| Part 1
Robert Kraynak on America's Civil Religion
HAMILTON, New York, 25 MARCH 2005 (ZENIT)
Alexis de Tocqueville admired the way Americans were able to combine
the spirit of religion with the spirit of liberty in the 1830s.
Robert Kraynak, professor of political science at Colgate University and
author of "Christian Faith and Modern Democracy: God and Politics in the
Fallen World" (Notre Dame), explains in the first part of this
three-part interview how civil religion prevented a totally secular
democracy from arising in America for nearly 200 years, and how it might
be a good model for other nations.
This is the first of a three-part interview.
Q: Recently, Cardinal Ratzinger described the American model of
church-state relations as more hospitable to religious truth and
institutions than European models. What features of the American model
might be more hospitable to religion?
Kraynak: The American model of church-state relations was best described
by Alexis de Tocqueville in "Democracy in America" more than 150 years
ago. He expressed his admiration, much like Cardinal Ratzinger today,
for the way Americans were able to combine the spirit of religion with
the spirit of liberty.
The crucial point for Tocqueville was the distinction between laws and
customs. By law, Americans separated church and state; but in their
customs or mores, Americans insisted on a prominent role for religion in
public and private life. This meant Americans rejected the model of
Great Britain, which established a national Church of England, and the
practice of regional princes in Germany, who gave legal support to their
own denominations.
By rejecting state establishment, Americans never experienced the
problems of clerical power and were able to develop a robust pluralism
where the various Christian churches pursued religious orthodoxy as
voluntary associations on roughly equal terms, although reformed
Protestant churches had a historical advantage.
While favoring voluntary worship, Americans also believed that religion
had a public role in promoting republican virtue. Hence, they developed
a nondenominational civil religion that was expressed in the Declaration
of Independence's doctrine of God-given natural rights
the belief that liberty derived from "the laws of Nature and Nature's
God" and that inalienable rights were endowments of the Creator.
This republican religion was later expressed in Abraham Lincoln's
Gettysburg Address, which said that "this nation under God" will enjoy a
new birth of freedom
a
sentiment also echoed in the Pledge of Allegiance and in countless
public statements connecting the blessings of American freedom with
God's providence and judgment.
For nearly 200 years, this civil religion prevented a totally secular
democracy from arising in America, while allowing and even protecting a
deeper piety based on the revealed truths of Christian faith in the many
Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches of America.
American piety is thus a special blend of three elements: the
disestablishment of religion, a republican civil religion of God-given
natural rights, and pluralism in the pursuit of Christian orthodoxy.
Q: A recent article in the New York Times described the strong
collaborations between Christian and non-Christian politicians in Italy.
Some European states even subsidize the Church. Why might Cardinal
Ratzinger think the United States is a better model?
Kraynak: In comparing attitudes to religion, Cardinal Ratzinger
reportedly said that "from many points of view the American model is
better. ... Europe has remained bogged down in caesaro-papism." I think
Cardinal Ratzinger meant that a lingering Christian establishment in
Europe may be holding back a renewal of spiritual life that could be
unleashed by voluntary religious participation and pluralism as in
America.
Italy, for example, looks like it has state-sponsored Catholicism with
the government's historic ties to the Christian Democratic Party, public
schools that have crucifixes in classrooms, the Pope living next door
and Christian art and churches publicly supported everywhere. But the
people seem to lack religious zeal and have disregarded Catholic
teaching in legalizing divorce, abortion and gay marriage, as well as in
their alarmingly low birthrates.
The same is true of England and the Scandinavian countries: officially
Anglican or Lutheran but practically indifferent or hostile to
Christianity
and much more openly anti-Christian than Italy, which still has an
affectionately pro-Catholic feel.
France is the extreme case in embracing a totally "laicized" state
enforcing a ban on all religious displays in public schools and all
references to God by public officials. This is state-sponsored
secularism that also suppresses religious vitality.
Cardinal Ratzinger looks at most European nations
he could have mentioned Canada as well
and he sees the worst possible combination of historical residues of
Christian establishment and utter indifference to Christian faith; a
post-Christian world that would not even allow a reference to the
Christian heritage of Europe in the Constitution of the European Union.
By comparison, the American situation looks relatively healthy: higher
rates of church attendance and professions of faith
although secular forces in the U.S. judiciary, universities and the
media are trying to create a secular America just like Europe and
Canada. And one cannot forget that the Catholic Church and Protestant
denominations in America have been rocked by scandals and divisive
battles that have damaged the faith.
Even if we grant the relative superiority of the American condition
today
which I am prepared to do
the question Cardinal Ratzinger leaves unanswered is whether Europe
could be saved by adopting some features of the American model, such as
disestablishment and pluralism, without possessing other vital elements
namely, a civil religion of God-given natural rights and a belief in
Christian orthodoxy.
I think that a nondenominational civil religion is feasible for
Europeans to adopt as a basis for human rights. Even the French could
come to see that their historic commitment to "the rights of man" is
better grounded in the belief that humans are made in the image of God
rather than in the skeptical reason of the French Enlightenment.
But the quest for religious orthodoxy
for ultimate religious truth
seems to be dying or dead in Europe today: Europe looks like a dying
civilization in which the highest and noblest aims of man have been
forgotten or rejected as dangerous. This may be an overstatement, but
there is something different about the European and American attitudes
to religious truth. ZE05032521
Part 2
Robert Kraynak on the Different Paths of Development
HAMILTON, New York, 26 MARCH 2005 (ZENIT)
European countries may appear to be more in line with Church teaching
on many issues, but their motivation is much different, says a political
scientist.
Robert Kraynak, professor at Colgate University and author of "Christian
Faith and Modern Democracy: God and Politics in the Fallen World" (Notre
Dame) shared with ZENIT how the United States and Europe have taken
different paths in church-state relations and what roadblocks the
respective nations have faced.
Part 1 of this three-part interview appeared Friday.
Q: Why have church-state relations developed differently in the United
States and in Europe since the 17th century?
Kraynak: The paths of America and Europe leading to the present
condition have overlapped and diverged in crucial respects. Both were
shaped by the major currents of modernity that produced powerful liberal
democracies with dynamic industrial economies; they also have a common
alliance in NATO and shared commitments to world organizations such as
the United Nations.
But the paths taken in Europe have been more violent and exhausting than
in America
leaving an older and more tired European civilization that is
skeptical of grand causes and claims of ultimate truth.
For example, the Europeans experienced terrible wars of religion in the
1600s, which means that religious diversity can remind them of sectarian
warfare rather than the robust pluralism of America, where the sects
persecuted but never killed each other.
Religious establishment in Europe was a way of imposing civil peace,
settling the issue by convention instead of claiming ultimate truth
as in England, where Anglicanism emerged as a political compromise
rather than a theological truth.
The Europeans also battled the Muslims, so the Spanish, French and
Austrians are naturally suspicious of a religious pluralism that gives
Islam an equal claim that could be converted into domination in a few
generations.
Politically, the European democracies emerged from centralized
monarchies, often by violent revolution, or from the defeat of
totalitarian regimes. They also had colonial empires and fought bloody
world wars on their soil with millions of casualties
leaving them tired and quasi-pacifist, and suspicious of the strong
claims of good and evil that Americans are fond of asserting.
The centralized welfare states of Europe are expressions of the desire
for guaranteed social security, to which religion is irrelevant and even
a danger. Culturally, the Europeans experienced radical forms of the
Enlightenment from France and Germany, as well as morbid forms of
post-Enlightenment existentialism and nihilism.
By comparison, the Anglo-American Enlightenment was always modestly
progressive, maintaining a belief that truth will emerge from the free
competition of ideas.
The overall result is that Europeans are tired and want to play it safe,
so they are comfortable with lingering religious establishment and
spiritual indifference. They have a deep fear of Islam exploiting
religious pluralism because some Muslims have the passion for religious
absolutism in a dangerous form.
It is possible that Cardinal Ratzinger underestimates the Islamic threat
that Europeans sense but are paralyzed to confront head on
as was evident from the howls of protest against Italian President
Silvio Berlusconi's remark that Western Christian civilization is
superior to Islamic civilization. The European reaction seemed to be,
"Don't tap the hornets nest!"
Q: In spite of recent hostility to Christian viewpoints in Europe, many
European nations have policies on controversial moral questions
such as abortion
that are closer to the Church's teaching, than does the United States.
What accounts for this phenomenon?
Kraynak: In certain respects, European policies seem closer to the
social teaching of the Catholic Church; but overall, I do not think that
this is true.
On issues such as the death penalty, social justice, environmentalism,
and support for the United Nations and the Palestinians, Europeans
sometimes sound more in tune with the Vatican than Americans. But the
motivations of the Europeans and even some of their policies are
radically different from the Church's teaching.
Germany, for example, has articles in its Federal Constitution that call
for protecting "the natural bases of life by legislation" as well as
protecting marriage and the family and allowing religious instruction in
state schools
see Articles 6, 7, 20. But in reality abortion, divorce, birth control,
gay marriage, stem cell research and artificial fertilization are
readily available.
The most vital Catholic countries
Ireland, Poland, Spain and Italy
are in the process of changing their laws to reflect the permissive
freedoms of secular society, despite opposition from the Vatican
though Ireland remains staunchly anti-abortion, while permitting
divorce.
On the other hand, marriage and family life actually may be more stable
in Europe than in America because European societies are more stable
than America
there is less social mobility, less rootless individualism and less
crime to weaken the bonds of family life.
In general, European nations are more communal or corporatist than
America, and that means more limits on competitive individualism and
greater social cohesion. Hence, environmental restrictions and workers'
protections are more in line with Catholic teaching, as well as the
virtual elimination of the death penalty and opposition to wars, like
the war in Iraq, without strong U.N. approval.
But these European laws and policies are not motivated by Catholic
natural law, or Christian charity, or anything particularly noble. They
are motivated by the secular materialism of the social welfare state
that seeks safety and security in "this world" at all costs.
In the worst cases, Europeans have lost sight of the highest human
aspirations and the courage to seek them
leading them to seek a risk-free world where it is too strenuous to work
hard, to marry, to have children, to go to church, to pursue high
culture and even to fight for their survival.
If this goal is fully realized, Europe will go the way of the Roman
Empire, with Muslim immigrants playing the role of conquering
barbarians.
Q: In the late 19th century, Pope Leo XIII condemned the heresy of what
he called "Americanism." Has the Church's perspective on the American
experiment changed since Leo's time?
Kraynak: It is not entirely clear if Cardinal Ratzinger's cautious
endorsement of the American model reflects a change of attitude about
the American experiment since Pope Leo XIII.
That is partly because Leo's condemnation of Americanism was not a
rejection of American democracy or religious liberty per se
which he said could be acceptable under certain circumstances. Leo
defined Americanism as the tendency to trim the Catholic faith to fit
the fashions of the time
something that today is called cafeteria Catholicism or progressive
Catholicism.
I think Cardinal Ratzinger is fully aware that Americanism in Leo's
sense is still present in America and in every other modern democracy.
One can even trace the devastating sex-abuse scandals in America to this
tendency. They were caused by seminaries that let in the sexual
revolution of the 1960s under the belief that the Church's teaching on
sexual ethics was outdated and by bishops who lost confidence in their
authority to discipline and punish abusive priests.
I do not think that Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II have any
illusions that Americanism in this sense has disappeared. Nor are they
uncritical of many features of American society
such as consumerism, inequalities of wealth, Roe v. Wade and American
unilateralism.
So, Pope Leo XIII was not rejecting the American model of democracy in
all cases, and Cardinal Ratzinger and John Paul II are not endorsing it
wholeheartedly, either.
What may be new is an acceptance of the American principles of
disestablishment, God-given natural rights, and religious pluralism as
the best arrangement for Christianity in the future. There is also a
sense that the future lies in Africa and Asia, for totally different
reasons.
The Church, after all, has always distinguished the Two Cities
the city of God and the earthly city
and held that the eternal truths of the spiritual and moral realm are
compatible with changing prudential judgments in the temporal and
political realm.
In the present circumstances, the newer American model looks
comparatively better than the older European one; but the American model
also has weaknesses that may lead it down the path of Europe and Canada.
In that case, we will have to devise different strategies for spiritual
renewal amidst a variety of hostile forces
a
situation that will look a lot like the early Church and that will
require similar kinds of martyrs, saints, and heroes to begin rebuilding
the city of God on earth. ZE05032621
Part 3
Robert Kraynak on Catholicism and Americanism
HAMILTON, New York, 27 MARCH 2005 (ZENIT)
Catholicism in the United States is in tension with both the
anti-papist theology of original Calvinism and the social forces of
democracy that are independent of Calvinism.
So says Robert Kraynak, professor of political science at Colgate
University and author of "Christian Faith and Modern Democracy: God and
Politics in the Fallen World" (Notre Dame).
Kraynak shared with ZENIT how, despite tensions, Catholics have
contributed to the vitality of American democracy by keeping alive the
natural law tradition of the American founding that most Protestants
never fully appreciated and that modern skeptics now denigrate.
Part 2 of this interview appeared Saturday.
Q: What role did Catholics such as Charles Carroll play at the American
founding? How have Catholics such as Orestes Brownson, John Courtney
Murray, S.J., and Michael Novak contributed to the continuing vitality
of American democracy?
Kraynak: Despite the tensions mentioned above, most Catholics have a
deep love for America. The anti-Catholicism of Protestant America did
not prevent Catholic immigrants from Europe and Latin America from
feeling gratitude to America for its economic opportunities and
religious liberty, even if meant living in separate Catholic ghettos or
neighborhoods.
In fact, many Catholic leaders and intellectuals eventually came to
believe in an essential harmony of Catholicism and Americanism.
Charles Carroll, for example, was a member of a prominent Catholic
family in Maryland and also a signer of the Declaration of Independence
who became a personal friend of George Washington.
Orestes Brownson was a lively 19th-century intellectual who converted to
Catholicism. In his book, "The American Republic," he argued for the
unity of the republic based on a higher law that was more fundamental
than a social contract of the states.
Likewise, John Courtney Murray argued in the 20th century that the
American experiment in self-government is based on the higher law of the
Declaration of Independence
on God-given natural rights that find their fullest expression in
Catholic natural law and its teaching about the dignity of the human
person.
Michael Novak follows in Murray's footsteps, arguing that Catholic
natural law is the true basis of America's "democratic capitalism" with
its voluntary associations of free persons.
I think these Catholics have contributed to the vitality of American
democracy by keeping alive the natural law tradition of the American
founding that most Protestants never fully appreciated and that modern
skeptics now denigrate.
At the same time, Catholics have insisted that the natural law tradition
of America must go beyond its Enlightenment roots in Lockean liberalism
and be supplemented by the natural law teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas
which directs freedom to the higher ends of virtue and the common good.
The split among Catholics is whether the elevation of American natural
law to Thomistic natural law is easy or hard. The figures mentioned in
this question think that the fit is relatively smooth and harmonious,
while others think that inherent tensions between Catholicism and
Americanism mean that the best that one can achieve is a prudent
alliance.
Q: Francis Cardinal George has said that the United States' cultural and
political heritage is "Calvinist" in orientation and that there is a
tension between Catholicism and the American Experiment. Is this an
accurate view from your perspective?
Kraynak: The relation between Catholicism and Americanism is a
complicated story, although it usually boils down to two schools of
thought. One school views the relation as inherently harmonious, the
other sees inherent tensions.
The school of "harmony" is very popular and includes influential figures
such as John Courtney Murray. The school of "disharmony," however, is
gaining adherents and includes Francis Cardinal George, David Schindler
of Communio and many traditional Catholics.
While I lean to the second school, I disagree with Cardinal George about
the causes of the inherent tensions. He dislikes the competitive
individualism of America because it seems incompatible with Catholic
notions of solidarity and the common good, and he rejects a
consumer-entertainment culture that trivializes spiritual life. He
traces these tendencies to the "secularized Calvinism" of America.
Certainly, Calvinism is a crucial part of American history because the
early Puritans were Calvinists, and their theology was intensely
anti-Catholic
many Puritans viewed the Pope as the Antichrist.
But Calvinism is not the best explanation for the social trends that
disturb Cardinal George because Calvinism, even in its secularized
forms, is not especially individualistic or materialistic. The Puritans
favored a theocratic Christian society that emphasized America's
national covenant with God
a
New Israel
and the rule of the "visible Saints"
God's predestined elect.
Cardinal George seems to equate Calvinism with Max Weber's "Protestant
work ethic" in order to explain America's obsession with competitive
individualism, economic success and materialism.
But these features are not so much products of Calvinism as of modern
democracy, as Alexis de Tocqueville shows in "Democracy in America."
In fact, Tocqueville praises the Puritans for creating strong local
communities, and he traces the weakening of Puritan communalism to the
democratic idea of "equality of condition"
which causes Americans to seek upward mobility through economic
competition and to withdraw from public into private life.
I agree with Tocqueville in seeing individualism and materialism as
products of the mass culture of democracy, which means Catholicism is in
tension with both the anti-papist theology of original Calvinism and the
social forces of democracy that are independent of Calvinism.
Q: The religion clauses of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
have been celebrated as the reason that religious activity flourishes in
the United States. However, recent Supreme Court decisions based on
these clauses have greatly limited public religious practices. Could
these clauses do more to hinder religious expression than allow it to
flourish?
Kraynak: The religion clauses of the First Amendment make two claims
that Congress cannot make laws "respecting the establishment of
religion" and that Congress cannot prohibit "the free exercise" of
religion.
Most of the drafters and ratifiers of this amendment understood the two
claims to be complementary: Congress could not establish a national
church in America
such as the Church of England
so that religion could be freely exercised by the separate states, local
communities and individuals according to their consciences.
This allowed public roles for religion in state and local governments,
in public schools, in expressions by magistrates, military chaplains and
even by judicial personnel
thus "In God We Trust" has been used on currencies and in courtrooms
without causing First Amendment challenges.
The American founders were also friendly to religion in general because
they believed that rights were God-given and republics needed civil
religion to promote virtue in addition to rights. This view of the First
Amendment has been called "benevolent accommodation" by the Catholic
legal scholar Christopher Wolfe.
It prevailed in American legal history for the first 160 years of the
republic, but the courts have chipped away at it in the last 50 years
although they have not been entirely consistent in their decisions.
In 1947, the Supreme Court severely limited the separate states from
promoting religion by "incorporating" the First Amendment into the
Fourteenth Amendment. Prayers in public schools were also ruled
unconstitutional in 1963, but the Supreme Court has allowed Nativity
scenes in public parks and seems reluctant to touch the Pledge of
Allegiance's words "one nation under God."
Despite these accommodations, the dominant tendency of judges, lawyers
and intellectuals of the "elite culture" is to view the First and
Fourteenth Amendments as virtual bans on religion in public life,
erecting a high wall of separation between church and state.
This is opposed by most Americans who still believe in the "benevolent
accommodation" of the Founding Fathers
a
case where the people are much wiser than the educated intellectuals.
Unfortunately, the decadence of the intellectual classes
and thus of judges
is probably inevitable; but the American people are healthier and more
reluctant to push personal rights to extremes. My hope is that the will
of the people
the "red states" of America
will prevail in the long run and will even encourage the educated
intellectuals to rethink their position.
Q: What role should religion play in a modern democracy, and how should
Christians apply their faith to the problems of public policy in a
modern democratic society?
Kraynak: The primary role of the Church and indeed of all Christians
today is to remind people that there is a higher realm than politics and
economics.
The modern age of democracy tends to deny spiritual transcendence and to
create a one-dimensional world where activism in politics, careers,
material consumption, sports and entertainment occupy all of our time
and energy.
Such activism even distorts the Christian faith by emphasizing social
justice over holiness, sacramental life, contemplative prayer and
monasticism. The most important "policy" of Christians is to remind
themselves and others that spiritual life directed toward eternity is
more important than temporal life.
In other words, we need to recover the distinction between the Two
Cities
the city of God and the earthly city
and to live as citizens of two worlds rather than of this world alone.
The second point to remember is that even in the earthly city
whose goal is the temporal common good
Christianity permits a variety of legitimate regimes. We tend to assume
that democracy is the sole legitimate regime consistent with Christian
ideas of human dignity and universal love. And compared to
totalitarianism or dictatorship, even a degraded democracy is a good
regime.
Better still is a constitutional democracy under God that does not
marginalize religion and that cultivates civic virtues as well as
personal freedom.
But even the best democracy is hostile to the principle of hierarchy and
tends to level the distinction between higher and lower goods; these
tendencies undermine the structure of the Catholic Church as well as the
proper order of the soul by treating all lifestyles as equal.
Democracy also promotes popular culture that glorifies the tastes of the
masses, mostly adolescents, and has a perverse effect on intellectual
elites, who lose confidence in high culture and then become subversive
agents of cultural decadence.
Thus, regimes combining hierarchical and democratic structures are
better for the temporal realm than pure democracy. In the present age,
we need to respect the will of the people where it is healthy and
re-educate the decadent intellectuals to respect the true hierarchy of
being.
Third, Christians need to pursue policies in their democratic societies
that follow the natural moral law in regard to family life as well as in
regard to the weak, the poor, and the vulnerable.
We need laws protecting marriage as a union between a man and a woman,
as well as pro-life legislation protecting the unborn. And we need laws
that creatively help the chronically poor and under-insured to attain a
decent standard of living without undue dependence on the welfare state.
All of these policies together make up the temporal common good that
requires applying natural law with prudence
the greatest of the political virtues.
ZE05032721
|
