Before I get to Mona Charen's latest article,
>"Outpouring masks Europe's spiritual crisis.", a comparative is not only in order but essential. Usually I think of the female contingent from the loony right like a casting call of the old Charlie's Angels fluff and skin show. There is no doubt who Ann Coulter represents: (who else?) none other than the Jill Munroe character portrayed by Farrah Fawcett. Then there is the "venom with a smile" Laura Ingram sliding in nicely as the Kelly Garrett character portrayed by Jaclyn Smith. This brings us to the Sabrina Duncan character as portrayed by the plucky Ms. Kate Jackson. As we all know Ms. Jackson had always been described as the "one who can act." Who else but Mona Charen would fill those shoes. It is obvious that of the three, Coulter, Ingram and Charen, it is Ms. Charen who would be tapped as the "one who can think."
Yesterday, when I came upon Ms. Charen's latest "effort" I suddenly wondered in retrospect if I was being unduly harsh on the redoubtable Kate Jackson in the context of my comparative.
I'm usually amused by Ms. Charen's ideological musings whenever she partakes a chance to defend the right's House of Babylon, but yesterday I was more struck than usual by her Creators Syndicate article
>"Outpouring masks Europe's spiritual crisis." as she took the death of John Paul II and exclaimed to all the faithful, ".....The funeral of this modern pope has become the greatest pilgrimage of all time." Well, that's quite a claim when contrasting the technologically and economically advanced society we live in today with the blistering hardships of yesteryear when pilgrimages of this type required inconceivable hardships that stripped some pilgrims physically, mentally and spiritually. Somehow watching Vatican workers handing out bottled water to the faithful waiting in line doesn't convey the same image. Then she went on ".....Accordingly, images out of Rome this week give the impression of a still-vibrant European Christianity." This segwayed nicely into a bemoaning of the fact that despite these images, Christianity has in fact, lost it's place in the European community. To back this up she quotes extensively from a new book by George Weigel, "The Cube and the Cathedral." Ms. Charen describes this work as a testament to "....Europe's sickness of the soul." I'm sure that's news to the Europeans. Ray Olsen of
Booklist calls out Mr. Weigel in his review on that point:
"...Weigel raises many questions about contemporary European actions, attitudes, and developments--in particular, the precipitate decline of the overall nonimmigrant European birth rate--on the way to concluding that Europe's leadership is bored with life. Those questions and a host of incidental observations are very intriguing and provocative, but Weigel's championing of Catholicism, Poland, and especially the Christ-centered humanism of the present pope as restoratives for a sick Europe may strike many as banking on very long shots."
It just so happens that Mr. Weigel is also John Paul II's personally chosen biographer as witnessed in his work "Witness To Hope."
As I read the article it seemed like it was the usual Charen fare about the imminent fall of western civilization if right thinking ideologues aren't given a chance to straighten us out. Then I encountered the part of the article that had me sitting up in my old creaking computer desk chair:
"....The new European Constitution contains some 70,000 words. But nowhere is there a reference to Christianity or to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Europe's commitment to human rights, according to the document, arose from classical antiquity and from the Enlightenment. Fifteen hundred years of Christian influence were airbrushed out. When a phrase acknowledging Europe's Christian patrimony was suggested (by a Jewish scholar, actually), the French and others vehemently objected."
"...And among the intellectual elites, Christian commitment is regarded as an embarrassment -- as even perhaps a disqualifying trait for high office. (There are echoes of this attitude in the United States, as well. Last year, Senate Democrats blocked the confirmation of Judge William Pryor due to his "deeply held religious views." Pryor is a practicing Catholic.)"
I had to pick my jaw up off the ground at this point. I would like Ms. Charen to take a moment and actually find in our Constitution any reference whatsoever to "Christianity", "god" or the "Judeo-Christian" tradition. Actually, I would challenge her to do the same with "The Federalist Papers" where you can find the word "god" mentioned one time in it's entire erudite defense of our Constitution in John Jay's essay #2 under the pseudonym "Plubius":
"...The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's GOD [emphasis mine], which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed."
Jay's one single mention in an allusion to "nature's god" as opposed to a personal god is from a person who, of the three authors, can be argued to have had the most intense religious beliefs. Jay's religious conviction is well known as evidenced in this excerpt from an April 23, 1811, letter to John Bristed, where he wrote:
"While in France . . . I do not recollect to have had more than two conversations with atheists about their tenants. The first was this: I was at a large party, of which were several of that description. They spoke freely and contemptuously of religion. I took no part in the conversation. In the course of it, one of them asked me if I believed in Christ? I answered that I did, and that I thanked God that I did."
This is in contrast to Hamilton's Episcopalianism and Madison's Theism who's belief in a personal god didn't seem to drive him enough to even give a cursory mention in his essays to the all mighty.
Since our Constitution suffers under the same malady as Europe's can we also assume we suffer a "...sickness of the soul?" As described by Mr. Olsen's review above Weigel's long shot gets even longer with Charen's observation on his conclusions:
"....Culture, Weigel argues, determines civilization. Without its distinctly Christian history, Europe would not be what it is. To cite just one example, Weigel recalls the 11th century "investiture" controversy between Holy roman Emperor Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII. The pope won, and the victory established an important principle that would have profound consequences for the development of what would later be called "civil society." The principle established was that the state "would not occupy every inch of social space."
Oh really? This conclusion is so laughable I don't know where to begin. How about here: the Catholic Church can get down on it's knees and thank Benito Mussolini for the huge monetary payoff it got when he came to power in compensation for the loss of the Papal States in 1860 thereby reducing the Vatican's physical presence to one square mile. The Lateran Treaty, pounded out by Pius XI and Mussolini really gives anything BUT credence to the "social space" "investiture" doctrine Weigel argues for. In no universe I know off can Pius XI be described as a friend of lassez-faire capitalism and that includes Il Duce, unless it lined his pockets.
Charen goes on to give Weigel's list of "emblemic Europeans" laden with Christian faith such as Bach, Dante, Calvin, Milton and Michelangelo while he ".....acknowledges Christianity's sins and errors, but wonders whether atheistic humanists recognize theirs. She concludes with "...Europe today is a society adrift, untethered to the source of it's greatness. It is, to use the great Jewish American writer Will Herberg's formulation, 'a cut flower culture.'
So, having not read Weigel's throw down on "atheistic humanists" I am willing to bet he didn't mention these errors and sins, just to list a few: the French, Italian and Spanish Inquisitions that beget torture, confiscation of property, trials for the dead, the persecution and prosecution culminating in the burning of witches [not to mention Joan of Arc], the Franciscans and Dominican Order who despite there piety had a thing about heresy which usually wound up being ugly. It's funny how the Inquisition(s)'s function was a response to the heretical and political pressure whose power was in direct proportion to specific geographic and temporal needs of the church. Then again, maybe not. And oh yes, the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre was a picnic as well including the Crusades of which we all know how successful that was. So with these few examples is it any wonder that the European constitution left out the "Judeo-Christian" tradition and influence? The individuals that Weigal listed were no doubt imbued with personal piety. It was the ones that decided to shackle the rest of Europe with that personal piety that turned damned ugly. THAT is the point of the European constitution's response to this despite Weigel and Charen hyperventilation over a "soulless Europe" defined as state(s) without piety and conviction explicitly written into their laws. Perhaps Ms. Charen and Weigel can both go on a date and see Ridley Scott's new epic "Kingdom of Heaven" and revel in the glorification of the Crusades as murder and pillage gave way as an extension of "Europe with a healthy soul."
Michael
"The problem is not that the White House press secretary cannot distinguish who is or is not a journalist; it is that there are no journalists, just the gaming of the system for the concentration of power."
~Sidney Blumenthal