Whether this Man, Christ, began to be?

 

 

We must not say that “this Man”—pointing to Christ—“began to be,” unless we add something. And this for a twofold reason. First, for this proposition is simply false, in the judgment of the Catholic Faith, which affirms that in Christ there is one suppositum and one hypostasis, as also one Person. For according to this, when we say “this Man,” pointing to Christ, the eternal suppositum is necessarily meant, with Whose eternity a beginning in time is incompatible. Hence this is false: “This Man began to be.” Nor does it matter that to begin to be refers to the human nature, which is signified by this word “man”; because the term placed in the subject is not taken formally so as to signify the nature, but is taken materially so as to signify the suppositum, as was said (Article 1, Reply to Objection 4). Secondly, because even if this proposition were true, it ought not to be made use of without qualification; in order to avoid the heresy of Arius, who, since he pretended that the Person of the Son of God is a creature, and less than the Father, so he maintained that He began to be, saying “there was a time when He was not.”

The words quoted must be qualified, i.e. we must say that the Man Jesus Christ was not, before the world was, “in His humanity.”

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Part III Question 16, Article 9)

Once democracy becomes the object of propa­ganda, it also becomes totalitarian

 

 

What is this democracy that no longer includes minorities and opposition? As long as democracy is merely the interplay of parties, there can be opposition; but when we hear of a massive democracy, with grandiose ceremonies in which the people participate at the prompting of the State, that signifies, first of all, a confusion between the government and the State, and indicates further that anyone who does not participate is not merely in opposition, but excludes himself from the national com­munity expressing itself in this participation. It is a truly ex­traordinary transformation of the democratic structure, because there can no longer be any respect for the minority opposition to the State—an opposition that, lacking the means of propaganda —or at least any means that can compete with those of the State— can no longer make its voice heard.

The minority is heard even less because the effects of the myth, inflated by propaganda, are always the same and always antidemocratic. Anyone who participates in such a socio-political body and is imbued with the truth of the myth, necessarily be­comes sectarian. Repeated so many times, being driven in so many different forms into the propagandee’s subconscious, this truth, transmitted by propaganda, becomes for every participant an absolute truth, which cannot be discussed without lies and distortion. Democratic peoples are not exempt from what is vaguely called “psychoses.” But such propaganda, if it is effective, predisposes people to—or even causes—these psychoses.  

If the people do not believe in the myth, it cannot serve to com­bat totalitarian propaganda; but if the people do believe in it, they are victims of these myths, which, though democratic on the surface, have all the traits of all other myths, particularly the impossibility, in the eyes of believers, of being questioned. But this tends to eliminate all opposing truth, which is immediately called “error.” Once democracy becomes the object of propa­ganda, it also becomes as totalitarian, authoritarian, and exclusive as dictatorship.
 

Jacques Ellul, Propaganda (pp. 248-9)

A few very powerful companies control all the propaganda media

It is argued that the first condition would be met by the absence of a monopoly (in a democracy) of the means of propaganda, and by the free interplay of various propagandas. True, compared with the State monopoly and the unity of propaganda in totali­tarian States, one finds a great diversity of press and radio in democratic countries. But this fact must not be stressed too much: although there is no State or legal monopoly, there is, nevertheless, indeed a private monopoly. Even where there are many newspaper publishers, concentration as a result of “newspaper chains” is well established, and the monopolization of news agen­cies, of distribution and so on, is well known. In the field of radio or of motion pictures the same situation prevails: obviously not everybody can own propaganda media. In the United States, most radio and motion picture corporations are very large. The others are secondary and unable to compete, and centralization still goes on. The trend everywhere is in the direction of a very few, very powerful companies controlling all the propaganda media. Are they still private? In any event, as we have already seen, the State must make its propaganda, if only under the aspect of disseminat­ing news.

Jacques Ellul, Propaganda (pp. 236-7)

How a world of closed minds establishes itself

 

 

This double foray on the part of propaganda, proving the excellence of one’s own group and the evilness of the others, produces an increasingly stringent partitioning of our society. This partitioning takes place on different levels—-a unionist parti­tioning, a religious partitioning, a partitioning of political parties or classes; beyond that, a partitioning of nations, and, at the summit, a partitioning of blocs of nations. But this diversity of levels and objectives in no way changes the basic law, according to which the more propaganda there is, the more partitioning there is. For propaganda suppresses conversation; the man op­posite is no longer an interlocutor but an enemy. And to the extent that he rejects that role, the other becomes an unknown whose words can no longer be understood. Thus, we see before our eyes how a world of closed minds establishes itself, a world in which everybody talks to himself, everybody constantly reviews his own certainty about himself and the wrongs done him by the Others—a world in which nobody listens to anybody else, everybody talks, and nobody listens. And the more one talks, the more one isolates oneself, because the more one accuses others and justifies oneself.

Jacques Ellul, Propaganda (pp. 213-14)

The Big Propaganda Party is a Menace to Democracy

 

 

A single party takes big propaganda action while the others cannot regroup or put into operation the necessary big apparatus because they lack money, people, or­ganization. From then on, we see such a party rise like a rocket, as Hitler's party did in Germany in 1932, or the Communist parties in France and Italy in 1945. This is clearly a menace to democracy; we are face to face with an overwhelmingly strong party that will capture the government. This party continues to grow stronger as it becomes richer and assumes more solid propa­ganda foundations. It definitely jeopardizes the democratic sys­tem, even if it has no dictatorial ambitions; for the other parties, incapable of regaining the mass of those 75 percent (more or less) undecided, are increasingly unable to use big propaganda.

Jacques Ellul, Propaganda (p. 218) 

 

Christ brings life and immortality to light through the gospel

 

 

Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God; Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles. For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

2 Timothy 1:8-12, King James Version (1611)

Non enim dedit nobis Deus spiritum timoris : sed virtutis, et dilectionis, et sobrietatis. Noli itaque erubescere testimonium Domini nostri, neque me vinctum ejus : sed collabora Evangelio secundum virtutem Dei : qui nos liberavit, et vocavit vocatione sua sancta, non secundum opera nostra, sed secundum propositum suum, et gratiam, quae data est nobis in Christo Jesu ante tempora saecularia. Manifestata est autem nunc per illuminationem Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi, qui destruxit quidem mortem, illuminavit autem vitam, et incorruptionem per Evangelium : in quo positus sum ego praedicator, et Apostolus, et magister gentium. Ob quam causam etiam haec patior, sed non confundor. Scio enim cui credidi, et certus sum quia potens est depositum meum servare in illum diem.

2 Timothy 1:8-12, Clementine Vulgate (1592)

μὴ οὖν ἐπαισχυνθῇς τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν μηδὲ ἐμὲ τὸν δέσμιον αὐτοῦ ἀλλὰ συγκακοπάθησον τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ κατὰ δύναμιν θεοῦ τοῦ σώσαντος ἡμᾶς καὶ καλέσαντος κλήσει ἁγίᾳ οὐ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν ἀλλὰ κατ' ἰδίαν πρόθεσιν καὶ χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων φανερωθεῖσαν δὲ νῦν διὰ τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καταργήσαντος μὲν τὸν θάνατον φωτίσαντος δὲ ζωὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος καὶ διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν δι' ἣν αἰτίαν καὶ ταῦτα πάσχω· ἀλλ' οὐκ ἐπαισχύνομαι οἶδα γὰρ ᾧ πεπίστευκα καὶ πέπεισμαι ὅτι δυνατός ἐστιν τὴν παραθήκην μου φυλάξαι εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν

2 Timothy 1:8-12, Textus Receptus (Stephanus 1550)

It was necessary for man's salvation that God should become incarnate

What frees the human race from perdition is necessary for the salvation of man. But the mystery of Incarnation is such; according to John 3:16: “God so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.” Therefore it was necessary for man's salvation that God should become incarnate.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Part III, Question 1, Article 2)

The intellect is led astray to falsehood by the semblance of truth

 

As the good is in relation to things, so is the true in relation to knowledge. Now in things it is impossible to find one that is wholly devoid of good. Wherefore it is also impossible for any knowledge to be wholly false, without some mixture of truth. Hence Bede says that “no teaching is so false that it never mingles truth with falsehood.” Hence the teaching of the demons, with which they instruct their prophets, contains some truths whereby it is rendered acceptable. For the intellect is led astray to falsehood by the semblance of truth, even as the will is seduced to evil by the semblance of goodness. Wherefore Chrysostom says: “The devil is allowed sometimes to speak true things, in order that his unwonted truthfulness may gain credit for his lie.”

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (II-II, Question 172, Article 6)

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly

 

Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

Colossians 3:12-17 (King James Version)

Induite vos ergo, sicut electi Dei, sancti, et dilecti, viscera misericordiae, benignitatem, humilitatem, modestiam, patientiam : supportantes invicem, et donantes vobismetipsis si quis adversus aliquem habet querelam : sicut et Dominus donavit vobis, ita et vos.  Super omnia autem haec, caritatem habete, quod est vinculum perfectionis : et pax Christi exsultet in cordibus vestris, in qua et vocati estis in uno corpore : et grati estote. Verbum Christi habitet in vobis abundanter, in omni sapientia, docentes, et commonentes vosmetipsos, psalmis, hymnis, et canticis spiritualibus, in gratia cantantes in cordibus vestris Deo. Omne, quodcumque facitis in verbo aut in opere, omnia in nomine Domini Jesu Christi, gratias agentes Deo et Patri per ipsum.

Colossians 3:12-17 (Clementine Vulgate)

Ἐνδύσασθε οὖν ὡς ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ ἅγιοι καὶ ἠγαπημένοι σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμῶν, χρηστότητα ταπεινοφροσύνην πρᾳότητα, μακροθυμίαν ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων καὶ χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς ἐάν τις πρός τινα ἔχῃ μομφήν· καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἐχαρίσατο ὑμῖν οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς· ἐπὶ πᾶσιν δὲ τούτοις τὴν ἀγάπην ἥτις ἐστιν σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ Θεοῦ βραβευέτω ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν εἰς ἣν καὶ ἐκλήθητε ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι· καὶ εὐχάριστοι γίνεσθε ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνοικείτω ἐν ὑμῖν πλουσίως ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ διδάσκοντες καὶ νουθετοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς ἐν χάριτι ᾄδοντες ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ καὶ πᾶν ὅ τι ἂν ποιῆτε ἐν λόγῳ ἢ ἐν ἔργῳ πάντα ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου Ἰησοῦ εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ δι' αὐτοῦ

Colossians 3:12-17 (Textus Receptus; Stephanus 1550)

God’s Remedy for Pride

Just as in syllogisms that lead to an impossible conclusion one is sometimes convinced by being faced with a more evident absurdity, so too, in order to overcome their pride, God punishes certain men by allowing them to fall into sins of the flesh, which though they be less grievous are more evidently shameful. Hence Isidore says (De Summo Bono ii, 38) that “pride is the worst of all vices; whether because it is appropriate to those who are of highest and foremost rank, or because it originates from just and virtuous deeds, so that its guilt is less perceptible. on the other hand, carnal lust is apparent to all, because from the outset it is of a shameful nature: and yet, under God's dispensation, it is less grievous than pride. For he who is in the clutches of pride and feels it not, falls into the lusts of the flesh, that being thus humbled he may rise from his abasement.”  

From this indeed the gravity of pride is made manifest. For just as a wise physician, in order to cure a worse disease, allows the patient to contract one that is less dangerous, so the sin of pride is shown to be more grievous by the very fact that, as a remedy, God allows men to fall into other sins.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (II-II, Question 162, Article 6, Reply to Objection 3)

Living in Truth

 

What did it mean to live by lies? It meant, [Aleksander] Solzhenitsyn writes, accepting without protest all the falsehoods and propaganda that the state compelled its citizens to affirm—or at least not to oppose—to get along peaceably under totalitarianism. Everybody says that they have no choice but to conform, says Solzhenitsyn, and to accept powerlessness. But that is the lies that gives all other lies their malign force. The ordinary man may not be able to overturn the kingdom of lies, but he can at least say that he is not going to be its loyal subject.

“We are not called upon to step out onto the square and shout out the truth, to say out loud what we think—this is scary, we are not ready,” he writes. “But let us at least refuse to say what we do not think.”

For example, says Solzhenitsyn, a man who refuses to live by lies:

• Will not say, write, affirm, or distribute anything that distorts the truth

• Will not go to a demonstration or participate in a collective action unless he truly believes in the cause

• Will not take part in a meeting in which the discussion is forced and no one can speak the truth

• Will not vote for a candidate or proposal he considers to be “dubious or unworthy”

• Will walk out of an event “as soon as he hears the speaker utter a lie, ideological drivel, or shameless propaganda”

• Will not support journalism that “distorts or hides the underlying facts”

“This is by no means an exhaustive list of the possible and necessary ways of evading lies,” Solzhenitsyn writes. “But he who begins to cleanse himself will, with a cleansed eye, easily discern yet other opportunities.

Rod Dreher, Live Not By Lies: A Manual For Christian Dissidents (pp. 17-18)

++++

Rod Dreher on Live Not by Lies - Full Episode https://youtu.be/caQsreT755w

“Live Not By Lies” by Alexander Solzhenitsyn (from Livestream #49) https://youtu.be/Mw0A8jXRSGQ  

Live Not By Lies, by Alexander Solzhenitsyn http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/SolhenitsynLies.php

Whether perseverance needs the help of grace?

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Persev. i): “We hold that perseverance is a gift of God, whereby we persevere unto the end, in Christ.”

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 2; Article 2, Reply to Objection 3), perseverance has a twofold signification. First, it denotes the habit of perseverance, considered as a virtue. On this way it needs the gift of habitual grace, even as the other infused virtues. Secondly, it may be taken to denote the act of perseverance enduring until death: and in this sense it needs not only habitual grace, but also the gratuitous help of God sustaining man in good until the end of life, as stated above (I-II:109:10), when we were treating of grace. Because, since the free-will is changeable by its very nature, which changeableness is not taken away from it by the habitual grace bestowed in the present life, it is not in the power of the free-will, albeit repaired by grace, to abide unchangeably in good, though it is in its power to choose this: for it is often in our power to choose yet not to accomplish.

Reply to Objection 1. The virtue of perseverance, so far as it is concerned, inclines one to persevere: yet since it is a habit, and a habit is a thing one uses at will, it does not follow that a person who has the habit of virtue uses it unchangeably until death.

Reply to Objection 2. As Augustine says (De Correp. et Grat. xi), “it was given to the first man, not to persevere, but to be able to persevere of his free-will: because then no corruption was in human nature to make perseverance difficult. Now, however, by the grace of Christ, the predestined receive not only the possibility of persevering, but perseverance itself. Wherefore the first man whom no man threatened, of his own free-will rebelling against a threatening God, forfeited so great a happiness and so great a facility of avoiding sin: whereas these, although the world rage against their constancy, have persevered in faith.”

Reply to Objection 3. Man is able by himself to fall into sin, but he cannot by himself arise from sin without the help of grace. Hence by falling into sin, so far as he is concerned man makes himself to be persevering in sin, unless he be delivered by God's grace. On the other hand, by doing good he does not make himself to be persevering in good, because he is able, by himself, to sin: wherefore he needs the help of grace for that end.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (II-II, Question 137, Article 4)

The past was brought up to date...

 

 As soon as Winston had dealt with each of the messages, he clipped his speakwritten corrections to the appropriate copy of ‘The Times’ and pushed them into the pneumatic tube. Then, with a movement which was as nearly as possible unconscious, he crumpled up the original message and any notes that he himself had made, and dropped them into the memory hole to be devoured by the flames.

What happened in the unseen labyrinth to which the pneumatic tubes led, he did not know in detail, but he did know in general terms. As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of ‘The Times’ had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in its stead. This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs — to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct, nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary. In no case would it have been possible, once the deed was done, to prove that any falsification had taken place. The largest section of the Records Department, far larger than the one on which Winston worked, consisted simply of persons whose duty it was to track down and collect all copies of books, newspapers, and other documents which had been superseded and were due for destruction. A number of ‘The Times’ which might, because of changes in political alignment, or mistaken prophecies uttered by Big Brother, have been rewritten a dozen times still stood on the files bearing its original date, and no other copy existed to contradict it. Books, also, were recalled and rewritten again and again, and were invariably reissued without any admission that any alteration had been made. Even the written instructions which Winston received, and which he invariably got rid of as soon as he had dealt with them, never stated or implied that an act of forgery was to be committed: always the reference was to slips, errors, misprints, or misquotations which it was necessary to put right in the interests of accuracy.

George Orwell, 1984 (Chapter 4)

A brave man behaves well in face of danger

 

Image: Thomas Aquinas

I answer that, As stated above (Article 4), fortitude strengthens a man's mind against the greatest danger, which is that of death. Now fortitude is a virtue; and it is essential to virtue ever to tend to good; wherefore it is in order to pursue some good that man does not fly from the danger of death…

Moreover, a brave man behaves well in face of danger of any other kind of death; especially since man may be in danger of any kind of death on account of virtue: thus may a man not fail to attend on a sick friend through fear of deadly infection, or not refuse to undertake a journey with some godly object in view through fear of shipwreck or robbers.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (II-II, Question 123, Article 5)

Pledge of the Legion of Decency (1934)

 

PLEDGE OF THE LEGION OF DECENCY (1934)

I wish to Join the Legion of Decency, which condemns vile and unwholesome moving pictures. I unite with all who protest against them as a grave menace to youth, to home life, to country and to religion. I condemn absolutely those salacious motion pictures which, with other degrading agencies, are corrupting public morals and promoting a sex mania in our land. I shall do all that I can to arouse public opinion against the portrayal of vice as a normal condition of affairs, and against depicting criminals of any class as heroes and heroines, presenting their filthy philosophy of life as something acceptable to decent men and women. I unite with all who condemn the display of suggestive advertisements on billboards, at theater entrances and in newspapers and the favorable reviews often given to immoral motion pictures in the daily press. Considering these evils. I hereby promise to remain away from all motion pictures except those which do not offend decency and Christian morality. I promise further to secure as many members as possible for the Legion of Decency. I make this protest in a spirit of self-respect, and with the conviction that the American public does not demand filthy pictures, but clean entertainment and educational features. 

Name:__________________________

No dues whatever for the Legion of Decency. 

No meetings. 

Millions of Americans, pledging themselves individually, can rid the country of its greatest menace—the salacious motion picture. 

Source: here

The image of Toxic Waters is taken from the book: Hollywood's Censor: Joseph I. Breen & The Production Code Administration, by Thomas Doherty (page 59).

Whether we ought to pray for sinners?

We ought to pray even for sinners, that they may be converted, and for the just that they may persevere and advance in holiness. Yet those who pray are heard not for all sinners but for some: since they are heard for the predestined, but not for those who are foreknown to death; even as the correction whereby we correct the brethren, has an effect in the predestined but not in the reprobate, according to Ecclesiastes 7:14, “No man can correct whom God hath despised.” Hence it is written (1 John 5:16): “He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death.” Now just as the benefit of correction must not be refused to any man so long as he lives here below, because we cannot distinguish the predestined from the reprobate, as Augustine says (De Correp. et Grat. xv), so too no man should be denied the help of prayer.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (II-II Question 83, Article 7, Reply to Objection 3)

Whether one is guilty of murder through killing someone by chance?

Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): “When we do a thing for a good and lawful purpose, if thereby we unintentionally cause harm to anyone, it should by no means be imputed to us.” Now it sometimes happens by chance that a person is killed as a result of something done for a good purpose. Therefore the person who did it is not accounted guilty.

According to the Philosopher (Phys. ii, 6) “chance is a cause that acts beside one's intention.” Hence chance happenings, strictly speaking, are neither intended nor voluntary. And since every sin is voluntary, according to Augustine (De Vera Relig. xiv) it follows that chance happenings, as such, are not sins.

Nevertheless it happens that what is not actually and directly voluntary and intended, is voluntary and intended accidentally, according as that which removes an obstacle is called an accidental cause. Wherefore he who does not remove something whence homicide results whereas he ought to remove it, is in a sense guilty of voluntary homicide. This happens in two ways: first when a man causes another’s death through occupying himself with unlawful things which he ought to avoid: secondly, when he does not take sufficient care. Hence, according to jurists, if a man pursue a lawful occupation and take due care, the result being that a person loses his life, he is not guilty of that person's death: whereas if he be occupied with something unlawful, or even with something lawful, but without due care, he does not escape being guilty of murder, if his action results in someone's death.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (II-II, Question 64, Article 8)

Whether it is lawful to kill oneself?

Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 20): “Hence it follows that the words ‘Thou shalt not kill’ refer to the killing of a man—not another man; therefore, not even thyself. For he who kills himself, kills nothing else than a man.”

It is altogether unlawful to kill oneself, for three reasons. First, because everything naturally loves itself, the result being that everything naturally keeps itself in being, and resists corruptions so far as it can. Wherefore suicide is contrary to the inclination of nature, and to charity whereby every man should love himself. Hence suicide is always a mortal sin, as being contrary to the natural law and to charity. Secondly, because every part, as such, belongs to the whole. Now every man is part of the community, and so, as such, he belongs to the community. Hence by killing himself he injures the community, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. v, 11). Thirdly, because life is God's gift to man, and is subject to His power, Who kills and makes to live. Hence whoever takes his own life, sins against God, even as he who kills another's slave, sins against that slave's master, and as he who usurps to himself judgment of a matter not entrusted to him. For it belongs to God alone to pronounce sentence of death and life, according to Deuteronomy 32:39, “I will kill and I will make to live.”

Murder is a sin, not only because it is contrary to justice, but also because it is opposed to charity which a man should have towards himself: in this respect suicide is a sin in relation to oneself. On relation to the community and to God, it is sinful, by reason also of its opposition to justice.

One who exercises public authority may lawfully put to death an evil-doer, since he can pass judgment on him. But no man is judge of himself. Wherefore it is not lawful for one who exercises public authority to put himself to death for any sin whatever: although he may lawfully commit himself to the judgment of others.

Man is made master of himself through his free-will: wherefore he can lawfully dispose of himself as to those matters which pertain to this life which is ruled by man's free-will. But the passage from this life to another and happier one is subject not to man's free-will but to the power of God. Hence it is not lawful for man to take his own life that he may pass to a happier life, nor that he may escape any unhappiness whatsoever of the present life, because the ultimate and most fearsome evil of this life is death, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. iii, 6). Therefore to bring death upon oneself in order to escape the other afflictions of this life, is to adopt a greater evil in order to avoid a lesser. On like manner it is unlawful to take one's own life on account of one's having committed a sin, both because by so doing one does oneself a very great injury, by depriving oneself of the time needful for repentance, and because it is not lawful to slay an evildoer except by the sentence of the public authority. Again it is unlawful for a woman to kill herself lest she be violated, because she ought not to commit on herself the very great sin of suicide, to avoid the lesser sin of another. For she commits no sin in being violated by force, provided she does not consent, since “without consent of the mind there is no stain on the body,” as the Blessed Lucy declared. Now it is evident that fornication and adultery are less grievous sins than taking a man's, especially one's own, life: since the latter is most grievous, because one injures oneself, to whom one owes the greatest love. Moreover it is most dangerous since no time is left wherein to expiate it by repentance. Again it is not lawful for anyone to take his own life for fear he should consent to sin, because “evil must not be done that good may come”  (Romans 3:8) or that evil may be avoided especially if the evil be of small account and an uncertain event, for it is uncertain whether one will at some future time consent to a sin, since God is able to deliver man from sin under any temptation whatever.

As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 21), “not even Samson is to be excused that he crushed himself together with his enemies under the ruins of the house, except the Holy Ghost, Who had wrought many wonders through him, had secretly commanded him to do this.”  He assigns the same reason in the case of certain holy women, who at the time of persecution took their own lives, and who are commemorated by the Church.

It belongs to fortitude that a man does not shrink from being slain by another, for the sake of the good of virtue, and that he may avoid sin. But that a man take his own life in order to avoid penal evils has indeed an appearance of fortitude (for which reason some, among whom was Razias, have killed themselves thinking to act from fortitude), yet it is not true fortitude, but rather a weakness of soul unable to bear penal evils, as the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 7) and Augustine (De Civ. Dei 22,23) declare.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (II-II Question 65 Article 5)

Disciples of ‘The Science’ are hostile to the free and open exchange of views

Statements like ‘The Science says’ serve as the twenty-first-century equivalent of the exhortation ‘God said.’ Unlike science, the term ‘The Science’ serves a moralistic and political project. It has more in common with a pre-modern revealed truth than with the spirit of experimentation that emerged with modernity. The constant refrain of ‘Scientists Tell Us’ serves as a prelude for a lecture on what threat to fear.

The use of the term ‘The Science’ in public debate expresses its advocates’ insecurity with the absence of certainty. This leads to a defensive posture where scientists are reluctant to entertain the possibility that they might be wrong and that their critics might have a point. Sadly, a science that cannot work with the assumption that it might be wrong has more in common with a religious dogma than with open-ended experimentation. Such moralization of the imperative of fear has important implications for the conduct of public life. By representing scepticism and criticism as a threat that deserves to be feared, disciples of The Science set in motion a cultural dynamic that is inherently hostile to the free and open exchange of views. As we explain later, a palpable sense of intolerance towards freedom, particularly towards free speech, is intimately connected to the working of the culture of fear.

Frank Furedi, How Fear Works: Culture of Fear in the 21st Century (p. 144)

Fear appeals are instruments for influencing behavior

Fear appeals are often used as a tactic to raise attention to an issue and scare people into action. They are now widely recognized by publicists, campaigners, politicians and fear entrepreneurs as a legitimate instrument for influencing behavior. According to one study, a fear appeal ‘is recognized as a distinctive type of argumentation by empirical researchers, who see it as a kind of argument used to threaten a target audience with a fearful outcome (most typically that outcome is the likelihood of death) in order to get the audience to adopt a recommended response.’ Like Plato’s Noble Lie, fear appeals are justified on the grounds that regardless of the facts, they reveal a higher truth. Fear promotion is advocated because ‘fear could be beneficial not only for the way it encouraged people to act in safer ways: it could also promote more “civilized” behavior.’  

Frank Furedi, How Fear Works: Culture of Fear in the 21st Century, (p. 99)

When uncertainty acquires unprecedented power and fuels a sense of fear

The belief that the future will be an unfamiliar and alien territory has acquired the status of cultural dogma. The future is always uncertain but when it appears totally unfamiliar, society has great difficulty in preparing itself for it. In many historical circumstances, communities at least possessed a map that roughly outlined a vision of the future; and even if the map proved to be inaccurate, it allowed people to imagine different possible outcomes. When the future ceases to resemble the present, our sense of uncertainty is no longer mediated through an explanatory framework that can help interpret it and give it meaning. In such circumstances, uncertainty may acquire unprecedented power and fuel a sense of fear.

Frank Furedi, How Fear Works: Culture of Fear in the 21st Century (p. 83)

Whether guile is a sin pertaining to craftiness?

Craftiness aims at lying in wait, according to Ephesians 4:14, “By cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive”: and guile aims at this also. Therefore guile pertains to craftiness.

As stated above (Article 3), it belongs to craftiness to adopt ways that are not true but counterfeit and apparently true, in order to attain some end either good or evil. Now the adopting of such ways may be subjected to a twofold consideration; first, as regards the process of thinking them out, and this belongs properly to craftiness, even as thinking out right ways to a due end belongs to prudence. Secondly the adopting of such like ways may be considered with regard to their actual execution, and in this way it belongs to guile. Hence guile denotes a certain execution of craftiness, and accordingly belongs thereto.

Just as craftiness is taken properly in a bad sense, and improperly in a good sense, so too is guile which is the execution of craftiness.

The execution of craftiness with the purpose of deceiving, is effected first and foremost by words, which hold the chief place among those signs whereby a man signifies something to another man, as Augustine states (De Doctr. Christ. ii, 3), hence guile is ascribed chiefly to speech. Yet guile may happen also in deeds, according to Psalm 104:25, “And to deal deceitfully with his servants.” Guile is also in the heart, according to Sirach 19:23, “His interior is full of deceit,” but this is to devise deceits, according to Psalm 37:13: “They studied deceits all the day long.”

Whoever purposes to do some evil deed, must needs devise certain ways of attaining his purpose, and for the most part he devises deceitful ways, whereby the more easily to obtain his end. Nevertheless it happens sometimes that evil is done openly and by violence without craftiness and guile; but as this is more difficult, it is of less frequent occurrence.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (II-II Question 55, Article 4)

Sedition is opposed to the unity and peace of a people

Image: Statue of George Washington toppled in Portland, OR (Eric Patterson/KGW)

Sedition is a special sin, having something in common with war and strife, and differing somewhat from them. It has something in common with them, in so far as it implies a certain antagonism, and it differs from them in two points. First, because war and strife denote actual aggression on either side, whereas sedition may be said to denote either actual aggression, or the preparation for such aggression. Hence a gloss on 2 Corinthians 12:20 says that “seditions are tumults tending to fight,” when, to wit, a number of people make preparations with the intention of fighting. Secondly, they differ in that war is, properly speaking, carried on against external foes, being as it were between one people and another, whereas strife is between one individual and another, or between few people on one side and few on the other side, while sedition, in its proper sense, is between mutually dissentient parts of one people, as when one part of the state rises in tumult against another part. Wherefore, since sedition is opposed to a special kind of good, namely the unity and peace of a people, it is a special kind of sin…

[S]edition is contrary to the unity of the multitude, viz. the people of a city or kingdom. Now Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 21) that “wise men understand the word people to designate not any crowd of persons, but the assembly of those who are united together in fellowship recognized by law and for the common good.” Wherefore it is evident that the unity to which sedition is opposed is the unity of law and common good: whence it follows manifestly that sedition is opposed to justice and the common good. Therefore by reason of its genus it is a mortal sin, and its gravity will be all the greater according as the common good which it assails surpasses the private good which is assailed by strife.

Accordingly the sin of sedition is first and chiefly in its authors, who sin most grievously; and secondly it is in those who are led by them to disturb the common good. Those, however, who defend the common good, and withstand the seditious party, are not themselves seditious, even as neither is a man to be called quarrelsome because he defends himself, as stated above (II-II:41:1).

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (II-II Question 42, Articles 1 and 2)

Whether hatred arises from envy?

Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 88) that “out of envy cometh hatred.”

As stated above (Article 5), hatred of his neighbor is a man's last step in the path of sin, because it is opposed to the love which he naturally has for his neighbor. Now if a man declines from that which is natural, it is because he intends to avoid that which is naturally an object to be shunned. Now every animal naturally avoids sorrow, just as it desires pleasure, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. vii, x). Accordingly just as love arises from pleasure, so does hatred arise from sorrow. For just as we are moved to love whatever gives us pleasure, in as much as for that very reason it assumes the aspect of good; so we are moved to hate whatever displeases us, in so far as for this very reason it assumes the aspect of evil. Wherefore, since envy is sorrow for our neighbor's good, it follows that our neighbor's good becomes hateful to us, so that “out of envy cometh hatred” . . .

Nothing prevents a thing arising from various causes in various respects, and accordingly hatred may arise both from anger and from envy. However it arises more directly from envy, which looks upon the very good of our neighbor as displeasing and therefore hateful, whereas hatred arises from anger by way of increase. For at first, through anger, we desire our neighbor's evil according to a certain measure, that is in so far as that evil has the aspect of vengeance: but afterwards, through the continuance of anger, man goes so far as absolutely to desire his neighbor's evil, which desire is part of hatred. Wherefore it is evident that hatred is caused by envy formally as regards the aspect of the object, but dispositively by anger.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (II-II Question 34, Article 6)

America goes over the precipice of destruction

I have learned not to worry or to be overly concerned about national and political conditions, or of the encroachment of religious error, or of worldly lusts that threaten to engulf the society of today. The message of Revelation has taught me the lesson of faith in God and dependence upon the Christ, the King and Judge, to handle the situation. Our part is to pray, trust, and do the very best we can to remedy the situation; beyond that all is in His hand… I have learned that Revelation echoes and emphasizes the message of the prophets—the nation that leaves God out of its thinking, rejects Him, or fights against Him, is doomed to destruction by the judgement of Christ… This nation [America] faces a choice: [1] repent of its ungodly wickedness and recognize that God is on the throne in the person of His Son, acknowledge Him as God and Creator... that He rules in national affairs, and continue to exist as a nation; or [2] continue on the road it is traveling and go over the precipice of destruction by a judgement from heaven. In this view, I pray for a change of our national heart; but if there is no change, I pray that the faith of our brethren will sustain them in the inevitable judgement that lies ahead.

Homer Hailey, The Book of Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary (p. 437)

Whether we ought to love sinners out of charity?

Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 30) that “when it is said: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor,’ it is evident that we ought to look upon every man as our neighbor.” Now sinners do not cease to be men, for sin does not destroy nature. Therefore we ought to love sinners out of charity.

Two things may be considered in the sinner: his nature and his guilt. According to his nature, which he has from God, he has a capacity for happiness, on the fellowship of which charity is based, as stated above (Article 3; II-II:23:5), wherefore we ought to love sinners, out of charity, in respect of their nature.

On the other hand their guilt is opposed to God, and is an obstacle to happiness. Wherefore, in respect of their guilt whereby they are opposed to God, all sinners are to be hated, even one's father or mother or kindred, according to Luke 14:26. For it is our duty to hate, in the sinner, his being a sinner, and to love in him, his being a man capable of bliss; and this is to love him truly, out of charity, for God's sake.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (II-II Question 25, Article 6)

The Breakdown of Democracy

Image: A man poses in front of a burning car during a protest Atlanta, Georgia. Photo: Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images/AFPSource:AFP

Below is an excerpt taken from Chapter Three (The Breakdown of Democracy) in Stanley Payne’s book The Spanish Civil War. There are many similarities between Spain of the 1930s and the USA today. The leftists' attempt to overthrow the traditional, conservative, religious democratic republic of Spain and replace it with a revolutionary, communistic, atheistic authoritarian regime failed. Will the leftists succeed in overthrowing the USA today? Or will tradition, religion, and freedom prevail? Time will tell. The excerpt below points out some of the machinations used by the leftists to overthrow the democratic republic of Spain and eliminate their political enemies. Watch for the same tactics to be used in the USA today. In fact, many of these tactics are being used now...

The variety and volume of constitutional violations [committed by the leftists] in Spain between February and July 1936 were without precedent in the history of parliamentary regimes. They included: 

• The great strike wave, featuring many strikes without practical goals but seeking instead to dominate property, often accompanied by violence and destruction.

• Illegal seizures of property, especially in the southern provinces, sometimes legalized ex post facto…

• A wave of arson and property destruction, especially in the south.

• Seizure of churches and church properties in the south and east.

• Major economic decline… with a severe stock market decline, flight of capital, and in some southern provinces the abandonment of cultivation, when the costs became greater than market value…

• Broad censorship, with severe limitations on freedom of expression and assembly.

• Several thousand arbitrary arrests…

• Virtual immunity for members of the (leftist) Popular Front parties, who were rarely arrested…

• Politicization of justice through the creation of a special tribunal to censor and purge the judiciary, as well as through regulations and policies to facilitate political arrests and to place rightist parties outside the law.

• Dissolution of rightist groups, beginning with the Falangists in March and the Catholic trade unions in May, and moving to the monarchist Renovacion Espanola in July.

• Increasing electoral coercion, culminating in the suppression or opposition activity in the special elections of May in Cuenca and Granada.

• Arbitrary municipal and provincial government, with most local administration placed in the hands of appointees of the central government. Municipal elections originally scheduled for March 31, 1936 were postponed sine die.

• Politicization and subversion of the security forces.

• Growth of political violence, albeit very unequal in its extent in different parts of the country…

Gil Robles sharply protested such unprecedented abuses, observing that every day he read in leftist newspapers declarations that “the enemy must be smashed” or one must “practice a policy of extermination.” He continued:

“I know that you are carrying out a policy of persecution, violence, and extermination against everything that is rightist. But you are profoundly mistaken: however great may be the violence, the reaction will be greater still. For everyone killed another combatant will rise up… You who today are fostering violence will become the victims of it. The phrase that revolutions, like Saturn, devour their own children is commonplace, but no less true for so being. Today you are complacent, because you see an adversary fall. But the day will come when the same violence that you have unleashed will be turned again to you.”

Stanley G. Payne, The Spanish Civil War (pp. 59-61)

Satan’s final furious effort to destroy the church

“And when the thousand years are finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall come forth to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to the war: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up over the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are also the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (Revelation 20:7-10).

Many questionable theories have been built upon the Gog and Magog of John’s vision. Some say the scene points to a great physical battle to be fought in Palestine at some future date with Russia, the United States, and other nations participating. Unfortunately for the theory, God through Ezekiel explains who the Gog and Magog are. “Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Art thou he of whom I spake in old time by my servants the prophets of Israel, that prophesied in those days for many years that I would bring thee against them?” (38:17). God said that He had spoken of Gog’s coming, but no prophet ever named Gog or Magog. Yet the prophets foretold over and over of the heathen enemies who would come against Israel and who would be defeated and destroyed by His hand. Therefore we conclude that Gog of the land of Magog symbolized all the heathen enemies of God’s people from the time of the prophets to the Roman Empire, all of who sought to thwart His purpose and to destroy His king. The seer now prophesies that toward the end of time there would be a horde gathered and led by Satan in a final furious effort to destroy the church.

Far from a physical conflict, this battle will be a moral and spiritual one. Satan’s Gog and Magog symbolize such forces and agencies as atheism, humanism, communism, materialism, astrology, and all manner of false and perverted religions. Gog and Magog also represent such forces as anarchy (rebellion against all principles and standards of truth); corruption in government and business; immorality with its decay of home, lack of natural affection and devotion to children; sodomy; alcoholism; and total abandonment to a base and sordid life of the flesh. Satan will use the anti-God, immoral standards and practices that he is using today, but probably to a more intense and flagrant degree. Gog and Magog do not gather around a conference table and offer themselves to the devil in a nefarious pact; but being deceived, they are drawn to him as were the kings of old.

Homer Hailey, The Book of Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary (pp. 396-7)

Whether charity is caused in us by infusion?

The Apostle says (Romans 5:5): “The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, Who is given to us.”

As stated above (II-II:23:1), charity is a friendship of man for God, founded upon the fellowship of everlasting happiness. Now this fellowship is in respect, not of natural, but of gratuitous gifts, for, according to Romans 6:23, “the grace of God is life everlasting”: wherefore charity itself surpasses our natural facilities. Now that which surpasses the faculty of nature, cannot be natural or acquired by the natural powers, since a natural effect does not transcend its cause.

Therefore charity can be in us neither naturally, nor through acquisition by the natural powers, but by the infusion of the Holy Ghost, Who is the love of the Father and the Son, and the participation of Whom in us is created charity, as stated above (II-II:23:2).

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (II-II Question 24, Article 2)

The daunting level of responsibility that freedom imposes

Image: Shelby Steele

The greatest black problem in America today is freedom. All underdeveloped, formerly oppressed groups first experience new freedom as a shock and a humiliation because freedom shows them their underdevelopment and their inability to compete as equals. Freedom seems to confirm all the ugly stereotypes about the group—especially the charge of inferiority—and yet the group no longer has the excuse of oppression. Without oppression—and it must be acknowledged that blacks are no longer oppressed in America—the group itself becomes automatically responsible for its inferiority and non-competitiveness. So freedom not only comes as a humiliation but also as an overwhelming burden of responsibility. Thus, inevitably, there is a retreat from freedom. No group that has been oppressed to the point of inferiority is going to face the realities of new freedom without flinching. Almost always, oppressed groups enter freedom by denying that they are in fact free, this is a way of avoiding the daunting level of responsibility that freedom imposes.

Shelby Steele, White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era (pp. 67-8)     

God pours out the bowls of wrath upon America

“And the second angel poured out his bowl into the sea; and it became blood as of a dead man; and every living soul died, even the things that were in the sea” (Revelation 16:3).

Moses wrote that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev. 17:11). Consequently, when the life is gone, decay and rottenness set in until one returns to the dust from whence he came. This is the irrevocable judgement of God from the very beginning (Gen. 3:19). Likewise, when the spiritual quality of a society decays, like a sea of coagulated blood from dead men, it putrefies and rots, issuing a foul and obnoxious odor. Eventually it returns to the unseen (Sheol, Ps. 9:17); this, too, is by the judgement of God. Consider Sodom, the Canaanites, Israel, Judah, and all the rest of ancient nations; when, due to spiritual decay, they were no longer fit to continue, God removed them. A society abandoned to idolatry and its consequent morals, as was the Roman Empire of John’s day, is spiritually dead. In such a society, morals decline to the lowest level; the family collapses, schools breed anarchy and rebellion, business ethics are forgotten, entertainment becomes base and sordid, and printing presses exude smut and filth, until the whole is strangled in its own death blood and suffocated by its own stench. Our society too must listen to the trumpet warnings before God pours out the bowls of wrath.

Homer Hailey, The Book of Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary (p. 328)  

Whether faith is infused into man by God?

It is written (Ephesians 2:8-9): “By grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves . . . that no man may glory . . . for it is the gift of God.”

Two things are requisite for faith. First, that the things which are of faith should be proposed to man: this is necessary in order that man believe anything explicitly. The second thing requisite for faith is the assent of the believer to the things which are proposed to him. Accordingly, as regards the first of these, faith must needs be from God. Because those things which are of faith surpass human reason, hence they do not come to man's knowledge, unless God reveal them. To some, indeed, they are revealed by God immediately, as those things which were revealed to the apostles and prophets, while to some they are proposed by God in sending preachers of the faith, according to Romans 10:15: “How shall they preach, unless they be sent?”

As regards the second, viz. man's assent to the things which are of faith, we may observe a twofold cause, one of external inducement, such as seeing a miracle, or being persuaded by someone to embrace the faith: neither of which is a sufficient cause, since of those who see the same miracle, or who hear the same sermon, some believe, and some do not. Hence we must assert another internal cause, which moves man inwardly to assent to matters of faith.

The Pelagians held that this cause was nothing else than man's free-will: and consequently they said that the beginning of faith is from ourselves, inasmuch as, to wit, it is in our power to be ready to assent to things which are of faith, but that the consummation of faith is from God, Who proposes to us the things we have to believe. But this is false, for, since man, by assenting to matters of faith, is raised above his nature, this must needs accrue to him from some supernatural principle moving him inwardly; and this is God. Therefore faith, as regards the assent which is the chief act of faith, is from God moving man inwardly by grace.


Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (II-II Question 6)

America’s civil religion is deceptive and dangerous

Image:

The Apotheosis of Washington, as seen looking up from the capitol rotunda, by
Constantino Brumidi (1865)

There are several interconnected myths or theological themes that permeate American civil religion. Most if not all of these themes have been present for many years (even dating back to before the nation’s founding), but of course they have evolved with the nation.

One foundational theopolitical conviction or sacred myth is exceptionalism, the idea that the United States has a unique place in God’s plan, that it is in some sense chosen. In American history this exceptionalism has manifested itself in such beliefs as the Puritan “city on a hill” (Matt. 5:14), Manifest Destiny, and the identification of the U.S. as “the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12; 9:5). Similar to and sometimes growing out of exceptionalism is American messianism, the notion that the U.S. has a special, central vocation in the salvation of the world, particularly through the spread of American practices of freedom and American-style democracy. This belief in an exceptional role and messianic destiny to spread freedom is the backbone of America’s national religion. Arising from it is a myth of innocence, of possessing “an element of messianic inerrancy.” This third myth holds that America always operates in the world according to the highest principles of ethics and justice, and that when criticized or attacked, America is the innocent, righteous victim.

Belief in an exceptional, messianic role naturally generates another sacred conviction (and associated practices), that of extreme patriotism, extreme love of country, and even nationalism, the belief that one’s nation state, in this case the U.S., is superior to all other nation states. “Nationalism” (as I am using it here) is extreme devotion to one’s country as “the greatest nation of earth” and therefore worthy of nearly unqualified—and sometimes thoroughly unqualified—allegiance. This devotion is often based on the conviction that the nation is chosen, blessed, and commissioned by God, its power and wealth being signs of God’s approval. The U.S. is “one nation under God.” Thus devotion to one’s country and its mission in the world is ultimately a religious devotion. Greatness is defined especially as financial, political, and/or military strength, and this definition carries with it the conviction that both America and Americans should always enjoy and operate from a position of strength and security. Weakness is un-American; Americans want to be number one. For many, these kinds of secular strengths are seen as manifestations of power from God.

American civil religion values human liberty and rights as a divine gift and considers it, perhaps on par with strength, as one of the highest national values. The protection and furtherance of freedom is therefore a divine mandate and mission. The operative notion of both political (corporate) and personal (individual) freedom is that of God-given (inalienable) rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, an idea derived from both the Enlightenment and from one of the most important sacred texts of this civil religion, the Declaration of Independence. A corollary myth is a form of secularized Calvinism, the notion that hard work mixed with a degree of generosity toward others will inevitably result in greater and greater freedom and prosperity, often understood as a sign of God’s blessing. (The so-called “prosperity gospel” is an offshoot of this myth.)

Yet another sacred myth in American civil religion is that of militarism and sacred violence. This is the conviction that part of America’s exceptionalism and messianic place in history is its divinely granted permission, indeed its divine mandate, to use violence (killing of native peoples, invasions, wars, etc.) when peaceful means are undesirable or unsuccessful. Such allegedly sacred violence has justified various forms of expansion and, more recently, of the messianic mission or protecting and promoting freedom and justice. This myth can foster a crusade mentality (“ridding the world of evil”) rooted in an apocalyptic dualism, but without the corollary commitment to nonviolence we will find in Revelation.

The “myth of redemptive violence undergirds American popular culture, civil religion, nationalism, and foreign policy,” argues Walter Wink [Engaging the Powers, 13]. It underwrites the belief that killing and/or dying for the nation—especially in military service, and particularly dying for one’s country—is the highest form of both civic and religious devotion. After all, the civil religion argument goes, quoting but misinterpreting Jesus, “greater love has no man that this, that a man should lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13; RSV).

These are some of the basic sacred myths and convictions of American civil religion. This ideology, or theology, has remarkable parallels with the Roman imperial theology discussed above.

+++

It has often been said that the most common idols in the West are Power, Sex, and Money; with this I am not in any profound disagreement. However, inasmuch as these idols are connected to a larger vision of life, such as the American dream, or the inalienable rights of free people, they become part of a nation’s civil religion. I would contend, in fact, that the most alluring and dangerous deity in the United States is the omnipresent, syncretistic god of nationalism mixed with Christianity lite: religious beliefs, language, and practices that are superficially Christian but infused with national myths and habits. Sadly, most of this civil religion’s practitioners belong to Christian churches, which is precisely why Revelation is addressed to the seven churches (not to Babylon), to all Christians tempted by the civil cult...

The sacred myths of civil religion are expressed, reinforced, honored, and propagated in sacred symbols, spaces, rituals, and holy-days. These occasions use sacred language, music, texts, and stories. Space does not permit a full discussion, but some of these American symbols and practices—often with close parallels elsewhere—are listed here.

Some Symbols and Practices of American Civil Religion

Sacred Symbols and Spaces:

• National flags as sacred objects

• Nationals flags (sometimes juxtaposed with “Christian flags”) in churches

• Crosses in military of other non-church contexts (e.g., military medals in the form of a cross)

• Blending of Christian and national images (e.g., cross and flag, Jesus and flag)

Sacred Rituals and holy-days

• Civil rituals made religious

• Official days of prayer

• National feast/holy days (e.g., Memorial Day, Independence Day, Veterans’ Day)

• State funerals

• Moments of silence

• Congressional chaplain

• Prayer at political and civic events

• Prayer around the flag pole

• National days of prayer, prayer breakfasts

• The pledge of allegiance, at school or other civic gatherings, to the flag as icon of the nation “under God”

• The national anthem at sporting events

• Swearing on the Bible

• Chaplain’s prayers before military combat missions

Religious rituals made civil

• Pledge of allegiance in church

• Recognition of military or veterans in church at national holidays

• Prayers for those “serving our country” or “the/our troops” in church

• Sermons and children’s sermons on patriotic themes

• Use of patriotic music in worship

• Religious events on national holidays

• Religious gatherings in times of national crisis

Sacred language

• War as “mission”

• “Sacred” duty/honor

• Divine passive voice: “we are called” (e.g., at a certain moment in history, usually before a war)

“God bless America”/“God bless our troops”

• Echoes of/allusions to the Bible in civic and political discourse

• Attribution of biblical language for God or God’s people to the U.S. (e.g., “the light of the world”; “city on a hill”)

• Lack of theological specificity (e.g., the omission of Jesus’ name from public prayer and Scripture reading)

Sacred music/national hymns

• Patriotic songs or sacred devotion with much (“God Bless America”), some (“America/My Country Tis of Thee”), or even no explicit religious language (the national anthem)

• Hymns with explicitly nationalistic and militaristic language (e.g., “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” “Navy Hymn)

• Hymns with allegorical militaristic language interpreted literally and nationalistically (e.g., “Onward Christian Soldiers”)

Sacred Texts

• The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights

• Famous speeches by sacred leader and heroes (e.g., Patrick Henry, Abraham Lincoln, Douglas MacArthur, John Kennedy, Martin Luther King)

• Biblical texts that seem to underwrite national values such as freedom and redemptive violence

Sacred stories of sacred leaders and heroes (“saints”/“martyrs”/“prophets”)

• Founding Fathers

• Leaders in crisis (e.g., Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage)

• Great warriors (e.g., Patton)

• Veterans in general

These various aspects of American civil religion come to expression in two kinds of venues: the civil and political (speeches, parades, school events, sporting events, military ceremonies, etc.), on the one hand, and the religious (church worship services), on the other.

From this listing we can recognize another aspect of the similarity between Roman and contemporary American civil religion. The former involved the politicization (specifically, the imperialization) of the sacred, and the sacralization of the political (specifically, the imperial). This is parallel to what happened in the U.S.: many civic and political events have a religious dimension, and religious events sometimes take on a civic and political—specifically nationalistic, and even militaristic—dimension. This process continues to this day, despite the formal constraints of law and consequent changes in practice (such as the abolition of school prayer).

One major difference, however, is extremely important to recognize: the syncretism of Rome’s civil religion involved the blending of Roman ideology and pagan religiosity, but the syncretism of American civil religion involves the blending of American ideology and Christian, or at least theistic and quasi-Christian, religiosity. The early church had a natural suspicion of Roman civil religion because it was so blatantly pagan and idolatrous—though even it could be appealing. Contemporary Christians can much more easily assume that Christian, or quasi-Christian, ideas, language, and practices are benign and even divinely sanctioned. This makes American civil religion all the more attractive—that is, all the more seductive and dangerous. Its fundamentally pagan character is masked by its Christian veneer.

Michael J. Gorman, Reading Revelation Responsibly (pp. 48-50; 56; 50-54)