"I wished to see a king, not corpses." ~ Achilles, Alexander, Augustus and the historian as transmitter of heroic virtue

Detail from Augustus Caesar visits the tomb of Alexander the Great by French artist Lionel Royer (1878).

The dominant literary culture of the late 20th century loved to tear down the heroes of the past, focusing almost entirely on their flaws while belittling the virtues, beliefs, and deeds that made them worthy of admiration in the first place. I have written about this annoying tendency previously on several occasions, including here and here.

In our own time, we are afflicted with a slightly different problem: cultural arbiters who know almost nothing about the great men and women who went before them, save the cherry-picked anecdotes that magically seem to support their political cause of the moment. It has recently gotten to the point where these intellectually vacuous creatures have become parodies of historians and educators, rhetorically incapable of discerning even between men and women, let alone moral and immoral behavior.

But let us not be lulled into the belief that it was always this way. 

Until fairly recently, it was considered one of the primary duties of the historian to exalt the brilliant words and actions of the good and great, offering them up to subsequent generations as worthy of emulation. Whatever foibles may have co-existed with said virtues could be offered as cautionary examples to be avoided, but they were never presented as the primary drivers of the hero’s character.

Education in the classical world followed this pattern, and the celebrated men of one era could often point to their motivation coming from the acts of great men who preceded them—often by centuries. Examples abound, but let’s look at three in particular who lined up as sort of an inspiration conduit. All three of them would become the greatest political or military heroes of their respective ages. 

According to Homer’s Odyssey, following the death of their greatest warrior, Achilles, the Greeks, “heaped up a great and goodly tomb on a projecting headland by the broad Hellespont that could be seen from far from the sea both by men that now are and that shall be born hereafter.” (Odyssey, Book XXIV, 80-84)

This tomb would be visited by many famous individuals in antiquity as a kind of pilgrimage site, particularly for those seeking to venerate the great warrior in anticipation of a campaign of their own. Among those who visited the shrine was Alexander the Great. Seeing parallels between his own expedition and that of the Mycenean Greeks of 800 years before, Alexander made a point of stopping at the site of ancient Troy on his way to make war on the Persians. In Plutarch’s Life of Alexander, the following memorial of the event is recorded:

"Then, going up to Ilium, he sacrificed to Athena and poured libations to the heroes. Furthermore, the gravestone of Achilles he anointed with oil, ran a race by it with his companions, naked, as is the custom, and then crowned it with garlands, pronouncing the hero happy in having, while he lived, a faithful friend, and after death, a great herald of his fame. As he was going about and viewing the sights of the city, someone asked him if he wished to see the lyre of Paris. 'For that lyre,' said Alexander, 'I care very little; but I would gladly see that of Achilles, to which he used to sing the glorious deeds of brave men.'" [Plutarch, Life of Alexander, Section 15]

A few more details are added by Arrian in his Anabasis: 

"Alexander then encircled the tomb of Achilles with a garland….There is indeed a report that Alexander pronounced Achilles fortunate in getting Homer as the herald of his fame to posterity." [Arrian of Nicomedia, The Anabasis of Alexander, Book I, Chapter XII ]

As the most important extant chronicler of Alexander’s campaigns, Arrian also points out that Alexander had a desire to imitate the hero of the Trojan war from his boyhood, and sought to equal and surpass his achievements. [Arrian of Nicomedia, The Anabasis of Alexander, Book VII, Chapter XIV]

Detail from Alexander the Great at the tomb of Achilles by Giovanni Paninni (1718).

Alexander perished after gaining unparalleled victories over the hated Persians. Realizing immediately the inspirational value of Alexander’s remains, his general Ptolemy snatched up Alexander’s corpse when it was on its way back to Macedonia from Babylon, and re-routed it to Egypt and the conqueror’s greatest foundation, Alexandria. There, Ptolemy would establish his own kingdom, and the body of his one-time benefactor would repose in a shrine which was likely much more grand than the ancient tumulus of Achilles. 

Three hundred years after Alexander’s death, another conqueror would arrive following his defeat of Antony and Cleopatra at Actium, and the dissolution of the Ptolemaic kingdom in Egypt. This was Octavian Caesar who, a few years later, would be called Caesar Augustus, Rome's first emperor. Arriving in Alexandria following his complete victory, Octavian made his way to the shrine of Alexander, as recorded by Suetonius:  

"About this time he had the sarcophagus and body of Alexander the Great brought forth from its shrine,⁠ and after gazing on it, showed his respect by pla­cing upon it a golden crown and strewing it with flowers; and being then asked whether he wished to see the tomb of the Ptolemies as well, he replied, 'My wish was to see a king, not corpses.'" [Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, Life of Augustus]

The reader will note the similarity between Octavian's response and that of Alexander. There is some historical complexity here in that Plutarch's account of Alexander and Suetonius's account of Augustus were written at about the same time (late 1st - early 2nd century AD). Both were certainly based on earlier sources which have not come down to us. It is likely that Octavian was aware of Alexander's response regarding the lyre of Paris when he made his quip about wanting "to see a king, not corpses."

Dio Cassius records Augustus's visit to the body of Alexander as well, but adds an additional detail:

“[Octavian] viewed the body of Alexander and actually touched it, whereupon, it is said, a piece of the nose was broken off. But he declined  to view the remains of the Ptolemies, though the Alexandrians were extremely eager to show them, remarking, 'I wished to see a king, not corpses.' For this same reason he would not enter the presence of Apis, either, declaring that he was accustomed to worship gods, not cattle.” [Dio Cassius, Roman History, Book LI]

Augustus was, no doubt, impressed by his visit because he began construction of a tomb of his own shortly following his return to Rome. This was to be a grand construction rivaling the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, which itself was one of the wonders of the ancient world. This Mausoleum of Augustus would serve to inspire generations of Romans before falling to ruins during the Middle Ages.

As these examples make clear, admiration of heroes for their virtues often extended to that common human desire to visit and adorn the remains of the hero following his death. In doing so, it was hoped that some sort of mystical connection might be established by which some portion of the hero's genius and fortune would be transferred to his devotee. This tendency in antiquity pre-figured the later Christian practice of veneration of the relics of the saints and martyrs, and the subsequent doctrinal understanding of the efficacy of the intercession of the saints who are in Heaven with Christ. 

Thus Christians would gain inspiration and motivation not from men who managed to achieve military glory or political triumphs, like Achilles or Alexander, but from humble souls like Justin Martyr or Augustine of Hippo whose victories often involved the sacrifice or their own lives for the sake of Christ, or the conversion of thousands through fearlessly preaching the truth of the Gospel. 

It is for this reason that Catholics ought to take the teaching of authentic Christian history — which our children will never get in state-run schools and only occasionally in Catholic schools — very seriously. Otherwise, the connection to the virtuous examples of our progenitors would be lost, and in their absence, our children will take their inspiration from the vain two-dimensional paragons provided by movie, pop-music, and sport.

The Mausoleum of Augustus following the renovations initiated by Mussolini in the 1930s.

As a postscript, it is worth remembering that most of the devotees who visited the tombs of dead heroes did not possess the innate ability to attain greatness themselves and often absorbed the wrong message. A few of them were downright awful human beings who brought destruction upon themselves and their countries. Suetonius records that the notorious emperor Gaius Caligula treated the tomb of Alexander with somewhat less respect than his great grandfather, having looted Alexander's armor which he sometimes wore in public [Lives of the Caesars, Life of Caligula]. 

Meanwhile, the Mausoleum of Augustus would later be restored, and made the centerpiece of a piazza by a self-styled illustrious man of the 20th century who viewed himself as the successor of Achilles, Alexander, and Augustus. This was none other than Il Duce himself, Benito Mussolini, who wished to attain the status of hero without bothering to emulate the heroic virtues. Upon his death, his desecrated corpse became not the center of cultic devotion, but rather an object of scorn and shame, hanging from a lamp-post. 

“Follow Your Heart” is awful advice ~ The dangers of Disney wisdom in a Post-Christian age

In practically every old cartoon from the 1940s and 50s, you can find the trope where one of the characters faces a comic moral dilemma. At that moment, two tiny versions of the character poof into being at either shoulder—one in angelic garb advising the more difficult selfless action, the other in a red suit with pitchfork urging the wicked, selfish alternative. 

But just as these cartoons are considered hopelessly quaint and old-fashioned today, so are the notions of morality which undergird them. Consider that we have now moved from the youthful innocence of Disney in the mid-20th century which produced such family-friendly fare as Lady and the Tramp and The Jungle Book, to a situation where Disney executives are openly demanding the promotion of deviant sexual practices to children and banning so-called gendered greetings at their parks like “ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls” because they are considered not inclusive.

Disney is a microcosm of how Americans at large have lost or killed their consciences—their ability to discern right from wrong or even admit that right and wrong exist. The Disney of the 1940s could safely encourage viewers to “follow their hearts” because the vast majority of people had reasonably well-formed consciences. That’s why Archbishop Fulton Sheen could have a top-rated TV show in the 1950s, and it is also why so many Americans in the early 1960s could respond with outrage when their Black brothers and sisters continued to be treated unjustly as second-class citizens.

But in a nation with no ability to discern right from wrong, with no understanding of how morality works, where acting in selfish ways is celebrated and even considered virtuous, the hollow advice to “follow your heart” suddenly becomes dangerous. It becomes a bomb within our families which threatens to destroy not only the individual but everyone around him, creating a blast radius that harms all of society.

A few sages of that earlier era knew even then that something was terribly wrong in America and the West. Venerable Pope Pius XII called out and condemned the relativistic new morality that was emerging at that time known as “situation ethics.” Venerable Fulton J. Sheen himself was aware of the very same trends. As early as 1936, he recognized that there was a nasty undercurrent actively eroding the moral pylons which supported Western civilization. Many of his modern contemporaries, he felt, were willfully deadening their consciences. He wrote:

“Would to God that our modern mind instead of denying guilt, would look to the Cross, admit its guilt, and seek forgiveness; would that those who have uneasy consciences that worry them in the light, and haunt them in the darkness, would seek relief, not on the plane of medicine but on the plane of Divine Justice.” ~Ven. Fulton J. Sheen: Calvary and the Mass

Who can deny that this trend of silencing the conscience via the use of psychiatry and drugs (legal and illegal) has accelerated since Sheen’s time, and at break-neck speed? 

By 1953 when his popularity was at its zenith, Sheen elaborated, saying that many had now succeeded in killing off their consciences—but at what cost? He wrote: 

“Some men believe that if they could drive God from the earth, the inheritance of sin would be there without remorse; and if they could but silence conscience, they could inherit peace without justice. It was just this mentality that sent our Lord to the Cross. If the voice of God could be stifled, they believed that they could enjoy the voice of Satan in peace…How many, even of those who have killed conscience can say, “I am happy; there is nothing I want?” ~Ven. Fulton J. Sheen: Victory over Vice

The honest answer to Sheen’s rhetorical question is: None. 

If you doubt that, consider the following trends that are prevalent in our increasingly atheistic and amoral society:

• Over 50% Of Liberal, White Women Under 30 Have A Mental Health Issue.
  
  
• Deaths from drug ODs, suicide soaring among millennials, report shows
  
  
• 39% of youth with same-sex attraction seriously considered attempting suicide; 71% reported feeling sad or hopeless for at least 2 weeks in the past year
  
  
• Why are Women so Miserable?

Since 2005, many hundreds if not thousands of articles pondering that last question have been written, and every possible reason for why women in particular are so utterly miserable in the post-Christian West has been proposed. My personal favorite is a 2017 article in the UK Guardian which posits that: “To be happier, women should try giving up on being good.” In the conclusion to this article, columnist Tim Lott writes: “Maybe women are unhappier than men because they pin themselves to higher moral standards. I think I would rather be happy than good.”

Did you get a whiff of brimstone reading that?

Sheen knew why people without God are miserable, just as the repentant reprobate Augustine of Hippo knew 1,600 years ago when he wrote: “Thou hast made us for Thyself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee.” [Augustine, Confessions, Book I, Chapter 1]

The truth is this: When you are raised with a poorly formed conscience, a perverted sense of right and wrong, or worst of all—the inability to even define what is good, to discern selfishness from selflessness—you will be miserable. 

For such a person with a badly formed or dead conscience, “follow your heart” is the most catastrophic advice that can be given. Often that poor soul’s untutored heart will lead him directly to destruction.

Pride Goeth Before Destruction ~ Celebrate Humility

Click here to share on Facebook.

Recall, Christians, what Sacred Scripture declareth: 

"Pride goeth before destruction: and the spirit is lifted up before a fall." [Proverbs 16:18]

And also:

"Pride is the beginning of all sin. He that holdeth it, shall be filled with maledictions, and it shall ruin him in the end." [Ecclesiasticus, 10:15]

Pride is numbered in the Catholic Catechism among the Seven Deadly Sins [CCC 1866]. Writing in the early Seventh Century AD, Pope Saint Gregory the Great reflected on the sin of pride in his epochal Moralia in Job, saying:  

"Whoever extols himself above his proper condition, is weighed down by the very burden of his pride, and plunges himself the lower, the more he has rushed into the sin of pride, and has separated himself far from Him Who is truly exalted... [Moralia in Job, Book XXIV, Chapter 3]

Not surprisingly, Gregory recognized the link between pride and all the other sins, including fornication, saying:  

"And it is certain that there is not even genuine chastity in the heart of him who lacks humility, since by pride corrupting him within he commits fornication, if from loving himself he departs from the love of God. [Moralia in Job, Book XXII, Chapter 2]

As a remedy to this awful sin, St. Gregory proposes:

"Wherefore the sin of pride must be cut up at once by the very roots, that when it springs up secretly it may be cut off vigilantly, so that it may not gain vigor by growth, or strength by habit." [Moralia in Job, Book XXIV, Chapter 23]

Thus, we should never celebrate pride. Furthermore, we should never present pride as something acceptable or remarkable when teaching our children. 

Rather, Christians are enjoined to reflect on humility.

"The fruit of humility is the fear of the Lord, riches and glory and life." [Proverbs 22:4]

Even though he was God incarnate, Jesus of Nazareth was never puffed up with pride, but was rather an exemplar of humility. The image above is taken from a scene in the Gospel of Saint John [Chapter 13] where, after the Last Supper, Jesus washes the feet of the Apostles:

"He riseth from supper, and layeth aside His garments, and having taken a towel, girded Himself. After that, He putteth water into a basin, and began to wash the feet of the disciples, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith He was girded."

When Saint Peter objected to Jesus humbling himself, Our Lord cautioned him, saying:

"If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me."

Peter responded, saying: 

"Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head."

Jesus then explained to His Apostles that if they wish to be the leaders of His Church, they must first become servants.

"Know you what I have done to you? You call me Master, and Lord; and you say well, for so I am. If then I being your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also. Amen, amen I say to you: The servant is not greater than his lord; neither is the apostle greater than he that sent him. If you know these things, you shall be blessed if you do them." [John 13:13-17]

Gregory the Great in his Moralia in Job, calls humility "the mistress and mother of all virtues [Moralia in Job, Book XXIII, Chapter 13]," and offers contrite confession of sins as the hallmark of humility:

"For these are the proofs of true humility, both for a man to ascertain his own wickedness, and on being ascertained to discover it by the voice of confession."

Meanwhile, someone who is consumed by pride, will not only fail to confess but will attempt to cover-up, deny, and rationalize his sins. Gregory continues:

"But on the contrary it is the accustomed evil practice of man’s race, at once to commit sin keeping himself hidden from sight, and when committed to hide it by denying, and when brought home to him, to multiply it by standing up for it." [Moralia in Job, Book XXII, Chapter 14]

Thus we come to our own present ruinous culture which not only seeks to deny sins, but to create communities around them, celebrate them with parades, and force others to join the revel with them. 

The painting in the image above, showing Christ washing the feet of the Apostles, was done by the Venetian Tintoretto and was completed about AD 1549. 

The Poisonous Fruit of the "New Morality" ~ Pius XII and his radio address of March 23, 1952

On March 23, 1952, Venerable Pope Pius XII gave a radio address on the necessity of Catholics to properly form their own consciences and to provide for the proper Catholic education of the youth in matters of conscience. In that same address, he also cautioned of the dangers of an encroaching “new morality” which found the Church’s moral rules oppressive, rigid, and ultimately impossible to follow. 

We are now nearly 70 years from the broadcast of that radio address. When one looks at Western civilization in general and the state of the Catholic Church in the West in particular over those 70 years, it is evident that we failed to heed the Holy Father’s warnings. Catholic morality, as it is known by most Catholics today, has morphed almost completely into the “new morality.” And, as predicted by Venerable Pius XII, the results have been nothing short of disastrous. If you don’t believe me, put on your hip-waders and venture over to James Martin, SJ’s page on F-Book and read the comments on his posts from over half a million ostensible Catholics. 

On second thought, don't do that, especially if you have high blood-pressure.

Given the wretchedly muddled state of Catholic moral teaching in the early 2020s, it’s worth re-reading the clear and sparkling words of Pius XII on the subject. The radio address in full in English was made available here by Rorate Caeli some years ago.

The quote at the top of this post is perhaps the crux of the entire address and it’s refreshing to hear such things said out loud in unambiguous terms. Following is the context of this quote as taken from the radio address:

Conscious, therefore, of the right and the duty of the Holy Apostolic See to intervene, when it be necessary, authoritatively in moral questions, We, in the address of October 29 last year, proposed to illumine consciences about the problems of conjugal life. With the same authority we declare today to educators and to the same youth: The divine commandment of purity of soul and of body also applies without diminishment to today’s youth. They too have the moral obligation, and with the help of grace, the possibility of keeping themselves pure. Therefore, we reject as erroneous the claim of those who consider failings inevitable in the years of puberty, considered by them of no great import, as if they were not a grave fault, because ordinarily, they add, passion takes away the liberty necessary so that an act is morally imputable. 

On the contrary, it is a fitting and wise rule that that the educator, by not neglecting to impress upon the young the noble qualities of purity so as to induce them to love it and desire it for its own sake; nonetheless, he should  clearly inculcate the commandment as it stands, in all its gravity and seriousness as a divine ordinance. He will thus urge the young to avoid near occasions [of sin], he will comfort them in the struggle, of which he shall not hide the hardness, he will induce them to embrace courageously that sacrifice which virtue demands, and he will exhort them to persevere and not to fall into the danger of disarming themselves from the beginning and of succumbing without resistance to perverse habits.

In previous posts here and here, I mentioned other instances that Pius XII had made plain the errors of the “new morality,” more commonly known as “situation ethics.” In the following passage from his radio address, Pius XII points out the “disastrous consequences” of uncoupling morality from the traditional strictures and guidance of the Church and making Christian morality free-floating, relative to time, place, and individual circumstance. Indeed, he maintains that the result would be the “devastation of the very foundations of education.” 

Well? In 2021, we find ourselves in a place where many or even most ostensibly Catholic institutions are openly promoting grotesquely non-Catholic morality, to the point where devout parents are unable in good conscience to send their Catholic children there to be educated. As Pius XII warned in 1952:

Without pointing out the manifest incompetence and immaturity of judgment of those who hold similar opinions, it will be of use to expose the central flaw of this "new morality." In leaving every ethical criterion to the individual conscience, it jealously closes in on itself and, having been made the absolute arbiter of its own determinations, far from making the way easier for it [conscience], it would divert it from the highroad, which is Christ.

The divine Redeemer has entrusted his Revelation, of which moral obligations form an essential part, of course, not to individual men, but rather to His Church, to which he has given the mission to lead them to embrace that sacred deposit with fidelity….How it is therefore possible to reconcile the providential instruction of the Savior, who committed the guardianship over the Christian moral patrimony to the Church, with a kind of individualistic autonomy of conscience?

This, stolen from its natural climate, can only produce poisonous fruit, which will be recognized only when compared with some characteristics of the traditional conduct and Christian perfection, whose excellence is proven by the incomparable works of the Saints.

Poisonous fruit indeed. For anyone who has run the gauntlet of Catholic education in the United States over the past 50 years and managed to remain an ardent Catholic—a vanishingly small remnant in my experience —Pius’s words sound distinctly like those of a prophet crying out in the wilderness. As Pius suggested, we now have 50 years of the "new morality" to compare with the "traditional conduct of Christian perfection." How are things stacking up? 

Not too good, I would say. 

Indeed, the excellence and incomparable works of the saints in modern Catholicism are to be found almost exclusively among those communities where the practice of Catholic morality has a distinctly pre-1952 flavor. 

Venerable Pius XII, pray for the Church.

Other articles on Venerable Pius XII on this blog:

More on Venerable Pope Pius XII's condemnation of situation ethics

Situation Ethics - Condemned by Venerable Pope Pius XII in 1952

"Volumes could be written on the multiform works of succor of Pius XII" ~ The testimony of Eugenio Zolli, chief rabbi of Rome during World War II

Venerable Fulton Sheen: "If our will is determined by forces outside of ourselves, we no longer will make amendment for our misdeeds."

In 1953, during an episode of his nationally broadcast television program, Life is Worth Living entitled: "Character Building," Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen said the following:

"The real seat of character is in the will and we must not surrender that responsibility either to the masses as Marx would have it, or to any kind of biological determinism. Because if our will is determined by forces outside of ourselves, we no longer will make amendment for our misdeeds."

Did you get that? To repeat, if you accept "biological determinism" then you will no longer feel contrition for your sins. Here again, nearly 70 years after he uttered these words, Sheen has been shown to be a prophet.

What is "biological determinism" you ask? Simply put, it is the belief that human behavior is controlled by an individual's genetic code or some component of his physiological make-up. While such theories date back to the dawn of genetics in the 19th century, they really came into their own in the 20th century along with destructive philosophies such as eugenics and social Darwinism.

However, while the two latter theories have largely gone underground in our own times, biological determinism and its child, sociobiology, continue to flourish into the 21st century. As it applies to human morality, those who embrace biological determinism will claim that certain behaviors are biologically pre-programmed into an individual, largely on the subconscious level, and are therefore predominant over the human will. An extension of this argument into the metaphysical realm asks questions like: "If our actions are pre-determined by our genetics, how can human beings be said to possess free will?" and "Can certain acts truly be sinful if they are part of our genetic make-up?"

Here in the early 21st century, these types of arguments are so prevalent that we don't even realize it anymore. All kinds of bad behaviors are excused or explained away as irresistible because they are part of our genetic or psychological make-up. A child who treats his mother disrespectfully in public is excused because he has "oppositional defiant disorder." A lighter sentence is requested for a man who commits murder because he's got a "warrior gene." A scientific study suggests that that marital infidelity may be caused by the same gene that causes people to become addicted to drugs, alcohol or gambling. I was once in a conversation with a man who began speaking to an older woman in horribly sexual terms that made her deeply uncomfortable. When I called him on it, he responded by saying, "Sorry, that's just my Asperger's syndrome" — as if he had zero control over his behavior.  Indeed, we hear claims with increasing prevalence that an individual has no free will at all when it comes to the commission of certain acts of grave depravity that would have been condemned in Sheen's day as "sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance."

Archbishop Sheen was savvy enough to foresee the ramifications of such a gross error even sixty plus years ago. Men of today are not making amends for their misdeeds. What's worse, they are attempting to transform their misdeeds into good deeds, going beyond mere biological determinism to divine determinism. One American politician, citing the influence of a certain celebrity priest, had the audacity to explain away his deeply depraved relationship with another man by saying, "God made me this way."

The implication here is staggering in its satanic audacity. If Almighty God created an individual genetically pre-programmed to commit acts that the Church has considered sinful from the very beginning then, the argument goes, those acts must be divinely approved. The Apostles, the Church Fathers, and every moral theologian for the past 2,000 years was therefore wrong about Jesus's intentions with regard to morality. Rather than condemning such activities and behaviors, the argument concludes, the Church should be celebrating them.

Such an argument is outrageous on its face and, in a saner time, would have been immediately rejected by all people as fallacious and heretical. In our own time, the argument is accepted by many because, in large part, they've used biological determinism to rationalize their own sins away. They are more than happy to dispense with free will, so long as they may practice their vices without shame or consequence.

So to sum up: Is it possible that genetics and physiology influence behavior? Certainly. Does such influence exculpate men when they commit certain acts that the Church defines as sinful? No. It may lessen the severity of that sin somewhat for the individual so affected. It also may make the resistance of the individual's will to the besetting sin more heroic. But the influence of biological factors does not nullify the sin.

And the existence of such biological factors can certainly never make a sinful act into a virtuous one.

As Venerable Pope Pius XII said in 1952 when condemning so-called "situation ethics" and enumerating a list of moral absolutes that apply to all men and women: "No matter what the situation of the individual may be, there is no other course open to him but to obey."

Watch Archbishop Sheen's talk on Character Building here:

"Christianity rests here on a firmer foundation than in any other country in the world." ~ Alexis de Tocqueville, 1831

Click here to share this image on Facebook.

"Religion is no less the companion of liberty in all its battles and its triumphs; the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law and the surest pledge of freedom."
~Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America, 1835

This quote comes courtesy of Alexis de Tocqueville's previously well known but now practically neglected work, Democracy in America, written beginning in 1835.

A Frenchman and a Catholic, de Tocqueville traveled around the US in the early 1830s observing with fascination how the American republic functioned, as compared with the completely dysfunctional and catastrophic French Republic of the previous generation. One of the aspects of the American nation which impressed him the most was the positive effect of the Christian religion upon society and politics. Here is the above quote with some additional context

“Religion perceives that civil liberty affords a noble exercise to the faculties of man, and that the political world is a field prepared by the Creator for the efforts of the intelligence. Contented with the freedom and power which it enjoys in its own sphere, and with the place which it occupies, the empire or religion is never more surely established than when it reigns in the hearts of men unsupported by aught besides its native strength. Religion is no less the companion of liberty in all its battles and its triumphs; the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law and the surest pledge of freedom.” 

To read more, see Democracy in America on Google Books.

In a letter to Count Louis de Kergorlay dated June 20, 1831, while situated about forty five miles from New York, de Tocqueville related thoughts relating to the future of religion in the United States, particularly to the expansion of Catholicism and Unitarianism at the expense of the traditional Protestant sects.

"My observations incline me to think that the Catholics increase in numbers. They are considerably recruited from Europe and there are many conversions. New England and the valley of the Mississippi begin to fill with them. It is evident that all the naturally religious minds among the Protestants the men of strong and serious opinions disgusted by the vagueness of Protestantism yet ardently desirous to have a faith give up in despair the search after truth and submit to the yoke of authority. They throw off with pleasure the heavy burden of reason and they become Catholics. Again Catholicism captivates the senses and the imagination and suits the masses better than the reformed religion thus the greater number of converts are from the working classes.

De Tocqueville from a modern sculpture.

"We will pass now to the opposite end of the chain. On the confines of Protestantism is a sect that is Christian only in name I mean the Unitarians. They all deny the Trinity and acknowledge but one God but among them are some who believe Christ to have been an angel others a prophet and others a philosopher like Socrates. The last are pure Deists. They quote the Bible because they do not wish to shock too much public opinion which supports Christianity. They have a service on Sundays. I went to it. Verses are read from Dryden and other English poets on the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. There is a sermon on some moral subject and the service is over. This sect makes proselytes in about the same proportion as Catholicism, but its recruits come from the higher ranks of society.

In these two observations, de Tocqueville seems to be rather prescient considering the present make of of Christian America. Speaking more generally about the impact Christianity has on American society, de Tocqueville goes on to say in the same letter:

"Christianity rests here on a firmer foundation than in any other country in the world which I know and I have no doubt but that the religious element influences the political one. It induces morality and regularity it restrains the eccentricities of the spirit of innovation above all it is almost fatal to the mental condition so common with us in which men leap over every obstacle per fas et nefas to gain their point. Any party, however anxious to obtain its object, would in the pursuit feel obliged to confine itself to means apparently legitimate and not in open opposition to the maxims of religion which are always more or less moral even when erroneous."

The above passages are taken from Memoir, Letter and Remains of Alexis de Tocqueville, Volume 1, beginning on page 308.

Thus we see the genesis of de Tocqueville's belief, echoed in the maxims of the Founding Fathers, that only a religious and moral people can properly maintain a republican form of government. And his belief that Christianity is on firmer footing in American than elsewhere around the world has certainly borne out given that among Western nations today, the United States is practically the only one where the Christian faith endures among a large majority of the people.

Ben Franklin Nominates a Bishop ~ Catholicism and the Early American Republic

Click here to share this image on Facebook.

Most people know that the American Republic inherited from its mother country, Great Britain, an antipathy toward Catholicism. However, given that Catholic France had played such a vital role in assisting the American colonies to win their independence, it is perhaps not surprising that the years immediately following the American victory witnessed a softening of the traditional American aversion to "Popery".

During his long stay in France while acting as ambassador during the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin seems to have become adept at moving in Catholic circles. Though a very public Freemason, an occasional abuser of "Popish" customs in his public writings, and an all-around worldly and sometimes vulgar fellow, Franklin seems to have mellowed later in life with regard to Catholicism and Christian morality. His embassy to Quebec in 1776 is sometimes cited as the genesis of this sentiment. While on this failed expedition, his health deteriorated and he was forced to return home in the company of one Rev. John Carroll.  No doubt, Dr. Franklin at least acquired an affection for Father Carroll at that time, if not for his religious beliefs.

Later, while nearing the end of his time in France after the successful conclusion of the Treaty of Paris, Franklin played a role in having his friend, Father John Carroll, named as the first Catholic bishop in formerly British America. Following is an interesting entry from Franklin's journal, detailing a conversation Franklin had with the Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Giuseppe Doria Pamphili, on the subject. Of particular note is Franklin's confusion with regard to how bishops are made and to whom they are beholden in terms of authority:

July 1st [1784].—The Pope’s Nuncio called, and acquainted me that the Pope had, on my recommendation, appointed Mr. John Carroll superior of the Catholic clergy in America, with many of the powers of a bishop; and that probably he would be made a bishop in partibus before the end of the year. He asked me which would be more convenient for him, to come to France, or go to St. Domingo, for ordination by another bishop, which was necessary. I mentioned Quebec as more convenient than either. He asked whether, as that was an English province, our government might not take offence at his going thither? I thought not, unless the ordination by that bishop should give him some authority over our bishop. He said, not in the least; that when our bishop was once ordained, he would be independent of the others, and even of the Pope; which I did not clearly understand. He said the Congregation de Propagandâ Fide had agreed to receive, and maintain and instruct, two young Americans in the languages and sciences at Rome (he had formerly told me that more would be educated gratis in France). He added they had written from America that there are twenty priests, but that they are not sufficient, as the new settlements near the Mississippi have need of some. 

Abp. Giuseppe Doria Pamphili

The Nuncio said we should find that the Catholics were not so intolerant as they had been represented; that the Inquisition in Rome had not now so much power as that in Spain; and that in Spain it was used chiefly as a prison of state. That the Congregation would have undertaken the education of more American youths, and may hereafter, but that at present they are overburdened, having some from all parts of the world. He spoke lightly of their New Bostonian convert Thayer’s conversion; that he had advised him not to go to America, but settle in France. That he wanted to go to convert his countrymen; but he knew nothing yet of his new religion himself, etc. [Source: The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Volume X]

It's worth noting that the "Thayer" mentioned above is John Thayer, a Congregationalist minister from Boston who converted to the Catholic faith in 1783 and was later ordained a priest. The Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Thayer mentions that he had attempted to dispute certain miracles which were wrought via the intercession of Blessed (later Saint) Benedict Joseph Labre and was later converted as a result. The full story may be found in his book, An Account of the Conversion of the Reverend John Thayer, formerly a Protestant minister of Boston.

It seems that Franklin's toleration of things Catholic survived the end of his tenure in France. On April 17, 1787, a date exactly three years before his death, Franklin wrote to two Catholic priests, the Abbés Chalut and Arnaud whom he had befriended while in Paris. From this short letter, we see Franklin echoing a common theme of that time that would have rung true with his correspondents as well--namely, that freedom can not exist without virtue:

Dear Friends,

Your reflections on our situation compared with that of many nations of Europe, are very sensible and just. Let me add, that only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

Our public affairs go on as well as can reasonably be expected after so great an overturning. We have had some disorders in different parts of the country, but we arrange them as they arise, and are daily mending and improving; so that I have no doubt but all will come right in time.

Yours, B Franklin

(Source: The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Volume 10) 

"Without morals a republic can not subsist." ~ Charles Carroll, the only Catholic Signatory of the Declaration of Independence

Click here to share this image on Facebook.

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."
—Charles Carroll, the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence

In anticipation of Independence Day, here is another quote in a continuing series on the Founding Fathers of the American Republic. This one, from Charles Carroll, demonstrates the commonly held view that the propagation of Christian concepts of morality is absolutely vital for the maintenance of liberty. This particular quote is taken from a letter of Charles Carroll, the only Catholic to sign the Declaration of Independence, as written to James McHenry on November 4, 1800.

Following is some context. In the letter, Carroll sounds a prophetic warning of the dangers posed by the rational atheism of revolutionary France which, far from enshrining liberty for the French people, instead served as a prelude to despotism:

"If the people of this country were united, it would have nothing to fear from foreign powers; but unhappily this is not the case; many of the opposers of ye present administration, I suspect want change of the federal constitution; if that should be altered, or weakened so as to be rendered a dead letter, it will not answer the purposes of its formation and will expire from mere inanity: other confederacies will start up & ye scene of ye Grecian States, after an interval of more than two thousand years, will be renewed on this continent, & some British or Buonaparte will melt the whole of them into one mass of despotism. 

"These events will be hastened by the pretended Philosophy of France: divine revelation has been scoffed at by the Philosophers of the present day, the immortality of the soul treated as the dreams of fools, or the invention of knaves, & death has been declared by public authority an eternal sleep: these opinions are gaining ground among us, & silently sapping the foundations of a religion the encouragement of ye good, the terror of evil doers, and the consolation of the poor, the miserable, and the distressed. Remove the hope and dread of future rewards & punishments, the most powerful restraint on wicked actions, & ye strongest inducement to virtuous ones is done away. Virtue may be said is its own reward; I believe it to be so and even in this life the only source of happiness; and this intimate & necessary connection between virtue & happiness here and between vice and misery is to my mind one of the surest pledges of happiness or misery in a future state of existence. 

"But how few practice virtue for its own reward! Some of happy disposition & temperament, calm reflecting men, exempt in a great degree from the turbulence of passions may be virtuous for virtue's sake: small, however, is the number who are guided by reason alone, & who can always subject their passions to its dictates? He, who can thus act, may be said to be virtuous; but reason is often inlisted on the side of the passions, or at best, when most wanted, is weakest — Hence the necessity of a superior motive for acting virtuously; now, what motive can be stronger than ye belief, founded on revelation, that a virtuous life will be rewarded by a happy immortality? 

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time. They therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, who denounces against the wicked eternal misery, & insures to the good eternal happiness are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.

"If there be force in this reasoning, what judgment ought we to form of our pretended republicans, who admire & applaud the proceedings of revolutionary France! 

"These declaimers in favor of freedom & equality act in such a questionable shape that I cannot help suspecting their sincerity." 

As to this last sentence, I have often asked myself this same question regarding those who profess to the common libertarian viewpoints—who find talk of virtue tedious, but never tire of demanding that the law be loosened as regards to common vices of the most destructive sort.

Click here to read Charles Carroll's whole letter in The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry, Secretary of War under Washington and Adams by Bernard Christian Steiner.

Samuel Adams on the Incompatibility of Liberty and Vice

Click here to share this image on Facebook.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."

~Samuel Adams, American patriot

As we run up to Independence Day, it is fitting to remember some sage advice from the American Founding Fathers, if for no other reason than to gauge how far we moderns have fallen from the ideals which motivated them, particularly in the realm of morals and virtue. While no one would argue that that the Founders were always paragons of Christian morality in their actions, it should be recognized, at least, that they understood the key role which public and private virtue plays in maintaining true liberty, and knew well that promotion or toleration of vice is supremely harmful to freedom.

The above quote is taken from an essay Samuel Adams wrote in The Advertiser in 1748. Following is the context of the quote which is particularly instructive:

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man. 

"We must not conclude merely upon a man's haranguing upon liberty, and using the charming sound, that he is fit to be trusted with the liberties of his country. It is not unfrequent to hear men declaim loudly upon liberty, who, if we may judge by the whole tenor of their actions, mean nothing else by it but their own liberty — to oppress without control or the restraint of laws all who are poorer or weaker than themselves. It is not, I say, unfrequent to see such instances, though at the same time I esteem it a justice due to my country to say that it is not without shining examples of the contrary kind — examples of men of a distinguished attachment to this same liberty I have been describing; whom no hopes could draw, no terrors could drive, from steadily pursuing, in their sphere, the true interests of their country; whose fidelity has been tried in the nicest and tenderest manner, and has been ever firm and unshaken.

"The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people: then we shall both deserve and enjoy it. While, on the other hand, if we are universally vicious and debauched in our manners, though the form of our Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freedom, we shall in reality be the most abject slaves."

Though Adams was as least partially inspired by his study of Roman history for his sentiments above, his words echo those of Saint Paul who says in his epistle to the Romans:

"Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey, whether it be of sin unto death, or of obedience unto justice?...For the wages of sin is death. But the grace of God, life everlasting, in Christ Jesus our Lord. [Romans 6:16-23]"

We would do well to heed these warnings from history, lest by becoming slaves to our passions, we become literal slaves to a corrupt and heavy-handed state as well.

Adams's essay quoted above may be found in Wells: The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams, page 22.

More on Venerable Pope Pius XII's condemnation of situation ethics

"The accusation of oppressive rigidity made against the Church
by the ‘new morality,’ in reality, attacks, in the first place,
the adorable Person of Christ Himself."
—Venerable Pope Pius XII in a radio address on March 23, 1952

Kudos to Rorate Cæli for their recent outstanding post: Pius XII's Condemnation of Situation Ethics: "Accusations of rigidity first attack the adorable person of Christ"

If you haven't read it already, go and do so. In short, it provides additional background on Venerable Pope Pius XII's all-but-forgotten condemnation of so-called "situation ethics" -- the non-Catholic moral system that has sadly wormed its way into the Church over the past 50 years.

Pius XII's warnings about the danger of this alien system of morality are unmistakable, and Rorate's post makes the clear condemnation easily accessible for the first time in English. Previously, I had only been able to find one other reference in English as exemplified below:

Situation Ethics - Condemned by Venerable Pope Pius XII in 1952

For the record, Situation Ethics is the morality that most of us Catholics under the age of 60 were taught in Catholic schools. Based on relativism, Situation Ethics is the primary reason why traditional Catholic moral principles are considered unrealistic by many today, even though they were certainly realistic for our ancestors. Considering how few of my peers today may be considered devout Catholics or pay anything other than lip-service to the proper Catholic modes of moral behavior, the rise of Situation Ethics within the Church has been every bit as damaging as Pius XII predicted.

If you ask me, he is a prophet who deserves sainthood.

Social Justice and Individual Justice

Click here to share on FaceBook.

"Sometimes, people are interested in social justice to cover up the want of individual justice."

~Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

I found this quote, or rather heard it, in one of Sheen's talks entitled: Identity Crisis, originally broadcast in 1966. The full talk may be seen here:

Sheen used this potent line in other contexts as well. A particularly scalding example may be found in a conference he gave for priests of the Diocese of Washington, DC in 1974, where he offers an explanation for why priests fall away from the Faith via the actions of Judas Iscariot. When Judas complained to Our Lord that the perfume poured on him by Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, could have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor, Jesus rebuked him [John 12:1-8].

Sheen calls this incident out as Judas putting an emphasis on social justice while forgetting about individual justice. Judas, after all, was the treasurer of the twelve and was guilty of the sin of avarice. Because of his greed, he was about to commit the worst sin ever committed by a man. Our Lord recognized that Judas was using the pretense of concern for the poor as a way to cover up his own personal sins.

A more contemporary example then followed, in Sheen's own words:

A bishop, one day came to me with a letter written by a priest in his office. It was two or three pages long, single space. A very vicious attack on the bishop because he had no interest in ecumenism; particularly because he had no concern for the poor. Well, I knew that the bishop did have concern for the poor, ecumenism as well. And I said to him.

“Why don’t you find out how much he stole?”

Actually he stole over $25,000.00 from the chancery and then stole a wife who was a mother of four children. It was the story of Judas lived all over again.

The entire lecture on Judas may be found here.

Without putting too fine a point on it, I think Sheen's observation here explains very clearly why we see so many celebrities who live lives of open rebellion against Christian morality, and yet deign to lecture society on topics related to social justice. The amazing thing is that anybody listens to them.

For any of us who dare to spread the Gospel in a public place, it is well to remember that we ought not to use our concern for social justice to mask those areas of our personal lives where we fall short. It is better to make amends for our personal sins, rectify our irregular situations, and refrain from enabling or promoting immoral situations in others before becoming social justice warriors, lest we be accurately accused of hypocrisy.

Situation Ethics - Condemned by Venerable Pope Pius XII in 1952

Venerable Pope Pius XII condemned so-called “situation ethics” in 1952.

The quote featured in this meme is taken from 44 Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Acts of the Holy See) 417 (1952), in which the Holy Father warns that few dangers are so great or so heavy in foreboding as those which this “new morality” creates for faith. Here is the complete quote in context in which Pius XII refutes situation ethics and upholds the Church’s authentic teaching on moral absolutes:

“From the essential relationships between man and God, between man and man, between husband and wife, between parents and children; from the essential community. relationships found in the family, in the Church and in the State, it follows (among other things) that hatred of God, blasphemy, idolatry, abandoning the true faith, denial of the faith, perjury, murder, bearing false witness, calumny, adultery and fornication, the abuse of marriage, the solitary sin, stealing and robbery, taking away the necessities of life, depriving workers of their just wages, monopolizing vital foodstuffs and unjustifiably increasing prices, fraudulent bankruptcy, unjust maneuvering in speculation - all these are gravely forbidden by the divine Lawmaker. No examination is necessary. No matter what the situation of the individual may be, there is no other course open to him but to obey.”

The English translation of this passage is taken from an excellent article by Aidan M. Carr from 1959 entitled, The Morality of Situation Ethics.