The uses of religion

Rod, as a white, ethnic Catholic myself, I've seen this trend over and over and wow! what a turnoff. These people aren't really Catholic, aren't really secular -- just hovering somewhere in the middle doing what they can to have it all. It appears these Catholics have learned to adapt to a society that has never liked Catholics and in the process became secularized themselves. I mean, believing the absolute minimum that you *have* to believe? Come on. What happens if you start to believe a little bit more than that? I mean, why is faith such a threat? Are we really such scared little Americans?

Rod, you are right on with this. Anyone who thinks of religion as resume padding or portfolio enhancement is unaware of the level of absurdity involved in such an undertaking; anyone who shops for a church the way they might shop for a country club is, to put it charitably, completely missing the point. And people who take religion seriously have nothing in common with those who see the Church as a mere utilitarian social organization. Yesterday, when you said, "I can much easier sit down and have a meaningful conversation with a white-collar professional in the Netherlands than I can sit down and have a meaningful conversation with the white mill worker from my own hometown. And I bet many of you readers can too." my thought was that I could more easily converse with the mill worker than the professional IF the mill worker were a believing Christian and the professional an agnostic relativist--and if the professional wants to treat the Church as a useful social construct rather than a community of believers, then meaningful conversation would be pretty well impossible.

Rod,
This post is fair enough; I'll take the occasion to remind everyone that this sort of thing happens on the left as well: religion is OK so long as understood and exercised within the limits of liberalism alone. You can have faith so long as your faith doesn't threaten pro-choice, pro-homosexual, pro-liberal policies, and Jesus often gets made in the image of Bill Clinton. Less sardonically, the Jesus of the left is often understood as an inclusive social reformer who transgressed social boundaries *for the sake of transgressing social boundaries.* It's a truncated Jesus which does not match the picture of the Jesus of the Gospels, read closely. On the other hand, while those on the right have their own reasons and uses for religion, it seems to me that right-leaning politicians permit traditional, orthodox Christianity more room to breathe, to be its own thing without acculturating. Just some thoughts. I know the right has its faults and blind spots when it comes to religion (I'm always trying to get my students to forsake the God-and-country heresy), but the right, in my opinion, gives us more room to breathe.

Romans 12:2 - "Do not conform yourself to this age, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind. That you might discern the will of God, what is good, and pleasing, and perfect." Calling oneself 'Catholic' without taking seriously the faith, the Church, and the Sacraments is meaningless. I can call myself a professional basketball player, doesn't mean I am one. It's akin to what Christ said, "Not everyone who says 'Lord, Lord' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only those who do the will of my Father." If a Catholic "sells out" to our culture and society in order to get ahead [uses contraceptives, pro-abortion, anti-poor, anti-Pope/Church authority, dissident, heretic...] then they're the example of salt losing it's taste, "no good but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot." Or in the book of Revelations where Christ admonishes the lukewarm faithful whom He would "spit out of my mouth." This in no way says that orthodox or 'serious' Catholics are perfect, far from it. But there's a difference between trying to faithfully follow Christ and His Church and failing, rather than abandoning all the difficult aspects of following God in favor of the pursuit of the world, aka "Cafeteria Catholicism." Brooks is entirely correct. If Catholics, and Christians in general, REALLY acted Christian, there would be no abortion, far less poverty, and notions of homosexual 'marriage' and other nonsense would be unheard of as far as becoming institutionalized in our legal system.
Of course, free-thinkers, progressives and other liberals consider talk such as this as nonsense and point to the fact that many 'Catholics' don't share my views as proof that my views are archaic and outdated. Rather, the reality is that we Catholics have fallen so far down the sewer of modernity that one can scarcely tell the difference between us and the general society as a whole anymore. This is truly a sad and terrible thing. As Christ said to St. Francis, "Francis, rebuild my Church, which as you can see, has fallen into ruins." With Pentecost two days away, let us pray for the Holy Spirit to renew our Church and our souls.

Well, to be honest, I think Brooks is about as squishy a conservative as you can find, so this is not a surpise. Obviously Rod and everyone here have put the case against Brooks well. His opinion is just the height of silliness.

Again, though, Bubba, would you not see a difference between someone whose conversion is not wholly motivated by doctrine, and someone who views the Church as a kind of pseudo country club? The kind of "religious believer" David Brooks is talking about is neither religious nor a believer. Do you really put Rod in that same box, just because his conversion was motivated more by personal experiences than doctrinal issues? Is there really no difference in your mind between someone who believes in God, in Jesus Christ, in Christianity in general but who decides to leave one church for another (admittedly not for sheer doctrinal differences) and someone who, perhaps, vaguely believes in some higher power but chooses which church to belong to based on which one will do him the most good in some utilitarian societal sense?

"Act as though ye had faith, and ye shall believe." Utilitarian faith, as you call it, is often a stepping stone to truer faith, and I think you should show less hostility to it. Different people find God through different paths, and I don't know that one is better than another.

To make my point and the contrast clearer, this sentence: But whether one approves or disapproves of the social effects of religion, which is inherently an instrumentalist matter, simply isn't the same sense of your phrase "you believe in religion." would be better phrased But whether one approves or disapproves of the social effects of religion, which is inherently an instrumentalist matter and not a matter of truth, simply isn't the same sense of your phrase "you believe in religion."

I forget again, how did Jesus's life and message -- abandon your family, find life only through me, become an itinerant proslytizer & give away all your money -- get turned into the idea that a crunchy, 1-income nuclear family is the greatest exemplification of Christianity? (And by the way being gay is a sin.)
Just doesn't scan. Funny, what people permit themselves.
-HW

Victor, you said, "As a citizen, I believe in religion because it's good. As a man, I believe Catholicism because it's true." While this is both interesting and profound, I think it speaks indirectly to the danger of viewing faith through the lens of usefulness. That which is true is necessarily both good and useful; but that which is merely useful may not be good or true. Judging the worth of something like religion based on its usefulness seems to me to be looking at it from entirely the wrong angle, and creating the possibility that that which should be sought for its truth will end up being desirable only for its utility.

Pauli, I don't even know what that meant, but it sure did strike me funny.

Rod,
How is Brooks argument any different than the argument you and Camille Paglia made about the usefulness of religion to society?

Which American cardinal was it who basically said that American Catholics are only Catholic denominationally and Protestant psychologically? I think it was for the most part an accurate observation.

believing the absolute minimum that you *have* to believe I don't understand the problem here. In Catholicism if you believe the minumum that you really have to believe you automatically believe the maximum that you have to believe. Anything else is truly optional, private revelations for example. Any pushing people beyond the minimum/maximum in believing as a litmus test for Catholicism is pushing people into potential superstition. Perhaps the author meant that these Catholics are satisfied with minimum practice of their faith rather than minimum belief. Maximum practice is totally open-ended. As to the utilitarian value of religion, while one ought not espouse one's beliefs for anything other than their truth, one has to be an idiot not to see that for the average person Gospel behavior works, maybe not for becoming rich, but toward pulling oneself out of poverty and maintaining a decent competence. It seems to me that after some 500 years in Latin America, the Catholic Church still has to get this simple message across to the ordinary folk . We Catholics almost glorify keeping the poor poor with our preferential option for the poor while the evangelicals show them a way out of poverty and an escape from the preferential option.

HW writes, "I forget again, how did Jesus's life and message -- abandon your family, find life only through me, become an itinerant proslytizer & give away all your money -- get turned into the idea that a crunchy, 1-income nuclear family is the greatest exemplification of Christianity? (And by the way being gay is a sin.)" Some of us wonder, how is it that Jesus -- a conservative Jew by any honest estimation -- get turned into a leftist queer hippie? T he Jesus of the Gospels affirms the goodness of traditional marriage (Mark 10.1ff; Matt 19.1ff). He doesn't need to condemn homosexual practice explictly; he accepted the Torah, which condemned it clearly enough, and, I would remind many, that neither did Jesus condemn child abuse or a lot of other things that would clearly be sinful. The command to poverty and itinerant ministry is directed to the original apostles (the 12 and the 70), not necessarily to every believer; the apostles in the book of Acts certainly don't command folks to live in poverty, even though Acts is the second half of Luke, the "Social Gospel"! Centurions and wealthy merchants are commended and nowhere commanded to become poor. What many folk do is read Jesus through the grid of an easy-going, boundary-breaking, inclusivist worldview that makes Jesus look more like, oh, Barack Obama than the Jesus Christ of history, the Gospels, and Christian confession. We all must be careful -- whether conservatives or liberals of whatever shades -- to avoid letting our prejudices control our reading of the texts, but rather let the living Jesus Christ speak to us.

I think religion as utilitarianism is a problem that goes far beyond the neoconservative circles. The only differrence seems to be that the neoconservative sees religion as the sort of "noble lie" which on a macro level holds society in some sort of orderly balance. Somewhat like a civic temple. Faith deals both with the experiential and the rational. Most people, I think, fall into the trap of thinking that they believe a certain way because it is "good for them". Of course, what is "good for them" may not be "good for others". There is, of course, a small grain of truth in religion being "good for someone". Faith cannot be experienced in any real sense of the word on a primarily abstract or rational level. It must penetrate a person's heart as well. I'd imagine that Rod can attest to this. On the other hand, reducing faith to some sort of fluid phenomenon simply because it makes one feel good about their state in life is fairly illogical. Something cannot be true for one person but not true for the other. Let me be clear, I am not automatically tossing into the calderon any Catholic or other person who struggles or even disagrees with their Church's teachings. Everyone is on a different path, and I certainly am glad that I was not booted as I strurggled to understand some of the nuances of my faith. However, a journey which proceeds exclusively from the presumption of some sort of smiley faced utilitarianism needs readjustment; for the deep thinking individual, it is ultimately catastrophic once one begins to realize that their faith is about as real as a brand of hairspray.

On what empirical basis is the idea that "the most successful Catholics -- indeed, the most successful people -- are religious believers who believe as little as they have to to be part of the club. " supported. I've followed this line of inquiry for about 20 years, since being exposed Max Weber in college, and it is contrary to everything I've seen. It is the educated and affluent middle class Catholics that are most likely to be actively involved in the Church and the most likely to preserve the traditions of their immigrant forbearers. And this isn't something unique to the U.S.. In Latin America, protestantism is making inroads, but it is among the less educated and affluent. Among the middle and upper class, Catholicism is holding its own or even strengthening.

"Personally, I'd rather be Christopher Hitchens than an instrumentalist squish."
For me, I will embrace my inner squish. :-)

"The difference between them and the first group also points to their strongest similarity: I observe that their faith and beliefs are just as strong, just as sincere and just as deep as the first group's; the difference is in how they express themselves." Franklin Evans, I think this point is ESSENTIAL. I'd generally place myself in the first group, but I see far too many younger orthodox Catholics trapped in this highly abstract and esoteric view of their faith. Note that I am by know means attempting to minimize the importance of dogma or a solid understanding of one's faith.
However, I also know people who seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time debating the superiority of the traditional over the modern rite. Or they immerse themselves in apologetics to the neglect of everything else (important things no doubt--but do some neglect to notice the dysfunction and problems in the neighborhoods surrounding the parish). In a way, I believe that such people (who I do not think are by any means a majority) inadvertently fall into the same trap as the person who sees the faith in the "is it good for me" mindset. By focusing on such narrow concepts to the exclusion of the "bigger picture", they adopt a "brand" and make it a person hobby that makes them feel good rather than an all-encompassing faith that leads to a holy life. The further I move away from college, the more I am convinced that one of the main ways to prevent decadence in a church is through both fidelity to the faith and continually self-examination, not of essential doctrines but of one's motivations and approach to the world.

The key, and not just in Catholicism, to all this, is that in Christianity you have a theology based in a time, a long long long time when life was brutish, nasty and if lucky, short. Living HURT and it did not matter what social class you were, if you got appendicitis you were in real trouble. In such a world, a religion that eschews the joys of material comfort works because material comfort is pretty rare. But in our world, in the US, it is the exact opposite. What would Louis XIV have given for an air-conditioner? In our time world-opposing religion just does not resonate with Catholics or Protestants or Orthodox. All that is occuring is that belief is being adapted to physical reality and that cannot be a bad thing.

chuck, In our time world-opposing religion just does not resonate with Catholics or Protestants or Orthodox. All that is occuring is that belief is being adapted to physical reality and that cannot be a bad thing. Cannot be a bad thing? Well, the non world-opposing types ain't breeding at replacement rates. That's bad. So bad it kills you off. A noticable trend is that those people who take an oppositional stance to the modern world tend to breed for multiple generations, while those who have "adapted" to the modern times can't seem to get it done in the kid department. Too feminist. Too materialistic. Too individualistic. You can see this in a Catholic mass (or I'm sure Protestant or Orthodox). Just run your eye over the crowd; the traditional crowd has lots of kids, while the Brooks-yuppies next to them has few or none.
Or just look at the Hispanic Catholic invasion, the whole source of growth for Catholics in America. No, affluence kills. It just takes a few generations, so it's easy to pretend otherwise. Jesus didn't warn against wealth without reason.

"BTW, the American cardinal who said that Catholics are only Catholics denominationally and Protestants psychologically was Francis George of Chicago. George should get on his knees and thank God that Americans have such a mentality! Otherwise, he would be living in a far lesser nation, one that cannot meet people's legitimate needs for prosperity and freedom. God knows that the Catholic hierarchy historically has had no appreciation for either!" Holy crap--as I read that load of embittered b.s. I knew who it was before even reaching the name--and I was spot on!! By the way, Joseph, is David "the war is all there is" Horowitz still planning to bomb Iran anytime soon?

Is it mandatory that that "Catholicism" be tied to the hierarchy?

Gentlemen, gentlemen... yer gonna make a liar outta me. :) My first post does have a goal. Difference in expression leads to a decision. Either the difference points to heresy and/or apostasy, or it challenges the observer's sense of tolerance. Larry immediately above gets to the gist of that: ...a touch of doubt or skepticism in one's chosen religion is good. It's a very Protestant tradition. Unfortunately, Brooks seems unaware that CATHOLICISM DOESN'T ALLOW THAT. 90% or even 95% fealty is not enough. You are either 100% with the Vatican's program or you, in the argot of recent days, "self-excommunicate." Now, in my familiarity with Catholics and their faith (please remember my caveats), I tend to observe modern Catholics as both rigid in dogma and tolerant of differences. With a touch of facetious, I note the many Polish-Italian families whose common Catholicism is very finely balanced against the cultural tension between Romance and Slavic personality clashes. Such toleration does not exist (in general) between Romance Catholics and Slavic Orthodox, as a comparison. Heck, just look at the Croat-Serb history, where similarity in culture and language is far from enough to bridge the split between Rome and Constantinople. Don Altabello draws our attention to one aspect of my goal. Do we value one mindset over another, or do we find common ground amongst the mindsets and give the members of each mindset the benefit of the doubt: having faith and understanding faith do not have to match -- or do they? That is one side of my question. Joseph D'Hippolito covers the other side of the coin. Do we acknowledge being in and of this world, or do we offer criticism to all of them, cleric and layman alike, on the basis of the political history of a religious institution that, if you'll forgive a pagan for writing it, used faith like a bludgeon? I don't completely agree with Joseph's choice of phrasing, but I definitely agree with his main point: like any large bureaucracy, like any entrenched power base, Catholic hierarchs have brought the criticism upon themselves with some rather egregious mistakes combined with the behaviors typical of a large corporation more interested in protection of assets and the profit margin than in generosity in employment policies. Note, I do not write that they do one and not the other. I'm observing the balance. I cannot avoid one more observation. In my life, in being in and around Catholics and their institutions as well as following the news out of Rome, I do notice a cycle of sorts. They seem to vacillate between getting the message out to those who have not yet heard it, and taking the ruler to the hands of those who are questioning the message from the inside. The more well-disseminated the latter is to those in the former group, the less success they have with that former group, and vice versa. Lately, the news has much more shaking hands with facial grimaces of pain than stories of someone bidding to become the next Mother Teresa.

Don Altabello: Irrelevance, it would seem, is in the eye of the beholder.

Dear "Admirer of Dr. Beckwith" (who sounds an awful lot like "she who must not be named"): I've gone back and read Rod's post and the rest of this thread and am wondering how in the world you can perceive it as in any way anti-Catholic. Please explain.

Caroline, if that was sarcastic it is also very close to a non sequitur... if it was serious [shakes head] I seriously doubt it can ever be explained to you.

"BTW, Don Altobello, I'd rather take David Horowitz's approach to Islam than the Church's. At least Horowitz wants to protect the West; it's an open question as to what the Church wants to do -- especially after John Paul II engaged in open appeasement of Islam to further his own geopolitical agenda." I did not know that the Church had one monolithic view toward Islam, especially after reading vaticanista Sandro Magister's analyses. All I can say is this--if you honestly think that Horowitz's view of spreading western enlightenment notions of liberty and freedom to societies which don't have any tradition of a separate secular state--then I cannot follow you my friend. I believe that Islamic terrorisim is a threat--but marching into Iraq played right into our enemies' hands. We have absolutely no political will to confront Iran, which by the way, with the removal of Saddam will eventually exercise much more influence in Iraq. Iraq will become more fanatical and a more strident enemy prior to this war--and in the process we will have ensured the mass destruction (through exile) of Christian communities that nearly go back to the time of the Didache.

MM, Thank you for that thoughtful rebuttal. There is, in any such discussion, shades of meaning that deserve examination. However, lacking qualifiers in her statement that would not have been so difficult to add if she'd intended them, her statement taken at face value parses, for me, like this: The poor are closer to God than anyone else. There is something contrary to that in the action or even notion that those who have should attempt to help those who have not improve their conditions. One such result of poverty is, to me, and obvious contradiction to her statement: the poorest of our world are also most likely to be taken advantage of. Their dependence is also their vulnerability. What her statement necessarily is is something for her to return to offer. I made my statement deliberately two-sided, covering what I thought were the most likely choices.

Franklin, Dependence and vulnerability are precicely the reasons why Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount" comes as blessed Good News to the poor and suffering; neatly tying up this paradox of Christianity: Lucky are the Unlucky.

Can't answer for MM, but yes, the Christian position is that there is positive value to suffering, but it's conditional: if it increases our love for each other and our dependence upon God. We should do our best to alleviate suffering, but not at any cost; and besides, suffering is intrinsic to the human condition. Interesting to reflect that "compassion" means "to suffer with."

Franklin, To clear up any confusion, Jesus as the eternal "I Am", gave hope to his audiences, enabling them to think beyond the Here and Now. It is within the context of his promise of eternal life in Paradise -a place where all earthly things have passed away - that his words give life-changing meaning.

Franklin, Jesus said, "I have come that you might have life and have it more abundantly." You are absolutely correct.

MM, Thanks. I may not know Scripture, but I've tried to make it a habit to listen to those who do; not so much early on, but my ears have become more open as I've forced myself to explore the actual tensions and conflicts of being pagan in a Christian world. Too many of my siblings-in-faith, alas, fall short of that. Cleveland, I have to admit, I was dreading (in an intellectual way) your commentary on this... and I am pleased to report that my dread was wholly (ahem) unfounded. :) Thanks. For a person (me) who grew up with Catholics -- many of whom were quite committed to the scholarship as well as and as deeply as the faith -- that was truly high praise. I know enough to know that I don't know enough. It took me a while to get to this point, and it's nice to be acknowledged.

All I can say is this--if you honestly think that Horowitz's view of spreading western enlightenment notions of liberty and freedom to societies which don't have any tradition of a separate secular state--then I cannot follow you my friend. So what the f**k has the Catholic Church done to stop the spread of Muslim tyranny, huh? What has Holy Mother (Dominatrix) Church risked to preach the Gospel to Muslm pagans? Where is HM(D)C for the Chaldean, Assyrian and other Middle Eastern Christians it claims to love? I believe that Islamic terrorisim is a threat--but marching into Iraq played right into our enemies' hands. We have absolutely no political will to confront Iran, which by the way, with the removal of Saddam will eventually exercise much more influence in Iraq. And you seriously believe that our Muslim enemies would be less emboldened if the U.S. didn't invade Iraq? Don Altobello, the Muslms don't need to be emboldened by the U.S., Israel or anybody else; their own totalitarian ideology emboldens them. They seek conquest for the Greater Glory of Allah. If the U.S. didn't exist, they would still be so motivated. Iraq will become more fanatical and a more strident enemy prior to this war--and in the process we will have ensured the mass destruction (through exile) of Christian communities that nearly go back to the time of the Didache. So, Don Altobello, how much concern did you show to the Iraqi Christians while they were experiencing the tender mercies of Saddam? This is nothing but exploitation; the Vatican under JPII didn't give a damn about Middle Eastern Christians because fighting for them would complicate his geopolitical agenda of appeasing Islam!

I always find it, well, ironic, when talk goes to the Christian experience in certain countries. While I hope it can be accepted and understood that I never condone persecution, of any sort, there is a perspective of history here that needs to be stated. The places in time and place where Christians were treated well, in absolute and not relative terms, were either of Christian control, or where no one in terms of religion had control -- the so-called secular states. Also in absolute terms, the very same can be said substituting "Christian" above with Muslim or any other term. Please note that I do not exclude any part of history. It begs the question: why would any group prefer a their-religion-controlled state over a secular state, unless it is to exercise control over all non-religionists? And, in that look at perspective, by extension their goal is to be able to persecute those non-religionists. In absolute terms, control by one religion means persecution of all others. If by persecution one can accept the notion that not being in control means at least indirect mal- or mistreatment (this being the relative-term application of persecution), there can be only one conclusion: religion is never a benefit when wedded to government. Catholic4life, I have a blog. As you can see for yourself I have posted rather alot on this blog. I comment on many things. I don't comment on many other things. If I were to devote 24 hours per day in writing, I would still be unable to cover all things. Does that make me anti- whatever I am unable to cover? Until my several posts on this thread, one could easily come to the conclusion that I am anti-Catholic... and be dead wrong. I find your ad hominem grandstanding an insult to everyone reading it. That is a rather arrogant POV on my part, to be sure, and I welcome anyone disagreeing with my assessment. In any event, there it is.

I disagree with aspects of the Vatican's policy on these matters--but it's a heck of a lot more nuanced and prudential than that of our current administration. Don Altobello, one could say that Neville Chamberlain's approach to Hitler was "nuanced" and "prudential." That doesn't mean that it was right or good or effective. I suggest that you read the following: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25409 It deals with how Belgian bishops are letting Muslim immigrants (usually illegal) act as squatters in their churches, and how the papal nuncio to Belgium gives at least tacit support. Whatever the Bush Administration's mistakes, at least it recognizes the enemy and is willing to fight it. Saying that either the Vatican or the Church (despite notable exceptions such as Cdl. Pell in Australia) is willing to do the same is like saying the sun rises in the west. As far as the Vatican caring about the fate of Middle Eastern Christians, I suggest you read the following from Sandro Magister: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=6973&eng=y Pay close attention to the following, in which Magister quotes Renzo Guolo, professor of the sociology of religion and a specialist in Muslim fundamentalism at the University of Trieste: But the pope s approach, which some in the Catholic world define as "dialogue to the point of extremism," generates widespread criticism among the bishops and even in the Roman curia...Moreover, it transforms ecumenism into a sort of syncretism in which every religion seems as good as the next. This is tough criticism, which out of respect for papal authority and the state of John Paul II s health does not manifest itself as open dissent, but it nevertheless deeply marks the ecclesial body. The pope s approach was rejected by the majority of cardinals during the 1994 consistory at which John Paul II expressed his intention of asking forgiveness for the "wrongs" of his predecessors. But despite the contrary opinion of many ecclesial sectors, and not only the openly traditionalist ones, the pope decided to proceed with his plan. Many responded with hostile silence: some of them recalled how Wotyla, who ordinarily speaks about all topics, had spread a veil of silence over the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries. Gentlemen, I rest my case.

That's "Papal", of course.

JD'H: It wasn't a "snarky comeback." It was pointing out vicious prejudice. (And if you read my post carefully, I don't have a dog in this fight -- I'm no longer a practicing Catholic.) Erin: Unfortunately, while I do believe in the vast majority of Catholic teachings, there are some I can no longer embrace. My doubts are simply too strong. But thanks for your kind words.

"JPII never engaged in that kind of confrontation with Islam; he viewed Islam as an ally against secularism and materialism." Joseph D'Hippolito So does any thinking Christian consider Islam, Joseph. But, that is neither here nor their with respect to Islamofascisim's persecution of Mideastern Christians, or JP II's solicitude for those Christians, or his diplomacy on their behalf.

As far as you are concerned, Larry Parker, you confuse prejudice with fact. Give me any examples from history in which the Vatican or the Church as a whole has embraced (as opposed to merely tolerated)republican (not meant here as GOP) democracy and capitalism.

Actually, the concept of the usefulness of religion would not have been at all foreign to the founders of our republic. From Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, published (IIRC) in 1776 (and please forgive any errors, since I'm quoting from memory): "The religions of the Empire were regarded by the people as equally true, by the philosopher as equally false, and by the magistrate as equally useful."

Cleveland, whether he would agree or disagree with any of my points is an open question. Nevertheless, at least Cardinal Pell recognizes the threat of Islamic totalitarianism; JPII never did. You will have to prove to me that the late pope did so, and how he did so, because the evidence to the contrary is clear. Besides, Cleveland, calling me names is nothing but camouflage for your failure or refusal to read the links I posted.

Cleveland, first of all, let me apologize for calling you "pathetically ignorant." I was angry about something else at the time and it was grossly unfair for me to take my anger out on you. Now, to the subject at hand. One isolated quote does not a committment make. I submit that JPII made a far greater (and more passionate) committment to fighting Communism than to fighting Islamic totalitarianism. That is to be expected; JPII knew the evil of Communism up close and knew how it affected his fellow Poles. Consequently, he was uniquely qualified to fight it -- more so than any of his predecessors during the previous 50 years, some of whom had extensive diplomatic experience. But the fact that he fought valiantly against Communism does not make him a valiant champion of Islam's victims. You said that JPII tried to lessen the hardship on Middle Eastern Christians. If so, then why did he forbid discussion of their plight, according to the quote from Renzo Guolo? Moreover, how specifically did his approach lessen their hardship? If you say that it made Arab dictators less likely to take their anger out on their Christian populations, then my accusation of appeasement still stands, for that is the definition of appeasement. Cleveland, you say that I've made up my mind. Well, my research (exemplified by my links) has made it up for me, as it were. As of yet, you have not addressed any of the specific issues and challenges that those links raise. Why are you afraid to read those links?