- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Rendering Unto Caesar

At the request of the White House, Georgetown University covered up all the symbols in Gaston Hall, before the Great Man spoke, including IHS, the millennia-old monogram for the name of Jesus Christ.

Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus, had adopted the monogram in his seal and it became an emblem of the Jesuit order.

When it comes to rendering unto Caesar, Georgetown is not going to be outshone by Notre Dame, which stole a march by offering the nation’s avatar of abortion a doctorate of laws degree, honoris causa.

Actually, it is regrettable the IHS in Gaston Hall was not covered up in shame the first week of Lent. For that week Georgetown’s feminist and homosexual clubs, such as GU Pride, put on a Gomorrah festival about alternative lifestyles called “Sex Positive Week.”

Monday, according to The Newman Club, featured a speaker for Black Rose, which “provides a forum for many different expressions of power in love and play. This can include dominance & submission, bondage and discipline, fetishism, cross-dressing, to name a few.”

Ash Wednesday’s talk was “Torn About Porn,” advertised as a “discussion about arguably alternative forms of pornography that are not supposed to be exploitative, but rather radical and empowering.”

Saturday’s talk was by a pornographic film director and was titled “Relationships Beyond Monogamy.”

At Loyola of Chicago that week, the Student Diversity and Cultural Affairs Office presented “Brother to Brother,” a film the Newman Society reports, about “a homosexual African-American who is transported in time to cavort with the allegedly homosexual Langston Hughes.”

The movie is said to be part of “a semester-long ‘Color of Queer Film Series,’ sponsored by the university.”

At Catholic Seattle University, that first week of Lent was “Transgender Awareness Week,” featuring a “session on allegedly transgender Bible heroes and heroines and ‘Criss-Cross Day’ where students are encouraged to ‘come dressed for the day in your best gender-bending outfit.”

This is surely anecdotal evidence to confirm Newsweek in the conclusion reached in its cover story of Holy Week, “The End of Christian America.”

Indeed, not only are many once-Catholic colleges and universities now wandering in what Pope Benedict XVI calls a “desert of godlessness,” Catholic belief and practice are not remotely what they were before Vatican II.

Where three-fourth of Catholics attended mass weekly in the 1950s, today it is one-fourth. A third of all Catholics raised in the Faith have fallen away.

One in ten American adults is a lapsed Catholic. Catholicism’s quarter of the population is maintained only by mass immigration and, secondarily, by conversions.

Self-identified Christians in the United States have fallen from 86 percent of the population in 1990 to 76 percent today. Those who say they have no religion have doubled as a share of the nation from 8 to 16 percent. Where 69 percent of Americans said we are a Christian country in 1990, only 62 percent say that today.

America is being systematically de-Christianized and secularized.

For the social, moral and cultural revolution of the 1960s, rooted in non- and anti-Christian beliefs and values, has captured the culture, and converted many of the young. Among Americans 18 to 29, a fourth profess to be atheist, agnostic, or of no religious faith.

The figure is surely higher among the college young.

Second reason for the triumph of secularism is that it long ago captured the Supreme Court. Since the Everson decision of 1947, justices have expunged Christianity and all its books and symbols from the public square and public schools.

Voluntary prayer, the Ten Commandments, Bible reading, Christmas plays and carols, Nativity scenes, Easter vacation, before-game prayers, benedictions at graduations — all have been ordered terminated by unelected judges — against the will of the majority.

Abortion on demand, too, was imposed by judicial fiat.

Thus, as America ceases to be a Christian country, it is ceasing to be a democratic one.

Consider. In every referendum in 16 states, where homosexual marriage has been on the ballot, majorities ranging from 52 to 86 percent have voted to outlaw it as an absurdity and an abomination.

Yet, in Massachusetts, California and Iowa, unelected judges have imposed it, as they will in other states, regardless of what the people want or how the people vote. For secularism has become the established religion of the American state and judges are the high priests of the new order.

Yet, one wonders if they know what lies at the end of the road upon which they have set the nation.

For five decades, Americans resisted Godless Communism. If they come to realize they did so to save Godless Capitalism, or Godless Socialism, what happens to loyalty and love of country?

To love one’s country, said Edmund Burke, one’s country ought to be lovely. If this is not God’s country anymore, whose country is it?

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

Comments Disabled (Open | Close)

Comments Disabled To "Rendering Unto Caesar"

#1 Comment By Andrew E. Carlan On April 17, 2009 @ 3:10 am

In the recent election if those who call themselves Catholic had voted a Catholic conscience the United States would not have so many child murders on its hands.

Meanwhile, I have been reading about the eugenics movement in the United States from the beginning of the 20th century as the vanguard of Hitler’s emerging philosophy. He called Margaret Sanger his mentor. That movement suppressed her during the Second World War.

The newer books by academic historian reject the Holocaust as a blood curse on the Germans, which promotes racism. Thirty-four attempted assassinations on Hitler and the highest German officials, many succeeded but at the price of liquidation of whole towns of civilians, young people sacrificed their lives to try to return Germany to its Christian roots as did Protestant theologians like Dietrich Bonheoffer. The Pope issued an encyclical specifically to all the Dutch bishops ordering on one Sunday to condemn the killing of the Jews. It angered Hitler so he accelerated the transit of Jews to Auschwitz and Buchenwald, including the Frank family. German intelligence under Admiral Carnaris was in effect willing to work for the allies, but quaint Churchill dismissed anyone who committed treason!

#2 Comment By Hassan On April 17, 2009 @ 7:56 am

“To love one’s country, said Edmund Burke, one’s country ought to be lovely. If this is not God’s country anymore, whose country is it?”

Good question! But it is not fair to look at the current situation and think of it only as the culmination of 60’s. This is modernity with all its might and power, and modernity hardly started at 60’s and with hippies. And as you have mentioned it, though in passing, the root of the current catholic faith crisis is in Vatican II, when the church decided to become modern and adapted all kind of socialist, evolutionary and anti-traditional ideas. In that regard, Pope Benedict XVI as well as his four predecessors are guilty partners of the crime!

#3 Comment By Mike DePinto On April 17, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

“Consider. In every referendum in 16 states, where homosexual marriage has been on the ballot, majorities ranging from 52 to 86 percent have voted to outlaw it as an absurdity and an abomination.”

I live in one of those states (California) and I have no doubt that the majority here does not support gay marriage or even homosexuality for that matter. Yet, I am thankful that I live in country where “unelected judges have imposed it, as they will in other states, regardless of what the people want or how the people vote.” We live in a republic not a pure democracy for a valid reason. The Declaration of Independence begins with the bold, insightful, and meaningful statement, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” These unalienable rights are protected under our Constitution regardless of the will of the majority. The Founding Fathers had tasted the bitter pill of tyranny, oppression, and intolerance and wished a better fate for their families, countrymen, and heirs. These brilliant men created a system that provided the judicial branch of government as a means to protect those with minority views and unpopular thoughts. Democracy descends to injustice when three wolves and a lamb vote on what to eat for dinner.

#4 Comment By Jack Tracey On April 17, 2009 @ 2:34 pm

I think I’m starting to get it.

We live in a democracy when it comes to progressive taxation of an individual’s property and labor. In this case, the wishes of the majority outweigh the rights of the minority, because the majority can be trusted to choose the course with the greatest benefit for all, including the minority. This is a choice based on fairness and justice.

We live in a republic when the same individual wants his same sex marriage contract to be recognized by “the people” of his state. In this case, the rights of the minority outweigh the wish of the majority, who don’t understand that they are choosing a course that does not benefit anyone. This is a choice based on ignorance and superstition.

I find comfort in the fact that the majority and their representatives in government can be so wise and equitable in the handling of private property. One day the majority may learn to give permission for same sex marriage contracts to be honored in their name. Until then, wiser leaders in government will overrule their wishes. It’s for their own good.

Once a state’s Supreme Court or legislature consecrates same sex marriage contracts, it’s time for a lesson in state’s rights.

#5 Comment By Jack of All Tirades On April 17, 2009 @ 3:21 pm

Jack,

The fact that you mention ‘same-sex marriage contracts’ denotes that this is a contractual issue, not an ecclesiastical one. No one who advocates same-sex marriage (including myself, a straight father of two) wants to force any church to recognize something that they may consider immoral or objectionable.

That said, I have to agree with Mike in that the rights of the minority must also be protected. For example, before the civil rights era, the majority of the country may have felt that African Americans did not deserve the right to vote. Should the majority be able to overturn rights enumerated in the Constitution?

Many pro-marriage pundits (including Andrew Sullivan) would like to see Gay Marriage established organically through the will of the people. Each state has a legislature of elected representatives who can vote to extend the right of marriage to gays. I’d rather this approach be followed as well. If the outcry was so great that the legislators were acting as government elitists, they would hear it from their constituents and you can be sure more than a few would be turned out on their ear.

Would you rather have each ‘right’ left up to a popularity contest? A constitutional version of American Idol? For example, we homeschool our children, and even if that is not a right enumerated in the constitution, I would not want said right to be put up for a referendum.

That said, I have to admit, I really like this blog – the vast majority of the comments are thoughtful and intelligent, including those with which I may disagree (Jack, you do write well).

#6 Comment By TomT On April 17, 2009 @ 3:48 pm

I have often been critical of you, Pat, so in fairness let me start by pointing out that this article is EXCELLENT!

Our God gives us gifts like the U.S.A., and the left’s HATE blinds them to higher truths. Some of us are allowed to see the miricles, yet part of the miracle is that their mathmetical proofs for the laws of averages are not violated.

I sat in the small Oregon town, 20 years ago, with a thousand other people packing that gymasium, listening to Fr DiOrio. Ten feet away from me, the little kid began pestering his mom, and she kept shushing him. We were up in the balcony.

“Mom. Mom. I can’t see.”, the little kid said. She paused paused and said, exasperatedly, “What is it?” He explained that he was having trouble seeing, through his thick coke-bottle glasses. She took the glasses and began cleaning them. He said, “Mom, never mind, I can see fine without them.” That is when she started screaming, and many of us within a 10-foot circle had a memory that will forever bring tears.

I was there to pray for my marriage. A few years later I was divorced. Go figure. Law of statistics is satisfied. I have flaws.

Your excellent article stumbles in only 3 places, that I can see.

First, your conclusions for where the US is headed, posit a universe where intervention by God is impossible.

Second, and a corollary to the first, is that YOU KNOW ALL the factors that will lead us into the future. We would expect to hear this from the LIBs, but most of the conservatives don’t place as much stock in trying to be superior to everyone else.

Third and as important, is the fallacy that the LEFT is monolithic. That is, many of the Left’s true-believers act from youth, or from exposure to “soundbite” journalism and entertainment media, while many of the Left’s “upperclass” are not so much manipulators as opportunists. They give US all rules that they have no intention of adhering to.

If we define a standard liberal as someone who has trouble with an addiction, enough to force personality changes, and the necessary dishonesty to support such an addiction, and then sprinkle a bit of idealism, we get an evangelistic entity that wishes to impress it’s idealistic standards upon the rest of us.

Yet the average liberal will picture this as the hallmark of the right. This same liberal will be totally clueless as to why the RED states send more to charity, per capita AND per income, than do the BLUE states.

The liberal can murder a baby to prevent it from being inconvenient. This causes a necessary shift in religious outlook, and they want “drapes put over ALL religious symbolism”. Advertisers know that SEX sells, so they promote a climate of relativism, to make it okay to peddle immorality.

Our internet youth can play a game, and if they get killed, they hit RESET and their reality starts over again.

Teachers and newspaper people and entertainment personalities can tell US all what WE should do within OUR areas of expertise, on the assumption that they have a superior grasp of “how things should be”. But they have been taught that this is only a problem for the RIGHT.

When your battle is with the LEFT’s UPPERCLASS, rather than with the underlying causes of the problem, then no wonder that you feel so hopeless about the outcome, and the tide FEELs so inevitable.

#7 Comment By Jordan Madison On April 17, 2009 @ 9:02 pm

Obama: There can only be one, ‘One’.

Some people have argued that Obama does not want to use religion to further a political ideology. However, Obama did evoke the Sermon on the Mount, at this Georgetown appearance, to further his economic agenda. Although Obama failed to mention Jesus Christ by name for the Sermon on the Mount.

“There is a parable at the end of the Sermon on the Mount that tells a story of two men…‘the rain descended and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house…it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock,’” Obama said.

“We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand,” he added. “We must build our house upon a rock.”

The last statement is particularly ironic since building your house upon a ‘ROCK‘ means to build your house with Christ as the foundation. Obama decided to blot out the real foundation from the timeless parable.

See the hi-res pictures:
[1]

#8 Comment By JACK TRACEY On April 18, 2009 @ 4:29 pm

Other Jack,
Is having your marriage contract recognized by the state (and therefore the people) a civil right? States have always defined a valid marriage contract. There are constraints involving age and number of participants just to name a few.

Is it not fallacious reasoning to suggest that recognition of a contract by the state is the same thing as individual participation in elections, which is protected by a constitutional amendment?

There is a closer parallel to interracial marriage contracts not being recognized. How is this the same as those that define gay marriages as not legally binding?