment off my teenage son, just to see what he would say. His reaction was supremely cool: "Oh, yeah...we do that a lot in school." It's interesting that nobody's mind was running in such banal directions at all until this highly religious conservative brought it up.
Your conclusion, though, is, as usual, exactly on target. We all have to divest ourselves of idolatry and pride. And one form of idolatry is an obsession with our personal nationalism. I once received what I believe was an inspired message from the Spirit. I rarely mention this, but now I will. I was young, and meditating on a glorious sunset at the beach in California. I was completely at peace, my mind idle, open, and receptive. And a message hit me as clearly as though it had been shouted with a bullhorn in my ear. Simultaneously, a thrill of pure energy and joy coursed through my body as the message shimmered in my mind: "THE WORLD IS BEING MADE READY FOR GOD!" Notice that this prophecy was not limited to any one country. It was universal. It was for all humanity. I have often pondered, in the decades since, just what it meant, how it would be fulfilled, and how long it would take. I still have no real answers to those questions. But make no doubt about it. Obama being reelected can no more impede its fulfillment than spitting on a railroad track could stop a locomotive. So, I will politely refrain from joining many of the above commentators in anticipation of a tragic dark age as a result of this little ripple in our national political life.
Elizabeth, you come very close to the truth in this piece. You just need to nudge it a bit more until you come to the obvious conclusion that the Republican Party is no more holy than the Democratic Party.
About our youth and their education, again, beware of the old oaken bucket syndrome. There never were any "good old days." I grew up in them, and I know. My rural Texas high school was distinguished by the sheer incompetence of many of the teachers. The Kentucky school my boys have been going to is light years ahead. There are some group projects, to be sure. (And we should resist the notion that encouraging kids to learn to work on a team is a form of communist brainwashing.) But most of their work is still individual. And they are not being brainwashed with secular materialism. The football team ends each game in a big circle, holding hands, as the coach leads them in prayer.
My older son has just started college at Holy Cross and is in the ROTC because he wants to be an army officer. He is learning teamwork and submitting himself to the imperatives of a group and its leaders. As General Patton said (at least in the movie), "You can forget all that crap you read about individualism in the Saturday Evening Post."
When I touted the superior, and moral, qualities of our school system here in a comment to a recent FT article, one fellow responded by saying that my boys are probably just too embarrassed to tell me about the hours they spend in class putting condoms on cucumbers. (I was tempted to respond by telling him that our school system uses zuchinni, but thought better of it.) I bounced his comment off my teenage son, just to see what he would say. His reaction was supremely cool: "Oh, yeah...we do that a lot in school." It's interesting that nobody's mind was running in such banal directions at all until this highly religious conservative brought it up.
Your conclusion, though, is, as usual, exactly on target. We all have to divest ourselves of idolatry and pride. And one form of idolatry is an obsession with our personal nationalism. I once received what I believe was an inspired message from the Spirit. I rarely mention this, but now I will. I was young, and meditating on a glorious sunset at the beach in California. I was completely at peace, my mind idle, open, and receptive. And a message hit me as clearly as though it had been shouted with a bullhorn in my ear. Simultaneously, a thrill of pure energy and joy coursed through my body as the message shimmered in my mind: "THE WORLD IS BEING MADE READY FOR GOD!" Notice that this prophecy was not limited to any one country. It was universal. It was for all humanity. I have often pondered, in the decades since, just what it meant, how it would be fulfilled, and how long it would take. I still have no real answers to those questions. But make no doubt about it. Obama being reelected can no more impede its fulfillment than spitting on a railroad track could stop a locomotive. So, I will politely refrain from joining many of the above commentators in anticipation of a tragic dark age as a result of this little ripple in our national political life.
11.14.2012 | 6:44am
Glenn says:
I mourn "America." My parents were members of the "Greatest Generation" that defeated Nazism, Bushido, and Fascism, and went on to create the Shining City on the Hill that was America after the Second World War. Their profound grief at the moral and civic decline of America would be inconsolable. It is a mercy that they have not lived to see the decline of their beloved America.
In their time, their commitment to moderate conservatism, to individual competence and contribution, was always tempered by their straightforward Christian humanity. For twenty years following the war, their generation worked toward their shared vision of a decent society. Life seemed (as the Beach Boys sang) to offer Fun, Fun, Fun, and endless progress toward perfection (remember friendly Mr Atom on Mickey Mouse Club?).
As a young person, I was fortunate to perceive that I was living in a Golden Age. But then, our Baby Boomer generation, mostly seeking little beyond its own gratification, spoiled and coddled children that we are, turned away from what our parents achieved, perhaps from some genuine sense of injustice of one sort or another, but also because of selfishness and pride (non-servium).
What do we learn? That the institutions of men, based on man worshipping himself, are limited and limiting, satisfying for a period, but ultimately flawed with the shortcomings of men. My father, a naval officer during the war, achieved a long and distinguished career as a scientist and chemical engineer. A man of faith, he believed that the material comfort and materialist orientation that was developing by the 1960s would seduce many into belief that they were self-sufficient and omnipotent, or at least moving in that direction, that God came to be seen as an invention that we no longer need or want. Who wants limits and accountability? A student of history, he foresaw the course that America has taken. He believed that the unpleasantness, humiliation, and deprivation of decline would force people back to God. That remains to be seen.
At the end of the day, human beings and institutions, secular and religious, fail and betray. Although humans can and do betray God, only God does not betray or mislead, as many will learn the hard way in the coming decades.
Vale America!
In their time, their commitment to moderate conservatism, to individual competence and contribution, was always tempered by their straightforward Christian humanity. For twenty years following the war, their generation worked toward their shared vision of a decent society. Life seemed (as the Beach Boys sang) to offer Fun, Fun, Fun, and endless progress toward perfection (remember friendly Mr Atom on Mickey Mouse Club?).
As a young person, I was fortunate to perceive that I was living in a Golden Age. But then, our Baby Boomer generation, mostly seeking little beyond its own gratification, spoiled and coddled children that we are, turned away from what our parents achieved, perhaps from some genuine sense of injustice of one sort or another, but also because of selfishness and pride (non-servium).
What do we learn? That the institutions of men, based on man worshipping himself, are limited and limiting, satisfying for a period, but ultimately flawed with the shortcomings of men. My father, a naval officer during the war, achieved a long and distinguished career as a scientist and chemical engineer. A man of faith, he believed that the material comfort and materialist orientation that was developing by the 1960s would seduce many into belief that they were self-sufficient and omnipotent, or at least moving in that direction, that God came to be seen as an invention that we no longer need or want. Who wants limits and accountability? A student of history, he foresaw the course that America has taken. He believed that the unpleasantness, humiliation, and deprivation of decline would force people back to God. That remains to be seen.
At the end of the day, human beings and institutions, secular and religious, fail and betray. Although humans can and do betray God, only God does not betray or mislead, as many will learn the hard way in the coming decades.
Vale America!
11.14.2012 | 8:16am
Michael PS says:
I am reminded of the words of l’abbé Laberthonnière, a hundred years ago, to those Catholics of l’Action Française who hoped for “the triumph of the Church in society.”
“The triumph of the Church in society? That would be excellent. But then, it is necessary to examine by what means our religion permits us to pursue it. Moreover, it has not been promised us. And then, it is not, perhaps, the most pressing of our tasks... Her power does not consist in giving orders, to which external obedience is required, backed up by threats or favours. Her power is to raise souls to the life above. It is to give birth to and to cultivate in consciences the supernaturalising obligation to live for God and for others, through Christ, and to pass through temporal defeats to a triumph that is timeless.
Do not indulge in childish dreams, when you have in your grasp eternal realities that invite you. Understand, all you who would triumph and reign on earth – Et nunc, reges, intellegite.”
“The triumph of the Church in society? That would be excellent. But then, it is necessary to examine by what means our religion permits us to pursue it. Moreover, it has not been promised us. And then, it is not, perhaps, the most pressing of our tasks... Her power does not consist in giving orders, to which external obedience is required, backed up by threats or favours. Her power is to raise souls to the life above. It is to give birth to and to cultivate in consciences the supernaturalising obligation to live for God and for others, through Christ, and to pass through temporal defeats to a triumph that is timeless.
Do not indulge in childish dreams, when you have in your grasp eternal realities that invite you. Understand, all you who would triumph and reign on earth – Et nunc, reges, intellegite.”
11.14.2012 | 9:36am
Bonnie Ramthun says:
Ms. Scalia, you write "conservatives" and "Republicans" when instead you should write "Roman Catholics." Roman Catholics put Obama back in office. Without their overwhelming support and vote, Obama would not be President today. Roman Catholics have abandoned their faith and voted for infanticide and tyranny. Conservatives didn't lose. Roman Catholics abandoned them, in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Colorado.
I knew we would lose at Sunday mass before the election. Our priest, a friendly and jocular Hispanic, told a joke during his sermon. "They say you need to walk a mile in another man's shoes to understand him. In Obama's case, he has to walk a mile in Romney's living room." I felt like I'd been struck openhanded across the face. Our very Catholic faith is being attacked and this priest made sure to let his parishioners know what is really important: Class warfare. Hatred of the rich. And getting "free stuff" from the government.
No, Ms. Scalia, you do not place the blame where it properly belongs. The blame is not with conservatives, the blame is with our very Church. That is where we need to begin.
I knew we would lose at Sunday mass before the election. Our priest, a friendly and jocular Hispanic, told a joke during his sermon. "They say you need to walk a mile in another man's shoes to understand him. In Obama's case, he has to walk a mile in Romney's living room." I felt like I'd been struck openhanded across the face. Our very Catholic faith is being attacked and this priest made sure to let his parishioners know what is really important: Class warfare. Hatred of the rich. And getting "free stuff" from the government.
No, Ms. Scalia, you do not place the blame where it properly belongs. The blame is not with conservatives, the blame is with our very Church. That is where we need to begin.
11.14.2012 | 10:23am
sally rogers says:
Michael PS says: I am reminded of the words of l’abbé Laberthonnière, a hundred years ago, to those Catholics of l’Action Française who hoped for “the triumph of the Church in society.”
- I say, Michael, what we are talking about is primarily the "survival" of the Church in society, not its triumph over others. By survival, I mean, its ability to govern itself and its institutions in conformity with Catholic moral and social teaching. The fact that you continue to place the American Church's difficulties within the framework of 19th century French controversies simply suggests that you do not understand the issues we are facing.
Secondly, the issues are about questions of the common good that have nothing to do with the "triumph of the Church" or giving orders backed by threats that others must obey. Are you talking about the Church's efforts to speak on behalf of the million children who will be aborted this year in our country? Should we just remain silent as they are killed? The collapse of the family - where now more than half of all children are not raised by both their parents. We are being triumphalistic in mentioning that this is not ideal? Give me a break - 19th century French disputes are not a valid framework for analyzing these questions. How about instead of quoting people who were fighting entirely different battles, you instead look at the reality of what we are facing?
- I say, Michael, what we are talking about is primarily the "survival" of the Church in society, not its triumph over others. By survival, I mean, its ability to govern itself and its institutions in conformity with Catholic moral and social teaching. The fact that you continue to place the American Church's difficulties within the framework of 19th century French controversies simply suggests that you do not understand the issues we are facing.
Secondly, the issues are about questions of the common good that have nothing to do with the "triumph of the Church" or giving orders backed by threats that others must obey. Are you talking about the Church's efforts to speak on behalf of the million children who will be aborted this year in our country? Should we just remain silent as they are killed? The collapse of the family - where now more than half of all children are not raised by both their parents. We are being triumphalistic in mentioning that this is not ideal? Give me a break - 19th century French disputes are not a valid framework for analyzing these questions. How about instead of quoting people who were fighting entirely different battles, you instead look at the reality of what we are facing?
11.14.2012 | 11:12am
Jacob Morgan says:
First of all, it is likely that the financial crisis will worsen, and that 2014 will see a conservative senate and 2016 a conservative president. Having all three might be better, in the long run, than having a President Romney who can't get anything past the Senate. Do not despair.
If there is any moral to the story, it is that the first Christians did not go forth with the Gospel to refine government to optimize prosperity or 'social justice'. They went out to save souls. Having more just governments and liberties and such were bonuses after populations were won over.
I'm a fairly recent convert to the Church (2010) and I was puzzled that every blog or website pushed either a free market vision or a quasi-socialist vision. What I really wanted was guidance on how one out to live out their faith, how is one to actually live day to day. Give up that ground and the rest of it is about how to best make people comfortable, but utterly unprepared, prior to judgement.
If there is any moral to the story, it is that the first Christians did not go forth with the Gospel to refine government to optimize prosperity or 'social justice'. They went out to save souls. Having more just governments and liberties and such were bonuses after populations were won over.
I'm a fairly recent convert to the Church (2010) and I was puzzled that every blog or website pushed either a free market vision or a quasi-socialist vision. What I really wanted was guidance on how one out to live out their faith, how is one to actually live day to day. Give up that ground and the rest of it is about how to best make people comfortable, but utterly unprepared, prior to judgement.
11.14.2012 | 1:09pm
Jaggy says:
Michael PS, thanks for your contribution on the nature-grace issue (your first comment). I find this topic a fascinating problem right now. The dilemma becomes this:
How does a country, which was founded on religious liberty and pluralism precisely because of the opposite happening in Europe and most of the world at the time, affirm a supernatural end (as opposed to a natural end) to its citizens without becoming a confessional state? In other words, if reason and natural law is not that which binds America (America, not the Church) as a country of free men of different religions and beliefs, how does the truth of faith in Christ and the Church not force a theocracy (in the best sense of the word), and not alienate those who do not have faith?
I'd love to hear your answer.
How does a country, which was founded on religious liberty and pluralism precisely because of the opposite happening in Europe and most of the world at the time, affirm a supernatural end (as opposed to a natural end) to its citizens without becoming a confessional state? In other words, if reason and natural law is not that which binds America (America, not the Church) as a country of free men of different religions and beliefs, how does the truth of faith in Christ and the Church not force a theocracy (in the best sense of the word), and not alienate those who do not have faith?
I'd love to hear your answer.
11.14.2012 | 5:58pm
Fred says:
Well, I have to confess to a bit of schadenfreude at the thought that while, as Rush Limbaugh put it, "In a country of children, Santa wins," when Santa's sack is empty and the Chinese won't lend him any more money to fill it, our liberal masters will reap the whirlwind. The children will throw an epic tantrum, and it won't be cute. Just look at Greece: paralyzing strikes, riots, the rise of neo-Nazi parties, all in our future.
11.14.2012 | 11:06pm
George Gehring says:
Your article is basically holding up "quitting" as a shining virtue. You say that our job is now to help spiritually strengthen each other. That's always been our job; but we have other jobs, like civic duty. This country is still worth fighting for, Ms. Scalia. Politics is an ugly game, and the nation is far from perfect, but that's no excuse for you to go quiver with your rosary on the sideline. Do something about it. Who says there won't be another Reagan? The nation can change. God can move mountains, and he can move the hearts of the people of this country. In the meantime, we're obliged to fight the good fight.
Here's everybody out there who isn't relieved; strong people, who won't quit just to feel a little relief.
Here's everybody out there who isn't relieved; strong people, who won't quit just to feel a little relief.
11.14.2012 | 11:43pm
Adam Baum says:
I knew we would lose at Sunday mass before the election. Our priest, a "friendly and jocular Hispanic, told a joke during his sermon. "They say you need to walk a mile in another man's shoes to understand him. In Obama's case, he has to walk a mile in Romney's living room." I felt like I'd been struck openhanded across the face. Our very Catholic faith is being attacked and this priest made sure to let his parishioners know what is really important: Class warfare. Hatred of the rich. And getting "free stuff" from the government."
I can accept a spiritual; or moral argument that supports a different conclusion than the one I reached or would reach, given the same facts and circumstances.
That is not a spiritual or moral argument.
In other vocations, I'd describe that as "conduct unbecoming". It occurred because he thinks he can indulge his prejudices with with impunity. There's a certain type of person that pursues stations in life like the clergy or professoriate because they know they have a captive audience.
If I was in that Church, I would have told him in no uncertain terms (but I'm a 6 plus foot, 245 pound gym rat, so it's difficult to not be uncertain) that his position was "conduct unbecoming" and that his job is to help bring moral and spiritual insights to life, not to foment a cardinal sin. Absent a swift apology, there would be a phone ringing in the chancery the next morning.
It might accomplish nothing, but you can bet he'd be more measured next time.
We would have had "words" after Mass
I can accept a spiritual; or moral argument that supports a different conclusion than the one I reached or would reach, given the same facts and circumstances.
That is not a spiritual or moral argument.
In other vocations, I'd describe that as "conduct unbecoming". It occurred because he thinks he can indulge his prejudices with with impunity. There's a certain type of person that pursues stations in life like the clergy or professoriate because they know they have a captive audience.
If I was in that Church, I would have told him in no uncertain terms (but I'm a 6 plus foot, 245 pound gym rat, so it's difficult to not be uncertain) that his position was "conduct unbecoming" and that his job is to help bring moral and spiritual insights to life, not to foment a cardinal sin. Absent a swift apology, there would be a phone ringing in the chancery the next morning.
It might accomplish nothing, but you can bet he'd be more measured next time.
We would have had "words" after Mass
11.15.2012 | 1:15am
edmond says:
Perhaps my post this time will be allowed. Simply put, if you put communism side by side with US democracy today, there is very little difference. In contrast with the past when the red scare was still a point of publicity leverage, Communism was the godless ideology, today Godlessness exists in both ideologies as capitalism and corruption does. The "red scare" is a thing of the past.
11.15.2012 | 3:28pm
OldWhig says:
The problem with dropping out of politics and focusing on the spiritual is that political involvement is an aspect of our service to our neighbor. You talk about a collective "we" with McMansions and stock market manipulations, but that's a myth. The people who are going to be hurt most by what's coming are ordinary working people and the poor. In the last jobs report black unemployment is at 14.3 percent and black teen unemployment is at 40.5 percent. And this administration is perfectly willing to see things get much worse for the poor in its pursuit of the Left's dream of "social justice."
It's a sad irony that many of the people who voted for Obama are going to be the ones to suffer most. I can't however say, as some conservatives are saying, "they voted for him, hope they like him." Obama voters have children, who did not vote for Obama. If this country goes over the edge economically, they are going to be the hardest hit.
I can't accept the idea that in the face of this, we should ignore politics and all turn to prayer and perhaps run soup kitchens. If Christian political involvement can even mitigate the disaster a little, then it seems obligatory.
While I'm not accusing you of this, dear Anchoress, I have to say that I get pretty impatient with Christians who speak with airy contempt of modern capitalism's achievements in just feeding people. Yes, that helps bodies and not (directly) souls. But dammit bodies are important - God wants them to be His temples and He's going to raise 'em up on the Last Day.
While I'm at it, one last comment: I know that "social justice" is an accepted term in Catholic social teaching. But as a non-Catholic friend of Roman Catholicism, let me say that you folks need to be really really clear on what that means, if not what the left means by it: an artificially contrived ideal system of social and economic relationships that can only be brought about and maintained by a massively controlling State armed with immense arbitrary power. It seems to me that Catholics confuse themselves with the term "social justice," and surely you've got an alternative name for it that goes back further than the twentieth century.
It's a sad irony that many of the people who voted for Obama are going to be the ones to suffer most. I can't however say, as some conservatives are saying, "they voted for him, hope they like him." Obama voters have children, who did not vote for Obama. If this country goes over the edge economically, they are going to be the hardest hit.
I can't accept the idea that in the face of this, we should ignore politics and all turn to prayer and perhaps run soup kitchens. If Christian political involvement can even mitigate the disaster a little, then it seems obligatory.
While I'm not accusing you of this, dear Anchoress, I have to say that I get pretty impatient with Christians who speak with airy contempt of modern capitalism's achievements in just feeding people. Yes, that helps bodies and not (directly) souls. But dammit bodies are important - God wants them to be His temples and He's going to raise 'em up on the Last Day.
While I'm at it, one last comment: I know that "social justice" is an accepted term in Catholic social teaching. But as a non-Catholic friend of Roman Catholicism, let me say that you folks need to be really really clear on what that means, if not what the left means by it: an artificially contrived ideal system of social and economic relationships that can only be brought about and maintained by a massively controlling State armed with immense arbitrary power. It seems to me that Catholics confuse themselves with the term "social justice," and surely you've got an alternative name for it that goes back further than the twentieth century.
11.15.2012 | 9:16pm
Martin Snigg says:
@Michael PS. Within Mr Lindley's blogpost http://johnhenrynewman.blogspot.com.au/2010/05/newman-and-naturegrace-debate.html is a link to Fr Mansini's judgment of Surnaturel and the nouvelle theologie.
Edward Feser's blogpost 'Point of Contact' is helpful too.
@Jaggy. Thaddeus Kozinski, and Chris Ferrara are good on your question, google them.
""The Catholic state is the natural, organic outcome of the Faith itself when it is fully lived by a people. As Hittinger reminds us, Gaudium et Spes §43 invites the laity to make it a matter of conscience that "the divine law is impressed on the affairs of the earthly city," ut lex divina in civitatis terrenae vita inscribatur. When this is done consistently on a broad scale, the normal, proper result is a Catholic society, culture, and state. The Church and her faith will be, for the majority of citizens, the point of reference for understanding themselves and the world, the framework of their daily lives, customs, arts, letters, festivities, rituals. She will be the dominant presence in the life of the individual as in the life of the community. This has never ceased to be the ideal towards which the Church strives. In an address to the Tenth International Congress of Historical Sciences in Rome in 1955, Pius XII stated: "[W]hile the Church and State have known hours and years of conflict, there were also from the time of Constantine the Great until the contemporary era and even recently, tranquil periods, often quite long ones, during which they collaborated with full understanding in the education of the same people. The Church does not hide the fact that she considers such collaboration normal, and that she regards the unity of the people in the true religion and the unanimity of action between herself and the State as ideal" (Peter Kwasniewski, "Basic Notes on the Catholic State," unpublished lecture notes, April 2006).
"Do Catholics want to pressure other Americans in power to be merely good liberals, even if that would win Catholics a short-term reprieve? Should not the Bishops consider more carefully the long-term benefit for our country of declaring the truth, in and out of season, especially when it is becoming quite clear that nothing short of mass conversion to the Gospel can save us?" http://www.cfmpl.org/blog/2012/02/17/religious-freedom-triumph-therapeutic/
First things might be Devin Rose's http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/11/12/launch-from-the-fields/
Edward Feser's blogpost 'Point of Contact' is helpful too.
@Jaggy. Thaddeus Kozinski, and Chris Ferrara are good on your question, google them.
""The Catholic state is the natural, organic outcome of the Faith itself when it is fully lived by a people. As Hittinger reminds us, Gaudium et Spes §43 invites the laity to make it a matter of conscience that "the divine law is impressed on the affairs of the earthly city," ut lex divina in civitatis terrenae vita inscribatur. When this is done consistently on a broad scale, the normal, proper result is a Catholic society, culture, and state. The Church and her faith will be, for the majority of citizens, the point of reference for understanding themselves and the world, the framework of their daily lives, customs, arts, letters, festivities, rituals. She will be the dominant presence in the life of the individual as in the life of the community. This has never ceased to be the ideal towards which the Church strives. In an address to the Tenth International Congress of Historical Sciences in Rome in 1955, Pius XII stated: "[W]hile the Church and State have known hours and years of conflict, there were also from the time of Constantine the Great until the contemporary era and even recently, tranquil periods, often quite long ones, during which they collaborated with full understanding in the education of the same people. The Church does not hide the fact that she considers such collaboration normal, and that she regards the unity of the people in the true religion and the unanimity of action between herself and the State as ideal" (Peter Kwasniewski, "Basic Notes on the Catholic State," unpublished lecture notes, April 2006).
"Do Catholics want to pressure other Americans in power to be merely good liberals, even if that would win Catholics a short-term reprieve? Should not the Bishops consider more carefully the long-term benefit for our country of declaring the truth, in and out of season, especially when it is becoming quite clear that nothing short of mass conversion to the Gospel can save us?" http://www.cfmpl.org/blog/2012/02/17/religious-freedom-triumph-therapeutic/
First things might be Devin Rose's http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/11/12/launch-from-the-fields/
11.16.2012 | 8:41am
Tim Wheeler says:
"The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world. Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned—or especially when well-intentioned—the results are dismal. The good results sought never materialize. The new problems created require even more government force as a solution. The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds." - Ron Paul in his farewell address to Congress.
When we employ government to advance Christian morals, we empower a monster who can change hands at the whim of a immoral majority.
As long as we continue to take the strategy of getting the government on our side rather than securing its neutrality, we are eroding, nay, ensuring the loss our religious freedom.
Furthermore, we erode our ability to promote government that ensures our individual freedom...
God is in control, and is the ultimate power, but when we put on the hat of a patriot, we must fight for personal freedom, even when it means that some will exercise that personal freedom to ruin their own lives.
We will fail in any attempt to create a moral government, because morality is not something a government can accomplish. It is a moral people where the church has its highest potential of success, and it's only hope is the power of the Holy Spirit working through believers,spreading His influence through society.
Only when we give up this dream of a government that represents or enforces (note the root word of "enforce") Christian values and put our political efforts towards a government that emphasizes personal freedom, can we have any hope to reclaiming the freedom that allows Christians to thrive and have significant influence on society. we must trust God and not the government. We must de-power the government on moral issues.
Christ sets us free to live a life for Him. He is the ONE, not government, who can change the direction of this country.
We've worked for decades to give the government authority and power to influence people's personal lives for the good. Now that the government is in the hands of those who will use that authority against religious beliefs and to promote what the majority believes is "good".
Surrender authority to God. Start to work on efforts to give the government less authority. That is our only hope as a country who can maintain a population that honors God.
When we employ government to advance Christian morals, we empower a monster who can change hands at the whim of a immoral majority.
As long as we continue to take the strategy of getting the government on our side rather than securing its neutrality, we are eroding, nay, ensuring the loss our religious freedom.
Furthermore, we erode our ability to promote government that ensures our individual freedom...
God is in control, and is the ultimate power, but when we put on the hat of a patriot, we must fight for personal freedom, even when it means that some will exercise that personal freedom to ruin their own lives.
We will fail in any attempt to create a moral government, because morality is not something a government can accomplish. It is a moral people where the church has its highest potential of success, and it's only hope is the power of the Holy Spirit working through believers,spreading His influence through society.
Only when we give up this dream of a government that represents or enforces (note the root word of "enforce") Christian values and put our political efforts towards a government that emphasizes personal freedom, can we have any hope to reclaiming the freedom that allows Christians to thrive and have significant influence on society. we must trust God and not the government. We must de-power the government on moral issues.
Christ sets us free to live a life for Him. He is the ONE, not government, who can change the direction of this country.
We've worked for decades to give the government authority and power to influence people's personal lives for the good. Now that the government is in the hands of those who will use that authority against religious beliefs and to promote what the majority believes is "good".
Surrender authority to God. Start to work on efforts to give the government less authority. That is our only hope as a country who can maintain a population that honors God.
12.8.2012 | 6:32am
Sue Korlan says:
Shortly before the election I felt like I was being asked whether or not I would die for America. My answer was no. America is an ephemeral human creation. If I'm going to die for something, it needs to be something important, something that lasts. That something is souls. And as a Roman Catholic I believe that we have already been told how to save souls by Our Lady speaking to three little children at Fatima. Make sacrifices. Pray the rosary. Make the First Saturdays in reparation for sins. In Austria when the church did this the Russians pulled out of the country. At both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, monasteries where the priests were dedicated to following Our Lady's requests at Fatima were spared the effects of the atomic bombs. Perhaps we should start to act on her requests and see what happens.
12.11.2012 | 10:34am
karen says:
No offense, but you're wrong. Reagan won his second term with a clear majority so much so we called it a mandate. Bill Clinton actually did the same with his second term. Obama did not, but rather through the popular vote demonstrated the deep division within America. Republicans lost because they continue to go to K Street rather than Main Street to seek solutions as currently happened when they gathered all the K Street communicators to ask why they are losing the PR battle on the fiscal cliff.
There are too many politicians who try and ride the proverbial story of how their daddy worked in the coal mines so they could have a better life, yet they have no idea how to put forward the same kind of self-sacrifice required of a good public servant. Reagan was special. He had done Hollywood, he had the power of the White House, yet he never abandonded his roots or lost the common touch. Makes his love of Kipling's poem, IF, very poignant.
There are too many politicians who try and ride the proverbial story of how their daddy worked in the coal mines so they could have a better life, yet they have no idea how to put forward the same kind of self-sacrifice required of a good public servant. Reagan was special. He had done Hollywood, he had the power of the White House, yet he never abandonded his roots or lost the common touch. Makes his love of Kipling's poem, IF, very poignant.
In other words, they accepted what Laberthonnière calls “a false theological notion of some state of pure nature and therefore imagined the state could be self-sufficient in the sense that it could be properly independent of any specifically Christian sense of justice.”
On the contrary, as Maurice Blondel, insisted, we must never forget “that one cannot think or act anywhere as if we do not all have a supernatural destiny. Because, since it concerns the human being such as he is, in concreto, in his living and total reality, not in a simple state of hypothetical nature, nothing is truly complete (boucle), even in the sheerly natural order”
Jacques Maritain, too, declared that “the knowledge of human actions and of the good conduct of the human State in particular can exist as an integral science, as a complete body of doctrine, only if related to the ultimate end of the human being . . . the rule of conduct governing individual and social life cannot therefore leave the supernatural order out of account”
Otherwise, we shall, inevitably, acquiesce in a false pluralism that is indistinguishable from the liberal privatisation of religion.