Interesting essay by Anthony Esolen at Crisis Magazine:
For the Church, Leo notes, assists the temporal welfare of the poor directly, through alms, and indirectly, though more effectively, by promoting Christian morality. We do not follow God’s commandments so as to gain comfort in this life. But those commandments restrain “the greed of possession” and “the thirst for pleasure”—twin engines of a diseased soul and a dying society. They destroy us even amidst abundance. Christian morality, by contrast, can supply much of our want by means of—note the word Leo uses—“economy,” that is, the right governance of a household. It teaches us to be content with “frugal living”—again, note the word. The frugal person makes full use of the fruits nearby; thus is frugality a part of temperance and of gratitude to God, lest we tread His gifts underfoot.
Now, if people are meant for one another, and if they generally prosper by the natural virtues, then they should be free to form associations to promote their temporal and moral welfare. The Church has formed such associations from the beginning; she has invented the hospital, the orphanage, the home for pensioners, schools for the indigent, and so forth—“deposits of piety,” says Leo, quoting Tertullian; and again the financial metaphor is apt. She begs on behalf of the beggars! She “has established congregations of religious and many other useful institutions for help and mercy, so that hardly any kind of suffering could exist which was not afforded relief.” But the secularists of Leo’s day were working to force the Church out of her right role, seeking to supplant charity with secular mechanisms. Nothing has changed. We have seen, in the United States and Canada, an aggressive attempt to squeeze the Church out of her schools, hospitals, colleges, adoption agencies, and other social services, unless she agree to become what she is not, an appendage to the State, truckling to her false master, ashamed of the True. One cannot serve both God and Mammon.
Deborah,
From your quotation: For the Church, Leo notes, assists the temporal welfare of the poor directly, through alms, and indirectly, though more effectively, by promoting Christian morality. (boldface added)
The moral doctrine of the Catholic Church is derived entirely from Natural Law, with no reference whatsoever to divine revelation. Natural Law is deduced from the order of the universe by reason alone, and thus applies uniformly to all humanity because it does not depend upon the teachings of any religion. Thus, the author’s assertion is utterly wront. The Catholic Church promotes and teaches universal morality rather than a morality that is distinctly Christian.
Here, it’s important to note the implications of the belief that one’s deity is the creator of the universe, for this fundamental tenet of Judeo-Christian faith makes the universe itself a manifestation, an expression, of its creator’s will. Thus, to us as Christians, whatever is contrary to Natural Law, and thus immoral (or “evil” or “intrinsically disordered”), is also contrary to God’s will, and thus constitutes sin. Also, since God cannot contradict himself, the Word of God (scripture) cannot contradict Natural Law. Nevertheless, it is absolutely imperative that we teach morality from a foundation that is universal (Natural Law) rather than from a source of revelation (scripture) because only that which is universal is proper for public acts of secular governance, and thus proper basis for (1) voting, especially with respect to moral issues and stances of candidates upon moral issues, as citizens of free societies and (2) official acts pertaining to moral issues when serving as a government official.
Norm.
The State should serve the Church. That is my opinion. It ought to be subservient, to become a means to the end the Church seeks, rather than the opposite- the State, by controlling the Church, is an attempt to have absolute control over human beings, even in their relationship to God- once the State has the final say as to what the Church is, and does, how she operates, what she teaches, then the State has effectively declared its godhood to the faithful who do not rebel.
This is what happened in Britain, this is what happened in Revolutionary France, what could have happened in Fascist Italy and Spain, what could have happened in Nazi Germany, what is definitely happening in China, what will eventually happen in the United States.
The State, as with money, are means to an end; the former, an apparatus to tend to material needs of a people that binds itself to an abstract geographic-political entity ; the latter, a tool for the exchange of goods. The moment they become ends unto themselves, there can only be ruin.
It’s a lot like a man whose life revolves around his car or food. They have their purposes, (transportation, nutrition) but making them more than what they are brings a lot of trouble. They become fetishized. I think that’s the same way with how atheists view science, at least those who subscribe to scientism, or how many people think the intellect is the totality of a human being. The means to an end become fetishized.
Another reason, of course, for the Church’s loosening hold on her schools, hospitals, etc is the lack of man-and-womenpower to run them. The armies of priests and religious who provided free teaching, nursing, and other social services are now dead or in geriatric care and the Church has needed major funding from government sources to run these institutions. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Pingback: Why we should not be statists | Catholic Canada