Chances are pretty good that you’ve already seen some mention of today’s Los Angeles Times story about the proud abortionist (in Arkansas–why is the LAT reporting on that?–but anyway…). Amy Wellborn has a thread going on it. Pretty sickening individual, I’m sure we can all agree, and not much to say that hasn’t already been said, once you’ve remarked on the novelty of his owning up to what he does.
But I’m intrigued by a comment on the Open Book thread from someone who signs himself as "GFvonB": "Sadly, he /is/ an American Hero. This is why America must die if the pro-life cause is to be victorious."
I certainly don’t want America to die, and as I’ve said more than once here I think the struggle for our national soul is far from settled. But I do have the nagging fear that the combination of our wealth, our pride, and a misguided conception of freedom may mean that only some kind of catastrophe will change our direction.
By the way, GFvonB has a blog called RadTrad, which in turn is part of a blog ring called The League of Evil Traditionalists.
–Maclin Horton
GFvonB is a good guy. He is a TLM type. A fair characterization would be that he doesn’t see much profit in trying to reform the liturgical changes (specifically) from Vatican II. I sympathize with the view in that I believe a repudiation of most of the current practices would be better than alteration.
I sympathize, too, but, just to be clear, the comment at Open Book doesn’t have anything to do with the liturgy, or the Church at all for that matter (at least not directly).
I should make a distinction. I certainly do not want to see my patria die, but I would not mind if the nation state that has arisen here collapsed. I simply do not see how you can avoid might makes right situations (e.g.: abortion, genocide, etc.) in a system that is based upon the principles of the Enlightenment.
Thanks for responding, GF. I think this is an interesting question (obviously). We definitely have a be-careful-what-you-wish-for situation, though. Collapse of “the nation state that has arisen here” is unlikely to happen without violence and many other forms of misery.
It doesn’t strike me that physical evils based on the abuse of power are especially more likely to occur in our Enlightenment-based culture than in others. History doesn’t direct me to that conclusion, nor do present-day realities like the frothing-at-the-mouth genocidal urge on display in parts of the very non-Enlightened Muslim world.
The ultimate test of a civilization, as I’m sure you would agree, is the way it affects the salvation of souls, and we lack definitive data on that question.
Here is a question that has bothered me for a long while.
Herr GFvonB speaks, of the United States as his “patria.” Maclin says he does not want to see America die. My question: what is the patria for us denizens of the United States? Is it that thing we call “America” — the “from sea to shining sea” thing — or is it our particular state? Or is it whatever region in which we live?
Perhaps the same question: to what do we owe pietas — the federal union? Or is it to something else? For instance, does my first loyalty (after God and family) belong to the Tehachapi Valley where I live, or to Kern County, or to California, or to the union?
I’d say all of the above, in that all deserve a certain level of natural loyalty and affection–somewhat different in both degree and kind in each case. I’m sure we’d all agree that the modern nation-state presents some problems having to do with its tendency to become absolute. Still, we can’t just ignore it or live as if we’re somehow above it.
A reasonably stable constitutional order on the Enlightenment model has real virtues not to be taken lightly or for granted when you consider some of the alternatives. I’d be happy if we could reverse the decay of ours.
This is a wonderful discussion, thank you for inviting me! Let me try to respond to the main points:
Careful: Yes, there is always misery and hardship when a State collapses. I am, however, quite convinced that more misery and death will occur if this State does not collapse.
Enlightenment: Firstly, I reject the so-called “First Things” heresy, which a more distinguished blogger than myself (http://larison.org/archives/000417.php) has summed up as “the Enlightenment and Christianity can happily and uniquely coexist in America because natural law is understood more or less the same by philosophe and Christian.” I think if anything, the current crop of Western NationStates proves that lie. A society cannot reject Christ and expect to properly understand natural law. Secondly, I stand with my confrere, the Angelic Doctor, and with the Popes in believing that monarchy is the best of all forms of government (note: I am not speaking of that tyrannical Renaissance/Reformation abuse known as “Divine Right Monarchy” or “Absolutist Monarchy”, but of the more traditional Catholic model).
Test: I absolutely agree that the test of a civilization is its effects on the salvation of souls, and thus I feel that a Catholic confessional state with a Most Christian King is the ideal. I would put forth the claim that mediæval society produced far more Confessors (as opposed to Martyrs) than Enlightenment society (though it certainly has done a good(?) job at producing martyrs).
Patria: I would say that subsidiarity should be observed; I personally feel more loyalty to Minnesota (the land, as opposed to the nigh-communist state that controls it) than to the Republic. If I had not moved so often in my youth, I probably would feel even more loyalty to my hometown. In fact, if I were force to choose, I would probably take Minnesota as my true patria, though that does not imply that I reject the fact that I am an American and should have loyalty to the Republic as well. My favorite historical State is the Holy Roman Empire (though far from perfect, as are all of man’s creations), and I think it struck the perfect balance of loyalties from town up to Empire.
Decay: I agree that there is value in the American model, though I would contend (along the lines of Dr. Thomas Woods) that much of what is good there is a restoration of pre-Enlightenment ideals, and where it falls down is precisely where it introduces Enlightenment principles. Again, I do not believe that this is the best model, not by far, but I do agree that (were it possible) restoring the decayed elements would help to make it a much more livable, much less evil society. There would still be problems, however — one need only read about the struggles of the counter-revolutionary German Catholic immigrants of the late 19th Century to see that.
Maclin said:
“It doesn’t strike me that physical evils based on the abuse of power are especially more likely to occur in our Enlightenment-based culture than in others.”
With all due respect, I beg to differ. The context in which Herr GFvonB originally made his remark was a discussion of the uniquely vicious physical violence of abortion, which seems to be the result of enlightenment based culture (my body, my choice). While it may be true that there have been a select few more political cultures with a greater history of violence, only the unique evils of National Socialism, Stalinism and the Aztec Empire immediately come to mind as more violent societies than ours, and of these treee, only one was not fundamentally influenced by enlightenment rationality.
Over 40 million deaths from abortion since 1973. The statistic is so utterly horrifying that it can hardly be held in the mind for more than an instant before our our inner revulsion forces us to think of something else, and ignore just how diabolical the American regieme is.
You’re welcome, GF. I assume you weren’t aware of this blog or the magazine of which it’s a sort of online offshoot, but I think there are some people around here who are pretty much in agreement with you.
I’m a bit pressed for time, but let me just say to both GF and ben that I think you’re leaving out the role of technology in making current levels of abortion possible. Within the limits of available technology, I think any number of past civilizations were as violent as ours. Moreover, the Romans, for instance, would probably have taken to abortion as enthusiastically as modern Westerners have.
But that aside: wouldn’t you have to roll back most of modernity to get where you want to be? That’s a view with which I have some sympathy, but am not in active agreement.
As I implied in my original post, I think our unprecedented wealth and technological power may well be our undoing, and while people on both sides (i.e. Catholic and atheist) would probably agree that those are at least connected to the Enlightenment, I don’t think we’re going back to a pre-technological culture without cataclysm, something along the lines of global nuclear war.
Maclin wrote: “The ultimate test of a civilization, as I’m sure you would agree, is the way it affects the salvation of souls, and we lack definitive data on that question.”
One cannot know the number of those saved in any particular society. But wouldn’t it be at least reasonable to say that a society where most people are members of the Church, where the Faith is taken as determinative of human behavior, where the sense of a sacramental order pervades — wouldn’t such a society be more conducive to salvation than one that conduces to skepticism and religious agnosticism?
Christopher,
Yes, one would assume so. But that’s really only to say that where more people are practicing Christians more will be saved. That could be the case under any form of government (well, any reasonable form–maybe not in, say, North Korea).
But I guess your point is not so much that as that as our society stands right now it would be presumptively not very conducive to salvation (at least not for a great many people–I think we’re at a point where the very excesses and madnesses of practical atheism are beginning to drive some people toward faith). I wouldn’t argue with that. Question is, can it be reformed–can it be converted? Or will it have to collapse or be destroyed before a more Christian order can emerge?
Good point about the Romans, they probably would have loved abortion.
However, this astute observation undermines your larger point about technology being the cause of so much violence in our world instead of the enlightnement mindset. The fact of the matter is that there have been several societes where infanticide was relatively common. In ancient Carthage recent evidence suggests they practiced widespread ritualized infant sacrifice to kronos/saturn. In so many ways our violence is similar to Carthage. Anthropologists suggest that child sacrifice had an economic function of maintaing the proper population size for a city perched on the edge of the desert. Certaily the citizens of Carthage thought their local god protected then in exchange for their immolated children. In a similar way many think that abortion is a necessary sacrifice so that the life of the “mother” may be “saved”. The abortionist in the LA Times article that sparked this conversation in the first place even called these women “reborn”.
The people in Carthage also hid from the realities of what they were doing. Loud music kept the gathered crowd from hearing the cries of the infant, and they actually believed that the loud cry and convulsion elicited form the child that finally caused him to fall into the burning pit was a last laugh as the child lept into the arms of their god. Planned parenthood clinics porvide the same aid for self-deception for us. Even their name soothes our conscience.
But we practice this horror on a far larger scale than they ever did, and the horror of horrors is that there are Christians perpetrating this heinousnes in the name of God’s Mercy. I’m sure kronos is pleased, especially now that some in this land will actually celebrate saturnalia in his honor in the coming weeks in prefence to the birth of Our Lord in the name of “diversity”.
Enlightenment ideology must be overcome. You ask, “can it be reformed–can it be converted? Or will it have to collapse or be destroyed before a more Christian order can emerge?”
I presume you are concerned about violence? We are already past that point. The culture war has more than 40 million casualties. The enlightenment mindset has made war on Christ, especially His little ones. Enlightnment ideology will continue it’s war on Christ until is is exauhsted.
Our job is to suffer and love. The answer is the Cross. We must stay awake.
ben,
The point I intended about technology was not that it somehow causes or leads to violence (an arguable point but not the one I was making), but that it greatly increases the scale of possible violence. Abortion in particular was simply not technologically possible on its present scale until fairly recently, so the ancients mostly had to make do with exposure and infanticide.
I suppose this may be nit-picking, but I have my doubts as to whether “the Enlightenment mindset” is quite so much the root of the problem as you and GFvonB seem to think. I think it’s more elemental.
By the way, the intended antecedent of “it” in my question “can it be reformed?” was not “Enlightenment ideology” but “our society.” The two are connected but not identical. Insofar as “Enlightenment ideology” is a synonym for atheism, I certainly agree that it can’t be reformed but only conquered. That would be a requirement for reform of the society.
Maclin,
My point was not about forms of government but about a constitutive philosophy of society; it’s religion. I have no quarrel with the republican institutions of the United States, at least as they were originally conceived. What’s more, I think they, in themselves, are in no way contrary to the Catholic faith. I think goverment arises from the genius of a people and so would not propose any kind of universal ideal, whether it be democracy or monarchy (though I think any good government would have elements of these.)
So, I would think it at least notionally possible that the institutions of the United States could be reformed, but only through a conversion to the Catholic faith. That this will happen, I doubt. Societies in profound decay generally do not revive (I can’t think of any at present that have). I think American society is in the profoundest decay.
Maclin,
Yes, it is more elemental, but I think that the enlightenment is something novel and uniquely horrifying. I’d recommend this as both a diagnosis and prescription:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/zrtzeurcul.HTM
I think we agree on far more than we disagree on.
Christopher,
We’re in substantial agreement. I wouldn’t want anything I’ve said to be taken as minimizing the extent of the decay.
ben,
I don’t have leisure at the moment to read the Ratzinger piece but I doubt I’d have any argument at all with it. Mulling over the “America must die” thing a day or so ago I found myself thinking “what has to die is materialist philosophy.” I think the only disagreement we might have on this is whether “the Enlightment” is the best term by which to denote the rise of the atheism of the modern world.
It seems clear that what John Paul II meant by the “Civilization of Love” was neither the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire [which was neither holy nor Roman] nor the neoconservative assimilation to theEnlightenment political paradigm [with a hearty dose of corporate imperialism thrown in] but something altogether new, with roots, of course, in Christendom.
I for one am not nostalgic for the Inquisition, nor at home with the New [American] World Order…