The Constitution was the Creed, We Never Got the Catechism

According to John Adams, the American Constitution needed a catechism to explain how we should live it out:

The idea that a moral social and political culture was necessary to maintain the Constitution is an idea that Adams held before the French Revolution began. Adams thought that the Congress needed write a political and moral catechism that would be taught in American schools. Adams asked Abbé Mably to write this catechism. Mably declined the offer, arguing that it would be better for Adams and the people in the US Congress to write and publish such a catechism (The information on the Catechism is in “John Adams on the Abbé de Mably.” More Books: The Bulletin of the Boston Public Library. Volume VIII April 1933. 125-145). This catechism was to explain the principal parts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, with a view to explaining the kind of personal and social life that was necessary for each person to live and maintain in order to live the political truths contained in our founding creeds.

Despite this early rejection by Mably, and despite such a catechism never being written, Adams never lost his concern for the political culture that he thought was necessary to support the American creed. And so, in his letters to Jefferson, Adams expressed concerns about the negative effects that Rousseau’s philosophy might have on the interpretation of the American Constitution. If we were to extrapolate from his comments to Mably, political philosophy is the catechism of the Constitution. If Rousseau’s philosophy were to become the catechism of the Constitution, it would distort and ruin the Constitution over time because it would not adequately explain the Constitution and the institutions that it established.

Adams saw Rousseau’s political philosophy as informing the movements of the French Revolution. He feared the growing influence that the writings of Rousseau were having on young American intellectuals. He thought that if the intellectuals interpreted the Constitution through the lens of a Rousseauean philosophy, it would be the end of the Constitution and the institutions that it established. There are certain cultural ideas that need to be maintained in order to uphold the constitution and the institutions it established. Rousseau’s philosophy tended toward the breakdown of these ideals.

What would Dakota Fanning Say?

To those in Hollywood to support Dakota Fanning and her family, what if the girls in the following article were helped into the industry by their family? Is there much difference between the way Holllywood gets Americans and girls all over the world hooked and this industry (if we take away the tinsel)?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/01/23/sex.workers/index.html

Child Rape

Today in the news, the Israeli President is on the verge of losing his position because he had inappropriate relations with a young lady.

However, Dakota Fanning's parents and agent can have her do a rape scene for all the world to see and those who critisize it are demonized.

What shall we make of this?

Money, Pleasure, Power

I really appreciate the comments that were posted yesterday. I would like to use today's entry to speak about the "theoretical lens" throught which I am operating. It is not Aristotle, but Plato. Aristotle is interested in classifying the mechanics of revolution. Plato is a nice introduction to Aristotle as Plato provides us with the psychology of revolution.

Plato recognized that the most formative part of a regime consisted of the leaders of the regime. The leaders are those who by their position and their character impress their way of life on the rest of society. The leaders do not necessarily do this by force of arms. They do it by example. They do it by breathing a spirit into the institutions and into the laws that in turn forms the souls of the men and women of a society. The leaders are not merely the political leaders. They are the men and women who make up the literary elite, the generals in the army, business leaders, the leaders of Hollywood, and journalists. Seen another way, the leaders are those who shape the univeristy, the news services, culture, music, business, the military, and politics. If we want to know the future of a society, all we have to do is study the souls of the leaders.

In Book VIII of the Republic Socrates outlines the character of each regime and how regimes progress, one to the next. Each regime can be understood according to the desire that dominates in that regime. To better help us understand each regime, he gives us the example of a family. In a honor-based family, the father tries to live in such a way that he never compromisos his honor. So, he resists committing injustices and doing anything that might compromise his dignity as a father and a leader of the family. Because he has this position, he does not always make the money that he could make. Also, he will sometime or many times in his life suffer injustice rather than commit one, apparently losing the respect of, or at least risking a lack of understanding from his wife and children

The wife of the honor based man, not out of malice and perhaps not always consciously, complains to her children that their family lacks things. At this moment, the seed of oligarchy is planted in the soul of the son of the honor-based man. The son becomes committed to making money so that he can buy the things his father never had and so that he can buy the respect and dignity his father did not get when his father suffered injustice. The son, rather than letting the desire for honor dominate in his soul, now turns his soul over to pursuing money. Thus, his soul becomes oligarchic.

The oligarch gives in to the passion of money-making in an unrestrained way. He also ends up living a fairly comfortable life. Now, the children of the oligarch, not at first out of malice and perhaps not fully conscious of what they are doing, look at their father and they say, “you have followed the passion for money-making in an unrestrained way. Why can we follow our other passions in an unrestrained way?” And so, the seed of democracy is planted in the souls of the children of the oligarch. These children start to explore and experience the pleasures of alcohol, the desire for procreation, to the point of becoming lotus eaters. They see that the best society would be a society that provides for equality, or that gives equal access to all the passions. The best society is one that is multi-colored. In this kind of society, or in a democracy, all the passions are given free reign. No one passion is regarded as different or better than any other passion.

Some of the children of the oligarch, though democrats when they are young, themselves become oligarchs when they are older. They want to buy honor and respect. Thus begins the war or competition between democracy and oligarchy. But this war over time favors the democrats. They have a much larger natural constituency, whereas the oligarchs greatest appeal is to the money makers. So, over time, the democratic passion takes hold of a society.

Now, among the passions, there is also the lust for cruelty and violence. And in a democratic society, that passion has equal access to the society along with all the other passions. Thus enters the demagogue. The demagogue or sophist knows how to appeal to the passions of men so as to gain power for himself. And so, in becoming elected, he can promise all sorts of things to the democrats which will appeal to their passions. In fact, one of the ways he gets elected is by promising the democrats that he will put an end to the oligarchs.

The ultimate demagogue is also a father killer. He will convince the democratic and oligarchic children that they have to kill their honor-loving father in order to be free from the rules or limits that he lives and that if they applied to their lives would make them suffer because it would require them to restrain their passions, whichever passion it is to which they currently let rule in their soul.

Once the demagogue comes to power, he starts killing off the group or groups that brought him to power. Do not forget, it is the desire for power that dominates in his soul. Eventually, he kills off the democrats, and the tyrant rules in a society. The poets, philosophers, musicians and other flatterers start to flatter the tyrant, because they depend on him now for their existence. One might say that democracy can also be tyrannical in this sense, poets and academics often end up flattering those who provide for their existence and subsistence.

This is the picture, or order of regimes, within which we can understand the progression of the French Revolution, as well as the contest that takes place between the democrats, such as Mary Wollstonecraft, and the oligarchs, such as Burke and Adams. It is also a nice way of beginning to understand what is the paradigm of modern politics, the struggle between the conservatives (oligarchs) and democrats. Neither side is fullly attached to reason and logos, and so they are immersed in a struggle between falsehoods.

John Adams, Lover of Aristocracy

I have re-read my notes on John Adams and the French Revolution. He thinks that there will always be an aristocracy in society, the question is, on what will this Aristocracy be based?

In the Old regime, it was based on land and birth. He thinks that in the United States, it will be based on talent, genius, and merit. He fears that anyone who is blind to the fact of aristocracy will fail to see and check the aristocracy of wealth, or oligarchy. Over time, the wealthy are able to insinuate themselves into and control the political system.

This is why Putin has governed the way he has over the past eight years and why the US is trying to demonize him. Putin has expelled from Russian society or put in jail the oligarchs who were in the process of taking over Russia throughout the 1990s. For this, he is being demonized by the West. He is being demonized by the West, especially because the US is effectively run by the aristocrats of wealth, who control both parties, the media, the music industry, and sports. Any country that opposes this oligarchy is percieved as an enemy.

Finally, Adams was perhaps unwilling to disuss what seems to accompany oligarchs and revolutionaries, the unleashing of the lust for pleasure which results in the lust for power. The children of oligarchs tend to be democrats, which means equal access to all the passions. Democrats become blind to the demagogue, who appeals to the passions as a way of installing himself as a brutal tyrant.

The passions always present themselves as liberators, but when they rule in the soul, they rule with despotic tyranny.

Adams, Jefferson, and Revolution

After dealing with Pius VI, I am turning to the figures that my book will deal with before Pius VI, specifically, John Adams, Mary Wollstonecraft, Immanuel Kant, and Edmund Burke. The French Revolution had a great impact not only on the presidency of John Adams, but also on his literary career and his friendships. Perhaps more than any other, the friendship between Adams and Jefferson was most affected by the ideas, events, and effects of the French Revolution.

In 1812, John Adams sent a letter to Thomas Jefferson, along with some homespun, in the hopes of rekindling a correspondence that the two men broke off due to events surrounding the election of 1800. A mutual friend suggested to Adams that he try to renew the friendship. Adams began the correspondence partly to lure Jefferson into a dialogue about the history of their relationship. At the very least, he hoped that he and Jefferson could explain themselves to each other.

Adams wanted to discover why their intellectual relationship and friendship soured over the years. Adams and Jefferson were friends and among the more radical members of the group that signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Despite this fact, by 1800 they found themselves on opposite sides of the political debates plaguing the country. The presidential campaign, Adams’ loss to Jefferson, and much else broke all communication between the two great founders and led to Adams’ retreat from public life.

Among the topics that Adams sensed were potential causes for their break-up, was each man’s reaction to and interpretation of the events and aftermath of the French Revolution. This led to disagreement over what the French Revolution and its philosophy meant for the United States, and what was the purpose in general of revolution for a culture and society. Adams was critical of the French Revolution before, during, and after it happened. That is to say, before the French Revolution he was critical of the political theorists that he thought were behind it. During the French Revolution, he was immersed in political efforts to prevent the United States from becoming another revolutionary France. After the French Revolution, he feared revolutionary philosophy and practices influencing the United States and ruining its government.

Agents of Influence in Poland and the US 02

Just a quick follow up before I go on vacation until January 17th. Yes, the young are the most susceptible to ideologies. They feel more accutely the suffering of their time, and they are looking for something to put their hope in. They are also often stuck between the pleasures of Sodom and following the path of virtue. Those who get stuck in this way end up like a deer in the headlights, with frozen minds and frozen hearts.

Finally, as a commentor noted, only a small number of priests or people go along with false ideologies. During the French Revolution, 4 out of 300 Bishops bolted from the Church. The vast majority of French Catholics remained loyal to Rome by dying rather than denying their faith.

Agents of Influence in Poland and the US

Departing somewhat from recent entries, it would be good to review the current dilemma that Poland faces, in order to compare it to our own. If one were to read the article from the New York Times Saturday, January 6th, it seems that a young philosophy student in 1967 was recruited by the secret police to spy on Polish Catholics at a Catholic University.

Here is the link:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/06/world/europe/06poland.html?em&ex=1168232400&en=f62f8fd3ced788da&ei=5087%0A

The idea of travel was attractive to him. It would allow him to do research and meet people at other universities. Eventually, he continued collaborating with the communists because “At the time I thought I had to continue my important scientific research and acquire sound training for the good of the church.” This led to a long-term relationship. Friday the 5th, the Archbishop admitted publicly that he had, in fact, collaborated with the communist regime in keeping tabs on his fellow Catholics.

Sunday, January 7th, this Archbishop resigned. He had compromised with an anti-catholic regime, and that made him unfit to become a ruler of the Church. The Polish Church established clear guide-lines during the Soviet Era to protect from this kind of compromise. For example, no person was supposed to go alone into a room with someone from the communist secret service. If someone were alone in a room with the secret service, he should have written to his Ecclesiastical superiors about it immediately. The young priest did not follow these guidelines of prudence.

The purpose of this entry is not to ask or answer the question about what the Archbishop or the Vatican should do, instead, it is to encourage some self-reflection on our own part.

We are not living in a communist country, but doesn't the same thing happen to us? There is a War Party in this country that works through foundations to recruit Catholic students to support its cause. These students can end up ousting other students who fail to share the views of the War Party. These students who want to go on and do research or get positions of influence to help the Church will make concessions with their faith in the interests of perhaps later on helping the Church.

There are also pro-Abortionists, who also want to recruit students for their cause. These students also, in the interest of future influence, could adopt the pro-abortionist, or pro-stem cell research line, in the interest of "the good of the Church."

There are agents promoting the homosexual marriage who come to the University in the interest of supporting their cause. Students in one way or another can take the money to become attached to these groups "for the good of the Church."

Communism is an ideology. The War Party runs on an ideology. The abortion movement runs on an ideology. The homosexual movement is an ideology. They all will attempt to infiltrate the Church, to get the Church to bend to their doctrine. There are some from within the ideology who consciously do this. There are others, who in the interest of promoting "the good of the Church" will go along with the ideology in a half-hearted way, not wanting to lose their faith, and not wanting the ideology to win out in the end either. They think that, in doing so, they will keep both alive.

This is the dilemma of dealing with revolutionary ideologies. Modern secularism is a revolutionary ideology. The forms in which it appears in the US are capitalism, sexual liberation, and Empire. As we follow the way in which a Polish student made a compromise as a student with the ideology of communism, let us beware about the compromises that we could make as young people that would lead us to compromise with the other false ideologies of our age.

Jansenism

Am reading these days about Jansenism. It might be that secularized Jansenism had not a little to do with the origins of the French Revolution. As the 17th Century wanes into the 18th Century, Jansensists developed a legalistic culture of protest against authority, using all sorts of "democratic" and legalistic mechanisms to avoid obedience to the Pope and to thwart the King. The Jansenists were also looking for a sort of redemptive act that would give real physical expression to the invisible Church, which was being held in bondage by the visible Church and the King.

I know from previous research that Voltaire thought that the Jansenists would he useful allies for a time in paving the way to Revoltuion. He realized that they shared his hatred of the King and authority. Voltaire, at the same time, disliked the Jansenist. His brother got involved in some "signs and wonders" that took place in a Jansenist cemetary in the 1720s. Voltaire took this to be a sign that all Christians were interested in hokey signs and wonders. He also thought that they could be easily duped.

The Revolution Comes to Venezuela

Anyone who has looked at this blog before and is aware of the situation of religious freedom in China, could probably see that the Chinese are following a model of Church State relations that was set in France during the French Revolution. The Revolutionaries decided that the State would for all practical purposes turn the Catholic Church into the French Church and that the State would control that Church.

Now, it appears that the Chinese are not alone. The example that we see from the French Revolution is making its way to Venezuela. It actually might be more of the example set by England and the States of Northern Europe during the Reformation. It is, in the end, the nefarious ideas of Marsilius of Padua and William Ockham at work.

Here is the link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238015,00.html

Pius VI Arrested by the Revolution

During the same time that Adams and the Federalists were losing their control of American political institutions, the French Revolutionaries were taking over Rome and imprisoning the Pope. While Adams’s political career came to an end by his being voted out of office, the career and life of Pius VI ended being forcibly taken out of Rome. He died in exile from the capitol city of the Church which he led. The fall of Adams caused him great bitterness. The exile and death of Pius VI, at least from his letters, caused him great joy.

In 1798, when Pius VI was being physically menaced by the revolutionaries, he wrote to Cardinal Franckenberg at Mechliniensem (July 30, 1798). Rather than expressing bitterness, Pius VI wrote of the great consolation that had come to him, seeing the “patience, strength, longanimity, and good will” with which the faithful, nuns, and priests have faced prison, death, and exile during the Revolution (Vol. 2, Supplement, 29). He was first edified by what he saw as the number of ordinary faithful of the Catholic Church who witnessed to their faith during the turmoil and danger of the revolution.

The Revolution was a large storm against the Church (Vol. 2, Supplement, 29). After the revolutionaries dismantled the Church, the Pope was alone on his throne. He had no human means to help him (Vol. 2, Supplement, 30). He was sharing in the same sufferings that so many French men and women suffered during the Revolution. He knew that the suffering of the people of France, their good example, was strengthening him as he bore his imprisonment (Vol. 2, Supplement, 30). He recalled that Christ gave Christians grace to bear with suffering of this kind (Vol. 2, Supplement, 31). Catholics, from the beginning, were able to bare suffering and persecution with joy. They did not conquer with weapons and violence. They did not take over nations by the sword. Instead, they did so by long-suffering and faith (Vol. 2, Supplement, 31). So often it was through persecution that the Church obtained her victories. He did not hold any rancor towards the revolutionaries. He wished “tranquility, joy, and peace” to all (Vol. 2, Supplement, 31-32).