Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI on the American Founding

From the dawn of the Republic, America’s quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator. The framers of this nation’s founding documents drew upon this conviction when they proclaimed the “self-evident truth” that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights grounded in the laws of nature and of nature’s God. The course of American history demonstrates the difficulties, the struggles, and the great intellectual and moral resolve which were demanded to shape a society which faithfully embodied these noble principles. In that process, which forged the soul of the nation, religious beliefs were a constant inspiration and driving force, as for example in the struggle against slavery and in the civil rights movement. In our time too, particularly in moments of crisis, Americans continue to find their strength in a commitment to this patrimony of shared ideals and aspirations. ...

Historically, not only Catholics, but all believers have found here the freedom to worship God in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, while at the same time being accepted as part of a commonwealth in which each individual and group can make its voice heard. As the nation faces the increasingly complex political and ethical issues of our time, I am confident that the American people will find in their religious beliefs a precious source of insight and an inspiration to pursue reasoned, responsible and respectful dialogue in the effort to build a more humane and free society.

Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience – almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one’s deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate. In a word, freedom is ever new. It is a challenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won over for the cause of good (cf. Spe Salvi, 24). Few have understood this as clearly as the late Pope John Paul II. In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows, time and again, that “in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation”, and a democracy without values can lose its very soul (cf. Centesimus Annus, 46). Those prophetic words in some sense echo the conviction of President Washington, expressed in his Farewell Address, that religion and morality represent “indispensable supports” of political prosperity.

Excerpts from the White House Welcoming Ceremony Pope Benedict XVI (Apostolic visit to the United States April 16, 2008).

* * *

You represent a nation that plays a crucial role in world events today. The United States carries a weighty and far-reaching responsibility, not only for the well-being of its own people, but for the development and destiny of peoples throughout the world. With a deep sense of participation in the joys and hopes, the sorrows, anxieties, and aspirations of the entire human family, the Holy See is a willing partner in every effort to build a world of genuine peace and justice for all. ...

The Founding Fathers of the United States asserted their claim to freedom and independence on the basis of certain "self-evident" truths about the human person: truths which could be discerned in human nature, built into it by "nature’s God." Thus they meant to bring into being, not just an independent territory, but a great experiment in what George Washington called "ordered liberty": an experiment in which men and women would enjoy equality of rights and opportunities in the pursuit of happiness and in service to the common good. Reading the founding documents of the United States, one has to be impressed by the concept of freedom they enshrine: a freedom designed to enable people to fulfill their duties and responsibilities toward the family and toward the common good of the community. Their authors clearly understood that there could be no true freedom without moral responsibility and accountability, and no happiness without respect and support for the natural units or groupings through which people exist, develop, and seek the higher purposes of life in concert with others.

The American democratic experiment has been successful in many ways. Millions of people around the world look to the United States as a model in their search for freedom, dignity, and prosperity. But the continuing success of American democracy depends on the degree to which each new generation, native-born and immigrant, makes its own the moral truths on which the Founding Fathers staked the future of your Republic. Their commitment to build a free society with liberty and justice for all must be constantly renewed if the United States is to fulfill the destiny to which the Founders pledged their "lives . . . fortunes . . . and sacred honor."

Respect for religious conviction played no small part in the birth and early development of the United States. Thus John Dickinson, Chairman of the Committee for the Declaration of Independence, said in 1776: "Our liberties do not come from charters; for these are only the declaration of preexisting rights. They do not depend on parchments or seals; but come from the King of Kings and the Lord of all the earth." Indeed it may be asked whether the American democratic experiment would have been possible, or how well it will succeed in the future, without a deeply rooted vision of divine providence over the individual and over the fate of nations.

John Paul II on the American Experiment - excerpts from Pope John Paul II's words to the Honorable Lindy Boggs as Ambassador to the Holy See on December 16, 1997.

Pope Benedict's appreciation for American religious freedom

[Cross-posted to Benedict in America - Chris]

"The Pope likes New York and what it stands for", asserts Jeff Israely in a rather decent article on the Roman Pontiff by the American press ("The American Pope" Time April 3, 2008), examining Benedict's relationship with the American people and his perspectives on the relationship between "church and state" within our country:

"I think he's really fascinated by the city and what it represents," says Raphaela Schmid, a Rome-based German with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who knows him. "It's about people being two things at once, like Italian Americans or Chinese Americans. He's interested in that idea of coexistence."

Israely disputes the idea that the so-called "Vatican enforcer" harbors an antagonism toward "the democratic, pluralistic values that constitute (on our good days) the American brand":

... A survey of the 80-year-old Pontiff's writings over the decades and testimonies from those who know him suggests that Benedict has a soft spot for Americans and finds considerable value in his U.S. church, the third largest Catholic congregation in the world. Most intriguing, he entertains a recurring vision of an America we sometimes lose sight of: an optimistic and diverse but essentially pious society in which faiths and a faith-based conversation on social issues are kept vital by the Founding Fathers' decision to separate church and state. It's not a stretch to say the Pope sees in the U.S.--or in some kind of idealized version of it--a civic model and even an inspiration to his native Europe

According to Israely, during his stint as peritus during the Second Vatican Council, Joseph Ratzinger was sympathetic to the arguments of the U.S. delegation (John Courtney Murray?) in the debate over religious freedom:

Conservatives opposed [religious freedom]: states must sponsor faith, and the faith should be Roman Catholic. The Americans argued that religious liberty was morally imperative and--from experience--that in a multireligious state, Catholicism could best thrive when the government could not play favorites. The council sided with them, and Ratzinger, anticipating a world composed of jostling religious pluralities, heartily approved. In a 1966 analysis, he wrote, "In a critical hour, Council leadership passed from Europe to the young Churches of America and [their allies]," who "were really opening up the way to the future."

Israely admits that Ratzinger's appreciation for the American conception of religious freedom "did not extend to an acceptance that all roads to salvation are equal or to a license for democracy within his church" (how could it, really?) -- nonetheless:

[Benedict] came to respect the way Catholic leaders in the U.S. went about their business. A current (non-American) CDF official notes that the U.S. church is the only one that keeps a "serious" doctrinal office rather than an unthinking rubber stamp or an old-boys' club; when conflicts arise, its bishops are actually prepared to discuss them. Moreover, says Levada, "he seems to recognize that we're plain speakers. We don't hide behind words."

The Pope also admires the Americans' role as, in the words of one cleric, "intellectual first responders," especially as the country's great network of Catholic hospitals wrestles with novel problems of medical ethics. "Through the great sphere of worldly experience that the Church has in America," Benedict wrote, "as well as through her faith experience, decisive influences can be passed on." He has shown his comfort with the direct and thoroughly American approach by appointing Americans to the No. 1 and No. 3 spots in his powerful former office [The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith].

Israely cites as a prominent example of the Pope's appreciation for America expressed in Without Roots, his 2004 exchange with the president of the Italian Senate, Marcello Pera:

It bemoans the European Union's refusal to acknowledge Christianity in a draft constitution, and Pera wonders about bringing back some kind of multidenominational "Christian civil religion." In response, Ratzinger cites Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America and makes the case that America's Founding Fathers were pious men of different denominations who wrote the First Amendment prohibiting state establishment (that is, sponsorship) of religion precisely because sponsorship would stifle all non-established creeds--which they hoped would achieve full and varied flower.

Of course, no such bloom would occur if the American soil were not already faith-saturated. But Ratzinger believes in America's "obvious spiritual foundation," its natural, Puritan-instilled DNA. He is well aware that this is eroding; he thinks we watch too much TV and fears that American secularization is proceeding at an "accelerated pace." But he insists that there is a "much clearer and implicit sense" in the U.S. than in Europe of a morality "bequeathed by Christianity." He has also given earnest thought to the mechanics of this civil religion, specifying that to affect the moral consensus, it is not enough for Catholics to rub shoulders with other Christians; they must translate their concerns from doctrinal language into a "public theology" accessible to all.

As far as his Apostolic Journey to America is concerned, Israely believes Benedict will be "less interested in scolding American Catholics than in talking up 'new religious communities ... being formed who quite consciously aim at a complete fulfillment of the demands of religious life'" -- schools of burgeoning Catholic orthodoxy like Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, Calif.; Christendom College in Front Royal, Va.; and Ave Maria University in Ave Maria, Fla -- "eruptions of non-state-related religious vitality at which he thinks we excel."

There are a few points in Israely's article which betray his liberal sympathies -- as when he says "There are times when Benedict's love affair with American religious pluralism seems a bit naive, especially when it clashes with his nonnegotiable doctrinal stands" or "downplaying the idea that Catholics may legitimately balance church teaching against the demands of their conscience." But on the whole I think it worth the read. Israely closes:

John Paul II described faith and reason as the twin wings that lift the church. And yet a balanced takeoff has remained elusive. The U.S. is one of the few places where it seems to happen regularly. "America is simultaneously a completely modern and a profoundly religious place. In the world, it is unique in this," says a senior Vatican official. "And Ratzinger wants to understand how those two aspects can coexist." Almost all the things the Pope likes about us--our faith in the real value of plainspokenness, our pluralistic piety and even our wrangles around applying religiously grounded moral principles to increasingly abstruse science--can be understood in light of this quest. If he finds answers in the U.S., they could help define his papacy.

When he arrives on U.S. soil on April 15, we in the press will no doubt be parsing Benedict's every sentence for his opinions on U.S. policy or remonstrance of American morals. But the most important waves emanating from this contact may reverberate well beyond tomorrow's news cycle. John Paul II and the U.S. played as anticommunist co-leads on the 20th century stage. This Pope, more a student of global drama than an eager protagonist, knows that rising religious conflict may be the 21st century's great challenge. He also appears to sense that American power alone won't solve it--but that the power of American values still might. In rummaging through our founding precepts for a path for his own purposes, he might find something important for us to remember too.

Further Reading

Ratzinger/Benedict on "Separation of Church & State"

• "A Tocquevillian in the Vatican", by Dr. Samuel Gregg:

  Upon being inducted into the Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques of the Institut de France in 1992, then-Cardinal Ratzinger remarked that Tocqueville's “ Democracy in America has always made a strong impression on me.“

  Describing Tocqueville as “le grand penseur politique,“ the context of these remarks was Ratzinger's insistence that free societies cannot sustain themselves, as Tocqueville observed, without widespread adherence to ”des convictions éthiques communes.“ Ratzinger then underlined Tocqueville's appreciation of Protestant Christianity's role in providing these underpinnings in the United States. In more recent years, Ratzinger expressed admiration for the manner in which church-state relations were arranged in America, using words suggesting he had absorbed Tocqueville's insights into this matter.

• Biblical Aspects of the Question of Faith and Politics homily delivered on 26 November 1981 for Catholic members of the Bundestag in the church of St. Wynfrith (Boniface).
• Why Church and State Must Be Separate An excerpt from "Theology and the Church’s Political Stance" in Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger Church, Ecumenism and Politics: New Essays in Ecclesiology (NY: Crossroad, 1988 -- republished by Ignatius Press in 2008).
• Benedict XVI on Religion and Public Life Zenit News Service Sept. 17, 2005 - which included his June 2005 remarks to Italian President Carlo Ciampi on church-state relations.
• On October 17, 2005, in a letter to the president of the Italian Senate, Marcello Pera (with whom he co-authored Without Roots: Europe, Relativism, Christianity, Islam), Pope Benedict expressed his support for a "healthy secularity of the state" -- or that which guarantees "to each citizen the right to live his own religious faith with genuine freedom, including in the public realm" and includes "a commitment to guarantee to all, individuals and groups, respect for the exigencies of the common good, [and] the possibility to live and to express one own religious convictions." (The full text of the letter can be found here).
• Secularity: On Benedict XVI and the Role of Religion in Society | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | January 9, 2007 (on Benedict's lecture to 59th Study Conference of the Union of Italian Catholic Jurists).

Ratzinger on Europe

• Europe: Its Spiritual Foundation: Yesterday, Today and in the Future Inside the Vatican, June-July 2004.
• "No Weighing, No Disputing, No Such Thing": Ratzinger and Europe, by Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | August 11, 2007

Proud to be Catholic and American?

Some of our Catholic brethren have an . . . alternate take (to put it charitably) on Memorial Day and other American holidays. Here is Michael J. Iafrate (Catholic Anarchy / Vox Nova) on Memorial Day and the Religious Syncretism of the State:

Two years ago, on the Sunday before Memorial Day, a visiting priest was celebrating Mass at my parish in West Virginia. Near the end of Mass, before he processed out of the church he wanted, in light of the upcoming holiday, to honor the soldiers who "made the ultimate sacrifice for us." All of this he said in front of a giant crucifix which, last time I checked, represents the "ultimate sacrifice" in which Christians believe and which, indeed, we had just celebrated in the Eucharistic action. As a fitting conclusion to the patriotic Mass, the congregation sang, not to Jesus, but to the country itself in the words of "America the Beautiful."

We get into a really dangerous place when we start confusing our myths and our holidays. Memorial Day honors the memory of those who gave their lives serving the United States in its military, many of them making the "ultimate sacrifice" (in the state's view) in service to the nation. That's fine. The state needs holidays like this to support its grand narrative and mythology, just like any community of persons.[2] The Church, however, has its own "sort" of "Memorial Day." In fact, our celebration of the Christian "Memorial Day" spans two days: All Saints Day and All Souls Day, November 1 and 2, respectively. These are the days that Christians celebrate the lives of those who have gone before us giving their lives specifically as followers of Christ, many of them making the ultimate sacrifice as martyrs on the way of the cross. . . .

Should not Christians at least consider resisting American holidays as a way of resisting the American mythology, the metanarrative that, as Catholic theologian William Cavanaugh says, serves as an "alternative soteriology" to the Church's story of salvation history?[3] Should we not look for opportunites to subvert the holidays of the empire in which we find ourselves, reminding ourselves of and drawing attention to the ways in which these holidays, as part of American mythology, try to shape our loyalties and practices according to the ideals of the nation-state?

When I speak or write this way, I am often asked if I am advocating a Catholic type of separatism or sectarianism. The answer is no; I am not suggesting a withdrawal from the world. Such a suggestion would deny the mission of the Church for the world. On the other hand, I don’t think the careless syncretism of patriotic Christianity is the only alternative to sectarianism. I think we need a healthy, Catholic suspicion of alternative metanaratives to our own, an ability to clearly understand the differences between the two, and the courage to let that test our celebrations and our social ethics as Catholic Christians.

Responses:

• "I am Catholic, I love America, and So Should You" a lengthy, substantial response from Michael R. Denton (For the Greater Glory).

• Shades of (red, white, and) blue), by Patrick O'Hannigan (The Paragraph Farmer). May 27, 2007.

• Catholic Hatriotism, by Victor Morton (Coalition For Fog).

Incentives to Further Thought

• On Being Catholic American, by Joseph A. Varacalli. Ignatius Insight May 2005:

  . . . a brief reflection, from what I take to be an authentic Catholic sensibility, on how Catholics ought to analyze their relationship to American society and culture. Put another way, the following question might be posed: "What does American patriotism mean to the serious and devout Catholic?" Or, perhaps and more precisely, the question is: "How can American patriotism be apprehended in a manner consistent with the tenets of the Catholic faith?"

• Civil Allegiance - a primer from the Catholic Enyclopedia (1917). Worth reading.

• Can Catholics be Real Americans?, by Mark Brumley. Ignatius Insight November 2004.

• Allegiance to God AND Country, by Dr. James Toner. ". . . too many Catholics today seem to accept the idea, not that our allegiance to the state is supreme, but that we ought to have no allegiance to the state (cf. 1 Peter 2:13-14)."

July 4th, 2006 - America's Independence Dayf

Readings for the 4th of July, as the United States of America celebrates its 230th birthday . . .

• "Because It's Worth Reading" -- David Michael Phelps reminds us to read the founding document of our nation.
• A magnificent reflection on the principles of the Declaration of Independence is offered by Fr. James V. Schall in Do We Deserve To Be Free? On The Fourth of July, 2006 (Ignatius Insight).

• "That Honorable Determination", by Christopher Flannery [The Claremont Institute]:

  American children are not born understanding the principles of their country, and most American college students—if reports can be believed—are still largely unfamiliar with them when they graduate. So it is a useful tradition, as the Fourth of July comes around each year, to reflect again—and again—on the American political principles famously proclaimed on the original Independence Day, which, as many college graduates know, happened sometime in the past, possibly during summertime. Lest we seem to rest all our political expectations on the capacity of the next generation for self-government, let us admit that the grownups, as well, can benefit from an annual refresher. . . .

• Citing some relevant texts from the Catechism, Joe at Deo Omnis Gloria reminds us of our obligations pertaining to Catholicism, Citizenship, & the Political Community.

• Drawing from Abraham Lincoln's speech of July 10, 1858 (a rebuttal to his campaign rival Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas), and President Calvin Coolidge's 1926 address on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Indepence, Scott Johnson (Powerline) remarks on The eternal meaning of Independence Day.

• Fourth of July weekend: assimilation at the park - observations by "Neo-Neocon":

  . . . If I were to have taken a poll of that group on the grass and under the tall shade trees at the park the other day, I wonder what I would have found. How many of the adults were in basic acceptance that their children would become part of American culture? How many were hoping--and taking strong steps to ensure--that their children would resist? How many of the adults were determined to learn English? How many were legal, how many illegal; how many expected a temporary stay, how many a permanent one? How many were happy to be here, how many not?

  I don't know the answers. What I do know is that they looked happy--but of course, it was a lovely day, and a vacation time at that--and the children were all speaking unaccented English. And I know that the vista, to me at least, was a pleasant one, and part of what I consider to be the age-old American dream, on this Fourth of July weekend.

• Americans also have the freedom to dissent. Catholic Anarchist, finds himself

  "wishing customers a good holiday, consciously not saying “Happy Fourth of July.” It occurred to me later that the word holiday is, of course, shorthand for “holy day,” and I had to amend my well-wishing to “Have a good evening.” Alas, it is difficult to notice sometimes that we Christians take part in the empire’s subversion of our own theological language.

  Um, yeah.

• Greg Mockeridge talks about Our Founding Fathers, Reluctant Revolutionaries: "Because it is called the American “Revolution,” some seize upon this opportunity to characterize our Founding Fathers as though they are the patron saints of those who look for any excuse to just buck the establishment. Does this description fit our Founding Fathers?"
• Michelle Malkin kicks off her Independence Day 2006 News & Notes with Zel Miller's Republican National Convention speech ("Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home. . . ."); and The Anchoress has rounded up more good reading (along with a tribute to Normal Rockwell) in Jonah to Hitchens to Betsy, a 4th Round-up from The Anchoress.

. . . and a few gems from the past:

• Father Tucker (Dappled Things) on What's Right about America.

• I. Shawn McElhinney shares the other verses to "America, The Beautiful", including the following:

  O beautiful for pilgrim feet
  Whose stern impassioned stress
  A thoroughfare of freedom beat
  Across the wilderness!
  America! America!
  God mend thine every flaw,
  Confirm thy soul in self-control,
  Thy liberty in law!

  A bit of history behind the tune and lyrics.

• Greg Mockeridge (Cooperatores Veritatis) takes a look at The Declaration of Independence from a Catholic Perspective

• On a similar note, see "The Religious Heritage of American Democracy" by Joseph S. Costanzo and The Faith at the Founding, by Michael Novak First Things 132 (April 2003): 27-32, on the religion of our founding fathers and its proper place in the "American experiment."

• For further meditations on the nature of freedom see Enjoying and Making Use of a Responsible Freedom, by Cardinal Avery Dulles. Religion & Liberty Volume 11, Number 5, Sept/Oct 2001) and "The Moral Foundations of Freedom", by George Weigel (Acton Lecture on Religion & Liberty. October 23, 2000); On the Nature (and Price) of Liberty, Against The Grain July 4th, 2004.

Watching the historic July 4th launch of Space Shuttle Discovery was probably the highlight of today. Fireworks pale in comparison to the thrill of watching (even if on TV) of a man-made contraption hurtling toward the starts at five times the speed of sound. Details on Discovery's crew and their mission here [.pdf format].

It seems fitting to close this post with the following words from Pope John Paul II to the American Ambassador to the Vatican in 1998 (courtesy of Phil Dillon):

"The Founding Fathers of the United States asserted their claim to freedom and independence on the basis of certain “self-evident” truths about the human person: truths which could be discerned in human nature, built into it by “nature’s God.” Thus they meant to bring into being, not just an independent territory, but a great experiment in what George Washington called “ordered liberty.”…

“The American democratic experiment has been successful in many ways; millions of people around the world look to the United States as a model in their search for freedom, dignity, and prosperity. But the continuing success of American democracy depends on the degree to which each new generation, native-born and immigrant, makes its own moral truths on which the Founding Fathers staked the future of your Republic.”

“I am happy to take note of your words confirming the importance that your government attaches, in its relations with countries around the world, to the promotion of human rights and particularly to the fundamental human right of religious freedom, which is the guarantee of every other human right. Respect for religious convictions played no small part in the birth and early development of the United States. Thus John Dickinson, chairman of the Committee for the Declaration of Independence, said in 1776: “Our liberties do not come from the charters; for these are only declarations of preexisting rights. They do not depend on parchment or seals; but come from the King of Kings and the Lord of all the earth.” Indeed it may be asked whether the American experiment would have been possible, or how well it will succeed in the future, without a deeply rooted vision of divine Providence over the individual and over the fate of nations.”

Happy 4th of July!

G.K. Chesterton: "What I Saw in America"

The American Constitution does resemble the Spanish Inquisition in this: that it is founded on a creed. America is the only nation in the world that is founded on creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence; perhaps the only piece of practical politics that is also theoretical politics and also great literature. It enunciates that all men are equal in their claim to justice, that governments exist to give them that justice, and that their authority is for that reason just. It certainly does condemn anarchism. and it does also by inference condemn atheism, since it clearly names the Creator as the ultimate authority from whom these equal rights are derived. Nobody expects a modern political system to proceed logically in the application of such dogmas, and in the matter of God and Government it is naturally God whose claim is taken more lightly. The point is that there is a creed, if not about divine, at least about human things.

G. K. Chesterton, What I Saw in America. (Via Eagle & Elephant).

On a Plastic America and other Abstractions

Some early morning reflections in response to recent combox discussions on this blog

"America is a Plastic country. It is NOT a nation! America is a farrago. America is dysfunctional and is dying.

America was built on a "revolutionary" spirit!!! America is built on self-contradicting principles and some principles that are out-right lies. It is a dead country. Aristotle says that "A state does NOT consist of individuals that are all-a-like". Well, America is not even a state. It is a place---that is it."

W. Lindsay Wheeler, combox circa June 26, 2006.

The amusing thing about this tirade against America is that, in my own pseudo-revolutionary college years, I would have gotten such a thrill out of this manner of speaking. Wheeler may be on the opposite end of the political spectrum from William S. Burroughs, but his bitter, blatant cynicism towards America is of such a visceral nature that I confess I often have difficulty distinguishing him from those on the Left.

Now, the interesting thing is that Michael Novak -- yes, the dreaded neocon and object of vehement criticism from Wheeler, Jones, Hand and others -- once spoke himself of

". . . the hollowness of so much of American life; the vacant eyes watching television and drinking beer; the tired eyes of the men on the commuter train; the efficient eyes of the professor and manager, the sincere eyes of the television politician. Americans . . . do not know who they are, only what they are useful for; they are bored and apathetic because they are manipulated; they are violent because they secretly resent the lies they are forced to live. Unable to live with themselves, Americans level the earth, build and destroy, attempt to master matter and space and human history. Americans play God." ['A Theology for Radical Politics' 1969]

But, somewhere along the way, something happened to Michael Novak.

According to his memoirs ("Controversial Engagements" First Things April 1999) he became a neoconservative ("The term was invented as a sign of excommunication by the Catholic socialist (and my good friend) Michael Harrington"); to put it in the words of the Houston Catholic Worker, he joined Fr. Neuhaus and George Weigel in becoming advocates of "wage slavery" and "unbridled capitalism", preaching "a new gospel of wealth creation" in stubborn opposition to Catholic social teaching.

In any case, a little more than a decade after he penned his own tirade against Americans, Novak would come to reconsider his criticism, writing in 1982's The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism:

That this was a superficial, unfair, and ideological description of real Americans became clear to me when I looked more closely at my neighbors and companions, and less at literary conventions.

The headlines of the morning tabloid New York Post, for instance, might reveal signs of "materialism", the "emptiness," the "hollowness" of American life. The latest scandal of a movie star caught in an illicit affair, financial shadiness from a corporate executive on Wall Street; the faux-violent posturings of a rap star. But can I honestly take from this and extrapolate an indictment of Americans in general? How about just those I see on the subway? -- Or should we remember to locate blame within the individual subject?

From what I have observed, once you orient your posts in opposition to a stereotype, or rely on a sweeping generalization and indictment of the whole, it perverts the conversation in such a way that one is not actually engaging a person, or even his position, but a superficial caricature thereof.

I'm not asking for the cautious optimism of Alexis De Tocqueville (Democracy in America) or the appreciative reflections of Jacques Maritain (Reflections on America) -- disagree with Novak, Weigel, Neuhaus if you must. Point out the flaws of the Enlightenment pressupositions in the thought of our Founding Fathers, and the temptations of materialism, commercialism, and egalitarianism (and I will likely agree, up to a point). But is it possible to render your thoughts without succumbing to sweeping generalizations? to see beyond the portrayal of a "dead, plastic America," and recognize a nation of real people and individual citizens?

I had initially responded to Wheeler's comments with the observation that "obviously, he had not gone on a cross-country trip of America." If I may elaborate, what I had in mind was something along the lines of the book, A Walk Across America by Peter Jenkins: the chronicles of a young, bitter, disillusioned college student who -- after proclaiming his desire to "abandon America" to an elder -- was challenged to discover the country he thought about leaving, and so embarked on a literal walk across the U.S.A., meeting and staying with American citizens of every color, class and stripe along the way.

Jenkins recorded his memories in 1979 -- 5 years after I was born. I was in elementary school when my father read it to my brothers and me, but the stories and the people and, most of all, the lesson of that book has remained -- and have never seem more pertinent than when I read the bitter tirades against an empty, abstract caricature of America from the ideological left (or the right).

• Jacques Maritain on "The Old Tag of 'American Materialism'" -- a section from his Reflections on America, simply too good not to be read in its entirety.
• Ten Commandments for Writing a History of America, by Paul Johnson. The American Enterprise May / June 1998. "Always remember America is about people. It is a land, of course—and what a land—but it is, above all, a people, the most varied amalgam of people of all races and cultures the world has ever seen."
• A Writer Treks Across America, by Michelle York. New York Times February 13, 2005. "Then, he was a loner, a vegetarian and a pacifist. Today, he is the head of a large family, the owner of a cattle farm and a supporter of President Bush and the war in Iraq." I suppose this should be read as a disclaimer for those considering embarking on such a journey? ;-)

* * *

UPDATE! (July 6, 2006)

After some consideration and reflection over the conversations that have occured in our combox over the past week, I've decided to impose upon Mr. Wheeler an involuntary vacaton from the combox.

This blog was created to facilitate discussion of the issues which concern this particular website, namely, the interaction of the Catholic Church with the "American experiment" and the founding principles of our nation.

Witnessing the exchange between Mr. Wheeler and others, it seems that Wheeler has more than clarified his thought on this subject, making it plain that in all cases he firmly repudiates both parties involved in this debate: not only the Catholic Church, but also the philosophical foundations of the very country that he presently resides in.

Needless to say this manner of repudication already places him outside the discussion, and I wonder what we can benefit by engaging him further? -- Especially when it seems that, as a fellow commentator has noted:

You are so determined to be insulted that I don't think you're actually reading (in the sense of comprehension) anything anyone writes to you. Perhaps you should consider stepping back, taking a deep breath, and taking time to reflect a little. I haven't seen anyone here write anything calculated to call forth the stream of invective with which you have doused us. You seem to take descriptions as pejoratives, and explanations as the web equivalent of walking into a bar looking for a fight.

Wheeler has shown little interest in engaging the actual content of any post so much as commandeering the combox and hammering home his own furvent and repetitive denunciations in a barrage of post after post. (And in so doing, I suspect, driving away others who might be otherwise interested in engaging in a civil conversation -- I have seen this happen too many times, and it has been the ruin of many an email list or bulletin board).

My parting recommendation to Mr. Wheeler is that in my experience, there is no more suitable a vehicle for the presentation of his opinions than a blog -- and, thanks to the blessings of modern technology, American ingenuity and unbridled godless capitalism, he can now obtain one of these new-fangled contraptions for his very own right.

A brief summary of Mr. Wheeler's objections to America can be found here; my suggestion would be that he expound upon them on his own blog (rather than hijack a combox), and those interested in engaging him at length can do so.

I. Shawn McElhinney on John Carroll, Freemasonry and the American Founding

"On the Subject of America's Founding With Christopher Blosser and David Jones" -- Part I; Part II; Part III -- by I. Shawn McElhinney. Rerum-Novarum.

Shawn revisits (and critiques) the thread How Charles Carroll Influenced U.S. Founding Fathers on David Jones' La Nouvelle Theologie Nov. 2, 2005 -- a two-part interview with Scott McDermott on the Catholic Signer of Declaration of Independence , which evolved into a debate over the alleged Masonic membership of the Carroll family (including Daniel Carroll and his brother, John Carroll, appointed first bishop of the United States by Pope Pius VI on 6 November, 1789.

See also John Carroll and the American Founding, another collection of links at Religion & Liberty Nov. 6, 2005.

McElhinney calls into question David Jones' line of reasoning that Bishop Carroll's "resistance to apply this automatic excommunication in the United States is evidence of the close relationship Masonry had with the Carroll family. It would have resulted in his own brother being excommunicated," which he believes to be a rather uncharitable reading of events in light of the historical account of how they occurred.

Thanksgiving 2005

"...WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLIC THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:" NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation..."

From the Thanksgiving Proclamation of George Washington, President of the United States. October 3, 1789. Source: The Massachusetts Centinel, Wednesday, October 14, 1789.

[Thanks to Padre of the "Not So Quiet" Catholic Corner].

Charles Carroll and the American Founding

How Charles Carroll Influenced U.S. Founding Fathers -- David Jones posts links to a two-parter by Scott McDermott on the legacy of Charles Carroll, the lone Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence. McDermott recently completed a biography of Carroll (Charles Carroll of Carrollton Faithful Revolutionary, and recently gave a talk to the Thomas More Society of Dallas, TX on the subject ("Guest lecturer reminds of America's Catholic Roots", by Monica Tomutsa. University of Dallas News Nov. 2, 2005).

As readers familiar with David's blog have come to expect, the talk of America's founding has again awakened the issue of the founding father's relationship to Freemasonry, including that of Daniel Carroll and his brother, John Carroll, the first Catholic Bishop of the United States. See the comments for ongoing discussion, particularly a detailed exchange between David Jones and Tim Taylor on the Masons (with some minor contributions by yours truly).

• How Charles Carroll Influenced U.S. Founding Fathers - Part I | Part II. Interview w. Scott McDermott. Zenit News Service. Nov. 1-2, 2005.

The following articles were recommended to me in connection with this topic (pertaining more to the philosophical and religious roots of the American founding than Freemasonry itself):

• "Catholics and The Republic", by Reverend Father Christopher Hunter. The Angelus SSPX Feb. 1987, Vol. X, No. 2.
• "Catholic Sources of the Declaration of Independence by Rev. John C. Rager The Catholic Mind. XXVIII, no. 13 (July 8, 1930).
• Building the Foundations for the Free Society: Finding Common Ground in the Political Theory of Saint Robert Bellarmine and John Locke, by James Maldonado Berry. Christendom College. 2002 Lord Acton Essay Competitition.
• "The Declaration of Independence from a Catholic perspective", by fellow blogger Greg Mockeridge.

Re: "Freemasonry and America"

In a recent post, David challenges me to take a closer look at the Masonic influence on our founding fathers "Freemasonry in America" (la nouvelle théologie August 23, 2005):

You state "I'm resistant to what I think is a reckless characterization of America as some kind of 'Masonic experiment.'" Well, regardless if you admit it or not, it's still a "fact," which you must sooner or latter admit to. Do some reading of both Catholic and non-Catholic sources my friend, which were provided to you in the comments on one of your earlier posts.

Brother, I beg you, the next time you visit D.C, open your eyes, OPEN your eyes. The entire city was designed by Masons (layout of the streets, all the significant buildings, memorials, White House, Capital Bldg, etc.). If the founders were so intent in making the physical structure of our nation's capital Masonic, is it not reasonable to assume that Freemasonry also influenced their beliefs & therefore their writings? Read any number of a dozen plus books I referenced to you and then let's chat.

In short, study what the Church teaches about Freemasonry. For example (one of hundreds), Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical letter Humanum Genus (1884) equated Freemasonry with the Kingdom of Satan. Study what any number of saints had to say about Freemasonry, i.e. St. Maximilian Kolbe, etc. Refer to what the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (B16 himself) had to say about Freemasonry in 1983. The list goes on and on. . . .

Which leads to the following point and I'm not the first to make it. It is this - Errors in the understanding of who and what God (or more appropriately god) is for our Masonic Founding Fathers (Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc.) led to errors in many other areas of their thought, including their understanding of religious freedom, which are spelled out in our governing documents. The logic of the Founding Fathers is a mixed-bag of Masonic, Enlightenment, and classical principles. I refer you to Kraynak's and Craycraft's books on this topic.

What's beyond dispute is the fact that the Catholic faith and Freemasonry are irrevocably opposed -- the various encyclicals of the Popes not to mention the reaffirmation by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith prohibiting membership in the Masonic order is testament to that.

However, David contends that "the logic of the Founding Fathers is a mixed-bag of Masonic, Enlightenment, and classical principles" -- and that is precisely the question that I'd like to look into during the course of my reading: to what degree the philosophical foundations of the American experiment was tainted by Enlightenment [and/or Masonic] presuppositions?

This of course calls for a serious investigation, as well as giving consideration to the research of Michael Novak (On Two Wings: Humble Faith & Common Sense at the American Founding), John Courtney Murray, Jacques Maritain, and precursors like Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America) who contend that the founding fathers demonstrated an openness to religion and religious freedom -- in some cases in spite of their deism, unitarianism, and membership as Masons -- such that liberal democracy as embodied in the "American experiment" isn't necessarily antagonistic to the Catholic faith.

With respect to the above, I find Chris Burgwald's comments very helpful here:

I think my own position is distinct from both of yours, although closer somewhat to David's. . . .

To me, Masonry is just ritualized Enlightenment doctrine; it's the latter that is the real issue. And I think there's little doubt that our nation was founded on what are ultimately Enlightenment principles.

And yet the reverse is not necessarily the case: one can be a Freemason (in the sense of visible membership) without subscribing in full to the Enlightenment worldview, just as one can be a Catholic (in the sense of visible membership) without subscribing in full to the Catholic worldview.

My point here is that determining the worldview of our nation's founding fathers is not as simple as seeing which organizations they belonged to.

NB: I do believe that many or most of our Founders had the Enlightenment worldview; I am only saying that this is not determined by noting that they were Masons and saying nothing more.

* * *

I must admit one of the issues I have difficulty with in discerning what to read in Freemasonry is the notable abundance of conspiracy theorizing by the fringe right (Protestant and Catholic). Apart from the papal encyclicals on Freemasonry my past encounter with the topic has largely been the fevered mutterings of radtrads about Vatican II being a "Talmudist-Masonic" infiltration of the Catholic Church.

Likewise, the reason I went ahead with Whalen's Christianity and American Freemasonry as my first choice was due to Sandra Miesel's criticism of Behind the Lodge Door in her article for Crisis magazine (Swinging at Windmills Dec. 2, 2002) on the Catholic fringe:

In 1776, what Jacob calls "a radicalized mutation of the Masonic gene" brought forth the Illuminati, founded by canon law professor Adam Weishaupt. (Febrile minds imagine Jews having had a hand in the matter.) These mystic masterminds of Masonry were closed down by the Bavarian police in 1785 but are still imagined to lurk in the corridors of power.

Being generally liberal in politics, Masons often participated in revolutions. The Masonic affiliations of Washington, Franklin, and other founding fathers mean that, for some traditionalist Catholics, the United States has no right to exist. Or so says The Remnant’s top writer, Solange Hertz, author of The Star-Spangled Heresy: Americanism and an implacable foe of the Judeo-Masonic peril. (For good measure, Hertz has denounced Mother Teresa as a New Ager.)

Other critics, such as Ted Flynn in Hope of the Wicked, ferret out Masonic symbolism in our national emblems because Masons were involved in the designs. He reads the American Eagle as a Masonic phoenix and the Statue of Liberty as a Masonic goddess. Flynn’s source, Ralph Epperson, tries to make former President Ronald Reagan’s inauguration facing the Washington Monument into Masonic sun worship.

Because the Masons claim the number 13, it must be theirs—everywhere. But units of 13 in our Great Seal refer to nothing more ominous than the 13 original colonies, which existed for 44 years before the Revolution—rather a long wait to match a Masonic timetable. The alarming All-Seeing Eye also happens to be an old sign of the Holy Trinity, found in Baroque churches. (One breathlessly awaits revelations about the AOL logo.)

But it was the French, not the American, Revolution that stamped the Masons and their Illuminati masters as experts in rebellion, according to theories separately propounded by ex-Jesuit Augustin de Barruel (1741-1820) and Scotsman John Robison (1797-1798) and still popular in paranoid circles. Contemporary histories prefer to see people with radical sympathies becoming Masons rather than Masons becoming radicals. . . .

As for America, Behind the Lodge Door by Paul Fisher looks at the sorry record of American Masons in outbreaks of nativism, the Ku Klux Klan, and church-state relations. But Fisher, who does not link Masonry with the Jews, far exceeds his evidence to connect them with ancient cults, Illuminati plots, and the assassination of President Kennedy. William Wahlen’s Christianity and American Freemasonry is a far more sensible Catholic book on the subject.

That Meisel's article is hosted on TCRNews.com leads me to presume that Stephen also gives credence to Miesel's critique.

Although some of the criticisms offered by reviewers lead me to suspect his methodology (relying heavily on innuendo and speculation), I will likely give Behind the Lodge Door a read as David personally recommended it. But in exploring this topic my concern is to chart a careful path: looking to the papal encyclicals and serious, academic studies of this issue -- and my wariness of tenuous arguments and conspiracy theories. From what I've witnessed on the web, those who indulge in the such flights of imagination end up considerably "untethered" from reality.

* * *

Incidentally, it is questionable whether the Great Seal of the United States -- which Stephen Hand posts on his blog indicating the Masonic origins of the United States -- has any Masonic symbolism. According to Wikipedia:

Many consider the eye atop the pyramid to have its origins in Masonic iconography. However, the icon is not a Masonic symbol, nor designed by a mason. Among the Great Seal committee, only Benjamin Franklin was a Mason, but his ideas were not adopted by the committee.

The all-seeing eye was a well-known classical symbol of the Renaissance. The all-seeing eye of God is mentioned several times in the Christian Bible. The eye in a triangle design originally was suggested by Pierre Eugene DuSimitiere, and later heraldist William Barton improved upon the design. In Du Simitière's original sketch, two figures stand next to a shield with the all-seeing pyramid above them. The August 20, 1776 report of the first Great Seal Committee describes the seal as "Crest The Eye of Providence in a radiant Triangle whose Glory extends over the Shield and beyond the Figures."

More detailed explanation from a masonic website on the origins of the seal eschews any claim to Masonism, asserting that "The Great Seal of the United States is not a Masonic emblem, nor does it contain hidden Masonic symbols."

Likewise, masonicinfo.com points out that ""The first 'Official' use and definition of the all-seeing eye as a Masonic symbol seems to have come in 1797 with The Freemasons Monitor of Thomas Smith Webb - 14 years after Congress adopted the design for the seal."

For information as to the actual symbolism of the seal, see Official Heraldry of the United States.

(Of course, the fact that nothing is said publicly of the Masonic symbolism of the Great Seal -- and that the Masons eschew its significance -- may itself be part of the grand conspiracy).

Diagnosing the Spiritual Health of a Nation

It must be remembered, that man cannot without danger behave according to his whim. To succeed, life must be led following invariable rules which depend on its very structure. We run a grave risk when we allow to die in ourselves some fundamental activity, whether it be of the physiological, intellectual or spiritual order. For example, the neglect of the development of the muscles, of the bodily frame and of the non-rational activities of the spirit among certain intellectuals is as disastrous as the atrophy of the intelligence and of the moral sense among certain athletes. There are innumerable examples of prolific and strong families which produce only degenerates or die out, after the disappearance of ancestral beliefs and the cult of honour. We have learnt from hard experience that the loss of the moral sense and of the sense of the holy in the majority of the active elements of a nation leads to the downfall of that nation and its subjection to the foreigner. . . . From all the evidence, the suppression of mental activities required by nature is incompatible with the fulfilment of life.

In practice, the moral and religious activities are bound together. The moral sense vanishes soon after the sense of the holy. Man has not succeeded in building, as Socrates desired, a moral system independent of all religious doctrine. Societies in which the need for prayer has disappeared are generally not far from degeneracy. That is why all civilised peoples--unbelievers as well as believers--must be concerned with this grave problem of the development of every basic activity of which the human being is capable.

Dr. Alexis Carrel - Prayer (1949) New York: Morehouse-Gorham, pp 47-49.

Via Rick Morrow @ Being in the Form of a Quest

* * *

Five days after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Congress set aside December 11, 1776 as a "Day of Fasting and Repentance," imploring Almighty God to guide them in the days ahead "in the prosecution of a just and necessary war."

In 1779, Congress degreed October 20, 1779 a National Day of Thanksgiving, urging the nation to "humbly approach the throne of Almighty God" and ask "that he would establish the independence of the United States upon the basis of religion and virtue."

Reading Michael Novak's On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding, one gets the sense that our founding fathers possessed a clear recognition of the importance, indeed the fundamental necessity, of prayer and religious devotion to the spiritual health of a nation. When we measure this awareness of our founding fathers to the timidity and shallowness of our present legislators, for whom "separation of church and state" is interpreted to mean the absolute divorce of religion from public life, it becomes apparent just how far we've fallen from the ideals on which our nation was founded.

Pope John Paul II on the American Experiment

The Founding Fathers of the United States asserted their claim to freedom and independence on the basis of certain "self-evident" truths about the human person: truths which could be discerned in human nature, built into it by "nature’s God." Thus they meant to bring into being, not just an independent territory, but a great experiment in what George Washington called "ordered liberty": an experiment in which men and women would enjoy equality of rights and opportunities in the pursuit of happiness and in service to the common good. Reading the founding documents of the United States, one has to be impressed by the concept of freedom they enshrine: a freedom designed to enable people to fulfill their duties and responsibilities toward the family and toward the common good of the community. Their authors clearly understood that there could be no true freedom without moral responsibility and accountability, and no happiness without respect and support for the natural units or groupings through which people exist, develop, and seek the higher purposes of life in concert with others.

The American democratic experiment has been successful in many ways. Millions of people around the world look to the United States as a model in their search for freedom, dignity, and prosperity. But the continuing success of American democracy depends on the degree to which each new generation, native-born and immigrant, makes its own the moral truths on which the Founding Fathers staked the future of your Republic. Their commitment to build a free society with liberty and justice for all must be constantly renewed if the United States is to fulfill the destiny to which the Founders pledged their "lives . . . fortunes . . . and sacred honor."

Pope John Paul II - John Paul II on the American Experiment First Things 82 (April 1998): 36-37. ["Pointed comments on the 'credibility' of the United States given by the Pope upon receiving the credentials of the Honorable Lindy Boggs as Ambassador to the Holy See on December 16, 1997].

Christianity, Democracy, and the American Ideal

Some Americans claim we should exclude Christian values from the public square. On the contrary, argues philosopher Jacques Maritain, good Christians make good citizens.

They live by gospel values: honesty, integrity, and compassion. They obey the law. They resist the selfishness that unbelief and materialism breed. And they subordinate their own interests to the common good.

No wonder, says Maritain, that American democracy -- which arose from a Christian people -- has served so well and lasted so long.

Here Maritain shows that in a society unleavened by religious ideals, an enduring democracy can never take root. And once a religious people abandons its faith, even the greatest democracy must wither and die. Untethered from transcendent values, democracy becomes little more than a struggle to be won by the most powerful and the ruthless.

The hour is late. Too long have we stood by while politicians promise never to let their religious beliefs influence their political judgments. Too long has a false understanding of democracy cowed us into laying aside our Christian values when we vote.

As Maritain demonstrates in these lucid pages, Christians are vital to democracy. Good Christians make good citizens, and good citizens make strong democracies. If America and her ideals are to endure, says Maritain, Christians and their values must not be excluded from public discourse, but eagerly welcomed into it.

In looking at the contemporary relationship between Church & State, the compatability of the 'American Experiment' and liberal democracy with Catholic Christianity, the role of religion in public life and education, one is likely to encounter the Jesuit political scholar John Courtney Murray. Less recognized, but rather more substantial in my opinion, is the Thomistic philosopher Jacques Maritain (1882-1973) -- without consideration of whom no discussion of these issues is complete.

As Michael Novak said in his "salute to Jacques Maritain":

In political and social thought, no Christian has ever written a more profound defense of the democratic idea and its component parts, such as the dignity of the person; the sharp distinction between society and the state; the role of practical wisdom; the common good; the transcendent anchoring of human rights; transcendent judgment upon societies; and the interplay of goodness and evil in human individuals and institutions. Indeed, in the thrust that this body of thought gave to Christian Democratic parties after World War II, Maritain gained the right to be thought of as one of the architects of Christian Democracy both in Europe and Latin America.

Against the secularist philosophies of his day, Maritain espoused an "integral humanism" -- that is to say, a fully Christian humanism which "considers man in the integrality of his natural and supernatural being" -- which he believed could, if embraced, rescue modern democracy from the materialist spirit by properly orienting it to the 'horizontal' and 'vertical' dimensions of mankind:

The end of political society is not to lead the human person to his spiritual perfection and to his full freedom of autonomy; that is to say, to sanctity . . . Nevertheless, political society is essentially destined, by reason of the earthly end that specifies it, to the development of those environmental conditions which will so raise men in general to a level of material, intellectual, and moral life in accord with the good and peace of the whole, that each person will be positively aided in the progressive achievement of his full life as a person and of his spiritual freedom."

Having authored over twenty books, Maritain's writings on these topics can be rather daunting. Hence I was pleased to discover Christianity, Democracy, and the American Ideal, a "Jacques Maritain Reader" by Sophia Institute Press. In the space of a hundred or so pages, James P. Kelly III -- President of the Solidary Center for Law & Justice and Director of International Affairs for The Federalist Society -- compiles small nuggets of Maritain's thought on a diversity of subjects, arranged by pertinent themes as "The Limits of Social Planning," "Christianity and the Common Good," "Faith-Based Initiatives," "The American Experience", and "Christian and Democratic Evolution."

The book itself is deceptively small. Most of these selections are no more than a paragraph long -- just enough, in my experience, to whet the reader's appetite. But Kelley has skillfully arranged the work such that one quickly picks up connections from one chapter to another, and is moved to carefully ponder what Maritain is saying in one passage before moving along to the next.

Those who really want to benefit from Maritain will avail themselves of Kelly's recommendations for "further reading and reflection" at the end of each chapter, conveniently listing key passages from Maritain's numerous works, as well as related papal encyclicals and counciliar documents.

This would make an excellent gift for any student of political philosophy or Catholic layman interested in the social doctrine of the Church -- and, perhaps, to many a political legislator as well.