Mediatrix of All Graces

It is not uncommon to hear disdaining remarks regarding the Marian doctrine from protestants. This verifies the importance of being ready to defend the truth of the faith at a moments notice. To me, this is an overwhelming task, especially in a culture that is secularized to the point that it accepts same sex "marriage" as a legal right among other atrocities our culture has allowed.  I was having a discussion recently with a friend of mine on the very issue of beefing up your knowledge-base of defensive rebuttals against LGBT and marriage issues. We both felt the weight of the realization that you almost have to be an expert on many topics to present valid arguments.

I have realized however, that most people are not interested in respectful debate. Rather, they are more likely to get emotionally charged and blast you for not being tolerant and call you a bigot for not being accepting of someone's blatant sinful lifestyle. 

This brings up the point of needing to at least have some sort of quick response to a charge made against your belief. It is good to know many details on any given topic; whether it be an apologetic on Marian doctrines or defense of natural marriage. But it goes without saying that if you have nothing to say on any hot button topic and cannot give a cogent argument to give credence to your claim, then you simply are going to get annihilated in a conversation at the water cooler at work. 

With that said I will be posting blogs that will provide cursory responses to various issues as well as Catholic teachings to add to your truth armory. I don't intend to go into an in depth exposition and analysis of topics, but I do hope to provide solid info from sources that are tested and approved by the magisterium. That is it wont be anything new, which what us traditional Catholics prefer. Boring old never changing truth as presented by the Bible and tradition. 

My goal is to keep these post real, with few embellishments on my end. Especially, since it has been brought to my attention from a holy priest, that bloggers are to be very careful what they write, since they will be judged more strictly on the things they present. Therefore, accurate teaching is my aim and if anyone sees error, please make it known to me -I promise to receive it humbly.

The first article I will try my hand at packaging for you is the belief in the Mediatrix of all Graces.
Lets dig into it.

Scripture
The dogma of Mary as the Mediatrix of All Graces, takes its origin from the prophecy concerning Mary in Ecclesiasticus 24. It reads: “I am the mother of fair love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope. In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue. ” (Sirach 24:24–25) You can note the reference that "in me is all grace". This is the first declaration of her title.

Next, we look at the New Testament where Simeon prophesies Mary's future passion with her Son.
“And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts thoughts may be revealed” (Luke 2:35).

Tradition
There are other concepts that need to be developed before we can condense this into a short explanation. The first concepts from this later verse and the other events we read in scripture, specifically the passion with mary present, indicate her role and participation with Christ in the action of our redemption.

We also must continually remember that without Mary's work of developing Christ in her womb, nourishing Him and rearing Him, there would be no spotless victim to sacrifice.
Essentially her actions in the participation of our redemption can be juxtaposed to that of the actions of Christ in all the major events of his Ministry. Her mediation has its origin, execution and consummation in the incarnation, the life and ministry of Christ, and after His death. "Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."(CCC p969) In some particular way Mary is there in the backdrop supporting her Son whichever way is appropriate. 

Therefore, resulting in this complete participation, she is the Mediatrix of all Graces. It was Gods will and Mary's embracing of that will that made it all possible. She did not merely accept His will, but embraced it with joy and enthusiasm. "Magnificat anima mea Dominum, et exaltavit spiritus meus in Deo salutari meo". What a wonderful example for us in our sufferings, that we too should embrace God's will for us, that we can have a more abundant harvest of graces. 

"In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace."(CCC, p968)

Jesus is the new Adam and Mary the new Eve who acquired our salvation, just as the original Adam and Eve were the instruments of our removal of sanctifying grace and ultimately our restriction from Heaven (Baltimore Catechism). 

Saints
St. Bernard says “Mary most holy is His appointed steward and the generous bestower of the treasures of His mercy.” St. Louis de Montforts monumental work True Devotion to Mary is what St. John Paull II calls our guide for remaining in the limits of sound Marian doctorine, which Lumen Gentium encourages. 

Megesterium
Steven Lovison provides many quotes from Popes who have acclaimed Mary's title and role. Some of them include:
Pius VII called her “Dispensatrix of all graces.”
Pius IX tells us “God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation.”
St. Pius X, in his encyclical Ad Diem Illium which he wrote after study of the writings of St Louis de Montfort taught Mary is the “Dispensatrix of all the gifts which Jesus gained for us by His death.

Benedict XV says “together with Christ she has redeemed the human race . . . for this reason every kind of grace that we receive from the treasury of the Redemption is ministered as it were through the hands of the same sorrowful Virgin.”

"Pope Paul VI used the specific term “Mediatrix of All Graces” at least nine times and taught the doctrine indirectly in many other ways."

These are the antecedence to the title Mediatrix of all Graces. Now this dogma can be researched in great depth; which other have done, but this is the meat and potatoes of it. Could God have gained our redemption some other way? Absolutely. This was His will however, to have Mary as a key player in this act.

So if you are posed with the question:
How is Mary the Mediatrix of all Graces?

You may respond:
By her Holiness, Fiat (that is her embracing of Gods will), raising of our Lord, her participation in our redemption by her support, and suffering with Jesus, she is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

For a more detailed explanation, see the following links:
Taylor Marshal

EWTN

http://www.fifthmariandogma.com/co-redemptrix-fifth-marian-dogma/mary-mediatrix-of-all-graces-part-ii/

www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=10176 

My goal was to be concise; however, since this doctrine is so controversial and loaded with context, I felt it needed some embelishment. 

Antigone a Model For Our Times

For those who have read some Sophocles, Antigone is a play in which a very important lesson is to be learned regarding the extent citizens are to obey civil law. I would highly recommend reading all of the plays of Sophocles because of their beauty; however, you can simply read Antigone to glean an important truth I present here, but it would be like reading only one chapter of a book. On top of that, these are great books of the western world, whose merit cant be extolled enough. 

The play culminates in act of civil disobedience by Antigone -the daughter of Oedipus Rex, in opposition to King Creon. He took over the kingdom after the exile of Oedipus, which was due to the incest he unknowingly participated in with his mother -this is the origin of the Oedipus complex. After Oedipus' exile, one of his sons perished after trying to besiege Thebes, thus inuring the penalty of not being permitted a proper burial. This edict was put forth by Creon, who vowed to put to death anyone who disobeyed him. Antigone being the victims sister, believed it a moral duty to bury her brother and was successful in doing so under the cover of night. This was quickly discovered by the King who questioned Antigone. Her response to Creon reveals the impotence of his law in comparison to Divine law. 

If a law is promulgated and that law is contradictory to a higher law, i.e. Divine  Law or Natural Law, then that law is no law at all (Aquinas). 

Similarly, we have just witnessed a new law passed by the supreme court which permits homosexuals to be married. The state has ruled that something that is immoral (homosexuality), is now moral. This is in direct opposition to both the higher laws we just spoke of. Therefore, this law is in reality no law at all; it is an error of judgement. 

Consequently, we are not obliged to follow this law. Bishop Jarrel just recently made comments on this same idea, "This ruling is irreconcilable with the nature and definition of marriage as established by Divine Law" and he encouraged people to be disobedient to it. This is a bishop who is courageously speaking out. God bless him and his diocese. 

There is a fun ending to the play Antigone , in which justice is served, but I wont spoil it for you. We however should not be cowards by accepting this new Law. We must opose it in both our speech and action. There are also numerous examples of saints in the early Church who opposed the state for unjust laws; Thomas More comes to mind. We cant do this unless we are prayed and fasted up. Not to mention we must be solid in our understanding of the truth and be ready to defend it. 

There are many reasons why this law is erroneous, but in light of the story of Antigone, we learn that it is simply no law at all, because it is not just. 

Question:

Why is the new so called gay "marriage" law wrong? 

Answer:

Because any law that is irreconcilable to a higher authority, namely natural and divine law -this law contradicts both, is in reality no law at all and we are not obliged to obey it. 

Questions on Joining the Military

Ought one join the military?

The most common answers you may hear when questioning a young person as to the motives of joining the military, range from patriotism to benefits. However, considering the current state of the world and the character of our country, one could validly question the morality of serving, based on the good that could come out of it, both individually and collectively. 

The biggest selling points recruiters advertise to people is funding for education, travel opportunities and medical benefits. Of course these are monetary improvements which do not focus on any specific moral motivation, they are simply ways in which someone can get a long better in life, which I am not opposed to. What I am leery of is the military environment and whether we are involved in a just mission. 

I want to make it clear to anyone reading this, that I was in the military and do not regret my time served. I was able to pay for school, start a family and experience many good things, which I may not have received otherwise. My motivation for joining the military were, Ill be honest not well thought out. I was sporadically attending college, was single, was moderately enticed by the travel and college benefits. Bottom line I was had no direction, didn't have the motivation for any specific goal, and thought it would be good for me to serve. I may be discrediting myself, but retrospectively, it may not have been a bad decision, but who knows. 

Virtues

The first question I have, is whether the military environment is good? Based solely on experience, this is a big maybe. There are a number of virtues one can develop in the military with the right disposition. Obedience is the first one that comes to mind. The fact is, if you do not do what you are told you will be disciplined, sometimes very severely. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), outlines all the legal mumbo jumbo which one has to follow. In my experience  many people didnt do what they were supposed to and were demoted, put in the brig, made to perform demeaning tasks etc; its just not wise to shirk the rules and believe me, many did. 

The second virtue I can comment on is Humility. If you are an enlisted, which I was, you are placed at the bottom of a large hierarchy of ranks. Those at the upper end demanded great respect; some of which earned it and others did not. This was hard for me, seeing that I had some college, and was older, and had more life experience then my peers.

But the hardest part was the monumental gap between officers and enlisted. It was just stupid the difference of pay, food, drink, and living quarters that the lowest ranking officer was entitled to compared to experience veterans. This was a hard pill to swallow seeing that another two years in college and I could have been in a similar state. I know that may sound petty, but you just had to be there. In reality some officers work very hard and worked hard to be there. However, the quality of leaders produced was not very distinguishable from any other in my opinion. 

The last virtues I will comment on are self sufficiency, which entails many smaller goods for everyday living. Most kids who sign up are fresh out of the nest with no experience in life; the military teaches you how to do many things that can help someone maintain themselves in the world. I know that I am leaving out many other good things the military can instill, but for brevity, I will leave it at this. 

Vices

Regardless of all the good effects the military can have on someone you cannot the negate the seriously depraved environment a young man or woman is placed in. If you are not concerned for maintaining your purity, then  the military is perfect for you. There is absolutely no check whatsoever on the young folks concerning pornography, hooking up both on and off the duty station, and vulgarity of speech and conduct in the working environment. If any good willed Catholic parent has a child who has inclinations in joining the military, you must understand, that even the purest and virtuous son or daughter will be bombarded by filth. In light of that onslaught even the most temperate individuals may cave. I am not just talking about porn, I am also referring to the peer pressure to visit strip clubs and engage in prostitution. It takes supernatural grace to come out of that environment unscathed. I praise God that I was able to withstand it and stay somewhat chaste in the midst of all I was exposed to. 

Promiscuity is also very rampant. The divorce rate is extremely high in the military and you regularly hear the scuttlebutt of everyone's escapades. Female soldiers are a constant distraction for the males and a high percentage of them get pregnant very soon after arriving at their first duty station. I repeat, females are a huge distraction and are very much outnumbered adding to the temptation of sexually frustrated and hormonal young males. Many incidents of rape do occur. 

The purity issue alone is reason enough for a young person to avoid the military. Not all people are effected the same by the temptation presented there, but I would say most are in at least a small way and no one should put themselves in the near occasion to sin.

There are always exceptions to the rule and one could get involved in base church services and find a group of guys who are concerned for holy things. If this is available, then I would cling for dear life to those individuals and spend as much time as possible with them; as they say "iron sharpens iron". 

A Just Mission

The second major concern for whether someone should or should not join the military is determining whether one might be forced to contribute to a war or mission, the motives of which are unjust. This is hard determine even retrospectively; people come up with tons of conspiracies regarding causes of war. Regardless of whether it is difficult to know if a war is just or not, you must ask the question, is this a just war? Gratefully, the Church has teaching on this very issue. 

The teaching of Just War Doctrine has its origin in St. Augustine of Hippo and has also been taught by other Doctors such as St. Thomas Aquinas and formally adopted by the Magisterium. It is important to note that before a nation is to conduct war, it must have exhausted all other efforts preliminarily. "[O]nce all peace efforts have failed" [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 79, 4] it is permissible to consider war.

Once it is established that force is necessary to maintain peace and justice, there are three criteria which first have to be met. These criteria are similar for any action to determine its morality. The first is the act good in itself? The use of force to maintain justice is morally licit. The second question, is the intention good? The act must not be to inflict evil for its own sake. It must have the good as its end, i.e. maintaining peace and justice. Thirdly, it must be appropriate in the circumstances. You have to consider the means and execution of for preserving justice. The Catechism states:

"1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

3. there must be serious prospects of success;

4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition" [CCC 2309].

The president or whoever is in charge must give thoughtful consideration to these questions. Lastly, a nation which uses forces to stay some evil or injustice, must consider the underlying cause of the disorder and how it came to be. The Catechism says, "Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war" [CCC 2317].

To give an example of a large scale military campaign which was condemned by the Church , was the U.S. led war in Iraq. There are varying opinions on the topic, but the Vatican was clear in its condemnation of the American invasion of Iraq. Pope St. J. P. II said in an Address to the Diplomatic Corps at the Vatican on January 13, 2003 “War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations” and reiterated that “war cannot be decided upon . . . except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions.” ThePope made it clear that he thought more negotiations could have taken place before entering Iraq, "There is still time to negotiate; there is still room for peace, it is never too late to come to an understanding and to continue discussions.”

Pope Benedict XVI commented as well giving clear indications for his predecessors judgment, "reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist,” in part because, "proportion between the possible positive consequences and the sure negative effect of the conflict was not guaranteed. On the contrary, it seems clear that the negative consequences will be greater than anything positive that might be obtained." What the popes are saying is that coming to the aid of a people who are being terrorized by their government is a good thing, but not when the amount of destruction and death cannot be recovered from. All the while not shirking the duty of rebuilding the country afterward.

It goes without saying that Saddam was a tyrant, guilty of many grievous acts; however, the means by which he was deposed were deemed excessive by the Popes. Post bellum, the pope organized for multi national aid for the rebuilding of Iraq.

With Just War Doctrine briefly laid out above, if someone decides that he wants to join the military, they also must be prudent and aware of what he may be forced to contribute to. If the person is already serving and is put in a position in which he is ordered to perform an unjust act (firing on innocent civilians), he is morally obligated to refuse. The consequences of this may not be pleasant, but acting against ones informed conscience is sinful.

I remember a fellow stationed with me who protested before his company left for deployment. He refused to participate and made a very public show of it. He informed the media and I believe was put in the brig. At the time I thought he was a coward, but he may have been justified considering it was during the campaign "Enduring Freedom".

The Church respects those who patriotically serve their country, "[i]f they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace. [Cf. Gaudium et spes 79, 5]" On the other hand as we established in the previous blog post on serving a country that is evil, you have to decide what your motivating factor is for joining. If you serve to preserve the common good of your nation and actual world peace, while getting the benefits for a college education and travel, then that is good. If you are joining simply for the thrills of war, or some other facile understanding of a country you have been deluded to believe is superior to all others (Americanism), then think again.

Too often kids out of high school, sign up for the military for the wrong reason, while not even considering the questions of preserving their sanctity and potential participation in an unjust war. As a parents, we can help guide our children in making such a huge decision. I am not against joining the military, except during certain circumstances. I heartily believe that I am a better person from my experience and time served. I would never take it back, mostly due to the fact that i would not have met my wife and now have 7 children. There are however other options to acquire college money, travel, etc., and you are no lesser of a man for not serving -you may be considered wiser.

Americanism Revisited Part 3

Patriotism


"Consequently, this very act of loving someone because he is akin or connected with us, or because he is a fellow-countryman or for any like reason that is referable to the end of charity, can be commanded by charity, so that, out of charity both eliciting and commanding, we love in more ways those who are more nearly connected with us." (ST II-II q26 a7)


You may not go so far as to call patriotism a virtue, but it is an act of charity and fidelity to country and your fellow countrymen. With all that has been said in the past two posts on Americanism, the founding fathers distaste for Catholicism, and the heresies at Americas foundation, how is a Catholic to proceed? The answer is both simple and complex. The simple answer that the speakers present is to convert the pagans around us -that includes ignorant Catholics but not exclusively. The complexity from my viewpoint is partly that even though the Church wields the truth, most of its members in america are simply nominally Catholic and many of its prelates are cowards, unwilling to teach the hard truths. 

The first thing that needs to be distinguished is what makes a state good and what makes one evil? "A country is evil to the degree which it is run according to Catholic principles"(Coulomb). We have already established that America is not a Catholic country, nor is based on Catholic principles. There are few Catholic countries today, regardless you can judge a country in the same manner you can judge a person. I don't mean whether they are going to heaven or hell, simply that you can objectively judge based your intellect the actions of a person and by further inquiry the motives of that persons actions. Similarly with a nation, you look at what it has done for itself and others to determine whether it is good. What is the ultimate good a nation can afford to perform for its citizens? The ultimate good of any person is their salvation. Have the actions of this nation perpetuated this goal in any way? What would that look like? 

Based on what was previously mentioned, if a country protects and nourishes truth -that is Catholicism, that county can be considered a good one. So, what has America done as a nation for Catholicism? Why would they do anything? More importantly, what has America as a nation done for the salvation of the souls of its citizens? America has off and on protected religious freedom for all religions, which may seem good, but it protects the rights of error and heresy in conjunction with truth. America has been involved in many wars and campaigns, the effects and motives of which are speculative and debatable. However, one thing is certain, it has never worked for any specific Catholic cause. 

An example of a good act by a Catholic country was France' campaign in Vietnam. There were a large populace of Catholics in Vietnam due to the missionary works of the Jesuits.  Vietnam had become a French protectorate because many had converted from confusion ism under Emperor Bao Dai. Catholics there were being persecuted, hence the French intervention. As we know from history, the French were defeated, and communism gained power thus splitting the nation in two -the north communists and the south remaining under the imperial rule of Bao Dai. To make a long story short, Dai invited Diem (a Catholic) to be prime minister. America instigated Diem to overthrow Dai and form a republic. This was successful and Diem lived in exile in France, later converting to Catholicism. The intervention of France was by definition a good act for Catholicism.  On the other hand Coulombe makes an interesting point that if Dai had converted while he was in power and America hadn't meddled in their politics, then it is possible that Vietnam would have instantly become a Catholic country, similar to other empires whose emperors converted -Constantine comes to mind. This is a big what if, as is the possibility that if Diem didn't overthrow the emperor, America would not have had to go to Vietnam. If we didn't betray our French allies, then there may not have been a Communist north Vietnam.

How does a Catholic perform an act of patriotism in a country which is pagan without worshiping an idol? Joining the military.The most obvious and oldest example is that of the Roman Empire. Christians were a minority and heavily persecuted, yet against all the odds converted the pagan empire and eventually  all of Europe. To show that Christians were loyal to their country, they joined the military and to the best of their ability, served honorably. Sometimes there were orders given which Christians could not obey, i.e. offering incense to Caesar. In which case, they were martyred. The Theban Legion was martyred for this in Switzerland whose relics are contained in the churches there. 

Likewise in the Empire of Japan, there were many Catholic converts as well -we can thank St. Francis Xavier for that. Again in this imperial confusion model, the citizens were forced to worship the Emperor. However, Catholics could not do this; therefore, to show their patriotism, they joined the military. Here is an interesting fact: Raphael Yamamoto, the Admiral of the Japanese fleet was Catholic and lead the bombing of Pearl Harbor. A  Catholic bombed Pearl Harbor, just as a Catholic atom bomb crew expunged Nagasaki -the center of Catholicism in Japan. 

Coulombe presents the solution for proving your patriotism and fidelity to country by joining the military. Your faith and integrity can be maintained in the military amidst great temptation; however, I am a bit at odds with this solution for many reasons. I personally, served in the military and believe that it can be a good thing. However, there are many dangers associated with this, which I don't wish to go into great detail about. This could be a good post for later. One of my parish priests has given sermons on the topic of evils actions of and within the armed forces. Many things need be considered before joining the military. Are we at war? Is the war Just? One must also consider the various temptations when in the military. 

I will sum this post with a few thoughts from the lectures: 

It has taken the massive decay in morality to uncover the false principles of our country. We can only more starkly see it, because of how much it is going down hill.This is gods way of saving us...We live in a pagan country, it's always been pagan. Bits of it are Catholic, but the false religion of the country we can have no part of it...The founding fathers were not good men. They hated Catholics and how can you be a good man and hate our religion -it is not possible....What the flag is and what it has come to represent is something awful. The right to choose to believe whatever they want to and in the name of that belief the flag is carried to all sorts of places.

Americanism Revisited Part 2 Animosity Toward Catholics

I know I mentioned the next post would be about Patriotism, however this one went long, so I decided to push it till next time. This however, sets a base for that thought.

Animosity Toward Catholics

With all that was said last post about what Americanism is and certain errors of political thought put forth in the Syllabus, it needs be discussed what this means for Catholics in America. There are few more topics of discussion that need to be addressed before we talk about what American Catholics can do practically. In order to more fully understand the standing of Catholics in regard to our government, it is important to look at the attitudes of those in charge when our independence was won.

Coulombe and Biersach provide numerous quotations from our nations founding fathers indicating the hatred they fostered toward Catholics.

Indication 1: We see in the Declaration of Independence a list of gripes the King was supposed to have done to the colonists. One of which is the following, "For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies". The neighboring province here references is Quebec. They are more specifically referencing the Quebec act of 1774, which gave the French Canadians the right to their religion, language and laws. This was a freedom from the Penal Laws of England, which were laws against Catholics. "Catholics lost not only freedom of worship, but civil rights as well; their estates, property, and sometimes even lives were at the mercy of any informer"(NewAdvent.Org). They are complaining that Catholics in Quebec have the freedom from laws which prohibit the free exercise of their Catholic religion.

Indication 2:

Continental congress (the new leaders of the revolution) September 5, 1774, drew up 3 addresses, one was addressed to England in opposition to the Quebec act (penned by John Jay). The address stated, "That a British parliament should ever consent to establish in their country (Quebec) a religion that has deluged your islands in blood and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder, and rebellion to every part of the world". Biersach goes on to make an ironic comment that in actuality this is what Protestantism did.

Indication 3:
On September 10, 1774, in a separate address to the people of Quebec congress writes "what is offered to you by the late parliament, liberty of conscience in your religion? No, God gave it to you; and the powers with which you have been and are connected, firmly stipulated for your enjoyment of it…. We are too well acquainted with the liberality of the sentiment distinguishing your nation. To imagine the difference of religion will prejudice you against a hearty amity with us." similar too the election of Kennedy, non Catholics held an understanding that Catholicism was incompatible with a republican government and would impede its development (Faith of our Fathers, Spalding; Crisis Mag. 2011). I stumbled upon Spalding's article while researching for this blog post, in it he gives a few more examples and quotes from the founding fathers; its worth a read.

Indication 4:
The next indicator is the Suffolk resolves of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, of which Boston is the major city. The aforementioned letters fell into the hands of Bishop Jean-Olivier Briand, Bishop of Quebec. He got the entire text of both letters and threatened to excommunicate any priest who cooperated with the congress. Suffolk county got together to produce the Suffolk Resolves, which state in article 10, "Catholicism is dangerous to an extreme degree to the protestant religion and to the civil rights and liberties of all Americans and therefore as men and protestant Christians we are indispensably obliged, to take all proper measure for our security. "

Indication 5:

"St. Alexander Hamilton the Great" (Coulomb), wrote a pamphlet called Full Vindication of the Measures of Congress, which states, "The affair of Canada is still worse, the Romish faith has made the established religion of the land and his majesty is placed at the head of it. The free exercise of the protestant faith is dependent upon the pleasure of the governor in head of it and council , they might as well establish popery in new York and the other colonies as they did in Canada. They had no more right to do it there than here. Your lives, your property and your religion are all at stake." Coulombe also points out that the revolution would not have succeeded without the intervention of France and Spain. Now these countries were Catholic countries at the time and because of their intervention the Penal Laws were repealed. Furthermore, Coulomb points out the insincerity of this action, considering it was one of the reasons of complaint against the King (in regard to the Quebec Act) in the Declaration which instigated the revolution in the first place. It would seem that this acquiescence indicates their desire for independence over their Creed. In consequence of the assistance provided by the French and Spanish, let us see how this may have changed their views.

Indication 6:
Ben Franklin in a letter to Ezra Styles president of Harvard University indicates his views on Christianity. He connotes, Jesus was a good moral teacher, doubts his divinity and doesn’t really care to study it since he is near death. He grants that if believing in His divinity helps you live out the moral code, then that is your privilege. He neither mentions the Church He founded nor any theology. Again He is reduced simply to a good moral teacher; this is a good indication of the deism of Franklin.

Indication 7:
Jefferson wrote to Harrison Smith on August 6, 1810, "My opinion is, that there would never have been an infidel if there had never been a priest". This is an indication of his concern for the "harmful" influence of priests. Further on in the text he states, "the artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves and who read in the system only what is really there. " It is easy to see common theme of disobedience and free thought in regard to revelation within many of these quotations.

Indication 8:
John Adams writing to Jefferson December 3, 1813, "What could be invented to debase the ancient Christian-ism that Greeks Romans Hebrews and christian faction above all the Catholics have not fraudulently imposed upon the public. Miracle after miracle has rolled down in torrents wave exceeding wave in the Catholic church, from the council of Nicea and long before, to this day." "July 16 1814, "If the Christian religion, as I understand it, or as you understand it, should maintain its ground, as I believe it will, yet Platonic, Pythagoric, Hindoo, and cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die".

On June 20, 1815 Adams to Jefferson writes, "the question before the human race is, whether the God of nature should govern the world by his own laws, or whether the priests and Kings should, rule it by fictitious miracles. Or in other words whether authority is originally in the people. Or whether it is descended for 1800 hundred years in a succession of popes and Bishops or brought down from heaven by the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove in a vial of Holy Oil.(Miracle of the coronation of King Clovis)".


On February 2, 1816 he writes to Jefferson again, "That stupendous monument of human hypocrisy and fanaticism the church of St. Peter at Rome, which was a century and a half in building, excited the ambition of Leo the X, who believed no more of the Christian religion than Diderot, to finish it; and finding St. Peter's pence insufficient, he deluged all Europe with indulgences for sale, and excited Luther to contro vert his authority to grant them. Luther, and his associates and followers, went less than half way in detecting the corruptions of Christianity, but they acquired reverence and authority among their followers almost as absolute as that of the Popes had been. To enter into details would be endless; but I agree with you, that the natural effect of science and arts is to erect public opinion into a censor, which must in some degree be respected by all."

Indication 9:
Jefferson writing to Waterhouse on June 26, 1822, "They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet. Their blasphemies have driven thinking men into infidelity, who have too hastily rejected the supposed author himself, with the horrors so falsely imputed to him. Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian. I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian." I couldn't help cringe at the juxtaposing of Catholicism with that of Islam.

As we can see regardless of the France' and Spain's assistance the animosity toward Catholics remains the same. This is the lot of references indicative of the animosity of the founders of this nation toward Catholicism. It is a long list and very telling. There were only a few places in the colonies which were somewhat tolerant of Catholics mostly located in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York. They made up about 1-2% of the population of the nation at the time. They were persecuted in some areas, and were the target of potential denial of property and civil rights unless they denounced “the dangerous and damnable doctrine that the Pope, or any other earthly authority, hath power to absolve men from their sins.(John Jay)”(Spalding). Think, if Gays can change the laws of this country the way they have, what more can the 20% of Catholics now; oh I forgot, they are Katholycs not Catholics. Even so, if we raised our voice, it wouldn't be futile. I am afraid however, the History will repeat itself with true Catholics being persecuted for the faith and not acquiescing to the idolatry and relativism of our current american culture.

The idea of America envisaged by our founding fathers was one without Catholicism. We were the red headed step child which was begrudgingly tolerated. What would have been our fate if we had won our independence without the help of France and Spain? I believe the future would have been bloody for Catholics and i'm certain the blood would not be on our hands. Needless to say, we would have defended ourselves, but against what odds? What does the future hold for a Church that is slowly dying away or at least not resembling true Catholicism. The motives of the revolution was freedom from authority, a liberality founded in free thought and a desire for self rule. A rule without the influence of King or Priest. I'm not saying there weren't abuses, I am simply saying revolution based on disobedience is erroneous.

Americanism Revisited Elucidated by Coulombe & Biersach

 

 

AMERICANISM BY BIERSACH AND COULOMBE

I have been turned onto an author and speaker named Charles A. Coulombe of late, whom is very loquacious in the subjects of Americanism, Monarchism, and other political ideas of a orthodox Catholic bent. This post will simply be a distillation of the ideas presented  by him and his cohort William L. Biersach on Americanism and the Syllabus of Errors. I want to first give a forewarning of the material presented, because it can be construed as anti-American. However, since we are "blessed" with the "right" of free speech (no one has the right to propagate error), I am not too concerned - especially since this isn't erroneous. Because the speakers jump around a bit and frequently add anecdotes of a personal and historical nature, an organization of the ideas was necessary. I do admit that my perspective and esteem for my country has dimmed due to his illumination of the defects in some of America's most valued tenets.

Americanism

What is Americanism? The simple definition would be adherence to the false dicta Americans pride themselves in, which are enumerated in the constitution. That Americas political system is superior to other nations, that the founding fathers are demi-gods, and the constitution is inerrant. This is what is fed to us from an early age in public schools, the media and our american culture. Americanism is the exclusion of God and Christ the King in the social order. Therefore it follows, that there wasn't a slow degradation of evil policies over the past three hundred years to the Sodom and Gomorrah we live in today, but a grave disorder from the very inception of our country. Granted,the decline in morality as indicated by modern legislation has snowballed since then, but the contrast increases the further these errors tend toward its logical conclusion. It would seem that our state looked much  better some decades ago, but "It is likened to the secondary stage of syphilis which looks wonderful if you are the tertiary stage.  You don’t have bits falling off and holes drilled in your head. Its great compared to the secondary stage." (Coulombe)

Im not sure when the term Americanism was actually coined, but it is mentioned by Pope Leo XIII in his letter Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae to Cardinal Gibbons in 1899. In that letter the Pope condemns a type of Catholicism which sugar coats Church teaching or removes portions of it, extols freedom of religion and sets other religions at the same level as Catholicism  -he calls this Americanism. This is the excerpt from the letter and I add comments in red and emphasis in black:

The underlying principle of these new opinions (Americanism)is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions (This same attitude and underhandedness was done to some of the documents of VII, which Michael Davies explains and proves in Pope Johns Council). Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind. The Vatican Council says concerning this point: "For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them." -Constitutio de Fide Catholica, Chapter iv.

So, as you can see any diluting of the faith as not to offend those around you and to possibly gain more converts, is false! Either they will accept it or they will reject it and if they reject it, Christe eleison. The hard truths of the Catholic faith are not easy for protestants or pagans, but to be silent is to be a coward. The pope here simply reiterates prior teachings; they are not new or made up by him.

Tolerance 

A notable error of Americanism, is America being a melting pot, the tolerance of Americans expressed toward each other and the various religions as something to be extolled. We are trained to believe that tolerance is something sought after, something that defines our civilized culture and a goal to be achieved; this idea is erroneous. In order to appreciate the error of tolerance, you must understand what it means. Tolerance is the willful acceptance of a know evil. Error is evil and thoughts have consequences, one being Hell. If we truly believe extra ecclesiam nulla salus, (outside the Church there is no salvation), that the fullness of the faith presides in the Catholic Church, and in objective truth, then tolerance isn't really something to be proud.

Americans are appalled when Muslims restrict Christians from practicing their faith. Likewise, we are aghast when tyrannical regimes suppress the propagation and free exercise of religions or ideas that are not state sanctioned. To be frank, their response to squelch their "proselytizing", is exactly what Christians should be doing, provided we believe that Christianity is the one true faith. They do this because they believe free expression is counter productive to the common good of the state and its citizens. They are working under the assumption that they are serving the better interests of its people. Similarly, we know that the errors of other religions will lead to eternal damnation and the truths of the Christian faith which are safeguarded by the Catholic Church are to be propagated and should have primary place in the state.

There are three ideas which are highlighted from the Syllabus of Errors which are the root of tolerance referenced by Biersach and Coulombe, articles 55, 15, and 16. 

55. It is evil to believe that: The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

15. It is evil to believe that: Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

16. It is evil to believe that: Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

Error 55 is basically saying that a state which separates itself from the Authority of God in its social order is wrong. Error 15 is a little more tricky. No one can be forced to believe any religion they wish; this is true and the Church teaches this. However, this error says that we do not have the freedom to choose whichever religion we deem to be true. Well, you may ask, what about "free will", are you saying the Church has taken that away? I would agree, God has given us the freedom to choose whichever religion we wish, but we do not have the freedom to define truth. Some may say well what about inquisitions, the Catholic killed many who chose to apostatize. I have not done an extensive study on the inquisitions; however, I know that the motives behind the inquisitions were good. They rooted out heresy for the greater good of the people. The Church was acting in accordance with the truth, that there is no salvation outside the Church. Later on I will touch on an interesting observation Coulombe makes in regard to history of countries which had inquisitions. Error 16 is self explanatory. It again reiterates the dogma "there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church". An interesting indicator which shows how this dogma has basically fallen away from mainstream belief, is the lack of missionary zeal to evangelize pagans today. You rarely hear of Jesuit heroes, going "forth to all nations baptizing in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit"(Jesus). People are extolled for how well they dialogue and omit truths of the faith all in the name of ecumenism. Missionary Martyrs are an almost extinct animal. Saints in times passed used to regularly pray for martyrdom, not so much now. ISIS puts us to shame on this level. As you can see some of the basic assumptions of america are flat out evil and can land you in Hell if you truly believe in them. 

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a well known phrase in the Declaration of Independence. These are our inalienable right endowed by our creator, which are government is to protect. The right to happiness according to Coloumbe and Biersach, "is not the end all be all of human existence". They emphasis our eternal existence and our final destination whether that may be. Any other emphases, results in an idea where materialism becomes our goal -pursuing the American dream of wealth as our highest end. Now, being prosperous, owning land, etc. is good and absolutely what we hope to achieve temporally, but this is not the highest good -God should be our end.

The relativism of our culture is the poison which we have all drunk -not so much verbally, but in our lack of evangelization; we are apathetic Catholics. Catholics are supposed to believe in objective truth -the truths of Christ and His Church. If we do not fulfill some of His obligations, then we are damned. This may sound like legalism, but it is Christ's command. If these truths are not spoken to those without the Ark of Salvation, we commit sin. "Relativism is madness. Madness is not conforming the will to reality. Or which is like saying there is no objective reality to conform the will to.  That is absolute nuttiness" (Coulombe).

I had a conversation with a coworker not long ago that was the most classic cookie cutter example of relativism you could find in a Christian apologetics book. I wont narrate the conversation, but the kicker line was "well that's your truth". When they said this, I realized I had a real-live relativist in my midst. This was both exciting and shocking. I believe I responded with the philosophical law of non-contradiction, but it pretty much just bounced off. I give this anecdote simply to say that there may be a relativist right under your nose -heck you might be a relativist. Don't just assume professed "kristians" are going to be sane either.

Lastly, we must see Americanism for what it is -Idolatry. To worship anything other than God is idolatry; this is evil. It is evil to worship ones country. This is akin to animism, worshiping the spirits of trees and animals, i.e. natural religion found in native cultures. This degenerates to worship of self, its motto being non serviam (I will not serve). Americanism is subverted worship of country and as we know all religions require some form of sacrifice to its God. Will you place the pinch of incense on the coals for your country?

Stay tuned for the next part of this series on patriotism.