A Deficient Definition of Liberty (The Catholic Right, a Series)
The neo-orthodox Catholic Right often define liberty as "what one ought to do." But this narrow definition raises a very troubling question for those of us who value the separation of church and state: By whose standards are we to decide what "one ought to do?"
Catholic Rightists Michael Novak, Richard John Neuhaus and George Weigel are trying to tell the world it should be an orthodox Catholic standard. Of course, they could never get away with that religious supremacist claim outright. So, like their Protestant co-belligerents of the religious right, they say that's what the Founders wanted.
They are not the first to arrive at such a view. Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray, S.J. (1904-1967) believed that Catholic doctrine is compatible with the thought of America's Founders, particularly based upon their various allusions to natural law-derived self-evident truths. Murray so firmly believed this that fifty years ago he claimed in the second half of the twentieth century Catholicism, Protestantism and Judaism would increasingly influence national morality. But there was one catch: Murray desired that they would all do so through the filter of Catholic natural law principles.
Now the neo-orthodox triple entente of Neuhaus-Novak-Weigel are moving well beyond Murray's belief; they are working to make it a reality. And that is because they are not ordinary Catholics; as Garry Wills points out in Head and Heart, they are evangelical Catholics.
But as evangelical Catholics, they face something of a dilemma: How to make America a "Catholic" nation without aggravating their evangelical Protestant allies. Obviously, they cannot come right out and proclaim that the separation of church and state should be abolished so that a strident interpretation of Catholic morality becomes the cornerstone of American law. So, with that ultimate goal firmly in mind, they seek to back into that dream.
What exactly is their game plan? This excerpt of a review of Damon Linker's book The Theocons descries it perfectly:
Neuhaus has long believed that Roman Catholicism is in a unique position "to propose the American proposition anew." George Weigel agrees by recalling the words of Archbishop John Ireland who believed that God wants Catholics in the United States "to make America Catholic." Neuhaus and Weigel do not advocate that the American state religion should become Roman Catholicism. They want our political institutions and principles to be spiritualized-catholicized. Evangelicals and fundamentalists rely on quoting biblical texts, which has no appeal to those who do not believe in the Bible. So Weigel argues the superiority of Catholic natural law that serves as "a philosophical foundation on which virtually all men and women of good will could participate in the ongoing argument about the American experiment and its foundational consensus."
And as I noted in Part Thirty-seven of this series:
Novak gives lip service to keeping church and state separate. However, his underlying desire is clearly to make neo-orthodox Catholic morality the standard even for non-Catholics. His views on embryonic stem cell research as well as abortion illustrate this point perfectly well. To do this, he brings inaccurate uses of moral relativism into the mix. He never really explains his view of pluralism while narrowly defining "liberty" as "the freedom to do what one ought to do." Such a definition is common among the neo-orthodox of the Catholic Right.
Pulling off this canard, however, requires a good deal of revisionist history. The cornerstone of their revisionism is Murray's erroneous claim that America was founded on Catholic natural law principles. Garry Wills (as I noted last week) has recently written that such an idea "...would have made Adams and Jefferson snort with derision."
Indeed, there was no direct infusion of St. Thomas Aquinas' view on natural law in Enlightenment thought. Further modifications and revisions by others took place in the interim. In fact, the Vatican did whatever it could to sabotage its liberal legacy of tolerance. As an American Catholic I am astounded by the audacity (and intellectual dishonesty) of these men.
But the forgotten monkey wrench in the works of their argument is Anglican theologian Richard Hooker (1554-1600). He is someone that anybody who wants to effectively refute this Neuhaus-Novak-Weigel revisionist contention should get to know.
It is undisputed that Hooker expressed greater concern for religious tolerance than his Catholic contemporaries, openly writing that even those who did not accept his Anglican faith were worthy of salvation. More importantly, there is no doubt that Hooker's pronouncements on tolerance had a direct influence on Enlightenment thinker John Locke. Locke, in turn, heavily influenced the thinking of the framers of the Constitution.
Yes, Hooker, like Aquinas, drew heavily from natural law principles. But he went further than Aquinas on another key issue: church hierarchies. Unlike Vatican dogmatists, Hooker believed that God is more concerned with the individual person and is ultimately indifferent to Church governance--a very radical thought back in the sixteenth century and still so today in the minds of the current Vatican and her neo-orthodox supporters. More importantly, Hooker's thought on this point helped to erode the power of authoritarian royalty in the march towards to liberal democracy.
But beyond the ridiculous claim that the Founders were crypto-Catholics, the neo-orthodox definition of liberty remains deficient. The legacy of freedom is much different than what the likes of Neuhaus, Novak and Weigel think we ought to do: especially when, in turn, "ought" is defined by the subjective beliefs of a particularly strict interpretation of one religion. Liberty is the ability to pursue happiness as long as the actions of one person does not result in harm to others.
Liberty is also the ability to question the validity of long-held dogmas. And of course, here in America, not even my fellow Catholics should be forced to do what a small number of neo-orthodox natural law adherents believe we "ought to do." That wouldn't be liberty, but its very antithesis.
The Catholic Right: A Series, by Frank L. Cocozzelli
- NYGaribaldi's blog
- Login or register to post comments

Comments
Thanks, Frank
For filling in the historical blanks. And, btw, here's wishing you every blessing in the New Year.
Thank you Mary
And Happy New Year to you and your family. By the way, it's good to see you here at Cross Left!
The Proto-orthodox
Have you heard the true tale of the Bedouin named Mohammed Ali?
How about the Nag´ Hammâdi library?
I begin this true story at its beginning in 1945, in Egypt, in the land just above the bend of the Nile, north of the Valley of the Kings, across the river from the city of Nag´ Hammâdi, near the hamlet of al-Qasr, under a cliff called Jabal al-Tarif.
An Egyptian Bedouin named Mohammed Ali was out gathering sabakh, a nitrate-rich fertilizer for the crops that he grew in the small hamlet of al-Qasr.
He was aghast to stumble upon a skeleton as he dug, and bewildered when he uncovered a two-foot high earthenware jar. A bowl had been placed over the top, and it was sealed with bitumen.
At first, the Bedouin thought an evil genie was within, but when he shook the heavy jar, he heard things moving and thought it might be gold.
He smashed the jar open and out fluttered pieces of gold particles that he tried to catch, but they disappeared. When he peered into the jar, he was dismayed to find twelve leather-bound books.
Mohammed Ali was illiterate, so he placed no great value on books, but was confident he could sell them and make something for his troubles. So he carried the jar filled with books back to the homestead.
Now, Mohammed Ali also happened to be a fugitive from the law, for he had wielded the weapon that spilled the blood of a patriarch during a violent incident in a generation-long family feud, not so very long before.
After a few days of mulling over possibilities, he decided to give his find to the local Coptic priest for safekeeping. You see, he feared the authorities soon would be lurking about and would confiscate his possession before he could receive any money for it.
His mother ripped out many pages to keep the home fire going, and I grieve and wonder what ancient treasures she burned.
Anyway, the priest passed it on to his brother-in-law, a traveling tutor, who brought the books to the Coptic museum in Cairo on October 4, 1946.
What was found were ancient compositions, written in Coptic that had been translated from ancient Greek. The volumes were leather-bound pages of papyrus, and no doubt the gold dust that Mohammed Ali witnessed was from papyrus fragments that had broken off.
Under the leadership of UNESCO, Egypt, and the American scholar James Robinson, these anthologies and collections of texts with titles like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene have now been translated into many languages.
I contend that when USA Christians fall in love with the Mystery of God; we will begin the world again.
These ancient texts offer NO new answers; but they do provide us a glimpse of Christianity at its very roots and it was most diverse indeed.
The most likely source for these books that have become known as the Nag Hamadi Library, was the Pachomius Monastery, which thrived for centuries just three miles from the burial site.
Scholars agree that most likely a monk from there buried these books in the wilderness under the cliff of Jabl al-Tarif for safe-keeping.
These texts had been deemed heretical by those who were gaining power through the political arena; the Proto-orthodox.
In the 4th century, Emperor Constantine, a pagan warrior became the first Christian ruler, but waited until he was on his deathbed before being baptized.
I contend that the most decisive event in the history of Christendom occurred when Emperor Constantine accepted the Christian faith, for those who had once been persecuted were now protected by an earthly king.
Both a patriarchal monarchical state and church were formed at the same time.
Power struggles and debates were common among the early Christians.
Individual churches determined which texts were read, and they all had their favorites.
Constantine sought to unite his empire, and uniting the church was a savvy political move.
He announced he would pay for fifty illuminated copies of scripture to be bound, and thus the biblical canon was established and sealed.
There was fierce debate among the bishops about what should be included and what left out.
The proto-orthodox, who had now become the dominant voice, determined what was heretical for everyone.
The proto-orthodox demanded much-loved scripture to be burned, usually because it did not fit their understanding of God.
Many of these texts were considered Gnostic.
Gnosis is defined as knowledge discerned intuitively.
Gnostic texts offer deep mystery that is discerned via intuition, not rational thought.
This is not the way for fundamentalists.
A Gnostic is open to receiving intuitive knowledge of deep spiritual truth.
For students of the New Testament, this is a much greater find than the Dead Sea Scrolls. Forty of the texts had previously been unknown to modern scholars.
Thirty-five scholars have been working diligently on these translations, and we all agree that the bound books themselves date back to the fourth century and were written in Coptic translated from Greek and Aramaic-which is what Jesus spoke!
The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of the sayings of Jesus, words of wisdom, proverbs, parables, and some very confounding mysteries.
About 35 of the 114 sayings have no counterpart in the New Testament, while at least 20 are almost identical, and 54 have similarities.
Many scholars concur that the sayings were originally written in Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, the language of Jesus and his followers.
It is very possible the sayings are closer to the words Jesus actually spoke than what is found in the canonical gospels.
Two thousand years ago, there was lively debate about who Jesus was, and why he came.
The proto-orthodox, who were the majority, considered these gnostic texts anathema and thus deemed them heretical for many reasons.
The main reason is that they did not fit neatly into the evolving dogma.
Gnostic texts offer us mystery, not answers.
Jesus said he came that we would have life to the full; abundant life [John 10:10] and that takes deep thought and falling in love with the Mystery of God is a great place to start.
Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"
Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"
Eileen, Please Connect the Dots
I can be a bit of a concrete thinker at times, Eileen, and I acknowledge my shortcomings in this area, but you are defintely going to have to connect the dots for me on how your reply relates to Frank's original post.
It was New Years Eve last night and I had a couple of glasses of wine and I am not much of a drinker these days, so perhaps that is what the problem is.So please , enlighten me. Happy New Year Jim
Second the Motion
Our Birthday Boy makes an astute observation.
LOL: EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED
I am not so sure you are concrete, but I am ethereal, spiritual and a mystic; and that makes me different from most.
Mystics see EVERYTHING is connected; past, present and future.
I LOL for the first time this AM that i just so happened to begin a series on the Proto-Orthodox and Gnostic texts on the WAWA Blog.
I clicked on X-Left to only add a CNN report about what happened in Israel Christmas Day and add the 3rd in the FORUM series on the USS LIBERTY.
The word 'LIBERTY' on a recent blog post jumped out at me.
After reading the blog, i a former Roman Catholic who daily reads and meditates upon the Roman liturgy but does not attend the church, LOL and thought how numinous that was!
Numinous is an encounter with God.
I LOL again that the post was about neo-orthodox as i had just blogged on my site about the proto-orthodox who founded the Catholic Church.
Even a concrete thinker-and i am not saying you are one-but even they understand that Liberty also means FREEDOM.
Jesus said:
"You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free."
John 8:32
I was only offering some truth that came to me.
e
PS-i have tried for the last 20 minutes to edit my typos, but i kept getting kicked off and received the message: "FAILURE TO CONNECT"
I LOL again, as that seems to be my lot in life on X-LEFT!
Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"
Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"
A Bit Concrete
Eileen, I am a mystic too, but am also a concrete thinker at times.I guess I am not a fully realized or fully evolved mystic. I am the guy who doesn't get the joke if the association is too loose. Somebody has to connect the dots for me, then I get the joke and laugh.Then everybody thinks I am a moron.
I got kicked off Crossleft a couple of times yesterday too with a "Failure to Connect" so don't take it as a "sign".
LOL again: moron? NUTS!
I just clicked on to post:
"Dreams, Visions, Healing + Liberty"-i am sure it will connect some more dots for any who bother to read it
But first the title "A BIT CONCRETE" caught my eye and then you made me LOL when i read your reply,
i have yet to be called a moron-that i know of that is
But i have been labeled as a NUT!
+ that makes me LOL hysterically for i always remember that is what most everyone in Jesus' family thought of him too!
"Walk gently, breathe peacefully, laugh hysterically." ~ Nelson Mandela
all good 2 U,
e
Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor of
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"
Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu"
An excellent column
Thank you for writing it so I could read it. :)
Anytime
Thank you for the kind words; I'm glad you liked it.
-The Garibaldi