patriotism in Church

[zab]

Important distinction: Government does not and cannot “give” rights. We in the U.S.A. are fortunate that our system of government affirms and guarantees certain God-given rights. That’s the theory, at least.

AMDG
jsa

…and so it is because we are Americans that we have the freedom to worship. I am proud to be an American, but I am Catholic first. And while I may disagree somewhat with those who oppose the use of all patriotic hymns even at the end of Mass, I do believe the position to preserve the sacredness of the Mass is commendable.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

But, it is not even a religious song. It is a secular song. It’s a song that is sometimes even sung at seventh inning stretches. Please, would you sing Holy God, We Praise Thy Name at the seventh inning stretch?

However does any Church song get more secular playing time than Ave Maria? Ave Maria is sung in all sorts of secular contests, does that mean Ave Maria should be banned from churches?

 

[pnewton]

Hmm. It seems perfectly logical to me. That unproven axiom is the first commandment, isn’t it?

No. that is why the word “dulia” was used instead of “laudia” It is always wrong to give anything or anyone (like Mary) the honor due to God.

 

[tomarin]

No. that is why the word “dulia” was used instead of “laudia” It is always wrong to give anything or anyone (like Mary) the honor due to God.

I thought the distinction between dulia (honor) and latria (worship) was needed to clarify that veneration of saints was not a violation of the first commandment, which forbids worshipping gods other than God. It’s proper to venerate Mary but not to worship her. Of course it’s not proper to worship or venerate national symbols, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

I don’t know for certain if the things we’ve been talking about in this thread represent veneration of national symbols, so I’ve been deliberately avoiding coming down hard either for or against “God Bless America”. But whether they do or not, I do see a tendency to elevate love of country, especially in the form of a kind of absolute desire for security for one’s country and one’s family (an understandable human emotion of course) to such a high place that it leads people to support things that are immoral. I think that’s a form of placing one’s love of country above one’s love of God. And I think it’s more of a clear and present danger than whatever danger represented by keeping American flags near the altar in church.

 

[pnewton]

I thought the distinction between dulia (honor) and latria (worship) was needed to clarify that veneration of saints was not a violation of the first commandment, which forbids worshipping gods other than God. It’s proper to venerate Mary but not to worship her. Of course it’s not proper to worship or venerate national symbols, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

I think it is a wee too much to split hairs any more on how much honor is too much before God says it is sin. Best let God stay the judge of such things. Surely it is no sin to honor the symbol of one’s country out of love for one home. Likewise, we honor the statues of saints out of love for those saints. As to whether one should receive more honor, I think that goes beyond the teaching of the Catholic Church, as all veneration of saints is considered a matter of personal piety.

In any case, none of it is idolatry, which was my only point.

 

[tomarin]

Why the assumption that support our troops = God bless the war?
To me, putting up a poster like this in church means asking God to keep our troops safe while in harms way. You don’t have to agree with the war to want our troops to be safe.

Because it’s not morally consistent to lend moral support to people who are engaged, even at a low level, in a project that you find morally unsound.

 

[nominal_effect]

Because it’s not morally consistent to lend moral support to people who are engaged, even at a low level, in a project that you find morally unsound.

But they are fullfilling the obligation of their promises to serve. They do not have rights you know to refuse to go without severe consequences. I’m insulted by your suggestion. I served my country and by my example avoided scandal and did my duty. But I did refuse to get deployed because of a severe family burden that would have been placed upon me. I just happened to be a fundamentalist struggling with my faith and wondering where God wanted me to go as well as had marriage issues with young children and an unstable wife. Financially, we would have been destroyed had I allowed them to deploy me. But I had to do some pretty extreme things to not be deployed. I had just signed up on “try one” program to see if my body and mind could still handle the military life. I was working of becoming a preacher. My FIL had just died and through me into a major depression. He was a elder and a very good man. I went from believing everyone was going to hell to realizing how wrong it was to think such a thing. this brought about conversion that ultimately lead my family to the Catholic Church.

High doses of prescribed medication kept me from being deployed, nothing else. I received a 4th honorable discharge in completion of the original contract after they had issued a “stop loss”. If you do not know what that is, look it up. It was the military’s method of extending anyone they decided to change their contract on. I was nearly complete with the “try one”, meaning one year to see if it works for you. I have sustained injuries from active duty many years ago and they MEPS allowed me in because they give prior service candidates much more lea way than new recruits. My hearing and injuries should not have been overlooked anyway. I would have put other soldiers in danger. As a chaplain I would not have even carried a weapon.

 

[pnewton]

Because it’s not morally consistent to lend moral support to people who are engaged, even at a low level, in a project that you find morally unsound.

Yes, it is. Jesus healed the Centurian’s servant even though Rome was a pagan invader. If you have moral qualms about supporting troops, that is your perogative. However, that does not make it Catholic moral theology nor can one assume others have such qualms.

 

[momor]

Because it’s not morally consistent to lend moral support to people who are engaged, even at a low level, in a project that you find morally unsound.

Military men and women are doing a duty and deserve all the support we can give them during and after the war. It is not the same as making a choice to support a war. A better analogy for you to make would be supporting the private contractors who sign up by choice to fill positions not filled by the military.

 

[tomarin]

Yes, it is. Jesus healed the Centurian’s servant even though Rome was a pagan invader.

It’s my understanding that Jesus came to earth to proclaim to all men the kingdom of heaven. He wasn’t an Israeli freedom fighter or an earthly king. So I don’t see how his healing of the Centurian’s servant is relevant.

If you have moral qualms about supporting troops, that is your perogative. However, that does not make it Catholic moral theology nor can one assume others have such qualms.

I don’t have qualms about supporting our military in any general sense. I’m not a pacifist. I think our armed forces consistently do a great, if not heroic job in difficult circumstances. I would encourage my sons to serve in the military and I’m proud of my uncles and grandfather who served in wartime, and my father who served in peacetime. I enjoy giving to military charities and do so frequently.

My qualms would only be in the strict condition that I have reservations about the moral nature of the mission they’ve been sent on. Even then I still support them in the sense that I don’t want any harm to come to them. But I can’t abdicate my responsibility to evaluate the moral nature of that mission and reject it if it is found wanting, even if they wear the uniform of the United States. That would be placing my loyalty to country above my loyalty to God.

 

[tomarin]

Military men and women are doing a duty and deserve all the support we can give them during and after the war. It is not the same as making a choice to support a war. A better analogy for you to make would be supporting the private contractors who sign up by choice to fill positions not filled by the military.

I agree they’re doing their duty and deserve credit for that; I just reject that you can with a clear conscience support them if they’re engaged on a mission you disagree with. You can’t disentangle the mission and the people implementing the mission into two neat and tidy bundles like that. Unless

1 - you broadly redefine “support” to mean you don’t wish them to be harmed but you don’t want them to effectively implement their mission either which I think is a totally disingenous position to take – having your cake and eating it too – or

2 - you find it unimaginable that the United States would send our military on a morally dubious mission.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by PatricaA
Just saying since you brought it up that you can choose to be Catholic, there is a choice as far as your citizenship is also concerned.

What a nice way of saying “love it or leave it”
Please.

I thought I’d stop back here and was surprised to see all the debate.
Update: This past Sunday, I drove the 15 miles to my regular parish where there are no flags of any kind at the altar (or anywhere in the church) nor any patriotic songs sung. I will stay there now.
BTW, I DID attend a July 4th picnic and did not break into the Gloria either during or after the conclusion of the picnic.

 

[Ed_T]

I believe the mass was concluded prior to singing that hymn.

 

[OraLabora]

I agree they’re doing their duty and deserve credit for that; I just reject that you can with a clear conscience support them if they’re engaged on a mission you disagree with. You can’t disentangle the mission and the people implementing the mission into two neat and tidy bundles like that. Unless

1 - you broadly redefine “support” to mean you don’t wish them to be harmed but you don’t want them to effectively implement their mission either which I think is a totally disingenous position to take – having your cake and eating it too – or

2 - you find it unimaginable that the United States would send our military on a morally dubious mission.

You raise an excellent point, and I hope have got others thinking. Blind obedience to an immoral cause is a grave danger for a society and its military to fall into.

Too often in dictatorships (in WWII this excuse was pervasive), immoral acts were justified under the banner of “following orders”. This allowed a very great evil to propagate itself. Similarly the population, in that war and the years leading up to it, turned a blind eye to atrocities, giving tacit support to the dictatorship.

Do we expect our troops to blindly fight in an unjust war? Do we expect blind obedience from them? Or do we rather they stand up for Christ’s version of Justice?

That’s not to say I am a pacifist either, and the Church herself does not condemn war outright, recognizing that it is often a necessary evil to protect the weak and for self-defense.

Our memories are short, what happened in WWII in Germany should still be a lesson on the dangers of blindly following an unjust cause.

 

[archangel04]

The thread is almost a year old.

 

[archangel04]

Well isn’t it better than starting a new thread? No one actually said it was wrong to sing these songs but it feels strange to me, like a boundary is being crossed. Not separation of church and state, but…something.

The forum usually wishes for new thread to be started if the discussion is past 6 months. The last post was about a year ago so it’s better to start a new thread, usually because when old threads come back they just get locked.