The heresy of Americanism!
#41
And some of its principles are exemplary in terms of Catholic ideals.  All and all, it set up a good government for a prot country.
Reply
#42
(08-09-2012, 12:37 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(08-09-2012, 12:31 AM)vtcatholic Wrote: Ah the Americanism charges here. I feel perfectly comfortable as a Catholic supporting our Constitution and constitutional government as was written. While I respect the monarchists, constitutional republicanism is not inherently anti-Catholic nor is it Americanism.

Yes, but the US isn't simply a constitutional republic. The ideals and principles in the Constitution are inherently anti-Catholic and evil.

That's silly. There's nothing in the original Constitution that explicitly denies any of the Church's dogmas. The Constitution's prohibiting a religious test for holders of public office does not mean that, according to the Constitution, religious requirements for holding office are intrinsically wrong or always to be opposed.

The Bill of Rights, in mandating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," does not declare that these are absolute norms or the ideal for every society. Nor does it condemn historical confessional states that have limited the free exercise of religious minorities. It doesn't even prohibit the states in the Union from having establishments of religion themselves. (The Bill of Rights only began to be interpreted as applying to the states after the Civil War.) The First Amendment simply declares what will be the law for the federal government.

This was something Catholics thought would be a good situation for their new country, for the Church (they knew) would have a far easier time spreading Christ's teachings with these provisions than without them.
Reply
#43
Why did the founders cite George III's allowing of the Quebecois to practice the true Faith as something that needed to be redressed? Why did the bishop of Quebec threaten to excommunicate any priest that sided with the revolutionaries?

Read what the founders thought about our Faith, then read the Syllabus. The Constitution is full of errors.
Reply
#44
(08-09-2012, 03:18 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Why did the founders cite George III's allowing of the Quebecois to practice the true Faith as something that needed to be redressed? Why did the bishop of Quebec threaten to excommunicate any priest that sided with the revolutionaries?

Read what the founders thought about our Faith, then read the Syllabus. The Constitution is full of errors.
:w2go: :salute:
Reply
#45
(08-09-2012, 03:18 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Why did the founders cite George III's allowing of the Quebecois to practice the true Faith as something that needed to be redressed? Why did the bishop of Quebec threaten to excommunicate any priest that sided with the revolutionaries?

The Declaration of Independence, for all its symbolic and historical value, is not a legal document. It has no legal authority and is not part of the the "supreme law of the land."

In fact, the U.S. Constitution's ideas are hardly similar to those expressed in the Declaration of Independence, at least on two important points.

1) According to the Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal."

This sentiment is found nowhere in the original 1787 Constitution, which only uses the term "equal" when referencing how the senate is to be divided ("as equally as may be into three Classes"), when the Vice President may vote in the Senate ("[not] unless they be equally divided"), the number of presidential electors each state gets ("equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives"), contingency plans for ties in presidential elections ("if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes . . . if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes"), and a provision that may not be amended until 1808 ("that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate").

The only place in the entire Constitution that even approaches the sentiment of Jefferson's "all men are created equal" slogan is the Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment, which wasn't even ratified until 1868 as part of Reconstruction.

There is no support in the U.S. Constitution--at least as originally ratified--for Jeffersonian egalitarianism.

2) According to the Declaration of Independence the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are "unalienable."

The federal Constitution has exactly the opposite view. According to the Fifth Amendment, the United States may deprive a person of life, of liberty, and of property, provided that due process of law is observed. A right that can be taken away so long as the proper procedure is followed is hardly an unalienable one.


Although the Bishop of Quebec probably felt threatened that a revolutionary government would deprive the Catholic Quebecois of their freedom to practice the faith, this ended up being an unfounded fear.

Meanwhile, down in Baltimore, the first Catholic bishop in the United States came from a family that vigorously supported the Patriot cause. He, of course, rejoiced in the liberty granted to the Church by our new Constitution and even composed a lovely prayer for our country that I'd urge any Catholic from the U.S. to make use of.

(08-09-2012, 03:18 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Read what the founders thought about our Faith, then read the Syllabus. The Constitution is full of errors.

In evaluating what the Constitution means, it is the text more than the legislative intent that is important. (Of course, the most radically unorthodox Founding Father, Jefferson, was in France during the Philadelphia Convention and actually opposed the Constitution's ratification. Hamilton, one of the most staunchly Christian of the founders, was both the first delegate of New York at the Convention and was a chief proponent the Constitution's ratification.) There is nothing in the text of the Constitution--as an educated American would have interpreted it in the 1780s--that contradicts our faith.

I have read the Syllabus. I agree that the statements it condemned are indeed erroneous. I hold that a Catholic confessional state is the ideal form of government. I don't support the Constitution as the ideal, I support it as a practical system of government for the American people, who deviate perhaps more than most from the ideal.
Reply
#46
(08-09-2012, 03:58 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: There is nothing in the text of the Constitution--as an educated American would have interpreted it in the 1780s--that contradicts our faith.

Really?


42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers [Church and State], the civil law prevails.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church.

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.

The above are just some of the condemned philosophies which can be found in the American Constitution.
Reply
#47
Whilst the legal status of the Declaration of Independence means nothing, I don't think we should disregard the almost near-unanimous anti-Catholic viewpoint of the founders. This certainly shaped what they wrote in the Constitution, and how the early Republic was forged.
Quote:Hamilton, one of the most staunchly Christian of the founders, was both the first delegate of New York at the Convention and was a chief proponent the Constitution's ratification.)

The same "staunchly Christian" Hamilton who said: "The affair of Canada is still worse. The Romish Faith is made the established religion of the land... The free exercise of the Protestant faith depended upon the pleasure of the Governor and the Council... They may as well establish Popery in New York and the other colonies as they did in Canada. Your lives, your property, your religion, are at stake."
Quote:There is nothing in the text of the Constitution--as an educated American would have interpreted it in the 1780s--that contradicts our faith.

It doesn't matter how the average American in 1783 would have interpreted it. What matters is what the Church has said. Enlightenment philosophy is an enemy to our Faith.
Reply
#48
(08-09-2012, 04:10 AM)Walty Wrote:
(08-09-2012, 03:58 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: There is nothing in the text of the Constitution--as an educated American would have interpreted it in the 1780s--that contradicts our faith.

Really?


42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers [Church and State], the civil law prevails.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church.

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.

The above are just some of the condemned philosophies which can be found in the American Constitution.

See also: Mirari Vos, Quanta Cura.
Reply
#49
I grew up in America until the age of 16 and I remember the sort of ersatz sanctity given to the Decl. of Ind. and the Const. and I remember how the founding fathers were considered saints (documentaries would even accompany the images with "hallowed" music).

Living in Italy (we're on Republic 14 and our founding fathers wore togas) has made me a bit jaded.

The Am. founders were politicians, and mostly rabidly anti-Catholic and their document failed...

The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787

The American Civil War (1861–1865)

1861 minus 1787 = 74 years

It failed after a measly 74 years.

The American civil war was about tariffs
The Revolutionary war was about taxes

Americanismo is entirely money-oriented
(Corporations have personhood)

Teaparty isn't called teaparty for nothing.

America has spent (consumed) her protestant-Christian patrimony and is now a tremendous force of cultural evil to the rest of the world, because she is the only remaining power that feels she must proselytize. The French popped out, Russian Communism is dead and the Chinese know that their model isn't exportable.

America is the purveyor of contentless (virtue-less) freedom, of senseless egalitarianism, of political correctness. Her music industry (along with the other dominant force the Anglos) is amazingly filthy. INCREDIBLY SO!

Hey, 35% meals are fast food,
5 % of the world's pop. has 25% of its prison inmates
1 in 4 kids is on food stamps... in a place that has 31 universities in the top 100 and think tanks galore and the most bounteous land mass on earth to manage.
She consumes 80% of the world's painkillers (now a greater cause of deaths than traffic accidents)

Americans are uber-controlled by technology... It's a land of laws gone crazy, run by lawless banks and corporations and lobbies. She is overrun by illegal immigrants. (Dedicated to the great big sidereal garden in the sky, utopia, but too proud to tend to her own patch).

Many of her cities are more violent than Irak...

The system stinks...
Reply
#50
Quote: The Constitution is full of errors.

Why the need to exaggerate?  The only errors I can think of:
1.  Complete freedom of the press.
2.  Not a Catholic confessional State.
3.  Slavery is allowed.  Though it was allowed in many Catholic countries, the Church was against slavery.

Advantages:
1.  Subsidiarity
2.  Protections for citizens (these actually constitute many items in this list)
3.  Checks and balances
4.  Gold or silver money

The big problem came from amendments.  The biggest problem was the income tax, which was ratified in the early 20th century.  I'm hoping that the presence of a large Catholic immigration population did not have anything to do with it.  I've never studied it.

Lack of a confessional state was the fatal flaw.  Abortion, paper money, and the growth of the nanny State all came about by unconstitutional actions.

Abortion came about because the Catholic Church failed in her duty and did not fight it.  In over 50 years during this pro-life war, I don't think 1 politician has been excommunicated.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)